1146:
Sherwin-White believed that Luke not only could make mistakes but actually did, I find it's difficult to interpret that statement as "It's stupid not to accept Acts as historically accurate in every detail". We could explicate
Sherwin-White's statement further, to make it clear that he wasn't recommending complete trust in Luke's account. Sherwin-White is certainly sufficiently notable for inclusion, and this particular quote of is his arguably the most publicly prominent in his entire book, so I would like to see it addressed here properly, as opposed to how it's typically encountered online.--
1054:* "The narrative of the Acts contains many details which can be related to information from other sources and help build up a picture of the Roman provinces of Macedonia and Achaia in the middle of the first century of our era. Valuable light is cast on Roman institutions in the provinces, civic life in Greek cities and Roman colonies, economic and social realities, communications, religion, especially Judaism.", Taylor, "The Roman Empire in the Acts of the Apostles", in "Aufstieg und Niedergang der rĂśmischen Welt", p. 2437 (1996). Walter de Gruyter.
774:
500:
475:
798:
401:
698:
667:
567:
577:
546:
851:
830:
708:
203:
286:
265:
234:
296:
1430:)." While this statement is technically true, comparing Josephus, who was relating secular history, with Acts, which is a religious document meant to convert people, is not a conclusion. Josephus existing as a relatively reliable source on Jewish history has nothing to do with the historic accuracy of another document from the same time period.
391:
370:
1044:
Sherwin-White's work is indeed 40 years old, but he does not actually contradict the majority viewpoint. Sherwin-White explicitly identifies Acts as a propaganda narrative, liable to distortions, and believes that Luke made mistakes. His comment here is with regard to the general accuracy of the work
1294:
A direction quotation from the LĂźdemann is supplied in the footnote; â"There were in fact appearances of the heavenly Jesus in
Jerusalem (after those in Galilee)" (ibid., 29-30)ââ, LĂźdemann quoted by Matthews, âActs and the History of the Earliest Jerusalem Churchâ, in Cameron & Miller (eds.),
1331:
The article reads like an apologetic description. It oddly mentions criticism from the 1895-1915 as if Acts was in doubt way back then, but not today. It dismisses criticism with the apologetic lable, "hypercriticsm" (without even bothering to detail
Harnack's position)but never mentions the well
1248:
The article states "LĂźdemann acknowledges the historicity of Christâs post-resurrection appearances, the names of the early disciples, women disciples, and Judas
Iscariot." What the heck? Does anyone other than a believer making claims completely on faith acknowledge the historicity of Jesus being
1015:
For Acts, the confirmation of historicity is overwhelming. Yet Acts is, in simple terms and judged externally, no less of a propaganda narrative than the
Gospels, liable to similar distortions. But any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd. Roman
1074:
Tb, sorry. I was away. If we're saying that historians can look to Acts for lots of historical details (other than its account of early
Christianity or of Paul's mission), then that's fine. The de Gruyter quote is perfect because it tells us what is historical about Acts. The Sherwin-White quote
969:
I agree. The article seems overly skeptical. For example, to say "By 2017 consensus had emerged among scholars that the letters of Paul are more reliable for information about Paul than Acts ..." is just inaccurate, if not plain wrong. The general historicity has been generally accepted, and the
1252:
I don't have any problem with the rest of that paragraph, talking about whether the disciples believed that Jesus was resurrected. I don't know for sure, but I suppose Acts is some evidence of that. But the historicity of Jesus' post-resurrection appearances looks like a complete whopper to me.
1202:
I find it very worrying that
Leadwind is admitting that he removed the quote because he didn't agree with what he thought it implied.That is admitting that he is deliberately unbalancing the article, including quotes that suit him and excluding those that don't. A year later the quote is still
1335:
He does not. 1.) LĂźdemann thinks Peter's experience was triggered by guilt, he certainly doesn't think Jesus ACTUALLY appeared to the disciples. That would be a bizzare conclusion for a non
Christian. 2.) Does the author seriously think phrases like " Christ's post-ressurection appearsnces"
1217:
It is clear that Luke had a particular purpose in mind and chose to follow a particular line of events. Any historian must have criteria on what to include and what to exclude, and Luke quite clearly had a theological purpose. It doesn't necessarily follow, however, that Luke was inaccurate.
1176:
Ok. I'll make sure it's properly explicated. I just think it's important to include here because it's so noteworthy, and so frequently quoted out of context. It's misleading for precisely the reason you identify, and it has been misused as a result, but seen in context it actually looks very
1145:
I recognize that danger, especially since this is conveniently the only part of
Sherwin-White's statement which is typically quoted by Fundamentalists! However, given that it is preceded by "no less of a propaganda narrative than the Gospels, liable to similar distortions", and the fact that
1049:* 'There are certainly points at which the contemporary color of Acts can be challenged, but they are few and insignificant compared to the over-whelming congruence between Acts and, its time and place.', Talbert, âReading Luke-Acts in its Mediterranean Milieuâ, p. 201 (2003). Brill.
1109:
Thanks. I don't actually see how
Sherwin-White can be read as saying Acts is a historically reliable account of the early church, not only because he says nothing about its account of the early church but also because he says explicitly "in simple terms and judged externally,
1332:
known work of Pervo , Tyson et al? No mention of the Acts Seminar and the author seems to think historical reliability is based on getting names right. Lastly, there's this howler, "LĂźdemann acknowledges the historicity of Christâs post-resurrection appearances."
1364:
You seem to reference the Acts Seminar, which is an offshoot of the controversial Jesus seminar and contains Christ-myth theorists and specifically excluded any Christians from the panel and included specific Jewish scholars (who clearly deny Jesus). How is that
1355:
We're talking about current scholarship here, and it never mentions "but not today" it says it was most vehement back then. In much the same way critical scholars though John was unreliable because the Pool of Siloam wasn't found so it was assumed :
153:
1295:âRedescribing Christian originsâ, p. 164 (2004). Note that the footnote also makes it clear LĂźdemann "attributes the appearances to hallucination". So he does not dispute appearances of Christ, but explains them as hallucinations.--
44:
1403:
is not disputed by anyone) are not even close to being on level with one another regarding neutrally worded phrasing. I will take a stab at paraphrasing passage in question.. if I can get around to it, I might forget though.
1058:
I included Talbert's caution "There is widespread agreement that an exact description of the milieu does not prove the historicity of the event narrated" specifically to balance quotes from Sherwin-White, Taylor, and Talbert
1368:
If you actually bothered to read LĂźdemann's quote it says he acknowledges the historicity of Christâs post-resurrection appearances because he explains them as multiple visions (pre-supposing Naturalism...but that's another
954:
This section should only list objections by scholars that are not held in common with other scholars' objections. Right now, the way it seems to be used is only as a list of scholars who think that Acts is not reliable.
1128:
The phrase "any attempt to reject its basic historicity even in matters of detail must now appear absurd" could be interpreted as saying, "It's stupid not to accept Acts as historically accurate in every detail."
190:
147:
1312:"LĂźdemann quoted by Matthews, is not a direct quote. Why doesn't the author quote LĂźdemann, himself. LĂźdemann, btw is an atheist so Im going to doubt that he thinks Jesus ressurection is historical.
1431:
1544:
812:
1426:"Historical reliability is not dependent on a source being inerrant or void of agendas since there are sources that are considered generally reliable despite having such traits (e.g.
1549:
1272:. He is what scholars might call a "maximalist". Maximalists have a place here as do reliable minimalists who don't believe any of it. But they do have to have written a quotable
1564:
1529:
891:
788:
1539:
901:
24:
194:
1569:
970:
discussion moved onto Luke's theology. That is not to say that it has all the answers, as some things are omitted, such as Paul's time in "Arabia" (Galatians 1:17).
1519:
807:
754:
681:
168:
764:
135:
1321:
1262:
867:
1559:
1524:
1554:
1504:
639:
79:
1474:
649:
603:
342:
352:
129:
1489:
858:
835:
783:
730:
677:
447:
1514:
1509:
1373:
457:
125:
1479:
506:
480:
85:
935:
611:
175:
1534:
1494:
1254:
925:"The debate on the historicity of Acts became most vehement between 1895 and 1915. Ferdinand Christian Baur viewed it as unreliable..."
1499:
1399:) and "Post-resurrection appearances of Jesus" (which is specifically referencing the appearances in the gospels, and that they exist
721:
672:
318:
1435:
1469:
1233:
985:
607:
423:
141:
1484:
1203:
missing. The banner says quite properly that the article needs balance. I'm working on an upgrade that will provide just that.
99:
30:
1395:
I cannot speak for the other editor, but "Christ's post-resurrection appearances" (in the context of their historicity being
615:
591:
551:
104:
20:
1445:
Itâs what the source states. Knowledge goes off of what reliable sources state, not personal interpretations on a source.
309:
270:
74:
245:
1454:
1439:
1413:
1384:
1347:
1304:
1285:
1237:
1212:
1186:
1171:
1155:
1140:
1123:
1104:
1086:
1068:
989:
964:
943:
414:
375:
65:
1372:
you state "post-resurrection appearances (sp)" is not up to WikiPedia standards but there's a whole article on them:
866:
related articles on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
202:
185:
1208:
1075:
talks about "basic historicity," which sounds like Acts is a historically reliable account of the early church.
213:
960:
939:
773:
217:
1258:
1409:
1114:". The Taylor quote (Walter de Gruyter is the publisher), was already included in the article, earlier on.--
109:
1204:
1045:
in describing is milieu. This confidence in the basic historicity of Acts is generally accepted even now.
1361:
so the debate over that is settled and the argument is not "vehement". In similar ways, read the article.
1380:
251:
1300:
1229:
1225:
1221:
1182:
1151:
1119:
1064:
981:
977:
973:
931:
511:
485:
1357:
writer of John didn't know the place he was talking about, since then archaeologists have found the
1339:
1313:
233:
1450:
1343:
1317:
1008:
956:
713:
161:
55:
729:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
422:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
317:
on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
1405:
1281:
1167:
1136:
1100:
1082:
218:
70:
928:
The way it is written, it suggests Baur was involved in the debate 35 years after he was dead.
1249:
resurrected, much less that Jesus made a bunch of appearances after the alleged resurrection?
863:
51:
1376:
215:
1296:
1178:
1147:
1115:
1060:
582:
1446:
1358:
301:
1463:
1277:
1161:
1130:
1094:
1076:
1273:
1004:
726:
406:
1112:
no less of a propaganda narrative than the Gospels, liable to similar distortions
1269:
797:
576:
499:
474:
703:
697:
666:
572:
396:
291:
850:
829:
707:
566:
545:
1268:
Unless we can get a copy of the book, it is hard to refute. The author is
1160:
I feel like I've said my bit and you can do what you like with the quote.
602:-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us
285:
264:
1427:
598:
314:
313:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of
419:
390:
369:
227:
219:
15:
796:
772:
1093:
I paraphrased de Guyter and put the quote in the footnote.
1244:"Historicity of Christ's Post-Resurrection Appearances"?
418:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
1000:
Leadwind, I note you removed the Sherwin-White quote:
160:
1243:
862:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
725:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
25:Historical reliability of the Acts of the Apostles
1545:High-importance Charismatic Christianity articles
1034:Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament
509:, a project which is currently considered to be
33:for general discussion of the article's subject.
1013:
596:, a project to improve Knowledge's articles on
1550:WikiProject Charismatic Christianity articles
174:
8:
1565:High-importance Ancient Near East articles
1530:High-importance Christian History articles
1016:historians have long taken it for granted.
929:
824:
661:
540:
469:
364:
259:
1540:C-Class Charismatic Christianity articles
1570:Ancient Near East articles by assessment
1036:(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1963), p. 189.
950:The "Other scholarly objections" Section
1025:
876:Knowledge:WikiProject Ancient Near East
826:
663:
542:
471:
366:
261:
231:
1374:Post-Resurrection_appearances_of_Jesus
879:Template:WikiProject Ancient Near East
1520:High-importance Christianity articles
1432:2601:8C0:983:83E0:1DE5:BF44:4FFE:A073
521:Knowledge:WikiProject Religious texts
7:
856:This article is within the scope of
808:WikiProject Charismatic Christianity
719:This article is within the scope of
588:This article is within the scope of
524:Template:WikiProject Religious texts
505:This article is within the scope of
412:This article is within the scope of
307:This article is within the scope of
250:It is of interest to the following
23:for discussing improvements to the
1560:C-Class Ancient Near East articles
1525:C-Class Christian History articles
1422:Apologetic Tone in First Paragraph
921:inconsistency or unclear reference
739:Knowledge:WikiProject Christianity
14:
1555:WikiProject Christianity articles
1505:High-importance Religion articles
742:Template:WikiProject Christianity
1475:High-importance history articles
849:
828:
706:
696:
665:
575:
565:
544:
498:
473:
399:
389:
368:
294:
284:
263:
232:
201:
45:Click here to start a new topic.
896:This article has been rated as
759:This article has been rated as
644:This article has been rated as
452:This article has been rated as
347:This article has been rated as
1490:High-importance Bible articles
1455:14:03, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
1440:11:01, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
624:Knowledge:WikiProject Religion
1:
1515:C-Class Christianity articles
1510:WikiProject Religion articles
1385:20:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
870:and see a list of open tasks.
859:WikiProject Ancient Near East
805:This article is supported by
784:WikiProject Christian history
781:This article is supported by
733:and see a list of open tasks.
627:Template:WikiProject Religion
426:and see a list of open tasks.
327:Knowledge:WikiProject History
321:and see a list of open tasks.
42:Put new text under old text.
1480:WikiProject History articles
1187:03:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
1172:03:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
1156:02:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)
1141:16:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
1124:08:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
1105:18:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
1087:18:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
1069:11:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
330:Template:WikiProject History
1348:21:00, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
1336:exemplify wiki standards!?
1322:21:08, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
1213:22:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
965:22:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
944:18:45, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
507:WikiProject Religious texts
432:Knowledge:WikiProject Bible
50:New to Knowledge? Welcome!
1586:
1535:Christian History articles
1495:WikiProject Bible articles
1286:15:00, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
1263:15:15, 19 March 2013 (UTC)
1238:05:09, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
990:05:03, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
902:project's importance scale
882:Ancient Near East articles
765:project's importance scale
650:project's importance scale
458:project's importance scale
435:Template:WikiProject Bible
353:project's importance scale
1500:C-Class Religion articles
1414:04:48, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
1305:16:03, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
895:
844:
804:
780:
758:
691:
643:
560:
493:
451:
384:
346:
279:
258:
80:Be welcoming to newcomers
1470:C-Class history articles
722:WikiProject Christianity
614:standards, or visit the
527:Religious texts articles
1485:C-Class Bible articles
1056:
1051:
1019:
1018:
801:
777:
240:This article is rated
75:avoid personal attacks
1052:
1047:
1032:A. N. Sherwin-White,
1002:
800:
776:
745:Christianity articles
195:Auto-archiving period
100:Neutral point of view
592:WikiProject Religion
105:No original research
1009:A. N. Sherwin-White
714:Christianity portal
310:WikiProject History
802:
778:
604:assess and improve
246:content assessment
86:dispute resolution
47:
1401:in the literature
1224:comment added by
976:comment added by
946:
934:comment added by
916:
915:
912:
911:
908:
907:
873:Ancient Near East
864:Ancient Near East
836:Ancient Near East
823:
822:
819:
818:
660:
659:
656:
655:
630:Religion articles
618:for more details.
539:
538:
535:
534:
468:
467:
464:
463:
415:WikiProject Bible
363:
362:
359:
358:
226:
225:
66:Assume good faith
43:
1577:
1240:
1164:
1133:
1097:
1079:
1037:
1030:
992:
884:
883:
880:
877:
874:
853:
846:
845:
840:
832:
825:
747:
746:
743:
740:
737:
716:
711:
710:
700:
693:
692:
687:
684:
669:
662:
632:
631:
628:
625:
622:
616:wikiproject page
585:
580:
579:
569:
562:
561:
556:
548:
541:
529:
528:
525:
522:
519:
502:
495:
494:
489:
477:
470:
440:
439:
436:
433:
430:
409:
404:
403:
402:
393:
386:
385:
380:
372:
365:
335:
334:
333:history articles
331:
328:
325:
304:
299:
298:
297:
288:
281:
280:
275:
267:
260:
243:
237:
236:
228:
220:
206:
205:
196:
179:
178:
164:
95:Article policies
16:
1585:
1584:
1580:
1579:
1578:
1576:
1575:
1574:
1460:
1459:
1424:
1350:
1329:
1246:
1219:
1205:Logical Analyst
1162:
1131:
1095:
1077:
1042:
1041:
1040:
1031:
1027:
998:
971:
952:
923:
898:High-importance
881:
878:
875:
872:
871:
839:Highâimportance
838:
813:High-importance
789:High-importance
761:High-importance
744:
741:
738:
735:
734:
712:
705:
686:Highâimportance
685:
675:
646:High-importance
629:
626:
623:
620:
619:
583:Religion portal
581:
574:
555:Highâimportance
554:
526:
523:
520:
518:Religious texts
517:
516:
483:
481:Religious texts
454:High-importance
437:
434:
431:
428:
427:
405:
400:
398:
379:Highâimportance
378:
349:High-importance
332:
329:
326:
323:
322:
300:
295:
293:
274:Highâimportance
273:
244:on Knowledge's
241:
222:
221:
216:
193:
121:
116:
115:
114:
91:
61:
12:
11:
5:
1583:
1581:
1573:
1572:
1567:
1562:
1557:
1552:
1547:
1542:
1537:
1532:
1527:
1522:
1517:
1512:
1507:
1502:
1497:
1492:
1487:
1482:
1477:
1472:
1462:
1461:
1458:
1457:
1423:
1420:
1419:
1418:
1417:
1416:
1390:
1389:
1388:
1387:
1370:
1366:
1362:
1359:Pool of Siloam
1338:
1328:
1325:
1310:
1309:
1308:
1307:
1289:
1288:
1245:
1242:
1200:
1199:
1198:
1197:
1196:
1195:
1194:
1193:
1192:
1191:
1190:
1189:
1090:
1089:
1039:
1038:
1024:
1023:
1020:
997:
994:
957:Bill the Cat 7
951:
948:
936:70.164.243.230
922:
919:
914:
913:
910:
909:
906:
905:
894:
888:
887:
885:
868:the discussion
854:
842:
841:
833:
821:
820:
817:
816:
803:
793:
792:
779:
769:
768:
757:
751:
750:
748:
731:the discussion
718:
717:
701:
689:
688:
670:
658:
657:
654:
653:
642:
636:
635:
633:
587:
586:
570:
558:
557:
549:
537:
536:
533:
532:
530:
503:
491:
490:
478:
466:
465:
462:
461:
450:
444:
443:
441:
438:Bible articles
424:the discussion
411:
410:
394:
382:
381:
373:
361:
360:
357:
356:
345:
339:
338:
336:
319:the discussion
306:
305:
302:History portal
289:
277:
276:
268:
256:
255:
249:
238:
224:
223:
214:
212:
211:
208:
207:
181:
180:
118:
117:
113:
112:
107:
102:
93:
92:
90:
89:
82:
77:
68:
62:
60:
59:
48:
39:
38:
35:
34:
28:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1582:
1571:
1568:
1566:
1563:
1561:
1558:
1556:
1553:
1551:
1548:
1546:
1543:
1541:
1538:
1536:
1533:
1531:
1528:
1526:
1523:
1521:
1518:
1516:
1513:
1511:
1508:
1506:
1503:
1501:
1498:
1496:
1493:
1491:
1488:
1486:
1483:
1481:
1478:
1476:
1473:
1471:
1468:
1467:
1465:
1456:
1452:
1448:
1444:
1443:
1442:
1441:
1437:
1433:
1429:
1421:
1415:
1411:
1407:
1406:Firejuggler86
1402:
1398:
1394:
1393:
1392:
1391:
1386:
1382:
1378:
1375:
1371:
1367:
1363:
1360:
1354:
1353:
1352:
1351:
1349:
1345:
1341:
1337:
1333:
1326:
1324:
1323:
1319:
1315:
1306:
1302:
1298:
1293:
1292:
1291:
1290:
1287:
1283:
1279:
1275:
1271:
1267:
1266:
1265:
1264:
1260:
1256:
1255:67.49.123.238
1250:
1241:
1239:
1235:
1231:
1227:
1223:
1215:
1214:
1210:
1206:
1188:
1184:
1180:
1175:
1174:
1173:
1169:
1165:
1159:
1158:
1157:
1153:
1149:
1144:
1143:
1142:
1138:
1134:
1127:
1126:
1125:
1121:
1117:
1113:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1102:
1098:
1092:
1091:
1088:
1084:
1080:
1073:
1072:
1071:
1070:
1066:
1062:
1055:
1050:
1046:
1035:
1029:
1026:
1022:
1017:
1012:
1010:
1006:
1001:
996:Sherwin-White
995:
993:
991:
987:
983:
979:
975:
967:
966:
962:
958:
949:
947:
945:
941:
937:
933:
926:
920:
918:
903:
899:
893:
890:
889:
886:
869:
865:
861:
860:
855:
852:
848:
847:
843:
837:
834:
831:
827:
814:
811:(assessed as
810:
809:
799:
795:
794:
790:
787:(assessed as
786:
785:
775:
771:
770:
766:
762:
756:
753:
752:
749:
732:
728:
724:
723:
715:
709:
704:
702:
699:
695:
694:
690:
683:
679:
674:
671:
668:
664:
651:
647:
641:
638:
637:
634:
617:
613:
609:
605:
601:
600:
595:
594:
593:
584:
578:
573:
571:
568:
564:
563:
559:
553:
550:
547:
543:
531:
514:
513:
508:
504:
501:
497:
496:
492:
487:
482:
479:
476:
472:
459:
455:
449:
446:
445:
442:
425:
421:
417:
416:
408:
397:
395:
392:
388:
387:
383:
377:
374:
371:
367:
354:
350:
344:
341:
340:
337:
320:
316:
312:
311:
303:
292:
290:
287:
283:
282:
278:
272:
269:
266:
262:
257:
253:
247:
239:
235:
230:
229:
210:
209:
204:
200:
192:
189:
187:
183:
182:
177:
173:
170:
167:
163:
159:
155:
152:
149:
146:
143:
140:
137:
134:
131:
127:
124:
123:Find sources:
120:
119:
111:
110:Verifiability
108:
106:
103:
101:
98:
97:
96:
87:
83:
81:
78:
76:
72:
69:
67:
64:
63:
57:
53:
52:Learn to edit
49:
46:
41:
40:
37:
36:
32:
26:
22:
18:
17:
1425:
1400:
1397:acknowledged
1396:
1369:discussion).
1334:
1330:
1311:
1251:
1247:
1220:â Preceding
1216:
1201:
1177:different.--
1111:
1057:
1053:
1048:
1043:
1033:
1028:
1021:
1014:
1003:
999:
972:â Preceding
968:
953:
930:â Preceding
927:
924:
917:
897:
857:
806:
782:
760:
736:Christianity
727:Christianity
720:
673:Christianity
645:
606:articles to
597:
590:
589:
510:
453:
413:
407:Bible portal
348:
308:
252:WikiProjects
198:
184:
171:
165:
157:
150:
144:
138:
132:
122:
94:
19:This is the
1377:Dr. Ryan E.
1365:"balanced"?
1327:Apologetic?
1007:historian,
682:Charismatic
148:free images
31:not a forum
1464:Categories
1297:Taiwan boi
1226:Ross.woods
1179:Taiwan boi
1148:Taiwan boi
1116:Taiwan boi
1061:Taiwan boi
1059:himself.--
978:Ross.woods
1447:Ramos1990
1340:Spiker 22
1314:Spiker 22
88:if needed
71:Be polite
21:talk page
1428:Josephus
1278:Student7
1234:contribs
1222:unsigned
1163:Leadwind
1132:Leadwind
1096:Leadwind
1078:Leadwind
1011:writes,
986:contribs
974:unsigned
932:unsigned
621:Religion
599:Religion
552:Religion
186:Archives
56:get help
29:This is
27:article.
900:on the
763:on the
678:History
648:on the
512:defunct
486:defunct
456:on the
351:on the
324:History
315:History
271:History
242:C-class
199:90Â days
154:WPÂ refs
142:scholar
248:scale.
126:Google
1274:WP:RS
1005:Roman
429:Bible
420:Bible
376:Bible
169:JSTOR
130:books
84:Seek
1451:talk
1436:talk
1410:talk
1381:talk
1344:talk
1318:talk
1301:talk
1282:talk
1270:WP:N
1259:talk
1230:talk
1209:talk
1183:talk
1168:talk
1152:talk
1137:talk
1120:talk
1101:talk
1083:talk
1065:talk
982:talk
961:talk
940:talk
892:High
755:High
640:High
610:and
608:good
448:High
343:High
162:FENS
136:news
73:and
1356:-->
612:1.0
176:TWL
1466::
1453:)
1438:)
1412:)
1383:)
1346:)
1320:)
1303:)
1284:)
1276:.
1261:)
1236:)
1232:â˘
1211:)
1185:)
1170:)
1154:)
1139:)
1122:)
1103:)
1085:)
1067:)
988:)
984:â˘
963:)
942:)
815:).
791:).
680:/
676::
197::
156:)
54:;
1449:(
1434:(
1408:(
1379:(
1342:(
1316:(
1299:(
1280:(
1257:(
1228:(
1207:(
1181:(
1166:(
1150:(
1135:(
1118:(
1099:(
1081:(
1063:(
980:(
959:(
938:(
904:.
767:.
652:.
515:.
488:)
484:(
460:.
355:.
254::
191:1
188::
172:¡
166:¡
158:¡
151:¡
145:¡
139:¡
133:¡
128:(
58:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
