Talk:Authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum redirect.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Christianity: Jesus

	Christianity portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
	This redirect is within the scope of the Jesus work group, a task force which is currently considered to be inactive.

Religion: Interfaith

	Religion portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
	This redirect is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive.

Please give reasons[edit]

Please give reasons why scholars do not believe the Testimonium Flavianum to be authentic, rather than saying they are all mistaken. Lung salad (talk) 21:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are two pretty long sections (not written by me) that give pro and con discussions. Those are some of the reasons on either sides - obviously. History2007 (talk) 00:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have seen how it's been written. [1]Lung salad (talk) 09:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to actually look at how the article is being written Lung rather than simply trying to project into the article as it lists for and [[2]] the authenticity. Considering this that the Josephus on Jesus article also has a portion in which the authenticity is pointedly disputed and their are arguments found here that are not in that, I think it might be worthwhile to discuss a merger rather than simply trying to dispute the neutrality of the article. Reason and Logic shall always prevail (talk) 23:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: User Lung salad was indef-blocked. History2007 (talk) 00:06, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]