Talk:Jesus/Archive 121

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 115 ← Archive 119 Archive 120 Archive 121 Archive 122 Archive 123 → Archive 125

Date format - 3 choices

Closed after request at AN. Discussion (backed by counting !votes) is clear that consensus falls behind BC/AD and not BCE/CE. There is no desire for both styles continuing in the article. Consensus may change, particularly if sources do, but currently BC/AD should be used. Cheers, LindsayHello 09:45, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should this article use BC/AD, BCE/CE, or both?--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:03, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Every discussion about the BC/BCE thing ends with the conclusion that if it's fixed, we'll have an edit war forever, so don't fix it. But I don't think we'll actually have any more edit warring than the existing version. I think if we took a poll, if we all agreed to keep one system in place for 2 years, the edit warring would be fairly minimal. And it would be a vast improvement and would eliminate this unnecessary embarrassment. Let's just have a vote and revisit it in 2015. —Noisalt (talk) 19:27, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Please see FAQ, Q2. Nothing can be "imposed" for 2 years. As I have said before the only possible solution maybe a bot that changes it at midnight every night, so Mondays it is AD, Tuesdays CE, etc. I kid, of course, but I see the discussion as a waste of life, just a notation. So please count me out on this issue after this comment. History2007 (talk) 19:36, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
The FAQ says there is a consensus in favor of BC/BCE, which is blatantly not true. In fact, every time the issue has come up over the past six years, the majority of editors agree that *either* system would be preferable to the mixture of the two systems. The people insisting on one system or the other are an extreme minority. That's why I think a poll is exactly the way to go. Everyone can rank BC, BC/BCE, or BCE (1, 2, 3) and whichever system gets the most points wins. "BC/BCE" will obviously lose because it's the least popular of the three—there's no consensus in favor of it.
The people saying "Stop arguing about it" always point to past discussions which overwhelmingly say "Either system would be better than mixing the two systems". It's time to honor those discussions and honor that consensus. It's time to pick one system and put the issue to rest. Reasonable people agree that either system would be absolutely fine, but mixing the two is bad style and unencyclopedic. —Noisalt (talk) 19:59, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
WP:CON rules and it is not a vote, so 16 votes out of 30 means nothing. History2007 (talk) 20:03, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
But there is no consensus for BC/BCE. No logical support for it; it is a system not used in any mainstream source, ever; it violates the MOS; every discussion on the issue has turned up a majority against it. Every attempt at consensus has come up with "No consensus", not a consensus in favor of "BC/BCE" which the FAQ incorrectly states. —Noisalt (talk) 21:01, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
If you can get "consensus" for either, just fine. But straw poll is not consensus and contrary to WP:CON. That is all. History2007 (talk) 22:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
A straw poll is not consensus, but we can get consensus for a straw poll. There's clearly no legitimate argument for or against BC or BCE, but there is plenty of legitimate argument against "BC/BCE", so arbitrarily somehow picking "BC" or "BCE" is the logical conclusion—and a straw poll is one way of doing so. —Noisalt (talk) 22:38, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
"Arbitrarily picking"? Arbitrary = no good. Any arbitrary decision will be the start of long term time wasting debate just because it is recorded that it was arbitrary. So consensus will be needed either way. Let me object to arbitrary decisions and stop. History2007 (talk) 22:47, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Should we make this a RfC? --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

  • We use both? That's the worst decision ever, I've never heard of anything doing that. I'm in favor of having an RfC on the subject (frankly, I'd like to see a Wikipedia-wide RfC determine the usage for all articles for consistency's sake, but let's at least fix this article). Ryan Vesey
Well, there was a discussion about this here: Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 62#Dating policy. BC-AD or BCE-CE. The result of the discussion seems to be to just follow WP:ERA, and choose one. In my opinion, having both is indeed silly. I'm not aware of any respectable work that does that. --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:40, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Indeed, I think "just choose one" is the most prosperous path forward. I'm in favor of an RFC. If there's a strong argument for using both I would love to see it, but no previous discussion has presented such an argument. There's just no consensus for using both. There's a consensus to use one or the other, so let's do it. —Noisalt (talk) 23:49, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
  • BC/AD Seeing "BC/BCE" and "AD/CE" in this article just looks stupid, as if it's trying to appease everybody while satisfying none. I say stick with WP:ERA, use whatever form this article started with. It makes most sense to use BC and AD with any article related to Christianity, and BCE and CE for scientific or otherwise secular topics. But that's just my own view, and I know it won't get much traction. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:53, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
  • BCE/CE BCE/CE has become increasingly common in recent years for all history topics, from religious ones to Ancient Rome. BC/AD is traditional, but has fallen out of use. That said, using BC/AD is far superior to using both BCE/CE and BC/AD. Ryan Vesey 01:05, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
  • BC/AD All the sources I've read about Jesus use BC/AD. There's also a section in this article that discusses Jesus's suspected birth year as a reference point for the AD system.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:09, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Either BC/AD since it was the first used in this article's history, or BCE/CE as it is increasingly common. Both are in widespread academic and popular use, and the distinction is small. Either is better than the mixed system which is distracting and does not exist outside of Wikipedia. —Noisalt (talk) 22:31, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Either is better than both. I wouldn't consider the "first used" line of reasoning quite as relevant here where we haven't used that system for quite some time, but I don't care much either way. Huon (talk) 23:10, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
  • BCE/CE. There may not be much in it, but the alternative is a little old hat and might, in this particular article, be taken as the stamp of a Christian POV. I don't imagine I'm the first to mention this, but the mix 'n' match approach is against the guidance in WP:ERA, as well as common sense. Formerip (talk) 23:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
  • BCE/CE seems to me the more common in scholarly resources. But I agree that either is better than both. -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:03, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  • BC/AD given that it is by far the most common in the citations used in the article and it was the original form so per WP:ERA gets to stay. However, I am assuming this will be based on "consensus" following the Rfc and not a straw poll; given that consensus was not obtained for a straw poll, WP:Con remaining the applicable policy. History2007 (talk) 01:13, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  • I'm not going to argue too strongly for BCE/CE since I am fine with either, but I would like to address a few things. While BC/AD may be used in the majority of our sources, the vast majority of our sources were written prior to widespread usage of BCE/CE. Second, WP:ERA doesn't actually say that the original form gets to stay. It says not to change the established style, which is currently the combination mess, without a reason, which would be established in this discussion. Even if it did recommend using the style first apparent in the article, it would be necessary to remember that the article was written before widespread usage of BCE/CE. Ryan Vesey 04:13, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Was there an official date for the widespread establishment of "BCE/CE"? Or was that your impression based on your experiences with documents you have encountered in your own reading? A source for that assessment would be nice. If there was a date in the last 7 years when the tide turned, please do clarify it and perhaps update WP:ERA with that information as well. History2007 (talk) 08:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, if the article were just written before the common acceptance of BCE/CE, then that would be enough to establish BC/AD per WP:ERA, since that in itself wouldn't be a compelling reason to switch over. The main argument seems to be that we need to pick a style, with neither being preferable, so we would probably just go with the first to show up. I agree that the mish-mash that's there now needs to go, so I'll say BC/AD, given that it apparently came first (I did a check through the revision history, and it was the earliest dating on the page that I could find). Scholarly religious material on Jesus can vary in which dating system it chooses to use (given that both historical and theological articles deal with Jesus), so I'm not sure whether choosing the style most common in current scholarship might be a no-go for this. Chri$topher 14:06, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
BC/AD per History2007 and other editors. Even Christians don't generally think of BC as the actual date of the birth of Christ, but it is an accepted convention that is dominant in topical literature. Andrew327 23:55, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
  • BCE/CE, since it does not force people to make religious claims when discussing historical claims. Also per current scholarly usage, and per Exodus 20:7. And Luke 23:34 applies, too ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:32, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Your Luke 23:34 remark is one of the wittiest comments on this page for long and lightens up the often hapless discussions on these talk pages. History2007 (talk) 08:38, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
For this to be effective, we need people to rank the three possibilities rather than just pick one. Tell us if you think using both systems on top of each other is better or worse than "BC/AD"? —Noisalt (talk) 11:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
  • BC/AD, I'm not familiar enough with the literature to comment, but no one has made a convincing case that BCE/CE is dominant, and my experience is that BC/AD is more common. I looked at a few academic looking Google book search results and found a few of each. The current status quo is ridiculous. A clear consensus against the status quo, besides it being against the MOS, should be enough to ignore CONS with respect to BC/AD vs. BCE/CE and go with a simple majority. --JFH (talk) 14:13, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
  • BC/AD, Clearly the page is a religous one, so using BC/AD makes sense. Also it is NOT clear that "scholarly sources" use CE/BCE - I regularly see both and there is no concensus. Beyond that, I think it's ridiculous that non-Christians feel like they are somehow being insulted simply because of using a little term like BC. We are getting close to allowing Sharia law in some US communities, all in the PC attempt to "welcome all world views", but someone finds that a Wiki page uses BC/AD rather than CE/BCE and the world comes to an end. Come on... Ckruschke (talk) 17:37, 25 April 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke
No, the page is not a religious one. It's a secular page about a historical figure that is important to several religions. And that's exactly why it should be religiously neutral and not use a notation that endorses one particular view. And please reconsider the hyperbole. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:02, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment - By the way, the article uses quotations from sources that use the BC/AD format. Currently, these quotations containing BC/AD are only in the footnotes. If we do switch to the BCE/CE format, what are we suppose to do about these quotations? --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 12:26, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
Quotes are quotes and use whatever the original author used - often even up to archaic and mistaken spelling. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:09, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
And who knows... you may not even have to change them... History2007 (talk)
Would using both systems be better than BCE/CE, in your opinion? Noisalt (talk) 10:54, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Again, this is not a matter of personal preference and should not be made one. The "BC/AD" nomenclature is the most prominent/notable, so that is the one that should be used throughout. If and when most people switch to something else, than Wikipedia would have to reflect that. -The Gnome (talk) 12:56, 27 April 2013 (UTC)
  • BC/AD as being the "most common usage". The Chicago Manual of Style says that "those who wish avoid reference to Christianity may do so." Saying an article on Jesus does not refer to "Christianity" is an interesting position! Collect (talk) 13:10, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
  • BC/AD is simpler, looks better, and is more common. Tom Harrison Talk 13:19, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
  • Anything but both - Personally, I prefer BCE/CE, but I'd much rather see us use the alternative consistently rather than a willy-nilly "do-whatever" attitude that allows editors to pick and choose which they'll use in a given sentence. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 13:26, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
  • BC/AD That's what the stylebooks say, that's what most people use, and I think we're done here anyway. GoodeOldeboy (talk) 07:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

The most common designation for eras use the abbreviations BC ("before Christ") and AD (anno Domini, "in the year of our Lord").

— Turabian, Kate (2007). A Manual for Writers of Research Papers, Theses, and Dissertations (7th ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. p. 328. ISBN 9780226823379.

AD and BC are the traditional ways of referring to these eras. CE and BCE are common in some scholarly texts and religious writings. Either convention may be appropriate.
Do not change the established era style in an article unless there are reasons specific to its content. Seek consensus on the talk page before making the change. Open the discussion under a subhead that uses the word "era". Briefly state why the style is inappropriate for the article in question. A personal or categorical preference for one era style over the other is not justification for making a change.

— WP:ERA

Why are we even having this discussion?

— ReformedArsenal (talk) 13:57, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
I don't know... Maybe because that's how we do things? Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 15:42, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Lol. It's a long story.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:45, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
We have two style guides (One professional and published, and our own MOS) that say that BC/AD is permissible... this subject CLEARLY relates to Christianity... and BC/AD is still by FAR the most widely used format by a factor of 3 to 1 (according to Google Ngrams http://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=BC+%2B+AD%2C+BCE+%2B+CE&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share= ), it seems like a pretty open and shut case to me. ReformedArsenal (talk) 11:39, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
A question irrelevant to the subject. I have no problem, of course, that you reverted the formatting I did (meant to present responses in an integral style), but I'm sincerely curious about the "purpose", as you wrote, of offering your input in a "quote" format. That format is usually used to present other people's sayings or opinions. Could you, please, explain? Thanks in advance. Cheers, The Gnome (talk) 00:32, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
  • BCE/CE otherwise we give the appearance of bowing to religious zealotry. --Pete (talk) 04:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Move to close - We have a WP:RS who says that as of 2007, BC/AD was the most common usage. We have a 9 - 4 vote (BC/AD - BCE/CE) with some saying that we should just pick one. We have WP:ERA policy that supports BC/AD for a number of reasons. And we have Google ngrams showing that there is a SUBSTANTIALLY wider usage of BC/AD over BCE/CE. ReformedArsenal (talk) 11:46, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

RfCs generally last for 30 days. There's no need to rush.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:11, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
If it's a ridiculous RfC that shouldn't happen at all, then I see no reason to keep it open. This question was decided long ago by the MoS... why are we revisiting something that already has an established policy? ReformedArsenal (talk) 13:31, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
The MoS is not policy. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 00:30, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Fine, we still have a WP:RS and the google ngrams, plus the clear concensus. (ReformedArsenal)
Just a point of clarification that: MOS is not "policy" but is a guideline. And per WP:GUIDES "Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." In view of what the guideline recommends, the question becomes: "is this page an occasional exception?" If so, why is it an exception? Clearly the approach of "User A prefers format X" is not the basis for being an exception. So we really need a list of reasons for this page being an exception to the MoS guidelines before deviating from them. I have not seen arguments presented to support that in the above yet. History2007 (talk) 11:10, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
I will say, complete sans reliable sourcing, that I have very rarely seen the term "AD" (and BC) used in a scholastic context, at least as far as modern use is concerned. I've taken entire courses on Christianity without hearing the words "Anno domini" or their abbreviation used a single time. Now, I don't imagine Google Scholar would be very helpful here, given that "ad" is a word of its own, and "ce" can stand for "copy edit," among other things. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 22:18, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Well, not only do we have a WP:RS that says otherwise, it took me all of 45 seconds to walk to my shelf and find 3 scholarly sources that use BC/AD... ReformedArsenal (talk)
So it is based on Evanh's sampling of reading experiences vs Arsenal's sample. And we all know that people's experiences differ, so it is not surprising if one person thinks that the most frequent car color they have ever seen is silver, and another thinks it is another color... My experience with the sources used in this article was mentioned above. End result: we need a couple of sources of some type. History2007 (talk) 23:01, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
I provided a source... did you not see my Turbanian source? ReformedArsenal (talk) 23:09, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I saw that. I meant for Evanh to provide an opposing source that says CE/BCE is the most prevalent. But in any case, WP:ERA states that BCE is used in "some scholarly texts and religious writings". Does that characterization apply to this page? So there are multiple issues really. But I think The Gnome has a valid point that what is is prevalent should be used, given that this is an umbrella page. So is there a source that says "BCE is in general prevalent?" History2007 (talk) 23:29, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Sorry I missed this earlier. That source you requested is something I do not have. In my personal survey of scholarly works (limiting it here to works composed in the last fifty years or so), I have found BCE/CE more common, and I cannot source that. Overall, I have no doubt that AD and BC are more common, though I have doubts about the current relative prominence of the terms in secular scholarship. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 07:31, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
CE/BCE. Jesus is a figure in general history and civilization, not just Christian history. Christians discussing his life in a non-scholarly context will generally use the BC/AD convention, assuming actually or automatically that they are writing for Christians; I do not like that, it's really Christian cultural imperialism; I'd probably pass it over as familiar if I were a Christian, but i am not, and I notice it, more than I would for other dates in the period, because the AD stands out so dramatically as an interpretation of Jesus's role in the world. Sometime Christians writing in a purely Christian devotional context will also use AD, because they know they are writing for other Christians, and I find that perfectly acceptable. WP writes for the entire world. The majority of people in the world who can read at least some English are not Christians. DGG ( talk ) 03:31, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
But is that based on some Wikipedia policy or guideline? As discussed above, WP:ERA does not say that "articles about general history and civilization must use BC/BCE". Does it? We have asked for sources that support one form or another and so far only one source has been provided. Other sources would help. I should point out, however, that academic Christians do use CE/BCE in specialized contexts, and the society for Biblical literature uses that. But in "general public use" AD/BC still prevails from the only source we have seen. History2007 (talk) 05:45, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. While I'd still rather we use CE/BCE, this whole discussion is rapidly becoming unproductive. Someone should make a close soon in favor of BC/AD, as those arguments have been a lot better supported. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 05:48, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
I've interjected this a few times to no avail, but we're looking for people to rank all three choices: is it better to use both systems if we can't come to a consensus, or should we pick one system even if there's no consensus on which to pick? If everyone just picks one system and ignores the overall question it's a little counterproductive. —Noisalt (talk) 04:01, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
Alas naming the section "choose one or another" did not sound like a 3 way decision... History2007 (talk) 05:45, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
@Noisalt: I think it's safe to say that most editors here don't like to see using both systems. If you want to know for sure, you could leave a message at their talk page and ask them to comment on the 3rd choice.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 12:42, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
  • BC/AD For all the reasons already stated. Why should we use BCE/CE at all? The year wouldn't change, so you're still marking the start of the "Common Era" with the birth of Christ. BCE/CE is ahistorical. Use of both annotations would be silly. Let's pick one or the other and settle on it. Also, I would appreciate non-believers not pushing their ahistorical POV on this article. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:43, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
And I would appreciate you not assuming bad faith on the part of everyone you disagree with. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 04:10, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
  • BC/AD While I would personally have a slight preference for the combined usage simply to avoid accusations of POV pushing, there's a pretty clear consensus and some pretty solid arguments being made in favor of BC/AD. -- LWG talk 06:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
  • BC/AD Agreed with most who have spoken already to this one. If the article was purely an historical entry, I could see why BCE/CE would be appropriate, since that is where the historical community is moving/has moved. However, much of the citations on this page are from scripture, so I think BC/AD is most appropriate. Going with both is confusing to the layman and unsightly.Rjp422 (talk) 22:24, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
  • BC/AD per Wikipedia's BC/AD guideline. This article started out BC/AD and it should have stayed that way. That is our rule. This article had an exception because people were whining -- that's the whole story. [Actually the rule can be overturned by "consensus" but clearly there should never have been consensus to change it in the first place.] That is no reason for the status quo. The current format is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. Shii (tock) 23:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
"Wikipedia's BC/AD guideline," which exists... um, where? Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 23:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
I am talking about WP:ERA. I thought it had a general rule that the era should not be changed ever, but I see now that the situation is more subtle, so I strike my comment. Shii (tock) 23:57, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Some comments based on a too-late GA review

The request for a GA review still appears on the WikiProject Religion talk page, so I went and had a read. I can't really argue against GA status, and on the whole I have to praise the neutrality of the tone of an article that is not the easiest to keep neutral. Still, there are a few things that people who watch this article carefully should consider addressing:

  1. Parallelism of treating important concepts, especially in article and section leads. On net, Trinitarian Christianity's view is the one that dominates, and anyone expecting equal coverage of other views is probably being wishful or naive. Still, to this non-Christian (actually, an Orthodox Jew who is pretty knowledgeable about Christianity), some things feel a little misleading. So, for example, the article lead says that most Christians believe Jesus was "conceived of the Holy Spirit, born of a virgin ..." and "... worship Jesus as the incarnation of God the Son ..." OK so far. Then in describing Islam's view, the lead says that Muslims also believe in the virgin birth. I didn't know that, but also ok so far. But the lead does not point out that Islam rejects the idea of Jesus as an actual "incarnation of God". Am I wrong to think that most people closely tie the concepts of virgin birth and divine incarnation? It is therefore significant that Islam accepts one, but not the other, and one shouldn't have to go digging around for that.
  2. Assumption that everyone knows the terminology. The article discusses the Transfiguration as a key milestone in Jesus's life. But it doesn't say what that is, or why it's important, until much farther down the article.
  3. Sloppy treatment of non-Trinitarian responses. The sections on Judaism and Islam both contain substantial redundancy, and the section on non-Trinitarian Christianity is a little weak.
These sections also contain assertions that feel a little odd and unproved. For example, "Mishneh Torah provides the last established consensus view of the Jewish community ..." About what? Jesus? This language can imply two or three things that are simply not correct. First, it can imply that up until and including Rambam (Maimonides, author of Mishneh Torah) there was a consensus view of the Jewish community, but that afterwards that consensus disappeared. That's not correct; the consensus is still very much there. Second, it can imply that no one important has commented since Rambam. That's also not correct. Third, it implies that Rambam was trying to represent a consensus of the Jewish people. Even that is not really correct. Rambam was trying to make a statement that he felt was religiously correct according to the Torah. He certainly hoped that Mishneh Torah would be widely accepted. That section might have been accepted pretty readily, too, but Mishneh Torah had many opponents in the Jewish world and was not broadly considered an authoritative legal source until long after its writing.
Portions of Islam's approach to Jesus that are consistent with Christianity get more prominence, IMO, than those that contradict.

I don't reject the GA designation, but there is really a fair amount here that could be cleaned up. StevenJ81 (talk) 21:35, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

I think you need to separate out your points. I can not answer anything about the Judaism section because I neither know the topic in detail, nor worked on it. So I will address the other parts.
Regarding the Trinitarian issues, that had been discussed n talk before, and given that there is no central teaching office for the non-trinitarians it is pretty hard to represent them in a consistent way, and they are a much smaller part of Christianity, so starting those discussions will lead to huge amounts of article text that discusses Christian theology. And to do that in an overcrowded lede will immediately make the lede become a theology lesson. So given the fact that Christians excel at disagreeing with each other those theological details can not really be addressed in the lede to the article and the majority view needs to be summarized there.
Regarding Muslims not considering Jesus divine, that was just 2 words, and it is there now.
Regarding Transfiguraion, the first time it appeared had no link, so I just added the link - that is what hypertext is for. As t why it is important, some of that material used to be in the article and went out due to WP:Length limits. So this is a large topic and that type of thing has to be done by linking. No other way, else length will overflow.
Your statement that Mishneh Torah had many opponents in the Jewish world is interesting and I was not aware of it, but that is the nature of theology. If you let the multiple Muslims group debate things between Ahmadi and other, they could also debate it for long. We have seen those too, but fortunately not seen a debate on Ordinance XX which makes them non Muslim in parts of the world and Muslim elsewhere. The nature of religious issues makes these facets just hard to handle without having so much text that overflows limits. And if Ordinance XX is to be mentioned in the article, other debate will start for ever. This is debate-pedia after all...
So someone else needs to handle the Judaism section, but I think I have answered the rest. Have I? History2007 (talk) 22:28, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
You have. Thank you. I can address the Judaism portion myself, though probably not until next week, after the holiday of Shavuot (Jewish Pentecost), which starts tomorrow night. Mainly, it needs cleanup. If it says what I think it says, it's not wrong, it's just not well written. StevenJ81 (talk) 23:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Ok, great. That is the idea of coop-development in that you can do the section that others do not know about. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 00:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Adding "a/the historical" Jesus to introduction

As far as "Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed" goes, the scholars are referring to the historicity of Jesus, it is important to underline that the scholarly consensus is about his existence and not his divinity as Christians sees it. A Christian or someone of faith may very well interpret this as Jesus son of God. I didn't want to make any fuzz about it, but FutureMillionaire apparently has an issue with this minor change. DonChris (talk) 01:13, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

You've brought up this proposal before. Read the responses you got at the "Removing the Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed?" section above.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
Yeah and nobody is disagreeing that we are talking about a historical Jesus. The whole context of the paragraph is about a historical Jesus, so why is it a problem that I add "a historical Jesus"? DonChris (talk) 01:33, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
You might want to read Paul B's comment again: "I fail to see how the sentence can be read to mean "the very existence of Jesus proves he was also the son of God and will return at the end of the world". It just says he existed." --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:48, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
I'd probably agree with Paul B if it wasn't for that this page is about the man center to a religion which literally have millions of people believe in the stories of talking serpents and other fairy tales (although I suppose most religions do), so underlining that scholars are referring to a historical Jesus is quite essential. DonChris (talk) 01:56, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
I think that may be overselling your case some; I rather suspect the vast, vast majority of readers coming to a Wikipedia article looking for perspective on understanding the subject of Jesus Christ (as opposed to the many doctrinal or dogmatic sources of guidance the extremely zealous would already be close to) are unlikely to fit the profile you suggest. That being said, just because the current wording is unlikely to mislead anyone doesn't mean that it's ideal. Frankly if the wording is such that it's just coming across as a little stilted because of that ambiguity (even if it registers only momentarily in the mind of the reader before being resolved) then that's reason enough to make the change simply to serve clear and encyclopedic tone. It really is an important distinction after-all, even if one we can safely assume most people grasp intuitively, and what does it really cost us to add one word's worth of extra context? Furthermore, this wording provides an anchor point for the wikilinking to the useful Historicity of Jesus article, which provides further insight into the issue for all users, regardless of whether they are inclined towards believing in the precepts of the faith or not. I can't really see a reasonable argument for a substantive downside to providing this distinction and context. Of course it seems you gentlemen have already resolved this issue between you, but on the possibility that this discussion arises again, here stands my opinion. Snow (talk) 11:12, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the second "historical Jesus" in the sentence. Are you okay with this? --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:00, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Works for me DonChris (talk) 02:05, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Astronomers' method

Shouldn't the Chronology section explain how astronomers such as Newton or Schaefer arrived at their calculated date for the death of Jesus? The method used by historians is described in detail, but the method used by the astronomers isn't explained at all.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:39, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Some of those details were trimmemd back based on the GAN suggestion. Now, Wikisource is actually amazing and has the original Newton paper, so I just added a link to that. The question will be how many people are going to read the details of that? We can not be mind readers, of course, but my guess is that not many. Anyway, Pratt's paper is here and here if you want to add those links - I think one of them is already there. One of the Humphreys papers is here if you want to add that. So we can add the links and tell the interested readers (my guess is 2%) where to read the details, but I have a feeling that giving the details will be lost on most readers who are not scientifically oriented, and the Main link to the chron article already has details. History2007 (talk) 16:39, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Italicization of Christ and Son of God

The words "Christ" and "Son of God" are italicized several times in the article. However, I'm not sure if that's proper English, not to mention inconsistent. WP:ITALIC doesn't seem to support having them italicized.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:09, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

No, they shouldn't be, but I can't see that they are. Which sections? Johnbod (talk) 15:50, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Proclamation as Christ and Transfiguration: "In blessing Peter, Jesus not only accepts the titles Christ and Son of God which Peter attributes to him..." --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:54, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Ok, they should "use these". Why don't you fix them. Johnbod (talk) 16:30, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
 Done --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:13, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Full name of scholars

I've noticed that Crossan's full name is mentioned 3 times in the prose. Ehrman's full name is mentioned 3 times. Van Voorst's full name is mentioned 4 times. You can see where I am going with this. Shouldn't we only mention the full name the first time, and then just use the last name for subsequent mentions? --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:31, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

That's what the MoS says, yes. Count me a bit worried that the GA reviewers didn't catch that. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 04:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
You can fix that in 10 minutes flat. Just do it as they say... History2007 (talk) 06:48, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Sure, it can be fixed almost instantly, and that's what has me worried. Anyone taking the time to review a GAN shouldn't fail to notice simple prose and MoS issues like that. Anyway, I've cleared up the issues for Crossan, Ehrman, and Van Voorst. I've probably missed others. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 07:13, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
I think the GA reviewers were both pretty thoughtful actually, and these are just small items. History2007 (talk) 07:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, it's a small issue. I haven't read the whole thing all the way through, but it looks like they did a fine job overall. I didn't mean to imply that it discredited the whole thing; small things like that just tend to stick out at me. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 07:40, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
No worries. One item that the GA pointed out and added a paragraph was the portraits issue, and one more paragraph may need to be added there about maximalism and minimalism, and I will add that. That is probably needed, but the rest is probably pretty comprehensive now. History2007 (talk) 11:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
Such an issue is on par with citation consistency, and wouldn't hold a GA back. That's for FAC. FunkMonk (talk) 12:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
As I said, I think your analysis was thoughtful. History2007 (talk) 12:20, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
It was more of a response to Evanh. With such a long article filled with controversies, it has been the least of our concerns. FunkMonk (talk) 12:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Portraits, healer link, etc.

A link was added to healer because someone assumed it had to lead to a specific page. However, sources do not support that and the whole issue of "portraits" is pretty subtle to put it mildly. When Amy-Jill Levine stated that "most scholars agree that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, debated Jewish authorities on the subject of God, performed some healings, gathered followers, and was crucified by Roman prefect Pontius Pilate who reigned 26-36 " she chose her words very carefully and correctly. If she had said "disciple" instead of followers there would have been screams from other scholars, if she had said "called" instead of gathered, there would have been objections, but not scream etc. Many editors are unaware of the subtleties and instead of constantly reverting them and telling them again and again, a reminder in the body of the article will be useful as a comment and will avoid future fanfare. So I do not see the need for the multi-reverts by RBreen. History2007 (talk) 14:47, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

There are at least 12 separate examples of hidden text in this article. In some cases, where the same argument keeps cropping up and inexperienced editors helpfully add something that's actually been the subject of major discussion in the past, this makes sense - eg the BC/BCE debate. But if we are going to put in a hidden text comment every time someone adds an inappropriate link, this is going to get completely out of hand. As far as I can see, this is just one event which has not previously been the subject of discussion and there is no good reason to suppose it will ever be again. We cannot plaster the text with hidden comments just in case someone gets it wrong. Can we please keep this in proportion? --Rbreen (talk) 17:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
That healer link had been there before, and removed before, then came back today again. This is not the first time. I have seen that link come and go and it was not just this time. The comment does not bite, trust me. History2007 (talk) 17:50, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Heading

I was just over in "Ceres (mythology)", and it got me thinking, shouldn't this also be "Jesus (mythology)" to keep with uniformity? Ceres (mythology)

132.3.33.79 (talk) 12:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)Nathan Dean

Even if this were a genuine suggestion, you'd be wrong. Bracketed disambiguation for all articles with a particular name is only used when there are multiple topics with the same name of roughly equal significance. In the Ceres case, that's because of the existence of Ceres (dwarf planet). Where one article is clearly the most important with the name, we don't use brackets. So, for example, there is an actress called Anne Hathaway, which also happens to be the name of William Shakespeare's wife. So we have two articles. The latter is called Anne Hathaway (Shakespeare). Because the actress is (for the moment) the better known of the two with the name, she gets to be just Anne Hathaway. That's also true of mythological characters. We have Zeus, for the god, but also Zeus (American football) and several other more obscure bracketed Zeuses. But just as Zeus gets no (mythology) after him, neither should Jesus. And that should be the case even if scholars agreed that he is mythological - which they don't. Paul B (talk) 12:53, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Italicizations

In the Ministry section, why are "Early Galilean ministry", "Major Galilean ministry", "Final Galilean ministry", "Later Perean ministry", and "Final ministry in Jerusalem" italicized? Who came up with these terms? --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:50, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

The article Ministry of Jesus explains that in section 3 there. A good book on that topic is The Life and Ministry of Jesus by Douglas Redford 2007 ISBN 0-7847-1900-4 which discusses these specific stages in ministry. In fact part of the point in the Ministry of Jesus article is to explain these specific stages and how they have specific markers such as he death of the Baptist, after which things change, etc. If they were not immediately obvious to you in this article, then maybe you want to explain the stages a little more based on the Main. History2007 (talk) 20:22, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
By the way, what I remembered now is that most books use terms such as "Great Galilean ministry" and fewer call it "Major Galilean ministry". But I went with the Major Galilean ministry usage not to give high blood pressure to people who might think it sounded pompous, pov, etc. So if you look in some books and see "Great Galilean ministry" don't be surprised. But on Wikipedia that may be headache. And also some books call the "early Galilean ministry" the "first Galilean ministry", or just the "early ministry" but by and large they are equivalent terms. The key is that there are specific stages with markers, e.g. when the final trip to Jerusalem starts, etc. History2007 (talk) 20:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Anyway, I added links for them in the article, so should be clear now. History2007 (talk) 00:20, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I've changed the italics to quotation marks, because I think they're more appropriate.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:28, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
No worries. If you could go through the article and ask these types of questions in the next 2-3 days we can address them all now that we are doing it and we will be done with links, etc. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 00:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

FAQ

Based on the above, I should note that I just touched up the FAQ with a few more questions, if you guys want to take a look, watch list it, etc. I am not sure if the ministry item just above needs to go there, but if necessary can. History2007 (talk) 20:24, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit notice discussion

There is some discussion at Template talk:Editnotices/Page/Jesus regarding the edit notice for this article.

Archive links for talk page threads

Given that you are going to change the edit notice, should not link to the RFC on the talk page - the link will die in a few days when the bot archives it. I will manually archive the RFC discussion so when you get the edit notice working, it will just point to that in a stable form. History2007 (talk) 14:43, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I moved the RFC thread to this archive point, and I touched up the pending edit notice to point directly to that archive - so it should work smoothly once you get that done.
While doing that I also moved the recent discussion we had about denominational items and the Judaism section so the FAQ can point to that. It is here. If there is more discussion on that section, please just start a new section below here. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 14:57, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Newton's Date

Sorry if I made that edit too fast; I was trying to cram things in before the Jewish holiday started. But ...

  • There wasn't a Friday, April 3, AD 34. At all. There was a Friday, April 2, AD 34 (Julian, = March 31 proleptic Gregorian).
  • That date in AD 34 is nowhere near a full moon. Full moons that year were March 23 Julian and April 20 Julian. Even allowing the Sanhedrin a day of wiggle room, Passover that year would not have fallen anywhere close to April 2 Julian.

So are these sources saying that Passover had nothing to do with it, or is someone misinterpreting Newton's date? StevenJ81 (talk) 03:56, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it was a typo. Should have said April 23 in AD 34. In fact they speculate that he selected that because it was St George's day as well, but no scholarly agreement on that issue. I added the link to Pratt's full text as well now. It used to be there, but went away somehow. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 10:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
By the way, if you want the best presentation of the details Humphreys' book ISBN 978-0-521-73200-0 has the best overview. History2007 (talk) 10:59, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I am always interested in history per se. Beyond that, my main interest in the subject of the chronology of Jesus tends to be the question of how tied these events are to Passover (and then, seven weeks later, Shavuot). Jewish provincialism on my part, I guess ... (;-) StevenJ81 (talk) 15:16, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Those dates have been studied and discussed since Newton as you can see. It was somewhat of a dormant topic until Bradley Shaefer came in. But the current shaking and stirring is by Humphreys. Not everyone agrees with him, but he has the stage for the next 15 minutes. And there are all kinds of one off, far off theories, of course. They sell books. History2007 (talk) 15:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, I'm also a Jewish calendar geek, so I find these things interesting on those grounds, too.
Newton is both wrong and right, by the way. It is true that the rules of Lo Ad"u Rosh and Lo Bad"u Pesach—the postponement rules keeping Rosh Hashanah away from Sunday, Wednesday and Friday, or Passover away from Monday, Wednesday and Friday did not formally exist in the days of the Sanhedrin. There is some evidence that the Sanhedrin was mindful of such things, though.
  • If the Sanhedrin thought, for example, that the new month should fall on the 31st day from the preceding new month, it could choose not to hear witness testimony on the 30th night at all. And they were not constrained to use pure astronomic reasoning over this. If the new moon on the 30th day would have made Passover fall on Friday or Sunday, for example, they could choose to defer the hearing of testimony if they wished.
  • At the same time, they had their restrictions, too. So if by astronomical calculation they decided a new month should fall on the 30th day from the start of the preceding month, and witnesses did not appear, they might be constrained to start the new month on the 31st day anyway. And if the expected new month on the 31st day would have made Passover fall on Friday or Sunday, they could not conjure witnesses for the 30th day out of thin air if no one saw the conjunction early enough.
  • The Sanhedrin could usually set things up the month or two ahead to avoid problems, but not always. And remember that they were using true conjunctions for the purpose then, not mean conjunctions like we use now, so that also constrained them to some extent.
  • As your sources point out, using the ripeness of the grain as dispositive is a real stretch. There are years where the crop comes in on the early side and years where it comes in late ...
Anyway, so much for my two cents. StevenJ81 (talk) 16:12, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Interesting. I did know some of that. But then there is another aspect to all of this, namely that determining things that happened 2,000 years ago and expecting a rough 2-3 years range may be good enough for all practical purposes anyway. I mean, people are still debating date ranges for events in the 15th century, so a year or two here or there is not going to make a huge difference to the planet. And the general scholarly opinion centers around the year 33, without astronomy, and there are some who argue for the year 37, but I have only seen one scholar do that, ever. So we have pretty good approximations in a general setting, and that is probably good enough. History2007 (talk) 16:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

While on this topic, I was reminded of another issue, namely differences in various accounts about the death/crucifixion, etc. I do not think it is really in the scope of this article to this discuss it there but I will just mention it in any case. The point is that the discrepancies in some historical accounts (e.g. the 4 gospels) are at times indications of their not having been orchestrated forgeries for real events are often accompanied by varying descriptions. Even in the case of the JFK death in front of thousands of people (some of them still walking the streets) details of the event vary. So insisting on dates that amount to days (and hours!) 2,000 years ago may be expecting too much when events in the 1960s are still subject to debate. History2007 (talk) 17:55, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Too right! We also have Missing years (Jewish calendar) to deal with.
Will try to get to Rambam next week. Have a good weekend, meanwhile. StevenJ81 (talk) 20:54, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 Done Revision on Rambam complete. You'll see I've changed the language a bit, but not the sources or claims. StevenJ81 (talk) 17:11, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
No problem. You know that topic better anyway. History2007 (talk) 17:22, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Era format

Where was the decision made to change the era notation? Last time I looked there was no consensus for change--JimWae (talk) 20:53, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

If you try to edit the page you will see a link to the Rfc in the edit notice. History2007 (talk) 20:57, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
How is 9 for AD to 4 for CE a new consensus for a change from what it was (both)? Who decided a new consensus was established? Previous discussions had dozens of opinions. Some of the reasons given are absurdly irrelevant.--JimWae (talk) 21:09, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
I am sorry I do not see a 9-4 situation. Could you repeat those with names? It looks like over 20 people expressed opinions. And one thing that people did not want by and large was the double format. History2007 (talk) 21:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Actually, there was never a consensus to use both systems—just a "no consensus" for which system to use, which is different. Every time the issue has come up over the years, there have been stronger arguments against the dual system than against either of the two systems. Ergo, using either system is preferable to using both systems. This last RFC clarified the issue. There is simply no support for the dual system; only an extreme minority support it and they have no meaningful argument in favor of it. There are good reasons to use BC/AC and good reasons to use BCE/CE, but there is no reason to use a dual system; it's utterly amateurish, violates the MOS and does not exist anywhere in the literature. —Noisalt (talk) 11:39, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
However, any discussion of the merits of one format vs the other is rather beside the point now given that there were over 20 users who discussed it. And that the combined format was "no one's favorite" was quite clear. History2007 (talk) 13:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
The dual format WAS indeed the consensus for 8 years. It was hardly anyone's 1st choice, but it was most people's 2nd choice. When I mentioned 9 to 4 above, I was using a sum someone had posted as they called for closing the RFC. I figured 9 to 4 was certainly no new consensus and trusted in the process, but shortly before it was closed 6 more people quickly chimed in - mostly with choices for AD. The dual format lets readers know that this article does not belong to either camp (neither Xn nor non-Xn). It does NOT violate the MOS guidelines, as the clear intent of the MOS guideline is consistency, not hegemony. There was a time when Wikipedians could proudly point to NPOV extending to it being seen to be done here with the dual format. Usage of BC/AD is a particular problem for the Jesus article - moreso than any other article. AD clearly means Jesus is Lord. BC clearly means Jesus is the Messiah. It is analogous to putting "pbuh" after every mention of Mohammed's name in the Mohammed article, or capitalizing every Him & He & His in the Jesus & God articles. Those abbreviations have NOT lost their meaning. True, I have been less active recently, but the RFC seems to have been very narrowly published. I did not see it for nearly a month after it was initiated. (I have made over 900 edits to the article & over 500 to the talk page & yet neither I [nor presumably other active editors] received any direct notification.) 15 to 5 may be a winning vote -- and a poorly attended one at that -- but RFCs that are just votes do not establish a new consensus. Just because someone comments in a good article nomination that they find fault with a dual format, does not mean it should be ended. Which is more important - a good article nomination win, or a win for the appearance of NPOV? --JimWae (talk) 20:47, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Jim... we have the MOS, Concensus, a published style guide, and the majority of scholarly sources... it's a pretty open and close case. ReformedArsenal (talk) 21:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
No, it was never a consensus for the dual system, as I pointed out in the RFC. If you go back and read the many discussions, the one common thread is a general agreement that the dual system was worse than either system. But since there was no clear argument for one or the other, the dual system stuck even though there was a clear argument against using it and a very large majority against using it. —Noisalt (talk) 01:29, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

GA

Wow, congratulations to all editors involved in getting this vital article up to GA status, especially when it's the most discussed Wikipedia article ever. Can't imagine it was a easy job... Great work! A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 13:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks :) Most of the work that got this article to GA was done by History2007.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:28, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
So why has History 2007 just vanished off the face of the earth? StevenJ81 (talk) 04:38, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
He said was too frustrated with socks, POV-pushers, ANI, etc. and decided to leave :/ --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 12:36, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Right - he told me he had just had enough. Fighting the good fight gets old when its supposed to be an enjoyable hobby... Ckruschke (talk) 16:59, 22 May 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Copy edit, May 2013

I'll note things needing explanation, and ask any questions, here. Suggest threading by bullets, RfC style. --Stfg (talk) 14:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

  • Lede: respecting the requests made in HTML comments not to undo previous agreements, I've limited myself to the following changes, which I trust are non-controversial: (a) second instance of "hold" changed to "believe" to avoid too-close repetition; (b) unlinked second linking to Crucifixion of Jesus per WP:OVERLINK; (c) removal of an incorrect comma. I would also like to make the following changes (but have not done so until getting agreement):
    1. Change "their theological assertions of his divinity" to "their assertions of his divinity" to avoid tautology -- assertions of divinity are automatically theological :)
    2. Change "Scholars have offered various portraits of the historical Jesus, which at times share a number of overlapping attributes, such as the leader of an apocalyptic movement, Messiah, ..." to "Scholars have portrayed the historical Jesus in a number of overlapping roles, such as the leader of an apocalyptic movement, Messiah, ...". I think that the list begun in this quote refers more to roles than to attributes, and the start of the sentence is neater that way. --Stfg (talk) 14:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks for taking your time to do this! I'm okay with your first suggested change. The second suggestion, however, changes the meaning the sentence slightly. However, I do agree that the sentence is not worded well. Some of the portraits of Jesus contain more than one of the listed roles, but most of the portraits are distinct and differ from each other. There is little scholarly agreement on the portraits, or the methods used in constructing them. Here's my suggestion: "Scholars have constructed a variety of portraits of the historical Jesus, which often depict him as having one or more of the following roles: the leader of an apocalyptic movement, Messiah,..." Or something like that.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:24, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Good, let's go with that (but I've kept "various" rather than "a variety of"). Well spotted about the change of meaning, and please do check all my diffs for such things. They can happen, and we can fix them if we spot them :) By the way, I'll de-bold and strike through the headings of those items I think we've resolved, so we have a running check of what's still to do. --Stfg (talk) 16:28, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Etymology of names: "under influence from Aramaic" needs clarification. It's vague to talk about a word being under the influence of a language. Is Hebrew Yĕhōšuă‘ derived from Aramaic? If so, let's say that. --Stfg (talk) 14:58, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I'm not too sure myself. It might be better just to remove the "under influence from Aramaic" part.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:03, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Probably best. Done. --Stfg (talk) 16:35, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Etymology of names: "The name Jesus appears to have been in use in Judea at the time of the birth of Jesus". Hardly! Maybe Yēšūă‘ was, but not Jesus. --Stfg (talk) 15:03, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Citations appear to be in any format: is see all of {{harvnb}}, {{cite}} and straight text footnotes. A FAC will fail for this, so it needs fixing. I will not be undertaking this. --Stfg (talk) 15:03, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Yeah, there's also the problem of inconsistent bundling of citations. I'll definitely try to clean that up before nominating this for FAC.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:39, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Chronology: Per WP:MOS, we don't include days of the week in dates. In this case, though, I think it's worth mentioning the Fridays, so I've left them in, but please be prepared for FAC reviewers to disagree. --Stfg (talk) 16:06, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Removing some of the "Friday"s in the Chronology section might not be a bad idea. The astronomers assume that the crucifixion was on a Friday. The two specific dates mentioned are April 3, 33 AD and April 23, 34 AD. I think the first mention of these dates should include "Friday", but the subsequent mentions should not (because that becomes redundant). I also think that the sentence about Pratt comments on Newton's method should come right after the sentence about Newton's estimate.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:48, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
      • I think that's a good approach, but am unsure of the best order of things right now, because Humphreys and Waddington seem to have arrived at April 3, 33 AD, in the early 1980s (dates of refs 68 and 69), before either Schaeffer or Pratt. I'm knocking off for the night now, so if you'd like to have a go at putting it in your preferred order, please go ahead. --Stfg (talk) 20:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
        • Okay, I didn't change the ordering, but I did remove the redundant "Friday"s.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:59, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Canonical gospel accounts: "According to the majority viewpoint, the Synoptic Gospels are the primary sources of historical information about Jesus,[83][84] and of the religious movement he founded." We need to clarify whether we're calling them the primary sources of the religious movement itself, or of historical information about the movement. (I find both views a tad surprising.) --Stfg (talk) 17:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure. The religious movement part doesn't seem to be supported by a citation. I think it's safe to remove "and of the religious movement he founded".--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Canonical gospel accounts: re John's Gospel, what is "a thematic nature"? --Stfg (talk) 18:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
    • It's complicated. This book (page 43-44) explains part of it. That sentence oversimplifies the issue, and I think it's safe to remove it.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:00, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Done. I think that's right, because I'm not sure that those pages are really discussing the general character of John, more than just his treatment of the Transfiguration. --Stfg (talk) 20:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Key elements ...: I'm rather uneasy about the first paragraph of this. "These are usually bracketed by two other episodes: his Nativity at the beginning and the sending of the Holy Spirit at the end." Well, those two events certainly bracket the others -- not usually, but inherently . So I wonder if we aren't just identifying seven key events, with this five-bracketed-by-two being merely a pedagogical issue? By the way, the paragraph is using the phrase "the gospel narrative of the life of Jesus". We need to change this if we want to include Pentecost (but do we? -- it's not part of the life of Jesus). Also, "The gospel accounts of the teachings of Jesus are often presented in terms of specific categories involving his "works and words", e.g., his ministry, parables and miracles." is strange. "Works and words" sounds a bit like theological college jargon to me. And "... are often presented ..."; once again, is this anything more than a detail of pedagogy? --Stfg (talk) 20:01, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
    • That's a good point. I checked the sources. They don't specifically say that there are 5 major milestones. They simply list some of the events in Jesus' life, and the contents of the list of the 3 sources don't match. Most of the first paragraph appears to be WP:OR or WP:Synthesis. I think listing the major events in his life in that part of the article seems rather unnecessary. The works and words part is also unnecessary; that concept is described in a section below. I've removed the first paragraph of that section and the section heading.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • For the first paragraph of the Ministry section, I think you removed the part about the Baptism marking the beginning of Jesus' ministry while copyediting. I think this part is significant enough to be included in the article. Can you add it back?--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:59, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Thank you, and well spotted. Done. --Stfg (talk) 15:16, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Ministry: Is it possible to clarify further in what sense the end of the Final Galilean ministry marks a turning point in the overall ministry? I guess Peter's Confession and the Transfiguration are intended to explain this, but I'm missing it. --Stfg (talk) 15:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I agree that there is currently insufficient explanation for the "turning point". This might help: "This section represents a significant turning point in the Gospel. Peter's confession of Jesus not only answers the question of Jesus' identity but also brings a shift in Jesus' teaching. From this point Jesus begins to prepare the disciples for his death and for the discipleship of bearing one's cross daily." As for the Transfiguration: "This dramatic event marks a major turning point in the gospel narratives, for Jesus was beginning to turn more and more to Jerusalem and the suffering and death that awaited Him there."--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:53, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
    • On second though, I think it's better to just remove the "turning point" part, because it's already discussed in the Transfiguration section below. The sentence should just say: "This period ends with the Confession of Peter and the Transfiguration." or something like that. --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:22, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Ah yes, the Proclamation section does make it clear. I hadn't noticed that. Yes, I think your second thought is the best way. Done. --Stfg (talk) 16:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Last Supper: Paragraph 3 only covers the bread. Would it be good to insert, just before the citations to FNs 72 & 176, the following? He then had them all drink from a cup, saying "this is my blood of the covenant". --Stfg (talk) 13:55, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Good idea. The paragraph about the "bread-and-wine ritual" is incomplete without the wine.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:05, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Done. We may need to move some items around in these sections. For example, the "All ye shall be offended in me this night" remark was made at the Last Supper, not in Gethsemane. I'll plough on for now and raise a new thread later. --Stfg (talk) 16:12, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
        • I agree. Chronological order is the best way to go. I've fixed that specific example.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:42, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
          • Right. I somehow got it in my head that the "offended" prediction was made at the Last Supper, but now I see you have it in the right place. I'm through the Life and teachings section now, and haven't found any more chronological problems. Peter's Denial is covered at the time of the prediction but mentioned again in the chronological place. I think that's good and doesn't need changing. --Stfg (talk) 09:29, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
          • Looking again, there's still an issue. In Matthew and Mark, the order is: after the Last Supper they go to the Mount of Olives; there JC makes the "offended" prediction; Peter says "never"; JC predicts the denial; then they go to Gethsemane. In Luke and John there is no "offended" prediction, and the denial is predicted at the Supper. I'm not sure how this should all be presented, but I don't think the denial prediction should precede the "offended" prediction. --Stfg (talk) 16:22, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
            • Okay, I've changed the ordering and noted the differences between the gospel accounts of these events. You might want to take a look.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:14, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
              • Looks good now. --Stfg (talk) 11:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Trials by the Sanhedrin, Herod and Pilate: end of paragraph 2: do the sources say that the words "You say that I am" affirm the title? The words themselves (in this English translation) don't seem to quite say that. (The words more often put into Jesus' mouth by English translations are "Son of Man", I believe.) --Stfg (talk) 16:38, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Hmmm. Of the sources cited, the only one that seem to support this statement is the Holman Concise Bible Dictionary, which briefly says: "Jesus again claimed that He was God's son (Luke 22:66-71)." I agree that this doesn't seem right. Jesus' replies are diffident in each gospel, and I think each should be mentioned. As for now, you can delete that "affirming the title 'Son of God'" part. I'll try to improve this section later.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:09, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Thanks. I've done that. --Stfg (talk) 19:54, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
        • Okay, I've added Jesus' response in Matthew and noted the indirectness of the reply in Matthew and Luke.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:45, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Existence: need to clarify "literary apologetic goals" in para 2. --Stfg (talk) 10:14, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
    • The part about the Dialogue with Trypho seemed off-topic, doesn't really have anything to do with the existence of Jesus. I've removed it.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:25, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Existence: "various (and at times differing) arguments" in paragraph 3: for FAC, we have to avoid redundancy. By "differing", is "contradictory" intended? Otherwise, we might gain by removing the parenthesis. --Stfg (talk) 09:58, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I agree. I've removed the parenthesis, doesn't seem necessary.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:33, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Existence: The section is somewhat rambling and perhaps too detailed. It should be in summary style, bearing in mind the number of main articles and see-alsos. In this edit I've suggested one bit that could go (separate edit for easy reversion if you want). I think it needs more chopping, really. --Stfg (talk) 18:07, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Totally agree. There was a large debate and edit war a few months ago about the existence of Jesus, which is probably why the Existence section is now so long and detailed. I agree that it should be trimmed. I'll try to trim more of it later today.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:13, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
      • I've trimmed it, although I'm not sure if it's trimmed enough.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:06, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
        • It now reads very much better. --Stfg (talk) 11:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Historicity of events: "Geza Vermes also views the Crucifixion as a historical event but believes that there is a different explanation and background for it." Can we say what that explanation and background were? I don't think Nicholson pp125-126 really says this. --Stfg (talk) 19:44, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Yeah, Vermes' view isn't really explained in detail in the source. I've removed that part, and replaced it with scholars who disagree with Sanders and Fredriksen.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:22, 26 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Portraits of Jesus: Please note that I've rewritten what (in para 3) is cited to Theissen and Winter, changing the meaning, as I don't believe the citation bears out what was being said before. Also, I sought clarification of "the titles may be later applications", and cannot find anything close to that in Hurtado pp 36-37 (FN285). --Stfg (talk) 12:11, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I looked through Hurtado's book. I doesn't look like he made that claim anywhere. That specific example should be removed.--FutureTrillionaire (talk)
    • Another option is to replace Hurtado with someone like William Wrede, who argued that Jesus never claimed to be Messiah, and didn't become it until the resurrection. He says that the early Church came up with the "messianic secret" concept to explain Jesus' silence on the matter.[1]--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:53, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
      • That's possible. I've removed the Hurtado bit (which we needed to do anyway). The messianic secret is mentioned in the article, but I wonder if the idea presented on the page you link isn't perhaps rather subtle for this article, especially as it has to delve into questions about what Wrede did and didn't say. --Stfg (talk) 17:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
        • I've trimmed that section a bit, and moved info concerning the history and the methods of the research to the "Historical views" head section. How does it look now?--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 04:10, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
          • It reads well. --Stfg (talk) 10:01, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Language, ethnicity and appearance: in paragraph 2, I found two substantial statements that had been lifted verbatim from Levine p.10 but not quoted. (I have quoted one and removed the other, since the relation to WWII matters is adequately covered in the last paragraph.) Earlier during this copy edit, I found another place where there was a need to better paraphrase something that was too close to the original. (I'm sorry, I don't recall where.) The existence of copy-paste and close paraphrase in an article heading towards FAC is extremely alarming. I'm checking sources only where I see a need to clarify something I don't understand, but this issue will need tackling before FAC is contemplated. --Stfg (talk) 14:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Indeed, I find this concerning. I will perform a full source spot-check before nominating this for FAC.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Thanks. I've been quite worried about this (even considering abandoning). I will proceed now I know you'll do that. --Stfg (talk) 17:27, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Christian views: In saying that Nontrinitarians "do not adhere to the ecumenical councils", what is meant? The reference is to a book on the first seven Ecumenical Councils ... and I don't see any reference to non-trinitarians on page 68. Actually, I don't see that page supporting any of the paragraph citing it (penultimate para of section). --Stfg (talk) 19:24, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
    • It's probably better to just keep things simple. I've rewrote that part and replaced the source. Now, it just says that the Trinity is not universally accepted.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:56, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
      • It looks good. --Stfg (talk) 10:01, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Arbitrary section break

  • Jewish views: references in the penultimate paragraph to Theissen and Merz (currently FN308, ref name = "TM1998"), Boyarin (FN309) and Rubenstein (FN310) need page numbers. Lacking these, I haven't been able to clarify the final sentence of this paragraph, "Many contemporary Talmud scholars view these ...", which needs to say what "these" refers to. --Stfg (talk) 11:27, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
    • For Theissen and Merz, it's pp. 74-75. I'll try to find the pages for the others.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:17, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Hmmm. Can't find them. The last sentence of the paragraph should probably be removed.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
      • OK, done. To be honest, it wasn't saying a great deal. --Stfg (talk) 14:23, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Image placement will need to be adjusted before FAC. --Stfg (talk) 11:37, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
    • Are you saying that the images don't match with the sections they're placed in? --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
      • No, only that the usual left/right alternation is abandoned after the first few, and for nomal text size, the Turin shroud dispaces the See also section header. It doesn't need fixing yet, only after the section order is finalized. --Stfg (talk) 14:23, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Buddhist views: is a "theological figure" that same as a deity? --Stfg (talk) 16:03, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
    • I think "divine figure" might be a better word.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:07, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Yes, better. --Stfg (talk) 16:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Other views: "The New Age movement generally teaches that Christhood is something that all may attain." seems not to be supported by Bailey p.1193 (as far as I understand her :). And "Theosophists, from whom many New Age teachings originated, refer to Jesus as the Master Jesus and believe the Christ, after various incarnations occupied the body of Jesus." -- she does mention Christ occupying the body of Jesus, but I don't find the rest here. Should we delete these two sentences, which I think are somewhat WP:OR? --Stfg (talk) 16:26, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
    • The second sentence might be supported by page 1150. However, I'm not sure. I just can't comprehend New Age teachings.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:38, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
      • Me neither, and I grok very little of that page. Let's leave this question open a while, and see if anyone else has any suggestions. --Stfg (talk) 16:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Help needed note left on Talk WP Christianity

Appealed for eyes need on this "perceived logical improbabilities in Greek" on WP Christianity Lost original New Testament theories again. Since the Jesus article gets more traffic than the project, leaving a note here too. It needs users with some basic knowledge of NT textual history. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:36, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Establish a Church

I see no mention of an integral part of Christ's mission to establish a church among his people. I think it would be a good idea to add the beliefs of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints under the 'Religious Perspectives' section as their conception of Jesus is different than most Christians. This would include his mission to establish a church based on organization of ordained Prophets and Apostles. If not, I think some reference to the Restorationism belief system would be fair--- That is, those believing in restorationism believe that the church Jesus established in these ancient days has been brought up again among men. I do see in the FAQ where denominations are left out for the sake of length issues, but I still don't see any mention of Christ's efforts to establish a church in any capacity.

Thank you in advance for your consideration. --D. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.106.18.70 (talk) 20:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

In the introduction, it says "Most Christians believe that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of a virgin, performed miracles, founded the Church, died sacrificially by crucifixion to achieve atonement, rose from the dead, and ascended into heaven, from which he will return." Ian.thomson (talk) 21:14, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Jesus Christ as his official name

Hi folks! I'm a new created user and after a few days when I have permission to protected articles, I'm going to change the name of the main article from "Jesus" to "Jesus Christ" because Jesus Christ is the name where he is well known and just Jesus can also mean "Jesus of Nazareth". Please do not revert my edit when the time has come. Thanks! Bao-Dur (talk) 09:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi Bao-Dur. You will find you cannot do that, because there is already a page called Jesus Christ, which redirects to this article, and only admins can switch such things round. In general, it's better to discuss such changes rather than simply announce that you're going to do them, as other editors may have a different opinion. In fact, this topic has already been discussed and decided, as you can see at Q1 on the FAQ page. Best, --Stfg (talk) 10:11, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
It may be that this topic has been discussed but if you take the German Wikipedia for example, you will recognize that the main article of Jesus is called "Jesus Christ" and in the German Wikipedia there is also another article called "Jesus of Nazareth". So "Jesus Christ" sounds good for the main article and I'm going to convince an admin to fix my opinion. First I have to wait until I can edit protected articles. Thanks! Bao-Dur (talk) 13:35, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia! To convince an admin, you will first need to establish a WP:consensus at the talk page. What folks do at the other wikipedias does not influence what we do here. Anyways, this issue was discussed before, and it's unlikely that the title can be changed due to WP:NPOV issues. Not everyone considers Jesus to be the "Christ" (messiah).--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:53, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
"I'm going to convince an admin to fix my opinion"? I'm not sure what that means, but you will need to get a consensus here before an admin will change anything. German Wikipedia must make its own decisions, but Jesus Christ and Jesus of Nazareth are the same person, so to separate them makes little sense to me. The German Jesus Christ article says at the top: "This article is about Jesus Christ, as represented in the original Christian texts. For the historical person see 'Jesus of Nazareth'". (the same system is adopted by French Wikipedia, but not others) That seems to me to be an inappropriate approach. However, it just so happens that it's not how we organise things. We have a single article on Jesus, including various views, both Christian and secular, and other linked articles detailing differing interpretations of him. We can't just change the title. We'd have to change the whole content of this and other articles. Paul B (talk) 13:49, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
(ec) Like Paul B said. Also, please bear in mind that this English article discusses both the historical person and the beliefs of several religions about him. The term "Christ" shouldn't be included in the title of an article with such scope, because it means "the anointed", and many of those religions don't accord Jesus that status. --Stfg (talk) 14:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
(ec)What Bao Dur may not be aware of, and what the FAQ Q1 does not make too clear, is that "Christ" is not a name (although nowadays sometimes assumed to be one by laymen), but a religious statement that only is accepted by Christians. Literally, it means "the anointed", which in Hebrew is "the Messiah", and in context the Jewish saviour prophesied in the Tanakh. Even among Abrahamic religions, neither mainstream Jews nor Muslims accept Jesus as "the" Messiah. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:16, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 June 2013

please change Amy-Jill Levine to 36 AD because it was opinion from scholar that is not from Christian background nor Christian follower, meanwhile this page contain Jesus prescription according to Christian faith, and that Amy-Jill Levine is Jews, his/her writing consider negative propaganda of Christian faith that could harmful to some people. Thank you for keeping this wikipedia not part of anti-religion, hate-speech and totalitarian propaganda.

"Amy-Jill Levine states that the general scholarly consensus is that Jesus was a contemporary of John the Baptist and was crucified by Roman governor Pontius Pilate, who reigned from 26 to 36 AD"

223.255.231.40 (talk) 10:37, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

No change is necessary, as the sentence contains no "propaganda" of any kind. It simply and neutrally states a part of the scholarly consensus. --Stfg (talk) 11:01, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

|ans= This is truly propaganda for it shows no majority acceptance in his/ her opinion and n evidence of his/her role in historal research about Jesus in major scholarly concensus.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.255.231.40 (talk • contribs)

You're not objecting to the text, but rather it comes from a biblical scholar who is not a Christian? Have I got that right? --NeilN talk to me 11:59, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

|ans= Yes, off course that is my point. Referencing any people who are not Christian believer is a process of propaganda towards history of Christianity. Do wikipedia will referencing what Stalin think in page that wrote about Democracy ( Although his opinion only contain good thing about democracy ?For example maybe like this : "Democracy is a part of philosophy " ) I don`t think so, because Stalin in his other writing oppose to democracy and promote communism. Referencing Stalin to a democracy page seems not offense the page, but in fact it`s the process of propaganda toward communism because when peple read about the democracy page and found Stalin name in those page, what will people do, u guess ? People wl look for the person who give the opinion. This is Propaganda, propaganda is not just act of direct influencing but also indirect action such as provoke, writing good words, etc. If this page is abut Jesus whom majority believe is subject of preaching in Christianity, then yu shuld referencing other people who capable do real introduction about the figure history. And this Amy Jill Levin is not even known to general scholar, so I thought this is a propaganda toward promoting this Amy opinion. But it`s okay if some of you disagree, because I don`t think you`re a Christian . I just give positive suggestion toward this wikipedia. And this Amy is judging real Christian as Anti semitism and promote his/her opinion how Christian should think about Christian history although he/she is not Christian and what I thought, that he/she is a funny propagandist and I suggest he / she should write in Uncyclopedia rather than in wikipedia page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.255.231.40 (talk • contribs)

I'm afraid you are not making much sense. The sentence quoted from Levine does not say anything that even a Biblical literalist would disagree with. You seem to be objecting to the mention of Levine herself because of other views you attribute to her that are not even mentioned here. Paul B (talk) 16:20, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
1) There's no need for the "|ans=" before each reply 2) You proposal is cringe-worthy. You're attacking someone because of their religion, not their credentials and you want to keep Wikipedia "hate-speech" free? If we do as you suggest, only Native American scholars could comment on Native American topics, only Zoroastrians would be used as sources for Zoroastrianism. Absurd. If you want Levine out of the article, you need to provide concrete evidence (not your personal opinion) that she's an unreliable source or that her statement is incorrect or provide a better source for that statement (and explain why). --NeilN talk to me 16:21, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Attacking someone and defending my rights is far different. So now I`m the one who attacking people who wrote about my own religion, while he/she is not from my religion ? And I should hear what communist/moslem/jews view about Jesus,then ? The fact we got in this page is there is no word that state this Amy is Jews and his opinion is from his own opinion toward Jesus figure. You hide something for showing this Amy name ( an unknown name to real and common biblical scholar, while there`re thousands scholar name with well known reputation as a historist ),which is technique of anti religious propaganda. But it seems nothing will change this page because of our difference, I guess. It`s true if An object see by some people, there will be different opinion because it seen from many angle but is it not that majority acceptance is consider the rightest opinion. If everybody who only have a little knowledge about the subject, then Palestinian should give a right to show his opinion in Israel nation page, because they have ground of argument, they have a source for they live longer than Israelite in that area. But that consider harmful for some people, isn't that right ? Thank you for spreading anti-semitism word which I read Jews totalitarian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.255.224.101 (talk) 20:56, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Sources for Jewish views

Are any of these sources reliable?

Even if they are, shouldn't we use more professional sources?--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:03, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

I went ahead and replaced all these sources, except the Aish.com one, which I think is reliable.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:34, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Non-English names in the lede

There seems to be a bit of a back-and-forth about whether to have the Greek or the Hebrew version in the lede. What are the criteria for deciding which to include? Why not include both? Also, User:Evanh2008 said in an edit summary, "ישוע is Aramaic anyway, shortened form of Hebrew יהושע" . If that's so, the Etymology of names section needs correction. --Stfg (talk) 11:19, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Right, well, my understanding was that Yeshua originated in Aramaic as a shortened form of Yehoshua, and I'm certain I've heard that stated by some source somewhere. I can't find it at the moment, and the fact remains that, judging from the Minor Prophets, the name had entered common Hebrew usage by the dawn of the Common Era. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 11:31, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

If this is going to cause problems, we could just not include any version (Greek or Hebrew) of the name in the lede. Anyways I think Evanh2008 is right. Read the 3rd paragraph of this page. It says Yeshua is Aramaic and Yehoshua is Hebrew.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, omitting all non-English versions would be a very reasonable thing to do. In articles about Russian authors and suchlike, where the name in English is a transliteration (sometimes even a controversial one) we need the original-language name. But Jesus isn't a transliteration, just the English name. I suggest fixing the Etymology section, though. --Stfg (talk) 15:59, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Done. I've fixed the etymology section, and removed the Greek form from the lede.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:53, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Huh. I was right and didn't know it. Weird. Anyway, I don't object too fiercely to not having a non-English name in the lede. If we're going to have one, I recommend Iesous, since Greek would be the most liturgically and historically important, for obvious reasons. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 19:46, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
We've gone over this several times. Greek is included because the only primary source documents we have are in Greek. We do not have any primary source documents that include his name in Hebrew. ReformedArsenal (talk) 20:20, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Pretty much what I was getting at, yes. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 20:24, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I guess that makes sense.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:09, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Just throwing this out there—I don't think there's a pressing need to have any particular alternative name in the lead, especially when he has so many other names. Most readers are not looking for that particular bit of information right off the bat; they're looking for an overview of the subject in the first paragraph. I would consider alternative names/transliterations a detail that doesn't belong in the first sentence, especially when "Jesus" is an overwhelmingly common name for him (he is not some obscure foreign figure who is rarely written about in English, where a transliteration would be immediately useful). —Designate (talk) 21:15, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Ready for FAC?

I'm currently working on unbundling refs for consistency and adding isbn, publisher and other missing parameters to refs that need them. After I'm done with this, I think this article might be ready for FAC. However, to avoid a premature nomination, I want to make sure it's absolutely ready. What do you guys think? Does the article still have issues that need to be addressed?--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:20, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

It's looking very good. I've done another quick pass, and there's:
  • The start of the Genealogy and Nativity section sandwiches text between an image and the {{Gospel Jesus}} box, violating MOS:IMAGELOCATION.
  • In the Last Supper section, near the end of paragraph 2, I think it may need to explain what the "words of institution" are.
  • Archaeology section: How might archaeological remains be attributed to Jesus? Associated with him, perhaps?
But that's all I could see to worry about. --Stfg (talk) 16:15, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the copyedits. As for the issues...
  • Yeah, we might need to remove or move some of the images.
  • We could reword to something like this: "...has a eucharistic character and resonates with the institution narratives in the Synoptic Gospels..."
  • I agree that "associated" is a better word.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:35, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
I think I've now fixed all of these issues.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:54, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Looks good. I agree that wikilinking to institution narratives is a good approach. --Stfg (talk) 17:29, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I've went ahead and nominated the article.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:17, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Bible citations

User:Afaprof01 is trying to change the wikisource bible citations to the template:bibleref2 ones. If we are going to use that template, please add "ASV" to the parameter so that the template links to the American Standard Version, the version used for this article's quotations. Without the parameter, it won't link to that version. We use the ASV because it's in public domain, and we won't need to worry about copyright issues.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:12, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Just one comment: the article used to render incredibly slowly, which is often a symptom of heavy use of templates (especially citation templates, which are complex). It seems a bit quicker now than a month ago, but will the suggested change have much impact on rendering time? --Stfg (talk) 08:35, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Article size#Technical issues, the loading time is dependent on the Browser-page size (or file size). Switching to the bibleref2 template significantly reduces the article's markup size, but has virtually no effect on the Browser-page size. The file size of this article (which can be checked using Dr pda's script) before Afaprof01 made the edit was 62kB, and the size after he made the edit was still 62kB.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:14, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
The issue I was raising was not loading time but rendering time. I don't know the current situation, and I believe Lua is/was expected to change it, but it's something to be aware of. By the way, the 62Kb figure is only the text size. The file size (836Kb) is still well within limits, though. Cheers, --Stfg (talk) 13:52, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Re: ASV. It was published in 1901. Therefore, (1) it does not take advantage of any recent biblical research, and (2) it uses KJV Elizabethan pronouns and verbs, rendering it far less understandable by or attractive to contemporary readers. I know of no major books with recent publication dates that quote from ASV. I also don't know of any other prominent Wikipedia articles on biblical matters that defer to the ASV. (3) There must be others, but with almost all my focus on biblical articles, this is the only one in which I have encountered ASV. I don't see why we are making this most major article so much less understandable to contemporary readers. Apparently the copyright isn't a problem issue since we are getting it from Bible Gateway which encourages users to include calls to their site in all other on-line pubs. (4) As to the quotes in this article, I am updating them as I make the citation changes. It's a lot of work, but I don't mind that. I request your concurrence to proceed Thanks Afaprof01 (talk) 22:27, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
It's unlikely that we'll be able to use the NIV for the bible quotes in the article, because they require us add a very long copyright notice at the top of the article. The ESV requires adding "ESV" at the end of the quotation for non-commercial works, and explicit permission for commercial works. I'm not sure, but Wikipedia might fall into that second category. Anyways I started a discussion at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions#Bible quotations to get some answers.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:35, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
I am not a lawyer, but assuming Bible Gateway's copyright information re:NIV to be intended for the more typical user, I do not interpret it as requiring any disclosure: (1) up to and inclusive of five hundred (500) verses [we're not close!]; (2) the verses do not amount to a complete book of the Bible [none of ours amount to that]; (3) the verses quoted must not account for twenty-five percent (25%) or more of the total text of the work in which they are quoted [again, we're not close]. Wikipedia is registered as a non-profit corporation so articles are explicitly not for profit use. Thus, I maintain the generous fair use clause authorizes the NIV quotations in the "Jesus" article (as well as all others) on Wikipedia: "The NIV text may be quoted in any form (written, visual, electronic or audio." Afaprof01 (talk) 02:14, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Okay, you can go ahead and change the quotes to the NIV if you want. Hopefully you're right about the copyright situation. I just hope that the FAC reviewers won't bug us about this :)—FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:22, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

@Afaprof01, please don't use decorative quote characters either for single or for double quotes; they are MOS-noncompliant and will cause a FAC to quickfail. Use only ' and " as on a normal keyboard. --Stfg (talk) 06:45, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay per the discussion at the Media copyright questions page, we can only use public domain or creative commons versions of the bible. Since ASV is not popular here due to its use of old English, how about we use the more modern Open English Bible instead? --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:31, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Nevermind, the OEB version has problems. For example, Jesus' answer to Caiaphas' question for most translations in Matthew is along the lines of "You have said so", and in Luke is more or less "You say that I am". In both cases, his answer is not direct. However, in the OEB version, Jesus' answer in both gospels is "It is true", clearly a direct answer.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:07, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
@FutureTrillionaire: Dear Brother. I feel VERY frustrated that you reverted several hours of my work. You are jumping the gun and ignoring my appeal to wait for my contact with the publisher and the only statement thereafter which reads: "Afaprof01 is right that no one should be on any campaign to rid WP of existing copyrighted-quoted Bible texts that otherwise meet our citation policy; a much more detailed discussion should be had at the Bible Wikiproject to encourage swapping when it is possible" by doing exactly what this user cautions against. Your wholesale reversions certainly appear to be your "campaign to rid WP of existing copyrighted-quoted Bible texts that otherwise meet our citation policy." Until we have some definitive word to the contrary, I will greatly appreciate your restoring my edits that I made on faith in your "Go ahead" message.
I am presuming you may qualify as a "Millenial" in our society—a group I not only teach but whose biases about our faith I have particularly studied (cf. Kinneman, David. You Lost Me—Why Young Christians Are Leaving Church...and Rethinking Faith). Barna research shows that "millions of young Christians are disconnecting from church as they transition into adulthood." There was no justification for a compulsive reversion back to the ASV which is anything but the language of young Christians who are leaving the Church en masse or anyone else whom we hope to reach for Christ.
As far as GA goes, I have been a GA evaluator and have never seen anyone raise the issue that you have raised (or for that matter, the issue that I have raised). GA status is unlikely to be of eternal significance for anyone, but the story and message of our Lord in the language of the reader may well be of eternal significance. Please re-consider this carefully and prayerfully. Thank you.Afaprof01 (talk) 22:34, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
@Afaprof01: You didn't switch all the quotes, making the article's translation styles inconsistent. You also broke some templates and images. I'm sorry if I have upsetted you, but I am merely following Wikipedia protocols. The status quo of the article was the ASV translation, so per WP:NOCONSENSUS, that should remain. I did not try to rid the article of "existing copyrighted-quoted Bible texts", merely restoring the status quo. You said on my talk page that you were going to replace the versions regardless of whether or not I agree ("I will proceed with the laborious replacements..."). I opposed the idea, but I didn't want to revert you until there is a consensus at WP:CQ against copyrighted translations.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Please be forthright when you quote me. I wrote you at 2057 UTC asking your permission, saying I would proceed with restoration of my many edits you had changed and would restore them to your ASV if I did not get your permission. Five minutes later (2103 UTC 6/24) I received a msg indicating to be from FutureTrillionaire and stating: "Okay. You can go ahead if you want.." Either I don't understand plain English or someone has hacked your account. Afaprof01 (talk) 04:07, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
For the record, the ESV isn't a problem with copyright's either (which is what the default translation for biblref2 is) since the copyright allows for up to 1000 verses to be quoted as long as it is not a complete book of the Bible and does not account for more than 50% of the work in which they are quoted. We're no where NEAR that in this article. I'd leave the template without a tag for consistency sake. See http://www.crossway.org/rights-permissions/esv/ for information. According to this all we have to do is add to the first citation a foot note that indicates that we are using the ESV and they're good). ReformedArsenal (talk) 04:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
ReformedArsenal, did you mean NIV? That is the default translation of Bibleref2. It is the translation version that enjoys the reputation of being most readable/understandable in modern English while incorporating the latest research into ancient (some recently discovered) versions of scripture. So far as I know, Futuretrillionaire is the only editor to raise issue with NIV. While ESV is much more recent than ASV, its copyright notice perhaps is more restrictive than NIV's. Afaprof01 (talk) 02:56, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Hebrews 1:1 without a translation switch brings me to the ESV. In what way is the ESV's more restrictive than the NIV's? The only thing that the ESV requires is for us to put “Scripture quotations are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version® (ESV®), copyright © 2001 by Crossway, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved.” in a foot note after the first citation... The only difference between the ESV and the NIV in this regard is that the ESV allows us to have 50% of an article be quotations, while the NIV only allows 25%. ReformedArsenal (talk) 20:30, 27 June 2013 (UTC)
Firstly, you shouldn't make a large edits without consensus in the first place. Secondly, I thought you were going to switch all of the quotes, but since you only switched around half, the article looked silly. What matters now is that there is a clear consensus at WP:CQ against using non-PD/non-free bible translations.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:09, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I've started an RfC concerning what should Wikipedia's policy be on the use of non-free Bible translations: Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 60#RfC: Use of non-free Bible translations.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

It appears that the discussion at the RfC agree that there is no legal or policy restrictions against the use of non-free translations, although free versions might be preferred. In light of this, I am willing to change the article's quotes from the ASV to the NRSV (widely regarded by scholars as the best translation available) if nobody objects.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:00, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
Done.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

ISBN

I reverted this edit because it made the placement of hyphens inconsistent. I could be wrong, but the I way I've always thought is that the placement of hyphens doesn't really matter as long as it's consistent for all the refs.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:53, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, yes, you are wrong. Neither the MOS, general usage, nor the ISBN standard agrees with you. Have you read International Standard Book Number? Mr Stephen (talk) 18:05, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
The article doesn't say much, but doing several tests using this this ISBN converter does seem to confirm the changes to the placement of hyphens. You can restore your edits if you wish.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:00, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Missing reference(s)

The article cites Grudem 1994 (cite 27) and Grudem 1995 (cite 93) - neither of which are in the Bibliography. Aa77zz (talk) 20:45, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

 Fixed Thanks for pointing that out.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:09, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 July 2013

Curious as to why the EXACT YEAR of the Birth of Jesus is not published because in the Holy Bible(Luke 3:1 and Luke 3:23)can be verified using a timeline with Tiberius Ceasar's reign(from Wikipedia page) together with those 2 verses gives an exact year of Jesus birth(much closer than what is there now for sure). Curious why that is not good enough to date Jesus' birth using those verses when other verses in Bible are used as reference all the time?

Karon777 (talk) 08:52, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

To begin with, different books in the Bible places Jesus birth at different times. Both Matthew and Luke write about Jesus birth, but they disagree about the time. Even if we wanted to use the Bible as our source, we could not be sure whether it's Matthew or Luke who's right, since at least one has to be wrong. Then there's the possibility that they are both wrong. So there is no definite RS for Jesus's birth, making it impossible for the article to state such a date.Jeppiz (talk) 12:25, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Should the possible birth year span be extended back more?

Some scholars think Jesus might have been born as early as 10, 12 or even 14 BC. Irenaeus seemed to have believed so and Robin Lane Fox believes this is so. Should we extend Jesus' possible birth year back a few years?

Thevideodrome (talk) 02:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Clearing up some citations

I've removed three sources from the "Etymology of names" section, including a Messianic Bible (arguably fringe and unreliable), what looks like a second unreliable source (Natan, self-published through a POD service called CreateSpace), and a book called The King James Conspiracy, which is... um... well, it's a novel.

I've replaced it with a cite to Ehrman's last book, Did Jesus Exist?, but I've hit a bit of a snag, as I only have the Nook book and am not sure about page numbers. On the Nook PC app with default text settings, it's page 29, which is cited elsewhere in this article, but I'm pretty sure the page number will not necessarily match up with the print edition. The paragraph I have in mind is a bullet point about 2/3 through the first chapter, under the heading rebutting The Jesus Mysteries. It begins with the text "The Gospel writers deliberately constructed the Greek name Jesus".

If someone could double-check and get a print page number, then make the necessary correction (or just reply here and let me know so I can), that would be great. Thanks! Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 09:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

I did a Google Book search for the Ehrman book and could not find a single result for "Yehoshua". Therefore, I suspect that Ehrman's book does not support the statement in the article. We might need to find a different source.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Nevermind, the Ehrman source does state that Yeshua is derived from the Hebrew word for Joshua. I've added a source that states that Joshua is a rendition of Yehoshua. I think the whole sentence is now supported by RS. As for the page number, I believe page 29 is correct, because the the part about Yeshua is on the same page as the quote "nearly anyone who lived in the first century", which is what the other citation is used for.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban?

Discussion on possible sanctions has been started at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Request swift admin intervention to prevent further disruption to the Jesus article by User Strangesad.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:29, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should user:Strangesad be topic banned from Jesus articles? His consistent promotion of a fringe viewpoint is disruptive imo.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

AN/I is thataway. This page is for discussion of article content itself. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 18:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Such concerns are best raised at one of the noticeboards, like WP:AN, rather than here. John Carter (talk) 18:27, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Agree that ANI is the proper venue, but I think his behavior is unlikely to be considered disruptive enough for a topic ban. (Which is not to say that I don't think he is disruptive. I do. Just that the bar for a topic ban is REALLY REALLY disruptive :)) Gaijin42 (talk) 18:36, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Ah, I see. I wasn't sure if a topic ban was appropriate, which is why I started this thread. Thanks for the clarification.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:03, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
On the other hand, warnings or temporary blocks for disruptive editing and edit warring are a much lower hurdle to cross. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:11, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment Yes, Strangesad should most definitely be topic banned. Strangesad has spent months edit warring on this topic. Strangesad has actively encouraged sockpuppetry to get support for her fringe views. Strangesad has verbally attacked countless of users who disagree with her, and admins who take decisions she doesn't like. While the actions this August would be enough for a topic ban if isolated, Strangesad's enormously disruptive behavior over this same topic during the spring this year came very close to seeing her topic ban already back then.Jeppiz (talk) 20:36, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

For those of you who don't know, a discussion on what to do with Strangesad has been started here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Request swift admin intervention to prevent further disruption to the Jesus article by User Strangesad.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:46, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice, FT. Now that the case at WP:AN has been started, I do feel very strongly that discussion of possible sanctions should not be continued here. This article talk page is not the right place to hold a side discussion. Shall we perhaps manually archive this section, without waiting for Miszabot's 21-day period? --Stfg (talk) 22:18, 9 August 2013 (UTC)\
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposed minor change in first paragraph

I propose changing

Christians believe Jesus to be the awaited Messiah of the Old Testament and refer to him as Jesus Christ, a name that is also used by non-Christians.

to the following (change in bold):

Christians believe Jesus to be the awaited Messiah of the Old Testament and refer to him as Jesus Christ, a name that is also used by some non-Christians.

This is a minor change, but give the edit warning, I am bring it here for discussion. I propose this because it is inaccurate to state unequivocally that non-Christians use the term "Jesus Christ". Adding "some" would further clarify the point that many use the term "Jesus Christ" and treat it has him name, but acknowledging that not all people do this. Note, I considered using "most" but I think that would only apply to English-speaking countries and we do not have any data saying what percentage of people use the term. The use of "some" seemed the most neutral to me. Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:58, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Sure. The proposal looks okay to me. We can do that or just remove the "a name that is also used by non-Christians" part.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:05, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Adding "some" looks to me like an improvement. --Stfg (talk) 21:00, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
I agree and apologies to EvergreenFir for the revert. I just saw the edit notice and thought it was one of those things that was going to cause a huge explosion. --Laser brain (talk) 21:12, 13 August 2013 (UTC)
Completely in favor of adding "some", good proposed change.Jeppiz (talk) 21:15, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Argument from silence

FutureT has now reverted this edit twice, without discussion in Talk: [2]. It adds quotes from the sources already in the article, and tweaks the wording to more accurately reflect what they say (they say arguments from silence are a legitmate tool). [3] Strangesad (talk) 17:26, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

The way you have worded it doesn't fit in well with the rest of the section. – Quadell (talk) 17:33, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
This has been discussed before. See Talk:Jesus/Archive 120#Disruptive edit to introduction.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:39, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
The extended quotes seem to be WP:SYNTH or WP:OR - they are not discussing arguments from silence in the context of Jesus are they? (If the sources are used elsewhere in the article, my objection would probably apply to that location as well)Gaijin42 (talk) 17:41, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

If you think it is synthesis, would you like to remove it? Strangesad (talk) 05:41, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Van Voorst, the other source in that section, is a pastor: Less expert on historical method and less objective about Jesus than the sources in question. If they contradict his view, his should be removed. His view doesn't really contradict theirs, however, it is just slanted more to the critical side, without mentioning that argument from silence is considered legitimate but imperfect (like all historical tools). As for being applied to jesus, no they don't apply it to Jesus, but I didn't add these sources, I'm just clarifying what they say. I would support removing all text on argument from silence from this article. Strangesad (talk) 17:49, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Voorst is discussing the argument from silence directly in the context of the historicity of Jesus. That nobody has refuted that argument, within the topic of Jesus, is not a cause to remove his statement. Have proponents of the argument from silence discussed the appropriateness of that argument? "Argument from silence" is widely described as a logical fallacy. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:02, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
It is not widely described as a logical fallacy, as the sources contained in this article demonstrate. The logical fallacy stuff is a strawman: arguments ex silencio do not prove anything, so it is a fallacy to use them in that way. But no historical arguments proves anything. Read the sources. I did nothing but add quotes from the sources already in the article, and change the wording to reflect what they actually say. If you suddenly don't like the sources, delete them. Van Voorst, however, is much less reliable on historical method than historians, so it would be odd to keep him and delete them. Strangesad (talk) 18:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Since those historians are not commenting about Jesus at all, they are a clear violation of WP:SYNTH (used anywhere in the article probably). voorst deos not suffer from that problem. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:14, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 August 2013

Please add to Existence, paragraph 4, Non-Christian sources, the Wikipedia comment on the existence of the Christ, referencing Suetonius, "Suetonius' mentions of Chrestus and Christiani, taken with that of Tacitus, is an important piece of evidence in scholarly discussions of the historicity of Jesus.[10]". (^ Drews Arthur, The Witnesses to the Historicity of Jesus, BiblioBazaar, LLC, 2009. p 18-20).Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page). This is additional information given to the probable existence of the Christ, in addition to Josephus and Tacitus. The direct link is on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suetonius (The Great Fire and Christiani) Saul Vargas Tenorio (talk) 19:46, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Not done:. Thanks for suggesting this. Suetonius is discussed at length at Historicity of Jesus#Suetonius, which is linked as a main article from Jesus#Existence. There, it is explained that Suetonius was probably confused, and that "there is no overall scholarly agreement about [his] value as a reference to Jesus". Because of this lack of solidity, this is probably too minor a detail to include in this already very large summary article. --Stfg (talk) 11:58, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Historicity

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I've removed text that asserts historicity as a consensus, since the sources were cherry-picked, and only expressed the sources' opinions. I'll say more a little later, when I have more time. Strangesad (talk) 16:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

For example, a scholar who questions the existence of jesus: Michael Martin (philosopher) Strangesad (talk) 17:00, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Under footnote "d" we mention Robert M. Price, who believes that Jesus did not exist, but also writes that most scholars disagree with him. Regardless of what Martin believes, does he dispute that most scholars disagree with him? —Cliftonian (talk) 17:05, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
The article doesn't say "most." It says "virtually all". 51% is very different from 99%. Anyway, most of the sources have a theological background not a historical one, and they are giving their opinions. There is no clear definition of what they mean by "scholar", but they seem to mean religion professors rather than historiians. The citation says stuff like Micahale Grant is a classicist, without mentioning that his specialty was Roman coins, and never mentions that all the sources for these claims are popular books, author interviews promoting their popular books, and so on. This has been discussed at great length here and on Resurrection of Jesus. It always ends with the minority skeptics being chased off by those guarding these articles.
I'm not sure who closed/hid this section, or why, but it seemed oppressively aggressive. Strangesad (talk) 17:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Its closed for just the reason stated - this is an issue that has been debated ad nauseum. The concensus is what is stated on the page. Ckruschke (talk) 17:23, 6 August 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke


Consensus can change, and saying it has been debated "ad nauseum" suggests that there are many views on it. It also doesn't address the points. When you say "virtually all" it should not be easy to find reliable counter-examples. Elaine Pagels, GA Wells, Betrand Russell, Richard Dawkins, and Price are all scholars who have expressed doubt. Strangesad (talk) 17:31, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Be careful not to confuse "notable people who have expressed an opinion" with historians and academics whose opinions actually matter as far as "historicity". Dawkins for example is very notable, but I'm not sure what gives weight to his opinions on historical facts or not. Also be careful to separate "did a Person named Jesus exist, who was the focal point for these stories" from "Is the Bible an accurate historical record of the actions of Jesus", which are two very different questions. In particular Wells seems to argue that Jesus was attributed with the mantle of many other older myths and figures - which is very plausible, but also a separate issue from if he existed or not. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
"Jesus probably existed.” – Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, p.122 Smeat75 (talk) 17:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I think Dawkins has said Jesus existed, but he also said that Jesus would be an atheist. What Dawkins means by Jesus is not clearly "a Jewish preacher from Galilee, baptized by John the Baptist, and crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman prefect, Pontius Pilate" as represented in this article. Strangesad (talk) 18:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Regarding the "virtualy all" statements, this book review reveals that Ehrman's definition of "scholar" is surprisingly narrow. Not what the average reader is going to expect:

"By serious scholar, Ehrman means one holding a PhD ... and currently tenured in the field of New Testament studies" [4].

I propose we change the wording of the article to "According to Ehrman, virtually everyone tenured in the field of the New Testament studies...." to more accurately reflect the source. Also, Van Voorst's Wikipedia page descibes him as a pastor. A pastor is not in a position to be objective about the historical reality of Jesus. Strangesad (talk) 16:54, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

In addition, a popup note in the lede mentions Ehrman's background as "secular agnostic". The term "secular" is redundnat, and should be removed as a matter of style. More importantly, if we are going to give his background, it is fair & balanced to mention that his early degrees are from a Bible college and a theological seminary, and he grew up an evangelical. Strangesad (talk) 16:58, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
No, leave it as it is. Neither Bertrand Russell nor Richard Dawkins for example have the slightest expertise in the field. Johnbod (talk) 17:08, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't knowwhat you're geting at. I am saying something about giving the reader more information about Ehrman's background and what he means by "scholar." As a reader, I would assume the appropriate scholar is a historian. Ehrman means only a professor in New Testament studies. In other words, Ehrman's definition excludes Michael Grant.... Do you happen to know the religious demographics of people who pursue New Testament degrees? Strangesad (talk) 17:22, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
I think we should not be discussing the background of these sources, as it is using wikipedia's voice to bolster or weaken the arguments, which is a form of WP:OR Gaijin42 (talk) 17:20, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
The only reason that Ehrman's agnosticism and secularism are mentioned is because some misguided souls argue that the sources which say that the non-existence of Jesus is a fringe view are not to be trusted because they are religious, and religious people are not to be trusted in these matters, no matter what their qualifications are. If people would stop making this argumentum ad hominem, then the response would not be necessary. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 18:10, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
The book review you cite says Ehrman defines "serious scholar" as "one holding a PhD ... and currently tenured in the field of New Testament studies" but I would like to see a quote from Ehrman himself saying that. I am sure he would not say that Michael Grant was not a serious scholar as he was one of the most respected classical historians of the 20th century. It is only here on WP talk pages that I have ever seen Grant dismissed as a writer of "popular books" who speciality was coins. Ehrman is excluding self published authors and bloggers such as Earl Doherty, Robert Carrier and D.M. Murdock but does say that mythicist Robert Price is a serious scholar.Smeat75 (talk) 19:14, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
It is common to indicate the person's background when it might be of interestr, or indicate a slant on the source's perspective. For example, many Wikipedia articles refer to sources as "liberal" or "conservative" and so on. This article often does the same. A priest obviously has a conflict of interest in this subject. someone with a highly evangelical background is going to prone to certain perspectives and assumptions. Strangesad (talk) 18:13, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
Sorry I meant Richard Carrier above, not Robert. I think identifying sources' religious beliefs or lack of them, or backgrounds, is superfluous and in poor taste.Smeat75 (talk) 00:45, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Everyone who has more than a passing interest in Early Christian history should know about Ehrman, and they can get a good start on that if they click his hyper-linked name. However, it is in fact highly unusual to give details to someone's background when merely citing them. What might be of more interest to the reader than his background is Ehrman's current standing: If Ehrman has his own original thought published on any aspect of either Early Christian history or New Testament textual criticism, then every other scholar writing on that aspect cites Ehrman, because he is so well-respected in the field. That tells you a lot more about the value of his perspective than the fact that he went to Moody. But this article is not about Ehrman, it's about Jesus, so there's no good reason to go into such matters for this article. If his background is there to indicate a slant on his perspective, what slant is supposed to be indicated? What slant does Ehrman have, and what reliable sources indicate that he has that slant? --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 18:39, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
What I'm saying is: If you're trying to help the reader contextualise Ehrman's opinion so that they have some understanding of the authority of his opinion, then rather than trying to make his opinion seem to be of dubious authority, you should be trying to make his opinion seem to be of the utmost authority, because he is such a well-regarded historian of Early Christianity. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 18:56, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
I haven't read Ehrman's book. However, there is no reason to think the book reviewer is lying, and it is highly consistent with Ehrman's remarks on the Huffington Post. There he also equates respectable scholars with people who hold positions in religion departments and have degrees in New Testament Studies.[5]. This is not what we lead the reader to expect when we say "virtually all scholars." Strangesad (talk) 05:12, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
Here is a direct quote from Ehrman's book: "none is written by ... scholars trained in New Testament or early Christian studies teaching at the major, or even the minor, accredited theological seminaries, divinity schools...of the thousands of scholars of early Christianity who do teach at such schools, none of them to my knowledge has any doubt Jesus existed. But a whole body of literature ...some of it highly intelligent and well-informed makes this case....a couple of bona fide scholars--not professors teaching religious in universities but scholars nonetheless, and at least one of them with a Ph.D in the field of New Testament--have taken this position." [6]
So, he repeatedly equates experts with religion professors (i.e. himself). He also states that some bona fide scholars have argued Jesus didn't exist. Of course, elsewhere he uses terms like "virtually all." That's what you get when you cite a popular book. This article distorts the source. Strangesad (talk) 05:35, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
You missed a word: he wrote "... teaching religious studies in universities ...". And I think we should note what he wrote immediately after: "Their books ... do occupy a noteworthy niche as a (very) small but (often) loud minority voice. Once you tune into this voice, you quickly learn just how persistent and vociferous it can be." --Stfg (talk) 15:12, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
You deleted a lot of sources on spurious grounds and you once again altered the second sentence of the lead, which is a paraphrase of a direct quote from Bart Ehrman as cited. You do not have consensus for these changes. Show me anywhere in any WP guideline or policy that forbids or discourages use of "popular books". Is it OK to cite "unpopular books" in your opinion? It is a ridiculous, meaningless phrase. Please see WP:RS - " Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both." Please stop your disruptive edits to this article. Smeat75 (talk) 12:48, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
"Second paragraph" of the lead, not sentence, I meant. Smeat75 (talk) 13:08, 9 August 2013 (UTC)
My "spurious" grounds for deleting the sources is that they don't actually support the text in the question. They don't say what we say they say. That's not spurious, that's honest. As for Ehrman, I am adding to the use of his popular book. Your comments seem a bit in denial. If it is OK to cite Ehrman's book when implying no credible sources are mythicists, then why isn't it OK to cite that exact same book when he says that, OK, actually, there are some credible mythicists? What we really should do is inform the reader of what Ehrman means. When he says "virtually all" what he means is all religion professors currently holding a position at a university (+ Bible college and seminary). When he says there a some "bona fide" skeptics, he is using a broader definition of "scholar." Instead of trying to whitewash the diversity, inform the reader of it. Strangesad (talk) 14:53, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't know, guys, but it seems like a small group of you took over this article when Strangesad came along. Just so you know, Wikipedia:Ownership of articles is not good practice in this community, even if it's from a small group of two or three of you. I noticed some of the edits he made seemed to be removed out of spite. This is warlike behaviour. Here's an example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Jesus&diff=569079678&oldid=569036514

I don't see that being a "disruptive" edit, but the editor reverted it as "disruptive", funny that the reversion is the disruptive behaviour in this case. Guys, you have to let other people make edits, even if you know you disagree with their ideology. Getting her banned was the wrong thing to do. She was not vandalizing, but the small group of three or four of you managed to find a like minded moderator to give her a ban. Have another look at that edit and let's discuss for re-introduction, and be a little more grown up about out it other than saying "it's disruptive". What part about the edit violates wiki policy? How is it not relevant to the section of the article it was put in? What exactly is wrong with it? Greengrounds (talk) 04:08, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Non-Christian Sources

"Non-Christian sources used to establish the historical existence of Jesus include the works of first-century historians Josephus and Tacitus.[215][234] Josephus scholar Louis H. Feldman has stated that "few have doubted the genuineness" of Josephus' reference to Jesus in book 20 of the Antiquities of the Jews, and it is disputed only by a small number of scholars.[235][236] Tacitus referred to Christ and his execution by Pilate in book 15 of his work Annals. Scholars generally consider Tacitus's reference to the execution of Jesus to be both authentic and of historical value as an independent Roman source.[237]"

I've looked at all these sources. None of them state that the manuscripts in question establish the existence of jesus. They are concenred with whether the passages referring to jesus were actually written by Josephus and Tacitus (respectively). All say that virtually nobody thinks the Josephus passage is authentic as written; most think there was some reference to Jesus which was embellished subsequently. The article also omits the relevant detail that these writers lived several generations after the death of Jesus and are not eye-witness accounts. Strangesad (talk) 05:57, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

You might want to look at them again: "It is occasionally doubted if Jesus even existed. This claim can be decisively refuted without once appealing to Christian evidence. The non-Christian testimonies from antiquity may be divided into Greco-Roman and Jewish sources..." (Blomberg p. 431).--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:34, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
That source isn't reliable, as I pointed out in the FAC:
  • Blomberg, Craig L. (2009). Jesus and the Gospels: An Introduction and Survey. B&H Publishing Group.
  • The publisher's Web site: "B&H Publishing Group, a division of LifeWay Christian Resources, is a team of more than 100 mission-minded people with a passion for taking God's Word to the world. B&H exists to provide intentional, Bible-centered content that positively impacts the hearts and minds of people, inspiring them to build a lifelong relationship with Jesus Christ."
  • The author: "Dr. Craig Blomberg joined the faculty of Denver Seminary in 1986. He is currently a distinguished professor of New Testament. Dr. Blomberg completed his PhD in New Testament, specializing in the parables and the writings of Luke-Acts, at Aberdeen University in Scotland. He received an MA from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School...." And about his professorship: "Denver Seminary prepares men and women to engage the needs of the world with the redemptive power of the gospel and the life-changing truth of Scripture....in order to lead God’s people in the accomplishment of His mission in the world."
Meanwhile, our policy on reliable sources states: "Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view", and that religious sources are prone to bias. We already have a large number of sources that have a personal mission statement of promoting Christianity. This one is the most over the top.
Bloomberg has no background in history. His specialties are the New Testament (a text), parables and writings. A translater of the Odyssey can't be assumed to be an expert on the Greek Bronze age, and a (religiously biased) expert on the New Testament is not an expert on the history of the period. (You also ignored all the other sources used in the section, which don't say anything about "establishing", except maybe Voorst who has same faults as Bloomberg as a source.) Strangesad (talk) 16:32, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
I added a citation to Tuckett 2001 to help alleviate any concerns you may have with the claim: [[7]]. Remember that WP:RS is about identifying reliable sources, and there are many grounds on which a source can be reliable. The sections you are quoting are about specific grounds. If a ground is undermined on any such consideration, a source can still be considered reliable on other grounds. I too don't think Blomberg is the best source, but I wouldn't say he has no background in history. He has monographs on Early Christian history which have some legitimacy (i.e., critical reviews, but not dismissive), and then he has papers in good journals. His PhD dissertation at Duke was semi-historical (i.e., he weighs the historical value of the different accounts of the baptism) along with being theological. Certainly I think he would be the type of person that Ehrman for example would call a "bona fide scholar". (Also just for future reference: WP:RS is a content guideline and not a policy; thinking all those sorts of pages are policies was certainly something I thought before someone corrected me). --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 01:10, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
So Louis Feldman is now added to Strangesad's list of eminent scholars whose statements she rejects. It does not matter what you or I think about what Michael Grant, Louis Feldman or Bart Ehrman says, Strangesad, they are the WP:RS, we are not. The only thing you can do is find a quote from an equivalent authority to Feldman on Josephus who agrees with you, and good luck with that. Also it would be helpful if you would take the trouble to read and watch (such as debates with William Lane Craig, not quoted in this article at all) what you are posting before you comment. Feldman is not talking about the " Testimonium Flavianum", which is the passage which is considered to have been embellished, but "the reference in Book 20, Chapter 9, 1 of the Antiquities to "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James" as the article clearly states - "Josephus scholar Louis H. Feldman has stated that "few have doubted the genuineness" of Josephus' reference to Jesus in book 20 of the Antiquities of the Jews, and it is disputed only by a small number of scholars.Smeat75 (talk) 22:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
"The article also omits the relevant detail that these writers lived several generations after the death of Jesus and are not eye-witness accounts." That detail is only considered relevant by people who have never studied any figure from antiquity except for Jesus and do not realise that there are many, many personages from the ancient Roman empire who are only known from one or two references in works such as Tacitus or Josephus whose existence is never doubted. As your favourite Michael Grant quote says, there is "very abundant evidence" that Jesus existed.Smeat75 (talk) 22:59, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Policy on Reliable Sources

Found some relevant text in the policy on reliable sources:

  • Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Sometimes "non-neutral" sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking. Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source, as in "According to the opinion columnist Maureen Dowd..." or "According to the opera critic Tom Sutcliffe..."
  • "Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view."

These are actionable problems. The majority of publishers in the "existence" section of this article are imprints with a mission of promoting Jesus. Obviously, a publisher whose Web site says “Eerdmans has long been known for publishing a wide range of Christian and religious books, from academic works in Christian theology, biblical studies, religious history, and reference to popular titles in spirituality....” meets the criterion of existing to promote a particular view. And when half the sourcing is that one publisher, care has not been taken. Strangesad (talk) 06:10, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Nobody disputes that there are different opinions here; some people believe Jesus was a real historical person, others don't. The issue is about how much weight should be given to the non-historicist view. In the scholarly world, it is very clear that the overwhelming consensus is for historicity (whether minimalist or maximalist), and there are ample citations to support this. The article, rightly, favours the consensus view. We cannot give equal space to the mythicist view; that would be undue weight to a small minority viewpoint.
The reference to journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view is about publications that have no other purpose but to promote a view that would not otherwise be supported - 'astroturf' sources, in other words. This does not describe the journals listed here. Of course they tend to promote the theological viewpoint, but that's incidental. That's not their purpose, any more than journals on LGBT issues have a mission of promoting same-sex attraction. Clearly, the vast majority of scholars writing on New Testament studies are Christians of some kind, and no doubt that makes them favour some views more than others. It would be much better if there were scholars from a much broader range of backgrounds writing on the subject. Possibly in the future, there will be. But right now, we can only represent the consensus of views existing in contemporary scholarship. To exclude them would result in giving massively undue weight to a minority viewpoint. --Rbreen (talk) 14:28, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
For the millionth time, I am not saying and have never said that we should give equal weight to the mythicist view. The publishers state explicitly on their Web sites that they have a mission of promoting Jesus. It is not like your analogy to LGBT issues. See my response to FT above. As for the point about a minority viewpoint, I'd like to offer a few observations:
  • If we do not consciously limit such sources, we could easily end up saying the resurrection of Jesus is historical fact. Or at least, its historicity is genuinely controversial among scholars. It most certainly is controversial among scholars if you include the types of sources used here. For example, here is a debate between two scholars considered reliable by this article. They are seriously debating whether Jesus rose from the dead. [8]
  • Sometimes, a good encyclopedia has to give "undue" weight to a minority viewpoint. For example, Creationism is a majority viewpoint around the world, and there could easily be more ink spilled defending it than debunking it. so what. Sometimes, you have to limit religious scholarship in order to get a fair read on the correct scholarship. Historical claims are no different. Strangesad (talk) 16:43, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
"here is a debate between two scholars considered reliable by this article" William Lane Craig is not mentioned in the article or used anywhere in it as a reference.Smeat75 (talk) 22:18, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
We don't weight opinions according to how many people believe them - your point about Creationism is a good justification of why not. That is why Wikipedia goes by the majority of scholarly opinion. The vast majority of scholarly opinion is of the opinion that Creationism is completely wrong, and articles should reflect that consensus, no matter how many people out there agree with it. That means our view is inevitably biased by the consensus among scholars. Wikipedia is naturally biased towards the consensus of scholars, and reflects that bias. It's not perfect but it's the best we have. Your view, clearly, is that in the story of Jesus the scholarly bias is wrong. You're entitled to that opinion, but it is not the opinion of Wikipedia, it's not the opinion of the majority of editors here, and if you want to edit on that basis, you will get nowhere. How do you suggest we decide what constitutes "a fair read"? What you think? What I think? That's not going to work. It's not about giving equal weight to the mythicist view - it's about not giving undue weight to what is, according to our sources, a small minority view. We reflect the fact that it's a minority. If we decide to reduce the use of 'religious' scholars, we start getting into original research. Who decides what constitutes a 'religious' scholar? Who decides how much weight to give 'religious' scholarship as opposed to others? We have no standards to use, and would inevitably end up in a subjective morass. In fact, the scholarship covers a wide range of views and beliefs and some of the undoubtedly religious ones (eg Crossan) take a more skeptical view of the sources than agnostic ones (eg Ehrman). The consensus among scholarly writers in New Testament studies is certainly not to assume that the Resurrection was a real event. William Lane Craig, for instance, is certainly not taken seriously as a NT scholar. Even those who do believe in it are generally scrupulous about emphasising that it's their point of view. In an ideal world, we would have scholars from a more diverse range of backgrounds writing on this subject. But we don't, and we have to live with that and go with that. It's not ideal, but personally I would prefer to go with the consensus in the Society of Biblical Literature (say) than your personal view of what constitues 'a fair read on the correct scholarship'. Sorry - but that's how Wikipedia works. --Rbreen (talk) 23:19, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Rbreen (talk) the problem with what you're saying here is that it's unrealistic. It is the editors who decide what is valid scholarly opinion, how much weight it gets, etc. It's on us, the editors. In fact, it is a democracy, and if the creationists or fundamentalist Christians want to learn how to use Wikipedia to change jesus' myths into jesus' historicity, they will, and if there's enough of them, nobody can stop them. So when we look at what gets included and what gets set out, there should be a precedent set in the talk section that gets a general consensus. And that's my main problem with this article and others on the subject is the inconsistency and the unilateral decision making and ownership of the articles by a small group. For example, Ehrman is used in the lead to say that all scholars believe jesus existed. Well, ehrman also said no historians believe jesus was resurrected. Or did miracles. But due to the ownership of this article by a small group, this viewpoint is not allowed to exist even though it's from the same guy, same peer reviewed material etc. So, while there is no "policy" there should be some sort of consensus so people can contribute without getting either run off or bullied out.Greengrounds (talk) 04:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Unreferenced material in Lead

Can anyone provide a reference or citation for the following from the lead:

Most scholars agree that Jesus was a Jewish preacher from Galilee, was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman prefect, Pontius Pilate. Scholars have constructed various portraits of the historical Jesus, which often depict him as having one or more of the following roles: the leader of an apocalyptic movement, Messiah, a charismatic healer, a sage and philosopher, or an egalitarian social reformer. Scholars have correlated the New Testament accounts with non-Christian historical records to arrive at an estimated chronology of Jesus' life.

It currently appears not to have any citations. Greengrounds (talk) 02:18, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

It is not mandatory to provide a source for every point in the lead, so long as the corresponding points are sourced in the body text. However, it is a good idea for controversial points to also be sourced in the lead. See WP:LEADCITE.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:35, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, I removed a bunch of sources from the lede because of a request at FAC. Both of those sentences that Greengrounds brought up are cited in the body. I can add citations in the lede if you want.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I was unaware that stuff could be put in the Lead without citations as long as it is cited in body. Thanks.Greengrounds (talk) 02:53, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Cool. I've added the citations anyways.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:05, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Possessive of Jesus

This article uses the apostrophe-only possessive: Jesus' not Jesus's.
—Telpardec 06:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I've reverted a good faith edit that changed the possessive form from Jesus' to Jesus's. Per MOS:POSS, omitting the s is standard for Jesus and a few other nouns. (Some grammar books say to omit the s after the apostrophe if it would lead to 3 consecutive sibiliants. That may be too rigid, but the case in favour of the Jesus' form seems clear.) --Stfg (talk) 10:08, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The MOS says that the Jesus' form "may be deemed to take precedence", but it certainly doesn't mandate it. The form Jesus' is just incorrect and there's no overwhelming scholarly consensus for it: some use it, some don't. But it's clearly pronounced Jesus's and it's not offensive to see it spelled that way. If we have to modify the MOS, so be it. Bus's wheels, dress's color, Jesus's words. —Designate (talk) 12:07, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
The arrogance behind peoples' certainty on this matter stuns me. But maybe in the area of religion I shouldn't be surprised. I guess believers have to be certain despite an absence of concrete evidence, and with the obvious evidence that others believe differently. Yes, I was taught a particular way was the only correct way of writing and pronouncing this too, 50 years ago in my case. However, since then I've discovered that other people all around the world were taught different ways as the only correct way of doing it. So there's no way I can claim that my way is the only correct way, can I? Nor can the rest of you. Our job is to work together to come to some sensible agreement on how we will do it here, a way that may not match the dogma any of us were taught, and not bash others around the head with statements like "The form xxxxx is just incorrect." HiLo48 (talk) 12:21, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Wow, I had no idea it would generate so much emotion! @Designate: I'm pretty sure that how it's pronounced depends on who is pronouncing it. Different style guides take widely differing views on this issue. If you say that some scholars do and some scholars don't, I don't quite understand on what basis you pronounce one wrong and the other right. MOS represents the current consensus for Wikipedia's usage, which of course can change. WT:MOS is thataway. --Stfg (talk) 13:52, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
See WP:BIKESHED. Arguing over an WP:ENGVAR issue is much easier than researching substantive issues. Johnuniq (talk) 04:25, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi All. I am the one who changed all the Jesus' to Jesus's, subsequently reverted by Stfg. I did not for a second expect my edit to pass unchallenged without a fair degree of turbulence. I was however 'soothed' by the fact that Stfg is on a number of language editors' guilds and similar, so I deferred to his standing in the assumption that this was an issue that he was familiar with . So I left it at that. HOWEVER, I need to say that the WP Style guide is neither here nor there, it is a guideline on acceptable alternatives. So in actual fact, according to the styleguide both Jesus' and Jesus's are correct. Grammatically speaking, though, there is ONLY one correct way and that is noun+s. There are alternatives deemed acceptable and/ or accepted and the scholars being bandied about agree on this - there are accepted aternatives. However they aso agree that strictly speaking, the correct form is noun+s - the others are accepted. This is the same for St. James's Square, Charles's Law, and many others. I believe that Smiths's was one of the names that started breaking the mould - not because of difficulty in ponouncing it - but because people got mixes up with and ended up spelling it wrong. So, 'rules' about too many sibilants just make no sense - sibilants are sounds and the written word has no sounds. If we are going to start mixing up spelling rules with pronunciation rules, then we will have to agree that "tonite", "potatoe", "neumonia" are 'acceptable'. We need to judge what is acceptable in terms of spelling according to spelling, NOT pronunciation. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 17:19, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

More arrogance! I was taught differently, but I don't claim that my version is the only possible correct one. HiLo48 (talk) 21:47, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
@Johnuniq, I'm sorry you find this to be a bicycle shed, but I'm following WP:BRD concerning a proposed change that would change this featured article from MOS-compliant to non-compliant. And this isn't a question of national varieties of English, which is what ENGVAR deals with. Also, it's not as if we're doing the to the exclusion of other discussions :/
If people want to make dogmatic statements, perhaps they should first check references. Fowler states: "Jesus' or of Jesus, not Jesus's". Strunk & White also gives Jesus' as the only form. Chicago, I read somewhere, approves both forms. Theodore M. Bernstein (in The Careful Writer) calls for Jesus', giving the three-sibilant rule as explanation. By the way, this doesn't only apply to Jesus -- there's no such thing as an Achilles's heel, and all these references give forms like for goodness' sake; nobody, as far as I know, even recognises for goodness's sake as an acceptable alternative. So, yes, pronounciation does matter in forming the possessive case, even though it doesn't in the case of tonite. The Manual of Style is not just a pick-and-choose-if-you-feel-like-it kind of thing, not at Featured Article level. It's our house style, and this is a featured article. As I said before, consensus can change, but the place to seek change to this one is WT:MOS, not here. Good luck with that. --Stfg (talk) 18:31, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
HiLo48 - the fact that you were taught something does not mean that automatically that was right. People often teach the wrong thing, you yourself hint at that when you say that "... in the area of religion I shouldn't be surprised. I guess believers have to be certain despite an absence of concrete evidence ...." - you are questioning the way and what they were taught; so equally you should question the way and what you were taught. I was born in Angola and moved to Namibia and later to South Africa during the time of apartheid. In Angola I was taught that Angola was an indivisible and eternally inseparable part of the "Republic of Portugal". In South Africa people were taught that apartheid was the solution. Natuarally, we all know neither case or correct, NOT EVEN one of a number of possible alternatives. So, I don't know exactly what you were taught and by whom - but I believe it is time that you also query that instead of having an attitude of whatever you were taught is valid, as altruistic as that might seem. I have this debate often with Brazilians, who have a more 'liberal' attitude to what is right and what is wrong when it comes to the Portuguese language, which basically boils down to 'the way people speak, that is the correct way'. Well I am sorry, to me "I goes to town" is wrong, no matter how many people say it; not using a space after a comma is wrong no matter how fashionable it has became; etc etc. The 'majority rule' attitude has limitations. Imagine if we were to all of a sudden decide that if the majority decides to not fully stop at a stop sign, then it is okay, if we all decide to start beating our dogs, then it must be okay. Here in South Africa, people stuff 20 pasengers in a minibus meant to carry 14, and it is 'okay' because that's what they were taught everybody does it. Then the driver loses control of the overloaded vehicle and kills all 20. Lastly to bring things back to the language track - I was taught many things about language that turned out to be simply wrong! So, unless you have been taught English since day 1 by the most eminent luminaries, perhaps you should remind yourself that your teachers and parents are not infallible. And by the way, I am curious - what were you taught about Jesus'/ Jesus's? Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 10:00, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

HiLo48 - forgot to add: which is not to say that you are wrong. Perhaps we are all wrong you are right. That's the way it goes. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 10:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

You moron! My whole point is that I long ago realised that what I was taught as the only correct IS NOT the only way it can be done. I'm trying to get the dogmatists here to realise that about their own beliefs. HiLo48 (talk) 10:30, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
HiLo48, seeing that you have already been blocked FOUR times in the past year I'll won't even bother making an issue out of you calling other people morons. I guess we each have our faults, one of yours is name-calling, another is your disingenuous duplicity, the pot calling the kettle, they call it, for doing exactly what you acuse others of as you did in your recent edits concerning football. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 11:27, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
YOU made the mistake here. YOU asserted I was wrong, when I wasn't. An apology from you would be in order. That I use firm language is not surprising given the arrogance and bigotry of some here. I confront others' biases and bigotry, often those held by cultural majorities. It leads to blocks by bullies. I have nothing to apologise for. Right now, I'm pissing off from here. This place has too many of the same ugly personalities that pushed me away from the church in the first place. HiLo48 (talk) 11:34, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I've never been blocked for calling anyone a moron, but I will now express my solidarity with HiLo48. You are acting like a pompous ass. For Jesus's sake (happy?), shut up now. Paul B (talk) 11:50, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey everyone, please could we relax? I might even throw a barbecue. (Haven't decided who to throw it at yet, though.) --Stfg (talk) 11:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

HiLo - obviously you don't read too well. No I am not wrong. The point I was making was not about whether we are all right, but whether we have asked ourselves whether we are not wrong. You say "However, since then I've discovered that other people all around the world were taught different ways as the only correct way of doing it. So there's no way I can claim that my way is the only correct way, can I?" Who says your way is correct? That is the point I was making. If you analyse your way and discover it is wrong, and I analyse my way and dicover that I was wrong, and a few more dicover that their way was wrong, then we will that we don't need to deal with a whole basked of "accepted alternatives". Get it? That is exactly the opposite of bias and bigotry, whereas your position - everyone is right - is why you left the church - because each denomination claims to be right! Instead of admiting that they are all wrong and looking for one single truth.

For Paul Barlow, if were expecting a comeback, sorry to disappoint you - you are like those pesky little chihuahuas that just make a noise when they see commotion. I don't respond tpo those. And I am out of here. Stfg, do you need charcoal? Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 12:14, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

You really are despicable aren't you? Paul B (talk) 13:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Nice to see he's a member of the Wikipedia:Harmonious editing club! Johnbod (talk) 16:07, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Getting my hopes up here for a new entry into WP:LAME --Pete (talk) 18:28, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Hopes? This is one of the best examples I've ever seen, and I've unfortunately been involved in some of the earlier ridiculous ones. In all honesty, I cannot for a second believe that this dispute would be significant enough for any sort of FA review. If individuals involved want to start an RfC, they are free to do so. If they want to add some sort of template that this article is written in British English, or American English, or Australian English, or even really bad English, they can do that too. But the comparative lack of uniformity indicated in some of the sources cited above regarding this particular matter in the broader world makes it obvious to me that, basically, both are acceptable. and that there is no particular reason to change it one way or another, and that, honestly, there probably are few if any things less useful and productive than arguing about this in this way. An RfC would be preferable, and, if anyone wants to continue the arguing over this matter, I suggest that they start one of those, which, at least, are more or less designed to end at a certain time. John Carter (talk) 18:39, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
The issue is trivial. What has caused anger has been the responses of editors involved who seem more concerned to aggrandise themselves and belittle others than to be collegial. I do think that is despicable, and I make no apology for saying so. I am not one to throw around insults. This thread, of course, has next to nothing to do with the content of the article other than the fact that that it's subject's name happens to end in "s". Paul B (talk) 18:56, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Would someone care to hat it, then, please? --Stfg (talk) 19:44, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

This is not the 1st time this question has arisen. I'll see if I can cobble together an appropriate Edit Notice and FAQ addition for inquisitive people. Thanks everyone! —Telpardec  TALK  06:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

reincarnation continuity

Please add the following information to the table.

Previous incarnation of Jesus was Venkatachalapathi Next Incarnation of Jesus is David Geere born on 12th January 1987at 4.29pm IST To DAPHNE Genre born(1655 to 16th May 1987)

David Geere was born the table Krishna.Sanker.1987 (talk) 14:06, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Not done:. Unsourced -- original research --Stfg (talk) 14:13, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to try and get press for this article as a FA

I think it's great this article reached FA status, and I want that fact to be picked up by the press. I want the article commented on in the press by scholars, which would serve as an external peer review (albeit edited, I imagine). I hope it will provide positive press to our FA process and the great work that is accomplished here. I also hope it will inspire others to contribute to Wikipedia and bring other important topics up to FA. So I emailed someone from the WMF communications department (see wmf:Staff under "Legal and Community Advocacy"). Is anyone who participated in the process interested in helping draft a WMF blog post about it? Feel free to contribute to User:Biosthmors/Jesus or to discuss further there. To ensure no one receives unwanted or undue attention, I'm not planning on putting anyone's user name in the draft, FYI. Biosthmors (talk) 10:46, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Error?

I just recommended to someone that they look at this article and they said there was an apparent error in this portion: "His followers arrive at the tomb early in the morning and meet either one or two beings (men or angels) dressed in bright robes. Mark 16:9 and John 20:15 indicate that Jesus appears to Mary Magdalene first, and Luke 16:9 states that she is one of the myrrhbearers.[66][208]" They said that Luke 16:9 does not identify Mary Magdalene, and that they guess it should be Mark 16:9. Best. Biosthmors (talk) 11:07, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

My bible has Luke 16:9 as part of the Parable of the Shrewd Manager, so yes, this appears to be a mistake. Mark 16:9, at least in my NIV translation, does not mention her being a myrrhbearer. Luke does identify her as one of the myrrhbearers in Luke 24:1. I'll change it now; well done for spotting this. I expect this was a simple clerical error as 16:9 also appears earlier in the sentence —Cliftonian (talk) 11:30, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Glad to help! And thanks to my cousin for spotting it. =) Biosthmors (talk) 11:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

"Little agreement on assertions of his divinity"

This sentence in the lead needs to be changed or removed. There is universal agreement among mainstream historians that "assertions of his divinity" were anything but falsehoods. No mainstream scholar thinks Jesus is actually the son of god. Theologians do, but not mainstream historians. The article needs to reflect this. Greengrounds (talk) 22:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

The sentence simply says that there is no agreement on whether the Gospel accounts assert the divinity of Jesus or not. That's an accurate statement of mainstream scholarship. Whether Jesus was divine is a separate issue entirely, and as you say it's a theological question, not a historical one. But it's not described in the article, so there's no need to remove anything. --Rbreen (talk) 23:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
You may be right in what that ambiguous sentence is saying, but we need to make it clear in the article that assertions of his divinity are held to be falsehoods by most mainstream historians. In other words, where can I go to find out what historians think about jesus being the son of god? I want to find out on wikipedia what mainstream historians say about that assertion. The article points out that christians think he is the son of god, but no mention is made about what the scientists and historians think about it. The sentence in question is ambiguous, and needs work, but not only that, as I have pointed out, there doesn't seem to be a consensus presented here of what is actually believed to be true and what is myth. We all know that historically speaking, jesus is not considered to be the son of god outside of the christian doctrine and it's followers.Greengrounds (talk) 00:07, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes Rbreen. And Greengrounds, you do realise that many "mainstream scholars" are in fact Christians? There is no source worth reading that would claim "no scholar" believes Jesus was the Son of God (if one even needed to rely on sources to be aware of something so patently obvious). The same goes for scientists for that matter. So it is sufficient to say Christians believe in the divinity of Christ, and not launch into a problematic shopping list of other groups who don't. You might as well add to the intro that Hindus and Shintoists do not accept the divinity of Jesus. It would be a waste of words, but at least it would be accurate, unlike your statement that "no scholar/historian/scientist" accepts the divinity of Christ. Ozhistory (talk) 00:22, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
And you do realize that we need independent reliable sources to make the changes you request, right? To date, you have produced none, and thus there is a very real concern that your edits are not really about improving the article, and thus very possibly violate talk page guidelines as per WP:TPG? Please read the linked to page and make a more visible effort to have your comments here actually deal with improving the article in accord with reliable sources and policies and guidelines. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 00:27, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I can assure you, John I have the references in place. Please see belowGreengrounds (talk) 05:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Ozhistory, yes it's obvious that christians believe Jesus is the son of god. The problem is that everyone else thinks Jesus is not the son of god. Yes, we should mention that. John, i've provided the quote by Ehrman, a leading historian on Jesus and biblical matters, and it was clearly his opinion that no historian believes that jesus was resurrected, and also that the miracles are historically known to be false due to the nature of the methods historicity and the nature of supernatural claims. Quite simple, really. That's why he says that no historian would hold the resurrection to be true as a historian. Because historians must use the historic method to establish historicity, and this essentially rules out miracles. The article should make at least some effort to distinguish fact from fiction, other than the disclaimer that these are "portraits" of Jesus, portraits being a term we need to define here. John, the Ehrman reference is from Jesus interrupted, pg 176, 177. This is an encyclopedic article about jesus, not a theological one. It should reflect mainstream historicity and scientific knowledge about what we do and don't know about Jesus. There is allot of myth surrounding jesus, and to exclude that is a disservice. So, to come back to the sentence in question, there is not little agreement of the assertions of his divinity. There is universal agreement (by everyone who isn't christian, and every scholar who is christian but is also a historian. Not on the latter: they may believe it, but that is as a person of faith. They could not publish a peer reviewed article attesting to their beliefs based on faith.) That's what I'd like to see is a little less ambiguity into what is faith based or what is based on the historic method and the scientific method.Greengrounds (talk) 00:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

The article should also adhere to WP:WEIGHT. The question is, basically, how much weight this material should receive in this article. The best sources for that are the relevant academic sources, which, in general, are encyclopedias, college-level textbooks specifically written as college-level textbooks, and the like. There are any number of other articles relating to this topic, obviously, and I have no reservations about the material being included somewhere in wikipedia. But the specific point of contention is about whether this material meets WEIGHT requirements for this particular article, and, honestly, the one source you have provided above is probably insufficient to establish that the material in question meets those requirements. Thank you for having responded with a reliable source, and I will assume good faith that you are representing it accurately. Now please indicate how the material has received sufficient weight in other reliable sources to merit similar weight in this article, which is still comparatively short compared to a lot of other works, including some encyclopedia articles. John Carter (talk) 01:10, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
It would have due weight in the subsection of this article Jesus#Historicity_of_events. It could be mentioned in that section. I've provided you the basic frame work of Ehrman's assertion (one that I don't think would be contested). Do you have any suggestion on how to present that information, in particular the wording? Also, I am still contesting the ambiguous use of the word "portrait" of Jesus in the lead, what is a "portrait" in this case? And of course the original sentence that I had an issue with which seems to say there is disagreement on assertions about his divinity. There really is no disagreement outside of christianity that Jesus was not the son of god. I'll stop at saying we need to point this out in the lead, though that is one option. Another option would be to find a different source or use it in a less ambiguous way that doesn't seem to infer that there is some kind of controversy among secular or non christian historians that Jesus was the son of god. Because there simply is not. If you think there is, please let me know by who. Greengrounds (talk) 01:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

This is not the place to tell the world the TRUTH—articles are written in an encyclopedic manner based on reliable sources, and are not written to make sure that everyone knows the point of view of the editor. However, there probably is a need to make a minor change to the wording in the lead to clarify that it means "there is no agreement on whether the Gospel accounts assert the divinity of Jesus or not" as Rbreen noted above. A change might be tricky because the sentences of the lead are already quite complex—they are good sentences, very well written, but complex, and mucking about with a couple of words might push the text towards ugly. The current sentence (without notes) is

Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that a historical Jesus existed, although there is little agreement on the reliability of the gospel narratives and their assertions of his divinity.

Following is a possible alternative:

Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that a historical Jesus existed, although there is little agreement on the reliability of the gospel narratives or whether they assert that Jesus was divine.

Johnuniq (talk) 01:38, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

It is false to state categorically that historians, scholars or scientists universally reject notions such as divinity or resurrection. Willingly or not, Greengrounds already acknowledges that there is not universal agreement, saying above: There is universal agreement (by everyone who isn't christian that Jesus wasn't divine. But even this is not accurate, as, for starters, there are religious creeds which are not Christian, but which meld Christian beliefs with other beliefs - like the Baha'i - which do accept the divinity of Christ and presumably also produce historians and scientists. For these reasons, our text cannot be as categorical as Greengrounds would like. The text already defines the Christian conception of Jesus as a Christian conception of Jesus (and the Islamic conception of Jesus as the Islamic conception of Jesus) and says there is "little agreement" on the reliability of the Gospels and outlines differing scholarly "portraits" of the historical Jesus. This article deals with both the theological and the historical in separate turn. Personally, I think the existing language is clear enough. Any alteration must take full and careful account of the above, at any rate. Ozhistory (talk) 01:57, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Johnuniq (talk)I understand the principle you bring up, Truth, but this is also an article the more I look at it, the more it seems to me it is from the Christian point of view, and that would be something of a wikepedia#npov issue, would it not? That the sentence in question seems to assume that anything outside of mainstream historicity of J (which seems to be that 1:) he existed, 2:) he was crucified, and 3:) he was baptised) can also be passed on as historicity, which it cannot. In fact, the only things we can establish from the bible and other sources are what I have listed. Anything else needs careful NPOV consideration, because anything else is disputed by mainstream historians. See the historicity article for an outline of what the secular and non christian world can generally agree on. As for your rewriting of the sentence, it is an improvement and I support it. It certainly takes away some of the ambiguity of the sentence, and is more in line with what the first person to post on this topic said it was meant to say.Greengrounds (talk) 02:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC) Ozhistory (talk) Agree that there are groups that are believers. Also agree that the article and the assertions cannot be categorized quite so easily as I have implied, but if I ask you to look at this article for a neutral POV, (which by default is a secular POV, like at a main stream university, not a Christian, not a theological POV, not an islamic POV, but a secular POV.) do you think it is quite there? And what do you folks think a NPOV would be on such an article? Would it be a Christian POV or a Secular, or some other religion? It is not far, but I don't think it's quite there. You bring up some good points that I will certainly have to consider. Where are we on defining or wikilinking "portrait". It is an ambiguous term, no? It implies that it is not a historically accurate portrayal? And as for Johnuniq's minor change to the sentence can we come to some consensus? I would like to see it put in the way he had written.Greengrounds (talk) 02:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Secular NPOV is not the only measure here. With mythological figures like Zeus, readers will primarily want to know how the Ancient Greeks conceived of him, rather than the views of a modern secularist on whether or not he existed. In the case of an historical religious figure like Jesus, of course historicity will also be of great interest - but people will very come to a page on Buddha, Mohamed or Jesus to find out what Buddhists, Muslims and Christians conceive of these figures. So it's a question of due weight. On the question of user:Johnuniq's proposed alteration, it doesn't work. It significantly shifts the meaning, but not towards Greengrounds POV: "there is little agreement on the reliability of the gospel narratives or whether they assert that Jesus was divine." means that, there is no agreement on whether or not the Gospels themselves say that Jesus was God. Is that really what you want to say? That sounds considerably more contentious to me, and doesn't seem to match Greenground's argument in any case (ie hitherto, Greengrounds has been making an argument about what scholars say, not what the gospels say). Ozhistory (talk) 03:16, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I don't think there is anything urgent that needs fixing atm, so let's leave the matter for a day or two and see if other views are presented. Johnuniq (talk) 04:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I like this formulation, I think it's accurate. It captures the reality that scholars disagree about what the Gospels were claiming about Jesus - not only about whether they claim he was God but even what 'divine' means in this context. Lord Jesus Christ by Larry Hurtado is a good study showing just how complex these issues are.--Rbreen (talk) 19:22, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Ozhistory you provide a good reference point for looking at POV, I will look at the Zeus articles etc. to see how they read. I also fully agree that the article here should show and read the biblical version of J's life, but it needs to clarify a bit, and I will get more specific, that that is what it is doing. But the sentence in question is a good start. Already we have no consensus on what the sentence intends to say, let alone what it's implications are. According to one user:

The sentence simply says that there is no agreement on whether the Gospel accounts assert the divinity of Jesus or not. That's an accurate statement of mainstream scholarship. Whether Jesus was divine is a separate issue entirely, and as you say it's a theological question, not a historical one. But it's not described in the article, so there's no need to remove anything. --Rbreen (talk) 23:17, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Given that interpretation of the ambiguous sentence, I agreed that Johnuniq's rewrite was better. But given my (and yours as it turns out) original interpretation of the sentence ("Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that a historical Jesus existed,[d] although there is little agreement on the reliability of the gospel narratives and their assertions of his divinity.[18]") that what it is saying is that a) there is little agreement on the reliability of the gospels (can't argue that) and b)that their is little agreement that jesus was the son of god. It is the second part that I have an issue with, because as I have stated there is very little disagreement that jesus was NOT the son of god. I don't think the original source would contest that there is any sort of controversy amongst main stream historians that jesus was actually the son of god. Do you see where I have a problem here? The sentence is ambiguous, and evidently confusing to even the editors of here. It needs work/clarification/expansionGreengrounds (talk) 04:31, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Greengrounds, please note, for obvious reasons, I do draw a distinction between a figure like Zeus and figures like Jesus, Mohamed and Buddha (as outlined above). On the sentence in question, I must say I am now not quite clear on your aim. I took your complaint to be that in its current guise, the text does not put forward the doubt of scholars that Jesus was divine (or that divinities can exist) etc, rather than the interpretive question of whether and how the Gospels name Jesus as the divine "Son of God" or not? If the latter if your concern, then yes, Johnuniq's change states the intended meaning more clearly. Ozhistory (talk) 05:21, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

You are close on your first assessment. It's not that the text does not put forward the doubt of scholars that Jesus was devine. It's that the text implies there is some scholars who think that jesus was actually devine. When this is not the case. There are some christian scholars who may think that, but in the same way that there are "no scholars of antiquity who doubt jesus' existance" there are no scholars of antiquity who think that jesus was actually the literal son of god. At least not based on historicity and historic methods, they don't. So ya, take what you thought I meant and amp it up about 10 times and that's where I'm at on this ambiguous sentence. But I'm sure there's a middle ground somewhere between our two viewpoints. Then, of course there's the problem of the ambiguity itself. As we've already seen, 4 people have chimed in and we have 2 different interpretations of the meaning of the sentence. I for one think that we're clearly correct in stating that the sentence applies to the opinion's of scholar's on Jesus actual divinity, not that it simply alludes to the inference that scholars are in disagreement over what the gospels say about his divinity. The gospels clearly claim that Jesus was supernatural, "divine" or whatever else you want to call it. Greengrounds (talk) 05:46, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Just so we're clear, when I say "no scholars of antiquity who doubt jesus' existance there are no scholars of antiquity who think that jesus was actually the literal son of god. At least not based on historicity and historic methods, they don't." I can actually back that up. The first part comes from this article. It is a Bart Ehrman reference. He is obviously held in high esteem to be able to set the tone of this article. In fact, why are we making it an issue in the lead at all whether or not a "real" jesus existed, when the article is based mostly on first testament mythology and the portraits people get from reading that book. But I digress. The other part of the highly esteemed (right, he's prominently featured in the lead, so his opinion gets allot of weight here) is this:

There can be no evidence for the resurrection due to the nature of historical evidence. According to Ehrman, on the resurrection,

What about the resurrection? I'm not claiming it didn't happen...I'm not saying it didn't happen. Some people believe it did, some believe it didn't. But if you do believe it, it is not as a historian... [1]

In regards to miracle claims in general about Jesus, Ehrman states that historians can only establish what probably happened, and that miracles by their very nature are the least likely explanation for what happened. This being the case, historians cannot establish that any of the miraculous claims made about Jesus actually happened. [2]

Clearly we can make use of latter, if we can make use of the former. In some way or another. This pertains not only to certain sections of the article, (mainly the historicity section), but also this pertains to the ambiguous sentence being discussed.Greengrounds (talk) 05:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

  • IMO wikilinking "portrait" is a good idea, improves clarity (and I'm glad Greengrounds has gone ahead and done it). Also, I think Johnuniq's suggestion to change and their assertions of his divinity to or whether they assert that Jesus was divine would be an improvement in clarity. As to presenting the views of scholars in various identified disciplines on Jesus' divinity or whether he can be called the son of God, I think these are questions of private faith, not of scholarship, hence the scholarly disciplines in which believing and disbelieving scholars work is irrelevant. Indeed, there are certainly scientists who believe in these things, and there are certainly Christian theologians who don't believe in the Virgin Birth, hence would not say that JC is the son of God in any literal sense. --Stfg (talk) 11:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

I've now gone ahead and reworded this line. Two reasons: one, the disagreements in the quest for the historical Jesus cover a much wider range of issues than 'whether they assert his divinity' (which is in any case a quite complex issue); and secondly, the source cited simply did not say that. It said that scholars were not in agreement - which is easy to show - but it then looked mainly at genres of material and made no comment whatever about divinity and assertions thereof. The original line has been in the article for a long time, supported by different citations, which did not seem to support what was said either. It's really important to ensure (a) that cited sources actually say what they are quoted in support of, and (b) copy edits don't end up rephrasing a line to a point where it no longer says what the citation originally supported. Good, clear, readable text is important; but please don't let 'citation creep' be the result. --Rbreen (talk) 22:32, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Bahá'í views section

The religion has less than 8 million adherents. It seems that rather than being placed alongside Christianity, Islam and Judaism, that faith should go in the Other views section. 2.102.187.114 (talk) 20:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure size is a good argument. If it were, one could reasonably argue that Christianity and Islam (both over 1 billion) should be the only ones, while Judaism and Bahá'í (both of them very small religions in comparison) are less relevant. Now, I don't buy that argument for quite obvious reasons (Jesus would most likely have self-identified as a Jew, as would his first followers) but that also means that the "size-argument" does not appear relevant for Bahá'í either.Jeppiz (talk) 14:02, 24 September 2013 (UTC)
True, though the Bahá'í faith doesn't seem to have the relevance to Jesus as Judaism obviously has. Coupled with their low number of followers, they seem out of place among the three Abrahamic religions. 2.102.187.114 (talk) 12:58, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

“He” hyperlink - God’s Gender article

Hello,

I have noticed that there is a recent change to this page making the “He” in the second sentence of the main summary of Jesus link to an obscure article talking about the gender of God in Christianity.

I think this change needs to be undone.

First of all, the gender of God in Christianity in 99.9% of Christian discussion is not up for debate or an issue of confusion. To put this right in the second sentence of the MAIN summary about Jesus is ridiculous, and quite honestly, offensive.

Secondly, the article it links to isn’t even well done and was clearly written by someone biased in favor of questioning God’s gender, which once again, is a very very small minority view.

And to have this gender-ideology ridiculousness be pushed into the very first sentences on the summary of Jesus Christ is horrifically disrespectful to Him and to followers of Christianity.

If you want to put gender related, post-modern, 1,234 gender Marxist ideology discussion somewhere wayyyyy down on the bottom of the page, then go for it I guess…

But right in the MAIN. summary of Christ? Seriously?

Change this. 2600:1700:1EF0:9E30:3DCA:8308:F6A4:A7CC (talk) 10:54, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

  1. ^ Ehrman, B. Jesus, Interrupted, pg 176 HarperOne; 1 Reprint edition (February 2, 2010)
  2. ^ Ehrman, B. Jesus, Interrupted, pg 177 HarperOne; 1 Reprint edition (February 2, 2010)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jesus/Archive_121&oldid=1140198298"