|
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page. |
Awkward sentence [edit]
The current sentence "Van Voorst concludes that some of the non biblical sources discussed serve to corroborate "certain New Testament historical traditions on the family background, time of life, ministry, and death of Jesus", but that the New Testament sources remained more historically valuable." awkwardly lets Van Voorst suggest that he would only consider sources "historically valuable" if they corroborate the New Testament. Though, being a Christian pastor, he very well may have operated that way, consciously or subconsciously, it seems unlikely that he would admit to that in his conclusions. Maybe someone can paste in the full quote. Afasmit (talk) 02:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
- I've quoted Van Voorst more fully. I think that my "serve to corroborate" was a bad choice of wording. Van Voorst does believe that some of the non-Christian sources discussed in the book corroborate parts of the New Testament and that this is useful, but I doubt he meant to imply that that those sources would have no historical value if they didn't. EALacey (talk) 07:28, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
