Talk:Jesus

PLEASE NOTE that the question of whether to date the years of this article as BC/AD or BCE/CE is covered by the Manual of Style. Proposals about dating issues should be raised at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). This talk page is for discussing the subject matter of its article. Comments about the use of AD/BC or BCE/CE may be regarded as off-topic and removed. Specifically: Wikipedia:Mos#Longer_periods: “ It is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change; the Manual of Style favors neither system over the other. ”

Recent Archive log

Complete archive key

• Talk:Jesus/Archive 76 - Man claims to be 2nd Coming of Jesus, Christian view, 6th century portrait, Jesus in Japan?, lack of modern historians views, trilemma, New Section Proposal: Conspiracy Theories About Jesus, African?
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 77 - Revision of Christian Views, The Great Mystery link, Inline citations, NPOV proportionality, fact of Jesus, Jesus' family, Jesus was Albanian, Scholarship, Kabbalah vs. logia of Jesus.
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 78 - Cultural effects, The Jesus Extraterrestrial Connection, Supernatural/psychic categories, intro and historicity/myth, "...was handed over by Pilate the Roman governor to be crucified," Sanders on Jesus as a Pharisee
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 79 - Nietzsche, Family genealogy, Myth, BCE/BC, Islam, Magi, Arrest, Judaism's view
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 80 - William Lane Craig debate, Non-Christian views of Jesus, scholars and the death and Resurrection of Jesus, islamic view of jesus, Jesus' title and race, error in the article, parables, The Jesus Family Tomb and James Cameron, judgement, cousin, myth, Unnecessarily implied atonement theology in intro
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 81 - Founders of religions category tag, Jesus's Character, Recent significant changes, Judaism View, Minor Edits Reverted, Featured Article Status, Possible Bias?, Atheist views section, Report for violating 3RR, Atheist views - take 2, LIBERAL BIAS, Vandalism! Help! Someone!
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 82- Muslim view on Crucifixion, Notes section may need clean up, A Torrent, judgment, slavery, POV tag?, Featured article nomination.... maybe, Sources on Jesus' life, Standardizing references, Historicity or Revisionism?
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 83
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 84 Featured Article Canidate?, Virgin Birth, Joseph as father, Convert from Judaism, RfC and more on BCE/CE vs. BC/AD, Rabbi Hillel, incorrect reference regarding mythist/historicity, real face of Jesus, YHWH and pronunciation
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 85 Christian views on gospel's historicity, Jesus myth unsupported, Give me proof that Jesus existed, Fictional Character, Infancy Gospel of Thomas, Possessive of Jesus, youtube links, Neutral or not?, Important figure in other religions
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 86
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 87
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 88
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 89
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 90
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 91

Subpage Activity Log

• Discussion on Judaism's views moved to Talk:Jewish views of Jesus/Judaism's views of Jesus.
• Buried vs. entombed," alleged "lack of sources" archived to Talk:Jesus/Christian views in intro.
• New subpage created, Talk:Jesus/Historical Jesus, with several models of the historical Jesus and a list of sources.
• Baptism, blasphemy and sedition discussions moved to Talk:Jesus/2nd Paragraph Debate.
• Sudden move of Christ: discussion moved to Talk:Christ.
• Disputed tag and "Christian Mythology": moved to [Christian Mythology Talk] for relevancy reasons
• User:Andrew c/Jesus: sorting data b/w New Testament view on Jesus' life, Christian views of Jesus#Life, and Jesus#Life and teachings based on the Gospels.

Milton Steinberg's opinion

I've moved the following paragraph to the Talk: page:

In answering the question, "What do Jews think of Jesus," philosopher Milton Steinberg pointed out that even for Christians there are diferent "Jesuses" and that higher criticism, which suggests that much of the Gospels is in effect propaganda, offers only limited tools to discover a historical Jesus. Of the Jesus that he can discern, once all Christian claims in the Gospels are disregarded, he writes,

To Jews, that Jesus appears as an extraordinarily beautiful and noble spirit, aglow with love and pity for men, especially for the unfortunate and lost, deep in piety, of keen insight into human nature, endowed with a brilliant gift of parable and epigram, an ardent Jew moreover, a firm believer in the faith of his people; all in all, a dedicated teacher of the principles, religious and ethical, of Judaism.

Nevertheless, Steinberg claims, for Jews even this historical Jesus is neither messiah nor even a prophet, and cannot be accepted as anything more than a teacher. "In only a few respects did Jesus deviate from the Tradition," Steinberg concludes, "and in all of them, Jews believe, he blundered."

The section in question describes what Judaism's view of Jesus is, not what various Jews believe. There are over 13 million Jews, and thus 13 million different Jewish opinions about Jesus; what is significant is not what Jews believe, but what Judaism says. Also, I'm not sure why we would give this one individual's opinion such prominence, particularly as he wrote this over 60 years ago, in a basic introduction to Judaism. Instead I've substituted the position found on the official website of Conservative Judaism. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

"what is significant is not what Jews believe, but what Judaism says." Both are significant. I'm quite interested in what Jews believe about Jesus, and imagine other readers might also be. Is there a guideline or policy that reflects your view that only one is significant? Also, if Steinberg doesn't deserve a block quote, he still ought to get a mention. Leadwind (talk) 05:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, what individual Jews think is generally not that important at all, unless they're unusually famous, a noted subject matter expert, or particularly notable in some other way. As I said, there are over 13 million of them, and they all have their own opinions, we certainly can't quote even a significant number of them. As for guideline or policy, WP:UNDUE for one; why bring this particular person's opinion, as opposed to thousands of other Jews? WP:V applies as well; why rely on the word of a 60 year-old book on Basic Judaism? Steinberg's opinion about Jesus might or might not be relevant in an article about him (I tend to doubt it, as I doubt it's a significant element of his own thought, and he's certainly not a Jesus scholar). But, considering that we don't even have an article on the man, it seems absurd to insist we must quote his opinion in this overview article of Jesus. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right, it would be absurd to insist that he be quoted. I propose he be cited instead. Leadwind (talk) 17:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Why him as opposed to anyone else? Why cite individuals at all, rather than the positions of Jewish denominations? Please see WP:UNDUE. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it is a bad policy to exclude quotes from people for whom there are no Wikipedia articles. Steinberg was a major 20th century Jewish philosopher. Was he the only one, or the most important one? Of course not. Jayjg seems to have a general bias against using 20th century jewish philosophers as sources. I simply do not have that bias. I agree there is a problem of undue weight, and if Norman Lamm or Joseph Soloveitchik or Eugene Borowitz or AJ Heschel wrote interesting things about Jesus, I would be all for quoting them as well. Rather than delete one philosopher's view, why not add other philosophers from a spectrum of Jewish positions? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Steinberg isn't just giving his opinion about Jesus. He's talking about how Jews see Jesus. How about this citation? "American rabbi and author Milton Steinberg (1903 – 1949) disregarded Christian claims about Jesus in the gospels. He wrote that Jews saw the historical Jesus as a noble and loving Jewish teacher." Leadwind (talk) 20:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I'm not sure what makes Steinberg "a major 20th century Jewish philosopher." As far as I know, his published books include a novel and a book on Basic Judaism. On top of that, his opinion, which seems an entirely personal one, is relevant only to his understanding of American Conservative Jews in the mid-20th century. In addition, I've consistently stated that the section should say what Judaism has to say about Jesus, not any individual Jews. That is, in fact, the title of the section (and the sub-article), "Judaism's view of Jesus". Many Jews have written about Jesus; attempting to include any one of their opinions would violate both WP:NOR and WP:UNDUE. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:07, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

"Judaism" is not a human being, therefore Judaism cannot speak, therefore Judaism has nothing to say about anything. Within Judaism there are people who hold various points of view. Our approach must comply with NPOV: We provide multiple points of view. The issue here is not "Judaism's" view versus "an individual Jew's view" as yo claim. The issue is, which individual Jews are notable? I am sure you and I would agree for example that Hillel's view was notable. But let's get this straight - the issue is, is any given individual Jew's view notable or not. Most accounts of 20th century American Judaism name Milton Steinberg as a leading Reconstructionist thinker. He meets my threshold of notability. As I said, I am sure there are other points of view that are at least as notable and I would not delete them from the section. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Judaism isn't a human being, but it does have official bodies, authoritative works, etc. Individuals don't quite rank that high. As for WP:NPOV, we do comply - we provide the views of several different movements. However, a critical issue when quoting one preferred individual is also an NPOV issue, WP:UNDUE. Regarding Steinberg, as I said, he seems to have written one novel, and one book on Basic Judaism; am I missing any of his published works? Mordechai Kaplan is undoubtedly the primary philosopher when it comes to Reconstructionism, and even his opinion wouldn't belong here. Nor, for that matter, would Soloveitchik or Kook. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Steinberg should be used in this article (though his writings might be useful in Jewish views of Jesus when discussing Reconstructionist views), since it would be undue weight to a small minority view. However, Steinberg has several books to his name and is a well-regarded Jewish modernist and Reconstructionist writer. His Wikipedia article mentions The Making of the Modern Jew, though not Anatomy of Faith. He is also well-respected for sermon collections such as Only Human - The Eternal Alibi... and essay collections like A Believing Jew. Vassyana (talk) 03:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, two to one, we include Steinberg. Next question, what do we say. I propose: "American rabbi and author Milton Steinberg (1903 – 1949) disregarded Christian claims about Jesus in the gospels. He wrote that Jews saw the historical Jesus as a noble and loving Jewish teacher." Leadwind (talk) 03:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm generally for including information rather than excluding it, but if V's against including Steinberg, I'd rather spend my time on some other front. Certainly nothing should be in this section that's not already in the main article. Leadwind (talk) 15:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Bias in the first sentence

It now reads "Jesus (7–2 BC/BCE to 26–36 AD/CE), also known as Jesus of Nazareth, was a 1st century Jewish leader who is the central figure of Christianity, and is also an important figure in several other religions."
Due to the vagaries of the historical record, how about this: "Jesus.... also known as Jesus of Nazareth, is widely agreed to have been a 1st century Jewish leader, and is the central figure of Christianity as well as an important component of (to avoid repeating the word "figure", for style's sake) several other religions."
Such an introductory sentence would be free from bias, and would agree with the second introductory paragraph of Historicity of Jesus. As it stands, these two passages conflict, and Wikipedia should be consistent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mdiamante (talk • contribs) 16:48, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

History books say he existed. As far as WP is concerned, he existed. Find a university-level history textbook that describes Jesus "maybe" existing. I don't think you can. Until you can, case closed. So how about this first sentence? "Jesus of Nazareth (7–2 BC/BCE to 26–36 AD/CE) was a 1st century Jewish leader, considered by Christians to be Jesus Christ, the unique human incarnation of God." That's why we're on this page, because he's God. That's better than "central figure." Is he the "central figure" the same way Muhammad (PBUH) is to Islam? No. Moses to Judaism? No. Leadwind (talk) 17:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Leadwind in the fact that wikipedia should not present Jesus as a mythological character. However I do believe, about the first sentence, that the fact that he is the central figure of christianity should take precendence over the stated fact that he was a 1st century preacher. Schicchi (talk) 14:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

No. All people who believe he existed agree he was a 1st century preacher. A smaller group of people believe he was messiah and God. The more general claims should come first, then the more specific or narower claims. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Right, preacher first, God second. We can do better than "central figure," right? How about: "Jesus of Nazareth (7–2 BC/BCE to 26–36 AD/CE) was a 1st century Jewish leader, considered by Christians to be Jesus Christ, the unique human incarnation of God"? Why use the vague "central figure" phrase when we could use something more definitive? Leadwind (talk) 15:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The paragraph would be much better suited along the lines of;

"Jesus", also known as Jesus of Nazarth (7–2 BC/BCE to 26–36 AD/CE) was a 1st century preacher. He is the central figure of Christianity, as well as being an important figure in several other religions. Christians believe Jesus to be the incarnate Son of God and the redeemer of the human race."

In-line with Wikipedia policy, it gives a clear description of who he is and what he is known for. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.136.131.87 (talk) 19:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

BBC image.

There seems to be a bit of turmoil concerning this image, and I'm not entirely sure that it's even clear to the editors what the picture is. WLRoss's change does address the fact that the caption prior to his most recent edit did not clarify the relevance of the image, but the alternative caption is extremely misleading (there seems to be a case of overcorrection). The image does not specifically portray "A reconstruction based on what the historical Jesus may have looked like in real life by the BBC". I've seen the show, and this "reconstruction" is based on a skull from Jesus' general location and time period.

The purpose of the experiment, as it was explained, was to give a general idea what people looked like (although one skull tells us zilch about that). As one might rightly conclude, the "may have looked like" in the caption is a dramatic overstatement. It gives us a vague idea of what facial traits may or may not have been prevalent; at the same time, one face is hardly representative of a populace, and while we're at it, one could argue just as much that the face gives us an idea of what Peter or Thomas looked like. Do you see what I'm saying. I think the picture is relevant, but a proper caption is needed- one which explains the relevance of the image without going so far as to patronize some of the hyperbolic statements in the special (that is, taking the picture in its proper context). Unfortunately, I'm not a master of brevity, so I'm unsure how one could explain the image without rambling.--C.Logan (talk) 20:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

C Logan, if what you say is true, then the image isn't relevant. That's what I get from your argument anyway - you can't pick a single skull from, say, France, and then proceed to pick any individual French person and claim he may have looked similar to that skull - people are widely different, even within race and location. It holds no helpful value, because what it says - falsely - is that everyone from France looks basically the same (only very vague resemblences might apply, maybe). However, I think that the editors who are trying insert this image have a different view of what the BBC was trying to do. Bottom line: we need a source for this. The BBC project page or something. Okiefromokla ^questions? 21:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I have not seen the documentary but I do have the printed article. The BBC article says: "The latest impression of what Jesus really looked like". The CNN article on the BBC reconstruction captions the picture " Image of what Jesus may have looked like". The Popular mechanics article "Real Face Of Jesus" calls it "The most accurate image of the most famous face in human history". The Bible is very clear that there was nothing notable about Jesus' features that would set him apart from anyone else (I.E. he was a typical Galilean Semite of the time). Therefore the forensic reconstruction was a typical average male of the time. As such is has to be reasonably accurate for the general appearance. For this article the caption must be clear as to what it is supposed to be showing us. Wayne (talk) 21:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

BTW. It was not mentioned in the BBC article but of interest is that the average male of the time was 5 feet 3 inches tall and weighed 110 pounds. The Bible implies he was of similar height and physique to his desciples so we can assume this would be accurate as well. Wayne (talk) 21:40, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I think "reasonably accurate" isn't the case. Yes, the news articles on the subject claim its the best we can do with the information available, and that makes it somewhat reasonable, but the information available only "combines 6th-century pictures of Jesus with skulls found in the area he lived (paraphrase)", according to this news article. This is also in the article: "It's not the face of Jesus, but how he is likely to have looked given the scientific information we've got," said Lorraine Heggessey, controller of BBC1. "That's what people from that area of the world looked like at that time." In my opinion, that's just not notable enough.

So I propose, instead of mentioning this picture and the BBC project at all, we use the news article I found (http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2001/mar/27/broadcasting.uknews2), and maybe some other sources, to explain that the most-commonly held image of Jesus is probably not what he looked like based on the racial features of jews of the time. Much of the mentioned news article deals with that as well as the "face of Jesus" BBC project specifically. Okiefromokla ^questions? 21:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It is relevant as it is closer to what he looked like than any other image on the page. The Bible says Jesus was average which the picture is so in other words it at least resembles him. I have to say though that "the most commonly held image of Jesus is probably not what he looked like" is way out of the ballpark...there is no probably about it. Blue eyed, white, tall, longhaired or any combination that includes any of those is an impossibility. Wayne (talk) 22:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

We have no idea whether it resembles him or not. We can say that the image was created with the intention of producing a picture of what Jesus may have looked like, based on a skull from the time and place and norms of hairstyle and beard. I don't see why the image shouldn't be included. It's a reasonable modern attempt at an approximation to his appearence which is just as appropriate as the other images. However, do we really neec two files of the same image ("Image:Proposedjesus.jpg" and "Image:RFJesus.jpg").? It is not by any means "impossible" that he was blue eyed, tall "white" (whatever that's supposed to mean) or long haired. Some things are more likely than others, but we have no basis for absolute certainty. Paul B (talk) 22:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Taking a pause from this picture discussion for a second, we should have some discussion in the article of Jesus' probable appearance as opposed to his traditional depiction (based on his race, location, and customs of the time and sourced by the news article I showed earlier, and others). Back to the picture: it seems the main issue with most people here is that the caption should be clear on what the picture is. Perhaps it can be a paragraph-type caption explaining what BBC did to arrive at that face, and that it's not Jesus' face, but a recreation of what people from his time may have looked like. It would include their process of combining skulls with pictures of Jesus, etc. Of course, the ref would need to be included. I'd be ok with that. Certainly it diserves more than a single sentence simply saying it's what Jesus may have looked like - that's too vague and possibly misleading. Okiefromokla ^questions? 22:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

The caption should just as well say that this is an image of what Flavius Josephus may have looked like, or Hillel the Elder, or Judas. The real issue here is that this is an example of the BBC pandering to a popular audience to get more viewers. Does this have any status among scientists and historians? As far as claims about Jesus, it is a joke. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:51, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

This seems to come up every few months and the outcome is always the same...this picture has nothing to do with Jesus and may have something to do with he average resident of the locale at the time of Jesus. It is irrelevant to the article. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 23:38, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course it has to do with Jesus. It's a modern attempt to create an image appropriate to the time and place. It is comparable to the attempts of artists like Holman Hunt in the nineteenth century to create accurate images by using local models and theories of ethnicity prevalent at the time, or of medieval artists to use theological assumptions about what he should have looked like. Each era has its own way of making a recreation which claims access to truth. It's useful and interesting to have images that represent this range of techniques, values and assumptions in making images. Paul B (talk) 23:44, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Other works of art represent the artists' of that day's attempt to represent their image of Christ. This particular image however is explicitly unlike any of those other images because it is explicitly not an attempt to represent a contemporarily meaningul image of Christ, it is an attempt to use "scientific" methods to reconstruct an "average" person. like I said, we might as well have a caption "Reconstruction of what Judas may have looked like." Slrubenstein | Talk 23:54, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It was part of a project to create an image linked to the figure of Jesus, not Judas. The captions should simply say what it is (the resonstruction of an individual from the time) and the purpose for which it was made. Paul B (talk) 00:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

If the picture must be included, we should indeed make clear that it's a representation of an average person of the time - but, to be fair, BBC took skulls from the area and time of Jesus and combined them with images of Jesus (see news article aboe). So it's not completely irrelevant, but it might as well be... for plethora of reasons. I still agree with slrubenstein et al - It does not seem notable for this article. Okiefromokla ^questions? 00:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I see reasonable arguments on both sides. I have no issue with the image per se; my concern lies in the effects of the hype machine surrounding this picture. One too many an article have taken the image beyond its scientific value- an explanation of the procedure is necessary so as not to mislead the reader into thinking that record-breaking scientific methods were used.

It's an interesting experiment, and it is certainly notable enough to be mentioned on Wikipedia (though, I suppose, not necessarily here). Again, I just think the issue is the caption. Can anyone offer suggestions as to what it (if the image remains) should say?--C.Logan (talk) 02:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Earlier I proposed: Perhaps it can be a somewhat lengthy paragraph caption explaining what BBC did to arrive at that face, and that it's not Jesus' face, but a recreation of what people from his time may have looked like. It would include their process of combining skulls with pictures of Jesus, etc. Of course, the ref would need to be included. The more detail would clarify the vague and misleading nature of the current caption.

However, I'm still in favor of leaving the picture out. But such a caption would be better than having the picture with its current caption. Okiefromokla ^questions? 04:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

If we leave the picture out then I propose we leave all the other pictures out as well as they are no more relevant than the BBC one. If we include it then the caption must say exactly what it is, "A reconstruction of what Jesus may have looked like", as this is what all the sources caption it as. If you want these sources I can give them, they are NYT, CNN, BBC and PM plus a few that are critiques of the picture but still admit it is the mostr accurate. If you need clarification for the caption then include a paragraph in the article about the reconstruction. How can it get any more simple? Wayne (talk) 13:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Images in an article should illustrate points made in the article. None of the images of Jesus do that. What images of Jesus do do, is illustrate changing ways Christians have imagined Jesus. At certain moments in Christian history, written texts (by apostles, clerics, and theologians) have been the principal way of expressing views of Jesus. But at other times, images - stained glass windows, icons, and other figurative art - have been the principal way. What Wikipedia really needs is an article, an entire article dedicated to the history of figurative representations of Jesus. That article would be illustrated by various images we have ... not of Jesus but of how people have imagined Jesus. I think all the images should go in such an article, and I know there is a huge literature in art history that would provide great secondary sources for writing the article. Then this article should have a section "Representations of Jesus in Art" which would summarize the larger article, and this small section could certainly include an image. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:16, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

The current article on "Representations of Jesus in Art" in art is entitled Depiction of Jesus, but is, frankly, rather poor. There is also section of the article Race of Jesus on this topic. Paul B (talk) 13:45, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Paul. I respectfully suggest that people involved in this discussion i.e. who care about images move over to Depiction of Jesus and take the time and effort to turn that into a great article. At that point, it would not be hard to write a summary of the article as a subsection here with one or two images accompanying. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately the image is non-free media and is only authorised for use in the Historical Jesus and Jesus articles. Wayne (talk) 16:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with those who argue for inclusion with a carefully worded caption. The article intro makes clear a real person is being discussed, and the photo in question certainly reflects the section "Constructing a historical Jesus". At present, the only images, as has been observed, are historically wrong, and most if not all depict him as Caucasian. Given the Jesus-centric orientation of the BBC project, I think the image deserves a spot. I'll try to draft a caption on this page for discussion soon.Mdiamante (talk) 17:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

There's been mention of the Race of Jesus article, which also includes this picture. The caption is "A hypothetical reconstruction of someone from the same time and place of Jesus, created by forensic artist Richard Neave." ... The basic idea of this is perfect. There's no need to hype it up by saying "what Jesus may have looked like". It's been said over and over but you could take a picture of anyone from the area and say "this is what Jesus may have looked like," or Paul, or Judas, or anyone. Just because BBC hyped it up so people would watch their program does not mean we at Wikipedia need to do the same thing. It is what it is: a basic reconstruction of someone from Jesus' time and place. Okiefromokla ^questions? 22:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

How can this image not be exactly what this section needs? If folks don't like it, then just find a better example of the effort to reconstruct a historical Jesus. Does it violate any sort of guideline? Like "No propagating the lies of the liberal, atheist, one-world-government media"? If we're using the image of a minority viewpoint when we could be using the image of a more popular viewpoint, then that's undue weight. If that's ture, let's use the more popular viewpoint's image. If this is the best we got, it's what we got. Leadwind (talk) 03:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Leadwind, Wiki[pedia policy is never to go with "the best we got." Wikipedia policy is to use reliable sources for notable points of view. I question the claim that this photo is either reliable or that the point of view it expresses (that this is what Jesus probably looked like) is notable - I think it is at best a fringe view. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, the BBC is a reliable source. It is not for you to say that the image is unreliable. It's no more "unreliable" than the other images. I really don't understand what is so objectionable about it. It was made as part of a project about the image of Jesus. For example the short hair and beard were chosen based on the assumption that Jesus (unlike some other people of the day) would probably not have had long uncut hair. No-one is saying that it reconstructs him specifically, just that it is relevant to this article because of the purpose for which it was made. Paul B (talk) 13:57, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The picture is from a RS and is as noteable as any other depiction we have. There are at least four passages in the Bible that support the picture as being close to reality for Jesus' general appearance. Wayne (talk) 13:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

"Fringe"? The BBC strikes me as relatively mainstream. Leadwind (talk) 15:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The fact that BBC made this does not necessarily make it apropriate for this article. Please, take time to read about the image: [1] What is being depicted is simply a member of Jesus' most likely race (yes, even his race isn't a 100% sure bet) combined with traditional images of Jesus that were made centuries later and adding cultural norms of his time. One cannot simply combine a couple English people and infer that is what a any certain individual english man looked look like. It wouldn't be close, it's simply spin. It was a ploy to attract viewers to BBC's program. I oppose this because of the hype being placed on it: If the image is included, it must be shown in the caption to be what it is: hypothetically, a member of Jesus' race. Okiefromokla ^questions? 15:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I think everyone here knows what the image is, and words like "ploy" or "spin" are really rather unhelpful. I don't know what yopu mean by "combined with traditional images of Jesus that were made centuries later". Paul B (talk) 15:23, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It is an image of a hypothetical person of Jesus' race. The "spin" put on it by BBC was that it is "what Jesus may have looked like." As for "combined with traditional images of jesus made centuries later," that is what BBC did to create the image. They combined skulls in the area with sixth-century depictions of Jesus, which are usually slightly different but mostly identical to modern depictions. Again, it's in the article. Okiefromokla ^questions? 15:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know what it is. We all do. I think the comment about 6th century images in the article is a mistake. As I recall (I saw the programme) the makers used passages from St Paul, and only used later images to demonstate that the "traditional" portrayal of Jesus evolved over time and was consolidated in the 6th century. They also used images of Jews from as close to the period as they could find. Paul B (talk) 16:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know it's safe to assume everyone here knows everything about how this picture came about. For example, this is a quote from the news article: "By combining computer images of ancient skulls with 6th century images of Christ, the series producers believe they have come up with a far closer likeness." Lorraine Heggessey, controller of BBC1, goes on to say: "...That's what people from that area of the world looked like at that time." That's fine, but we have to be clear on what the image is in the caption. Okiefromokla ^questions? 17:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Okie, that's a fine point. As SLR said earlier. "we might as well have a caption "Reconstruction of what Judas may have looked like."" That's a really good point. The caption could read "A reconstruction of what Jesus, his apostles, and their countrymen may have looked like." Or "A reconstruction of what men of Jesus' time and ethnicity may have looked like." Still useful even if it's not Jesus in particular. Lots of historical reconstructions are based on community norms rather than individual details. Leadwind (talk) 15:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The last suggestion would be better, I think. Okiefromokla ^questions? 15:52, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Above, Paul barlow scoffed at my questioning the reliability of "the BBC" as a source. Well, the reliability of a source depends on what the source is being used for. A professor of molecular genetics researching human evolution is a reliable source - on genetics and human evolution. Not on art history or carpentry. "The BBC" is a corporation, whose primary business it is to make money by entertaining people. It is reliable source on the business of the corporation itself. Now, the news wing of the BBC is a well-regarded news organization and I would consider the BBC News to be a reliable source on the reporting of current events. But is it a reliable source on 1st century history? Is it a reliable source on physical anthropology (the science most often associated with facial reconstruction)? Is it a reliable source on art history? No. It is not. Now, the BBC may air a documentary on history or physical anthropology. I would have to know who the producer and writers of the documentary are to know whether that documentary is a reliable source on history or physical anthropology. So they aired a show with a reconstruction of what Jesus may have looked like. very entertaining indeed. But does this image - the people who constructed it and the methods they used - have any credence with people who are experts in this field? this is the question, when asking about reliability. The BBC has also aired historical dramas on Napolean and Boudica. Very entertaining. But would Wikipedia use those shows as sources for articles on the lives and politics of Napolean and Boudica? I hope not!! Slrubenstein | Talk 18:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Very very good point. BBC had a motive for doing this other than scientific research, and naturally would put spin on what the picture is in order to attract viewers. To answer the question, I don't think we will find a source to confirm the reliability of BBC's study. All we have is the method in which they came to the picture, which is purely circumstantial (combining skulls found in the area of Jesus' life.) Both arguments I have seen are valid, though if we cannot confirm if BBC's picture is scientifically accepted, I am leaning towards leaving out the picture. At the very least, the caption must not suggest that the image is "what Jesus may have looked like", but explain the limited scope of what BBC did to produce a likeness of an average man from Jesus' time. I apologize for being redundant in my comments on this discussion :) Okiefromokla ^questions? 00:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't scoff at anything. Such terminology is inapproriate. Three editors disagreed with you because you misrepresented the concept of "reliable source" by confusing it with the issue of whether the image (not the source of it) is a reliable, in the sense of accurate, representation of Jesus. You are now compounding your error by confusing matters even further. Is the BBC a reliable source on facial reconstruction? That's a meaningless question. The BBC as a corporation did not create the reconstruction. It didn't get some of its journalists to slap stuff on a skull did it? It asked a specialist to do so, as is documented. The reliability here concerns the fact that the organisation is respectable, follows proper procedures and is accountable to complaints. It is comparable to a publisher in this respect. Your questions are rather like saying "is Oxford University Press a reliable source on facial reconstrcution? No, it's a publisher. Publishers aren't experts on facial reconstruction. Therefore a book on facial reconstruction published by Oxford University Press is unreliable". Surely we can all see the non sequiturs in this argument. They are the same as the ones you make about the BBC. The BBC is a corporation. It is publicly funded, but also has to make financially sound programmes. The same is true of Oxford University Press. It is a subsidised business. Both work within systems designed to ensure that standards are maintained. It is as meaningless to ask whether the BBC as a corporation is reliable on facial reconstruction, ancient history or any other subject (including the news) as it is to ask whether OUP is. The fact thsat you refer to dramas made by the BBC just adds further confusion. That's also like saying OUP can't be reliable on history because it also publishes creative literature! Paul B (talk) 00:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

You ae kidding, or naive. Most documentaries on television, even ones that "quote" qcademics as talking heads, do not stand up to scholarly scrutiny. When a professor applies for propotion and tenure, or his/her file is reviewed either by the university or by a national assessment (as in the case of the RAE in the UK), articles in peer-reviewed journals and books published by university presses - which are also peer-reviewed - count; appearances on TV do not. It is simply absurd to equate a BBC documentary with a book published by say Oxford University Press. That is my only point. I started by asking whether this came from a reliable source and you are hung up on BBC which is laughable. BBC news is a reliable source of news. Its documentaries are not reliable sources of scholarship. To treat them as such degrades this entire project. Now, if you told me that the facial reconstruction used by the BBC came from a book published by an academic press, or from an article from a peer-reviewed journal, then yes, I would consider that a reliable source. I do not deny that it is possible for a BBC documentary producer to draw on reliable sources accurately. It is possible. It has just failed to do so so many times that we cannot accept it unquestionably. All I care about are rigorous standards for encyclopedia articles, Paul. What is your agenda? Slrubenstein | Talk 11:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

(reset indent)My point concerned the illogicality of your arguments. My reference to OUP was a reductio ad absurdum. Referring to the fact that the BBC also makes drama was utterly irrelevant, as indeed were all the other points you made. Is the BBC as reliable as the OUP's History publications on history? No it is not. But the question was simply whether it is a reliable source, not whether it it is the highest reliable source. Therefore your comments about tenure etc are irrelevant. Books and articles that contribute to that have to be original research - contributions to knowledge. Text books, for example, generally don't count either, because they are just collations of established knowledge. That does not make them unreliable! The fact is that you made the erroneous implication that the BBC itself made the reconstruction by your irrelevant comment that the BBC is not a specialist in facial reconstructions. You know as well as I do that BBC journalists did not make the reconstruction. All that is being claimed is that this represents a person from Jesus's time and place as part of a project to give a sense of what, roughly, Jesus is more likely to have looked like than the more familiar images. You say " I do not deny that it is possible for a BBC documentary producer to draw on reliable sources accurately. It is possible. It has just failed to do so so many times that we cannot accept it unquestionably". This is a personal opinion, which is pure assertion without substance. It has no place here. It is not for you to judge the reliability of the BBC. "All I care about are rigorous standards for encyclopedia articles, Paul. What is your agenda?" I see no evidence of that at all. I see a personal distaste for this image which makes no sense to me. Why on earth would you think I have an "agenda"? What exactly would you imagine it to be? There are perfectly sensible arguments for including this image. Paul B (talk) 12:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Tell me who made the reconstrtuction and what their training and expertise is in. Tell me how historians and anthropologists have received the reconstruction - do they consider it to rise to their basic standards? That is what we know when an article or book gets through peer-review. That is what I want to know here. Your argument is illogical - youa re suggesting that since a BBC producer liked it, it holds up to reasonable standards. No, it doesn't. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

If you do not know who made it, then you should do, since the information has been repeatedly provided on this page. Yiou should not be adding long assertions about this if you have not looked at what has been said. Wayne below gives the information. It was made by Richard Neave, of Manchester University, who, btw, also made the recostruction of Luzia Woman, the paleoamerican [2]. His work is cited on several Wikipedia pages related to the paleolithic populating of the Americas. Paul B (talk) 14:37, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Neave does not have a position at Manchester although he has done work for Manchester. How has this reconstruction of his been received by historians and archeologists or physical anthropologists? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

He was formerly at MU, in the Department of Biological Sciences. I think he now works independently. Your unceasing demands for extra information that would require quite a bit of research are, I think, unreasonable. That Neave is a specialist in his field is surely not in dispute. BTW, BBC producers do not just pick things because they like them. The BBC does have to conform to quite rigorously defined standards. It sometimes falls short. So does OUP. Paul B (talk) 15:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not being unreasonably demanding - all of this started when one editor said that we should go with "the best we got" and I replied that Wikipedia's standard is not "the best available" but reliable sources for notable views. This is not unreasonable. You then said that The BBC is reliable and notable and I said not for all things. That was a reasonable point. Then you switched from "the BBC" to Neave and I agree that Neave is reliable. I do not question Neave's qualifications at what he does. But he is one man. NPOV demands that we distinguish between notable and fringe points of view. How do we know whether Neave's POV is notable or fringe? I do not think that using his image in a TV show is enough to make it a notable point of view. I think it is perfectly reasonable to ask whether this work of his is accepted as a reasonable reconstruction of what jesus looked like by other experts in the field i.e. historians, archeologists, and in the case of facial reconstruction physical anthropologists of someone with comparable expertise. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The picture is relevant because many people have a preconceived idea of what Jesus looked like or even what they "want" Jesus to look like. When looking into this I even found that the NYT when they reported the BBC story didn't like the picture "because it made Jesus look dumb" so they commissioned an artist to copy the picture but with a more "natural" expression on his face. They posted this picture with the article. The main difference was not that he had a natural expression but that Jesus was now a white Caucasian again instead of a Middle Eastern appearance! Would we recognise Jesus from the BBC picture? Of course not. But would we recognise the real Jesus from all the depictions of him over the last 2000 years if they were lined up? Most definitely yes. There is no getting away from the fact that the BBC picture is the most accurate artistic representation to date and some could even make the argument that it should be in the lead of the article (appropriately captioned) as it is more relevant than the picture currently there. I can't honestly understand why there are objections to including the picture. I've yet to see a valid reason for exclusion. The picture does not claim to be Jesus, it does not even claim that it "may" be Jesus. It claims it "may" be what he "looked like" which is accurate given the claims made in the Bible on his appearance which Richard Neave, the University of Manchester medical artist who constructed the image with the assistance of Israeli archaeologists, said he used. Wayne (talk) 03:31, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• May I suggest one of two options on how to proceed from here?

1. Compromise - Include the image, but in the caption briefly overview what (and who) did what to arrive at the image. Also, do not say it's "what Jesus may have looked like", but rather, that it is an average man of his time and place. This outlines its importance, while not using BBC's twist, and somewhat sidestepping the need for further sources to prove its worth... i.e.: An image unveiled in a BBC documentary depicting a hypothetical Galilean Jew from Jesus' time, compiled from area skulls dating to the time of Jesus.
2. Dispute resolution - Wikipedia:Requests for comment, possibly. Okiefromokla ^questions? 19:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Compromise, please. Leadwind (talk) 23:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Okiefromoklas compromise is deceptive. I've been searching to find what academics think of the picture as an image of what he "may" have looked like. There is nothing reliable that disputes it. As far as theological sources are concerned Christian sources seem to not care while Jewish sources are generally accepting of it as "reasonable". I think that unless some one can provide a RS that disagrees with the "may have looked like" caption that is what we should use. Wayne (talk) 06:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

WLRoss, I am confused. You start by saying you looked to see what academics think of the picture. Then you tell us what theological sources say. But can we go back to what academics say? Yes, you say what they don't say. But you don't say what they do say. What did your search show as to what academics say? Slrubenstein | Talk 09:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

WLRoss, I don't know what sources you are claiming think the image is "what Jesus may have looked like" but I have not seen them yet, aside from, of course, BBC. I assume from your previous comments that you know exactly how this picture was made. So, taking that information into account, it is only reasonable to come to the conclusion that it is simply not close in any way to a picture of Jesus, but BBC can claim that its "as close as we can get" because its a vague extrapolation of a few skulls found in the area. Which is, indeed, "as close as we can get". But, again, to reinvoke the "r" word, its only reasonable to aknowledge that this image is also as close as we can get to reproducing the face of Peter, Judas, Lazarus, or anyone from the time and place. In the interest of compromise, that doesn't mean it doesn't have value. But let's be as straight-shooting to readers as possible. Okiefromokla ^questions? 17:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

My search found that academics are not really taking a position which is why I looked at theological sources. Christian sources are a bit mixed. Some of the more conservative don't like the idea of a coloured Jesus but the more common disagreement is that it contradicts the Shroud of Turin image (Professor Bruno Bar-beris, "any argument that the Neave reconstruction might somehow be an accurate representation of Jesus, potentially refuting the Shroud likeness, is fallacious in the extreme"). The majority though don't care about the image but disagree with other issues brought up in the documentary. The strongest complaint I found was that the image was "oversold" (Cambridge Biblical studies). Jewish sources that discuss it on the other hand are sort of supportive. They say things like the image is "reliable" but even these don't give more than a sentence or passing mention to it. Interestingly the Seventh Day Adventists accept the image as accurate (i.e. historian Richard Nickels). Academics on the other hand are not saying much and I can’t find any that condemn it. Historian Robin Jensen is the one who thought the image had "a particular dumbfounded — one might say stupid — expression" and approved the new one that became a white Caucasian in the NYT. Mark Goodacre from duke university is probably the most critical when he says "it is not ideal" but "represented what one average Jew from that time and that place might have looked like". The original reconstruction had long hair and it was Goodacre who asked them to make the hair short as the Bible implies he had short hair. The University of Auckland warns not to accept it as "scientifically accurate" but as "experts opinions of what he looked like". Alison Galloway, professor of anthropology at the University of California stated "This is probably a lot closer to the truth than the work of many great masters". Midori Albert, a professor of forensic anthropology at the University of North Carolina: "If anyone could create an accurate portrait of Jesus, it would be Neave". Barbara Selznick of the University of Arizona wrote claiming the "lack of controversy over the rendering of Christ was surprising". She wrote a paper on it that has another version of the same picture, that to me looks more real than the one we have.
In reply to Okiefromokla. The picture was not meant to be "close" to Peter, Judas, Lazarus, or anyone from the time and place. It started out that way but was modified to have the features more likely to be Jesus' than theirs. we can technically say it is close to those people but closer to Jesus. I even found mention that the techniques used by Neave to create an image without the actual skull as a reference normally produces results that resemble the subject. Wayne (talk) 05:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Wayne, I wish you would keep making this into an argument about whether or not he was "a white Caucasian". Actually skin pigmentation is one of the big variables which cannot be determined. See the debates about the facial reconstrcution of Tutankhamun. Neave chose to adopt a (relatively) dark skin tone. However, we don't have to run round looking for academics who corroborate the image in some way. This is just a hurdle created Slrubenstein that has no basis in WP policy. All that matters is that the image is produced by a reliable source. There is no doubting at all that Neave is an expert in this area and that other experts were also consulted. Experts don't cease to be experts just because their expertise was communicated through the BBC. What an expert says on In Our Time is just as reliable as what he or she might say might say in print. Policy even allows us to accept statements made on unmoderated personal websites if they come from accredited experts. Paul B (talk) 08:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

WLRoss has made it clear that academics for the most part do not even talk about this image. This to me is proof that it is a fringe POV. If it were a notable POV concerning the reconstruction of a historical Jesus, historians, archeologists, and physical anthropologists would at least be talking about it. Not much talk = not notable. As I said above, one criterion for inclusion is that something express or represent a notable point of view. If it is not notable, why bother even discussin git as it won't go in. WLRoss does say that some clerics or theologicans have discussed it, but my question remains: is this notable in theological debates? If so, then it would belong in a section on Christology or some theology, Jewish or Christian ... but if it is not notable it doesn't belong! Slrubenstein | Talk 12:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Just because academics do not dispute the image doesn't make it a "fringe POV". Could it possibly be that "not much talk" = they agree with it? As I said before, the image is as relevant and notable as any other image on the page and probably more so as it is more accurate than any previous image. Wayne (talk) 02:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

WLRoss, please look up "notability" in the dictionary. The question is not wheter they agree with it or disagree with it, the question is whether they think it is worthy of notice nor not. Obviously not, since there is no evidence. If they thought it was notable they would be talking (or writing) about it. It is a non-notable image. Sorry, just because you find something of intense interest just doesn't mean others do, , that is true for all of us, get used to it. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

And what should they be saying to make it notable? What can be said unless they dispute it's accuracy? I suppose they could write about it being a fringe POV but they don't so maybe "fringe" is OR.
"adjective: worthy of notice". At least as worthy as the current picture in the lead.
"adjective: widely known and esteemed". Definately widely known considering the media reporting on the program and more widely known than any other picture on the page. Definately esteemed as there are no major disputes about it. Actually I can't find any disputes about the other pictures on the page either. Actually there is even less discussion by experts for their notability than there is for the BBC picture if you exclude their artistic merits which has nothing to do with an article on Jesus. Your definition is obviously too narrow unless you are arguing that no pictures of Jesus should be on the page regardless of source. Can you give me a RS for it not being notable? Maybe then I can give that theory some credibility. Wayne (talk) 14:09, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

You are joking. It is important because ... no one is talking about it? Okay, thanks for the chuckle of the day. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

SLRubenstein, is it really necessary to have a collaborating scientific source for this picture if we clarify that it is just one attempt to do this and not try to pass it off as fact? If we specify in the caption that it is BBC's doing and briefly how they did it, we wouldnt necessarily be giving it much endorsement as reliable.... for example, if we were to say "This is what Jesus may have looked like" or "This is what a person from Jesus' time looked like" we would certainly need a valid third-party scientific source to back it up, as why trust BBC enough to make such an unwavering statement of reliability without that extra source? This is where the viewpoint of WLRoss and Paul Barlow diverges from ours, but that's why the compromise I suggested (or some small variant) works. It sidesteps the issue. I think we've established that the image is somewhat notable enough to allow this, coming from a BBC hiree who is apparently very credible and known for similar projects in the past. The other option is to go the dispute resolution-request comment route, since there are only three to four editors participating in this discussion now. Okiefromokla ^questions? 18:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

All i am doing is asking how WP:NPOV's criterion of notability applies in this case. No article should have illustrations just for the sake of it. Illustrations should illustrate content. Content should reflect notable points of view from reliable sources. What are the notable points of view about what Jesus "really" looked like? Or, what are the notable views about what 1st century Jews looked like? I would think that such views would be found among historians, art historians, archeologists, and physical anthropologists. What are the notable points of view? Does this image illustrate one of them, or doesn't it? I think these are perfectly reasonable questions. And I think that if the question is, what did Jews look like in the first century, notable views should be from historians, archeologists, physical anthropologists. I really do not think a BBC producer cuts the mustard. When talking about a scholarly topic, I think a book published by a university press or a peero reviewed journal article does. And ... this is a long article. I think it should be long enough to include all notable points of view. But why add a non-notable point of view? Slrubenstein | Talk 21:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

2nd paragraph

If the subject of the second paragraph is what historians think, then put them in the first sentence. Please see [3]. Anyone second the motion? Leadwind (talk) 03:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Not me. I think it makes sense to specify what the principal sources are, and then provide different views (interpretations) of the sources. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Is the topic of the sentence the gospels, or is it historical Jesus? I thought the topic was the gospels until you said the topic was historical Jesus. Leadwind (talk) 15:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess you do not understand how historians work. Historians analyze and interpret historical sources. Therefore, we begin by naming the sources they are interpreting, and then we provide their interporetation of these sources. 16:19, 22 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slrubenstein (talk • contribs)

Is the topic of the paragraph the gospels or is it the historical view of Jesus? Leadwind (talk) 15:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeshua's Birthday

Yeshua's birthday IS somewhere around September during the Feast of Tabernacles.The K.O. King (talk) 00:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

And your proof? The Shepherds were in the fields with their flocks all night. This happens in that part of the world only in the Spring when the Ewes are dropping their Lambs, and sometimes you need to help that happen. I've been through this with goats which are very, very similar animals, and you need to be able to deal with a breech presentation and also predators who will find a Ewe in labor to be unable to defend herself. --BenBurch (talk) 19:50, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

chronology

I fixed a reference to the last supper in the chronology section. Someone was using a primary source to say that the LS in Mark isn't Passover.

I'd like to pare the chronology section down. Consider, for a moment, the fate of our gentle reader, coming to this page to learn something about one of the most remarkable folks in history, only to get bogged down in a highly detailed treatment of chronology, none of which does anything to tell anyone anything about Jesus. There's a main article for all the detail anyone could want. Here's what a regular old reader needs to know:

• Approximately when Jesus was born, when he ministered, and when he died.
• That the gospels give varying accounts of these years and dates, and that John's account of the last supper gave rise to one of the first schisms in the early church (Quartodecimanism).
• That Jesus' birthday being set at 25 December didn't happen until later and doesn't reflect the gospels.

We can do that in a paragraph. A clear, clean paragraph that summarizes the high points is better than a highly detailed section that turns off all but the devoted student. The section could also use an image.

I'm trying to identify ways to improve this page that aren't POV mine fields. How did I do? Leadwind (talk) 16:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

AD/CE and BC/BCE Usage

Ok, I'm not trying to start *that* flamewar again. But I do need to note that the current dual usage is technically incorrect. Years written in the AD system are written "AD 1925," thus writing something like "1925 AD/CE" is incorrect. The Manual of Style agrees with me noting:

Either CE and BCE or AD and BC can be used—spaced, undotted (without periods) and upper-case. Choose either the BC/AD or the BCE/CE system, but not both in the same article. AD appears before a year (AD 1066) but after a century (2nd century AD); the other abbreviations appear after (1066 CE, 3700 BCE, 3700 BC). The absence of such an abbreviation indicates the default, CE/AD. It is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is a substantive reason; the Manual of Style favors neither system over the other

It seems to me that this article should use either the BC/AD system or the BCE/CE system exclusively. It is impossible to use both systems simultaneously and continue to be correct with the AD usage unless somebody wanted to write something such as "AD 1925 or 1925 CE." Cheers. --Burzum (talk) 21:06, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I want the Common Era system. Is there consensus for that? Is there a single person that wants the AD system instead? Hmm... looks like we don't have consensus then. Oh well. Given the vast number of times we have discussed this, and the depth and length we have discussed this, I am highly skeptical that there is consensus to support using only one of the systems exclusively. So the working compromise, for the past few years, has been to use both. The manual of style has changed a bit over the years, but one of the key points historically was an emphasis on consistency (i.e. not to randomly mix CE and AD, but instead to consistently use one.) In the spirit of that, we consistently use both. I apologize if I am pessimistic on change regarding this issue. I really don't want another big discussion to start and eventually end again with no consensus for change. But perhaps I don't need to be pessimistic. Is everyone on board with me in getting rid of the clunky AD/CE style and using BCE/CE exclusively?-Andrew c ^[talk] 21:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Andrew, I am all for your idea of getting rid of the clunky AD/BC thing and sticking to BCE and CE. However, I have to say, I would welcome some sort of compromise if it made it possible for people with different views to work together ... Slrubenstein | Talk 21:42, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't we just have a vote on it? This isn't something where one side is the correct usage and the other in incorrect (except the third side of dual usage which is obviously incorrect). As far as Wikipedia is concerned both AD and CE are valid so we might as well choose based on which side is preferred. Or we could flip a coin. It really doesn't matter. Arguments are useless in this case since Wikipedia really doesn't care which one is used as long as it is consistent. If the Manual of Style ever recommends using the BCE/CE system for one purpose and BC/AD for another then we could argue one system over another. Cheers.--Burzum (talk) 22:51, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone just change it real quick and we'll stick with that. We have more important things to worry about. Wrad (talk) 22:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I personally prefer the AD/BC system. Either one works, but, I've always used the AD/BC so I have to agree with that. Burner0718^{(Jibba Jabba!)} 23:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Please go and read the archives. There have been literally years worth of writing wasted on this topic. The current version has come through many previous cycles of discussion. To cut things short, it was usually found that "there is a consensus that there is no consensus for a change". --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. It's breaking MOS rules. It's not that big a deal what we use. Just fix it. Wrad (talk) 23:27, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

"It is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another" Couldn't that present a possible answer? We go to the very first revision that uses one of them and see what the choice was. I think anything would be better than a straw poll. On a further not, I apologize if this idea has already been brought up, argued, debated, voted, and no consensused. In terms of watching this page, I am not a veteran.--CM (talk) 23:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

That's what I'm saying, whoever changes it first, that's what we'll use. That's the way the rules work. If it doesn't really matter, you stick with what's already there. Right now we're breaking MOS rules, so someone change it so we can move on with our lives. Wrad (talk) 23:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

We've been living with this crutch for years. People have been constructively edited this article and generally had no problem going on with their lives. The current situation is not a serious problem. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:57, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Not serious, no, but breaking MOS yes. It is preferable that we follow the general wikipedia consensus about style rather than ignore it. You're the only one opposing right now. Someone just fix it. Wrad (talk) 00:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I've got an idea. I'm thinking of a number between 1 and 20. If you get within 5 of the number, we'll change it to BC/AD. If you're more than 5 away, we'll change it to BCE/CE. :) Okiefromokla ^questions? 00:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

16 Wrad (talk) 00:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It isn't a serious problem, but we should note that even during the 'color' vs. 'colour' flamewars, they didn't decide to use 'color/colour' or 'colour/color' as a compromise inside the text of articles.--Burzum (talk) 00:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'm very familiar with that set of wars, and you're absolutely right. The fact is, rules are rules. The way to stop wars like this is to stick to the rules, so let's do it. Wrad (talk) 00:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I just checked the oldest versions. They use various weird constructions, e.g. "1 A.D." and "4 before the Christian Era". This article long predates the current version of WP:MOS. Applying the rules retroactively doesn't work.

I'm not against changing this article (after careful consideration, I'm in favor of CE/BCE, as there are people who have real issues with AD/BC, while the arguments for AD/BC are rather thin - the best is "I'm used to it", and the other is "everything else is an atheist conspiracy at work"). However, I've been around this article for a while and think the chances of finding consensus are slightly less than that for world peace in our time. Hence I oppose this discussion as a waste of time. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is not needed on this issue. The rules say that you go with what is already there. What is here now is against MOS, so whatever comes up next that keeps MoS is what will stay according to the rules. The whole reason you've been having issues here is because you haven't followed the rules. If you do that, then if anybody whines you can just point him to the rules. If you don't do that, then it's the big subjective mess you have on your hands now. Wrad (talk) 00:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The number was 7.... Wrad picked 16. That means we change it to CE/BCE. Okiefromokla ^questions? 00:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Good. Let's change it. Wrad (talk) 00:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. See how easy wikipedia can be? Okiefromokla ^questions? 00:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. That is how it is now. It doesn't really mater that much, so th rules state we should stick with what's already there. Thus, if anyone complains, just point that rule out to them. Wrad (talk) 00:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. *leans back, opens a pack of pistachios and waits* ;-). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't be a problem if you stick to the rules. I have added a template at the top to help us out. Wrad (talk) 01:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Reverted to longstanding BC/BCD AD/CE compromise. It may not be technically correct, but this was settled on to prevent edit wars. Do not change it unless a new protracted discussion forms a new consensus. This must be done on the talk page. ^rossnixon 01:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It breaks the rules and violates the MoS consensus. Consensus is not needed on a silly issue like this. The consensus has already been established at MoS very clearly. If you have a problem with those rules, then take it up on the MoS page and try to change consensus there. No need to start an edit war preserving a version that clearly violates MoS. Wrad (talk) 01:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The MoS states that this should be "approached with common sense and the occasional exception". ^rossnixon 02:04, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Wrad, please do not continue to vandalize the article. If you are familiar with Wikipedia rules, you should try to gain a consensus for changes via polite discussion on talk pages. ^rossnixon 02:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Assume good faith. I'm following the MoS consensus, and there was a consensus on this talk page for the change. Please respect that. Wrad (talk) 02:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe the compromise that was worked out long ago for the BC/BCE style was achieved with the explicit recognition that it went against the MoS somewhat. That was deemed an acceptable price for the relative peace after so much edit warring over the issue. This present discussion began only five hours ago and had input from only eight editors when it was deemed that consensus for changing the longstanding compromise was made. I am surprised that anyone here thinks that the issue has received enough attention from the community of editors interested in this article that some notion of consensus can be formulated at this point, especially given the general acceptance that the old solution had and the empirical benefits it has had in terms of keeping edit wars away from the page. I appreciate the desire to conform to the MoS better, but I think folks are being way too hasty here and are ignoring the very real danger of launching another series of edit wars. I urge Wrad to self-revert until editors have had a proper opportunity to consider this change, and I think at least a week is necessary to provide such an opportunity. alanyst ^/talk/ 02:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there was any negative intent. But I'm a big partial believer in WP:Consensus through luck of draw. Okiefromokla ^questions? 02:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Just let it go. The way we just did it has effectively ended edit wars over the spelling of Color at that talk page. You pick something and stick with it and refer people to MoS if they have a problem. Endless debates are thus unnecessary. Just let it go and move on. Wrad (talk) 02:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

If you go against MoS then you re standing on shaky ground and leaving yourself open to more and more debate. If you follow MoS then you can refer everyone there if they have a problem and delete all year discussion from the talk page as unrelated to the topic. I have boldly offered a solution that I don't intend to change because I feel it is the best option. I did nothing wrong and I'm not going to change it back. I'm not going to revert again if someone changes it, either, though. Wrad (talk) 02:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I put it back, as there has been insufficient time for enough editors to discuss this. ^rossnixon 02:41, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec x 2) There have not been endless debates, nor ongoing edit wars, on this page since the compromise solution was instituted. Sure, the issue comes up now and again by new editors unfamiliar with the situation, but they generally recognize the compromise for what it is. My fear is that by picking a style arbitrarily with almost no input from the community of editors here, you will not prevent further debate and edit wars but rather will inflame them. The situation is different than that at Color because both styles were being used here and everyone was basically at peace with that. I hope I'm wrong and that things will be stable, but I fear that your approach is so ham-handed that enforcing the one style over the other will be an endless bone of contention. Insisting that the MoS is the final authority here doesn't help either; common sense says that style guidelines can be overridden in exceptional cases, and this is one. alanyst ^/talk/ 02:43, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Lots of responses to this discussion, but not any to OkiefromOkla's call for an FA push awhile ago. Let's just forget it and move on. I don't really care that much. I just want this to be an FA. Can we do another FA push? What's holding us back? Wrad (talk) 02:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Jesus is Greek origin, excellent source

The Catholic Encyclopedia has the integrity to say that early church fathers considered the name Iesous to be of Greek origin: St. Cyril of Jerusalem interprets the word as equivalent to soter (Cat., x, 13; P.G., XXXIII, 677). This last writer, however, appears to agree with Clement of Alexandria in considering the word Iesous as of Greek origin (Paedag., III, xii; P.G., VIII, 677) Wikipedia should show this same integrity and include this in the introduction of the article on Jesus, with footnote reference to the Catholic Encyclopedia . Wikipedia should say that some church fathers considered the name Iesous to be of Greek origin, not Hebrew