All the non-factual bits. [[User:Yummy mummy|Yummy mummy]] 17:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
All the non-factual bits. [[User:Yummy mummy|Yummy mummy]] 17:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
:::Im assuming all the bits that come from the gospels and the vast majority of scholarship, this sounds like a very Robsteadman-esque argument. Apparently evidence is no longer evidence?[[User:Homestarmy|Homestarmy]] 17:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Revision as of 17:37, 24 April 2006
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. Ifconsensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
Jesus received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Please use the archive parameter to specify the number of the next free peer review page, or replace {{Peer review}} on this page with {{subst:PR}} to find the next free page automatically.
Jesus has been listed as one of the good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Review: No date specified. To provide a date use: {{GA|insert date in any format here}}.
Scholarly opinions of the historical Jesus moved to /Historical Jesus.
Baptism
Removal of baptism image
I just reverted the removal of the baptism painting in the Ministry section. The remover left a little 'editorial' note about the image not being appropriate, because the act of a 'pouring' baptism, as opposed to an 'immersion' baptism was not used during the first century AD.
I reverted the change because it didn't seem an appropriate one to make without discussion. I for one, feel the image is still valid, because its caption notes when it was painted, in the 14th century, and it is fairly common knowledge that 14th century christianity used a lot of imagery and cultural ideas that weren't used in the first century.
I have also reverted another attempt to delete the image. Unfortunately, much of the Art of Jesus is anachronistic -- Caucasoid features, Dress from Middle Ages, Baptism by pouring, etc. It is simply how artists at the time represented things. Ted21:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Should the caption of the image contain a note about the type of baptism? Maybe something like, "Note the use of a 'pouring' baptism, as opposed to the full immersion baptisms common during the First Century AD." ?? The 'swedish jesus' phenomenon was in full swing in 1449, but that typically doesn't bother people as much as the different type of baptism does. But perhaps a note in the caption would help clarify, and satisfy those who want to avoid confusion about the type of baptisms historically used during the time of Jesus's life. Phidauex21:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you stop, then? Just looking at the image for 5 minutes (full painting: Controversial Image), I was able to come up with several problems:
Dress of men in the background is not of the times.
Jesus is Caucasian.
Vegetation is not from the Middle East.
Immodesty of Mary (?) is not typical of the times.
Undergarment on man behind is interesting.
Even in modern times, the Jordan river isn't that small.
Women's/angel's hairstyle is more standard European 15th Century.
Where to stop, indeed! In this case, I'm comfortable compromising. The focal point of the image is clearly the baptism itself. The other components, like vegetation and whatnot, are significant, but aren't the 'reason' the image is there. So, if we are willing to keep the image despite the anachronisms, but want to point out one of the bigger ones, then the type of baptism might be a natural one to mention. I don't have a dogmatic interest in it, because I'm not a Christian, I'm just trying to find a solution that maximizes clarity. Phidauex22:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That is a good point. I am a Christian whose denomination has rejected all rites and sacraments. If some other image can be found for that section, I'll be happy. Or, failing that, adding a note to the caption also works for me. Ted23:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, Piero della Francesca was making no attempt to provide a "realistic" portrayal of the occasion. Between his mathematics and his taste for allegory, it's unreasonable even to consider any physical relationship between the appearances and activities on that painting and the real baptism -- and including the image in the article implies no such relationship. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆23:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Jpgordon, this is silliness. A renaissance painting of Jesus isn't meant to suggest that it is a historically accurate recreation of what really happened. john k00:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Also the reason for removal is not accurate. The earliest liturgical manual we have (the Didache) says: "But if you have no living [running] water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit." (7:3-5, Roberts-Donaldson tr.) --MonkeeSage12:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. If we remove all the "you are there" license taken by artists, no art belongs here. Ans, no, I don't think we want to be asking if there's evidence as to the mode of baptism in the time of John the Baptist! --CTSWyneken22:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
One more comment, this article is not this historical Jesus article or any POV article. Just because someone doesn't believe in the Jesus depicted in the painting, or if it isn't 'historically accurate', does not make the person in the painting any less Jesus. Clearly, this painting is of Jesus and I have no problem with it being in an article about Jesus. Stating the context and POV behind the painting seems more than enough. I see no reason to point out the "errors" in the painting. --Andrew c02:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Anachronistic depictions of baptism:
It is argued that because this article is plagued with other anachronisms, it is unacceptable to challenge this blatantly anachronistic depiction of baptism. If this kind of thinking is continued, the article on Jesus will remain perpetually stunted and deceiving. Is is invalid to argue that it is acceptable to mischaracterize a matter of doctrinal concern because you have < a l s o> allowed the mischaracterization of the Lord's Jewish features.
Furthermore, while Lord's race is not a doctrinally sensitive issue for mainline Christians, the manner of administering baptism is a painfully sensitive issue of doctrine - amongst many mainline denominations. Using illustrations which are both anachronistic and doctrinally unsound will always spark resistance and offense amongst many of the audience of this article.
The image in question adds no useful information to the article, and simply adds to downloading burden of the servers and makes the page needlessly larger.
If there is scholarly interest in the anachronistic deptictions of Christ, then it ought to be addressed as a specific issue. As it is, this anachronism is presented as a factual depiction of a first century event. As such it is deceptive and unscholarly. Those with an historically accurate understanding of the first century will be offended by undistinguished anachronism - especially so if pertaining to a sensitive point of doctrine. Those who do not have a basis to evaluate what they are seeing will merely absorb the image without critical attention - as fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aidenj (talk • contribs)
Then I ask you again to find an image that is doctrinally-sound. Images help an article. This one has many of various styles and it helps the article. Find one that fits and try it out here. We are all trying to make Wikipedia the best possible. In most cases, presenting alternatives is better than simply deleting "offensive" material.
PS On these discussion pages, use ~~~ at the end of your comment to sign it. It helps us all keep track of the conversation. Ted22:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your basic premise, unknown one, that images depicting Jesus's life and activities can be hard to separate from the facts surrounding his life, because of the vast number of ways that people have interpreted his acts through art.
However, I don't think the image is being presented as a 'factual description', rather, the caption clearly identifies it with a painting made some 1400 years after the birth of Jesus, and all the artistic license that entails.
The problem we have with Jesus is the same as the issue we have with most historically and spiritually significant people from before the time of photography or 'image realistic' paintings. I don't know that a single image of Jesus exists that is factually accurate in every way, shape, and form. We are left with a scattering of images produced by artists over a 2000 year time period. Instead of rejecting all of these images, it makes more sense to use images that bring to mind a situation, and then, if necessary, make clarifications for the benefit of the readers.
I'll make my original suggestion again; should the image have a more descriptive caption that mentions the type of baptism? While the image has numberous inaccuracies, as Ted mentioned, I understand your point that the vegetation, and even the race of Jesus, is not considered significant from a doctorinal perspective, while the type of baptism is.
What do you think of this potential addition to the caption: "Note the depiction of a "pouring" baptism, popular during the 15th century, as opposed to the "immersion' baptisms commonly used during the 1st century." Phidauex23:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(to original poster) I don't think baptism is nearly as much of a "sensative" issue as your making it out to be anon, it only gets really touchy when people start lambasting each other about it. Plus, offense is not an issue for Wikipedia, see WP:NOT and look for "censorship". If pr0n is allowed under that rule, (which is bad of course) then certainly a picture showing Jesus's baptism is too, let's be realistic. It is an illustration of the event recorded in the Gospels, which are explicitly used by this article, where one John the Baptist baptized Jesus Christ. It seems probable historically that he was using a river or body of water for these baptisms, so there is one in the picture. Who cares if its pouring or submerging, it's not that big a deal, yeesh. Can it really even be inferred from that picture, I mean, the baptism could of included both pouring and submerging, the information we don't know is the key, and there's no reason to get so worked up about it. I don't see how a person's soul will be lost for eternity because they saw a picture of Jesus with John the Baptist next to him pouring water on him. Homestarmy00:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(sigh). Three years ago, there was a discussion on the use of artistic images and the proper balance of different artistic interpretations used in this article vis-a-vis doctrinal differences and historical reality. It's in the very first archives: /Archive 1 and /Archive 2, and has occassionally come up after that. The depiction of baptism shown in this painting may be anachronistic, but Wikipedia editors are also being anachronistic if they expect this painting to be realistic. Realism is beside the point. Artistic realism as a school didn't develop until around 1840. Artistic portrayals often rely on symbolism. Hence the term "artistic license." Go ahead and add a disclaimer if you think it would help, but I don't see why we should have to state the obvious. Instead we should do exactly what we do with the text: attribute significant POVs to their adherents. In this case we attribute a particular artistic POV to Piero della Francesca. That should be enough. This isn't a photograph. This is the POV of one Piero della Francesca.
According to this logic any images with halos would also need to be thrown out. C'mon now; it's an artistic depiction. I personally believe in immersion baptism but went to a Lutheran school where that was not the practice. Honestly it has no bearing in this article and really is not that big of a deal. —Aiden03:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The first paragraph is one long sentence, and is thus (a little) overly hard to follow. I propose the following change (which I would have made if not for the request on the page to discuss these things first):
Jesus (8-2 BC/BCE – 29-36 AD/CE),[1] also known as Jesus of Nazareth, is the central figure of Christianity. In this context he is known as Jesus Christ, where Christ is a Greek title meaning "Anointed", corresponding to the Hebrew term "Messiah".
The article seems to be split regarding which version of the possessive should be used, as both forms are used at different times. For internal consistancy, shouldn't one be used exclusively? And according to the Manual of Style:
*Possessives of singular nouns ending in s may be formed with or without an additional s. Either form is generally acceptable within Wikipedia. However, if either form is much more common for a particular word or phrase, follow that form, such as with "Achilles' heel" and "Jesus' tears".
This suggests that the form Jesus' is what should be used in the article. Should I (or someone else) go through and make the necessary changes?
Thank you for doing this. I noticed this a few weeks back and tried to 'fix it', but it got reverted. I came here to the talk page and made my case instead of edit warring over Jesus' vs. Jesus's. I guess I eventually forgot about this issue and let it slide. Thanks again.--Andrew c02:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Moving Detail on Name of Jesus to Subarticle
Our section here has more detail by far than the subarticle section on the name. Our section should be a summary of the subarticle, not the other way around. Does anyone object to moving most of the detail from here to there? --CTSWyneken02:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd encourage a thorough merge and re-write of the subsection to the actual subarticle. Although we have a lot of material, it's not as well rounded and organized as I feel it could be. (But then again, I should do something about it, no? :-) ) --Steve Caruso03:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Very good idea, Steve! There isn't a better person to do it, IMHO, since you actually write in the field, if I remember correctly! 8-) Would it be too much to ask that you also find citations to back up our statements? 8-) (I know! Not everyone lives in a theological library! ) CTSWyneken12:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)--[reply]
The only thing I need to worry about now is time. :-) Hopefully I'll be able to post a draft here on the talk page by tonight, but this is going to take a while to sort out each individual thread and angle of the name discussion and put it together in a cogent format. --Steve Caruso16:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There are hundreds of explanations as to where the name 'Jesus' came from, and even more explanations as to what the name means. What we do know for sure is that it originates from the Hebrew יהושוע [yehoshua`], which is a theophoric name first mentioned within the Biblical tradition in Exodus 17:8 as one of Moses' companions (and, according to tradition, later successor). Breaking the name down, we see that there are two parts: יהו [yahu], the theophoric reference to the deity Yahweh, and the three letter root שוע. Due to disputes over how to render שוע lexically,[2][3][4][5][6] there are a number of generally accepted phrases this combination can translate to:
"Yahweh saves"
"Yahweh is salvation"
"Yahweh is [my] help"
"Yahweh (is) a saving-cry"
During the Exile to Babylon where the vernacular language of the Jewish people shifted from Hebrew to Aramaic (Jesus' mother tongue), יהושוע [yehoshua`] underwent a morphological change into the form ישוע [yeshua`]. Firstoff, theophoric references, where in Hebrew would usually come in the form of יה [yah] or יהו [yahu], in some dialects of Aramaic were יא [ya'] or י [ye]. This shortening also allowed for some confusion, as the 3rd person imperfect form of שוא [shua`] (to save) is ישוע, allowing the Aramaic name to take on the meaning "He will save." (This perhaps makes sense of the the angel's discussion with Joseph, in the narrative of Matthew, to name Mary's son "Jesus" because "He will save his people from their sins.")[7]
When the New Testament was complied, ישוע [yeshua`] was transliterated into Koine Greek as closely as possible, the result being Ἰησοῦς [iesus]. Where Greek has no equivalent of the semitic, ש [sheen], it was replaced with a σ [sigma], and a masculine singular ending was added. With the range of dialect that existed in 1st Century Judea (especially around Galilee) scholars believe that the final ע [`ayin] was simply dropped altogether. The earliest uses of this transliteration are actually found in the Septuagint and in writings of Philo of Alexandria.
From Greek, Ἰησοῦς [iesus] moved into Latin with the authorship of the Latin Vulgate. The morphological jump this time was not as large as previous changes between language families. Ἰησοῦς [iesus] quickly assimilated into iesusiesus, where it stood for many centuries.
Near the end of Middle English, the vowels changed during the Great Vowel Shift in the 15th century, and the letter 'J' was first distinguished from 'I' by the Frenchman Pierre Ramus in the 16th, but did not become common in Modern English until the 17th century. As such we can see that such works as the first edition of the King James Version of the Bible in 1611 continues to the name with an I. [8]
Finally, after thousands of years and several languages later, the name finally came to rest as the Modern English "Jesus" [ˈdʒi.zəs].
Alright, how's this for a start? I know that I kinda puttered out at the end of it as it is almost 1AM over here. All we'll need to do is pare this down for the mention on this page, and replace what's on the Names and titles of Jesus article. Comments? Questions? Fashion tips? :-) --Steve Caruso04:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Steve: Looks good to me. I have two minor suggestions. First, I would suggest dropping or qualifying the parenthetical about "Jesus' mother tongue," as there has been some dispute over what the /Languages Spoken by Jesus were. Second, I would suggest using the most common and accurate transliteration of Ἰησοῦς (viz., Iēsous), so that internet and wiki searches won't break. --MonkeeSage17:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if I'm missing the discussion on the name section. If not, I feel that 95% of the information can be cut (and moved to the main articles if it isn't already there). I mean, what do we really have to say here?
The name Jesus is an English transliteration of a Latin romanization (Iēsus) of a Greek name(Ἰησοῦς). Since Jesus was an Aramaic Jew living in Galilee around 30CE, scholars find it highly improbable that he had a Greek name. Further examination of the septuagint finds that the Greek, in turn, is a transliteration of a couple of possible Hebrew names: Yehoshua (יהושוע) or the shortened Yeshua (ישוע). Scholars believe that the name that Jesus was called during his lifetime by his peers was probably one of these.
I would agree, but there was a long argument between Haldrik and Jayjg over the derivation of the name. That's why I think a qualified liguist should look it over. Definitely most of the details could be moved to subarticles. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF13:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Odd. Statements like these in the summary (and excerpts): "[Jesus] regarded [John the Baptizer] as his teacher. . . [cf. p. 133]", "[Paul] transformed Jesus and his message. . .breaking with James and the followers of Jesus in Jerusalem", and claiming to have access to "a Hebrew version of the gospel of Matthew untouched by the Greek copyists [p. 134]", make me think that this book won't make any huge impact on Jesus studies except in groups where anything other than the traditional view will do. But that's just my impression. --MonkeeSage08:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nest headings correctly, for the same reasons as above. The automatically-generated top-level heading of any page is a H1 which gives the article title. The headings within the article must therefore be H2, ie "==".
The heading levels in this talk page violate this, as "=" is used for the headings. This should be changed to match the wikipedia style.
Edit: Looking at the archive pages, it seems that this style has been in use for the Jesus article for quite a while. Is there a specific reason that this article is not using the wikipedia standard? If so, perhaps my statement should be taken back. —matthew002806:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can only speak for myself in saying this, but I belive it's due to plain, simple... laziness. :-) One person at the start used a single = heading and everyone else followed. The amount of effort one would have to put into re-formatting the entire discussion (archives and all) would be substantial. --Steve Caruso03:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think it would be reasonable to just fix the main talk page, and leave the archives as they are. We can even reationalize it as not needed, since they're archiving the articles as they were at the time of archival, heading errors and all. Or, just do the main talk page, and put off fixing the archives until later. No need to do everything at once. —matthew002806:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can't remember who it was. Back in January, somebody came by and used one = for a header, which messed up the TOC for the other sections (which were using ==). If I remember correctly, that was the first time someone brought up Jesus in India. Since then I've been using = for primary headers to avoid messing up the page. I apologize for not following the style manual. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF04:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As you may have noticed, I've instituted some of the more expanded biography I've worked on at User:Aiden/Jesus. This is by no means a full account nor do I wish to see the article as such. However, this is after all a biographical article first and foremost. Thus, I think it is imperative that the article actually tell the story of Jesus. Now, the changes I've made are pretty minor in the grand scheme of things--mostly due to lack of time on my part. However, I've added the Geneology section and merged the Family section into it. I've also added Nativity/Childhood Baptism/Temptation sections. I feel these changes, and hopefully more to come (such as a better account of specific ministries) help make the article what it should be--a biographical article. A good example of this is the Muhammad article. I'd like to know what everyone thinks. —Aiden04:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And here Andrew C was wanting to condense the Life and Teachings section! I see a potential conflict. The article is now 83 KB long; how long do we want it to be? I know, I know, Wikipedia isn't paper, but still, those of us on slow modems might be overwhelmed if the article gets to be too long. Finally, the Baptism/Temptation section duplicates in part the first paragraph of the ministry section. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF05:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Relative to the rest of the article, the section is very small. And I for one don't see why we should have to condense the biography section before condensing other sections, such as the six paragraph rambling on the origin of Jesus' name. What's most central to a biographical article is in fact the biography part. —Aiden05:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I, CTSWyneken and Steve Caruso definitely agree that the names section should be condensed, and most of the information moved to subarticles. Overall I'm more concerned about concise wording than length. The whole thing, not "condense the biography section before condensing other sections." Where in the world did that statement come from??!!!!! 3 and a half screens isn't exactly "very small" relative to the rest of the article. It's the longest section of the body! It's also longer than New Testament view on Jesus' life. Something is a little off when a summary is longer than the article it is meant to summarize. At 1280*1024, the article divides into:
One third of a screen for the intro
Three quarters of a screen for the TOC
Half a screen for the chronology section
3 and a half screens for the Life and Teachings section
Just over two screens for the Historicity section, with more than half a screen for the name section (this definitely needs work)
3 screens for the Religious Views section
One third of a screen for the cultural impact section
2 and a third screens for notes
a screen and a half for references, see also and external links
15 screens total.
We have an extensive appendix and TOC, so that's actually only 10 screens for the body of the article. About a third of that is the Life and Teachings section. That seems about right to me. There is another third for the religious views. That also seems about right to me. Other than that, about a fifth of the article covers the historical Jesus. About a sixth of the article is the Chronology and Cultural Impact sections combined. I'm not convinced that the Chronology section is not redundant, since it's mostly about the birth and cruciixion dates; perhaps it belongs in the historical Jesus section? Like the name subsection, the chronology section could also be condensed IMHO.
IMHO, about 30–35% of the body of this article should cover the Gospel account, 30–35% should cover scholarly views of the historical Jesus, 30–35% should cover religious views, and the rest should cover the cultural impact. That seems to be the proper balance to me. Aiden, I don't mean to criticize you. I just think that if we're going to expand our summary of the Gospel account, we should first expand New Testament view on Jesus' life and then decide how to summarize it in this article. Again, something is a little off when a summary is longer than the article it is meant to summarize. That article was created on November 14, 2004 because this section was getting a bit long. That is precisely the reason why we have "daughter" subarticles. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF05:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"It (the baptism) is a very important event in Christianity as it not only marks the beginning of Jesus' public ministry, but also sets a precedent of baptism adhered to by Christians to this day." First of all, do we need the editorializing? Any sentence beginning "It is a very important event in Christianity" belongs in the Christian views section. Any clause beginning "sets a precedent" might also belong in the cultural impact section. Secondly, this isn't entirely accurate. It is true of many, but not all, Christian denominations. I had some interesting conversations with two Quaker ministers a while back about why they reject water baptism (they reject rituals and believe in an entirely spiritual baptism). Then we get into the whole issue of believer's baptism vs. infant baptism, not to mention immersion baptism vs. sprinkling baptism (see above re:the controversy about the baptism picture). Thirdly, once again, this level of detail belongs in New Testament view on Jesus' life. Fourthly, this article is about Jesus, not baptism. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF06:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with your points about editorializing and agree with many of the changes you have made. Still, I think our disagreement rests in the length of each section. I for one see the article as a biographical one, of which the majority of content should be related to the biography of Jesus. I feel that it does a great disservice to a reader unfamiliar with Jesus who comes across an article such as this and fails to really learn anything about the life of Jesus, but rather is subjected to ramblings about the supposed nonexistence of Jesus and the views of fringe minorities who consider Jesus the reincarnation of Buddha or some obscure view which really has no bearing on popular discourse. Those are the articles that should be confined to a host of breakout articles, not something as fundamental as the life of the subject. Again, in terms of a true biographical article, I recommend everyone look at the Muhammad article. —Aiden18:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I did. I also checked the talk page. "Muhammad was removed from the good article list. There are suggestions below for which areas need improvement to satisfy the good article criteria. Once the objections are addressed, the article can be renominated as a good article. If you disagree with the objections, you can seek a review." I'd hate to see Jesus suffer the same fate as Muhammad. Also, as Homestarmy said earlier, Muhammad led armies and thus left his military legacy in the historical record. Jesus' life wasn't so violent. Jesus taught, debated with various Judaic factions and went willingly to His crucifixion. Christians believe that He rose again on the third day, redeeming humanity from sin. Jesus' primary legacy is Christianity, and that religion even affected other religions, no matter how "fringe" you may consider those religions to be.
Of course, it's important to summarize the primary information we have, primarily the Gospel accounts and some background stuff from Josephus and the like. The thing is, there are several biographies out there, both religious and secular. Thus the biography is more than just the life and teachings section; the whole article is either about His life or His cultural impact. The nonexistence hypothesis is indeed dismissed as a small minority. The reincarnation Hindu/Buddhist stuff is more about cultural impact and comes late in the religious views section, as it should.
Actually, just reading the talk page, I would venture that mohammad was delisted for instability, it looks like there's some pretty bad content disputes and an edit war broke out, those sort of situations warrent delisting, as one GA criteria is stability :/. Homestarmy19:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have been helping to resolve the issue at the Muhammad article. It was delisted by joturner so we could resolve a dispute over the presence of fringe religious perspectives and views of Muhammad as the founder of Islam, which we have ultimately decided not to include in the main article per WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. Secondly, I sincerely hope this article does not in any way resemble the Moses article, but mainly for reasons other than subject matter. —Aiden19:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, for one thing, Moses is important to three world religions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam. This article is better than the Moses article. I was talking about the overall outline: Moses in the Bible, religious views, historical views. There's even a section on philosophical views ("Ethical dilemmas"). Beyond the general outline, though, Moses needs fact-checking and citations.
I like to be (reasonably) comprehensive. Also, I'd like to see this article eventually succeed as an FA. There were a lot of negative comments at our last FA nomination. One editor wrote that "Historicity, background, religious and cultural perspectives are all at least as important as the Gospel biography." Someone else wrote that "there doesn't seem to be nearly enough secular thoughts on the subject." Well, we've been working to find the proper (due) weighted balance. Finally, there's the whole systemic bias thing. We have Christian views of Jesus (another article that needs work) for the purely Christian views of Jesus.
I am of the school of having a very concise new testament plot summary, and linking to the main article on that topic. I do not believe that we can come up with a "biography" of Jesus, due to the huge number of POVs that claim they know who the real Jesus was (different religious views, different scholarly, historical views). All of these POVs have their own articles (Isa, Jewish view on Jesus, Historical Jesus, NT view on Jesus). Saying the NT plot summary IS the biography of Jesus is a POV statement. I'd agree with Arch that the expanded content belongs in the NT views article, not this one. --Andrew c02:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how having 2/3 of an article critically analyzing someone who the article fails to provide a decent biography for constitutes a "good article." If anything, these in-depth critical analyses should be in breakout articles. First and foremost our job is to provide a biography of Jesus. And frankly that is not a hard thing to do. We do not have to go into great detail or dwell on controversies. We know the subject matter and main source, according to WP:NPOV#Undue_weight that'd be the Gospels. It should not be a big deal to dedicate a larger portion of space to the main reason for the article existing in the first place. Then we can give everyone a soapbox. —Aiden03:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with using the Gospels to provide a biography of Jesus, as long as no attempt is made to harmonise the Gospels, the different versions of the Jesus story as given in each Gospel are clearly told, and the article is clear that Jesus is a character from the Bible. The article would be similar to telling the biography of Bilbo Baggins, where you have a couple of sources that tell slightly different versions of his tale, though the Baggins tale is far more consistent and internally coherent, having been written by the same author. If by biography you mean the story of Jesus the person who actually existed, then you are by definition in the realm of the "historical Jesus" debate, where views range from non-existance to the extensive historical speculations of some scholars. Drogo Underburrow04:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly Aiden, which is better: Content alone, or content and analysis? Even from a purely religious perspective, analysis is important. That's why, for example, Lutherans don't always agree with Catholics. It gets even more diverse when you add major secular viewpoints, which, frankly, we must in order to be NPOV. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF05:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Of course, now that you've added content, we have more to analyze. How to explain why Luke says that Jesus' birth was during the reigns of Herod and Quinirius, when Quinirus became governor of Syria about ten years after Herod the Great died? There are secular historians who find the nativity account ahistoric (in whole or in part), and there are Christian apologists who offer explanations. You've just complicated things. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF21:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, I for one would not be opposed to linking said apologetics sites if they would help elaborate on the content :). Homestarmy22:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A secular interpretation of the possibility of a historic Jesus is that he was simply a human revolutionary who correctly perceived a corrupt political elite of his time as cynical manipulators of traditional religious symbol system. Lacking a modern vocabulary to say that directly, and having a utopian vision of a cooperative society, he spoke (often sarcastically) using religious vocabulary—eloquently enough to become an effective leader of a politically threatening dissident movement. Yet, in his own primitive way, he was an early example of deconstructionism in practice. The tradition of Gnosticism, and most recently the Gospel of Judas support this view (from a secularist perspective). This secularist view has many origins but can be found recorded in popular culture works such as the theatrical show Jesus Christ Superstar.
Hi. I'm the author of said paragraph. I'm also new to trying to edit wikipedia so I'm sure to make beginner mistakes. I left an easy-to-delete paragraph on your personal discussion page that I'll delete myself if you haven't already, for example.
So: I'm not so clear why you think this doesn't belong in the section on early christian views. You would seem to be favoring the readings of various churches of the texts over certain secular readings --- hardly a neutral point of view. I ask you to restore my paragraph. 69.236.67.78 lord@emf.net
That's just the point: they're certain secular readings. We have a section for secular, as opposed to religous, readings. The section on Christian views presents Christian theology, not "certain secular readings." Yes, that is a POV, but it's balanced by other POVs in the article. WP:NPOV means we discuss all relevant views and give them appropriate weight,Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF10:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
yes, hopefully the anon will return to back up these ideas. It wouldn't be hard to cite that some believe he was some sort of revolutionary, but most of the rest is analysis that needs to come from some authoritive source. Besides, adjectives like sarcastic, eloquent, primitive are subjective terms that really only belong in attributed quotes. --MPerel ( talk | contrib)09:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
lord@emf.net again -- MPerel: what kind of "back up" would you suggest? I did include one cultural link and I guess I could conjure up more. It's a fairly obvious idea on it's own. "sarcastic" and other terms -- I don't understand the distinction you are drawing there. I think it is an incoherent one. -t — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.236.67.78 (talk • contribs)
Hi lord@emf.net and welcome to Wikipedia. :) The ideas you stated are interesting analysis. As a newbie, one of Wikipedia's policies that you'll need to familiarize yourself with is No Original Research. What this means in a nutshell is that as editors, we only express published ideas, not our own synthesis or interpretation (no matter how true or intelligent it may be). So for example, can you cite a specific published source that expresses the idea that Jesus "was simply a human revolutionary who correctly perceived a corrupt political elite of his time as cynical manipulators of traditional religious symbol system"? Is there a published source that describes Jesus an early example of deconstructionism? These ideas may very well be true, but unless they have already been stated somewhere by an authoritive source, we can't put it in the article. Does that make sense? --MPerel ( talk | contrib)10:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, to clarify on the subjective adjectives... words like "sarcastic, eloquent, primitive" are in the eye of the beholder, so they're not really neutral voice. We only use subjective terms if we are directly quoting someone in order to describe a particular point of view. Does that help? --MPerel ( talk | contrib)10:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit confused as to how Gnosticism, with its view of Jesus as an unearthly being, and emphasis on secret, esoteric knowledge, and so forth, can be seen as even vaguely compatible with the idea of Jesus as a human revolutionary. The Jesus of the canonical gospels (and especially the synoptics) is much closer to this idea than the Jesus of Gnosticism. john k16:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nazarenes
A recent edit has changed 'Jesus was the Nazarene' to 'The Gospels record that Jesus was a Nazarene, but the meaning of this word is vague.[25]'
Whilst agreeing that the discussion of the names of Jesus should be continued on another page, I would like to change the line to
Well, the Life and Teachings section already says "Jesus' childhood home is represented as Nazareth in Galilee" before you even get to the historicity section. That particular paragraph was written from scratch, not changed from anything else. It summarizes (scholarly opinion of) Jesus in relation to other Jewish sects. There was an early sect of Christian Jews known as the Nazarenes. That may be what Christianity was known as before they were first called Christians in Antioch (11:26 Acts 11:26) That sect is what the word "Nazarene" is referring to. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF14:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well I changed it to "a" because I specifically remember Jesus being in the same category as Lord of Lords, but not Nazarene of Nazarenes, "the" seemed incorrect. I didn't put in the "vauge" thing though. Homestarmy15:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying to understand the comment about half-siblings in the Trinitarian views section. Half-siblings normally refers to genetic relationships. I presume it is used to say that Mary is the biological mother, but Joseph is not the biological father. Is this supposed to suggest that God has genes? Does this comment really add anything? Can we simply delete the comment about half-siblings?
Ted15:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sibling doesn't seem to necessarily suggest itself in a technical and genetic sense, it does seem to help get the reader to remember the point that Protestants tend to believe that Jesus was the Son of God and mary. Homestarmy16:02, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is a bit awkward to refer to them as "half-siblings." Beyond this, might it be wise to a) note that the Bible has nothing to say about Mary's perpetual virginity, and that this concept largely arose out of apocryphal writings like the Gospel of James, and that while many of the early church fathers accepted Mary's perpetual virginity, others (notably Origen) thought it more likely that Jesus's brethren were Mary's children by Joseph? john k16:28, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am not familiar with Origen or the Gospel of James. "Half-sibling" simply refers to the Protestant doctrine that James the Just and the others shared one parent with Jesus, ie Mary. It's not saying that God has genes. It's simply saying that Jesus (unlike James and the others) does not have a human father. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF16:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say that "half-sibling" is an extrapolation, and unless sourced, is POV. Most Protestants consider the siblings to be Mary and Joseph's children. That's verifiable (and hopefully, accurate). To add the "and thus half-siblings of Jesus" is less accurate, since it requires that most Pretestants have actually decided on the genetic relatedness of Mary and Jesus. Does Jesus share genes and mtDNA with Mary? My guess would be that few Protestants (or other Christians) have ever bothered to think about the genetics of Jesus. I think it would be more accurate to leave off those last few words. Guettarda18:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I don't think we should confine this to the opinions of modern religious groups, but, if we're going to discuss the issue, ought to discuss the origins of the views. In terms of the Infancy Gospel of James, here's a quote from Early Christian Writings.com: According to Hock, a major development found in the Protevangelium of James is this: "Mary, the central character, is no longer a virgin in the ordinary sense of a young woman of marriageable age, but a virgin of extraordinary purity and unending duration." Hock goes on to argue: "Indeed, Mary's purity is so emphasized that it becomes thematic and thus answers the fundamental question which guides the narrative: why Mary, of all the virgins in Israel, was chosen to be the mother of the son of God. The answer: no one could have been any purer. Hock is the author of The Infancy Gospels of James and Thomas (Polebridge Press, 1996) ISBN 094434447X. Origen notes, But some say, basing it on a tradition in the Gospel according to Peter, as it is entitled, or "The Book of James," that the brethren of Jesus were sons of Joseph by a former wife, whom he married before Mary. As far as I can gather, this Infancy Gospel is the earliest extant source for the idea of Mary's perpetual virginity. It is certainly not to be found in any of the Canonical gospels. As for the rest of Origen, see here. He doesn't say that he thinks the Infancy Gospel is wrong, but neither is he convinced of it. I'm not sure where the idea of Jesus' brethren as his cousins comes from. I understand that use by the Evangelists of the Greek word for "sisters" makes this interepretation hard to sustain, but I don't have any relevant expertise to back that up with - I just read it somewhere. john k22:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, we do reference Eusubius for the Orthodox view (OrthodoxWiki says it's also based on the Protoevangelion of James), and Jerome for the Catholic view. I may be wrong, but I don't think that the Protestant Reformers were looking back to Origen. It's a natural consequence of accepting the Virgin Birth, but not accepting the perpetual virginity of Mary, based on sola scriptura. So, they came to the same conclusion as Origen, but not based on Origen. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF04:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To respond to the others, I still don't understand why people think that "half-sibling" implies "genetic relatedness" while "cousin" does not. In both cases, we're talking about a blood relative through Mary. The Protestant position is that Jesus and James are related through Mary but not Joseph. The extrapolation is coming from Guettarda and Ted, not my original sentence. If you bring "genetic relatedness" into it, you either have to explain where that extra Y chromosome came from, or come up with something like that Androgynous Christ book that has been floating around. This was twenty centuries before genetic testing or paternity tests. In Christian beliefs its simply a mystery, and a miracle to boot. Genetics is beside the point.
We don't talk about the other siblings as much, but I've often heard James referred to as the younger half-brother of Jesus. A while back, an editor objected to the Nicene Creed ("seated at the right hand of God the Father") by asking if God has two hands and a face. IMHO, asking if God has genes is just as silly. Christians believe that Jesus' conception is simply a miracle of the Holy Spirit. Get over it. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF04:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Someone who shares at least one is a sibling. A sibling could also share the same parents without any genetic relatedness. A half-sib, on the other hand, is very specific in how it addresses the issue of relatedness. It isn't a question of whether God has genes - the canonical idea that Jesus was "fully human" requires that he have a full set of genes, but there is no way of knowing whether they were 45 chromosomes from Mary plus a new Y chromosome, or whether they were 23 of Mary's and 23 of Joseph's, or whether they were 46 chromosomes created de novo. Calling Mary and Joseph's children half-sibs makes specific assumptions about relatedness which is not, as far as I know, something that "most Protestants" do. Calling them "siblings" does not make new assumptions. That's all. It is correct to be vague when the underlying statement is vague. Adding precision which is not specified in the underlying source isn't compatible with NPOV. Guettarda18:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's simply how the terms are defined. A full sibling shares two biological parents. A half sibling shares one biological parent. A stepsibling shares zero biological parents. The genetics God chose not to reveal. Any discussion of genetics adds precision which is not specified in the underlying source. I'm not the one who brought up genetics. I simply said that Protestants believe that Jesus and James shared one biological parent, ie, Mary. That's what half-sibling means. Protestants believe that Jesus is a half-sibling (not stepsibling or cousin) of James et al through a miracle of the Holy Spirit, and not necessarily though genetics. We don't know the genetics. Miracles cannot be explained through genetics. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF22:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Protestants believe that Jesus is a half-sibling ... of James...." I guess I didn't get the memo. It is not really as big a deal as some of you are making it into. Is the statement about half-siblings needed? Or, just another POV? It is pretend-science, and, quite frankly, demeans the topic. But, keep it in if it is so important to y'all. I'm used to POV pushing. Ted04:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by POV-pushing. I'm just saying that if we're going to include the Orthodox (stepsiblings) and Catholic (cousins) POVs, we should also include the Protestant POV. Anyone who wishes to exclude the Protestant POV is guilty of POV-pushing IMHO, and censorship to boot. All this talk of genetics (which was never in the article anyway, nor should it be) is pretend-science. This is important to me because, quite frankly, I am getting tired of people mocking Protestant beliefs. Still, it's not POV-pushing, it's simply including all relevant POVs, and the Protestant POV is just as relevant as the Catholic and Orthodox POVs. Just saying "sibling" is too vague: it can also mean the Orthodox view of stepsiblings, and it can also mean full siblings which would deny the virgin birth! We Protestants reject both the stepsibling and full sibling interpretations.
"I am getting tired of people mocking Protestant beliefs ... We Protestants reject both the stepsibling and full sibling interpretations." I'm sorry, but you seem to have missed what the reformation was all about. I don't mock Protestant beliefs, mainly because I am a Protestant. One reason I am is that we do not have a Pope who decrees what Protestants have to believe. Describing the differences between the various branches of Christianity is fine -- they exist. Trying to add pretend-biology is not. I suspect that if you walk through any mainline middle-of-the-road Protestant church and ask people about half-siblings of Jesus, most would say they have either never thought about it or that it is irrelevant (my view). I've been 40+ years in Sunday schools, worship services, and meetings for worship, plus various readings, and don't recall it ever being mentioned (I'll go back and check my books). Of course, it is possible that I am out of touch with the "majority" of Protestants. Being a Protestant, that's OK too. I'm sorry if I ruffled your feathers. I did not mean to do that. I'll bow out of this discussion. Ted16:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ted, I'm sorry if I misunderstood. When you asked if God has genes, you seemed to imply that God the Father had sex with Mary, something that is anathema not only to Protestants but to the vast majority of Christianity. When you said, "sorry, I didn't get the memo," you seemed to mock Protestantism, which isn't based on memoranda but rather sola scriptura. (The Bible mentions the Virgin Birth and the brothers and sisters of Jesus. The Bible does not say that Joseph had a previous wife. That idea comes not from the Bible, but from the apocryphal gospels of james and Peter.) Those who have thought about it would say that the miracle of the Virgin Birth is supernatural and thus cannot be explained by a naturalistic approach like genetics. If you try to explain the supernatural in terms of naturalism, you either deny religion or you get pseudoscience. The Protestants I'm familiar with refer to Jesus and James as co-uterine half-brothers.
It is, of course, possible that there are Protestant groups I'm not familiar with who deny that Jesus and James are co-uterine half-brothers. So, which part do you disagree with: that Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary by a miracle of the Holy Spirit, or that James was the biological son of Mary and Joseph? Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF16:37, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think you are missing my point. To call people half-sibs implies a precise genetic relationship. To call Jesus and James half-sibs is to make assumptions about the degree of genetic relatedness between Jesus and Mary. I am unaware of any source, be it scriptural or scholarly, which delves into that issue. More importantly, so say that "most Protestants" believe something, it must be supported by sources. While most Protestants probably do believe that James, etc., were Mary & Joseph's children, I doubt many of them have an opinion on the degree of genetic relatedness between Mary and Jesus. Thus, any statement to that effect must be sourced. To do otherwise is to go beyond the available data, which we cannot do. Guettarda18:09, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify - this isn't about what you meant when you said half-sib. Some people would be happy to use the term half-sibs, without coming to any conclusion on the issue of genetics. But we aren't writing for "some people", we are writing for everyone. I think I understand what you meant by using the term; the problem is that it is insufficiently unambiguous for our purposes. If some naitve English speakers familiar with the story can read it that way that several of us did read it, then the wording in ambiguous and can be read as meaning something other than the underlying sources meant. All that really matters is accuracy and clear communication. Guettarda18:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the Lutherans, Presbyterians, Methodists, Mennonites, Baptists and Quakers I am familiar with are happy to use the term "half brother" without coming to any conclusion on the issue of genetics. Also, Homestarmy is a member of the Way of the Master, and he seemed comfortable with the idea. The Bible says nothing about genetics, and neither do we have a DNA sample, so there's no way that we can know what the genetics are. TedE has shown me that there are some Protestants who don't believe that Jesus and James were half brothers, although I'm still not sure which Protestants these are. Since apparently not all Protestants agree, we'll leave the phrase "half siblings" out of the article. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF18:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think i've told you before Archola, The Way of the Master isn't a denomination, its just an evangelistic metholodigy which happens to have Biblical support (Imagine that :D ). And Archola is right, "half brother" or "half siblings" seems to suggest that Jesus was connected with His brothers in a formal sense only by half of His bloodline, namely, His mother's. But hey, if its possible some people don't immedietly think "They were His brothers via Mary but not by Joseph, making them half-brothers", I dunno if it's such a big deal to leave it in. Now, technically speaking, for a biographical article, I think it would be a big deal to mention that Jesus had brothers, and half-brothers in a formal sense I guess to boot, so why don't we simply write "Half-brothers in a formal, though perhaps not genetic, sense."? Homestarmy23:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Well, the Lutherans, Presbyterians, ... Also, Homestarmy is a member of the Way of the Master, and he seemed comfortable with the idea." WP:NOR. Anyway, this one Methodist read your wording to mean "shares 50% of his genes with...", so does that cancel out your unnamed sources? ;)
To say "half sib" has implications about the egentic relatedness...regardless of what it means to you, we are writing for everyone. The language can easily be taken to mean something that "most Protestants" probably do not mean. We can't use misleading language. So, unless you actually mean that "most Protestants" believe this specific thing about the level of genetic relatedness between Jesus and his brothers (and can support that assertion), the language isn't acceptable in this article. The issue here is clear communication. Guettarda00:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is it not possible to add some words to the effect of "Had half-brothers formally, though possibly not in a genetic sense"? Homestarmy01:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If we need sources for claiming what that the traditional Protestant view is, here are a few:
Meier, Marginal Jew, vol. 1, p. 318:
. . .Catholics hold that Jesus' "brothers" and "sisters" were really cousins, while Protestants maintain that they were true siblings having the same two parents.
The Catholic perspective interprets these terms [brothers/sisters] broadly, perhaps referring to the children of Joseph by another marriage. Protestants, however, claim that they refer to actual siblings of Jesus.
The common Protestant view is that Mary was a virgin before Jesus' birth, but that afterwards she and Joseph had natural children, who would have been Jesus' younger siblings.
And regarding genetics, apparently ReligiousTolerance.org wasn't aware[3]:
Roman Catholics believe that Mary was a life-long virgin and that Jesus was the only child that she gave birth to; he was her first-born and last-born child. . . . Some Catholics believe that Jesus' brothers and sisters were in fact half-siblings; they were children of Joseph by a previous marriage.
Wouldn't it be possible to just quote scripture and then state what some Christians believe; i.e. some interpret this to mean cousings while others believe they were siblings through Joseph and Mary? We could broadly qualify who believes what. Storm Rider(talk)02:52, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why are only the official views of Christian churches to be discussed here? What about the views of (frequently Christian) scholars, who seem mostly to support the Protestant position (my understanding is that even Catholic scholars, like John P. Maier, tend to feel that the evidence best supports this view). john k03:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Guettarda, for the record, "half sibling" has always meant brothers and sisters who share one and only one biological parent (denotation). Nobody ever understood "half sibling" in genetic terms (connotation) before we had a science of genetics. IMHO it's taking the term "half sibling" out of context, but like I said, I concede. We'll leave the phrase "half sibling" out of the article if the connotations are going to cause trouble. Before Ted started this thread, I also wasn't aware that there are Protestants who understand the Virgin Birth in terms of genetics. I was wrong.
Homestarmy, I appreciate the attempt to clarify, but I grow weary of trying to rephrase a simple term for the sake of avoiding bad connotations. Look what we've done (and continue to do) to the second paragraph. It's better just to leave the phrase "half siblings" out if some people don't understand it to mean that Jesus shares one biological parent (Mary) with James and the rest, as long as we do say that James et al were the children of Mary and Joseph. Or is someone going to challenge that?
MonkeeSage, John K, thank you for yout help. It appears that we are indeed going to need sources for this.
StormRider, the scriptural reference is in the Jesus#Genealogy_and_family section. I moved the interpretation of the passage to the Christian views section because I felt that is where it belongs. Of course, we can also add references to Matthew 13:55 and Mark 3:6 to that section to clarify what we mean by Jesus' relatives. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF14:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
John K is correct about Meier:
Needless to say, all of these arguments, even when taken together, cannot produce absolute certitude in a matter for which there is so little evidence. Nevertheless, if—prescinding from faith and later Church teaching—the historian or exegete is asked to render a judgment on the NT and patristic texts we have examined, viewed simply as historical sources, the most probable opinion is that the brothers and sisters of Jesus were true siblings.
This judgment arises first of all from the criterion of multiple attestation: Paul, Mark, John, Josephus and perhaps Luke in Acts 1:14 speak independently of the "brother(s) of Jesus" (or the Lord). Most of their statements yoke the brothers (and at times sisters) directly with Mary the mother of Jesus in phrases like "his mother and (his) brothers."
To this initial fact of multiple attestation of sources must then be added the natural sense of "brother(s)" in all these passages, as judged by the regular usage of Josephus and the NT. The Greek usage of Josephus distinguishes between "brother" and "counsin," most notably when he is rewriting a biblical story to replace "brother" with the more exact "cousin." Thus it is especially significant that Josephus, an independent 1st-century Jewish writer, calls James of Jerusalem, without further ado, "the brother of Jesus."
In the NT there is not a single clear case where "brother" means "cousin" or even "stepbrother," while there are abundant cases of its meaning "physical brother" (full or half). This is the natural sense of adelphos in Paul, Mark and John; Matthew and Luke apparently fol-lowed and developed this sense. Paul's usage is particularly important because, unlike Josephus or the evangelists, he is not simply writing about past events transmitted to him through stories in oral or written sources. He speaks of the brother(s) of the Lord as people he has known and met, people who are living even as he is writing. His use of "brother" is obviously not determined by revered, decades-long Gospel traditions whose set formulas he would be loath to change. And Paul, or a close disciple, shows that the Pauline tradition knew perfectly well the word for "cousin" (anepsios in Col 4:10). Hence, from a purely philological and historical point of view, the most probable opinion is that the brothers and sisters of Jesus were his siblings. This interpretation of the NT texts was kept alive by at least some Church writers up until the late 4th century. (idem., pp. 331-332)
Thanks Monkeesage, for finding the specific quote. I came across a mention of his position in a review of Meier, which found his lengthy discussion of the issue a bit amusing and noted it as an idiosyncrasy deriving from Meier's Catholicism - that is, most non-Catholic (or Orthodox) scholars wouldn't really feel necessary to make a long argument on behalf of the idea that the Brethren of Jesus were Joseph and Mary's children. john k17:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Origen
Hey Archola, I don't think that I was trying to say that Protestants got the idea from Origen (although I'd imagine that early Protestant theologians read Origen and the other church fathers). I was just trying to say that we should make clear a) that there's nothing in our oldest sources to support the idea of Mary's perpetual virginity; and b) that the idea of Mary's perpetual virginity was not universally accepted by the early church fathers (lower-case, as Origen isn't a Church Father), and only became dogma somewhat later. I do think that the Protevanglion of James should probably be mentioned. I also wonder if this issue really should be discussed in the "trinitarian views" section. john k18:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I had to put it somewhere after I moved it out of the Gospel accounts. I know what the Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant interpretations are. I don't know what the nontrinitarian interpretations are. Of course, anything not specifically trinitarian or nontrinitarian could go in the general intro to the section, before the subheaders.
To be honest, I don't know when the idea of the perpetual virginity of Mary developed. Does it predate Jerome? If not, we've already sourced it. If so, someone should find the first reference to the doctrine, but not necessarily for this article.
I just want to address your chronological question. The perpetual virginity already lies behind The Protoevangelium of James (usually dated around 150 AD). However, this cannot be the "origin" as it takes the PV for granted and only tries explanations (which came to be accepted by the Eastern Orthodox). I don't know any earlier appearence clearly spelled out. That's predating Jerome by 250 years at least. Str1977(smile back)22:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As per John K, I've moved the reference to James and the other family members out of the Trinitarian views section.
As per John K and Str1977, I've added a reference to the Protoevangelium of James as a footnote off the perpetual virginity of Mary doctrine.
I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on the half-siblings thing. I've removed it from the article and have no intention of putting it back in.
Sorry to be the stick in the mud here, but the the Protoevangelium of James doesn't teach perpetual virginity (at least not explicitly, though some Roman Catholic apologists have infered that "the Lord's Virgin" is a vocational title rather than a temporal description). I just raised this issue at the perpetual virginity article's talk page. So I think that the footnote is not a good idea. Origen (Commentary on Matthew, 2:17) would be better, since he undisputedly claimed that Mary was a virgin perpetually. --MonkeeSage00:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we should create a Brethren of Jesus article to deal with this stuff, and only briefly mention it here to say that the brethren of Jesus are mentioned in the Gospels, but that different groups have different interpretations of what that means. john k02:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2 cents: Though LDS believe in the virgin birth of Jesus, they do not believe that Mary remained a virgin. Mary is believed to have birthed other children with Joseph. In this we closely align with the Protestant interpretation of scripture. Storm Rider(talk)05:22, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Many interpret the Gospels to suggest that Jesus opposed strict and literal observance of traditional Jewish law, advocating more the spirit than the letter of the law. Some contend that Jesus preached a "higher level" of morality than in Jewish law, preaching love for not only one's "neighbor," but for one's "enemy" as well
First of all, by saying "many interpret" and "some contend," we are moving beyond the Gospel accounts to particular interpretations of the Gospel accounts.
Secondly, we should say who the "many" and "some" are.
Third, I recognize these as particular Christian doctrines, but they don't cover all Christian doctrines. Christian views on the relationship between OT law and NT Gospel range from antinomianism to legalism, to those who see Jesus as a second Moses in fulfillment of 18:17-20 Deuteronomy 18:17–20, to the Lutheran and Reformed doctrine on uses of the law found in Law and Gospel.
Fourth, doesn't this really belong in the Christian Views section?
The 2nd sentence can stay if we remove "Some contend". Actually anyone who can read would contend that - it's the plain meaning of the Gospel text. The 1st sentence I would disagree with completely. rossnixon10:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think qualification of what "traditional" here means might help as well, as if it means the OT there might be somewhat of a clarity problem, but if it was like the "foolish traditions" Jesus spoke about then that probably needs some explanation too. But all your points seem correct. Homestarmy12:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Homes, I think this is referring in particular to Jesus' commentary on Mosaic law in 5:17-48 Matthew 5:17–48, which Wikipedia strangely calls antithesis of the Law. I say strangely because only antinomians really believe that this passage is antithetical to the Law! A plain reading of verse 17 disavows any claim of antithesis: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF14:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ross, I half agree with you. IMHO the second half of the second sentence is supported by a plain reading of the text (it is also properly sourced). Jesus did, of course, say "Love thy enemy." Whether or not that represents a "higher level of morality" is a particular theological viewpoint. My own view is that Jesus was telling us what the law really means, but of course that is also POV. I wonder what our Jewish friends would say? Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF14:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Archola. The first sentence is inappropriate for this section. The second sentence is highly POV. Jews certainly do not consider Jesus' morality to be "higher," "fuller," or "more complete." I have no doubt that Jesus believed that his teachings were superior to those of his contemporaries, but I see no need to put that in the article (anyone who proposes something new thinks it is better than what came before). I also have no doubt that Christians think this is a higher morality, but this would belong in a section on what Christians believe. In any event, it is highly POV and must be presented as a POV. And yes, we should avoid weasel words here like some or many. I understand many non-Christians also believe Jesus's teachings were morally superior, but we can easily name names (Russell? Ghandi?) and should. Slrubenstein | Talk17:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jesus' teachings were both tradition and radical in some aspects. In the area of the Jewish Law, Jesus advocated and adhered to the Law of Moses (10:25-28 Luke 10:25–28, 8:55 John 8:55). According to Matthew 5:17–19, Jesus stated, "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill." However, Jesus also taught of a "New Law," whereby man was bound by a new moral code. Jesus advocated in the Expounding of the Law, among other things, turning the other cheek and love for one's enemies as well as friends (5:21-48 Matthew 5:21–48).
The first sentence looks a little awkward to me. How about "Jesus' teachings were in some ways traditional, but in other ways they were radical." Other than that, your revision looks fine to me. However, I am less sure of the various perspectives on Jesus' teachings in relation to OT than I am about James' relationship with Jesus (and even there, apparently, I was wrong). So, what do other people think of Aiden's revision? Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF18:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That seems a bit vauge to me, what about "Jesus' teachings were both traditional and radical in a sense compared to Jewish law of the time." Homestarmy23:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As long as everyone can agree to the meaning of 13:34 John 13:34 (although a "new command" seems pretty unambiguous to me, you never know what other people might think). What we're dealing with here is the relationship between the OT law and the teachings of Jesus, and of course there are various interpretations of this even within Christianity (something we might discuss within the Christian views section). To be honest, when I hear the phrase "new covenant," I immediately think of the Lord's Supper—which isn't quite the same thing as the Expounding of the Law. So, I'll let others comment. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF15:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't the "Religious perspectives" section, which accounts for the religious views of most of the world, be listed before the historicity section according to WP:NPOV's guidelines on prominence? —Aiden21:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to just delete the following paragraph (2nd paragraph under Nativity and childhood):
According to Luke 2:18-20, an angel visited some local shepherds in the night, telling them "Do not be afraid, for behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy which will be to all people. For there is born to you this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord. And this will be the sign to you: You will find a Babe wrapped in swaddling cloths, lying in a manger." After this an innumerable company of angels appeared with the herald singing "Glory to God in the highest, on earth peace, good will toward men." (See The First Noël.) The shepherds went quickly to Bethlehem, finding the sign to be as the angel foretold. They subsequently publicized what they had witnessed throughout the area. According to Matthew 2:1-12, some men from the east (traditionally called "wise men" or "Magi"), presented the infant Jesus with gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh. The men were following a star which they believed was a sign that the Messiah, or King of the Jews, had been born.
While these details are interesting when discussing the nativity story, I feel that they have very little to do with Jesus, and more to do with the first Christmas. At least, I think we should cut down on the bible quotes (what is the point of linking to the quote if we are just going to copy and paste it into the text). --Andrew c02:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I have heavily condensed the paragraph and merged the main points in the first. Please let me know what you think. —Aiden03:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I made some slight changes, and feel that you did a great job of condensing the two bits from each gospel into their own consise sentences. Thanks!--Andrew c04:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Andrew c's concerns
Concern over Chronology section
The most detailed accounts of Jesus' birth are contained in the Gospel of Matthew (probably written between 65 and 85 AD/CE) and the Gospel of Luke (probably written between 65 and 100 AD/CE). [ref] The Gospels of the Bible, BibleGateway.com
What does it mean "The most detailed accounts"? Mt and Lk are the ONLY accounts if we are talking canonical. If we aren't, then this needs to be clarified. The reference makes no sense (and needs to be updated). I could not find "The Gospels of the Bible" when I searched BibleGateway.com.
I added an unsourced tag to this section because these claims need to be verifiable if we want this to be a FA. When I get home and have access to the book, I will look up the page number for the Meier info, and add a ref tag for it.
The paragraph about the creation of AD seems too detailed.
However, based on a lunar eclipse that Josephus reports shortly before the death of Herod the Great (who plays a major role in Matthew's account),
It seems ackward to introduce Herod in this fashion. Maybe we need a sentence before this one explaining that Herod is a character in Mt, and if we are to accept Mt's account, Jesus would have been born before 4 BCE.--Andrew c00:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea. I agree that section is too detailed and needs to be condensed. As for sources, I believe this grew out of the discussion on the birth and death dates in the first paragraph, so some of those sources probably apply to this section as well. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF11:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I said earlier on this talk page, I knew this would come up. Well, many critical scholars just feel that the nativity narrative is less reliable than other parts of the Gospel. To them, the gospels are not "utterly unreliable," only parts of them are. Of course, Christian apologetics also have a response. Homestarmy, you may respond when ready ;)Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF11:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, never mind.....I'll do it myself. You know what, for all the problems wikipedia has, a no censoring alot of pr0n policy, sometimes really weird cabalistic things, and weird downtime, sometimes it really is awesome....especially when the critics try to quote from it. The first claim from the skeptics annotated Bible is that Herod died in 4 BC, (Yes, 4 BC. Not 4 BCE, yeesh) where it cites the Wikipedia article. I shall quote from it:
"Some chronologers hold that he died in the year 5, 4 or 1 BC . Their chronology is based to a large extent on Josephus’ history.(You know, the guy people slam for Christians somehow tampering with his writings) In dating the time that Herod was appointed king by Rome, Josephus uses a "consular dating" whereby Josephus locates the event as occurring during the rule of certain Roman consuls (Onischuk note-Consular Dating was highly variable and therefore inaccurate - see Julian Calendar and Anno Domini). According to this, Herod's appointment as king would be in 40 BC, but the data of another published Roman historian, Appianos - book "Appianos Romaika" (Appian's Roman History) published 2nd Century AD], would place the event in 39 BC. By the same method Josephus places Herod's capture of Jerusalem in 37 BC, but he also says that this occurred 27 years after the capture of the city by Pompey (which was in 63 BC). (Jewish Antiquities, XIV, 487, 488 [xvi, 4]) Josephus's reference to that latter event would make the date of Herod's taking the city of Jerusalem 36 BC -- Appianos 35BC. Now, Josephus says that Herod died 37 years from the time that he was appointed king by the Romans, and 34 years after he took Jerusalem. (Jewish Antiquities, XVII, 190, 191 [viii, 1]) This might indicate that the date of his death was 2 BC or perhaps 1 BC using Josephus's consular dating, whereas Appianos would place the date at 1 BC or 1 AD.
Based on this information, I shall conclude that his death date is by no means settled upon as 4 BC, taking into account the source in question. I also conclude that the reasoning Josephus used to find the date seems to be highly debated. Therefore, it seems the Skeptics annotated Bible's conclusion of "4 BC" is not highly defendable, whereas many possible dates proposed for Herod's death here correspond just right for the Bible to come out contradiction free. :)
Nextly, The Cyrenious/Quirinius thing. At first glance, this may appear to be a rather odd little problem for the Bible....until, that is, one reads the source provided for Quirinius. As I said earlier, Wikipedia can sometimes be awesome.
Publius Sulpicius Quirinius (rendered in Greek Κυρήνιος Kyrenios, c. 51 BC - AD 21) was the Roman governor of Syria. According to the Gospel of Luke (2:1-2), Jesus was born during his rule.
Looks like the Greek renders it pretty close to "Cyrenious" to me. Remember, many manuscripts used for translating the Bible into English come from the Greek. No contradiction.
The way the paragraph reads now seems to suggest one coherent picture, where scholars find the differences between the 3 versions (and Jn's lack there of) significant. It seems like the reason Lk and Mt's versions are mentioned are to suppliment each other to paint a coherent picture. This practice seems POV. My proposed solution would be to give Mk's account, and explain in a sentence or two how Mt and Lk differ, but of couse this is just another POV (namely Markan priority). I'd propose something like this.
The Gospel of Mark begins with the Baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist, which Biblical scholars describe as the beginning of Jesus' public ministry. According to Mark, Jesus came to the Jordan River where John the Baptist had been preaching and baptizing those in the crowd. After Jesus had been baptized and rose from the water, Mark claims Jesus "saw the heavens torn apart and the Spirit descending like a dove on him. And a voice came from heaven, 'You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased.'" Luke adds the chronological details that John the Baptist had begun preaching in the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar, c. 28 AD/CE (Luke 3:1) and that Jesus was about thirty years old when he was baptized (Luke 3:23). Matthew differs from the other accounts by including John's attempt to decline the baptism, saying that it is Jesus who should baptize John. Jesus insisted however, claiming that baptism was necessary to "fulfill all righteousness".
But maybe this is too much. Maybe we could just add "on the other hand" before the narative switches over to Matthew. Maybe this is just a nit pick, but reading that section didn't seem quite right to me.--Andrew c00:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A paragraph like that is (almost) exactly how a discussion of variant versions in the synoptics should be done. I do have one quibble, though. I think the phrase "by including John's attempt" about Matthew's version implies that Matthew is correct that John attempted to decline the baptism. I would suggest, "Matthew differs from the other accounts by describing an attempt by John to decline the baptism..." john k04:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks everyone for your support and suggestions. I have changed the paragraph accordingly. (The anon edit was me).--Andrew c18:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Calander notation again
I've changed the article to keep it cleaner, and more NPOV. I've erased the B.C.E. and C.E. designation, it is quite unnecessary(especially in this article!). I understand there has been some debate about that, but truly, AD and BC will always remain the standard. No other encyclopedia I've seen has ever used BCE/CE. I know this may be seen as a Christocentric point of view, but in retrospect, we still use pagan names for days of the week, and nobody seems to raise any significant backlash about that.
I also made a little change to make it more clear. Instead of using "/" in between birth and death years, I used a "-" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spotswood Dudley (talk • contribs)
Weren't 19th century "higher criticism" types, like Strauss, along the lines of the "ethicist" tradition? john k22:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhat, yes. The search for the historical person of Jesus starts with the posthumous publication of the Reimarus essays in the late eighteenth century. Those works were attempts to use Enlightenment rationality to rid Christianity of supernaturalism. [4] Ultimately, the claim leads to a collapse of trinitarian doctrine, and a view that the importance of Jesus lies solely in his moral teachings.
By the 1790's it was fashonable in German schools of theology to write histories of Jesus. Hegel's first published work was a life of Jesus, for instance. The whole of Nineteenth century Christology, including Strauss, is dominated by the trend, and the Unitarian Church is born in this period. This so-called First Quest for the historical Jesus was finally ended in 1907 when Schweitzer published The Quest for the Historical Jesus, followed by the existentialist Christologies of Bultmann, Tillich and Barth.--Mrdarcey02:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I'm late to the game, but I'd start by proposing:
historicity of the texts:
1) a cite for the first sentence. Probably Davies and Allison, though I'll have to think about it. Redaction and form crit has too much to say here.
2) "Paul's letters, which are usually dated from the mid-1st century." Could we say from 53-63 CE, though some would place Galatians as early as 48 CE? I can find cites.
3) "while others were suppressed because they contradicted what had become the Christian orthodoxy." -- I'd question the POV here. Source, other than Pagels or King? Many, many, scholars believe an orthodox canon came about not as an attempt to crush diversity, but as a natural consensus based on what Christians found authentic. Its a question of some complexity, but the weight of the academy still seems solidly on the side of the latter.
Aside: I don't want to hear complaints of Christian bias. I'm not Christian. Neither are a large number of people who research in this field.
4) "chief amongst them, heavily suppressed by the Church as heresy and only rediscovered in the 20th Century, is the Gospel of Thomas" -- See point 3. chief according to whom? Suppressed is a loaded word: there is still an onus on Gnostic supporters to prove it. This guy, starting on pg. 61, certainly doesn't agree they were suppressed. Notice also the 19th century dating of Thomas' publication!
Possible earlier texts:
1) In regards to the two-source theory, should it also be mentioned that Q has come under some recent fire? I know at least one NT scholar who believes the Gospels (particularly Matt) worked as a narrative framework onto which common oral rememberance of Jesus' words and deeds could be hooked when being read in worship. I'll have to dig for sourcing.
External influences on gospel development:
1) I'd like to, if I may, rework this to emphasise most contemporary academics feel Jesus is best understood in his Jewish context. As it stands, it sounds as if the mythicist position is better represented (or represented at all) in the academy. At the least, I'd want to add to cites to some of the following authors: Barclay, Sweet, Allison, Meier, Sanders, Fredriksen, Vermes, Theissen, Bornkamm, Betz, Davies, Luz, Stanton, Brown, Kasemann, Dunn, Meeks and Wright. Dunn's work on Judaic influences on early Christology alone is enough to show the Jewish tradition was far more prevelant in Gospel writing than anything else. And Sanders and Meeks are meticulous in showing the archeology of the early Pauline Church arising from a Jewish setting.
2) Though I don't really believe it, is it appropriate to talk about Pagels's and King's work on Gnosticism here? Possibly vis a vis Bultmann on John?
I general, might I also suggest Barton and Muddimann's Oxford Bible Commentary? It's a tremendous general source. (Disclosure, one of those men was my advisor...)
Yes- I do... I think that as this controversy is being discussed by millions of people around the world, it needs to be at least acknowledged here.
User:Eric 18:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Here's the paragraph in question:
It has recently been discovered that Mary Magdalene was of royal descent (through the Jewish House of Benjamin) and was the wife of Jesus, of the House of David. That she was a prostitute was a slander invented by the Church to obscure their true relationship. At the time of the Crucifixion, she was aparently pregnant. After the Crucifixion, she fled to Gaul, where she was sheltered by the Jews of Marseille. She gave birth to a daughter, named Sarah. The bloodline of Jesus and Mary Magdalene became the Merovingian dynasty of France.
First of all, it doesn't belong in the Gospel summary section, as it's not mentioned in the canonical Gospels. Cultural impact, maybe.
So long as we make it clear that it is a minority view and that it is only propounded by populist authors (and mabye say who?), not scholars (and mabye list some scholarly dissent?), I don't mind a mention. And it also needs to go in the right place. Otherwise it is being given undue weight. » MonkeeSage «19:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's also in Baigent-Leigh-Lincoln, The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail; Picknett-Prince, The Templar Revelation: Secret Guardians of the true Identity of Christ; and Starbird, The Goddess in the Gospels: Reclaiming the Sacred Feminine. These claim to be presenting "historical conjecture", but they are not written by scholars in relevant fields, and have been, on the whole, overlooked or rejected by serious scholarship. » MonkeeSage «19:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This not a new thought. Its conjecture has been around significantly longer than Brown has been alive. Because it is a fad today does not necessarily mean that it merits specific mention.
I am a bit puzzled by the whole thing. Does it belong in this article? What about the article "gibberish from non-scholars about fictional religious thoughts that cause the uneducated to get excited". Okay, okay, let me tell you my real opinion... Cheers Storm Rider(talk)20:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - I should warn you that when the three of us get together it's usually a wind up. Apart from the anon IP post these are all in jokes from jaded editors of this article. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA SophiaTalkTCF20:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Patently false. Anyone who can read can see that you started the thread by talking about God's genes (not far from mocking God IMHO). I pointed out how silly that was, but Guettarda expanded on the idea. Your beliefs may be different, but many of us believe that Jesus' conception is simply a miracle of the Holy Spirit. To be honest, I find it odd that people wanted to run a genetic analysis when I brought up the idea that Jesus and James might have the same mother. Next thing you know, you'll be asking for a paternity test. Well, believe whatever you want to believe.Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF10:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. The mention of God's genes was used to show how ridiculous the argument was about half-siblings, a standard technique in discourse. I forgot my audience, and I apologize for that. I said I was bowing out of the argument, which I did, despite your continued attempts to mistrepresent my beliefs so you could mock them. Now, you are trying to beat a dead horse by bringing it up in completely unrelated topics. I simply wondered why. Libel, indeed. Ted15:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I accept your apology, but please stop misrepresenting what I said. It's not really unrelated since someone added a paragraph about Jesus' bloodline through Mary Magdelene, which is just as ridiculous IMHO. I also apologize if I misunderstood what you were saying. Do you have a suggestion for revising the article? Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF18:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have often wondered if 500 years from now an Oral Roberts tape will be found "hidden" in some old tape-player, and there will arise a common opinion that, rather than finding a scarce number of such tapes because they were not widely accepted or used, it is actually because the "evil Christian elite" tried to destroy them and true Christians had to hide them; and consequently books will be written about the true 900-ft. Jesus that institutional Christianity tried to suppress and hide. ;) » MonkeeSage «23:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Holy Blood, Holy Grail stuff is nonsense not supported by any contemporary sources, and there's no reason to give it any credence by referring to it in this article. There've been tons and tons of theories about Jesus. Many theories which have much more scholarly merit do not have room to be discussed in this article. There's absolutely no reason to discuss this stuff here. john k01:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
None of this nonsense should be present in the article. It is based on virtually no authenticated scholarly material and this user has taken a verbatim copy from an article about Dan Brown's ficticious book. Give me a break. —Aiden02:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that any idea derided in Foucault's Pendulum is not historical. Then why not a section covering popular portrayals of Jesus? It could include Holy Blood/Da Vinci, Last Temptation, Passion of the Christ, Piss Christ, anything. I'd hope that could remove the pressure from the historical bits of the article.--Mrdarcey14:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Paragraph on Pharisees, Sadducees, and Samaritans in Jesus#Ministry
This paragraph has been caught in a minor edit war in the last few days.
Someone keeps hiding the paragraph in comment tags, saying it doesn't fit. I find this ridiculous. Any summary of the Life and Teachings of Jesus simply must mention the Pharisees, Sadducees and Samaritans he encountered during his ministry. Several of us worked hard to ensure that this paragraph is an accurate and balanced summary of what the Gospels say.
On the other hand, somebody at AOL (most recently 64.12.117.6 (talk·contribs)) seems intent on reverting any and all good faith edits to the paragraph. We're trying to be concise. We don't need to summarize the parable of the Good Samaritan when we link to both the Wikipedia article and the passage from BibleGateway. We also don't need to quote the demon-possessed Samaritan passage out of context (although this is notable in context, since this is one of the times that the crowd intends to stone Jesus, and he escapes).
I commented the section once, but left it after you reverted. I for one see little relevance in this paragraph. What does the fact that one of Jesus' disciples was a Zealot have to do with his ministry? If anything this paragraph has only indirect relevance, simply showing us who Jesus associated with, but not giving any insight into the content of his message. If we are sacrificing the length of other, highly more pertinent sections, why should this be here? —Aiden22:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Secondly, the addition of "The Gospels record that Jesus interacted with other groups during his ministry." was a sad attempt to draw a relevent connection between the two subjects. The rest of the paragraphs in the section actually discuss ministry--i.e. Jesus' messages, parables, works, etc. This section talks about the power dynamics between Jesus and these other groups, and to a lay person would probably seem very irrelevent, possible even uninteresting. It belongs in a breakout article. If we can't even talk about the Passion, the Last Supper, or other more important events in Jesus' life, why are those same people fighting so hard to keep a seemingly irrelevant section here? —Aiden22:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We can certainly remove the reference to Simon the Zealot. Since the next paragraph mentions how Jesus "reached out to society's outcasts" (such as the tax collectors) we might move the reference to the Samaritans there. A good portion of Jesus' ministry was spent debating with the Pharisees and Sadducees, and I fail to see how this could possibly be irrelevant or uninteresting or unimportant. It wouldn't be much of a biography or a Gospel summary without mentioning the Pharisees and Sadducees. Remember, it's supposed to be about Jesus' life and teachings based on the Gospels (and there are plenty of Gospel references there ;)) I see nothing wrong with mentioning the Last Supper or the Passion so I'm sure what you mean by "if we can't even talk about."
"Power dynamics" sounds like a course in Christian money-management or evangelism or effective prayer offered by the local meganacle (the "Historic Apostolic Tenth Church of Christ With Signs Following, Incorporated")! And on a serious note, I do think that we should give some kind of summary of Jesus' relationship with the existing religious authorities. I also think we should mention the last supper and passion. » MonkeeSage «00:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Besides the debate as to whether or not the Zealot movement was too late to exist during Jesus' time and that Simon's identification as a Zealot may be due to interpreting the underlying shared sources between the Synoptic Gospels ([Simon the Zealot]), I feel that they might not be worth the mention. :-) The Pharisees, I beleive, are a must to discuss as many of Jesus' teachings appear to be influenced by them (there are a lot of parallels with Hillel, for example), and the fact that they were the Jewish sect of the day that was gaining the most political power and popularity (later forming into early Rabbinic Judaism). The Saducees are also important along with James' proported links with them, but that is not something I'm as well versed in as I would like to be. (I'll have to get my colleague Dan Gaztambide to write a bit about that.) --Steve Caruso02:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with all of the above that they should be mentioned, but it just seems they are not relavent to this particular section. Perhaps a small section dedicated to this should be created? —Aiden02:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
MonkeeSage, I think Aiden was using "power dynamics" in a political sense, ie power politics. If not, at least that's how I meant it. Steve, as I've said, I see no need to include the Zealots since they're barely mentioned in the Gospels. Also, there is a summary of scholarly opinions about Jesus' relationship with other Jewish sects in the Jesus#Historical reconstructions of Jesus' life section. The consensus in the "life and teachings" section is to stick to the gospels. Aiden, if you want to create a "reactions to Jesus' ministry" section to follow the "ministry" section, I see no problem with that. Just watch out for that anon AOL IP who has reverted all edits to the section at least three times with edit summaries like "Restoring some of the deleted content": [5], [6], [7], and possibly a fourth time: [8].
The Zealots are worth a mention because they are one of the four sects of Judaism mentioned by Josephus: "But of the fourth sect of Jewish philosophy, Judas the Galilean was the author. These men agree in all other things with the Pharisaic notions; but they have an inviolable attachment to liberty, and say that God is to be their only Ruler and Lord."JA18.32 Judas of Galilee or Judas of Gamala led a violent resistance to a census imposed for Roman tax purposes by Quirinius in Iudaea Province around 6 CE. In addition, if you read the Jewish Encyclopedia article on Zealots you will see their origins are even earlier. But, no doubt this factual and referenced information will be suppressed from wikipedia because of groups with agendas other than the truth or npov. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.78.18.127 (talk • contribs)
It's a matter of classification. I see no reason not to mention the Zealots in the historicity section; we've been needing more about the cultural and historical background there anyway. Some editors explained above why they felt it was inappropriate for the Gospel summary section. Reasonable people can disagree.
"The Zealots are worth a mention because they are one of the four sects of Judaism mentioned by Josephus..." So? Should everything mentioned by Josephus be in the Jesus article? :"No doubt this factual and referenced information will be suppressed from wikipedia because of groups with agendas other than the truth or npov." So? Should we put this information in the physics article? In the punk rock article? Must it be in every wikipedia article to avoid the charge of suppression? This simply is not a reason for putting the information in this article. Slrubenstein | Talk10:34, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Only as they relate to Jesus...otherwise it's as silly as physics Zealots and punk rock Zealots. The Zealots are mentioned in one verse in the entire New Testament, and Steve Caruso gave a reason to doubt the translation of even that one verse.
As for Judas of Galilee, he is also mentioned in one verse in the NT: 5:37 (niv) Acts 5:37: "After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered." Looking at passage as a whole Acts 5:33–39, Gamaliel is comparing early Christianity to the movements of Judas of Galilee and Theudas. Assuming that Jesus was born in 6 BC/E, he would have been twelve at the time of Judas' revolt. I wonder what scholars have to say about that? Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF12:32, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
External links
I would like to trim down on some of the external links. There are two mormon links, I'd like to remove one. I already moved the "What color was jesus" to the historical column. The wikichristian article is a stub and not that informative. The recently added Who Is Jesus--really?, despite it's great photos of the actual living Christ, should probably be removed (and I wouldn't be hurt if about-jesus.org went away also). The Hindu perspective page is about Christianity, not Jesus. The Notable Names entry seems more like spam that an actual informative EL. "The Words and Life of Historical Jesus by Jesus Institute" doesn't seem that 'Historical'. What do others think? Can we do a bit of trimming? Are there any areas that are lacking/should we look for more links on different topics/pov?--Andrew c01:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of the double blue page, although I wasn't aware of this discussion forum. Thank you for mentioning it. For the record, User:KHM03 retired from Wikipedia because the personal information revealed about him led to harrassment of his family and colleagues. After the incident was reported, the site removed the personal information, but the harm was already done. This is a matter not of censorship, but of privacy and security. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF11:17, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think doubleblue included any information that the editors hadn't included on their own userpages. I think some are protesting too much. 86.137.36.12812:18, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just as there are over-zealous Christians who think that if an article about Christianity doesn't read like an evangelism pamphlet, that means Christianity is being suppressed and anti-Christianity being pushed; so there are over-zealous Atheists and members of other religions who think that unless an article about Christianity reads like a Steven Conifer article on infidels.org, that means Christianity is being pushed and anti-Christianity being suppressed. Of course, the consensus stands against both of these positions and says that as long as the page meets the criteria of the three policies (WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, WP:V), there is no problem. » MonkeeSage «16:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention that Rob quit Wikipedia because he felt he was being stalked by people who had followed him from another website (namely tes.co.uk). Doubleblue allegedly stalked KHM03 in exactly the same way that those people allegedly stalked Rob. The irony is biting. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF18:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am personally offended and disgusted with anyone that stalks another editor to the point that their personal life becomes part of WIKI. If an individual shares those facts; great. If not, it is no one's business! I do not think it acceptable that those involved were banned for only one month. Their actions deserve nothing less than a permanent ban from all WIKI sites. They have demonstrated a a shocking lack of integrity and are unworthy of participation on this site. Storm Rider(talk)00:19, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of being on the list. I think he/she/they would be hard pressed to prove merit to be so listed, but that is now moot. If someone wants to know who I am, I encourage them to ask. I do not have the personal/occupational concerns of our friend User:KHM03. However, I am truly incensed by this sorry tale. They are cyber terrorists and think themselves "cute" in their efforts. This "espèce d'humain" is not stopped until we collectively stand up and name them permanently persona nongrata on all WIKI sites. ADMINS, are you listening to this???
I would not seek it out, but if it came to someone trying to find out about me personally, I suppose I would just put it on the web; it sort of takes the wind out of their despicable efforts. Storm Rider(talk)00:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you have to have kids to feel really twitchy about this. The only reason I protect my identity is so there is no link to them and that was KHM03's reason for going (valid in my eyes). I however don't have a web page so I'm internet exdirectory - that is not supposed to be a challenge by the way. I would like to see some real action by Jimbo to stop what happened to Gator and KHM03 happening again. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA SophiaTalkTCF00:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Funny that their manipulation of wikipedia being exposed results in them going off in a huff. They are two of the worst offenders. Good riddance. The cabal must be smashed. Robsteadman06:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This person is not who we think it is. I assume as Rob's account was deleted there was nothing to stop it being recreated by anyone else. Not sure what the rules are but this doesn't seem right. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA SophiaTalkTCF09:20, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously I have no way of knowing, but if someone is impersonating Rob, that in itself is disturbing. I should point out again that Rob suspected that certain people who were harrassing him on his talk page during his attempted Wikibreak had followed him from the tes.co.uk message boards. They were involved with the Robert Steadman article, not any of the Jesus or Christianity articles. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF09:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do most scholars in the fields of biblical studies and history agree that "Jesus was ... accused of blasphemy ... against the Roman Empire"? --JimWae01:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I believe he was accused of sedition against the Roman Empire. Blasphemy would have been against God, and the Romans wouldn't have cared - that would have been left to the local authorities. I've never clearly understood why, if, as the Gospels say, the Jewish authorities were the ones who wanted to kill Jesus, they didn't just have him stoned to death for blasphemy. john k04:04, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The conservative Christian answer is that the Sanhedrin didn't have the authority to execute (Darrell L. Bock, Jesus According to Scripture, p. 530, n. 54; Leon Morris, The Gospel According to John, Revised, NICNT, pp. 695-697; &c). » MonkeeSage «05:47, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re: MonkeeSage This is highly controversial among most scholars. (I find it surprising that this statement is found in a book about the Gospel according to John, since in this gospel there is no formal trial ). Another point is: if the Sanhedrin didn't have the authority, why did the Sanhedrin made a trial, whose outcome would not have any consequences and the whole case should be tried again before a Roman court under very different rules and laws. Oub15:08, 23 April 2006 (UTC):[reply]
How is that even vaguely plausible, when in Acts 6-7, Stephen is brought before the Sanhedrin and sentenced to be stoned to death? john k16:23, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I realize that it is controversial (which is why I qualified the answer as that given by "conservative Christian" scholars). The idea is based on John 18:31 ("Pilate said to them, 'Take him yourselves and judge him by your own law.' The Jews said to him, 'It is not lawful for us to put anyone to death.'"). Morris comments about Stephen that it is "possible to regard this death as a[n] [illegal] lynching rather than official legal execution" (695). I don't recall where offhand, but I seem to remember other conservative writers making mention of Matthew 14:5 ("And though he wanted to put him to death, he feared the people, because they held him to be a prophet"), explaining that the religious authorities were not overly concerned with Roman injunctions against their applying the death penalty, but were mainly concerned about public outrage (which, with Stephen, there would have been little). I'm going to be gone for a couple days, so I don't have time to dig up the sources right now. » MonkeeSage «18:31, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
there are a lot of examples in favour and against regarding the question of the authority of the Sanhedrin: James the brother of Jesus, Stephen, narrations by Josephus Flavius, parts of the Talmud etc. It might be worth to discuss that subject and maybe add it to an appropriate section, however since this is a complex subject, I presume it would not be included here anyhow.
even if that controversy could be settled, I have not seen any convincing explanation, why the Sanhedrin would have performed a trial, in the case it did not had the authority for an execution anyhow. (Mind you that is also not what the Gospels tell us. In now moment they tell Pilate that they have tried Jesus).
The charge of blasphemy is even much more controversial: since the only blasphemy according to Jewish law, which would have ended in a death penalty, were the misuse of the name of God, hence Mark 14,62 etc make little sense. That is why most modern scholars, if they want to stick to the fact that there was a real trial and not a mere interrogation, now think that the reason of the condemnation was false prophecy. However that idea has problems in its own.
Yes, I understand that conservative writers would make arguments like this. I'm more interested in what actual scholars who know something about Roman and Jewish legal systems in the first century say on the subject. Do any of them believe that the Jewish authorities did not have the authority to put anyone to death? john k20:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's a useful discussion of this in Raymond E. Brown's The Death of the Messiah - basically, Brown exhaustively reviews the evidence, and decides that the statement in John 18:31 that the Jews are not permitted to put anyone to death is plausible, in a limited sense - the Romans had given permission for the Jews to execute people themselves for certain specific religious crimes, but that in general death penalties had to be approved by the prefect. He suggests that the Sanhedrin was not willing to take a chance and execute Jesus on its own authority, anyway, for a variety of reasons - Pilate and Caiaphas may have had some kind of arrangement; the authorities are afraid of public anger and want to pass the buck to Pilate; crucifixion puts Jesus under a curse due to Deuteronomic law, and would thus discredit him, and so forth. Brown's ultimate conclusion is that the gospel description is historically plausible. john k23:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, Crossan's Who Killed Jesus?[10] finds the notion that the Sanhedrin did not have authority to execute, implausible. The Romans executed Jesus for sedition, his overturning the tables at the Temple during Passover (a notoriously rebellious time) was sufficient cause, the so-called "crowd of Jews" were scapegoated. From Publishers Weekly: "In a book sure to generate both conversation and controversy, John Dominic Crossan, author of two well-regarded books on the historical Jesus, names the New Testament Gospels' insistence on Jewish responsibility for Jesus' death as Christianity's "longest lie." Crossan argues particularly against many of the theories posed in Raymond Brown's The Death of the Messiah. While Brown finds that many of the events in the stories of Jesus' last days are plausible historically, Crossan claims that almost none of the events are historical. According to Crossan, they are "prophesy historicized," accounts written by looking back at the Old Testament and other early materials and then projecting those prophecies on whatever historical events occurred. Because many of those early writers were persecuted by the Jewish authorities, they threw in a heavy dose of propaganda against the Jews. As Crossan aptly states, these gospels were relatively harmless when Christians were a small sect. When, however, Rome became Christian, those anti-Semitic narratives became, and continue to be, lethal. Well argued and highly readable, Who Killed Jesus? also includes an important epilogue stating Crossan's own faith perspectives on the divinity and resurrection of Christ. Scholars rarely go this far, yet such a confession provides another valuable entry into this fascinating material.
Copyright 1995 Reed Business Information, Inc." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.169.7.171 (talk • contribs)
Here is some more Literatur:
Flusser, David Jesus last days in Jerusalem seems to be out of print
Cohn, Haim. The Trial and Death of Jesus New York: KTAV, 1977.
Winter, Paul/On the Trial of Jesus. Berlin: Walter
Strobel, August Die Stunde der Wahrheit: (only in German)
Most Christians believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, crucified and entombed...
I don't see a citation to a published source for this, so I'm going to assume it is being asserted as an obvious fact. Well, it is not obvious to me. I insist it be deleted as an unsourced opinion. Quotes from the Gospels won't help, as I don't consider it a fact that just because the Gospels say something, most Christians believe it. Furthermore, its original research to argue that Christians believe something then point to a Gospel passage. Therefore, the sentence has to go.
Now, before some editors have a heart attack over this, (or until I acquire stock in all major hospitals) I will accept the sentence if we replace "entombed" with "buried".
Why? "Buried" is what the latest version of the Nicene Creed says. Since I accept the idea that most Christians believe in what it says, I'll accept the statement using the word "buried". -- Drogo Underburrow13:54, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I'm being accomodating here. Actually, I don't buy the idea that most Christians believe what the Nicene Creed says, but I'll accept the idea for Wikipedia purposes for now. I'd have to see test results that would prove that most Christians even know what the Nicene Creed says, and surveys that prove that they believe in it, before I would consider it a fact. But, I'll leave that to another day.
I would also accept a statement like "Professor X states in his book, "My Nonsense" that most Christians believe in the Nicene Creed." Notice, that NPOV favors stating what sources say, rather than editors trying to state what is. Drogo Underburrow14:06, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think we discussed this before (I don't have a chance to look through the archives at the moment). Both are correct; entombment is more precise. Entombment is a form of burial. Jesus was buried in a tomb provided by Joseph of Arimathea. Yes, that is from the Gospels (all four of them). Why you do consider the Gospels to be original research, but not the Nicene Creed? That's simply illogical and inconsistent. It's verifiable that more Christians believe the Gospels than the Nicene Creed. Nontrinitarians and noncreedal trinitarian Christians accept the Bible but not the Nicene Creed. It doesn't work the other way around: I don't know of any Christians who accept the Nicene Creed but not the Bible. I dare you to provide any. Certainly if you do find some, they will be in the minority, not "most Christians."
Not to mention that we removed the reference to the Nicene Creed some time ago, for the sake of noncreedal trinitarians.
The previous discussion is in Archive 43. I didn't look beyond that to see if it was discussed previously to that.
You are arguing whether Jesus was buried or entombed. That is not the question. The question is, what do most Christians believe? As I've stated, I accept, only in order to be accomodating, the notion that most Christians believe what the Nicene Creed says. Why do I accept this? In the spirit of compromise. I don't want to edit war for complete deletion of the sentence. I can't win that war; as Robsteadman here has pointed out, there is a cabal that watches over this page. In my opinion, this cabal would sooner flout Wikipedia policy on NPOV and no original research than agree to this sentence being deleted. Now, since the Nicene Creed, in all its wisdom, says Jesus was buried, and large groups of Christians, such as Catholics, supposedly have to profess believing in what the Nicene Creed says, I'll accept that they believe Jesus was buried. If the Nicene Creed had meant "entombed" it would have used that word, you can bet that every word of it has been carefully chosen, more so even than the words in the introduction of the Jesus article (attempt at very dry humor). -- Drogo Underburrow15:07, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The English languge creed is, of course, a translation, and I strongly suspect that the problem here lies in mistranslation, since the Bible clearly says "laid in a tomb". If Jesus was "buried" the image of his resurrection reminds one of the ending of the movie Carrie -- not exactly a reverent picture. Rick Norwood15:40, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So the Nicene Creed in English is a mistranslation? Wow, we sure have a bunch of lousy translators, that nobody has corrected it. Still, it doesn't matter, it says what it says, that is what Christians profess to believe, so that is what should go in Wikipedia. Buried, not entombed. Drogo Underburrow15:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Seems strange to equate "Christians" with "English speaking Christians" and very strange to say that "Christians" believe what a creed says above what the Bible says, since the creed is based on the Bible. By the way, I didn't say there was a mistranslation, only that there might be. Is there a scholar of Latin and Greek in the audience? Rick Norwood16:14, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The word in the Creed is ταφέντα -- put in a grave OR sepulcher. i.e., tomb. Is this really worth squabbling over? Pretty sad, it seems to me. Behold these Christians, how they so love one another. •Jim62sch•23:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I can honestly say I do not ever remember meeting any Christian (Or anyone else for that matter) who thinks Jesus was buried rather than entombed :/. Homestarmy16:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, you never met a Christian or anybody else who believes what the Nicene Creed says? That's fascinating. Interesting group of aquaintances you have. Statistically most peculiar. Now if you say that all Christians you have met are evangelical Christians who take an extreme view of sola scriptura, and who reject the Nicene Creed, and don't want its words used in the Jesus article, that I would believe, especially since you are a fundamentalist Christian yourself. You say "rather than"; I'm not sure what you mean by that. The argument, of course, is not whether Jesus was buried rather than entombed. The argument is what Christians believe. They believe, I will allow here for the sake of compromise, in the Nicene Creed. That creed says that Jesus was buried. I question changing the carefully chosen words of the creed, then claiming that everyone believes in the altered version. I will allow though, that fundamentalists believe in the altered wording. It is just that most Christians happen to be Catholics, and the sentence starts..."Most Christians believe.." I say we stick with what an accomodating person might allow, and go with the same choice of words that most Christians recite: "was buried". -- Drogo Underburrow16:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I mean i've never met a Christian who thinks Jesus was buried in the typical sense of getting put into a coffin and lowered into a plot in the ground. Being entombed is not the same as simply being buried. Homestarmy17:48, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I am inserting this out of chronological order, because it was written as a reply to Homestarmy:
I am not saying that the article should say that Jesus was put into a coffin and lowered into a plot in the ground. The article should say:
Most Christians believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, crucified and buried, resurrected on the third day of death...
because that agrees with the wording of the Nicene Creed, which is the source for the statement. Or, the statement has no source, in which case it has to be deleted, as it is not a self-evident fact what most Christians believe. Now, in the spirit of ecumenicalism, I will point out to those whose faith is based on sola scriptura, that nowhere in the NIV, King James, or New King James Version does the word "entombed" appear. Instead, in the NIV version of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and John, the chapter heading (which I know was not in the original manuscripts, but it is still in our Bibles) says "The Burial of Jesus" while in Luke it says "Jesus' Burial". In the New King James version, it says for all four gospels, "Jesus Buried in Joseph’s Tomb". -- Drogo Underburrow18:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience, Christians very rarely believe what they say they believe. For example, I know a lot of Catholics who say they believe the Pope is infallible, yet practice birth control. And I know a lot of "Bible believing" fundamentalists who say they believe very word in the Bible is true -- but gather up their riches upon the earth. For that matter, it seems clear to me that Drogo Underburrow says he believes that Christians believe Christ was buried, but doesn't really believe that that is what Christians believe. Of course, I could be wrong. Rick Norwood18:05, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Besides Archive 43, you might try /Christian views in intro. Lutheran ministers are trained in Koine (NT) Greek and (OT) Hebrew, usually Latin as well. If drboisclair or CTSWyneken were here, I'm sure they could answer your questions about the translation. I don't mean to disparage anyone else; I'm sure there are scholars from other Christian denominations, as well as non-Christians, who can answer your question. Besides, the Nicene Creed originally written in Greek:
Of course, we can't read Christian hearts or minds, so we can only go by what Christians profess. I'm sure we can find a cross-denominational sociological survey of Christian beliefs if we look hard enough. We might have trouble finding a global study, though. When we looked for statistics re:the Virgin Birth, the studies were limited to the US, to Europe, or to the UK alone. Maybe we could try the UN?
Rick's right: it's strange to put the english translation of the Nicene Creed above the Bible. Anglocentrism is unbecoming. As for Drogo's question, frankly, I believe it's a false dillema. Many Christians believe that Jesus was buried by entombment. Does any Christian disagree? Speak now or forever hold your peace ;) Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF18:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, this is a completely crazy semantical argument.
Which seems to be the part dealing with this issue, goes
Staurthenia te ēmōn epi Pontiou Pilatou, kai pathonta kai taphenta.
Kai anastanta tē tritē ēmera kata tas Graphas
I don't know Greek, but since "Pontiou Pilatou" is "Pontius Pilate", and "tritē" is presumably "three," and "Graphas" presumably "Scripture", I would guess that "taphenta" (ταφέντα) is the word that is translated "buried." Anyone know enough New Testament Greek to give the connotations on that? john k18:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Greek word is in the Creed is ταφέντα, from the root θάπτω, which means "bury, inter"Thayer or "honour with funeral rites"LSJ. "Bury" matches this just fine: "To ritualistically inter a corpse in a grave or tomb"wiktionary, entry 1, and so does "entomb," as Archie said, since entombment is a type of burial. » MonkeeSage «18:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nowhere in the Bible does it say that Jesus was entombed; however it does that Jesus was buried. Those of you who insist on using "entombed" are the ones who are going against the Bible and the standard translation of the Nicene creed, which says "buried", and the Catechism of the Catholic Church, which says that Jesus was buried. Drogo Underburrow19:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What the Hell do you think a sepulcher made of stone is? It's only on all four Gospels. Do you really need an agnostic to spell it out for you? As I said above, sad, really friggin sad. •Jim62sch•23:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The New King James version says, literally, "Jesus Buried in Joseph’s Tomb". I don't feel it correct to omit the word "buried" here. The Nicene creed, in English, is officially translated as "buried" not "entombed". The Catholic Catechism states that Jesus was buried. We should be as faithful to the sources as possible. I see no reason to use "entombed" alone while omitting the word "bury". Do you have a reason to go against the literal language of the sources and chose an word they do not use? Drogo Underburrow23:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The key point is this: what the frig does it matter? Isn't the key point for Christians that Jesus was "resurrected"? Does it matter from where? (He asks hoping to avoid a very long discourse on linguistics). Give it a rest -- why not just change the article to "Jesus' body was stuffed away somewhere..."? •Jim62sch•00:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This sentence is here only to be covered up by the box at the bottom of the page, so people can read the last sentence of the posts. Only now, of course, the box at the bottom of the page refuses to cover up my last sentence, the way it did before. Rick Norwood19:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well I do know what the NIV says, here's John 19:38-42
Later, Joseph of Arimathea asked Pilate for the body of Jesus. Now Joseph was a disciple of Jesus, but secretly because he feared the Jews. With Pilate's permission, he came and took the body away. He was accompanied by Nicodemus, the man who earlier had visited Jesus at night. Nicodemus brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy-five pounds. Taking Jesus' body, the two of them wrapped it, with the spices, in strips of linen. This was in accordance with Jewish burial customs. At the place where Jesus was crucified, there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb, in which no one had ever been laid. Because it was the Jewish day of Preparation and since the tomb was nearby, they laid Jesus there.
Nowhere does it say "entombment". However, what does the chapter heading of your NIV bible say right before John 19:38? "The Burial of Jesus" Drogo Underburrow19:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Matthew: "As evening approached, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who had himself become a disciple of Jesus. Going to Pilate, he asked for Jesus' body, and Pilate ordered that it be given to him. Joseph took the body, wrapped it in a clean linen cloth, and placed it in his own new tomb that he had cut out of the rock. He rolled a big stone in front of the entrance to the tomb and went away."
Mark: "Joseph of Arimathea, a prominent member of the Council, who was himself waiting for the kingdom of God, went boldly to Pilate and asked for Jesus' body. Pilate was surprised to hear that he was already dead. Summoning the centurion, he asked him if Jesus had already died. When he learned from the centurion that it was so, he gave the body to Joseph. So Joseph bought some linen cloth, took down the body, wrapped it in the linen, and placed it in a tomb cut out of rock. Then he rolled a stone against the entrance of the tomb. Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of Joses saw where he was laid.
Luke: "Now there was a man named Joseph, a member of the Council, a good and upright man, who had not consented to their decision and action. He came from the Judean town of Arimathea and he was waiting for the kingdom of God. Going to Pilate, he asked for Jesus' body. Then he took it down, wrapped it in linen cloth and placed it in a tomb cut in the rock, one in which no one had yet been laid."
John: "Later, Joseph of Arimathea asked Pilate for the body of Jesus. Now Joseph was a disciple of Jesus, but secretly because he feared the Jews. With Pilate's permission, he came and took the body away. He was accompanied by Nicodemus, the man who earlier had visited Jesus at night. Nicodemus brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about seventy-five pounds. Taking Jesus' body, the two of them wrapped it, with the spices, in strips of linen. This was in accordance with Jewish burial customs. At the place where Jesus was crucified, there was a garden, and in the garden a new tomb, in which no one had ever been laid. Because it was the Jewish day of Preparation and since the tomb was nearby, they laid Jesus there."
The Nicene Creed says Jesus was buried. The Gospels say that Jesus was buried in a tomb. Christians believe that Jesus was buried in a tomb. There is no contradiction. Drogo, you are the only one who is going against the Bible. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF19:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm saying Jesus was buried. The Nicene Creed says Jesus was buried. The Bible says he was buried. Nowhere in the Bible does is say he was "buried in a tomb" or that he was "entombed". The contradiction is that the Jesus article says he was entombed. Its wrong. I, the Nicene Creed and the Bible are correct. Drogo Underburrow19:35, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Entomb redirects to Tomb which, interestingly enough, mentions parts in the Bible where tombs are mentioned. Jesus being placed in the tomb is mentioned there. Why would Entomb redirect there if it wasn't entombment? If "entombment" is not the correct word, then it would mean Jesus was not put in a tomb. That is clearly a contradiction. Homestarmy19:38, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Nowhere in the Bible does is say he was "buried in a tomb"" Drogo: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are all part of the Bible. They all say that Jesus was laid in a tomb. John even says that "This was in accordance with Jewish burial customs." Just so there's no confusion, the dictionary definition of entombment is "To place in or as if in a tomb or grave." Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF19:44, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You keep extrapolating to come up with how Jesus was "entombed", while I quote you the literal words of the Nicene Creed, the Bible, and the official teaching of the Catholic Church. Now, the sentence in Wikipedia only uses one word. That word has to be the same as used by the Bible, the Catholic Church, and the Nicene Creed: "buried", not "entombed", which is a word chosen by Wikipedians. I'm sorry, but you are way off base here. You have to collect a bunch of passages then infer that he was "entombed", while ignoring the direct, literal use of the word burial and buried. -- Drogo Underburrow19:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Entombing somebody means they were put in a tomb. All four gospels say Jesus was put in a tomb. There is no reason to think that later documents like the Nicene Creed mean anything different. One doesn't have to "infer" that Jesus was entombed - this is the clear meaning of all four gospels. What is your point here, Drogo? Are you disrupting wikipedia to prove a point in some way? Because that's what it seems like you're doing. john k20:03, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Edit conflict. Drogo, Nope. I've quoted you the literal words from all four gospels of the Bible. I've given you the literal definition of entombment: "To place in or as if in a tomb or grave." You want the literal definition of bury? Try definition 2A: "To place (a corpse) in a grave, a tomb, or the sea." No contradiction. The Nicene Creed is a summary. The Bible is more detailed. The creed says that Jesus was buried. The Bible--all four Gospels--say that jesus was placed (ie buried, by definition 2a) in a tomb. The creed agrees with the Bible on this point. You, however, do not. Plain English.
You insist on using "entombed", a term not found in the Bible, the Nicene Creed, or the Catechism of the Catholic Church, instead of using the word that they use: buried. You have to use dictionary definitions and string whole sections of scripture to justify using a term instead of the one used by them. You are being extremely POV here. I don't know why you refuse to write the article so that it uses the same word as the Bible, the Nicene Creed, or the Catechism of the Catholic Church, but I do know that you are pushing your own POV here. You have no source at all for what you are saying, simply arguments on equivalent meanings. Well, they aren't equivalent. You say most Christians believe in what the Bible, the Nicene Creed, or the Catechism of the Catholic Church say, and I'll agree with you. You say they agree with a statement that is made up by Wikipedians, and I say its original research, a POV, and its ridiculous to ignore what the Bible says and come up with a "better" word. What does the NIV, and other bibles, say in the chapter headings? What does the Nicene Creed say? What does the Catechism of the Catholic Church say. They all use "buried" and "burial". Only Wikipedia uses the word "entombed" Drogo Underburrow20:16, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
None of these words is in the Bible. The Bible uses a word in koine Greek. For all we know, there is no koine word for "to entomb". I've never heard that Biblical paraphrase has to quote the exact words used in the Bible. The Bible says that Jesus was buried in a tomb. "To bury in a tomb" meeans the same thing as "To entomb." This would appear to be an incredibly broad reading of what is "original research" - essentially, new phrasing constitutes original research. This seems unsupportable to me. john k20:59, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now, look, Aiden, this was argued at length, and finally reached a compromise solution that three editors agreed to. Its not right of you to come along and instantly revert our compromise with a short statement and no debate. Give me at least, the same courtesy as I gave you, in that I made no edits before reaching a consensus of the active editors, and after a long and heated discussion. -- Drogo Underburrow22:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A sword of course, is there any other way? :D Of course, all those who live by the sword will die by the sword, and I do suppose it would be kind of pathetic to die from editing wikipedia, I mean i'd rather die for something more....you know....Christian-y. Like guarding a fellow Christian from being shot or something, I dunno, or maybe getting killed while open air preaching, there's many possibilities. Homestarmy23:27, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Homestarmy, you proposed a solution, and I agreed and put it in the article. Aiden now is edit warring, reverting our agreed upon compromise with no discussion. May I ask you now to show good faith, and put back in the version you yourself proposed? Drogo Underburrow23:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I am stating for the record right now, that the Gospels do not speak for themselves, and are not a published source such that you can make a statement in Wikipedia, and point to Bible verses to justify it. If Wikipedia allowed that, almost anything could be supported, as over the ages Bible verses have been used to support everything from abolitionism to slavery. If all you do is quote the Bible, you have no source for your statement. Wikipedia requires published sources, written by verifiable and credible authors, not anonymous ancient religious texts. The only valid use for a Bible quote is to say that the sentence is in the Bible, and then a literal quote is required. The minute that other than a literal reading is involved, interpretation has to be made, somebody has to read it and decide what it means, and that someone cannot be a Wikipedia editor, or its simply his POV of the Bible. Even literal readings cannot be then used to support intrepretive points. I'm going to take this point to arbitration if I have to, the Bible is not a valid source. Neither is the Koran; the Koran speaks of Jesus too. You are going to have people putting Koranic Jesus passages without visible attribution, using footnotes only like you are doing now, in the intro if you do that using the Bible. -- Drogo Underburrow00:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Qur'an is cited in the Muslim views section. The Bible is used to cite what Christians believe, and the Qu'ran is used to cite what Muslims believe, and for that matter both the Mishneh Torah and Devarim (Deuteronomy) are cited in the section on Judaism's views. It is not at all unverifiable to say that religious views are based on an interpretation of texts that are considered holy to said religion. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF00:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My solution only served to replace a word that summarized my suggestion. As long as the text currently renders a meaning of "buried in a tomb", then its fine by me. However, should somebody change the text to simply read "buried" I will most likely qualify it with "in a tomb" rather than "entombed". Furthermore, is an arbcom request really necessary over "entomb" vs. "buried in a tomb"? Finally, the English language, like any other language, seeks to convey a meaning. When synonyms are used in common speech, the meanings of one or more words or group of words should be immedietly understood as interchangeable in full, I mean, it's not like im making my own private little fantasy land interpretation of what English is. There are, truthfully, many interpretations people make of the Bible which Wikipedia certainly should have nothing to do with, such as thinking that "atonement" really means "at one ment" (as in, one with God) or "eternal" really meaning "just a relatively short amount of time because the Greek might mean that if we rip this out of context alot". However, I don't see how this is one of those situations. Homestarmy00:51, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Did it ever dawn on editors that the reason the Nicene Creed, and the Catholic Church, and the Bible (in the chapter headings) always say "buried" might be to make clear that Jesus was dead, and not simply unconscious? And that this was very important, to refute charges that Jesus wasn't really dead, and his followers later released him alive? Look up "entombed" and "bury"
Bury: 1. To place (a corpse) in a grave, a tomb, or the sea; inter.
2. To dispose of (a corpse) ritualistically by means other than cremation.
Entombed: 1. To place in or as if in a tomb or grave.
What in the world is your point? Have you ever heard of the term "buried alive"? At any rate, you continue to say that the "Nicene Creed" and the "Bible" say things, when in fact you are referring to "standard English translations of the Nicene Creed" and "modern descriptive chapter headings printed in 20th century English language Bibles." (I'm not sure what you mean about the "Catholic Church" saying things - as I understand it, the main Church saying on the business is the Nicene Creed). The arguments you are making are nonsensical, and you have no support at all for your explanations of why "buried" is better than "entombed" - both terms are appropriate to what happened to Jesus as described in the Gospels. john k02:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My point is that the Catholic Church, in its official teaching, the Catechism, and the Nicene Creed, say "buried" so that its clear to all that he was dead. As the above definitions show, buried implies a corpse. Entombed does not. Drogo Underburrow03:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's interesting that you seem to want to limit the Christian views intro paragraph to Catholicism. Catholicism may be the majority, but you are effectively eliminating Eastern Christianity, Protestantism and Restorationism from the paragraph. Even so, I said earlier you could always ask a Catholic whether or not they make the distinction between "buried in a tomb" and "entombment" that you are making. If that's not good enough, you could try emailing the pope.Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF03:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have been away for a few days and just read this exchange. It is clear to me that Drogo just wants to waste people's time. If anyone doubts me, just take a deep breath and then read this exchange as a whole. It is just a waste of time. I encourage people to ignore Drogo. Slrubenstein | Talk10:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Amen. This section is a page all by itself (36Kb in length). Double Blue should note that Slrubenstein is Jewish, and thus by definition not a DWEEC. Welcome back, Slr. For the sake of my sanity, I may need to take a Wikibreak. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF12:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Suffer the Children
Kids, chill out. If I felt like taking the time I'd have an admin lock this page until the silliness and stupidity stopped. Ah, but then I suppose there are none so blind as those who will not see (do not correct me on the quote). Person A thinks person B is being silly, while person B thinks person A is, etc. One hopes that this is not the best Christianity, the religion of "love" and "peace" and "understanding", has to offer. •Jim62sch•00:40, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jim, I don't think everyone in this discussion is a Christian, are they? Besides, we did come to an understanding eventually....sort of....Homestarmy00:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Or Groundhog day! While these are emotional issues, folks, can we please not engage in personal attacks, calling people's arguments silly or such, etc. All of these are ad hominem attacks and not valid arguments anyway.
Let's remember we're supposed to be about what scholarly sources say. So, it would help if we would not be about arguing the issues themselves, but what scholars say, whether such-and-such fits in the main article, if we can find a better way to say what scholars say, etc. --CTSWyneken11:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
CTS: I hate to disagree with you, but, I prefer calling a spade a spade: this page has descended into needless bickering, and many of the arguments are, from a historical, scholarly, or semantical perspective, either silly or stupid, or, to be more appropriate to Wiki: vio's of POV, OR, POINT as well as being troll-like. To wit: entombed vs buried. If one really wants to have such a debate, find an archaeologist who could explain the burial methods of the time.
As to what scholars say, that's a touchy issue: define scholar. Additionally, when saying "most Christians believe x", polls may be appropriate. There's a significant difference between what the various churches teach, and what the people believe.
Homes, while a few editors (such as myself) are not Christians, I do not think I am alone in what I said. Bear in mind that other editors have raised similar concerns, whether here on on their talk pages.
Jim, there is more going on here than the usual edit wars and POV clashing. The above section titled "No Criticism allowed" is an indirect reference, but I've sent you an e-mail to a non-WP website that some of us find alarming. Most disturbing of all is what happened to User:KHM03. The issue really started on the Christianity page, but double blue now has there eye on this article as well. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF13:18, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Lack of Sources
The mere fact that the Gospels say something, is no proof that most Christians believe it. Therefore, in the sentence, Most Christians believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, crucified and entombed... simply pointing to Gospel passages is no evidence at all as to how widespread Christian belief is. The claim that most Christians believe in the cited passages is completely unsupported by any evidence and is simply being asserted by the editor. Material that is unsourced can be removed at any time by any editor. Drogo Underburrow01:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not again, didn't we have this dispute over the virgin birth months ago? All the polls I found seemed to at least support that American Christians believe as a majority in the virgin birth, crucifixion, and everything we've listed here, but I don't think we ever found stuff from the European version or gallop to cite. Who wants to tackle it? however, I should note, all of those first paragraphs are under a "revert on site to what's there" rule, since we spent months debating each one, it was quite annoying. Homestarmy01:59, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, JimWae brought this up, but we had trouble finding a global survey. If Drogo's looking for citations it would be better to look at sociological surveys than journalistic polls (the latter of which are often unscientific). OTOH it's silly to argue that religious beliefs are not based on documents considered sacred by said religion. Drogo's just being contrarian for the sake of being contrarian. He isn't helping the article. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF07:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Saying what "Christians believe" should not be based on public opinion surveys, but on the statements of documents that Christians accept as the basis of their religion. That most Anglicans don't, in practice, actually believe the 39 Articles personally doesn't mean that the 39 Articles aren't the basis of the Anglican religion, and that it would be inappropriate to say that "Anglicans believe" things that are in the articles. john k02:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
While surveys would be a good way to get at it, perhaps the best bet would be to find a scholarly source that says "most Christians believe..." Remember, my friends, we're here to represent the scholarship in the field. So, can we all take a momentary wiki break from the issue, go check some encyclopedia articles or other sources and cite these? For those who wonder if this is true, may I suggest you look for negative statements like: "most Christians do not believe..." in the lit?
I just made two minor changes to paragraph 2. First, I added that most scholars believe Jesus was baptized by John. I added this because it is true (that most historians believe this). Also, I have raised this point several times over the past couple of months - no one has objected to it, and some people agreed it should be put in. No one ever put it in, but given the lack of objection, I thyink it is time. Second, I deleted the claim that most historians believe Jesus was accused of blasphemy. As a number of people on this talk page have pointed out, he was not accused of blaspehmy against Rome. Moreover, all of the historians I have read doubt that Jesus was charged with blasphemy. This word was added recently by an anonymous user, 64.12.117.6, and as far as I can tell it was not added based on any discussion. Slrubenstein |
Talk11:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The edits make sense. I think, given the volatility of these pages, we can all donate two reverts a day to keep it stable. Let's politely ask them to join our happy throng! --CTSWyneken12:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, a logical editor! Very good. :)
On point, Jesus was charged with blasphemy, but not by the Romans.
Matthew 26
[63] But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.
[64] Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
[65] Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy.
[66] What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death.
[67] Then did they spit in his face, and buffeted him; and others smote him with the palms of their hands,...
Re:•Jim62sch• You miss the point, I am sorry. There was only one blasphemy which would have lead to the death penalty namely the misuse of the name the god. And that is definitely not the case here. It remains unclear to what the high priest refers exactly here, when using the phrase blasphemy. That is why scholars tend to believe that the real charge was false prophecy, which has other difficulties Oub13:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC):[reply]
CTS: I'm going to request that the page be locked. Two reverts per day, by a number of editors is an edit war. Everyone, especially the Drogo's, anons, and other malefactors, needs to cool off and calm down. I've already discussed this with Archola (aka Grigory of wherever ;) and he agrees. It really is for the best. •Jim62sch•12:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Go for it, if you'd like. Be prepared, though, for the admin to freeze it whereever it lands when they get there. This techique sometimes ends in edit wars, but typically, it hasn't happened that way with unregistered users. Sometimes they give up even after my second revert. The point here is not to get at registered users who feel strongly. They're welcome to come here and talk. I'd only use this technique with them to get them to come here.
We also should do more pointing to archives, and politely not reengaging old arguments. If something is new, of course, let's talk. Otherwise... politely point out the arugment is old and not engage it. --CTSWyneken16:49, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jim62sch writes, "On point, Jesus was charged with blasphemy, but not by the Romans." This sentence reveals a misunderstanding of both what I wrote, and of Wikipedia policy. I wrote only that most historians do not believe Jesus was tried or executed because of blasphemy. I did not write that this is the view of the author of Matthew, I wrote that it is the view of contemporary historians. On this point, Jim62sch's point about Matthew is simply a non-sequitor. Also, Jim62sch use of italics implies that this is what really happened. Please read our NPOV policy. Wikipedia is not about "the truth" and this article cannot make any claims as to what really happened. We do not know what really happened. We only know what different people believe happened. When different people have different views as to what happened, we are obliged to represent those different views. Slrubenstein | Talk15:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Eastern has passed, and there has already be started a discussion on about questions concerning the trial of Jesus. So may this is the right moment for re-thinking the part about the current section about the trial and crucifixion. That part not only contains some errors, ney unfortunately in its given form it violates the basic principles of wikipedia, namely NPOV. Even worse it is partially anti-Judaism, which I think is not tolerable. So let me present my arguments before making some proposals.
As for the errors: citation
He was subsequently arrested on the orders of the Sanhedrin and the high priest, Caiaphas for blasphemy, because he claimed to be the messiah (Mark 14: 62) and because, the Jews believed, he had made himself to be God (John 10: 33).
That is plainly wrong. When Jesus was arrested he was not charged formally of anything, not even at the beginning of the trial before the Sanhedrin. He was arrested, stop, brought before the Sanhedrin stop, asked whether is the messiah, which he either confirmed or did not answer clearly stop. So he can't have been arrested for something, which he did after the arrest! John 10:33 is also irrelevant here, since again it is not refereed to, when the arrest takes place.
Moreover
He was identified to the guards by one of his apostles, ...
Apostles is not the right word to be used here, the Greek word is mathetes, which is translated as disciples. Apostel is a word which was formed after the death of Jesus.
now to NPOV versus POV. It is the following. As I said before the narration of the Gospels is by no means unique. So one is either forced to make a particular selection or trying to mention the differences. The present section chooses the first alternative. In order to see why this is problematic, consider the following table.
Current version
New version
According to the Gospels, Jesus came with his followers to Jerusalem during the Passover festival, and created a disturbance at the Temple by overturning the tables of the moneychangers there. (Mark 11.18, Matthew 21.15). He was subsequently arrested on the orders of the Sanhedrin and the high priest, Caiaphas for blasphemy, because he claimed to be the messiah (Mark 14: 62) and because, the Jews believed, he had made himself to be God (John 10: 33). He was identified to the guards by one of his apostles, Judas Iscariot (Mark 14:45, Mat 26:49, Luke 22:47), who betrayed Jesus by a kiss in the Garden of Gethsemane, after which another apostle, Peter in the Gospel of John, used a sword to attack one of the captors, cutting off his ear, which Jesus immediately healed (Luke 22:51). After his arrest, Jesus' apostles went into hiding. Jesus was condemned for blasphemy (Mark 14:64 Matthew 26:66) by the Sanhedrin and turned over to the Roman Empire for execution, on the charge of sedition for claiming to be King of the Jews (Luke 23:2). The usual penalty for sedition was a humiliating death by crucifixion, but the Roman governor Pontius Pilate did not find Jesus to be guilty of any crime. So Pilate first had Jesus flogged (John 19:1-8), and then, remembering that it was a custom at Passover for the Roman governor to free a prisoner, Pilate offered the crowd a choice between Jesus of Nazareth and an insurrectionist named Jesus Barabbas. The crowd chose to have Barabbas freed and Jesus crucified. Pilate washed his hands to display that he himself was innocent of the injustice of the decision. (Matt 27:24)
According to the Gospels, Jesus came with his followers to Jerusalem during the Passover festival where he gained substantial attention, for a very large crowd welcome him by shouting, Hosanna to the Son of David! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord! Hosanna in the highest! (Matt 21:8). After this triumphal entry Jesus drove those out of the temple, who were selling (Luke 19:45). Jesus was arrested by Roman soldiers aided by Temple guards (John. 18:3), clandestinely at night to avoid a riot, because Jesus was popular with the people at large (Mark. 14:2). Since the soldiers and guards had difficulties to identify Jesus, he declared Ï am he" (John 18:5). One of this disciples, used a sword to attack one of the captors, cutting off his ear. After his arrest, Jesus disciples went into hiding. Jesus was questioned by Annas and Caiaphas about his disciples and his teaching and then taken to the roman prefect Pontius Pilate (Jn.18:19, 24, 28). Although Pilate was known to use violence to enforce Roman rule (Luke 13:1), he offered the crowd a choice between Jesus of Nazareth and an well known prisoner named Jesus Barabbas (27:16). The crowd chose to have the insurrectionist Barabbas, who had taken part in an armed struggle against the country's rulers (Joh 18:40), freed and Jesus crucified. Jesus was scourged as part of the Roman crucifixion procedure once Pilate ordered his execution (Mark. 15:15). All the multitudes of Jews were sorrowful about Jesus' crucifixion (Luke 23:48).
Left you see the current version, to which I have added the relevant references from the Gospels (if say Mark and Matthew are listed, but not John and Luke well then there are no such references!). On the right you will find a different version, which is based on a different selection of the material; as much a fact as the current version.
I think it is quite obvious what is going on. The left version is a selection of the given material which enhances the Jewish gilt, while the right version does not. So a selection of given material is clearly a violation of one of the basic principles of wikipedia, namely NPOV.
The main difference in the narrative of the Gospels concerns John versus the Synoptics: According to the Synoptics the chief priests tried to make a plot against Jesus, arrested him, condemned him and sent him to Pilate, while according to John it was the Romans who arrested Jesus. On the other hand, in John, it is the Jewish mob who is mostly responsible that Pilate condemned Jesus, even against his own conviction.
Now the current version follows the Synoptics, when it comes to the arrest but mostly to John when it comes to the trial before Pilate, while my version does it the other way around.
The point is that both version can claim with equal right that they are faithful to the facts as presented in the Gospels.
That the Passion material is selected in a specific way is not new, for example the movie of M. Gibson does this in a far more extreme way than the current article and I am not sure whether this selection of the given material in the current version would qualify for using the term anti Judaism but it is close, too close in my opinion.
So the question arises what to do? Since my version can claim with equal right that it is faithful to the facts we could just substitute one for the other. However both versions might be problematic (because they might be POV) and hence I think we need a truly balanced presentation of the material. I made a proposal some time ago which got rejected (at least that was my impression), so could anybody else make a proposal? I think what we can't do is to keep the current version as it is.
Anti-Judaism has been mentioned and discussed already in wikipedia article so I only wish to add that I think nowadays we cannot have a presentation which is so tendentious as the current one, whose tendency is even enhanced in a subtle way by having included the picture showing a Jesus, flogged before the crucifixion.
I shall also emphasise that I am not talking about a (critical) discussion of the material as presented in the Gospels as some historian have done it, I am just talking about the selection of the material as presented in the Gospels. Oub14:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC):[reply]
Thank you for bringing this to our attention. Right now the page is locked, so we can't make any changes. I agree that we need to be balanced, but lately on this page it's been like trying to balance a pencil on its sharpened point. Jesus wept. Archola AKA Grigory is now withdrawing to let people work things out. I am sensitive to allegations of systemic bias, but in POV wars the first casualty is often NPOV itself. See you around. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF14:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Blutac. You can balance a pencil on its sharp end using blutac. Anything can be balanced using the right material. Some people might say that it's less balanced than others, but eventually most people will agree that it really is balanced enough for the satisfaction of a lot of people. It'll never be totally balanced, but balanced enough. Wait... was I talking about the Jesus article or the pencil here? Hint hint... --DarthDeskana(talk page)14:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Oub, I think you're right. The use of John's narrative of the flogging, with no mention of the synoptic version (where Jesus is flogged as part of the preparations for crucifixion after he has been condemned) is especially problematic. We ought to explain the variant versions, not try to harmonize them, which constitutes original research. john k15:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re: john k Hi John. In my opinion, the following differences should be mentioned:
Who arrested Jesus, Synoptic versus John.
Was there a trial or a mere interrogation Synoptics versus John again
Did he claim that he was the Messiah (Mark versus Luke and Matthew, and was he condemned because of Blasphemy: Mark, Matthew versus Luke)
was he flogged before or after he was condemned.
how did the crowd react, especially John versus Luke
apart from that one could mention, that according to the synoptic he was arrested the day of Passover, Nisan 15th, while according to John, the day before Nisan 14th.
To harmonise or not harmonise, well the German article tries to reflect the current state of what most scholars have elaborated and agreed upon. However that is also sort of problematic, since this is a really complicated issue. Given the fact that he have seen a lot of discussions about not so complex points, I think right now, we should not try it, but may be one day.... Oub17:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC):[reply]
What are the disputes?
Given that the page is now protected, can someone specify the disputes that need to be resolved?
Given the general agreement, I of course think that my two edits to paragraph 2 (deleting the blasphemy, adding the baptism) should be restored. i responded to one off-point criticism above. Slrubenstein | Talk16:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the page reads like a missionary pamphlet. Far too POV and religion promoting. Just because some so-called scholars say asomething is true doesn't mean it is - where's the evidence? Yummy mummy17:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter. Our job here is to report what scholars say, not to express our own doubts (or even our own requirements for empirical evidence.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆17:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflicted comment, excuse some minor repetition of Jpgordon's comments above) You're right Yummy mummy, it doesn't mean it's true, but that doesn't mean it shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. According to the WP:V policy, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". I can understand why you think it reads like a pamphlet. Perhaps you could copy the bits that you feel are the worst for this over to the talk page here so they can be discussed and a concensus reached on them? --DarthDeskana(talk page) (my RfA!) 17:14, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Then surely it should be made clear, and clearer than it is, that it is a faith only, or fictional version and not based on evidence. There is surely no genuine and reliable evidence that Jesus ever existed and yet this article reads like there is. What a nonsense. I guess I am seeing what all the double blue stuff is about - the cabal at work. Yummy mummy17:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I find that a funny accusation considering I don't actually even believe in God, nor Jesus. The truth is, I just want a balanced article. So what bits don't you think belong in the article? --DarthDeskana(talk page) (my RfA!) 17:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Im assuming all the bits that come from the gospels and the vast majority of scholarship, this sounds like a very Robsteadman-esque argument. Apparently evidence is no longer evidence?Homestarmy17:37, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
^Some of the historians and Biblical scholars who place the birth and death of Jesus within this range include D. A. Carson, Douglas J. Moo and Leon Morris. An Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992, 54, 56; Michael Grant, Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels, Scribner's, 1977, p. 71; John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew, Doubleday, 1991-, vol. 1:214; E. P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus, Penguin Books, 1993, pp. 10-11, and Ben Witherington III, "Primary Sources," Christian History 17 (1998) No. 3:12-20.
^ Talshir, M. H. Segal, A Grammar of Mishnaic Hebrew (Tel Aviv: 1936), p. 146.
^"שׁוע", Ernest Klein, A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the Hebrew Language (New York: MacMillan Publishing Company 1987)
^Brown, Driver, Briggs, Gesenius, Hebrew and English Lexicon With an Appendix Containing the Biblical Aramaic (Hendrickson, 1985), ISBN 0913573205. Cf. Blue Letter Bible, H3442
