Talk:Jesus

Recent Archive log

Complete archive key

• Talk:Jesus/Archive 97 Removal of spurious representations of Jesus' appearance, trilemma, Mandaean views,scripture removed from historical Jesus section, Vanadalism, Pictures of Jesus, The Truths About Yeshua, Ehrman on harmonies
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 98 Proposal, Possible NPOV Violation in the Geneology Section, first paragraph, at least three years in Jesus' Ministry, this article is too big.
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 99 Literature to be mentioned, Timeline of birth, four gospels, lead; nontrinitarianism, historical Jesus, Jesus as myth, Manichaeism, year of jesus's birth, Edit at top of Jesus page, Colored Yeshua, Image of Jesus which currently exists, Proposal
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 100 Historical Jesus, The To-Do Section, commenting out instead of deleting, 2008 Islamic movie on Jesus, Historical section/Christian views section, Laundry list of non-history scholars and works (alternative proposal), Its latin, isnt it?, this page may display a horizontal scroll bar in some browsers, Proposal on archives, First Section, The historical Jesus
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 101 Edit war over capitalization, Historical Evidence for Jesus' Homosexuality, Carlaude's Majority view, What exactly did Jesus save us from and how?; Carlaude's Majority view part two., Title, PRJS, Dazed and Confused, Why was Jesus baptised?, Dates, Infobox vs. the historical Jesus
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 102 religion founder, Other parameters, He is not God But rather a Demigod, Heavily christian-centric article, Jesus' Birthdate, Jesus in Scientology, Jesus name - Yeshua in Hebrew, means "Salvation" in English
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 103 Writing clean-up, Jesus name in Sanskrit, Reforem Judaism, Jesus and Manichaeism, Bertrand Russell and Friedrich Nietzsche, Recent removal, NPOV, Detail about Buddhist views of Jesus that does not make sense, The Religious perspectives section
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 104 Black Jesus, "Autobiography" of Jesus, Genealogy - Via What Father?, Addition to "Genealogy & Family", Resurrection, according to whom?, Bhavishya Purana, Christian history category, Quick Comment, BC/BCE?, The Truth, Was he any good at his day job?, In Popular Culture, jesus picture, views on Jesus and Muhamma, Occupation, New Dead Sea Discovery- Gabriel's Revelation, Some comments
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 105 Genealogy "reloaded", Place of birth, Which religions?, was jesus ever bar miztvahed?, Bot report : Found duplicate references !, Jesus and the lost tomb, Some believe that Jesus was of middle eastern ethnicity, and not a caucasian, Mispelled cat at the bottom of this talk page, Harmony, Dating system, "Transliteration"
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 106 8 B.C., ref name="HC13", Cause of death, Renewed Discussion Concerning AD/CE debate

Subpage Activity Log

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

Religiously Biased Sourcing (again)

Again, here is the basis for my last edit (which was immediately reverted):

Jesus#Historical_views Article asserts: "Biblical scholars have used the historical method to develop probable reconstructions of Jesus' life.[111][112][113] Over the past two hundred years, these scholars have constructed a Jesus very different from the common image[vague] found in the gospels.[114]"

• 111 is "Francis August Schaeffer (30 January 1912 – 15 May 1984)[1] was an American Evangelical Christian theologian, philosopher, and Presbyterian pastor. ... Schaeffer promoted a more fundamentalist Protestant faith and a presuppositional approach to Christian apologetics, which he believed would answer the questions of the age. A number of scholars credit Schaeffer's ideas with helping spark the rise of the Christian Right in the United States.....Schaeffer popularized, in the modern context, a conservative Puritan and Reformed perspective."
• 112 is D. G.Dunn, Jesus Remembered, Volume 1 of Christianity in the Making, Eerdmans Publishing: ""Eerdmans publishes a variety of books suitable for all aspects of ministry. Pastors, church education leaders, worship leaders, church librarians... will find a wealth of resources here." [1]. Dunn is a theologian.
• 113 is William Edward Arnal, Whose historical Jesus? Volume 7, Studies in Christianity and Judaism, Wilfrid Laurier Univ. Press. This is by far the highest quality source here. However, it's not clear that it supports the text. For example, Arnal writes: "...scholarship on the historical Jesus uses the figure of Jesus to project contemporary cultural debates". [2] (p. 5) That doesn't sound like a clear assertion that it's all about the historical method.
• 114 is Borg, Marcus J. and N. T. Wright. The Meaning of Jesus: Two visions. New York: HarperCollins. 2007. Marcus Borg says: "God is real. The Christian life is about a relationship with God as known in Jesus Christ. It can and will change your life."[3]. NT Wright is a bishop in the Church of England.

Article says: "The principal sources of information regarding Jesus' life and teachings are the four Gospels. Including the Gospels, there are no surviving historical accounts of Jesus written during his life or within three decades of his death.[119] A great majority of biblical scholars accept the historical existence of Jesus.[119][120][121][122][123]" (emphasis added)

• 118 is just a Web site called "http://www.rationalchristianity.net" It is non-neutral, and also not reliable. There doesn't even seem to be an author for the page.
• 119 is "Dr Robert E. Van Voorst a Professor of New Testament Studies at Western Theological Seminary, ... received his B.A. in Religion from Hope College ... his M.Div. from Western Theological Seminary ... his Ph.D. in New Testament from Union Theological Seminary "
• 120 is published by Trinity Press (sounds secular, huh), and the author is a theologian [4]
• 121 is something called Christianity in the Making: Jesus Remembered, published by eerdmans.com an exclusively religious publisher [5]
• 122 is a book called An Evangelical Christology: Ecumenic and Historic, by a publisher that self-describes as "seeking to educate, nurture, and equip men and women to live and work as Christians"[6]
• 123 is Marcus Borg & NT Wright, same as 114 above.

The last time I presented this for discussion, I was promptly accused of bigotry. Let's see if we can have a more civil discussion the second time around. Noloop (talk) 01:22, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

The real problem with the article is inconsistent use of sources, no doubt because many different peopel wrote this article over a long time. But there are critical historians who are cited in one part of the article (e.g. Vermes, Sanders, Fredriksen) who are not cited in this section. Why not?

As to Noloop's questions, for each source he mentions, I would ask him to provide a quotefrom the book or article itself saying that it is forwarding a Christian point of view. Or i would like a reliable secondary source that says that this book forwards a Christian point of view. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Noloop, how long is going to take to get through to you that sources don't for one second have to be secular? Your objections are completely without merit. Wikipedia does not care about the faith of the source. It does not care if the publisher is exclusively religious, or if it is in a religious publication, or if the author is a theologian. You are objecting to the use of sources for absolutely no valid reason whatsoever.Farsight001 (talk) 11:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that's correct, Farsight. A glance at WP:NPOV shows that WP does indeed care about the provenence of sources, and if it is the case that sources used in the examples quoted by Noloop are exclusively geared towards a Christian POV, then this ought to be at least acknowledged in the text of the article. --FormerIP (talk) 12:16, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

No. NPOV dictates that the tone of the article be neutral, not the sources themselves. And even if it did, demanding irreligious sources as Noloop is would bias it in the other direction anyway.Farsight001 (talk) 12:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

This is not productive. It is disruptive to copy and paste archived topics that you have brought up before. You can link to the discussion if you have something NEW to contribute. You have not made any case that any of these sources don't meet WP:RS or WP:V (except possibly 118). And saying something sarcastically "sounds secular, huh" doesn't help us improve this article. Snide comments aimed at someone's religion is offensive, and has no place here at Wikipedia. SLR has explained to you why you cannot look at where a person went to school, or where they teach, and assume the things you are assuming. IMO, if you don't like the sources, you should find ones that meet your standard. Yes, YOU should do it yourself! I don't think this is a matter of us happening to have poor quality sources. I think you are disputing the content itself in a round about manner. You don't believe that historical Jesus research uses the historical method. You don't believe that a "great majority of biblical scholars accept a historical Jesus". Is this not true? Let's find a way to move forward, not backwards (repeating something over and over is moving backwards). Stating the religious nature of someone's background has NO BEARING on their ability to do secular scholarship, or our ability to use them as sources under our policies. If you have sourced problems with the specific sources (i.e. a reliable source disputing something found in one of our cited sources), then present that information. But your criticism of our sources above doesn't mean anything in terms of our policies on Wikipedia. -Andrew c ^[talk] 13:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Farsight: What "other direction" do you mean? Are you conceding that the text as it stands is indeed biased?

WP policy obviously can't do anything to alter the bias in sources. What it can do, though, is ensure that POV is not represented as fact. The most relevant policies, I think, are WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV and WP:PROVEIT. In this case we have the following text:

Biblical scholars have used the historical method to develop probable reconstructions of Jesus' life.

Which is presented as fact. However, two elements of it appear to be opinion: (1) that the historical method has been used; (2) that the reconstructions are "probable reconstructions". Per the policy, the statement should be properly attributed. This attribution won't be necessary, I think, if the contents of the statement can be shown to be undisputed or disputed only by a fringe, but the burden of evidence to show this lies with those who want the statement to be unattributed. --FormerIP (talk) 13:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:RS:

Material such as an article or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable. If the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses, generally it has been at least preliminarily vetted by one or more other scholars.

Finished Ph.D. dissertations, which are publicly available, are considered publications by scholars and are routinely cited in footnotes. They have been vetted by the scholarly community...

Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view. A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs. Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals.[1]

So, according to WP:RS, the preferred sources are secular and peer-reviewed. All the sources, with the possible exception of Arnal, are predisposed to "promote a particular point of view". Few, with the possible exception of Arnal, have been vetted by a secular scholarly community; the Arnal source doesn't seem to support the text. Christians are biased on the existence of Jesus. We need to either alert the reader to lack of neutrality in sourcing, or improve the balance in sourcing.Noloop (talk) 16:23, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this, Noloop, but think it is important to stress that nothing in policy indicates that a source is unreliable or a statement needs attributing just because the writer is of a particular religious viewpoint. The only question is whether the source or sources may tend to "promote a particular point of view", which would be the same question if the writers were all communists, vegetarians, Liberal Democrats or chess enthusiasts. --FormerIP (talk) 16:30, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree that Wikipedia doesn't single out religion. If all the sources in an article on public school were liberals and socialists, the same principles would apply. Balanced sourcing would be required, even if all those liberal and socialist sources were reputable and scholarly. So, my basic point is not religion-specific, despite certain accusations to the contrary. However, it is an interesting and relevant point that religion is uniquely biased. Only religion rejects fact and reason as the bases for belief. Refusal to be open-minded--to hold falsifiable positions--is the definition of bias. Left-wingers don't claim they are right simply because they have faith. Neither do atheists. Christians do. Noloop (talk) 18:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Noloop, I have covered this multiple times before. It is extremely frustrating to deal with your repetitive arguments when you ignore anything I say. The policy you quote says or by well-regarded academic presses. Peer review is not a requirement, and there is NO way to construe "secular" from the text, in the way you use the term (codeword for atheist, as you do not count a source as secular if the author is Christian). Please stop repeating demonstratively false sourcing requirements. "Secular, peer reviewed... Secular, peer reviewed" saying it over and over does not make it true. If we can't get past this contrived requirement you are stuck on, then we can't move forward.-Andrew c ^[talk] 19:28, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Andrew I don't think "secular" is necessarily a codeword for atheist and (although I may be wrong about this) I can't see where Noloop has said that secular sources cannot be written by Christians. But let's forget the term "secular", since I don't think we need it here. What Noloop seems to be saying, as far as I can tell, is that we require sources that are neutral or evidence that the same views are held across the spectrum of belief (providing atheist sources would be an example of how this could be done). The sources he highlights (although there might be some discussion to be had about them) do not appear to be written by people who "just happen" to be Christians. They appear instead to be written from an explicitly Christian POV. WP should not present that POV as if it were fact.

What would be so bad, in any case, about giving some sort of attribution? --FormerIP (talk) 19:51, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I am more cynical than you when it comes to Noloop's intentions, based on his criticism of John Meier, Bart Ehrman, and Helmut Koester, among others, stemming from discussions we had over the past few weeks (try to get Noloop to concede that Meier can do secular scholarship related to Jesus!) As to the ones we reference here, among them, Borg and Wright are big names in historical Jesus studies (one quite liberal, and one a bit more conservative). Dunn and Van Voorst are on the conservative side of the fence for sure, but they are still published, professional, notable scholars. As to what you said above, the conclusion I draw from your support of "attribution" would result in a sentence that says something along the lines of Christians believe the historical Jesus is a probable reconstruction using the historical method. Is this really the case? I'm also concerned about dragging out discusses all over again, ones which were already handled on other talk pages and noticeboards (specifically concerning the "majority view" stuff related to acceptance of a historical Jesus). I don't want to enable forum shopping.-Andrew c ^[talk] 20:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

In terms of attribution, "Christians..." wouldn't be appropriate simply because many Christians will never have attempted to use any historical method or reconstruct the life of Jesus. Finding the wording that is just-so will require consideration of the source material, but if that is too much work for us, why are we here in the first place? (On Wikipedia, I mean).

Let's look at the source material for the statement: Biblical scholars have used the historical method to develop probable reconstructions of Jesus' life.

1. Schaeffer. I am not able to access this text. From information I am able to find on the internet, though, it seems clear that this book is evangelical and not scholarly in its character, and that the author is a fundamentalist. I would suggest that this book should not be used to support anything in the article other than the views of Schaeffer, if they are considered notable.

2. Dunn. The author is clearly a Christian and is writing for a (thoughtful) predominantly Christian audience, but his book looks very much worth paying attention to. The pages cited, however, seem to give a message which contradicts the text that they are cited in support of. He talks of a "hermeneutical tension between faith and history" and of the "quest for a historical Jesus" as being a "false goal". He says: "The 'historical Jesus' is properly speaking a 19th and 20th century reconstruction using the data provided by the Synoptic tradition, not Jesus back then and not a figure in history".

3. Arnal et al. This looks like a very good source, but is difficult to be sure as to whether this supports the statement or not, since the cite gives no page reference. A cursory flick through, though, provides additional support for what is indicated by Dunn - ie that there is a body of opinion amongst theologians etc that the search for an historical Jesus is problematic in various ways or even a sort of fool's errand.

So, out of the three sources, we do not seem to have any support for the statement in the article. But we do have support for a quite different view which seems to be prominent amongst scholars. Perhaps the text should not only be attributed, but completely changed. --FormerIP (talk) 23:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Ok, based on the best available sources, not necessarily the ones that happen to be in the article now, if you were to have a one sentence summary of what the historical Jesus is, please propose a new text. One sentence introduction to the "historical view" section. Thanks! -Andrew c ^[talk] 00:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

What bothers me (and not sure why it doesn't bother anyone else here) is the last sentence of the first paragraph: Other scholars hold that the figure presented in the gospels is the real Jesus and that his life and influence only make sense if the gospel stories are accurate. which sites the Pope twice and a 1925 source. I mean, I understand some believing Christians have a hard time with historical Jesus scholarship, and maybe we do need to balance that, but the way we present the text seems very misleading, and probably has weight issues. Why did Noloop skip sources 115-117? -Andrew c ^[talk] 00:55, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I find it incomprehensible that one single, apparently POV pushing, user is allowed to edit this and other Jesus-related articles. The user doesn't consider any arguments but his own, and refuses to listen to reason. Is this a favourable editing climate? I don't think so. Antique Rose — Drop me a line 06:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is ridiculous. Noloop has been going from article to article for some time now advocating for either the removal of all Christian sources as unable to work scholarly on the subject, or identifying all Christian sources as such, which, frankly, reminds me a lot of forcing Jews to wear a star of David on their clothes during WW2. There is no reason to listen to this ridiculous "suggestions." They have absolutely no merit in policy and they never will.Farsight001 (talk) 10:19, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it would be good to concentrate on the content rather than the editor. Think you just demonstrated Godwin's Law a bit, Farsight. ;) --FormerIP (talk) 10:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

So? Godwin's Law is not a logical fallacy. Demonstration of the law does not invalidate the analogy.Farsight001 (talk) 12:09, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Andrew: I wouldn't presume to say what the best sources are. However, from what I have read, it looks like two important things are missing from this section. Firstly, there seems to be a significant body of opinion within the field that views the quest for a historical Jesus as a form of literary exegesis (or hermeneutics), rather than a search for a historically authentic biography of Jesus. I hesitate only slightly, but it looks to me as if this may be the predominant scholarly view.

Secondly, from outside the field there seems to be some scepticism as to the scholarly value of at least some of the work done within the field.

At the moment, the section seems based on a false premise - that there is little controversy over the idea that it is possible to reconstruct the "real" Jesus using the available data. So I think the section needs some work overall. As for the first sentence, it does not appear to be supported by sources, so it should be deleted. --FormerIP (talk) 11:28, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Andrew c that there are problems. Let's just ignore this Noloop ideological saga and work on improving the article. First, I have problems with the first line of the third paragraph in the introduction. This is how it rea a year ago:

Most critical scholars in the fields of history and biblical studies believe that some parts of the New Testament are useful for reconstructing Jesus' life,

I do not know who changed it, but I prefer the older version which I think is more precise and accurate. It is not "Critical scholars," which implies all, it is most, not all. And not all sections of the NT have value, only parts.

As to the section later on in the Historical section, this section has major problems. first of all, any critical historian cited in the introduction must be cited in this historical section too. I think we then need to reorganize the presentation of views. It is fine to begin with the earliest moves towards a critical view of the NT. But once we reach the 20th century we need to divide up the different points of view and clealy identify them. I would also limit this section to views of historians. I do not care whether they are Christian or not, but they must be writing as historians that is to say grappling with certain historical questions rather than theological ones, and trying to reconstruct the history or put the text in its historical context and not further Christian views. If this means some of the sources must be removed from the section, I propose that there is a section on Christian views to which they should be moved. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:24, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Sluberstein, think you need to be clear about how the sources you give support the statement you are proposing. Do any of the sources make a claim about "most critical scholars in the fields of history and bible studies", or is this your own assessment?

More importantly, though, it seems clear that most scholars who compose reconstructions of the life of Jesus do not hold these to be historically accurate (per the quote I gave from Dunn above), and this is really what is lacking in the text at present.

And it should be recognised that we are dealing with a branch of theology here, not history, so I do not think the idea of limiting discussions to sources written by historians makes sense, and I think it would be very hard to achieve (note that the sources you cite just above would all be arguably disqualified under this criterion). --FormerIP (talk) 13:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

What is your source that "all" historians claim these things? Your statement "And it should be recognised that we are dealing with a branch of theology here, not history" is a blatant violation of NPOV. This article must contain all significant views, that means the views of historians as well as theologicans. You have no right to restrict this articel only to the views of theologicans. Section four is for historical views, and section five is for religious views. You have no right to delete section four, or to insist that we use it for theological views, when there is already another section just for those views. You are just trying to eliminate a view you do not like. Forget about that. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you've read what I wrote properly. I was objecting to the idea that only the views of historians should be considered, which you suggested in your last post. The topic is theological in nature, and it would be an error to see it as a matter of reconstructing the past as we might do in the case of Roman emperors, for example (an error which I think the section makes at present). That does not mean I think that the views of historians should be excluded. I also didn't use the word "all" at any point, so I don't understand why you are challeging me about this.

Whatever goes in the section needs to be properly sourced, and I think attention also needs to be paid to WP:RS/AC. --FormerIP (talk) 14:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I think this may be a mountain/mole hill situation. Ehrman, "I should emphasize that with respect to Jesus, or indeed any historical person, the historian can do no more than establish probabilities. In no case can we reconstruct the past with absolute certitude. All that we can do is take the evidence that happens to survive and determine to the best of our abilities what probably happened. Thus, scholars will always disagree about the end results of their labors. But nothing can be done about this: the past cannot ever be empirically proved, it can only be reconstructed". To Ehrman, the fact that there are many different reconstructions of a historical Jesus isn't problematic, and isn't unique to HJ studies. It plagues all historical studies to some degree or another. Ehrman discusses strict historical methodology, and doesn't go into any theological methods. But maybe the issue is that there are theological methods claiming to be historical Jesus studies?? Meier defines the historical Jesus as "the Jesus whom we can recover, recapture, or reconstruct by using the scientific tools of modern historical research". He then goes on to say "Granted the fragmentary state of our sources and the often indirect nature of the arguments we must use, this "historical Jesus" will always remain a scientific construct, a theoretical abstraction that does not and cannot coincide with the full reality of Jesus of Nazareth as he actually live and worked in Palestine during the 1st century of our era." He goes on to give a hypothetical scenario where a Catholic, a Protestant, a Jew, and an agnostic have to come to a consensus statement regarding Jesus, "based on purely historical sources and arguments". I have no problem with the way our first sentence is phrased, though maybe we want to add a clause that historical constructs do not equate to an actual person? or mention that scholars don't agree on all the details in their reconstructions? The lead discusses this in this sentence Critical scholars have offered competing descriptions of Jesus as a self-described messiah, as the leader of an apocalyptic movement, as an itinerant sage, as a charismatic healer, and as the founder of an independent religious movement., but we don't go into details on the differences further down in the article. -Andrew c ^[talk] 16:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you've nailed the core issue there, Andrew, and, yes, the actual implications to Jesus studies are probably unproblematic. The implication for the article is just that the issue should be clarified, as you suggest. As it stands, the text may be taken as implying that scholarship has given some sort of independent validation to the contents of the NT. This isn't the case and, moreover, the idea that this would be a worthwhile endevour does not seem to be a prominent one (ie it is wrong to cast the issue as being something about Christianity versus atheism).

The problem goes slightly deeper, though, because the idea of "validation by historians" runs through the section, and this needs ironing out. It even slips into language like "The gospels demonstrate that...". To the possible objection "but that material is sourced" I would say that perhaps we need to scratch the surface a little. --FormerIP (talk) 17:14, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

So you working on any proposals? Want to suggest how we should amend the first sentence? And would you agree that at least the parts I quoted from Meier support the ideas behind our current text, even if the wording needs tweaking: "Many Biblical scholars have used the historical method to develop probable reconstructions of Jesus' life." Ehrman, likewise supports this text, but discusses methodology in an earlier section that I didn't quote. What are they missing that perhaps is found in Dunn or our currently cited sources? And what are they saying that we aren't saying. How should we phrase our sentence....-Andrew c ^[talk] 20:38, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

@FormerIP: I do not understand your point about Roman Emperors, above. All Roman emperors were pontiffs (before Roman Catholicism, I mean - they were heads of the sacrificial cults of the empire) and many of them were also gods, so I do not understand why you write, "The topic is theological in nature, and it would be an error to see it as a matter of reconstructing the past as we might do in the case of Roman emperors, for example" - it doesn't make sense to me. My point is simple: we have a section on historians' views and a section on religious views. It seems obvious to me that theological views belong in the section on religious views. My point was that any and all religious views currently in the historyical views section shouold be moved to the section on religious views. You seem to object. I still do not understand why.

The article currently states that "Critical Bible scholars ...." implying "all." I think we should change it to "many" since we cannot prove that all believe this. You objected to my proposal, so you must have some source that supports "all." otherwise, why would you object to my proposal? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:25, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is dodging the problem that 1) most of the scholars being mentioned are from the Christian community, while the article--which is supposed to be a secular treatment--claims that the consensus is widespread outside that community, and 2) the historical uncertainty isn't merely confined to whether Jesus was apocalyptic or educational, but extends to whether he is truly historical. Noloop (talk) 20:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

You have only mentioned two sentences. Please consider inline POV templates, as opposed to tagging the whole article (or better yet, don't tag and run, but fix it yourself, or discuss it further). I don't think anyone agrees that there is much controversy over whether he is truly historical or most of the scholars being mentioned are from the Christian community. -Andrew c ^[talk] 21:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Andrew's concerns. You have not come even close to demonstrating your assertion that "most of the scholars being mentioned are from the Christian community," and you haven't provided any sources that support the contention that there's significant uncertainty about Jesus' historicity. So I've reverted the POV tag. Try focusing on smaller bits of the article text, and try to supply some sources that support your arguments. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

The demonstration that most of the scholars are come from the Christian community is here. [7] The POV tag says neutrality is in dispute, which it obviously is, on this article and many other related ones. The Talk pages are full of editors disputing the neutrality of these articles. Noloop (talk) 03:22, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

You're simply repeating yourself, which is not the same as discussing things or supplying sources. You've objected to the sources in one section of the article, which is not a reason to tag the entire article. You might want to try {{POV-section}} instead. But, before you do, it would be nice if you could address the following points. Your assertion that the article requires "secular" sources is not supported by Wikipedia policy; nor have you provided a clear definition of secular, despite many users' requests for you to do so. It would be helpful if you would. Nor have you demonstrated that the scholars you've objected to "are from the Christian community"—what is the "Christian community", anyway, and how is it different from what you've been calling secular academia? Why does publishing a book with Eerdmans or Trinity Press mean that one is Christian, and not secular? And why is it that when someone belongs to this "Christian community", his/her scholarship is of only limited validity, such that it only relates to the views of the "Christian community"? --Akhilleus (talk) 03:40, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

"Eerdmans publishes a variety of books suitable for all aspects of ministry. Pastors, church education leaders, worship leaders, church librarians... will find a wealth of resources here." I've answered your other questions a million times. When I do so, they are promptly restated in distorted form for the purpose of calling me an ignorant POV-pushing bigot. So, I've lost faith that certain editors really care about what I think. If you do care, you can just look at my previous comments. Noloop (talk) 23:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I've looked at your previous comments, thanks. Your last comment is basically a repeat of stuff you've said before, and you should know by now that I don't find what you're saying convincing—you also don't respond to a bunch of my questions. Whoopee, Eerdmans publishes resources for pastors and churches. They also publish academic books—look here. There are books by James D. G. Dunn, Martin Hengel, James Charlesworth, Larry Hurtado, and other well-known scholars. The particular book you've objected to, Jesus Outside the New Testament by Robert Van Voorst, has been favorably reviewed in a number of journals, and is cited in several subsequent works of scholarship. So, the question is, why are books by this press only representative of the views of the "Christian community"? --Akhilleus (talk) 00:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Quite right. It's all about "convincing" you. Every time you characterize what I'm supposed to convince you of, you get it wrong. You have no understanding of what I think. Your general behavior suggests you have no interest in knowing what I think. Noloop (talk) 00:37, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

If you are experiencing repeated difficulties in getting people to understand you, I would have to assume that at least part of the problem might be in your presentation. So far as I can tell, you seem to be arguing that individuals who are in any way Christian (including Muslim, presumably) should not be considered reliable sources on this topic. Why do you continue to assert that? I can see no good reason for such a claim. Like in most other religious subjects, the people who write about it most frequently will be, of course, individuals who have an interest in it, like, for instance, a religious interest. Nowhere in wikipedia, however, do we count "religious bias" as being grounds for alteration of content, unless it is content which clearly is soapboxing a particular viewpoint, and/or has received less than positive reception. If that is your concern, then, sorry, we go with reliable sources as per WP:RS and WP:TRUTH. In some cases, like this one, the majority academic opinion does once in a while agree with a certain religious opinion. When that does happen, then it counts as the "mainstream" opinion, even if it does agree with a religious opinion. We really can't prevent religious opinions once in a while agreeing with academic opinions, you know. If you believe that your point is not getting through, then I would urge you to perhaps assemble a very clear and coherent statement in either userspace or offline and then come back and post it. However, it is not our obligation to make extraordinary efforts to try to come to understand statements which are not clear in and of themselves. Like in article space, effectively, the burden is on the person making the statement, not on the reader. John Carter (talk) 00:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

arbitrary break

Sluberstein, I think the distinction between "historical" and "religious" here is the wrong one. A number of the sources (Meier, Dunn, a number of the contributors to Arnal and Ehrman, although less clearly) seem to be at pains to point out that Jesus they are reconstructing is not a historical figure. This doesn't mean that they don't believe that Jesus existed, just that their picture is, properly speaking, exegetical rather than historical. On the other hand, most of the writers are Christians, so it wouldn't make sense to put them in a category that implies that they are irreligious.

A better distinction might be "revealed" versus "rational" (I got this from the wikipedia page on exegesis). Some writers give a primarily faith-based interpretation of Jesus, and some attempt an examination which employs modern academic methods.

If the Roman example is unclear, take instead the example of Queen Victoria. There is a wealth of data about her and it is possible to put together a biography of her life and call it historically accurate. The same is not the case with Jesus, and writers in the field do not seem to be trying to claim otherwise. This is what needs to be clear in the article.

Turning to the first sentence, I think the way it is worded should be based on the sources. There are no sources for the sentence as it stands so it should not even be there. Your proposal may be better. I cannot access the sources, although I can tell from the fact that the page references are not specific that no particular statement about "most critical scholars in the fields of history and bible studies" is in there. Or "many..." by the same token. I may be able to tell you what I think the wording should be if you explain to me how the sources support the proposal you made. --FormerIP (talk) 20:53, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Noloop: I think if the issues I'm seeing in the article were addressed then your issue of whether the sources are Christian or not would go away (or, at least, be greatly reduced), because the clarifying information would show the limits to the implications of their work (ie the reader would not be misled in the way the text (IMO) misleads them at the moment). I'm not sure what you mean by the last bit, but if you mean that it may also be the case that Jesus never existed, then okay, but I think that's a slightly different matter from whether or not the sources are biased or properly reflected. --FormerIP (talk) 21:04, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you are gravely mistaken regarding the "historical Jesus" being an exegetical construction. Ehrman and Meier clearly disagree, and say the historical Jesus is a secular, scholarly, historical, probablyprobable reconstruction. The only caveats are the ones that stem from general philosophy of history problems related to stuff like epistemological issues (how do we know for sure that anything actually happened like it was described in the past...) I don't believe either author is saying this is uniquely Jesus related, and I think the conclusions you are drawing above are way off base (which makes me think I have described Ehrman and Meier poorly, and I'm curious to know what you have been reading). Are you saying that there is no such thing as a "historical view" of Jesus (i.e. one derived from... umm... historical methods, ahem), and that maybe we should consider deleting it outright, and merging any relevant data in with the various religious views? I'd not support that! -Andrew c ^[talk] 21:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting merging information or doing away with the section at all, and I'm not claiming that the work of Ehrman etc is not secular, scholarly or historical (although I think "secular" and "historical" come with caveats, and I think "probably" is slippery here and I am unclear who has said this). There may be sliding scale between the different writers as to how they view their own work, but I think that it is obvious that there comes a point, in terms of epistemology, where you pass into exegesis if your only source material is scripture (this is my view, and I am not saying it needs to go in the article, but I think it is, like I say, obvious). The scholarship in question is of course historical to the extent that it benefits from the work of historians regarding the culture and environment of the time, but this is supplementary and interpretive, rather than corroborative, with regards to the life of Jesus.

What I am suggesting is that we could have a formulation that (1) does not deny the validity of the scholarship in question but (2) acknowledges the epistemological limits of this scholarship (thereby, hopefully (although it is not clear), going some way to satisfying Noloop) - again, I am not suggesting this means deriding it or undermining it or using the word "exegesis" - we may struggle a little over how to describe the limits, but it is clear that they are there and (3) does away with the thematic repetition implying that the world of academia validates the contents of the NT (thereby satisfying me). Potentially, everyone goes home happy. --FormerIP (talk) 22:27, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Meier, Sanders, and Fredricksen are most definitely trying to reconstruct a historical Jesus. The epistemological limitations are not specific to Jesus, they apply to any history. look at debates about African American hitory, and the speculation as to what cultural features were preserved from Africa or created in the US. This is only two hundred years ago and we have lots of historical records and historians admit they can try to do their best about what is most likely and not prove anything. But then again, the same is true for the structure of the atom, it has never been proven, physicists say it is the most they know based on incomplete information and they will never be sure. I do not see any epistempological issues facing Sanders, Vermes, Fredricksen, and Meier that do not face any other scientist or historian. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:39, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Inb any event this whole discussion is BS and a massive waste of time bcause so far Noloop and FormerIP have not provided a single reliable source to support their views. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

What sort of sources would you be looking for? --FormerIP (talk) 22:47, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Inb any event this whole discussion is BS and a massive waste of time bcause so far Noloop and FormerIP have not provided a single reliable source to support their views. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:46, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

So where do we stand here. Should we use the Meier and Ehrman citations since I don't have Arnal, and some objections have been raised to Arnal? Should we keep our same wording, or does anyone have proposed modifications or rephrasings? To me, I don't see why this is an issue. It's like defining the "yellow brick road" as a "pathways paved with yellow bricks", and really don't see why this needs a citation in the first place, let alone has caused all this trouble. Noloop, can you describe your concern. Do you believe the sentence is false? Do you think "Historical Jesus" is a misnomer, or that scholars are lying when they use that term or what? Or do you just not like Arnal, and would be ok with Meier and Ehrman (or do you have new sources to suggestion?)-Andrew c ^[talk] 01:14, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we need to rectify the inconsistency between the sources used in the introduction (that introduce all major views) and the subsections.

• When it comes to the historicity of Jesus, I think that the crafting of the accounts of the major views, and the sourcing, in the introduction is superior to that in the historicity.
• I think that among critical scholars we should consistantly be sure to include the views of Sanders, Fredricksen and Vermes who are at least as well-respected as Meier and Ehrman
• In the historicity section, I think we have to be much clearer in distinguishing between critical scholars and religious scholars. I do not agree that all Christians (or scholars who were trained or teach at seminaries or divinity schools) are "religious scholars." But some are and right now the section is not clear who. We do have to make the distinction clear. Books or articles in which the author speaks as a believer to an audience of believers should be distinguished by books in which the author speaks as an historian to other historians or students of history.
• I think it is reasonable to provide a summary of how historians themselves distinguish between a properly historical argument and a theological argument. There should be a way to do this without inflaming anyone on any particular side.
• Also, when it comes to historicity there are several distinct debates: debates among non-specialists starting with the Enlightenment, that might reasonably extend to include Bertrand Russell; debates among critical historians; and debates among Christian theologians who are reacting against or responding to the work of historians. I think an account of each of these debates belongs in the historicity section, but I think each one merits a separate paragraph and should be kept distinct.

I regret that I have no time to work on this right now but I know that Andrew and Leadwind know most of these sources and perhaps have access to all of them. I am pretty proud of the introduction, but the section on the debate over a historical Jesus, and the section on Jesus in his historical context, are by comparison pretty messy.

• I think the section on Jesus in his cultural and historical context really should (1) be clear that it is more about Jewish history than about Jesus ... and (2) be clear that the point is that historians read sources in their historical context, so that written texts like the gospels are one kind of "source" (which we describe at length) but all information - from written or material artefacts - about Jewish life in 1st century Judea and Galilea is another kind of source, used to interpret the first kind of source. I think this needs to be clearer. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:06, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I see I've missed quite the controversy. Lucky me. Here's my take: the historical existence of Jesus represents mainstream scholarship. See the Encyclopedia Britannica Online article, for example. That article also conveniently lists the top authors on the topic. For your convenience, I'll list them: Albert Schweitzer, Rudolf Bultmann, C.H. Dodd, Geza Vermes, E.P. Sanders, John Dominic Crossan, John P. Meier, Raymond E. Brown, Morton Smith, Paula Fredriksen. Since WP articles are based on mainstream scholarship, it's appropriate to treat Jesus as (most probably) historical, even if some of the sources are Christians. As an atheist with little patience for religious bias, I'm impressed by the neutrality of this article (though the four-gospels section still seems to make sense only from a Christian POV). Leadwind (talk) 02:43, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The issue here isn't the mainstream-ness of the scholarship. Various sources (including writings by some of the scholars you list) are keen to distinguish between an "historical" Jesus reconstructed through examination and consideration of scripture and what most people would understand as an "historical Jesus" (ie an authentically drawn human being who actually walked about 2000 or so years ago). This is far more than regular epistemological doubt - we don't find the same sort of distinction made in biographies of Winston Churchill, for example.

Our article fails to draw this distinction, and so it misrepresents the scholarship and quite significantly misleads the reader and inclines the article at certain points to a non-neutral POV. Statements like "The Gospel tradition has certainly preserved several authentic fragments of Jesus' teaching" and "The gospels demonstrate that Jesus ... was executed on political charges" are (IMO) ludicrous. We even have a whole section on the teachings as Jesus written as if it is factual.

Completely ignored, as well, are the sources that criticise the enterprise of trying to reconstruct the life of Jesus. It is not at all clear why the article takes a controversial area of academic study, presents it without mentioning any controversy and then goes still further by markedly overstating its claim to historical authenticity. --FormerIP (talk) 16:28, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

Well stated. Noloop (talk) 16:51, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

The same issues apply to the article Historical Jesus. I've added a proposal to the Talk page. Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:12, 21 August 2010 (UTC)

@FromerIP, you mention "historical Jesus" twice as if you were talking about two different things rather than the same thing; I do not understand, can you explain? Also, what do you mean by "regular epistemological doubt?" Also, Winston Churchill is a bad conversation as there are people alive who remember his funeral. A better example would be Pythagoras. If we really must make comparisons, lets pick reasonable ones like Pythagoras. Slrubenstein | Talk 02:11, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

The distinction I am making is between an "historical Jesus" who lived and beathed and carried out (un)certain activities during the early part of the first century and the "historical Jesus" of New Testament scholars who, in spite of the name often given to him, is, in Dunn's words "not a figure in history". Various sources make a similar distinction. Moxnes in Arnal et al (p135) distinguishes between the "historical Jesus" (who "we cannot reach") and the "historian's Jesus" (who we contstruct). I think this is a useful way of desctribing the distinction.

"regular epistemological doubt" - The idea that scholars are "always cautious", so their caution in this case in unremarkable would be a red herring. Sources do not normally draw attention to their lack of certainty without good reason. Normally, if sources express caution, this caution should be noted in the relevant WP article. This article should be no different.

As for Pythagoras, what I would note is the second sentence of his WP article: "Most of our information about Pythagoras was written down centuries after he lived, thus very little reliable information is known about him". The Jesus article, in contrast, strikes far too confident a tone, even to the point of certainty, regarding certain details of the life of Jesus. This isn't in conformance with NPOV and it doesn't properly reflect the epistemological position of the sources on which it is based. --FormerIP (talk) 10:28, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually the way you describe it now, it sounds a lot more like William Shakespeare - all historians agree he existed, but many point to the dearth of sources on his life and a recent biography of his was harshy criticized for presenting a reconstruction based largely on information about the lives of other people of his time, and speculation, the point being that one can try to reconstruct his life but that is all historians can do and there will always be a gulf between that reconstruction and Shakespear's actual life. I suppose the same thing can be said about Socrates. It sounds like, the further one goes back in time, the more this is true about anyone. Sanders points out that the quality of sources concening Alexander the Great's life are comparable to what we have for Jesus' life. Perhaps this should be quoted - but I think it belongs more in the Historicity of Jesus article. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

One big difference between Jesus and Alexander the Great is that the Gospels are prima facie not credible. If the only sources for Alexander the Great said he was the son of Zeus, walked on water, practiced exorcism, and rose from the dead--in other words, made him sound very much like a mythical figure--it would be a lot more natural to doubt the existence of Alexander. Likewise, if the bulk of scholars who believed Alexander existed were worshippers, that would be a tad dubious too. Why don't we believe there was a historical Dionysus? Also, the evidence for Alexander seems a tad better: there are known contemporaneous sources, which, even though lost, are not doubted. That's not true of Jesus. (The Q is doubted.) Noloop (talk) 14:25, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, actually Plutarch does suggest tht Alexander's father was Zeus. The fact is, historical sources from that period - a little earlier, like Heroditus, but even later - report the most bizarre claims that, if made by any history book today, would lead everyone to reject the books as fundamentally discredited. Yet we rely on them for everything we know about the classical world. The fact, any historian of ancient Greece and even Ancient Rome needs to learn how to read the sources critically, and distinguich between what is confirmed by archeological evidence, what is credible because it is consistent with everything we really do believe about the time, what is possible but dubious, and what simply must be rejected. I find it interesting that the Jesus articles include discussions of the sources, their limitations, and how they are used by historians, whereas WP articles by Alexander - where modern historians also have to be critical and discerning and skeptical - actually tell us nothing about the sources, their limits, and how modern historians deal with them. I think this is a real flaw in our articles on Alexander and Socrates and other figures from the past where we have even less certain evidence of their lives. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Without wanting to veer off into a discussion about Alexander, it is not correct to say that we have "even less certain evidence" of his life. We actually have a fairly healthy amount of contemporaneous data on him spread over a wide geographic area, including coins with his head on, paintings of him, dedications to him and even letters and orders composed by him, as well as biographical fragments written during his lifetime. We have no contemporaneous data about Jesus, so the two cases are really quite different in that respect. Where they may be similar is in that in both cases there is a body of literature written some time later with the intention of propagating myths about their respective subjects, which historians ought to be sceptical about. Here is what a historian says:

It has been said that the search for the historical Alexander is something like the search for the historical Jesus. Many contemporaries had an interest in preserving a version of what he said and did [but] those writers whose words have survived all had an interest in recording, or creating, a particular image of their hero or villain...In other words, although the surviving evidence is quite ample in quantity, it is poor in quality, being contradictory, tendentious and mainly non-contemporary. In this respect we can dismiss at once the Alexander Romance. - Paul Cartledge, Alexander the Great, pp 244-5

If there is indeed a valid comparison between the two cases, then this is roughly the equivalent of dismissing the New Testament out-of-hand as inherently unreliable. So the comparison undermines the case for proclaiming an "authentic" historical Jesus, rather than supporting it. --FormerIP (talk) 21:10, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Since Socrates has been mentioned, here is a question: I don't have access to a copy of Saunders, but assuming he does make a comparison, and assuming this comparison has led you into a false impression that the data available about Alexander is comparable to that available about Jesus, why do you think a writer might do this? --FormerIP (talk) 21:51, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Former IP, you misinterpreted me in good faith. When I wrote, "I think this is a real flaw in our articles on Alexander and Socrates and other figures from the past where we have even less certain evidence of their lives," the word "and" was meant to mark a nominal phrase, apart from "Alexander" and "Socrates." I maybe should have written "and other figures from the past, for whom we have less certain evidence of their lives." By "less" I meant, less than Alexander, even less than Socrates. I also note that you misinterpret the general sense of what I wrote, which is not about whether or not there was an authetic historical jesus, but that ny historical research from antiquity involves a good deal of discussion concerning the limits and unreliabilities of the sources and how then a modern historian must use them. My point was that including coverage of this discussion is good. That we include coverage of this discussion for Jesus is good. Of course the sources for Alexander, Socrates, and Pythagoras are different than the sources for Jesus, but they are limited, have unreliable elements, and must therefore be used with care by modern historians too - yet our articles on these characters lacks any coverage of such isues, and that I say is a weakness of those articles. otherwise, I stand by what I wrote. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:16, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Maybe I have been misinterpreting your position. Here is approximately what my position would be...

1) The article at present makes certain claims about the life of Jesus as if they were "official" and validated by academia. My view is that it is okay to report these things (subject to them being properly supported by sources), but we should be clear that they are the constructions of biblical scholars and not established "fact". This could be done in a number of ways, and I would suggest that including an overview of different attitudes to the scholarship would be the best way.

2) Claims that scripture "demonstrates" anything should be excised. We can say that something is the case according to scriptural accounts, for example.

3) The structure of the article may (or may not) be problematical, but there are NPOV issues that ought to be dealt with as a priority, and I think it will only be possible to see the best structure after this is done.

4) There are legitimate issues about maintaining respect for religious belief. Serious Christian scholars do not get embarrassed about an inability to conclusively prove facts about Jesus, and we should not get embarrassed on their behalf. At the same time, I make no case for an atheistic rubbishing of the scholarship. In fact, I think a good test of any example of scholarship in this area is the extent to which it is immune from atheist objections. I am opposed, however, to an exclusively Christian reading of the scholarship. Further, there are legitimate Jewish and Muslim interests in this area of study which should not be resisted in the way the article is constructed and expressed.

5) In the longer term, perhaps, there may be a case for constructing the article so that it is about multiple Jesuses. At present, I think it labours under the assumption that we are obliged to consider a core Jesus and then various differences of opinion about him (which are not even properly represented, I might add). This may be a little ambitious as an immediate objective though.

How far do you agree or disagree with these points. --FormerIP (talk) 23:54, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Quite a few New Agers who wouldn't necessarily be called Christian also accepted the historical existence of Jesus, such as the Church Universal and Triumphant. He couldn't have travelled to India and learned from the teachers there if he never actually existed. John Carter (talk) 00:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Noloop and SR

I cannot in good consience retract my assertion that Noloop has made bigoted comments. However, it was unnecessary and wrong to personalize it by saying that Noloop himself is bigoted. For what it is worth, I apologize for that and through this statement retract comments about Noloop him/herself. I will strive in the future to limit myself to addressing editors' comments, rather than editors themselves. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

On Yahweh (or Jehovah)

Aren't they really the same thing? Don't they both derive from YHWH and JHVH, which both derive from יהוה? Given that Latin does not have a J or a W (and that Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek have none of those 5 letters), how is Jehovah any more an invented spelling than Yahweh? JimWae (talk) 03:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I may be completely wrong, but it seems to me that Hebrew is typically associated with the Jews who typically use Yahweh to refer to God, where as the use of Jehovah may more often be associated with Jehovah's witnesses who use that term exclusively.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 05:43, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I've also heard Mormons and your standard run-of-the-mill Christians refer to their god as Jehovah. For whatever that's worth. Jess_talk|_edits 06:14, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

It gets used in popular culture a fair bit ("Life of Brian" anyone?), but why does it need to be used in this particular place in the article? We're talking about a statement that explains the etymology of the name of Jesus, which means "Yahweh delivers (or rescues)" according to the article. Someone wants to change this to "Yahweh (or Jehovah) delivers (or rescues)." This may have been done from an intention to make the article more accessible, on the theory that English speakers know the form Jehovah better, but edits that introduce alternative forms, additional parenthetical statements, etc. generally make text more confusing. What's more, if you read the article on Jehovah with careful attention to the footnotes, especially footnote 6, you'll see that the Jehovah pronunciation developed long after Jesus' time (and obviously didn't enter English until long after Jesus' time); it's a bit weird to have an etymology explaining the name of an ancient person with a pronunciation that wasn't used until centuries after his death, when a more accurate pronunciation is already used. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this statement. I was actually typing out something similar and got the edit conflict. There is no reason to have Jehovah in the etymology section. Marauder40 (talk) 13:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

The name Jehovah is in the King James Bible. TFD (talk) 02:59, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

And the King James bible is an atrociously and notoriously innaccurate translation. So I have to wonder why it matters.Farsight001 (talk) 23:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps because it is, beyond reasonable dispute, the most influential work of literature in the history of the English-speaking world. --FormerIP (talk) 00:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

That still isn't a reason to include it parenthetically in the etymology section of this page; I agree with Akhilleus that it would make it more confusing. Nor would it add value to the etymology. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 00:57, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a very strong view on this, but Jehovah seems to be a familiar form to many people. Why would we seek to exclude it? What is the basis for preferring Yaweh or something else? --FormerIP (talk) 01:19, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I just don't see a need for both to be included there. Yahweh or Jehovah, just not both. I don't have an ideological reason for including Yahweh and excluding Jehovah, but in google scholar Yahweh has 30.9k results, and Jehovah, excluding references to JWs, has only 24.6k. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 01:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd say that's not an overwhelming difference, though. --FormerIP (talk) 22:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

We still don't need both, I say. We've argued it more than I care about it at this point though. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 23:06, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Islamic family tree

Family Tree of Jesus amongst 6 Islamic Nabi

Adam1
Noah2
Ibrahim(Abraham)3
Ishmael		Ishac (Issac)
Adnan (b.122 BC)		Yaqub(Jacob)
Abdul Muttalib		Eysa( Jesus)5	Musa(Moses)4
Abadullah(d.570 AD)	Abu Talib (d.620AD)
Muhammad(d.632AD)6
Fatima(d.11 AH)	Ali (d.661 AD)
Hasan, Husain(d.680AD)
Islam

I agree with Andrew's reasoning that it needn't be included here if it is already at Jesus in Islam. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 21:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I'd also like to note that the revert was an abuse of "rollback" and would ask an uninvolved editor to issue a warning or take whatever further actions they feel necessary.-Andrew c ^[talk] 22:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Roll back is done with specific reasoning ,clearly explained , the mass viewer of Jesus do not refer Jesus in Islam and they would never know the fact that Jesus, Mohammad and Moses are basically from same root and this makes lot of difference. The table is included in islamic section of main page Jesus and I feel it can be considered for inclusion,pl.cooperate .--Md iet (talk) 04:35, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't even have a source. I would consider removing your family tree tables from all articles on the grounds of being original research. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 04:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Dear,It is not a original research, It is from facts narrated in all history and religious books ,unaccountable sources.--Md iet (talk) 04:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

If it's not original research, then provide the research. But without a proper source, we can't really include it in an article.Farsight001 (talk) 05:17, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The table contains many of patriach and their family tree already exist in article Patriarchs (Bible),most of member has articles on their name( already linked)which further clarify their Genesis link. These articles further have their own source details,and hence table is linked to all proper sources please.--Md iet (talk) 04:47, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

As discussed above the table is informative to all & having reliable sources.Hope, there is consensus to add it to article.--Md iet (talk) 05:21, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

You say it has reliable sources, but you do not provide them. So far I see no consensus. The Gospels provide two diferent lineages and these are the subject of much interpretation by Christians and by historians, I do not see how we can include lineages without providing summaries of the debates. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I confess I have no clear idea what this 'family tree' is actually supposed to show. Why are these specific individusals picked out? What does the box structure mean? As far as I can see it says that both Jesus and Moses are descended from Jacob, which tells nothing more than that they are both Israelites. The others are descended from Adam and Noah. But then, so is everyone else - in Biblical terms - so this tells us next to nothing. You might as well include Julius Caesar as one of Jesus's relatives. The only significant point is that the Arab/Ismaelites and the Israelites are linked via Abraham, but we don't need a big box to tell us that. Paul B (talk) 12:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Reliable sources ,I have clarified the matter, Do you think that Wikipedia present articles are not reliable source? then which encyclopedia to accept?Article Patriarchs (Bible),section "Family Tree of Certain Patriarchs Mentioned in the Book of Genesis' clearly give lineage from Adam to Jacob,Ishmael and Issac.Islamic linkeage very much clarified in individual person's page.Muhammad,Abdul-matalib ,Ali,and Ishmael page clearly spell link down upto Husain.Jacob Issac, Jesus,Mary and Moses article further link each other. Each article clearly speaks of their link and all are supported by reliable sources,otherwise how come they got space in Wiki.Which other reliable sources you further require? There can be different view on lineage,but this is also one of view acceptable and WIki accept all point of view .Please to have Consensus,we have to think in broader respective and decide.--Md iet (talk) 12:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

No one disputes that Jesus and Moses are both, according to the Bible, descended from Jacob. I've no reason to doubt that your Islamic figures also descend in the way you describe, but this is useless information. Paul B (talk) 12:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Md iet, you ask if a Wikipedia article is a reliable source. This question is evidence that you actually do not know our policies. If your edits do not comply ith policies, they will be deleted. Do not ask us what is a reliable source. Instead, read WP:RS and comply with it. Do not say you are not doing original research when you are. Read WP:NOR and comply with it. You should not try to change this encyclopedia when you have not reviewed the basic policies for editing. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:05, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this is really a problem of reliable sources. All this chart shows is undisputed biblical genealogy combined with traditional Islamic genealogy. So we have Adam - Noah - Abraham, splitting to Ismael and Jacob, then Moses and Jesus as descendents of Jacob on the right, with Mohammad's ancestor Adnan, then his grandfather & father on the left, as descendents of Ismael. Mohammad himself, his daughter and grandsons then follow on the left. The problem is that this is obvious and irrelevant once you work out what it shows, but the chart is condensed, it's not at first obvious to reader what it's intended to tell us. Its connection to Jesus is minimal. Paul B (talk) 13:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Jesus' purpose

Will anyone object if this section is removed? It has no secondary sources. It's only sourced to scripture. It is too confessional for WP, I think. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 23:22, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeshu

User:Hearfourmewesique has added the following:

"Some religious Jews interpret the commonly abbreviated name Yeshu יֵשׁוּ as the acronym for Yimakh sh'mo u'shem zikhro יִּמַח שְׁמוֹ וּשֵם זִכְרוֹ (meaning "be his name and memory erased").<r>"Ariel Cohen Alvero – Jesus and The Promised Land". Dr. Zvi Sadan. Retrieved Aug. 16, 2010. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)</r>"(diff)

I've removed it as its relevance is limited. -Stevertigo (t | log | |c) 02:02, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you explain "its relevance is limited?" Isn't the relevance of anything in Wikipedia "limited?" Why do you think it is limited in a way that justifies removal? Slrubenstein | Talk 12:41, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

User:Hearfour.. has reinstated the passage with more sources. The relevance of the passage is limited because it gets into a controversial, speculative and specialistic definition of "Yeshu" without first treating the matter that "Yeshu" is the common Hebrew name for Jesus. The name Yeshu is not quite the same in historical Hebrew as it is in modern Hebrew, and thus there are quite separate issues. And anyway what Hebrew-speaking Jews call Jesus currently isn't all that relevant, especially without first treating the variance: Jesus had a Hebrew name, and its not quite the same name used in modern Hebrew. -Stevertigo (t | log | |c) 00:43, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, I have re-added the statement, but I have also reworded it so that the primary piece of information will be (justly) that Yeshu is the commonly known name in today's Israel. While I personally strongly disagree with the definition of Jesus being the enemy of Judaism for trying to change it around, mentioning it seems fairly relevant since Jesus was from the land of Israel. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 14:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, what I do not understand is why it matters what word is popular in Israel today? There is no evidence at all that Yeshu was a name any Jew used for Jesus at the time of Jesus -isn't this relevant? "the enemy of Judaism" is not a definition, it is a view, and not really relevant here either, we are discussing the view that Jesus is the enemy of Israel - that is why Jews would wish his memory erased. In fact, this is a view Jews held for a long time and I do not see why this view should be erased from the article.Slrubenstein | Talk 16:57, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Jesus was challenging Judaism for "going astray". This was frowned upon by the Sanhedrin, who issued a Pulsa diNura against him. He was proclaimed as the enemy of Judaism, which indirectly makes him the enemy of Israel. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 14:09, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The view that Jesus was challenging "Judaism" as "going astray" is a Christian view. Most historians do not see Jesus as very different from any number of preachers; moreover, Jews have a long and hallowed tradition of accusing one another of going astray - any Lubavitch on the nearest streetcorner will tell you that it is a shande how many Jews have gone astray, no one looks down on any Jew who chastizes Jews for going astray or for encouraging them to return to God.

Most historians do not believe that Jesus was accused of "going astray" from Judaism during his life - this is a specifically Christian point of view. Without a doubt, Christian who broke away from Judaism are seen by Jews as having gone astray, and any Jew who thinks Jesus was the founder of Christianity understandably blames Jesus.

In any event, none of this explains your edit. Yes, Yeshu is Yeshua minus one letter - this does not make them etymologically connected. "Ill" is "Bill" minus one letter but they are not etymologically connected. "Henr" is "Henry" minus one letter and it is unsure what if anything it means. That is how linguists treat Yeshu. At the time Jesus lived, there was a good Hebrew and a good Aramaic word for Joshua, and we find both in the Talmud and in other more contemporary sources. "Yeshu" is limited to a small number of related stories and is not found anywhere else. Some people do claim that it is meant to refer to Yehoshua or to Yeshua and they have to provide their own little drashes as to why the termination is dropped, but they have no linguistic evidence to support this. And there are citations at the end of the sentence that say so. moreover, the Toledot Yeshu, the principle source for stories about Yeshu, provide the explanation that Yeshu means "may he be forgotten," so this is a meaning known to anyone who knows the stories. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:50, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Hearfour.., the point here being, the etymology section of this article is not the place to mention yemach.. and if we were to, it would have be put in a kind of context - the kind of context which the Yeshu article does have, and which this article does not. I support the idea of mentioning "Yeshua" as Jesus' historical Hebrew name, and that (by the way) in modern Hebrew is it "Yeshu," but even that mention is particular as the way modern Jews regard Jesus is of limited relevance. I support linking to the Yeshu article only for its etymological relevance, and do not support getting into its particulars here. -Stevertigo (t | log | |c) 19:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeshu is not Jesus' biblical name and there is no evidence to suggest this. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you are misreading what I wrote. -Stevertigo (t | log | |c) 02:50, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Yikes! I did misread what you wrote. I obviously agree with you that Yemach does not belong in the etymology section (I do believe it is appropriate in the Jewish views section). I also do think that linking to the Yeshu article addresses most issues. By the way I think we shoul dlook at modern Israeli historians before making any flat-out statements about Jesus' name in modern Hebrew .... I have heard people refert o Jesus as Yehoshua which is of course Hebrew for Joshua. I believe Hearfour when he says Israeli's call him Yeshu, but we have to ask, "which Israelis?" I would not be surprised in Haredi Israeli's who read the Toledot Yeshu call him Yeshu, or if some secular Israelis call him Yeshu transliterating from the latin ... but I would be pretty surprised in Israeli historians and other academics called the historical/Gospel Jesus "Yeshu." Anyway, sorry I misread you Steve. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:21, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your straightforward approach. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 22:39, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

PS: Note, the he:Talk:ישו has some interesting discussion along the same lines. How much difference a little "ע" makes, I dunno. I suppose it depends on what exactly is meant by excluding it. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 00:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

"Excluding" is a loaded word, it describes a deliberate act. In English there is a word "pot" and a word "post." Is the letter "s" excluded from the word "pot?" No, because if the leter "s" is included, then it is no longer the word "pot." All we can say is two words are different. One can always ask, what difference does the letter (or phoneme) make? I think all linguists would answer: one can only know the answer to this question by knowing the rules of grammar and the history of the particular language in question. There are no general principles that apply to all languages, so there is no basis for answering these questions unless one really knows the history and grammar of the language. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

And that would be improper, wouldn't it, to argue that Jews refuse to call Jesus by his actual name ("Yeshua") for political reasons.. In any case it makes sense to use Yeshua/Yehoshua to avoid any possible associations with either the Toledoth or yimach.. To that purpose, I note that the Hebrew article allows for both ישו and ישוע, ostensibly to accommodate both of the divergent.. phonologies. There are "no general principles that apply to all languages? Eh? See linguistic universal and Greenberg's linguistic universals.

-Stevertigo (t | log | c) 15:23, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Those "universals" are more like statistical probabilities. In any case, I do not understand the rest of your comment. Jews do not refuse to call Jesus "Yehoshua." That is why some Jews claim that Yeshu does not refer to Jesus. The person whose memory is to be blotted out is not, some say, Jesus. There are other views about Yeshu, my point is simply that Yeshu is neither Hebrew nor Aramaic for Yehoshua, which is why so many scholars have hypothsized and spculated as to what it means. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

And that's why current scholars speculate about why some people use "Yeshu" at all. Hence the issue that brought us here, namely the idea that Jewish perspectives, including Yemach, are relevant. -Stevertigo (t | log | c) 20:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Which is why I moved them to "Jewish views," on this I think we agree. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Capitalization: "He" vs. "he"

There is no reason to capitalize "he" or "his" when refering to Jesus. Other articles, namely that of Buddha, Krishna, or Moses do not use the irregular capitalization when referring to other deities. Putting the undue emphasis with reference to Jesus implies a Christo-centric (and possibly Islamocetric) worldview which further implies a POV on the part of editors. As neutrality is requrired the irregular capitalization should be removed. JewishLeftist (talk) 08:15, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Along this line, I'll point out that not even the bible typically capitalizes "he" or "his" when referring to God.Farsight001 (talk) 08:22, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

A lot of Jesus mythology was based on older mythology

Why is there no mention here of the fact that Jesus is based off of other gods? It is very well documented in RS like this: http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/bull_killer/

There really should be at least one section detailing the origins of the Jesus myths e.g.: born of a virgin, died and came back to life after emerging from a cave, miracles etc ... and then perhaps a link to an article that goes into more detail.

Also see Jesus_Christ_in_comparative_mythology#History_and_Interpretation

Zuchinni one (talk) 20:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Please look through the many many discussions that we've had on this same subject. The "Jesus-is-a-copy-of-other-religions" thing is a myth. It is not found in credible scholarship. Oddly, not even the link you provided. You might want to read it more closely.Farsight001 (talk) 20:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

And Carly Silver is a Junior at Barnard College. Yup, just the sort of "reliable source" the whole encyclopedia should be based on! Slrubenstein | Talk 21:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Some thoughts on the historicity of Jesus

From the Historical Views section: "The Gospels are not ideal sources historical research because the authors wrote decades after Jesus lived..."

First, "historical research" should be removed from the sentence because it is confusing and unnecessary. Second, perhaps it should be acknowledged at some point in the article that, although writing about a historical person decades after that person lived is not ideal, it is still a better standard than that found in relation to other ancient religious figures who instead were first written about centuries after they lived. My point is that in ancient times it was common for the words and deeds of influential individuals to be memorized and transmitted orally by their followers for quite some time before being committed to writing, and although not ideal in any case, Jesus was written about earlier after his death than other religious figures, such as Mahavira and Gautama Buddha, whose historicity ironically has been questioned by few (if any) scholars.

76.123.177.103 (talk) 04:29, 31 August 2010 (UTC)InDefenseoftheHistoricalJesus