Talk:Jesus: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 09:39, 19 April 2011

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jesus article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136: 10 days

Jesus was one of the Philosophy and religion good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 17, 2004	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
June 2, 2004	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
August 3, 2004	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
November 2, 2004	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
May 3, 2005	Articles for deletion	Kept
October 6, 2005	Peer review	Reviewed
December 12, 2005	Good article nominee	Listed
December 15, 2005	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
April 14, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed
November 27, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed
April 21, 2007	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
August 21, 2007	WikiProject A-class review	Approved
July 12, 2009	Good article reassessment	Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article

Religion B‑class Top‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Christianity: Jesus / Catholicism / Eastern O. / Oriental O. / Jewish / Anglicanism / Latter Day Saints B‑class Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles

B

This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Top

This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	This article is within the scope of the Jesus work group, a task force which is currently considered to be inactive.
	Catholic Church portal This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Oriental Orthodoxy (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Jewish Christianity (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Anglicanism (assessed as Top-importance).
	Latter Day Saints portal This article is supported by WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement (assessed as Top-importance).

Islam B‑class Mid‑importance

	Islam portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Biography: Core B‑class

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is listed on the project's core biographies page.

Bahá'í Faith B‑class High‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bahá'í Faith, a coordinated attempt to increase the quality and quantity of information about the Baháʼí Faith on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.Bahá'í FaithWikipedia:WikiProject Bahá'í FaithTemplate:WikiProject Bahá'í FaithBahá'í Faith articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Mythology B‑class High‑importance

	Mythology portal This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.MythologyWikipedia:WikiProject MythologyTemplate:WikiProject MythologyMythology articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Bible B‑class Top‑importance

	Bible portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible articles
B	This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:WP1.0

Template:Controversial (history) Template:Pbneutral

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Jesus. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Jesus at the Reference desk.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jesus article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136: 10 days

view · edit

Frequently asked questions

Q1: What should this article be named?

A1: To balance all religious denominations this was discussed on this talk page and it was accepted as early as 2004 that "Jesus", rather than "Jesus Christ", is acceptable as the article title. The title Christ for Jesus is used by Christians, but not by Jews and Muslims. Hence it should not be used in this general, overview article. Similarly in English usage the Arabic Isa and Hebrew Yeshua are less general than Jesus, and cannot be used as titles for this article per WP:Commonname.

Q2: Why does this article use the BC/AD format for dates?

A2: The use of AD, CE or AD/CE was discussed on the article talk page for a few years. The article started out with BC/AD but the combined format AD/CE was then used for some time as a compromise, but was the subject of ongoing discussion, e.g. see the 2008 discussion, the 2011 discussion and the 2012 discussion, among others. In April 2013 a formal request for comment was issued and a number of users commented. In May 2013 the discussion ended and the consensus of the request for comment was to use the BC/AD format.

Q3: Did Jesus exist?

A3: Based on a preponderance of sources, this article is generally written as if he did. A more thorough discussion of the evidence establishing Jesus' historicity can be found at Historicity of Jesus and detailed criticism of the non-historicity position can be found at Christ myth theory. See the policy on the issue for more information.

Q3a: Is "virtually all scholars" a phrase that can be used in Wikipedia?

The issue was discussed on the talk page:

Based on this Wikipedia search the phrase is widely used in Wikipedia.
The definition of the term virtually is shown by the Merriam-Webster dictionary in clear terms.
The term is directly used by the source in the article, and is used per the WP:RS/AC guideline to reflect the academic consensus.

Q3b: What about asking on the reliability noticeboard?

Yes, people involved in the page can discuss matters, but an independent opinion from the reliable source noticeboard can further clarify and confirm the sources. An outside opinion was requested on the noticeboard. The outside opinion there (by user:DGG) stated that the issue has been discussed there many times and that the statement in the article (that virtually all scholars of antiquity hold that Jesus existed) represents the academic consensus.

Q3c: What about the books that claim Jesus never existed?

The internet includes some such lists, and they have been discussed at length on the talk page, e.g. a list of over 20 such books was addressed in this talk page discussion. The list came from a non-WP:RS website and once it was analyzed it became clear that:

Most of the authors on the list were not scholars in the field, and included an attorney, an accountant, a land surveyor, a film-maker, as well as a number of amateurs whose actual profession was less than clear, whose books were self-published and failed the WP:RS requirements. Some of the non-self-published authors on the list were found to just write popular books, have no academic position and not scholars, e.g. Christopher Hitchens.
Some of the books on the list did not even deny the existence of Jesus, e.g. Burton Mack (who is a scholar) holds that Jesus existed but his death was not due to his challenge to Jewish authority, etc. Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman's work is about the Old Testament and not really related to Jesus. Tom Harpur holds that Jesus existed but mythical stories were later added to the gospel narratives about him.

The analysis of the list thus indirectly shed light on the scarcity of scholars who deny the existence of Jesus.

Q3d: Do we have to survey the scholars ourselves?

The formal Wikipedia guidelines require us not to do our own survey. The Wikipedia guideline WP:RS/AC specifically states: "The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view." Given that the guideline then states: "statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors." we should not rely on our own surveys but quote a scholar who states the "academic consensus".

Q3e: Why even mention the existence of Jesus in the article lead?

A: This was discussed on the talk page. Although scholars at large see existence as a given, there are some self-published, non-scholarly books which question it, and hence non-scholars who read this article need to to have that issue clarified. And note that the statements regarding existence and other attributes need to be kept separate and stating that "Virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus was from Galilee" would not be accurate, because scholarly agreement on existence is much stronger than on other items.

Q4: Are the scholars who study Jesus all Christian?

A4: No. According to Bart D. Ehrman in How Jesus Became God (2014, ISBN 978-0-06-177818-6, p. 187), "most New Testament scholars are themselves Christian". However, scholars of many faiths have studied Jesus. There are three aspects to this question:

Some of the most respected late-20th-century scholars involved in the study of the historical Jesus (e.g. Amy-Jill Levine, Geza Vermes, Paula Fredriksen) are Jewish. This trend is discussed in the 2012 book Soundings in the Religion of Jesus, by Bruce Chilton, Anthony Le Donne, and Jacob Neusner (ISBN 978-0-8006-9801-0, p. 132). While much of the older research in the 1950–1970 time frame may have involved Christian scholars (mostly in Europe) the 1980s saw an international effect and since then Jewish scholars have brought their knowledge of the field and made significant contributions. And one should note that the book is coauthored by the likes of Chilton and Neusner with quite different backgrounds. Similarly one of the main books in the field, The Historical Jesus in Context, by Amy-Jill Levine, Dale C. Allison Jr., and John Dominic Crossan (2006, ISBN 978-0-691-00992-6), is jointly edited by scholars with quite different backgrounds. In the late 20th and the 21st century Jewish, Christian and secular agnostic scholars have widely cooperated in research. The Muslim Reza Aslan wrote the number-one bestseller Zealot (2013).
Regarding the existence of a historical Jesus, the article lead quotes Ehrman who is an agnostic and Price who is an atheist. Moreover, G. A. Wells who was widely accepted as the leader of the non-existence movement in the 20th century, abandoned that position and now accepts that the Q source refers to "a preacher" on whom parts of the gospels were based – although he believes that the supernatural claims were just stories that were then attributed to that preacher. That is reflected in his 2004 book Can We Trust the New Testament (pp. 49–50). While scholars continue to debate the historicity of specific gospel narratives, the agreement on the existence of Jesus is quite global.
It is misleading to assume that Christian scholars will be biblical literalists who cannot engage in critical scholarship. Catholic and non-Evangelical Protestant scholars have long favoured the historical-critical method, which accepts that not all of the Bible can be taken literally.^[1] For example, the Christian clerics and scholars Michael Ramsey, C. F. D. Moule and James Dunn all argued in their scholarship that Jesus did not claim to be divine,^[2] Conrad Hyers, a Presbyterian minister, criticizes biblical literalism: "Literal clarity and simplicity, to be sure, offer a kind of security in a world (or Bible) where otherwise issues seem incorrigibly complex, ambiguous and muddy. But it is a false security, a temporary bastion, maintained by dogmatism and misguided loyalty."^[3]^[4]
Finally, Wikipedia policies do not prohibit Buddhist scholars as sources on the history of Buddhism, Jewish scholars on Judaism, or Muslim scholars as sources on the history of Islam provided they are respected scholars whose works meet the general WP:RS requirements in terms of publisher reputation, etc.

Q5: Why are some historical facts stated to be less certain than others?

A5: The difference is "historically certain" versus "historically probable" and "historically plausible". There are a number of subtle issues and this is a somewhat complicated topic, although it may seem simple at first:

Hardly any scholars dispute the existence of Jesus or his crucifixion.
A large majority of scholars agree that he debated the authorities and had "followers" – some scholars say there was a hierarchy among the followers, a few think it was a flat organization.
More scholars think he performed some healings (given that Rabbinic sources criticize him for that etc., among other reasons) than those who say he never did, but less agreement on than the debates with authorities, etc.

As the article states, Amy-Jill Levine summarized the situation by stating: "Most scholars agree that Jesus was baptized by John, debated with fellow Jews on how best to live according to God's will, engaged in healings and exorcisms, taught in parables, gathered male and female followers in Galilee, went to Jerusalem, and was crucified by Roman soldiers during the governorship of Pontius Pilate." In that statement Levine chose her words very carefully. If she had said "disciples" instead of followers there would have been serious objections from other scholars, if she had said "called" instead of "gathered", there would have also been objections in that some scholars hold that Jesus preached equally to all, never imposed a hierarchy among his followers, etc. Scholars have very specific positions and the strength of the consensus among them can vary by changing just one word, e.g. follower to disciple or apostle, etc.

Q6: Why is the infobox so brief?

A6: The infobox is intended to give a summary of the essential pieces of information, and not be a place to discuss issues in any detail. So it has been kept brief, and to the point, based on the issues discussed below.

Q6a: Was Jesus Jewish?: Yes, as mentioned in the article, but not in the infobox. An RfC at the Village Pump says to include religion in the infobox only if it's directly related to the subject's notability and there's consensus. Some editors want to include his religion in the infobox and others do not. With no consensus, the default is to leave the religion out of the box.
Q6b: Why is the birthplace not mentioned in the infobox?: The question came up in this discussion and there is no solid scholarly agreement on Bethlehem, so the infobox does not address that.

Q7: Why is there no discussion of the legacy/impact of Jesus?

A7: That issue is inherently controversial, and has been discussed on the talk page for many years (see, e.g., the 2006 discussion, the June 2010 discussion, the November 2010 discussion). One user commented that it would turn out to be a discussion of the "impact of Christianity" in the end; because all impact was through the spread of Christianity in any case. So it has been left out due to those discussions.

Q8: Why is there no discussion of Christian denominational differences?

A8: Christianity includes a large number of denominations, and their differences can be diverse. Some denominations do not have a central teaching office and it is quite hard to characterize and categorize these issues without a long discussion that will exceed the length limits imposed by WP:Length on articles. The discussion of the theological variations among the multitude of Christian denominations is beyond the scope of this article, as in this talk page discussion. Hence the majority and common views are briefly sketched and links are provided to other articles that deal with the theological differences among Christians.

Q9: What is the correct possessive of Jesus?

A9: This article uses the apostrophe-only possessive: Jesus', not Jesus's. Do not change usage within quotes. That was decided in this discussion.

Q10: Why does the article state "[m]ost Christians believe Jesus to be the incarnation of God the Son and the awaited messiah ...?" Don't all Christians believe this?

A10: Wikipedia requires a neutral point of view written utilizing reliable scholarly sources. It does not take a position on religious tenets. In this case, the sources cited clearly state "most", not "all", Christians hold the stated beliefs, as some sects and persons who describe themselves as "Christian", such as Unitarians, nevertheless do not hold these beliefs. This was agreed upon multiple times, including in this discussion.

References

^ R.Kendall Soulen, Handbook of Biblical Criticism, Westminster John Knox Press (2001), p. 49
^ Hick, John (2006). The Metaphor of God Incarnate: Christology in a Pluralistic Age. Presbyterian Publishing Corporation. p. 27. ISBN 978-0-664-23037-1. Retrieved 5 January 2024.
^ Hyers, Conrad (Spring 2000). "Comparing biblical and scientific maps of origins". Directions: A Mennonite Brethren Forum. 29 (1): 16–26.
^ Hyers, Conrad (August 4–11, 1982). "Biblical Literalism: Constricting the Cosmic Dance". Christian Century. p. 823. Archived from the original on June 4, 2011. Retrieved 9 November 2012.

Talk:Jesus/archivebox

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.

Killed by Jews

It should be mentioned that Jesus was killed and persecuted by Jews. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 17.197.15.239 (talk) 22:26, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

New stuff goes at the bottom. The Bible says it was Roman soldiers that beat and hung Him on the cross... The whole "Jews killed Jesus" deal kinda forgets that He, His disciples, His family, and undoubtedly some of His friends, were Jewish. The claim that the Jews killed Jesus also has a chicken-and-egg relation to anti-Semitism. At most, certain people who happened to be Jewish wanted Him killed. So did a lot of Romans, but noone blames the Italians. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:38, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not "the Jews", but the Sumerian-Babylonian Talmudist Sanhedrin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.153.221.249 (talk) 10:02, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Talmud was written between 200-500 CE. Kinda hard to be Talmudist in Jesus's time. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:44, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, consider how long ago the Sumerians disappeared. But the real point is this: Occupied peoples always respond to occupation in different ways and one way is collaboration. This was true of both Poles and Jews under Nazi rule (and I specify Poles because they were the only Europeans to stand up to Hitler, and Jews because they ended up loosing the most). It was the same under Roman times. The Romans created the Sanhedrin as a puppet government. Later the rabbis of the Talmud rewrote this history of the Sanhedrin to fit their view of Jewish history which emphasizes an institutional continuity from Moses to the present. But according to all contemporary sources the Sanhedrin was simply an instrument of Roman rule. Even so, the Gospels are clear that Pilate made the decision. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:18, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"I specify Poles because they were the only Europeans to stand up to Hitler" As a Brit, I rather object to this comment! Great Britain is now, and was in WWII, a European nation. Oops! Forgot to sign Hundovir (talk) 20:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I meant that the Poles did not sign the Munich Pact, sorry I was too general/vague Slrubenstein | Talk 21:00, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there is no benefit in mentioning who executed Jesus as his death was predestined beforehand. Brandmeister t 00:16, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe in predestination. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Apocalypse?

In the introduction there is the sentence: "Most contemporary scholars of the Historical Jesus consider him to have been an independent, charismatic founder of a Jewish restoration movement, anticipating an imminent apocalypse." It appears to be sourced to Theissen and Merz. The part I have a problem with is the "anticipating an imminent apocalypse" part, and wonder whether this part is itself in the source, and what specifically they mean by it.

The idea of the gospel (good news) is not entirely compatible with apocalyptic prophesies, and in any case its not clear to what "imminent apocalypse" the author (of the passage or of the source) is referring to. Was Jesus' claimed "apocalypse" referring to Rome's destruction of Jerusalem, or to later calamities, or to some imminent future event as some interpret the Book of Revelations? While apocalyptic predictions are certainly present among many of the clergy, it is a bit editorial and out of place here to suggest that Jesus himself was an apocalyptic. -161

The history showed that roughly 2,000 years after Jesus no apocalypse has occurred, so indeed the anticipated apocalypse wasn't "imminent". Jesus couldn't commit such a mistake, so either a clarification or removal is needed. Brandmeister t 22:39, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

One very significant scholarly view is indeed that Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher, expecting the end of time (not just any calamity) to come very soon indeed. Indeed, if you look at the New Testament, there is a distinct development from "don't bother to marry or educate kids, the end of the world is near" in earlier texts to a later position that is much more compatible with standard Greco-Roman family values. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand how this clarifies the issue. Does anyone have access to the cited source, and can they quote parts of that source which support the notion that Jesus was an apocalyptic? When that's done, we can move on toward treating the issue of balance and whether or not the one source is sufficient attribution for the way the article is currently written. It is my view that the passage is misinformed, or simply incorrect, and the one source may be out of balance with mainstream views. -67.161.54.63 (talk) 09:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS: A little reading here and here show in Theissen and Merz book a sophisticated usage of "apocalyptic" and a nominal usage of "apocalypse", neither of which are inline with the simple view that Jesus himself expressed apocalyptic visions. To the contrary, the source suggest that Jesus transformed preexisting notions of apocalypse into something entirely different:

"In so far as Jesus speaks of future, of cosmic catastrophies, he takes over Jewish apocalyptic notions, but he has no interest in these." (p. 242)

"What apocalyptic notions really mean to convey can also be interpreted as an internal transformation of human beings: The unconscious inner world is reorganized in a far reaching way." (p. 278)

-67.161.54.63 (talk) 09:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead dates

The Possible year of birth and Possible year and place of death sections suggest the year ranges 7–2 BC/BCE and 33-36 AD/CE respectively, which embrace both the majority and minority views. I think the lead would benefit from reflecting that. Brandmeister t 22:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there is certainly need for more consistency. I am not sure if the general convention is to use ranges or circa, so if ranges are to be used, I would suggest 7-2 but 30-36 for the death given that there are scholars who adhere to the 30 date. There are actually scholars who will swear on the grave of their dearly departed that the crucifixion was 37 AD/CE, but very few do that. If circa is to be used 5 and 33 will be the suitable midpoints of those ranges. Whichever way you want to change it should be fine, I think, depending on what the general conventions are. History2007 (talk) 21:53, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think (7–2 BC/BCE – 30–36 AD/CE) in the first line might be just making it more difficult for readers to parse, and c. does fine there. I see no problem using the ranges in the infobox.--JimWae (talk) 20:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, specially with all those citations there, it is hard to see. How about using c. 5 and c. 33 and moving on? History2007 (talk) 20:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the ranges indicate the opinions more clearly than c, but wouldn't mind. Brandmeister t 22:33, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Is Jesus Jesus, or did Jesus only claim to be Jesus?

I know this is completely assinine and contrived, but an IP editor wants to add Jesus to the article List of people claimed to be Jesus. For the purposes of this encyclopedia, red IS red, isn't it? Red isn't just claimed to be red, and there are only four lights even if we want to imagine five, right? I would think that WP:COMMONSENSE would dictate that Jesus not need be included. I'm not the only editor that thinks so, but I thought the issue should be brought up elsewhere. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:58, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is a snowball case, so I agree, he shouldn't be included as a generally undisputed and righteous claimant. Brandmeister t 22:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

[1] R.Kendall Soulen, Handbook of Biblical Criticism, Westminster John Knox Press (2001), p. 49

[Hick_page_27-2] Hick, John (2006). The Metaphor of God Incarnate: Christology in a Pluralistic Age. Presbyterian Publishing Corporation. p. 27. ISBN 978-0-664-23037-1. Retrieved 5 January 2024.

[ConrandHyersFooterBio-3] Hyers, Conrad (Spring 2000). "Comparing biblical and scientific maps of origins". Directions: A Mennonite Brethren Forum. 29 (1): 16–26.

[4] Hyers, Conrad (August 4–11, 1982). "Biblical Literalism: Constricting the Cosmic Dance". Christian Century. p. 823. Archived from the original on June 4, 2011. Retrieved 9 November 2012.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

@@ Line 173: / Line 173: @@
 :::I don't understand how this clarifies the issue. Does anyone have access to the cited source, and can they quote parts of that source which support the notion that Jesus was an apocalyptic? When that's done, we can move on toward treating the issue of balance and whether or not the one source is sufficient attribution for the way the article is currently written. It is my view that the passage is misinformed, or simply incorrect, and the one source may be out of balance with mainstream views. -[[Special:Contributions/67.161.54.63|67.161.54.63]] ([[User talk:67.161.54.63|talk]]) 09:13, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 :::PS: A little reading [http://books.google.com/books?id=3ZU97DQMH6UC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Theissen,+Gerd+and+Annette+Merz&source=bl&ots=pswEBll6Y9&sig=Vbx3RxvI3jc_iCxkPsk8xGHDe5Q&hl=en&ei=QFWtTcqYGIX2tAPusZybDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=apocalyptic&f=false here] and [http://books.google.com/books?id=3ZU97DQMH6UC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Theissen,+Gerd+and+Annette+Merz&source=bl&ots=pswEBll6Y9&sig=Vbx3RxvI3jc_iCxkPsk8xGHDe5Q&hl=en&ei=QFWtTcqYGIX2tAPusZybDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CDIQ6AEwAg#v=snippet&q=apocalypse&f=false here] show in Theissen and Merz book a sophisticated usage of "apocalyptic" and a nominal usage of "apocalypse", neither of which are inline with the simple view that Jesus himself expressed apocalyptic visions. To the contrary, the source suggest that Jesus transformed preexisting notions of apocalypse into something entirely different:
-::::"In so far as Jesus speaks of future, of cosmic catastrophies, he takes over Jewish apocalyptic notions, but he has no interest in these." (page 242)
+::::"In so far as Jesus speaks of future, of cosmic catastrophies, he takes over Jewish apocalyptic notions, but he has no interest in these." (p. 242)
-::::"What apocalyptic notions really mean to convey can also be interpreted as an internal transformation of human beings: The unconscious inner world is reorganized in a far reaching way." (page 278)
+::::"What apocalyptic notions really mean to convey can also be interpreted as an internal transformation of human beings: The unconscious inner world is reorganized in a far reaching way." (p. 278)
 :::-[[Special:Contributions/67.161.54.63|67.161.54.63]] ([[User talk:67.161.54.63|talk]]) 09:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)