Talk:Jesus

	Archives of older discussions may be found here:	Key to archives, Archives: 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.

	Subject-specific:	Talk:Josephus on Jesus, Talk:Virgin Birth, Talk:Jewish views of Jesus

	ACTIVE sub-pages	/Cited Authors Bios, /Christian views in intro, /Scribes Pharisees and Saducees, /Dates of Birth and Death, /2nd Paragraph Debate, Related articles, /Historicity Reference, Comments, Sockpuppets, Languages Spoken by Jesus, /Historical Jesus

---

Archives and Live Subpages

Recent Archive log

• /Archive 49 - second to-do list; new skeptical linl; Jesus and Elisha; vandalism; baptism image; minor first paragraph revision; Jesus' vs Jesus's; Name section.
• /Archive 50 - Jesus dynasty; talk page heading level; life & teachings section; dissident Jesus; Nazarenes; CTSWyneken's RfA; main section billing; condensing the "Nativity and Childhood section."
• /Archive 51 - Unsourced statements in ministry section; Andrew c's concerns over chronology and bapstism sections; Calandar notation again; historical Jesus subpage activity; Jesus, Mary and the Kings of France; external links.
• /Archive 52 - No criticism allowed; Suffer the Children; What are the disputes?; Come together;
• /Archive 53 - Paragraph on Pharisees, Sadducees and Samaritans.

Subpage Activity Log

• Discussion on Judaism's views moved to Talk:Jewish views of Jesus/Judaism's views of Jesus.
• Buried vs. entombed," alledged "lack of sources" archived to Talk:Jesus/Christian views in intro.
• New subpage created, /Historical Jesus, with several models of the historical Jesus and a list of sources.
• Baptism, blasphemy and sedition discussions moved to /2nd Paragraph Debate.

Archive update

I just created /Archive 50, and tommorrow I'll be ready to start /Archive 51. Quite a lot of discussion has gone on this year. Arch O. La ^{Grigrory Deepdelver} 16:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

PS: We also have a long list of scholarly sources at Talk:Jesus/Historical Jesus/Sources. Feel free to update as needed. Arch O. La ^{Grigrory Deepdelver} 16:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Article dispute

Responses to "Come Together"

---

Re: Grigory DeepdelverHi, thanks for that. I agree completely. I think it would be really much better to collaborate and to try to improve the article then to go into endless circles. As for the trial, for be both is fine, to take what I proposed (but still it was a proposal) or to try to emphasise the differences. As for John 8, well we can leave that discussion out for the moment, but maybe return to it in the future. (For me John was always the odd one out of the Gospels, but that is just my impression). So yes let us go on. Oub 16:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC):

Very well put, Arch. If everyone can get on board -- keeping their opinions, of course, but also being willing to compromise and keep things under control -- you might finally be on your way with this article.

How about this idea -- since I had the article locked, I'll ask to have it semi-protected (keep out the anons) if five of you sign below? At least that way, we can say that progress has been made. •Jim62sch• 17:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Um, I made this a subpage template so that people wouldn't interrupt my long discourse with inline comments (that always seems to happen with long statements). I'm neutral about the semi-protect thing. I will now move this back to the talk: Jesus page. Grigory Deepdelver^Talk 17:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with pretty much everything said. —Aiden 03:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Semiprotect?

1. •Jim62sch• 17:23, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
2. For now. --CTSWyneken 18:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
3. Arr! Homestarmy 21:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
4. I haven't been fighting so I don't know if my vote counts - but it all looks quiet now Sophia ^{Gilraen of Dorthonion} 23:35, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
5. Please. --Steve Caruso 23:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
6. Yup. —Aiden 03:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
7. Yes, please.Oub 12:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC):
8. Agree with the above. --Andrew c 21:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes I feel the voting on this article can get a bit excessive... perhaps we should take a vote to see if other users support this sentiment! --Darth Deskana (talk page) 21:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes I feel that voting on RfA's becomes such a chore...you have to look the person up, find out if they are "sandwich artists" (does subway qualify as an art studio?), determine whether or not he can speak Klingon...such a chore.  ;) Humour me, Dan. •Jim62sch• 22:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not objecting to this vote in particular... I just feel we vote too much in this article sometimes. Don't get me wrong... just a thought, is all. --Darth Deskana (talk page) 22:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems like we haven't voted in a good bit really. Homestarmy 23:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Not since the beginning of March ;) BTW, once we're all agreed on what to do, feel free to update Talk:Jesus/to do. Arch O. La ^{Grigrory Deepdelver} 16:08, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Damn, I guess I made a bit of a dodgy argument? Hehehehe... I still think we should take a vote to establish concensus on whether I was wrong though! --Darth Deskana (talk page) 21:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, everyone, I was bit busy today. I requested semi-protect so the spectre of vandalism doesn't rear it's ten-horned head. Here's the link [1]. I hope an admin sees it soon -- usually it only takes a half hour or less. •Jim62sch• 01:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Um, we don't have the semi. Somebody just added the blasphemy phrase again. (Yes, it's an anon IP. Namely 205.188.116.66 (talk · contribs)). Which is yet another AOL IP.Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 16:21, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

This is getting bothersome. The request was for semi-protection and the result was complete unprotection... :-( Flipping from one side to the other, the mean once again evades us. אמר Steve Caruso _(poll) 16:42, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Seriously. The anon vandalism just started again. Can we please get a semi-protect as requested? —Aiden 20:32, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I left a comment. We'll see. [2] •Jim62sch• 01:36, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. He/she says no and then "cleans up"? [3] •Jim62sch• 02:03, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Where's the link to the archive? Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 02:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

There's no archive. See link 12 above and go to the history page. Katefan responded at 12:50 UDT, and deleted everything at 12:51 UDT. •Jim62sch• 11:49, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest you re-request semi-protection (a few of you should endorse the request). Oh let me know when (or even if) you do so. •Jim62sch• 12:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Name section

Previous discussion in /Archive 49.

I'm not sure if I'm missing the discussion on the name section. If not, I feel that 95% of the information can be cut (and moved to the main articles if it isn't already there). I mean, what do we really have to say here?

The name Jesus is an English transliteration of a Latin romanization (Iēsus) of a Greek name(Ἰησοῦς). Since Jesus was an Aramaic Jew living in Galilee around 30CE, scholars find it highly improbable that he had a Greek name. Further examination of the septuagint finds that the Greek, in turn, is a transliteration of a couple of possible Hebrew names: Yehoshua (יהושוע) or the shortened Yeshua (ישוע). Scholars believe that the name that Jesus was called during his lifetime by his peers was probably one of these.

Case closed, right? Why is there so much detail going into one small section?--Andrew c 23:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I would agree, but there was a long argument between Haldrik and Jayjg over the derivation of the name. That's why I think a qualified liguist should look it over. Definitely most of the details could be moved to subarticles. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 13:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Have Steve's changes been made to the Names and titles of Jesus in the New Testament article? If so, than I believe we can replace our long name section with Andrew c's proposal. Anyone disagree? Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 07:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been so busy I almost missed this :-) Yes the changes have been made and we're all set to replace. --Steve Caruso 02:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It's pretty good, but slightly inaccurate. I would write it this way:

The name Jesus is an English transliteration of a Latin romanization (Iēsus) of a Greek name(Ἰησοῦς). Since most Jews living in the Galilee at the time spoke Aramaic or Hebrew, scholars find it highly improbable that he had a primary Greek name. The Septuagint transliterates two names as (Ἰησοῦς); the Hebrew Yehoshua (יהושוע), and the shortened (or possibly Aramaic) Yeshua (ישוע). Scholars believe that the name that Jesus was called during his lifetime by his peers was probably one of these.

Thoughts? Jayjg ^(talk) 21:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I think your changes are an improvement (mine was just a rough cut anyway :P). One thing I would change, the pronoun "he" in the second sentence doesn't have an antecedent. And do we have sources for the final statement about what scholars believe? Otherwise, I think we should update the article after unprotection.--Andrew c 21:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. But don't forget the "o" (Iēsus → Iēsous). » MonkeeSage « 22:41, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I thought that the Latin didn't have an "o" in the middle of it. --Steve Caruso 00:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

This page has a diagram suggesting the greek had the o, not the latin. I tried going to the vulgate for a source, but the only images I could find online had the nomina sacra IHS.--Andrew c 03:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

??? [4] cum ergo natus esset Iesus in Bethleem Iudaeae in diebus Herodis regis ecce magi ab oriente venerunt Hierosolymam

I've had a revised version of the shortened version posted over at Requests For Page Protection for a while now, and nothing has been altered. --Steve Caruso 00:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Jim said he'd ask the admins to move the page to semi-protect if we had 5 votes that agreed. We now have eight. Maybe I should let him know? Arch O. La ^{Grigrory Deepdelver} 00:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that's a go :-) אמר Steve Caruso 00:56, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Galileans commonly did not pronounce ע , hence Y'shu. "But it is for their faulty pronunciation that the Galileans are especially remembered: 'ayin and alef, and the gutturals generally, were confounded, no distinction being made between words like '"amar" (= "ḥamor," uss), "ḥamar" (wine), "'amar" (a garment), "emar" (a lamb: 'Er. 53b); therefore Galileans were not permitted to act as readers of public prayers (Meg. 24b)."[5] Technically, the Ayin doesn't exist in English, so an "a" is generally used in it's place but this is still not the correct pronounciation.

If you want to get technical, originally only Capital letters were used, hence Greek: ΙΗΣΟΥΣ and Latin: IESVS (u was invented in the middle ages). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.201.27.98 (talk • contribs)

Steve: The Latin had an "o" but not an "ou" diphthong (which in Greek was similar to the French and English "ou" [like in you]), so they transliterated Ἰησοῦς as Iesv[=u]s. The standard English transliteration is Iēsous or Iêsous. » MonkeeSage « 09:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm very aware that Latin had the letter "o." :-) What I've never seen was the Latin iesvs/iesus translitterated as "iêsous," where I've seen the Greek Ἰησοῦς translitterated as "iêsous" all the time. :-) אמר Steve Caruso 14:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

ΟΥ in Koine Greek was not pronounced as a dipthong, rather it was the Close back rounded vowel. The Latin symbol for the same sound was V, later changed to U,u. In French, the sound is spelled ou, presumably English borrowed this spelling from French. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.201.27.98 (talk • contribs)

You're right, omicron-epsilon was technically a digraph by the time of Koine, having become monophthongised some time before then. Some call it a "false" diphthong. I usually use "diphthong" somewhat less technically to mean two vowels included in a single syllable. Thank you for clarifying. » MonkeeSage « 12:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Name section updated. :-) אמר Steve Caruso 15:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

And I made the edits to the Ministry section that I've been wanting to make. Now it's Aiden's turn ;) Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 15:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Uh, the linguistics are, like, wrong -- not that it matters or anything. •Jim62sch• 01:41, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

So fix it. I'd ask what is wrong, but I fear you may talk over my head. ;) You and Steve Thadman are the linguists, so I'll let you two hash it out between you. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 02:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The article itself is fine; I meant on the talk page. ου was a long u like we know it (oo), hence ΙΗΣΟΥΣ (Ιηςους) and IESVS are phonetic equivalents. The upsilon by itself (which was borrowed into Latin as a Y) had a sound roughly equivalent to the u in the French "sur" or an umlauted u in German. There's more, but I'm too lazy to type it all out. •Jim62sch• 12:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Peer Review

It looks like our latest peer review is over. We got one comment, in response to which I separated the "Pauline Christian views" section between trinitarian and nontrinitarian views. Are there any further comments? Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 15:05, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Life and teachings based on the Gospels

Problem of POV: Arrest, trial, and execution

Hello

Eastern has passed, and there has already be started a discussion on about questions concerning the trial of Jesus. So may this is the right moment for re-thinking the part about the current section about the trial and crucifixion. That part not only contains some errors, ney unfortunately in its given form it violates the basic principles of wikipedia, namely NPOV. Even worse it is partially anti-Judaism, which I think is not tolerable. So let me present my arguments before making some proposals.

• As for the errors: citation

He was subsequently arrested on the orders of the Sanhedrin and the high priest, Caiaphas for blasphemy, because he claimed to be the messiah (Mark 14: 62) and because, the Jews believed, he had made himself to be God (John 10: 33).

That is plainly wrong. When Jesus was arrested he was not charged formally of anything, not even at the beginning of the trial before the Sanhedrin. He was arrested, stop, brought before the Sanhedrin stop, asked whether is the messiah, which he either confirmed or did not answer clearly stop. So he can't have been arrested for something, which he did after the arrest! John 10:33 is also irrelevant here, since again it is not refereed to, when the arrest takes place. Moreover

He was identified to the guards by one of his apostles, ...

Apostles is not the right word to be used here, the Greek word is mathetes, which is translated as disciples. Apostel is a word which was formed after the death of Jesus.

• now to NPOV versus POV. It is the following. As I said before the narration of the Gospels is by no means unique. So one is either forced to make a particular selection or trying to mention the differences. The present section chooses the first alternative. In order to see why this is problematic, consider the following table.

Current version

New version

According to the Gospels, Jesus came with his followers to Jerusalem during the Passover festival, and created a disturbance at the Temple by overturning the tables of the moneychangers there. (Mark 11.18, Matthew 21.15). He was subsequently arrested on the orders of the Sanhedrin and the high priest, Caiaphas for blasphemy, because he claimed to be the messiah (Mark 14: 62) and because, the Jews believed, he had made himself to be God (John 10: 33). He was identified to the guards by one of his apostles, Judas Iscariot (Mark 14:45, Mat 26:49, Luke 22:47), who betrayed Jesus by a kiss in the Garden of Gethsemane, after which another apostle, Peter in the Gospel of John, used a sword to attack one of the captors, cutting off his ear, which Jesus immediately healed (Luke 22:51). After his arrest, Jesus' apostles went into hiding. Jesus was condemned for blasphemy (Mark 14:64 Matthew 26:66) by the Sanhedrin and turned over to the Roman Empire for execution, on the charge of sedition for claiming to be King of the Jews (Luke 23:2). The usual penalty for sedition was a humiliating death by crucifixion, but the Roman governor Pontius Pilate did not find Jesus to be guilty of any crime. So Pilate first had Jesus flogged (John 19:1-8), and then, remembering that it was a custom at Passover for the Roman governor to free a prisoner, Pilate offered the crowd a choice between Jesus of Nazareth and an insurrectionist named Jesus Barabbas. The crowd chose to have Barabbas freed and Jesus crucified. Pilate washed his hands to display that he himself was innocent of the injustice of the decision. (Matt 27:24)

According to the Gospels, Jesus came with his followers to Jerusalem during the Passover festival where he gained substantial attention, for a very large crowd welcome him by shouting, Hosanna to the Son of David! Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord! Hosanna in the highest! (Matt 21:8). After this triumphal entry Jesus drove those out of the temple, who were selling (Luke 19:45). Jesus was arrested by Roman soldiers aided by Temple guards (John. 18:3), clandestinely at night to avoid a riot, because Jesus was popular with the people at large (Mark. 14:2). Since the soldiers and guards had difficulties to identify Jesus, he declared Ï am he" (John 18:5). One of this disciples, used a sword to attack one of the captors, cutting off his ear. After his arrest, Jesus disciples went into hiding. Jesus was questioned by Annas and Caiaphas about his disciples and his teaching and then taken to the roman prefect Pontius Pilate (Jn.18:19, 24, 28). Although Pilate was known to use violence to enforce Roman rule (Luke 13:1), he offered the crowd a choice between Jesus of Nazareth and an well known prisoner named Jesus Barabbas (27:16). The crowd chose to have the insurrectionist Barabbas, who had taken part in an armed struggle against the country's rulers (Joh 18:40), freed and Jesus crucified. Jesus was scourged as part of the Roman crucifixion procedure once Pilate ordered his execution (Mark. 15:15). All the multitudes of Jews were sorrowful about Jesus' crucifixion (Luke 23:48).

Left you see the current version, to which I have added the relevant references from the Gospels (if say Mark and Matthew are listed, but not John and Luke well then there are no such references!). On the right you will find a different version, which is based on a different selection of the material; as much a fact as the current version.

I think it is quite obvious what is going on. The left version is a selection of the given material which enhances the Jewish gilt, while the right version does not. So a selection of given material is clearly a violation of one of the basic principles of wikipedia, namely NPOV.

The main difference in the narrative of the Gospels concerns John versus the Synoptics: According to the Synoptics the chief priests tried to make a plot against Jesus, arrested him, condemned him and sent him to Pilate, while according to John it was the Romans who arrested Jesus. On the other hand, in John, it is the Jewish mob who is mostly responsible that Pilate condemned Jesus, even against his own conviction.

Now the current version follows the Synoptics, when it comes to the arrest but mostly to John when it comes to the trial before Pilate, while my version does it the other way around.

The point is that both version can claim with equal right that they are faithful to the facts as presented in the Gospels.

That the Passion material is selected in a specific way is not new, for example the movie of M. Gibson does this in a far more extreme way than the current article and I am not sure whether this selection of the given material in the current version would qualify for using the term anti Judaism but it is close, too close in my opinion.

So the question arises what to do? Since my version can claim with equal right that it is faithful to the facts we could just substitute one for the other. However both versions might be problematic (because they might be POV) and hence I think we need a truly balanced presentation of the material. I made a proposal some time ago which got rejected (at least that was my impression), so could anybody else make a proposal? I think what we can't do is to keep the current version as it is.

Anti-Judaism has been mentioned and discussed already in wikipedia article so I only wish to add that I think nowadays we cannot have a presentation which is so tendentious as the current one, whose tendency is even enhanced in a subtle way by having included the picture showing a Jesus, flogged before the crucifixion.

I shall also emphasise that I am not talking about a (critical) discussion of the material as presented in the Gospels as some historian have done it, I am just talking about the selection of the material as presented in the Gospels. Oub 14:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC):

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. Right now the page is locked, so we can't make any changes. I agree that we need to be balanced, but lately on this page it's been like trying to balance a pencil on its sharpened point. Jesus wept. Archola AKA Grigory is now withdrawing to let people work things out. I am sensitive to allegations of systemic bias, but in POV wars the first casualty is often NPOV itself. See you around. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 14:43, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Re: Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring I think I would agree with you, that I see a lot of (even heated) discussions but sometimes about well minor points. So I hope that soon enough we can start to discuss what I brought up. Oub 15:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC):

---

Blutac. You can balance a pencil on its sharp end using blutac. Anything can be balanced using the right material. Some people might say that it's less balanced than others, but eventually most people will agree that it really is balanced enough for the satisfaction of a lot of people. It'll never be totally balanced, but balanced enough. Wait... was I talking about the Jesus article or the pencil here? Hint hint... --Darth Deskana (talk page) 14:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey Oub, I think you're right. The use of John's narrative of the flogging, with no mention of the synoptic version (where Jesus is flogged as part of the preparations for crucifixion after he has been condemned) is especially problematic. We ought to explain the variant versions, not try to harmonize them, which constitutes original research. john k 15:47, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Re: john k Hi John. In my opinion, the following differences should be mentioned:

• Who arrested Jesus, Synoptic versus John.
• Was there a trial or a mere interrogation Synoptics versus John again
• Did he claim that he was the Messiah (Mark versus Luke and Matthew, and was he condemned because of Blasphemy: Mark, Matthew versus Luke)
• was he flogged before or after he was condemned.
• how did the crowd react, especially John versus Luke

apart from that one could mention, that according to the synoptic he was arrested the day of Passover, Nisan 15th, while according to John, the day before Nisan 14th.

To harmonise or not harmonise, well the German article tries to reflect the current state of what most scholars have elaborated and agreed upon. However that is also sort of problematic, since this is a really complicated issue. Given the fact that he have seen a lot of discussions about not so complex points, I think right now, we should not try it, but may be one day.... Oub 17:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC):

Re: Oub: I've asked for a translation of the German article; here is a partial translation: User:Jim62sch/German-English Jesus. However, in the last month the German article has lost its FA star. Since I can't read German, I don't know why. I was considering asking someone else to complete the translation, but after what happened this weekend, I think you're right, we should wait. Grigory Deepdelver^Talk 17:45,

---

Re: Grigory Deepdelver Aeh, well I just checked. It still has its star! As for the translation: it is a long article, I might contribute to the translation say translate a section, say about the trial, however my translation should then be checked, since I am not a native. But from what I see in the section below, I really think things should calm down a little. Oub 18:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC): 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, what do you know: the star is back! After this message I will be withdrawing from editing this page, although I'll still come by to maintain the archives. If things do settle down, I might return. We'll have to see how things go. Grigory Deepdelver^Talk 18:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with johnk. As I mentioned above with the baptism account, we shouldn't make a single harmonized narrative of events from 4 different versions. My solution there was to present Mk and explain where Lk and Mt differed. The trial/crucifixion is a little different because we also have Jn to deal with. I support efforts to change this section, and hopefully we can work something out once the page is unprotected.--Andrew c 21:52, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

In all honesty, if you relied on a true concordance, there'd not be much of a story to write. •Jim62sch• 22:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Re: •Jim62sch• but what do you suggest? Keep it as it is? I think that is not the right attitude. Right it will not be easy to agree upon a version, but we should try at least. Oub 11:32, 25 April 2006 (UTC):

No, no, I was saying that if you try to write from a perspective of "harmonizing" the four gospels in the places they all agree (all 17 places), you'd have a very slim text indeed. Even if you went with at least three out for (which gives you about 40-some instances) you're still going to have a resonably short story.

Besides, is one going to comment of what Jesus said on the cross? Those items in no way agree, nor would it make sense for all to be true. Somehow, I just don't see "El(o)i, El(o)i, lema sabachtani", and "Into they hands I commend my spirit" coming from the same person. Yes some alleged scholars who are really apologists have given aruments showing that it was possible, but... •Jim62sch• 10:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems like with the passion narrative you have three basically separate versions - Matthew/Mark (with Matthew having a few notable differences and changes in emphasis from Mark, notably the fate of Judas, Pilate's wife's dreams, Pilate washing his hands, the blood curse on the Jews); Luke (seemingly based in part on Mark, but also considerably different in a lot of ways); and John (a wholly different account). I'm not sure what the best way to go about this would be. john k 17:45, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Re: john kI would suggest the following possibilities

1. We change the current version, for the version I proposed (or one similar to that). At least one user is supporting that idea.
2. We right a version, which points out some of the differences: 14 vs 15 Nisan, John vs Synoptic, Mark/Matt vs Luke. To write up such a version might be a question of days or maybe 2 weeks
3. We try to write up a critical version, taking into account historical information independent of the NT. Well that version would take weeks if not months.

I am inclined towards 2 and would leave 3 as a long time goal. Because if we start with 3 we might never finish or find a version to agree upon. Oub 11:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC):

---

Depends on if you want a critical article, or a Sunday School lesson. If you want a critical argument, then Pilate's wife's dreams would have to go (really, did someone interview her?), even the trial itself, which is rather dubious -- was anyone there to record it. What language was it in? And so forth. •Jim62sch• 10:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Re: •Jim62sch•Right. As I said earlier, what is the working hypothesis of this article (given that are at least one article more called the historical Jesus??? If we allow a historical (critical) approach then we would really need a major rewrite about the trial (which would be fine with me). I agree that most likely the dream of Pilate's wife should go. However I would not simply delete the trial, instead describe its problems, the violation against the rules etc etc. Oub 10:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC):

My understanding was that this part of the article was about New Testament accounts of the passion. Whether or not these accounts are historically true (evidence suggests, imo, that many of the details aren't), one can still discuss them in a scholarly fashion without excluding information we don't think is likely to have actually happened. The added details in Matthew's account, for instance, including Pilate's wife's dream, all serve the Evangelist's purposes in writing the Gospel. There is stuff to be said about them, even if they didn't actually happen. john k 17:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Well they were all apparently attempting to summarize the events of this time, they just put it in their own words and often knew things the other guys didn't. Why not keep it simple, and just note which gospels seemed to concentrate more on the efforts of the romans, and which one's concentrated on the Jews? Homestarmy 22:16, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to understand what the discussion is here. Are editors trying to harmonise the Gospels? Why? That's never going to work, and all you end up with is the consensus POV of editors. You need to stop trying to state what is, and start stating what scholarly sources say. Drogo Underburrow 22:28, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I think its something about one paragraph using the information from 2 gospels to apparently present one supposed slant, whereas using the other 2 gospels or something which don't have the exact same information don't seem to have a slant. Honestly, the gospels never seemed to be directly attacking the Jews to me , I mean, it sure can be read like it was attacking them, but all they did was say what happened :/. the new suggested paragraph sounds fine anyway, and we can always mention how both sets of gospels might sound based on the facts they present. No biggie. Homestarmy 01:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Re: Homestarmy I find it very problematic to state

but all they did was say what happened

That is precisely the problem we are talking about. There are so many contradictions that just taking the Gospels you don't now what happened!! Was there a trial or not, was he condemned for blasphemy (Matt/Mark) or not (Luke) etc etc. This is does not necessarily mean that the Gospels want to betray us, no for me it looks more that it was a very confused night and nobody really knew what was going on. That is why there are so many contradictions.

At least some parts of the Gospels seems directly attack the Jews, to a larger or small extend

• Let his blood be on us and our children! [Matthew]
• If you free him, governor, you are no friend of Caesar. John
• The trial itself, because that might have been an interrogation and not a forma trial. It is a difference whether a group of Sadducees Priests interrogated him or whether he was sentenced by a formal trial. Oub 11:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC):

well their only contradictions if one gospel negates the possibility of the other, none of them ever say "This is all that happened, nothing else ever happened, I know everything, no other gospel writers know anything more than I do, BWAHAHAHAHAH!" That'd be kinda weird, I mean, did people from that time period even know what BWAHAHAHAAH even is? Now, i'll give you, with the difference in information presented, some gospels may seem to many people more like their showing a very critical slant against the Jewish people condemning Jesus. But like I said, it's really not a big deal, just say which ones seem to concentrate more against the actions of the Jews and which one's don't seem to mention it as much. Homestarmy 12:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Re: HomestarmyWell I have a simple question: given the material of the Gospels, what do you think happened? That is

1. was he arrested the 14 or the 15 nisan.
2. were Roman soldiers present or not
3. was there a trial or an interrogation?
4. was he condemned?
5. for what?
6. did Pilate condemn him against his own conviction?
7. did the Jewish mob cry for his death or mourn about it?

and finally what shall we do now. Change one version for the other try to mention the main difference? Oub 15:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC):

I'd need to see the verses about the 14 or 15 nisan thing, but other than that, all that stuff should of happened. The Roman soliders were present, even though some gospels didn't say so. there was both a trial and interrogation. He was clearly condemned, but legally speaking, only because Pilate didn't want to deal with it so handed him over to the Jews to do whatever. The Jews seemed to want him dead for blasphemy, and tried to convince the romans that it was treason if I remember correctly, but it didn't work very well I think. Pilate clearly didn't want to condemn him very much, even though some gospels don't recount his indecision. The crowd both cried for his death and mourned, not everyone there was on the same side. I don't see anything really wrong with your new version anyway, it doesn't seem like its a very major change, and it doesn't look like its wrong or anything. Homestarmy 15:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Re: Homestarmy First to the: 14 or 15 Nisan:

1. here are the verses in favour of Nisan 14, the day before Passover. Joh 18:28, Mk14.2, Mk 15:42, Mk 15:21 a man return from this field, which seem unlikely during Passover.
2. 15 Nisan: Mk14.12 Lk 22.1, Mat 26.17

Everything together: the problem with this is as follows: You are forced to assume, that Jesus, was arrested late in the evening after the Passover Seder by Roman soldiers and Jewish temple guards, then not only questioned by Annas, and Caiaphas, but tried by the Sanhedrin, twice in the night and in the morning (while the Romans were waiting outside!) Then brought to Pilate, then brought to Herodes then back to Pilate, then flogged, then put together with Jesus Barrabbas (which BTW means son of the father, strange name), then condemned, then sent to Golgatha but still it was only 9 o clock in the morning. That frankly seems to be impossible.

so I think it would be best at the moment to find a version which states, that the events as described in the Gospels look like events of a confused night (where nobody knew what was going on) and to mention the mayor differences. What I really think should be done, is to change the current version.Oub 16:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC):

Not really sure myself what all this has to do with your revision, (I mean it just looks like your recounting the events and quoting verses, just like the last one), but in Mark 14:2, it looks pretty clear to me that the preists were saying they should not arrest him on the feast day, and Mark 14:12 is just talking about how the disciples wanted to know what Jesus wanted to do on the first passover day, (Which turned out to be the passover supper), I don't see what they have to do with his arrest or why they each would support different days? Luke 22:1 simply says the day drew near and the preists were just plotting, how does that support Jesus being arrested on the 15th? Matthew 26:17 seems to be agreeing that Jesus had the passover meal on the first passover day, once again, I don't see what this has to do with Nisan 14 or 15. John 18:28 is the only verse you listed which seems to mention parts of the actual arrest, but only talks about Caiaphas, are you sure you've quoted the right verses? Mark 15:21 also seems to say that a man was merely coming out the country, the country wasn't one big field, and I don't see how it has anything to do with dates. I don't understand at all how these verses can be supporting different days for the arrest. Homestarmy 21:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The Synoptic Gospels say that the Last Supper was a passover seder, and that Jesus was killed the next day. John says that Jesus was killed at the time the lambs were being slaughtered for the passover feast. That means that in the Synoptics, Jesus was killed on 15 Nisan, while in John he was killed on 14 Nisan. This is a standard issue which is discussed in mainstream scholarly sources - Raymond E. Brown's The Death of the Messiah has a lengthy discussion of this issue in an appendix (Volume II, pp. 1350-1378). Here's the summary paragraph:

The chronological relationship between the death of Jesus and the date of those two feasts [Passover and the Unleavened Bread, which were apparently distinct at that time] is complicated by the fact that at face value there is a contradiction between the Synoptics and John. The meal that Jesus ate on Thursday evening before he was arrested, according to the Synoptics, was the paschal (Passover) meal, whereas in John 18:28, on Friday morning when Jesus was being tried before Pilate, the Jewish authorities and people refused to "enter into the praetorium lest they be defiled and in order that they might eat the Passover (meal)" — a feast that according to John 19:14 was to begin the next day (i.e., Friday evening). Thus, the paschal meal for the Synoptics was on Thursday evening and Jesus died in the daytime after it; for John it was on Friday evening and Jesus died in the daytime before it.

This is pretty commonly accepted, as far as I can tell - E.P. Sanders also has a discussion of it, for instance. john k 17:51, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Duplicate article

It would appear that this section is no summary of the "main" article it points to, namely New Testament view on Jesus' life but is a duplicate attempt to cover the same ground. Drogo Underburrow 03:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, Aiden and I disagree. I thought it would be better for him to work on the NT view article and summarize it here, while he felt it would be better to expand the section here first. We are going to have to deal with this eventually—the "Life and Teachings" section was longer than the NT view article the last time I looked. Odd that a summary would be longer than what it is supposed to summarize. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 03:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I plan on doing a complete revamp of the NT article in the next few weeks, incorporating most of the Jesus-related articles into a well-rounded NT biography, etc. Until then, I recommend leaving this section as is, but working on making sure the summary here covers all bases. After that we'll do a major article update on the NT views. —Aiden 05:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. There are also people working on Historical Jesus to make it less of a Q-and-A FAQ and more of a discussion of the various scholarly models, and the history of the quest for the historical Jesus. We should probably clean up the religious views and Christian views articles as well. Overall, this article isn't perfect, but is still better than the main subarticles. It may be time to look at those subarticles. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 13:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Edit war over Matthew 5

We are still having a minor edit war over Matthew 5. At one point, I had a short summary of each of the points, but removed it to be concise. I feel we can discuss the details at New Testament view on Jesus' life, not to mention that the linked article already gives full details.

Somebody (most recently 205.188.116.66 (talk · contribs), an AOL IP) keeps adding selective details to the summary of Matthew 5. Aiden calls these "cherry-picked examples," and I agree. 205.188.116.66, however, says "revise the list of examples as you think necessary; but some examples are needed, otherwise the sentence is very misleading."

We should talk about this. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 15:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I request that the article be semi-protected (per the previous request of multiple editors above.) This user is taking the whole of the sermon and picking only 2 examples which are not at all representative of the sermon and using them only. Previously we had a general summary of the sermon with a link to the whole of Matthew 5. This person wants to selectively link to only a few verses in order to portray the sermon as dealing with these issue only. —Aiden 16:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

If you wish to request this, I will support. It's hard to deal with anonymous IPs even when they make edits in good faith, because IPs are shared and often change with each session. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 16:27, 29 April 2006 (UTC) PS:Three of us (Jim62sch, Steve Caruso and myself) requested semi-protection, but we were denied. I could not find the archives for the protection request page, but here is the diff. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 02:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it is valid to point out somewhere in the article that "spirit of the law" is not a simple platitude and can lead to some (perhaps surprisingly extreme) unexpected conclusions - ones which the gospels themselves put in Jesus' mouth. Where & how to do this is another matter --JimWae 19:14, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

But that's why we provide a link to the whole chapter as a reference. —Aiden 20:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

An external link with no commentary at all, though --JimWae 20:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Jim, there is, of course, a myriad of interpretations of Matthew 5—specifically, the Expounding of the Law, as that article explains— from antinomianism to legalism, to Law and Gospel, to the Catholic doctrine of Law as Gospel, to whatever interpretation Eastern Christianity has. It seems every Christian denomination or movement has a different interpretation. It might be appropriate to discuss these interpretations in the Christian views section of this article. However, given the length of both that section and this article, it might be better to explain these interpretations in Christian views of Jesus or, perhaps, Christian theology. We do not have room to explain everything in this article; that is why we have subarticles. The Expounding of the Law article most directly explains the varying interpretations.Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 20:12, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Neutral evidence?

Where's the neutral evidence of historical Jesus and why does this article depict biblical data of Jesus as more or less historically accurate? Why isn't there a seperate Jesus (Bible) or Jesus (mythology)) article and let this main article concentrate on historical facts of his life and deeds...if any? - G3, 16:40, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

The first article you mention is New Testament view on Jesus' life. The second article is at Jesus-Myth. The "historical facts and deeds" are at Historical Jesus. This, the main Jesus article, is meant to summarize all significant POVs. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 16:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

IMO this article should make clear that its contents are (necessarily?) Point of View-based instead of being historically accurate. - G3, 17:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

But that would ruin the editors' fun. We like discussing what is, and hate discussing what sources say. Drogo Underburrow 17:21, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Silly. All articles are "poin of view based," wnich is why all articles mst comply with NPOV. Anonymous user, IMO you need to learnabout what an encyclopedia is in gneral, and what Wikipedia ia in particular. I urge you to read the five pillars,epecially our NPOV and NOR policies. Then, you can come back and express your "O," and perhaps someone will pay attntion. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Trusting on one unveriafable source to tell the truth is not a NPOV - Thus one should make clear that an article like this based on other source than observation, by for example creating Template:BIBLE with a text denoting that this article of a character/item/building is based on a biblical source rather than a verifiable scientific source. Consider someone who believes in Biblical Jesus reading this article and someone who denies Bible reading this article - Which reader does this article serve better and why? -G3, 17:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see where this article "depicts biblical data of Jesus as more or less historically accurate". There is a large section (too large in my opinion) that deals with a summary of the plot of the NT. That section starts off by saying it is summerizing the Gospels, and all through out there are phrases like "according to Mark, acorrding to John etc". I do not see where it says any of those accounts are historically accurate. Perhaps the opening paragraph could be a little clearer on that point, but I don't think we need anything like a disclaimer that says "warning, the following account may not be historically accurate, depending on your POV".--Andrew c 18:45, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Silly. "Trusting on one unveriafable source to tell the truth is not a NPOV" is a non-sequitor. First, this article does not tell the truth, it does not claim to tell the truth, Wikipedia is not concerned with telling the truth I told you to read our NPOV policy. Until you do, you comments are just ignorant. Second, this aticle does not tust one unveifiable source. First, all sources used here are verifiable Read our verifiability policy, until you do your commentsae ignorant. Second, this article uses many, many souces, just look at the bibliogaphy. Your comment is simply gibberish. I suggest we ignore these non-seqtor, off-point, unconstructive comments until it is clea that the anonymous commenter knows what s/he is talking about. For starts, read our policies so you understand what we ae doing, what we ae trying to do, here. PS. DO not claim that I am insulting you. Until you bother to read our NPOV and NOR and Verifiability policies, you are just wilfully wasting ou time and insulting us. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Woah! You are being uncivil here, Slr. There is no need to call anyone "ignorant" in bold face, all that does is offend the other person and violate Wikipedia policy on appropriate use of talk pages. I am claiming you are being insulting, and I am not the injured party. Likewise, nothing is accomplished by saying that someone's comments are "gibberish". Calling them that does not in any way refute them. Your anger and frustration is evident by the typographical errors in your post, a good indication that you should have hit "cancel" instead of "save". An apology is appropriate here. Drogo Underburrow 19:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Drogo, with all due respect to you, I am not apologizing. The anonynmous user expressed clear ignorance of our NPOV as well as other policies. To point out that s/he is ignorant is not an insult just a statement of fact. Please note that this was the second time I made this same point. The anyonymous user could easily have looked oat our NPOV policy after my first comment, and then could have made a constructive comment. That s/he chose not to is an insult to our project. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

So is "G3" suggesting that we replace the alleged POV of the article with his own POV (which of course is the only factual, accurate and verifiable one)? Not very consistant. In fact, as Slrubenstein indicated, WP:NPOV means representing all relevant POVs with due weight given to each (whether one agrees with them or not) — not attempting to reach some ideal "objectivity" (the possibility of which is a contentious POV in itself). The policy specifically articulates that it "does not say that there even is such a thing as objectivity in a philosophical sense, a 'view from nowhere' (in Thomas Nagel's phrase)--such that articles written from that point of view are consequently objectively true. That isn't the policy and it is not our aim!" One could easily argue that since Jesus is viewed as the founder of a religion by millions, this article should only give the religious POV and claim that all dissent is doubtful, and should be tucked away in a subarticle; but that wouldn't be fair either. Thus we represent (broadly, in a summary fashion) the Christian perspective, the critical-historical perspective, the Jesus-myth perspective, the Muslim perspective, and so on; with due weight (i.e., space, emphasis, selection of data) given to each one according to its relevance and prominence. » MonkeeSage « 00:44, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Related article needing sources.

Child Jesus is lacking sources. I thought I'd post this at the main Jesus nexus to bring this to everyone's attention. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 17:00, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Man, we've got a lot of work to do. Perhaps we should do one article every 2 weeks or something to try and bring all the sub-articles up to the quality of the main article. —Aiden 18:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion would be that this article be brought up to the quality of what you perceive for the "main article" -- in other words, get this done first. The Child Jesus is no more than mythology, so are you sure you want to go near that one? •Jim62sch• 12:08, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, suggestbot thought I might. A lot of weird stuff there that I'd never met outside of Anne Rice's recent novel. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 12:21, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of mythology, Jesus-Myth has recently been caught up in an edit war. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 12:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Question

I'm a good Cathloic boy of 14 years, but I have always wondered. Jesus was Jewish. Their Messiah has not yet come. But Jesus called himself the Messiah. Can someone please explain this? TommyBoy76 16:30, 30 April 2006 (UTC)TommyBoy76

Short answer: there are either two Messiahs (a priestly Messiah (ben Joseph) and a kingly Messiah (ben David)), or the prophecies of the Messiah are conditional, or there is one Messiah who will come twice. Modern Judaism does not believe that Jesus is the Messiah, because he did not fulfill all the messianic prophecies in the first century. Christianity believes the Messiah is to come twice, which is why we await the Second Coming of Jesus to fulfill the remainder of the prophecies.

Long answer: available from the Christian Think Tank. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 17:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Infoboxes

Initial proposal

Jesus of Nazereth
Era	Jesus of Nazereth,
Region	Religious Figures
School	Judaism 1st Century
Main interests	Torah, Second Temple Judaism, Baptism
Notable ideas	Golden Rule

Seeing that this article is focused on Jesus, would it not make sense to put the Jesus infobox before the Christianity infobox? Also wouldn't it be a good thing to include a religious figure or philosopher infobox with summary info? I've put an example here, with example values. (Note, I don't expect example to be used, it's just an illustration. :-) ) אמר Steve Caruso _(poll) 20:35, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Nice work. I do think that that pic should be used -- Jesus was not a blonde with blue eyes. --—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jim62sch (talk • contribs) .

Well that pic's probably one of the closer ones we've got, all things considered. :-) However, what I actually did for the infobox shown here was to bastardize the Philosopher template. We might want to come up with our own, or see if there is one that already exists that is appropriate for our Galilean friend. :-) אמר Steve Caruso _(poll) 22:48, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's see, I forgot to sign and misspelled blue -- pretty good. Anyway, now that you've got the template for the box you can basically modify it at will. Let's see what the others might want in there. •Jim62sch• 23:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the only real question is, why didn't we have this template box in the article sooner? Homestarmy 01:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

No one thought of it. •Jim62sch• 01:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Alrighty then, I'll pop a version of this (that's more readily customizable) into the main article and re-arrange the infoboxes that are currently there to make room. I'll keep the data similar to what's currently there (but clean it up and try to make it more accurate and in-line with the article) and we should discuss what we should do with it. אמר Steve Caruso _(poll) 02:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

That picture is ridiculous - it's a reconstruction of the skull of somebody who was not Jesus. Artistic depictions of Jesus may not be historically accurate, but they're pictures which are meant to be of Jesus, while this picture is specifically of not Jesus. If there's to be a picture, it should be from an artistic depiction of Jesus, not some forensic reconstruction of some contemporary of Jesus. john k 02:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The infobox is up and, after a few tweaks (thanks Homestarmy) looking rather "purdy" :-) As for the picture, it's just as close as any other icon of Jesus that's out there, and it's more likely (or should I say statistically likely) to be closer based upon this character's color-scheme, features, and haircut. The reason that the forensic photo was put together in the first place was for a television special and the reconstruction was aimed at presenting a more feasible possibility. (But that's my 2 shekels worth.) אמר Steve Caruso _(poll) 03:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree with Homes -- it is by far the closest to what Jesus is likely to have looked like. The other images of blond or dirty blond hair, blue eyes and a rather highly stylized North-Western European visage aren't even close. In fact, given Judean politics of the time, anyone who would have looked the way Jesus is often depicted would have been seen as an imposter aligned with the Romans. •Jim62sch• 13:00, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

IMHO, the ethnically accurate picture is extremely distracting. My immediate response, instead of reading the article, was "what in the world is that?!" I'm all in favor of a semetic-looking pic, but that's plain bizzarre. He looks like he's in a police lineup. Jesus has a rich history of artwork. Why settle for this? What about this or a similar icon?

Image of the Saviour Not Made by Hand: a traditional Orthodox iconography in the interpretation of Simon Ushakov (1658).

— Preceding unsigned comment added by JBJ830726 (talk • contribs)

Given the eatern orthodox nature of the picture, it reflects a Jesus born in Greece or another land dominated by Hellenism. •Jim62sch• 13:03, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd still shy away from a white Jesus (I personally find it a bit degrading), or a Jesus-with-a-halo (which implies a specific theological framework), as all of those icons seem to be. The forensic Jesus is the most neutral depiction out of any images that I have seen on Wikipedia, and as such I believe is the best fit for the article we have collaboratively put together. אמר Steve Caruso _(poll) 03:29, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. Are we going to use this infobox for other religious figures such as Moses, Mohammed and Buddha? Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 03:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see someone try adding an infobox like this (with a picture) on the Muhammad article. Frankly, I agree this is a bit distracting and really isn't that informative. —Aiden 04:14, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

It will never happen, because Wikipedia owner Jimmy Wales would be too afraid of being murdered if he allowed it. If you were to publically even seriously suggest it, you would probably be banned. Drogo Underburrow 04:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Some comments on the infobox:

1. The place of birth is Nazareth, Galilee (according to many scholars) or Bethlehem, Judea (according to Matthew and Luke).

2. One of his most important influences is obviously John the Baptist.

3. The Golden Rule would be an interest, clearly Jesus did not originate that. Probably also the Schema. Also the Prophets. Also Herod's Temple. Also Resurrection of the dead. Also the Kingdom of Heaven. Also Repentance.

4. Notable ideas? "Love your enemy", Turn the other cheek, Good Samaritan, Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard, Parable of the Prodigal Son, The Friend at Night, The Unjust Judge — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.78.20.146 (talk • contribs)

Seems to me the Likely Given Name should be: Ἰησοῦς/Yea-soos in Greek as recorded, likely ישוע /Yea-shoo in Aramaic.209.78.20.146 08:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the picture: National Geographic schowcased several forensic facial reconstructions of Tutankhamun[6][7]; the Discovery channel showcased Caroline Wilkinson's facial reconstructions of Rameses II and his eldest son, Amun-Her Khepeshef[8]; the BBC showcased Neave's reconstruction of Jesus[9]. Forensic facial reconstruction is used by police to find missing people and reconstruct the likenesses of dead people for identification where only skeletal remains are available[10], not to mention being used by the FBI[11]. The science is well respected, and has made significant advances in the last 20 years, and Neave is considered one of the leading experts in the field[12][13]. So the only real argument against the picture is that it is not of Jesus. But the caption specifically indicates that it is not Jesus, but a first-century Palestinian, which is the closest thing we have to Jesus. It is much more accurate than, for example, an iconic painting from 300 years later and 500 miles away, or the various artistic renditions which tend to recreate Jesus in the image of the artist (usually white Europeans). » MonkeeSage « 09:15, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I put a few of these suggestions into action. Remember, we only have so much room :-) אמר Steve Caruso _(poll) 12:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

We don't know what Jesus specifically looked like, nor is it a proven fact that he even existed at all, so putting up an artist's guess of a first-century Palestinian (and who looks a bit goofy) simply makes a false visual impression. This info box isn't going to get a photo of Muhammed on the Muhammed page, so let's also leave off phony visual images of Jesus. If you want to have religious artwork on the page, that's a different story. Drogo Underburrow 13:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

"Goofy" shouldn't even be a word that we even consider to use in discussion to this topic. If he looks "goofy" take it up with all the other 1st Century Jews :-) אמר Steve Caruso _(poll) 17:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The reconstruction is perfectly acceptable. These forensic reconstructions really are the closest thing we have to an image of Jesus, or anyone else from a time before photography or image-realistic paintings. It cuts right through the iconography and artistic interpretation (that has, over 2000 years, unbelievably deviated from reality), and gives us an image of what people from that time and place really looked like. Sure, he looks a little dazed, but wouldn't you?

And just to show that I'm not biased on this decision towards this article, I'd strongly support the addition of forensic reproductions of other great religious figures from a time before photography and image-realistic painting. The Buddha is depicted in a vast number of ways, based on the ethnicity of the artist, and the time, but a forensic reproduction of people from his time and place would help ground the article, I think. I'll do some research, but does anyone know if these reconstructions have been done for other religious figures? I'd assist in adding them to articles if they are available/properly licensed. Phidauex 15:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand why the fact that this picture supposedly "looks more like Jesus" than actual artistic depictions of Jesus is an argument at all. It is not a picture of Jesus. It is not a picture which purports to be of Jesus. It is a picture of some hypothetical dude living around the same time as Jesus. It obviously says that, but the immediate visual impression is that this is a picture of Jesus, when, in fact, it is not a picture of Jesus. I don't mind the picture being somewhere in this article (or, at least, the Historical Jesus article), but I do mind it going in a Jesus infobox in place of a picture of Jesus. Far better to have an actual religious image of Jesus, or no image at all. john k 15:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Far better, why? For purposes of comfort? •Jim62sch• 23:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not some hypothetical person, it is based on a skull (selected from several) found in a burial-site in Jerusalem — it's a real person from Palestine at the time of Jesus. It was reconstructed by one of the most respected scientists in the field, and presented by a international science/news outlet as a more accurate depiction than the traditional imagery (see also: "The Real Face of Jesus", in Popular Mechanics, Dec. 2002[14]). I'm not saying it has to be in this infobox, in this article — but it certainly meets the criteria for WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV regardless of what anyone thinks of it (e.g., the irrelevant "cross-eyed" stuff below). » MonkeeSage « 16:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Nonetheless it is not Jesus. This is like digging up a body of some random person in the 20th Century to show us what Albert Einstein may have looked like. It is really more novelty than informative. IMO the infobox as a whole really doesn't tell us much anyway. —Aiden 16:55, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not really like that at all, since historically, before the modern age of mass, high-speed transit, cultural/ethnical groups were much more isolated and therefore homogenous; a better example would be reconstructing a fifth-century BCE Chinese skull to show us what Lao Tse may have looked like. but it doesn't really matter what we think — respected third-party sources have claimed that it is the most accurate depiction we have, which makes it acceptable for use here. » MonkeeSage « 17:06, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

The "random person in the 20th century" argument also doesn't take into account that the forensics artist knew that he was doing this to present an alternate image of Jesus, that artistics considerations were modified to reflect Jesus' demographics from eye color to hair to features. Overall, this forensics job, although very good, is probably not what the owner of the skull looked like (due to those parameters). אמר Steve Caruso _(poll) 17:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Wait, why was I being agreed with up there, all I did was ask why it wasn't a template sooner and move one box lower heh. Now, really, I don't think its that bad a picture, but if it's just a guess, then that doesn't seem quite right to just leave in there with no explanation. I mean how do skulls determine facial hair patterns? With the disclaimer under the picture, I think it would be liveable to have it in the box. But there's so many other pictures to choose from which do, admittedly, all seem kinda different, even if we somehow decided to not use this forensics-y one, how will we decide from the rest of them heh. Homestarmy 18:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

See anthropology •Jim62sch• 23:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I have seen the documentary in which they used this "reconstruction" and the argument they were making was so inconclusive, that I cannot take this serious: Okay, let's take some skull we have dug up and postulate that all Jews have had similar ones, then flesh it out and deduct from a passage by Paul on short hair (addressed to Greeks) that Jesus would not have violated Paul's directive and hence had short hair, and than define that short hair means what we see here. Better to have no image than this one (except maybe further down with a caption like "20th century reconstruction"). If we want to include some image in the box, I propose the Turin Shroud. I have put it up in the poll. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

At the risk of sudden e-mail immolation, I also have a problem with any forensic claim about skin tone. The area in question has been a cultural and commercial crossroads for five millennia and the "native" features have shifted with each wave of colonizers and conquerors. We have no idea what skin tone(s) predominated at the dawn of the CE. With all respect to MonkeySage, I doubt you could find a less ethnically-homogenous area than Palestine at the time in question. I humbly submit that the "true" face of Jesus is a subject that is neither appropriate to, nor likely to be solved by, consensus and should be left to each person until and unless you can produce either a reconstruction of His skull or a photograph of Him. There are already ten "pictures" of Jesus in this article; why even try to pick THE one for an infobox? PS to Steve: I completely agree that "goofy" should not be a word used in the context of a holy figure -- therefore, I suggest we remove the picture that is so aptly described by that adjective. Kevin/Last1in 20:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

1) There is no "Religious Figures" template; we would be creating one for this article alone, which I believe is not allowed. 2) The infobox is unnecessary. It takes up a lot of space and provides very little info not already given in the first few sentences of the article or in other more informative templates. Please, again, allow us to arrive at a consensus about the infobox before shoving it in the article at the expense of other (IMO) more informative templates. —Aiden 22:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

"which I believe is not allowed" -- what does it violate? All info-boxes started on one article and then spread. Kind of like religions, come to think of it. •Jim62sch• 23:32, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the idea of this template is neat, sometimes people just plain want information summarized neatly like that :/. Like on court case articles, they have this big old summary template thing. Homestarmy 22:10, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

From the Popular Mechanics article I referenced above:

An outgrowth of physical anthropology, forensic anthropology uses cultural and archeological data as well as the physical and biological sciences to study different groups of people, explains A. Midori Albert, a professor who teaches forensic anthropology at the University of North Carolina at Wilmington. Experts in this highly specialized field require a working knowledge of genetics, and human growth and development. In their research they also draw from the fields of primatology, paleoanthropology (the study of primate and human evolution) and human osteology (the study of the skeleton). Even seemingly distant fields like nutrition, dentistry and climate adaptation play a role in this type of investigation.

While forensic anthropology is usually used to solve crimes, Richard Neave, a medical artist retired from The University of Manchester in England, realized it also could shed light on the appearance of Jesus. The co-author of Making Faces: Using Forensic And Archaeological Evidence, Neave had ventured in controversial areas before. Over the past two decades, he had reconstructed dozens of famous faces, including Philip II of Macedonia, the father of Alexander the Great, and King Midas of Phrygia. If anyone could create an accurate portrait of Jesus, it would be Neave.

So, once again, we don't have to use the picture, but respected third-party sources have called it the most accurate picture we have: so there is no problem, policy-wise, with using it. We don't have to, but we certainly can — all counter-arguments notwithstanding. » MonkeeSage « 12:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Cross-Eyed Jesus

I didn't know that Jesus was cross-eyed. He looks a bit cross-eyed to me in that photo. I think providing a forensic artistic guess as a photo illustration is a terrible idea. -- Drogo Underburrow 04:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

That would be your perspective, he does not look cross-eyed to me. Would you prefer the idealized and historically inaccurate pictures that everyone grew up with? •Jim62sch• 13:07, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

How 'bout the one of Jesus, well manicured, carrying a cotton-ball white sheep, in a european valley leading a flock of puffy white sheep? 8-) --CTSWyneken 13:17, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Would the sheep be cross-eyed? -- Drogo Underburrow 13:51, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

"Would you prefer the idealized and historically inaccurate pictures that everyone grew up with?" Nope, but showing a facial reconstruction of an alleged 1st century gallilean John Doe doesn't help much either. It is like writing an article about Franz Beckenbauer using a picture of Hitler on the basis that germans have similar features... not to mention that such a photo would led some to believe (even only for a short moment) the guy in the picture IS actually Jesus. -- 195.37.184.165. 16:59, 1 May 2006 (GMT+1)

I would most certainly prefer the idealized and historiccally inaccurate pictures that everyone grew up with, for the reason that those are pictures which are actually meant to depict Jesus. They also have historical and artistic significance, unlike the forensic monstrosity. john k 15:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah, finally someone gave the real objection to the picture -- it is more comforting to imagine Jesus as a white blue-eyed blonde of significant stature, rather than as an olive-shinned dark-hear brown-eyed man who was no bigger then 5' 5". Sad really, that so mant bytes are being wasted on this discussion, especially by those who favour the idealistic representations. Focus on Jesus' message people -- the appearance shouldn't matter. •Jim62sch• 23:38, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

That is an incredible distortion of what I have said here. I don't give a fuck what Jesus looked like. A great number of depictions of Jesus do not show him as a blue-eyed blond (to be honest, I'd say that very few depictions of Jesus show him as blond - he's generally shown as a brunette.) What I do care about is that our picture of "Jesus" not be a picture which is explicitly not of Jesus. Given that there are no historically accurate representations of Jesus, I'd prefer a famous rendering of Jesus from the grand tradition of Jesus portraiture, however inaccurate that may be, to a generic forensic reconstruction of what a generic hypothetical person living in the same area as Jesus might have looked like. john k 06:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but your argument isn't making any sense to me. What you are saying is that it's OK for an artist to made up a "this-is-what-Jesus-might-look-like-were-he-European" picture from his imagination alone, but not OK for a forensic depiction of what someone from that place and time actually would look like? As for someone else's question re "facial hair" -- see anthropology.

(The picture in the Lutheran Church I was raised in (up until age 13) had a Jesus with dirty-bond hair, not brown).

Finally john, see WP:CIVIL. •Jim62sch• 10:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Why should I see WP:CIVIL when you're the one essentially accusing me of being a racist? At any rate, my position is that Leonardo's picture of Jesus in The Last Supper, or whatever, is acceptable because it is a notable depiction of Jesus by a famous artist, even if it's not based on what Jesus looked like in life. The forensic reconstruction is a picture which is not acceptable as a picture of Jesus because it is not a picture of Jesus. It is specifically a picture of some other dude - apparently a skull from the same time and region as Jesus. It is not acceptable to present a picture of some other dude as though it is a picture of Jesus. And it is not acceptable either to have, instead of a picture of Jesus, a picture of some other dude, which says "this is some other dude that comes from the same place Jesus comes from." john k 17:41, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Assumning is something one ought not to do -- at no point did I accuse you of being a racist, and rather than make such an assumption you could simply have asked me if that was what I meant. What I said was, that you seemed comfortable with the picture of Jesus that most of us grew up with -- that the Jesus of that picture happens to be white, blue-eyed (sometimes browb), blond to dirty blond was a point regarding historical inaccuracy. If you take the time to go through the archives you'll see that I've raise similar point re historicity before.

As for the rest of your statement, it really is irrelevant now as the consensus was to go with the non-historical picture. Whatever -- historicity is just a concept anyway. •Jim62sch• 17:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

You're saying that this reconstruction is neither historical nor artistic? :-) That's a -really- big claim to make, seeing that it's the most historical reconstruction that we have given the ethnographic data, and that it was done by an acclaimed forensics artist. We're trying to be as historically accurate as possible, no? אמר Steve Caruso _(poll) 17:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Attempting to generalize the facial features of an entire area about 2,000 years ago can't possibly go well and I seriously doubt statistically that it is historically accurate, that would require it to be nearly spot-on. Faces aren't really very generalize-able. But was the disclaimer originally placed in the box when it was put into the article at first, I can't remember :/. Homestarmy 18:28, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

As Homestarmy says, it is absurd to say that it is "historically accurate" to present some generalized facial features of people living in an entire area. By the way, the caption on the image at Historical Jesus used to say "A forensic reconstruction of a skull from the same time and place of Jesus, by forensic artist Richard Neave." But now it says "A hypothetical reconstruction of someone from the same time and place of Jesus, created by forensic artist Richard Neave." These are quite different things. The earlier version is basically admitting that this is not Jesus, but some other dude. The later version is saying that this is a hypothetical depiction. I don't think it ultimately matters, because I think that any image which is not explicitly a picture of Jesus is inappropriate, but I would like to know which it is. john k 06:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep, it was. I made sure of it. אמר Steve Caruso _(poll) 21:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Given the arguments enlisted above, I'd say it's almost irrelevant in depicting Jesus (and therefore in the context of this article). Even if it would be relevant, what should be the purpose of that reconstruction anyway ?! "Destroy the myth" or "Let's try to be more accurate than paintings"? ...because some people argue as if it would be the case. Changing the perception of how actually Jesus might have looked doesn't add (or take away) anything to/from Jesus legacy IMO. Nor having in mind this reconstructed humanoid instead of a classical, Robert Powell-like Jesus would make one less a believer. After all, I don't expect people in other parts of the world to depict/imagine Jesus exactly as "we" (europeans & americans) do (e.g. Coptic Church). -- 195.37.184.165. 21:45, 1 May 2006 (GMT+1)

Well it really is a matter of which culture the icons come from. We have European Jesus, Greek Jesus, Black Jesus, Indian Jesus, etc. etc. etc.. The forensic reconstruction is, by it's nature (based off of ethnographic data), less culturally biased, iconographically biased, and religiously biased, and is the best fit for Wikipedia's NPOV. אמר Steve Caruso _(poll) 21:47, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Well NPOV is one thing, but should accuracy be sacrificed to lessen possible biases? It's entirely possible that some of the very early depictions of Jesus, even though a couple centuries off, may of been pretty close to accurate. And its not like any of the pictures is trying to convert people, unless there's like some subtle hypnotism going on, which would be pretty cool, but all the same, i'd say its unlikely. I think what we ought to do is investigate some of the forensic thing, like Str was going on about, apparently he feels that their conclusions to make this image were spurious or something, I think its worth discussing. Homestarmy 22:01, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's an issue. There's a lot of 1st century AD Jews whom we don't have accurate images of. Why is that image to be used as an image in a Jesus infobox, only? Couldn't it just as easily refer to, say, Herod Antipas, Philip the Tetrarch, Agrippa I, Agrippa II, Caiaphas, Annas, Josephus, Simon Peter, John the Baptist, John the Apostle, James the Great, James the Less, James the Just, Saint Andrew, Gamaliel, Judas Iscariot, Shammai, Eleazar ben Simon, Paul of Tarsus, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.? Once again, the image seems to be a reconstruction of the skull of some other dude who isn't any of these people, including Jesus. Why on earth do we have a picture of some other dude in a space which is normally reserved for pictures of the subject? This moron is not only a white male of approximately the same age, and from approximately the same area of the world as me (the United States), he also has the same name as me. That wouldn't make it acceptable to put survivor-contestant John Kenney's picture into a hypothetical article about me and say "a picture of a person with the same name as John Kenney, and from approximately the same part of the world and similar age." That would be ridiculous. I don't see why it's any less ridiculous to do essentially the same thing with a forensic reconstruction of the skull of some dude who wasn't Jesus. john k 06:57, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Jesus Image Poll

This is a simple poll to deterine what image we're going to put up. Add further suggestions below as new section headings.

Forensic Reconstruction

Image:RFJesus.jpg
Note:Fair Use Images can only be used in the main namespace, and must be linked to from other namespaces, including Talk. Deskana

1. אמר Steve Caruso _(poll) 17:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC) It follows all Wikipedia policies to a T. It is not original research, it is creed-neutral (every icon is not), it was created with the purpose to investigate what Jesus would have looked like, and overall it is the most historically accurate rendition that exists (statistically).

   IM(not-so)HO, I'd say dump this one. The article is titled, "Jesus", not "People Who Might Have Looked Like Jesus". If, for the sake of argument, everyone agreed that the picture was meant to represent Jesus himself (which the creators of the image pointedly do NOT claim), it has no more place in this article than any other image from the last 1800 years -- all of them meant to depict the "real" Jesus as he was understood at the time. The image is non-encyclopaedic and, frankly, a little cheesy. Kevin/Last1in 19:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

   I have mixed feelings about this one. Ethnographically, it's probably closer to what Jesus actually looked like than any artistic representation, but OTOH this is based on a skull that no one claims belonged to Jesus. So it's both more accurate and misleading. It's a first-century Palestinian all right, but no one claims that it's actually Jesus. It could be James the Just, or an anonymous Pharisee, or someone else for all we know. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 12:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

2. •Jim62sch• 23:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
3. » MonkeeSage « 12:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC) Only picture we have that meets WP:V (BBC, Popular Mechanics) as an accurate (rather than artistic) representation.

   It is definitely an artistic representation, while its accuracy is quite dubious. Better no picture, than this one." Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

   So you (and several others) say, but that doesn't have much to do with the encyclopedia (unless you're a credible third-party resource). Of course, you're allowed to express your opinion and help form consensus, I just wanted to remind folks that we are not supposed to be representing what we think Jesus looked like (or didn't look like) here, unless it can be verified externally by a reputable source. » MonkeeSage « 15:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Turin Shroud negative

File:Shroud-of-Turin-face-1898.jpg

1. Arguebly the most famous depiction of Jesus; research suggest it to be at least from the time and place of Jesus. It is not Original research, "creed-neutral" (no icon and no halo), it was not created but actually is a relic and has the advantage of not being based on dodgy methods as the "reconstruction" is. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:49, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

From what I've read (which could be wrong/out of date), the Shroud probably comes from the 10-13 centuries, not the 1st century. In my mind, the Shroud is grouped with bigfoot and alien abduction, and I feel, whether it is authentic or not, it still connotes the paranomal/psuedo-science. Therefore, I would not support this as an image for Jesus. I wouldn't mind using a historical work of art though (with a caption explaining the artistic context and religious POV). --Andrew c 21:24, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Ehrm, simply looking at it as an image itself, it seems a bit....obscure looking when compared to some of the other fairly nice looking images we've got. But after that, then you get into the entire turin shroud controversy, which might lead to a bunch of people coming in here going on about "THATS NOT JESUS BECAUSE WE FOUND SOMETHING THAT SEEMED SORT OF LIKE PAINT MAYBE KINDA SORTA" and all that, I don't think we want that kind of trouble. Homestarmy 21:50, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I hate to break this news here, but the Shroud of Turin was, and still is, a hoax. •Jim62sch• 23:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention that not all Christians believe in relics. The shroud is inappropriate at best. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 11:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I hope you WILL NOT feature this image together with the main article. No serious encyclopedia would do such a thing and I don't even need to bore you with arguments as to why. Why not showing how people imagined him throughout the history, starting with earliest extant paintings till now? How about various representations according to geographic criteria, such as eastern/western Christianity (e.g. Rublev vs. Michelangelo). -- 195.37.184.165. 02:00, 2 May 2006 (GMT+1)

The Eastern Orthodox picture thing

I just plain think that this is just a good looking picture, I mean its pretty head on and close up, and its reasonably clear. So yea, the Greek Orthodox may of made it. Does this mean the Greek Orthodox's works can never be considered anything other than "Their personal, radically different than everyone else's view"? Barring a better image, I think at the very least this one will do for now, we can just move this up to the top of the page from where it currently is. And unless its somehow sending out convert-o beams, I don't see how its not relatively neutral. Homestarmy 18:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

No opinion

1. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 11:45, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
2. Although I like the anon IP idea above about using pictures through the ages and from east/west interpretations. Sophia ^{Gilraen of Dorthonion} 11:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

   See Images of Jesus. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 21:08, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Poll results (thusfar)

(Since the discussion is cluttering the above poll a bit, here's a summary of what we have so far:)

3 - Forensics image

1 - Shroud of Turin

2 - "Switzerland"

Infobox data

The place of birth is Nazareth, Galilee (according to many scholars) or Bethlehem, Judea (according to Matthew and Luke).

Other Interests: Schema, Prophets, Herod's Temple, Resurrection of the dead, Kingdom of Heaven, Repentance

Other Notable ideas: Turn the other cheek, Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard, Parable of the Prodigal Son, The Friend at Night, The Unjust Judge

Seems to me the Likely Given Name should be: Ἰησοῦς/Yea-soos in Greek as recorded, likely ישוע /Yea-shoo in Aramaic. ע is a Voiced pharyngeal fricative, not a sound in English and probably not pronounced in Galilean Aramaic. See also Hebrew_alphabet#Numerical_value_and_pronunciation

Notable ideas: God as "Father" Comment: Not notable to Jesus, this is Pharisaic influence.

Wait, why Schema, the Wiki article just says that's "a plan"? And if Jesus said something as an idea, it counts as His idea too :/. Homestarmy 18:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, very funny, try Shema, Mark 12:28–34 also called the "Greatest Commandment".

"My Father" John 8:54 as opposed to "Our Father" (Lord's Prayer) might be an idea unique to Jesus.209.78.17.141 19:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

"The Two Ways" (basis of Didache chapters 1-6) were a significant influence on Jesus. "It would appear from his interviews with the scribe ([Mark]xii. 29-31; comp. Luke x. 27) and with the rich young man ([Mark]x. 19) that he was acquainted with the Didache in its Jewish form, accepting its teachings as summing up the whole of Jewish doctrine."[15] "As a matter of fact the entire New Testament teaching is based upon the Jewish Didache (see Seeberg, "Katechismus der Urchristenheit," 1903, pp. 1-44)."

Another of Jesus' interests was Exorcism, the casting out of demons.

"In essentials Jesus' teaching was that of John the Baptist, and it laid emphasis on two points: (1) repentance, and (2) the near approach of the kingdom of God. One other point is noted by Christian theologians as part of his essential teaching, namely, insistence upon the fatherhood of God. This is such a commonplace in the Jewish liturgy and in Jewish thought that it is scarcely necessary to point out its essentially Jewish character (see Father). As regards repentance, its specifically Jewish note has been recently emphasized by C. G. Montefiore ("J. Q. R." Jan., 1904), who points out that Christianity lays less stress upon this side of religious life than Judaism; so that in this direction Jesus was certainly more Jewish than Christian."[16] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.78.19.16 (talk • contribs)

Another of Jesus' interests: Parables

Another quote from the Jewish Encyclopedia: "While claiming not to infringe or curtail the Law, Jesus directed his followers to pay more attention to the intention and motive with which any act was done than to the deed itself. This was by no means a novelty in Jewish religious development: the Prophets and Rabbis had continuously and consistently insisted upon the inner motive with which pious deeds should be performed, as the well-known passages in Isa. i. and Micah vi. sufficiently indicate."

"Indeed, the most striking characteristics of the utterances of Jesus, regarded as a personality, were the tone of authority adopted by him and the claim that spiritual peace and salvation were to be found in the mere acceptance of his leadership. Passages like: "Take my yoke upon you . . . and ye shall find rest unto your souls" (Matt. xi. 29); "whosoever shall lose his life for my sake . . . shall save it" (viii. 35); "Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me" (Matt. xxv. 40), indicate an assumption of power which is certainly unique in Jewish history, and indeed accounts for much of modern Jewish antipathy to Jesus, so far as it exists. On the other hand, there is little in any of these utterances to show that they were meant by the speaker to apply to anything more than personal relations with him; and it might well be that in his experience he found that spiritual relief was often afforded by simple human trust in his good-will and power of direction."

"He had from the beginning laid stress upon the difficulty of associating sanctity with riches; and in this he adopted the quasi-socialistic views of the later Psalms, Ps. ix., x., xxii., xxv., xxxv., xl., lxix., cix. (comp. I. Loeb, "La Littérature des Pauvres dans la Bible," Paris, 1894). He insisted to the fullest extent on the view implied in those Psalms and in various utterances of the Prophets, that poverty and piety, riches and antisocial greed, were practically synonymous (comp. the form of the beatitudes given in Luke vi. 20, 24-26)."

That would make Poverty one of his interests.

"Another departure from pharisaic as well as Essenic practise was his permission to his disciples to eat with unwashed hands. When rebuked he declared: "Whatsoever from without entereth into the man can not defile him, but that which proceedeth out of the man [evil speech], that defileth the man" (Mark vii. 15 and parallels)—a principle which scarcely implied the Paulinian abrogation of the dietary laws, but was probably intended to convey the idea that "the profane can not defile the word of God" (Ber. 22a)."

"Jesus spoke with the power of the Haggadists—compare, e.g., "the men of little faith" (Soṭah 48b); "the eye that lusts, the hand that sins must be cut off" (Nid. 13b); "no divorce except for fornication" (Giṭ. 90b); "purity like that of a child" (Yoma 22a)—and not like the men of the Halakah (Luke iv. 32; comp. Matt. vii. 29, "not like the scribes")."

Proposed Infobox

Religious Figures Jesus of Nazereth
Likely Given Name: Ἰησοῦς as recorded in Greek, likely ישוע in Aramaic
Born: 8-2 BC/BCE (Nazareth, Galilee or Bethlehem, Judea)
Died: 29-36 AD/CE (Jerusalem)
School/tradition: Judaism, 1st Century
Associated with Christianity, Islam
Main interests
Grassroots-Judaism, "Law and Prophets", Herod's Temple, Resurrection, Kingdom of God, Repentance, Exorcism, Poverty, Parables, Authoritative Debate
Notable ideas
Love your enemies, God as "My Father", Turn the other cheek, Good Samaritan, Prodigal Son
Influences	Influenced
John the Baptist, Roman Empire, The Two Ways, Pharisees, Saducees, Essenes	Peter, James the Just, St. Paul, and countless others...

This is quite a bit of original research. How do we know what Jesus' interests were? How do you know what his influences were? Christians think his influence was God--others may disagree. Which POV do you take? Do you include every possible influence with qualifiers as to who believes what? We have no definitive proof as to what his 'likely name' was; how do you decide which ones stay and go? How do you summarize the ministry of Jesus in a few 'notable ideas'? Were the rest not notable? Who decides? I forsee so many problems with this infobox. There is a big difference between the matter-of-fact-outcome infoboxes of US Supreme Court decisions or historical events and this. Sorry to say but I don't think it would help the article at all. —Aiden 01:10, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not original research, it's all well documented, read Jesus and the cites above. We know what Jesus' interests are from the Gospels. Likewise for the influences, also add historical context. Having God as an influence merely makes him a Religious Figure. Yes, we have plenty of evidence of what his name was, see Names and titles of Jesus for references. Summarizing information is very useful for an encyclopedic article.209.78.19.16 01:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

First of all you're attributing a straw man to me. Let's take the "Main Interests" section (as opposed to the "Minor interests" like carpentry we've decided to omit): The Gospels say a lot about everything listed here, specifically how Jesus was involved with the objects in this list, but nowhere does it say Jesus was "interested" in Herod's Temple or "Grassroots-Judaism." The "Notable ideas" section: As I said before, who is to say which ideas are notable and which aren't? "Influences": Jesus was influenced by John the Baptist? I could have sworn it was the other way around. "Roman Empire": Well I guess that is a bit ambiguous as everyone living in ancient Israel was influenced by the Roman Empire in some form or another. Jesus actively debated and criticized the Pharisees and Sadducees. Surely then they influenced him; but what does that mean? This box is nothing but a lot of conjecture and ambiguities--it first and foremost is not encyclopedic, nor does it give any great insight into Jesus one couldn't gain from reading the introduction or skimming through the article. —Aiden 01:29, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Most of the form of the table I put together was taken from the Template:Infobox_Philosopher, hence "main interests" etc., as an attempt to put together a generic overview that could be re-used by other religious figures. "Main interests" is vestigial from the philosophy template. Can we be certain of any philosopher's "main interests"? Not as much as we would like, but it's a formal category. John the Baptist, many scholars believe Jesus was influenced by, and if one takes a purely Gospel-centric position, they might come to the conlusion that Jesus came first. However, the Baptist movement was a direct opposition to the increasing seclusion of ritual purity that the Pharisees and Saducees had a monopoly on and was a form of grassroots Judaism in and of itself. They kept ritually pure by immersing ("baptizing") in the Jordan river, rather than the elaborate Pharisee-controlled miqvaot (as a daily ritual, rather than the "baptized-once" paradigm in modern Christianity). This sort of un-brokered ritual purity and relationship with God is something that Jesus seems to have shared in common with this movement, however, Jesus moved away from the rough acetecism of the Baptists. Rome also played a big part in this overarching psychology to bring forth a personal, unbrokered religion: They were actively oppressing Judaism. Ponitus Pilate erected images of the emperor in the temple, and sacrificed pigs on the altar, much to the disgrace of the Jews... who protested and were clubbed by plainclothes officers at his command. I'll have to get a copy of my colleague Dan Gaztambide's paper (it's an honors thesis at Rutgers University about the psychology behind the early formation of Christianity). This was -active- oppression, and it was a large influence. ... But I ramble.. The original idea behind the infobox was to provide a quick bio with quick links that would be useful to the average Wikipedian... I need sleep... :-) אמר Steve Caruso _(poll) 04:09, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

"the Baptist movement was a direct opposition to the increasing seclusion of ritual purity that the Pharisees and Saducees had a monopoly on" - I have no idea what you mean by refering to some increasing seclusion of ritual puritymonopolized by the Pharisees; I would characterize them in opposite terms. But my point is not for us to argue over the nature of the Pharisees or John. My point is that you are expressing a particular point of view. i have no objection to including this view in the article as long as it is presented as a view, and not as the truth, and as long as there is room for other views. I think the main problem with the infobox is that it takes one point of view and reifies and privileges it. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I humbly suggest that we STOP discussing what should be in this box reach consensus on the box itself: (1) Is an infobox important to improve the article? (2) Can any infobox be constructed that will be NPOV? (3) Is the proposed infobox template the best infobox for this article? Without agreement on these points, I believe the rest of the discussion is moot. Kevin/Last1in 14:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

To provide my opinions on my own questions: (1) I do not think an infobox will improve this article. I do not think you can condense Jesus' person or teachings into such a box. To summarize any religion's central figure in such a box would trivialize the figure and likely enrage his/her adherents. (2) I think it's obvious from the existing discussion that the proposed infobox will (or has already) become nothing more than another POV battlefield. There are 53 archived pages of vitriol and venom for this article; why sew a new minefield until we clear this one? (3) If consensus is reached that we need an infobox and that an NPOV on can be written, I think the proposed template is great, possibly ideal. Kevin/Last1in 14:20, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, this article does probably need something up at the top, whether its a box or a picture. An infobox doesn't seem that bad, and im not enraged, I just don't see any attack from this userbox. Now, there is currently some innacuracies it seems, being "interesting" in Herod's temple seems odd, and I don't see how the Roman Empire "influenced" Jesus, but I think the idea of this box overall is nice, we really could use something up top of this article and before this box there was nothing. Homestarmy 15:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Religious Figures Jesus of Nazereth
This is only a test. Be happy. No first-hand paintings or photographs of Jesus exist.
Likely Given Name: Ἰησοῦς as recorded in Greek, likely ישוע in Aramaic
Born: 8-2 BCE/BC (Nazareth, Galilee or Bethlehem, Judea)
Died: 29-36 CE/AD (Jerusalem)
School/tradition: Judaism, 1st Century
Associated with Christianity, Islam
Notable ideas
Love your enemies, God as "My Father", Turn the other cheek, Good Samaritan, Prodigal Son

I'm with Homestarmy in that if were to include at least something at the beginning of the article that it would not only make it look more professional, but give a reader assurance whether or not they've found what they're looking for. As I've said before, most of the fields on the table are vestigial from the Philosopher Infobox, which is what I based it on. Perhaps we can keep the info that lies before the "Main Interests" (given name, birth, death, school, association) and -possibly- an agreed upon picture of some sort? These seem the least controversial and most concrete (heh, besides the picture). אמר Steve Caruso _(poll) 15:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC) (Edit: Perhaps something like this: on the right אמר Steve Caruso _(poll) 15:38, 2 May 2006 (UTC))

Okay, in response to Kevin's constructive questions, I am opposed to the infobox for two reasons. first is aesthetic: I do not think that the tops of articles should be too cluttered. All articles of any size have a table of contents, fine. But this one also has an index to related articles. Anything more than that I think becomes unnecissarily cluttered. Second, many people think Jesus is a fictional character. I happen not to be one of them. I think he existed - but I also think that we know far less about him than we do about Derrida or Nietzsche or Marx. Even under the best of circumstances whatever goes into an infobox is going to be either bland and trivial beyond belief, or controversial. I say, let's focus on other things. This is all I have to say - if most people disagree with me i will not put up any argument. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:53, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

There is a bunch of white space to the right of the table of contents. Is there a way to fill this space? Drogo Underburrow 17:50, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with everything Kevin said. —Aiden 18:21, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

...then you must not have seen my User page. ; ) Kevin/Last1in 19:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that image to the right is the best. That should be inserted in the Jesus page, for sure. LOL. --Darth Deskana (talk page) 21:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Agree. The happy face should be inserted as the illustration. -- Drogo Underburrow 03:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

What, now instead of salvation, Jesus offers always the lowest price on the brands you trust (always)? Rolling back prices to save you even more? I'm sorry, but the Wal-Mart employee/mascot has got to go. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 11:02, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, that might "cheapen" the message (sorry mate, couldn't resist). I also have a slight problem with the mental image of Jesus-as-smiley chasing the moneychangers from the Temple... Have we considered a simple crucifix? It admirably combines the central symbol of Christianity with a portrait of the article's subject. Not to be pernickety, but I still don't see a consensus here that the infobox is even worth the trouble (or the strife). Kevin/Last1in 14:19, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Wal-Mart is a very Christian company, headquartered in the heart of the Bible belt. I bet you didn't know they used an image of Jesus. It's one of their secrets of success, subliminal advertising. -- Drogo Underburrow 14:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Heh, some of the literature I've received implies that Wal-Mart is run by Satan. I just put in an application there today, but perhaps I've sold my soul? Kevin, I like the idea of the crucifix. Perhaps we should also run a poll over whether or not to even have an infobox? I've got mixed feelings about the idea myself.Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 16:44, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Getting back on topic: one other point that is bound to piss someone off: in the test infobox we have only "positives" for notable ideas. Not exactly an accurate depiction biblically, now is it? •Jim62sch• 17:08, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

And what would you say is a more accurate Biblical description of the ideas Jesus presented? Homestarmy 18:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Luke 14:26?

Do we even want an infobox?

No

1. Definitely not. —Aiden 18:04, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
2. No There are enough things to fight about! Sophia ^{Gilraen of Dorthonion} 18:09, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
3. No Per Sophia (gasp!) Dominick ^(TALK) 18:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe

1. I've got mixed feelings about this. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 16:45, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
2. An infobox, I think, would be a really neat idea. But if people really dislike it, I guess its not that important. I still think we need a picture of Jesus at top right though. Homestarmy 18:06, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
3. Yes - if the yellow smiley face is used as the illustration of Jesus. Otherwise, no. -- Drogo Underburrow 18:12, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Genealogy

Hey - I would have just added this myself but the page is frozen. But I think we should add a section on the Fathers' view of Jesus' genealogy (specifically the view in Augustine's Retractions 2:7; St. Jerome's Commentary on Matthew 1:16; Eusebius of Caesarea's view in the Ecclesiastical History 1:7; and John Damascene's view in his Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith 4:14. That tradition says:

Heli son of Matthat was descended from David's son Solomon; Jacob son of Matthan from David's son Nathan. The Fathers claim that Heli and Jacob were in fact half-brothers. According to tradition, their mother Estha first married Matthat and had Heli; then after Matthat died, she married Matthan and had Jacob.

Now, when Heli grows up, he marries a woman (tradition doesn't assign her a name as far as I can tell) but dies before they have any children. Then, in accordance with the levirate law in Deuteronomy 25:5, Jacob married Heli's widow, and "raised up seed for his brother." Thus, Jacob was physically Joseph's father, but Heli was accounted his father in accordance with the Law. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam sk (talk • contribs)

I've moved this to the bottom of the page so that people will actually see it. It also helps to sign your posts. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 11:05, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I feel that the geneology section is pretty big as is. Perhaps there is a subpage better suited for this particular historic apology? There is a page on Genealogy of Jesus that I believe even mentions this position already.--Andrew c 14:58, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Fleur de lys

Maybe I'm missing something but why is this page linked from the New Testament Jesus bit of Jesus#See also. It's a good page and obviously has Christianity links but I don't think it sits well here. Any objections if I remove it? Sophia ^{Gilraen of Dorthonion} 12:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

An odd link. Jesus and the Kings of France again? Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 12:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Arrgh - the Da Vinci Code strikes again! I'm taking it out and if anyone objects I'll putit back. Sophia ^{Gilraen of Dorthonion} 12:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)