Talk:Géza Vermes

Order of names
In Hungarian the family name comes first (just like in Japanese), so I think at least behind the "was born as" it would be appropriate to write: "Vermes Géza" Koszper gabor 18:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * He introduces himself as Geza Vermes in English. — Gareth Hughes 18:57, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

NPOV
The article praises Vermes without citing his critics. Please provide balance.andycjp (talk) 08:57, 26 November 2011 (UTC)


 * That is a built-in Wiki-problem. It will be hard to find WP:RS, scholarly sources that criticize Vermes in the open. That is too small a world. The main criticism of Vermes in reality would have been that due to being pretty smart, he is in love with himself, is amazingly stubborn and thinks he is God's gift to humanity. He does know his topic really well, but is really single minded. So fellow scholars will not call him names in the open, and the blogs that do are not WP:RS - a Wiki problem. Examples would be this which says: It is "very kind of Vermes to grant, even grudgingly, that Benedict has a right to pen a book... " As that review said, "Vermes believes that he has the correct understanding" in most cases. Vermes does know the topic - yet usually goes down a single path. Another example is: "For all his strengths, Vermes is a peremptory writer who gives the impression that the mystery of Christian origins has been finally solved." So the overall impression of the critics is: "Pretty smart fellow, who thinks he knows it all and wants the rest of the world to shut up". But WP:RS sources will not say it that bluntly. More material is here. Please feel free to edit the article based on those. I can not really be bothered beyond this. History2007 (talk) 17:53, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * By the way, an interesting opposite case would be Louis Feldman who is even more knowledgeable on a subtopic such as Josephus, but is generally regarded as a super-nice and very reasonable fellow, who apart from being highly respected is also "liked by other scholars" and is open to debate and suggestion. So the issue here would not be knowledge but stubbornness vs openness to other views. History2007 (talk) 17:58, 23 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Does Andy mean critics of him personally or of his conclusions? 76.179.12.187 (talk) 12:51, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm removing the POV-tag. Andy is vague on what criticism he would like to see, and he is of course welcome to add any relevant and sourced criticism to the article.Jeppiz (talk) 13:52, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Géza Vermes. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150612050327/http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00949vh to http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00949vh

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 03:00, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Unarska
It is not clear whether Margaret Unarska was married before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.12.119 (talk) 14:05, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

2 Kings 5
Geza Vermes must have thought that 2 Kings 5 is a Christian forgery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.125.216.241 (talk) 12:12, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Géza Vermes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110108133006/http://tcpc.org/review/review.cfm?review_id=10 to http://www.tcpc.org/review/review.cfm?review_id=10

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 22:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Eminent??
Describing someone as "eminent" appears to me to be a peacock term which should be avoided, although it does not specifically appear in the Manual of Style/Words to watch. I believe it should be deleted in this article (and in others).

There is no evidence of his ordination.
There is no evidence Mr. Vermes was ever ordained a priest. The congregation of Notre Dame de Sion also had lay members and reigious brothers who were never ordained. Without a record of his ordination, he cannot be called a former priest. It appears that journalists sloppily presented his membership in the Order as ordination, but that is erroneous.100.10.50.122 (talk) 18:36, 1 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Several reliable references cited throughout the article explicitly state that he was a former Catholic priest. Check the cited sources. GenoV84 (talk) 01:56, 2 December 2022 (UTC)