Talk:Historical Jesus/Archive 2

On merging Yehoshua ben Yosef with this article
As this article appears to be full of controversy, I suggest the following compromise: Two articles.

1) Jesus
 * This article would contain everything Jesus from the prevailing Christian (Catholic, Protestant, Evangelical, etc.) viewpoint, and intended as an article for research into Jesus Christ the religious figure. This page would contain most of the content from Jesus, but would remove the controversial attempts to add a non-Christian POV.  It would, however, include an overview of the separate view points of all denominations of Christianity.

2) Yehoshua ben Yosef (or some other acceptable title)
 * This article would contain everything "Jesus" from a historical, pre-Catholic viewpoint, and intended as an article for research into "Jesus" the historical figure. Examples for what this page could contain can be found at Yehoshua ben Yosef or User:Peter Kirby/Historical Jesus.  This article would include an overview of all serious attempts at scholarship on the issue.

I believe that to merge everything non-Christian about "Jesus" under this new Yehoshua (or whatever it should be called, by consensus) article would be a way to appease both Christian and non-Christian, and allow both the Christian version (which is arguably POV) and the on-Christian version (arguably POV as well) to stand side by side in Wikipedia. If both POVs are represented, it could stop a lot of bickering as to what belongs where. Scientz 16:42, 1 November 2005 (EST)


 * This "bickering", as you call it, is debate, one of the most important aspects of Wikipedia for decision-making. You suggest we segregate every perspective (even all the other religious ones?!) into a different article from the Christian one, entirely because you don't want us to have to deal with Christian views in writing about the rest, to stifle debate between Christians and non-Christians regarding Jesus and thus breed inaccuracy and inconsistency? It doesn't work that way. Every view must be presented equally, there's nothing special about "Christian" ones that they would merit being excluded from an article about every other perspective on Jesus. That's why all significant perspectives are included on Jesus, not just a certain set of them.
 * Jesus = all perspectives. Historical Jesus = historical perspectives. Christian views of Jesus = Christian perspectives. Much simpler and clearer, and has the advantage of not pretending that all Christians think "Jesus" was Jesus' real name (numerous ones don't), nor pretending that all historians think "Yehoshua ben Yosef" was Jesus' real name (numerous ones definitely don't). Article names should be based on what's clearest and the most common name, not the most accurate one. Article text is where issues of accuracy are dealt with; the name is purely a matter of, and should not be used to try to promote a specific POV, as you seem to want to do with Yehoshua ben Yosef.
 * Since such a large number of people have already complained about the YbY article, why don't you turn that page into a redirect and move it to your userspace if you want to continue working on it, somplace like User:Scientz/Yehoshua. Once it's off the main article space, you'll have as much time as you want to work on it uninterrupted without having to simultaneously deal with the organizational issue. Though, again, just incorporating the information into pre-existing articles and improving the articles we have is what I advise you to do. If you have so much information on the "Jesus" figure, why do you insist on hiding it all on a new article rather than reading and contributing to the articles hundreds of editors have worked on producing? -Silence 05:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * having the two separate articles is peculiar, suggesting as it does that there are two people. The split looks very close to a PoV-fork.  I support the merge. --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 12:55, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Are you supporting the merge Scientz proposed, or the one I did? Having distinct articles for "Yehoshua ben Yosef" and "Jesus" is the option that would tend to confuse people about whether there were two different people or not, but I don't want to assume. -Silence 13:26, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Everyone, please calm down!
I have read the article and all the comments and I must say that there is such a load of passionate infighting. It seems to be such an aspect of human nature and a shame such energy cant be used more productively. In the words of Joseph Campbell "Love your enemy".

Having been raised as a Catholic, I am certainly not afraid to learn that some aspects of Jesus or Joshua's life are not enshrined in my religion. I am also not afraid to learn that many aspects of my religion did not eminate in either the Old Testiment or the New Testiment. An example is the Ten Commandments... they are simply a repeted set of civilised codes which can be found in earlier cultures such as the Egyptian Book of the Dead or the Babylonian Law codes or even earlier Sumerian Laws. Infact much of Genesis can be found in earlier texts such as the Sumarian Epic of Gilgamesh. My religion is an extension of human civilisation, I will be judged upon judgement day for my activities. To read something which conflicts with my beliefs, is less offensive to me than the idea of censorship of information. We were given free will from God, it is ours to choose what we follow, believe or have faith in.

So my suggestion is, why not have everything on this page. Or if thats not practical, then have a disembarque page. I have the strenght to read and the strenght to believe. This afterall is an encyclopedia, not a religious book. So merge the lot. Keep up the good work.


 * There really isn't any proof that the Ten Commandments are just a repeated set of civilised codes from earlier cultures nor does similarities between books (such as Genesis and non-semitic books) necessitate one party hving gotten it from another, etc. The problem with the whole concept of the 'historical Jesus' is far from embracing Christianity it voids the very actions and thoughts of Christiantiy.  For example, if Jesus was just something of an ignorant carpenter who got some people mad at him and died then it makes no sense that thousands of people within the lifetime of Jesus would die horrendous deaths including those people who knew him. The "Historical Jesus" has several presupisitions which don't at all seem self-evident to me.  For example the idea that no one who wrote the Gospels had any personal knowledge of Jesus and, for another example,that we can distiguish between what is fantastical and what is historical in the gospels.  Is there really such a large break between what we can know of Jesus through the socialogical, archeological, and literative fields and what the traditions passed down and written down by Christians can tell us?  One thing seems certain to me: the people in the first and second century really believed what they were writing and saying.  One doesn't die for a "Christ-experience," that is if one doesn't believe that the experience has its roots in truth.  Sometimes I wonder how much of the conclusions our conclusions comes from our examination of the documents and the evidence and how much comes from our desire to discredit the demoninant religion of Western culture for 1600 years.  It makes sense that people do wish to discredit something which had been so fixed within the social framework, but it doesn't make sense to do that at the expense of substituting one conjecture for another conjecture.  Instead of presenting what appears on this page as if it were historical fact (which of course its not, no more, that is, than the raising of Lazarus from the dead is historical fact), perhaps this pge could be converted into a discussion of the principal contributors to the Historical Jesus theory and their beliefs.  It is innapriate for an encyclopedia to adopt a position with regard regard to this issue at least without providing the evidence, arguements and responses. One major problem that the people here seem to have not addressed is that fact that not all who maintain the historicity of the Gospels are bumbling idiots nd likewise that the interpretations maintained by some socialogists and historians are not historical fact.  This article seems to treat people who think of the accounts of the gospels as historical as ignorant barbarians.  As the things covered here are not facts (one way or the other) they ought not to be presented as a factual survey but as arguements and solutions and those people who suggested the arguements and solutions.

Please calm down Part 11
I havnt signed this (above text and this) as I am new to Wikipedia, so if someone can tell me how to do that, I will be happy to do so in the future.

But I did want to add to the above by saying that Jesus spoke Aramaic not Arabic, so if those who prefer referring to him as Yoshua Ben Yosef, which is Arabic, be careful as that page ma never be searched for due to the inaccuracy, better using the Aramaic correct form of his name: Yēšûa[] bar Yosef.
 * You can sign by typing: --~
 * But that will only give your IP address number as a signature. Go here: Special:Userlogin to make an account.  Accounts are free and basically just help you and others keep track of what you do on wikipedia.--Bkwillwm 05:57, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

So the fact that a fictional character
Gets a 'historical' article, pretty much means we're endorsing christianity, and that the encylopedia is endorsing the view that a diety in the christian religion exists


 * I think it's a bit premature to call Jesus a fictional character. It's true that all the evidence for his existence is heresay, but this doesn't mean that he didn't exist. I don't think the circumstantial evidence for his existence can be dismissed--although it's nearly impossible to (honestly) maintain that his alleged life is accurately reflected in the gospels. It's also possible that Jesus was a conflation of several real-life messianic figures.


 * I do find it odd, however, that a historical article would glibbly dismiss this controversy by saying it "presumes the historicity of Jesus." How can we determine what is historical in such a context? --Cousin Ricky 19:16, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It's definitely premature to call Jesus a fictional character! That is just the POV of one anonymous user, who has already called someone else a troll... There are encyclopedia articles about the historical Buddha and Zoroaster, whose existence can not be absolutely proven, or might be challenged by some - does this mean the encyclopedia is "endorsing" the religions named after them as well?  For that matter, a skeptic can easily pick any figure who ever lived in the past and claim that he never existed, and that all evidence he did is just some kind of mass conspiracy.  Muhammad isn't in the clear just because they claim to have locks of his hair - how are you going to "prove" whose hair it was?  If your faith is that tiny, there's no point in having any encyclopedia, or in believing anything exists outside your own four walls. ፈቃደ 19:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Whether or not Jesus was a historical figure is discussed at Historicity of Jesus

Maybe
Man should look to not each other for truth.

Helpful for people studying theology
In my theology textbooks, these are treated as independent subjects (I know my descriptions are very rough.): (1) The historical Jesus - the idea of Jesus as constructed by historical, critical methods (2) The historicity of Jesus - the discussion about the accuracy of claims about Jesus (3) Religious views of Jesus - religious (esp. Christian) ideas about Jesus and his significance

For that reason, I'm glad that these are currently treated as different topics here. It has made it very easy for me to locate specific information.

Disappointing article and misleading title
Retelling the New Testament story hardly can be defined as presenting a view of the "historical" Jesus. Most disappointing article that is not historically accurate at all, but a rehash of the New Testament which can hardly be labelled as "historically accurate".

Seems to advocate Jehovahs Witnesses more than Catholicism.


 * The first paragraph of the article is very confusing as well as grammatically incorrect. It doesn't explain what the difference between the Historicity of Jesus and Historical Jesus are as it contrasts with the Biblical Jesus. The first paragraph of the article implies that the Historical method is used, but that article states that validity of sources is part of this process. This article assumes the NT is historically accurate and goes from there with no question of sources. I know this stuff is covered in the Historicity of Jesus which to me would make that article truer to the historical method.


 * If no one else does I shall read round the articles and attempt a new opening paragraph for this one to clarify the differences and point people in the directions they are interested in. Since it currently looks like the aftermath of an edit war I thought I should start a discussion. SOPHIA 18:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

pov fork
should be merged with Historicity of Jesus, since it has exactly the same scope. dab (&#5839;) 16:19, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
 * sorry, I just realized that this is properly linked as a sub article from there. Make sure to link the governing article prominently. dab (&#5839;) 16:24, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

removed NDE claim.
I removed this:


 * Evan Powell has proposed that Jesus may have undergone a Near-Death Experience.

since it doesn't seem like a notable viewpoint. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ben Standeven (talk &bull; contribs).

Please clarify what is "notable" and what is not. What are the criteria? If "notable" means "worthy of notice," Powell's certainly is, being a compromise halfway position between the insistence on the reality of the Resurrection and its negation. - Das Baz, 3/3/06, 10:31 AM.


 * NDE is simply not a plausible explanation, given the fact that according to the manuscript evidence of the Gospel accounts, Jesus was professionally executed by professional executioners, who knew a dead man when they saw one. This also puts paid to serious consideration of the "swoon theory" as a valid interpretation of the evidence. Brendano 15:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Vegetarianism of Jesus
The debate on whether Jesus was a vegetarian or not is one that started over 1900 years ago, with the Ebionites insisting that Jesus was a strict vegetarian, while Mark insisting that Jesus "declared all foods to be clean" and "it is not what goes in that defiles, but what comes out." Even Mark, however, never shows Jesus eating red meat, and it is more likely that Jesus advocated vegetarianism because of compassion towards animals rather than because of concerns about ritual purity.

The question is closely tied with that of the degree of relation of Jesus with Yaakob (Yacov, "James," Iakobos). All ancient church historians agree that Iakobos was a strict Vegan, and was one from childhood, which implies his parents raised him that way. If Yeshua and Yaakob were full brothers or even just half-brothers, it would be very probable that Yeshua was also raised to be a Vegan. If they were only stepbrothers or cousins, that argument is very much weakened.

There is also the question of "What would Jesus eat?" - but that is a matter for practical theology, not history. - Das Baz, 3/3/2006, 10:40 AM.


 * This is pretty suspect. It's hard to imagine an observant Jew in 2nd-Temple Jerusalem celebrating the Seder without partaking of the Paschal lamb.  Also, please provide a citation for the claim that James was a vegan.  Brendano 15:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

my vacation from wiki, my work on this page
I have been on vacation from wiki, in part because I moved to another city. In the coming month of February I may be able to finish my proposed revision at User:Peter Kirby/Historical Jesus. Your feedback would be appreciated. --Peter Kirby 18:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)