Talk:Jesus/Archive 10

Aramaic &#1497;&#64298;&#1493;&#1506; &#1502;&#64298;&#1497;&#1495; Y&#275;&#353;ûa&#703; M&#257;&#353;îa&#7717;)
In which ancient Aramaic documents is Jesus referred to as &#1497;&#64298;&#1493;&#1506; &#1502;&#64298;&#1497;&#1495; / Y&#275;&#353;ûa&#703; M&#257;&#353;îa&#7717;)? Or is this a modern phrase? Jayjg 15:20, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * If this is a modern phrase, or a deliberate anachronism, then it doesn't belong in this article. Any responses? Jayjg 16:04, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't Latin make more sense than Aramaic? I don't seem to be getting much response here. Jayjg 18:06, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * It appears to assume that the first followers of Jesus spoke Aramaic and that therefore this is the original from which we get other translations. But, since the record comes to us in the lingua franca, Greek, Aramaic is not the source language that we get "Jesus Christ" from, and so it doesn't belong in the lead of the article.  Mkmcconn &mdash; 18:32, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I have put the Aramaic spelling in the "Names and Titles" section, but noted that this from modern scholarship, not an ancient source. Also added to the main "Names and Titles" article. (Hopefully that keeps it from reappearing in the intro...) Mpolo 06:50, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)


 * Seems sensible to me. --GRutter 08:16, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Your change looks good to me as well, though I doubt it will stop it from reappearing in the intro. Jayjg 14:14, 25 Aug 2004 (UTC)

More on Yeshua
The article states:


 * The Greek form is a transliteration of the Aramaic name Yeshua (&#1497;&#1513;&#1493;&#1506;), a short form of Hebrew Yehoshua (&#1497;&#1492;&#1493;&#1513;&#1506;), the name that Moses gave to his successor as leader of the Israelites, who is known in English as Joshua.

On what basis does it make this claim? We know that the Greek form is a transliteration of Yehoshua, since the Septuagint translates Yehoshua that way in both the Old and New Testaments. But how do we know that it is the transliteration of Yeshua? And why do we assume that Yeshua is an Aramaic short form of Yehoshua? It's used as a Hebrew name in Chronicles.

Furthermore, the article states (ambiguously):


 * The Name means the Lord is salvation, literally Yahweh saves.

Which "Name" does this mean? Certainly not Yeshua, which means "Salvation". Jayjg 19:59, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I've wondered about this myself. The name is canon in the Messianic movement, which is the source that most Christians learn it from; but I don't know if there is a document source behind this reasoning, or if its credibility has been established in some other way.  Mkmcconn &mdash; 20:11, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * I'm going to fix this section. Jayjg 21:38, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Icon is of Jesus, not Jesus Christ?
Jayjg, you picked a good example to illustrate what concerns me. Is this Christian icon an icon of "Jesus" and not an icon of "Jesus Christ"? What is more correct about "Jesus", that motivates you to fix the subtext? It's that motivation that draws attention to your edits and raises concern, for me. Boiled down that edit translates as "Jesus is not Jesus Christ": are you following me at all? Mkmcconn &mdash; 00:42, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * The usage in the article is "Jesus". We know exactly which "Jesus" is being referred to.  What does the word "Christ" add in this already cramped caption? Jayjg 04:41, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * The answer to that question goes back to what icons are, I suppose. The bible in his hand means something.  The &Chi; in the top right corner means something.  And what it means, summing up, is not "this is what Jesus looked like"; but "this is Christ".  Anyway, the reason that the article says "Jesus, Jesus" everywhere, is because the pluralism police have already come through to make the article politically correct, long ago.Mkmcconn &mdash; 04:47, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * In particular, the &Chi; in the top right corner is the first letter of the Greek for "Christos" which in English is generally transliterated as "Christ". Since the icon is labeled "Jesus Christ" by the &Iota; and &Chi;, surely it would be NPOV to reflect that in the caption? Wesley 05:57, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

After actually looking at the caption, I agree with Jayig that it is rather cramped. By straying from just describing the image, it threatens to grow into an entire sidebar or something. Besides restoring "Christ" to the caption, I changed "Turkish" to "Byzantine", since the Turks were and are iconoclasts. If not for the spaced issue, I would further amend the caption to say that the way Jesus Christ is depicted is also influenced by the artist's theology. For instance, to use this one as an example, someone who didn't believe in Christ's divine nature would be unlikely to add a halo. But better I think would be to remove that comment entirely and just use the caption for labeling. BTW, the &Iota; for "Iesous" in the top left corner apparently got cropped at some point. Wesley 06:13, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Good points; editing the description to reflect that. Jayjg 06:14, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I won't quibble with the awkward "as the", because it fits in this context.  Mkmcconn &mdash; 06:23, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The Article on Jesus is Too Long!
The article is too long and needs to be broken up into separate pages for the topics addressed, and even perhaps those pages need to be broken up by point of view if all points of view are to get as much space as is given to the historical view of Jesus that dominates the article currently. Further, some of the material on the historicity of Jesus is duplicated, the same material already appearing on a page devoted to that topic. ChessPlayer 00:33, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I suggest that if you feel a point of view is underrepresented that you take the task of writing more about it yourself, adding to the page or proposing here. Be bold in editing!  Others will mercilessly edit what you add, but that is a good thing.  (You will be able to mercilessly edit, as well.)  As long as you properly contextualize whatever point of view you wish to report on by reporting it as a view held by a particular person or group, I do not think you will see any opposition. Jdavidb 15:06, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Personally, though, I do not feel that any point of view is underrepresented in this article at present. I certainly disagree with your assertion that the article is slanted toward pro-Christian; perhaps the reason the Christian point of view is so represented is because Christians have the most to say about Jesus?  There's no rule that each point of view must be covered at equal length.  If you feel a point of view is so inadequately covered as to give it short shrift, you are very encouraged to add to it.  I also feel the pro-Christian point of view is not nearly so well-represented on this page as the critical scholarship point of view.  (Please see my other comments on this talk page today for more about these two points of view; the critical scholarship point of view is decidedly NOT pro-Christian!) Jdavidb 15:06, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Splitting sections into separate articles will do nothing to give certain sections more space. The way to get more space for other topics is to write more, not move stuff around. Also, it's generally not a good idea to devote any article to a particular POV; articles should be devoted to a subject, and NPOV is often achieved by presenting different balancing Points of View, with appropriate attributions. That's what the editors of the present article have tried to do, though there's almost always room for improvement.


 * If material is actually duplicated on another page, perhaps it could be removed from here, or replaced with a brief sentence referring readers to the other page. If you tell us which other page contains the duplicate material, someone might even help you reduce the duplication. Wesley 16:31, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, material is duplicated; and there are already articles that treat the same subjects, only say different things because we have two different places the material is discussed; and we have large sections which are not about Jesus, but about historical methods, and this stuff belongs on its own page. Right now, as I have said before, the large amount of material first justifying the views of "the majority of historians" and then stating what they are in reference to Jesus, violates NPOV. There is more material on Jesus than there is about the game of chess, and if you look at chess you see how nicely it has been made into an overview page, with a nice table of contents to the material on chess. I think the Jesus page should work towards looking like this, or something similar. Anything but the trying to put a lot of material on this page, when there are so many other pages that also deal with closely related material. ChessPlayer 23:22, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

I disagree for two reasons. First, some articles are more contentious than others; it is absurd to compare Jesus with Chess. Not to offend anyone but I think a better comparison would be with an article on the Vietnam war. Although hypertext and links are one of the great things about wikipedia, we all know that many people do and will read articles without following all links. We must be sure to provide enough context. Second, although I agree in principle that we should avoid redundant articles, I do not think there is a lot of redundancy. For example, the two historical articles do not overlap much with material in this article. One reviews debates over whether or not Jesus really existed -- the historical section here is instead on how historians and other critical Bible scholars have reconstructed Jesus' life and work in terms of the historical context. Another reviews specific debates about documentary sources, which this article doesn't really go into detail about. Slrubenstein - Just one example of the duplication I refer to: Jesus page, The historicity of Jesus section: ''Moreover, the same professional, ancient historians generally agree that at least some of the source documents on which the Gospels are based were written within living memory of Jesus's lifetime. Historians therefore accept that the accounts of the life of Jesus in the Gospels provide a reasonable basis of evidence, by the standards of ancient history, for the historical existence of Jesus and the basic theology of his life and death.''

and again, a second time, on the Jesus page: '' Most scholars do not dispute that a person named Jesus, connected in some way to the events described in the Bible, once lived; they feel that evidence for Jesus' existence two thousand years ago is by historical standards fairly strong. The primary source of historical knowledge about Jesus is contained within the Christian Gospels which the majority of historians believe to have originated from sources written within living memory of Jesus.''

Cute. The same material, said in a different order in both passages. But, wait, it also appears a third time, this time on the Historicity of Jesus page:

'' Moreover, some historians believe that, if not the Gospels themselves, at least some of the source documents on which they may have been based were written within living memory of Jesus (see Q document). These historians therefore accept that the accounts of the life of Jesus in the Gospels provide a reasonable basis of evidence (by the standards of scholarship for events in ancient history) for the basic narrative of Jesus' life and death.''

and just in case the reader hasn't seen it, the Jesus page has on it yet again,

The majority of historians accept the New Testament as evidence for the historical existence of Jesus;

And of course it is mentioned in the introduction.

Do we really need this sort of duplication?

Now, contrast the Christian point of view on Jesus:

''Christian perspectives on Jesus Main articles: Jesus Christ as the Messiah and Messiah''

''Christianity is centered on the belief that Jesus is the savior of man. According to Christians, Jesus was born in Bethlehem to Mary. He preached the new covenant across Judea, which angered traditional Jews and disturbed the Romans as he was seen as a threat to public order. One of his twelve apostles, Judas, betrayed him; and later committed suicide in remorse. Jesus was crucified by the Romans. However, he rose from the dead three days later.''

That is all that is said, just a brief summary. The historical perspective not only goes on and on, but repeats itself, and then links to an article with the same subject title, which we are told is ok because the material is "different." Maybe so; I would be surprised if editors edited both pages identically. But since both pages have the same title, is there some cabal that nevertheless ensures they treat the subject differently, even though the titles are the same? But the point is, they claim to be the same, since they are called the same. So why does the historical section get so much space, and the Christian section (and other points of view) just a quick summary and a link? Is there some kind of implicit deal going on here, an agreement to give the Christian view its own pages, if they don't object to the "historical view of Jesus" arguing at length on the Jesus page that Jesus exists, as well as having a second page where the argument is treated yet again? Do we really need that? Do we need the "historical" view (which really it isn't, its instead just a subset view) taking up most of the Jesus page? I say this because it doesn't just appear in the "Historicity of Jesus" section, but its all over the rest of the sections, too. I say, get not only "The historicity of Jesus" stuff onto the " The historicity of Jesus" page where it belongs, but since almost nothing will be left if you remove all the comments giving the "historical" view from the Jesus page, make the page what it should be...a short introduction to the subject of Jesus, followed by an organised table of links to the various Jesus subtopics. ChessPlayer 10:26, 11 May 2004 (UTC)

I agree that this page is too long, so for starters I'd like to suggest the following:
 * Move the second and following paragraphs under the contents bar and name the new section Introduction (or similar)
 * Move most of the "Names and titles of Jesus" section to a new page and summarise here.
 * Move virtually all of the "Dramatic portrayals of Jesus" to a new page and summarise.

What do people think? --GRutter 15:52, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Sounds reasonable to me. Jayjg 00:20, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * Done. Suggestions for what should be done next? --GRutter 21:07, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I want to add more to the "Life and Teachings" section; to that end, I recommend summarizing the content on the pages that deal with Jesus from a historical perspective ("Dates of Birth and Death", sections 7-9) and moving it. It is more important, I think, to discuss his impact on Christianity and history in general in an encyclopaedia article than to argue whether or not he existed, when he would have existed, how accounts conflict, etc. Brutannica 23:43, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * P.S.: Could "Dates of Birth and Death" be renamed "Lifespan?"


 * No it couldn't be renamed "Lifespan". First of all, "Lifespan" seems a far less common term when reading biographies in general. Second, Jesus' actual lifespan has no beginning or end, beginning before time itself and still existing when time has ceased. This is different than discussing the dates of his human birth and death. Wesley 04:15, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree that "Dates of Birth and Death" is preferable. Yes, the creation of an article on "The Historicity of Jesus" might be a good way of shortening this article. --GRutter 07:47, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I have moved most of that information to Chronology of Jesus' Birth and Death (then noticed the capitalization faux pas, which I don't know how to fix easily, sorry) and simultaneously merged the similar information out of Christmas. I also updated the template "Jesus". Mpolo 08:42, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

There are two sections (with different focuses, admittedly) discussing the Historical Jesus. The sections are actually more complete than the linked Main Article. Shouldn't these be merged? Mpolo 10:22, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)


 * I realized that the "Historical Jesus" is a completely different critter than the "Historicity" section. I moved most of the historicity stuff to Historicity of Jesus and left the "Historical Jesus", though much of that should probably get its own page. The page was 36KB at last count. Mpolo 10:49, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes, I agree that it should get its own page, but make the remaining material detailed enough so the reader doesn't get the impression that he's reading a pageful of summaries, O.K.? Otherwise, good work. Brutannica 19:07, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I added a little more on "Historicity" in the main article so as to avoid the "page of summaries" thing. If I get more time today, I'll have a stab at the "Historical Jesus" part. Please check POV on the stuff I added (since I obviously have a POV, I may have skewed toward mine or against mine in reaction...) Mpolo 07:57, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)


 * I've shortened the "Historical Jesus" section and changed it to "Historical background". It probably needs shortening further though, and perhaps moving to a "Historical background of Jesus" page (preferably with a better name!)- maybe with sections on the different Jewish branches, etc on. Just a thought. --GRutter 14:37, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I've removed the statement "Short of sensational new archeological discoveries" from the (much better!) "Historicity of Jesus" section, mainly because I can't think of any discoveries that would actually make any difference to people's opinions! If you can, feel free to put it back in, with an example or two! I hope that this is OK. --GRutter 15:11, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The new "Cultural and historical background" section and article looks really good. --GRutter 19:46, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

One of the best NPOV articles I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Congratulation. One note for the "portrayal"section: any objection to include Pasolinis remarkable workpiece into it. IMHO, it has much more depth (and even more faith, but this is POV) than Gibson's torture movie.--80.133.107.154 07:08, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)


 * I think that Pasolini's film is great, but used Gibson's as it was a recent controversial example. --GRutter 14:37, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)