Talk:Jesus/Archive 108

2nd paragraph citation needed
The second paragraph says "The principal sources of information regarding Jesus' life and teachings are the four canonical gospels..." I don't think that this clause is true, and I'd like to see a citation for it. I'd put a fact tag on it, but I figure I'll give people a heads-up first. For a critical scholar, the synoptics are the principal sources of information, filled with historically reliable words and deeds of Jesus. Of them, only Matthew and Luke have substantial teachings of Jesus. John is too different from the synoptics to be used as a parallel source, at least without the guidance of the Holy Spirit. For Catholics, the Church is the principal source of information, as only the Church has the divinely inspired role of interpreting Scripture. The idea that individuals should turn to the original texts in order to derive Jesus' biography is a humanistic idea championed during the Reformation, not traditional practice. A citation would solve this issue by letting the reader know who thinks that the four canonical Gospels are the principal source of information on Jesus' life. Leadwind (talk) 16:01, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with you, sort of, but see no need for edit or for a citation. For most historians it is indeed the three synoptics that are the principal source, but for many believing Christians John is a source as well.  That Catholics rely on the interpretations of the Church is beside the point - the Church itself is interpreting the Gospels when it comes to the Church's claims about Jesus' life.  We are talking about the sources used by people who make interpretations (whether EP Sanders or the pope).  Since we are making a general statement we need to be inclusive.


 * I think the body of the article can go into the details you raise, e.g. specify that some rely more heavily on the synoptics, others do not. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 16:23, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I wonder what are the sources that are supposed to outdo the four canonical gospels (even John) as the principal sources of information regarding Jesus' life and teachings. They must of course be properly interpreted, using whatever tools are available.  But the statement stands unless some better source or sources can be specified.  Soidi (talk) 17:37, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * SLR, we half agree with each other, not a bad start. Here's what I would say instead, "The New Testament Gospels are the primary source for the traditional biography of Jesus Christ," and then have the disclaimer for scholars of historical Jesus not respecting canonical boundaries. Or "The New Testament Gospels are the primary source for the traditional biography of Jesus, but historians prefer the three synoptic gospels over John." That's way more informative. The lead is supposed to be able to stand alone as a concise summary of the topic, so we should try to get as much as we can into the lead. Leadwind (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Soidi, you want me to name any historical source that, as an adjunct to the synoptics, is a better source about Jesus' life than John? How about Josephus? I reckon that historians would do a better job basing a biography of Jesus on the synoptics plus Josephus than synoptics + John. But that's unfair, because the synoptics on their own are a better source than the synoptics plus John. John is loaded with historical disinformation (Jesus' travels to Jerusalem, the timing of the cleansing of the temple, Jesus' ministry of baptism, his teachings, his miracles). But I'm confused about how you can say that the statement stands unless I can satisfy your opinion. Isn't it WP policy to cite information? If it's so clear that these four are the best, just find an expert who agrees with you. Should be easy. Leadwind (talk) 20:58, 4 January 2009 (UTC)


 * As far as i know most scholars consider Josephus a very poor source about Jesus, although an important source about 1st century Roman occupied Palestine and Galillee. In any event, the sentence in question is generic - it is not specifically making a claim about the usefulness of the sources to historians.  it is inclusive, it is meant to include historians, theologians, clerics and lay-people.  As I said, in the section on the historical Jesus we should definitenly specify that for historians the synoptics are the crucial sources.  I just see no need to get into this level of specificisty in the introduction. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 21:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * SLR, I agree that Josephus is a poor source about Jesus. It hardly says anything, and the text is corrupt. Even so, it helps the historian verify basic facts, whereas John simply misinforms. If you think the sentence is a good one, could you be troubled to offer a citation? And if you don't see a need to put more detail in the lead, is there some reason we shouldn't add more detail? Leadwind (talk) 23:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * To be frank, I am for as few citations in the introduction as possible: I think th introduction should summarize the body of the article, and the details, and citations, belong in the body. In extreme cases - especially when content of the article has been spun off to linked articles, as has happened here - there are sentences that are for some people highly controversial and contested that need citations up-front.  But I consider this an extreme situation.  I just do not consider it controversial that in this world all those people who look to Jesus' life for whatever reason look to one or all of the Gospels first (i.e. primarily or principally).  I know pious Christians and secular historians look at them very differently, and look to different Gospels for different reasons.  I just do not see this as controversial.  And I think the details can (and should) be spelled out in the body of the article that this intro, well, introduces.  When I am introduced to someone I do not expect to learn every nuance and mystery of their life ... just a suggestion of what may come if I were to get to know him or her better.  I view articles the same way. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 00:08, 5 January 2009 (UTC)


 * By the way, I have no strong objection to either of the sentences Leadwind has proposed ... I am simply explaining why I do not object to the current sentence. I don't think I have anything to add in terms of explaining myself to Leadwind, I would only ask him to solicit views from a wider group of people who have actively edited this article before making any change.  If everyone else likes Leadwind's suggestions, I certainly won't get in the way! Slrubenstein   |  Talk 00:11, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

No citation has been forthcoming. I've supplied one of my own, although mostly for the Synoptics, because that's what my sources support. Leadwind (talk) 01:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Does Brittanica's Jesus entry matter?
They notate the dates with BC/AD. Does this matter at all? I'm new to the discussion, but it would seem to raise the prestige of the article if it looked less like a battleground -- which BC/BCE makes it look like -- and more professional. If how Brittanica notates it matters not at all, then feel free to simply archive box this, and I'll move along. [Full disclosure: I'm something of a lapsed Protestant, so I truly have no ideological dog in this hunt.] SDJ 03:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Etymological corrections
Yeshu'a, in Hebrew, means simply "salvation". Yehosu'a means something quite similar to "God will rescue". Immanu-El is a Hebrew phrase and name, not Aramic. See the prophecy in the Book of Isaiah (Yesha'ayahu, in Hebrew), 7:14 - "Therefore the Lord Himself shall give you a sign: behold, the young woman shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.139.33.119 (talk) 05:31, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeshua doesnt "simply" mean salvation. The derivation is more complex. Literally, it means "God (Yahu) is a saving-shout (shua)": in other words, if you call out for God, God will rescue you. (Just like if you call out the name "police", the police will rescue you.) But even in ancient times, it was interpreted more loosely to mean "God is salvation". Indeed, Immanu-El is Hebrew, the article was corrected and relocated to the Names and Titles section. Haldrik (talk) 08:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Brown Driver Briggs puts as the first translation "deliverer" - it certainly does not necessarily connote "savior" or "salvation" - I think "rescue" is a very good gloss for the word and I am pretty sure others have made this point. I think the first context of the Bible is meant to make the point that it was God, and not just Joshua, who delivered victory to the Israelites in their military campaign against the Canaanites.  In the Hebrew Bible, God is saving the nation from its enemies ... I think the concept that God is saving the individual from sin emerged much, much later. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It takes a journey through the desert to turn priests into mystics. the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 19:49, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And I thought it took a journey through the desert to turn slaves into priests! ;) Slrubenstein  |  Talk 20:38, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Skip ahead a few chapters. It gets better :) the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 21:23, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
 * SLR, "Rescue" sounds right. Leadwind (talk) 01:25, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

what the pope says about historical Jesus
Benedict says that Jesus "explodes" historical concepts. Catholic author G. K. Chesterton said much the same thing in The Everlasting Man (1925). C. S. Lewis mocked using the historical approach for scripture. Benedict doesn't say that Jesus is a historical figure in the general sense that he was a creature of history, someone shaped by historical forces the way any mortal is. He says that Jesus Christ of the the Church is real, but that's different from "historical" just like it's different from "scientific." If he said that the historical Jesus project is a valid one that should end up with the Jesus Christ of faith as its finding, a page number would help. Leadwind (talk) 23:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

And I'm open to rewording it. The point is that the pope rejects the historical-critical project of describing Jesus Christ as if He were a mortal. That's basically where Chesterton and Lewis were at. I don't want a separate "criticism of historical Jesus efforts" section, but I don't mind summarizing the apologist viewpoint. Leadwind (talk) 23:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I am with you on this one. Let's see if anyone can provie any notable sources to the contrary. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 00:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Stop it, SLR. You're confusing me. :-) Leadwind (talk) 00:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

A link for those following along. Here's what the pope said on the historical-critical method, historical Jesus, etc. Leadwind (talk) 00:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

75.209.244.15 (talk) 06:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I rewrote this text because it was wordy and vague: "Other scholars hold that the real Jesus, the "historical Jesus" in the proper sense of the term is the Jesus of the Gospels, that from the historical point of view this presentation of him is more understandable than the reconstructions that have been offered in recent decades." Quite specifically, the pope and Chesterton reject the so-called historical Jesus project, and we should tell our reader so. I respect another editor's desire to have the pope's criticism portrayed favorably, so I'm willing to work on a more favorable version of my sentence. It just has to be more informative that the one I replaced. Leadwind (talk) 19:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

The latest version is well-written and OK. I wish the text said clearly that the pope rejects the Historical Jesus project because our readers deserve clear information, but the current version is so much better than what we started with that I'm inclined to go with it. Leadwind (talk) 01:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Twice
I've included two rather well known and easily found elements from the Gospel stories, otherwise omitted in the article. With so many of you swarming, that's a sorry oversight.
 * Anybody willing to include whatever else is missing, your work would be appreciated ^^ the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 15:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This article is about Jesus, not the Gospels. All that matters in the Gospel accounts are those things directly concerning Jesus that has been considered significant either by historians, theologians, clerics, etc. It is not our task (nor do we have room) to include everything in the Gospels.  If people want to know what else they say, it is very easy for them to just read the Gospels. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Certainly, only information bolstering what is already included or directly relating to the life of Jesus should merit inclusion. Chill. the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 17:14, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It's January! I'm chillin'! Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Judaism's view
I removed the section in the intro because it provides a distorted and overly simplistic account of the Jewish view. Another encyclopedia is not a good source in this case, aside from being another tertiary source it is out-dated and limited in its scope.

I have no objection to summarizing the Jewish view in the introduction, but let's do it right. The introduction should summarize the article. We have a decent article on Jewish views of Jesus, which is itself summarized in this article; these are based on far better research than a line from another encyclopedia. If we want to summarize the Jewish view, let's summarize what this article goes on to say, which should be a summary of what the linked Wikipedia article already says. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 00:30, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm glad the edit provided some sort of catalyst ^^ the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 10:08, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I see there was a back and forth on whether the statement "Jews don't think Jesus is God" is relevant considering that hardly anybody else does, either, so I changed it to reference the Messiah issue, where Christians claim to have the Jewish Messiah and the Jews naturally disagree. Leadwind (talk) 18:37, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

IIII am fine with your edit - I think the key issue is that Jesus and his first followers were Jews, and some part of "the Jewish view" is important for understanding how Christianity became a separate religion, an event that had a huge impact on what we know of Jesus, and arguments about the historical Jesus versus religious views of Jesus. I think you pinpointed the critical issue. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 19:06, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Leadwind (talk) 19:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps this is the best way to go. No use cluttering the article with matters of inconsequence. the roof of this court is too high to be yours (talk) 21:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Good work Slrubenstein. It works for me. -- Storm  Rider  22:29, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thomas < Luke
"some scholars argue that other texts (such as the Gospel of Thomas) are as relevant as the canonical gospels to the historical Jesus." Amy-Jill Levine, The Oxford History of the Biblical World, New York, Oxford University Press, 1999, p 371, Chapter 10: Visions of Kingdoms: From Pompey to the First Jewish Revolt (63 BCE-70 CE), M. Coogan et al. (eds.)

This statement can't be right. Thomas doesn't have any narrative. How can it compare to a gospel like Luke? Thomas might be better than John, but it's not on par with the synoptics. Leadwind (talk) 01:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I find the claim incredible too. I do not have the Oxford History of the Biblical World but could someone check the reference?  I find it hard to believe Thomas is even dated pre-70 CE.  No major historian of Jesus that I know of has ever used Thomas, and all the major work on Thomas I know of uses it to comment on the history of the early Church, not on Jesus. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 14:44, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, I checked -- Google books has page 371 and it does say this - which this explanation: it includes many sayings of Jesus that match those in the Synoptics. It does not provide a citation as to which scholars.  Google Books does not include pages 372 and 373, so there is no way to know how the author herself concludes this discussion.  Frankly, this is why I think Google Books is a terrible thing.  Instead of going to libraries and reading whole books, book-chapters or articles, and understanding a quote in its context, it just makes it possible to quote things out of context.  There is no way to tell whether this is a minority or fringe view, or even what point the author is trying to make.  Maybe scholars conclude that the author of Thomas had and relied on Matthew or Mark?  Who knows?  I have no objection if Leadwind or anyone else deletes this.  Slrubenstein   |  Talk 14:50, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thomas is a sayings gospel, potentially older than Mark or based on a compilation of sayings used also by Mark. Its largest promoter is the Jesus Seminar, for example in their "The Five Gospels", the fifth gospel is Thomas. 75.0.4.202 (talk) 20:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This is helpful. But could we have a citation for Funk or Crossan or someone else specifying that it is the Jesus Seminar that largely holds this view? thaat would help a lot! Slrubenstein   |  Talk 21:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have those books at home and I can check on a reference. I know the JS was purposely trying to be controversial with the whole Five Gospels thing and that they don't find many authentic words in Thomas and those they do find almost always agree with Lk or Mt, but I was going to mention that as well before 75.0.4.202 mentioned it. Also, Crossan finds a lot of useful historical content in the Gospel of Peter, but he is basically the only scholar who does. I'll see if I can't find more citations in a little bit.-Andrew c [talk] 23:39, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
 * JS finds Thomas useful, with two authentic parables not found elsewhere. But even for them it's still not on par with Mark, Luke, or even Matthew. They describe Thomas as written in two editions, one pre-Mark (c 50-60) and the other (the surviving version) c 100-150. I wouldn't mind a more inclusive clause than this one, something like, "and historians use various other ancient sources as well." That includes Thomas, Tacitus, Josephus, even Peter for Crossan fans. Leadwind (talk) 00:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not clear to me that the Jesus Seminar ranked primary sources, but perhaps they did, and if they did, based on number of red sayings the order would be: Matthew 13, Luke 12, Thomas 5, Mark 2, Egerton Gospel 1, Didache 1. See also .75.15.199.153 (talk) 18:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * JS did not literally rank primary sources. Thanks for the hard stats. In addition to Jesus' sayings, which you reference here, the gospels relate Jesus' biography. Thomas has nothing on Jesus' baptism, table fellowship, Temple incident, crucifixion, or resurrection appearances. Given both words and deeds, I think JS would favor Mark over Thomas. For that matter, JS references Paul's letters as historical sources, not for sayings but for biography. Paul's letters are the earliest surviving written records about Jesus, aren't they? Leadwind (talk) 18:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Probably, but they don't say much about Jesus, not surprising given Paul never met Jesus in person. 75.15.199.153 (talk) 20:33, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, "Jesus' biography" is the "Acts of Jesus", which the Jesus Seminar rated as follows: Mark, Mathew and Luke: 5 red each; Gospel of the Ebionites 1 red; Oxyrhynchus Gospels 1 red; 1 Corinthians 1 red. 75.15.199.153 (talk) 20:50, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

JESUS Christ's great paradox.
Often overlooked is the "Jesus Christ's great Paradox", "that which you do unto the least of mine, you do unto mine." ....something about when i was sick you visited me, when i was in prison you visited me...

Seems this is very, very critical to the 'balance' of Gods word through Christ and how to deal with 'the least of'...

[http://books.google.ca/books?id=EG8XAAAAIAAJ&pg=RA1-PT201&dq=Jesus+Christ+That+which+you+did+to+the+least+of+mine+you+did+unto+me. The Works of Saint Augustine] --Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 18:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This article is not about Christ, it is about Jesus, see Christology. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 18:40, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Corrected title ?

--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 01:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Um, do you want to specify how many "Jesus Christs" you are talking about? (Also, which gods, since you mention many?)  And the point remains, material on any christs belongs in the article on Christology.  Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:40, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

We pay so much attention to details except the important ones...

(Changed Christs to Christ's )

--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 21:46, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Restores Marriage.
I hope no one removes this important and timely addition, however, if they so choose, I have included a copy here for discussion for inclusion...


 * Christ also restored marraige to its original unity, created by God as the union of one man and one woman. In Mathew xix, 4-6 He says, he says, "Have ye not read tht He who made man in the beginning made them male and female ? And they two shall be in one flesh, Therefore now they are not two, but one Flesh." .[ref]''Marriage Restored to Unity and Indissolubity, Handbook of the Crhistian Religion, Rev. W. Wilmers, S.J., pages 372,373, BENZIGER BROTHERS, NEW YORK 1891[/ref]

--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 18:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

This edit is problematic for a number of reasons. First of all, you put it as the second paragraph of the "Teachings and preachings" section, between kingdom of heaven/prayer and attracting large crowds. This gives the illusion of priority, that Jesus' opinion on marriage is one of the most important, defining aspects of his ministry. I'd challenge you to find enough scholars that suggest that this was on the top of their lists when summarizing Jesus' ministry to demonstrate the weight you have given this information. In fact, I'm not even sure the interpretation you presented is universally accepted (among historians or theologians). In fact, what I believe this edit has done is make a minor, disputed point seems like a Very Important Fact! On top of that, there are spelling mistakes, grammar errors, and so on. Keep in mind that this is a professional, live encyclopedia and we should strive for professionalism and quality (and therefore I would encourage you to copy edit your contributions better in the future). I believe your source is not prominent, nor is it discussing Jesus' ministry. The text may be better suited in the Christian views section, but it would also probably need to be balanced by other views. I think Christian views of marriage or even Traditional marriage movement could be better places to try to incorporate that info. I could be wrong though, I might have missed the prevalence historians and theologians give to Jesus' take on marriage, so perhaps you could supply additional sources so we can better contextualize the weight we should give this content. Thanks for bringing your concerns here to the talk page, and I urge you not to edit war any further, but instead continue this discussion and wait to see if a compromise or consensus can be reached.-Andrew c [talk] 23:24, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The observation is made that the deletion was made without any valid cause.

It appears that Christianity has come under attack by 'hostile elements' that have no real interest in the true message of Jesus Christ...

For years we have struggled with the definition of marriage and even today we find some 'sabotors' within the church who have their own personal agenda to corrupt it.

Well let us see what Mathew 19, 4-6 says.

Seems an important issue concerning the corruption within the church by some.--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 03:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Caesar, it would be helpful if you reviewed editing policies. You can write almost anything on Wikipedia if you have a reliable reference to support it. What you cannot do is say anything you want. For example, we do not quote scripture, a primary text, unless the meaning is absolutely clear and directly connected to what you are trying to say. What is needed is a reliable secondary source that interprets the scripture to say what you want. More importantly, in this current context your secondary source must state that it is of vital importance to Jesus. Do you understand? -- Storm  Rider  08:23, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a reliable source, so your accusation is false.


 * Just an observation, I have found over the past few years, that if i atempt to source some truths, they are censored or I am attacked or my listings attack, by whom....the records will speak for themselves.


 * I had my own Catholic Priest ignore and censor the truths that some radical lesbians had proliferated the social services, and then he went on to attack the Catholic Churchs definition of marriage, he later was ousted, he then proclaimed that he was gay. So here is a person who is suppose to represent 'the truth' deceptively hiding his gay agenda.  Which is fine, they too are people and must accomodated, but not to the point of concealing the hidden agenda and attacking the heterosexual community and The Church.

--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 17:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Stormrider, you and Andrew are being very kind, but with all due respect, give it up. Squitti has been here for years, and his only interest is using Wikipedia as a soapbox to preach his own philosophy.  He has been doing this for years and is not going to change.  he knows the policies, he just does not care. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a reliable source, in a book the above mentioned priest sold off...wonder why ?

Thanks for the advice, I will try to input this important information in the appropriate section.

I don't make mistakes,....Once I thought i was wrong, but i was mistaken....

--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 17:55, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

"Ahmadiyya views" should be merged
Sunni Islam is the majority and it’s not mentioned. I am wondering to merge all the sub Islamic views to one, “Jesus in Islam” section — Wiikkiiwriter (talk) 00:17, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

accuracy
I kind of understandLeadwind's problems with how this sentence had been phrased. But I have a problem with the replacement, "believe that ancient texts on Jesus' life are partially historical." The problem is, all of them are "historical" if we mean they are useful sources for historians. Those parts that historians reconstructing Jesus' life ignore as useless, are useful to historians of the early Church who are trying to document changing views of Jesus by early Christians. How about something like "Believe that some parts of the ancient texts on Jesus are useful for reconstructing his life" or something like this? I would rather let some others weigh in before making any change, and invite Leadwind to make the change as long as we all come up with something that reads well and is accurate. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 18:41, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * For now I've substituted SLR's suggestion, which is better. Leadwind (talk) 19:30, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeshua in lede
Slrub removed Yeshua from the lede. I pointed out that it is standard convention to include the original name in their native language in the lede, just after the English-Roman tranlsliteration. Thanks -Stevertigo 18:34, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeshua in the lede
I reverted this twice - i hope he will assume i did so in good faith. there is a reason why this article does not provide Jesus's "original" name in the lead. The fact is, this was discussed at great length. I will summarize a discussion that went on for many many days. First, Hebrew and Aramaic are two different languages, and it is at least as likely Jesus spoke Aramaic as Hebrew as his childhood language. Second, the sources we have on Jesus' life are all in Greek. Is it plausible that the Greek name is a transcription of an Aramaic name? I think so! But my analysis cannot go into an article, that violates NOR. Look at the article on Yeshu and you will see just how controversial Jesus' name in Aramaic is! These are all good reasons for keeping it out of the lead, we discussed them at length, and the article reflects the consensus. Please do not impose your own POV against consensus without first investigating why we reached that consensus that has been stable for so long. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 18:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you overstate how "different" Hebrew and Aramaic were. As I understand it, the common Jewish language was Aramaic, and what we call Hebrew was the formal, written, liturgical language of the religiously educated. I also think you are confusing Yeshu with Yeshua. The latter was his name - at least one form of it, while the former was a contracted form used in Midrash to (confusingly) indicate a pejorative meaning in reference to Yeshu(a) ha-Notzri. Indeed the Jewish usage of his name is a serious indication of the etymology, even if it were used as a pejorative. Indeed the Catholic Encyclopedia states the etymology clearly, (spelled with a J instead of a Y) and given its authority in scholarship we can of course accept that as a source. To dispute that, or to favor disputed sources, appears itself to be a kind of original research - one which seems inclined to dismiss the historicity of Jesus, rather than asserting otherwise.


 * There are eymological issues, true, but there is also the fact that the being we call Jesus had a name in human life, and that name was probably Yeshua, or something like it. Certainly a little archeology is involved, but there is always a certain historical variance and possible distortion, and that does not preclude us from using what most consider to be a reasonably accurate etymology of the name. Indeed some people might even call the usage of Yeshua än attack on the holy name of Jesus". As ridiculous as this point of view is, I tend to view similar views as just as unreasonable. -Stevertigo 19:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I must agree. This new addition is completely unsourced for starters. As SLR points out, the only source for Jesus' name is Greek. It seems unlikely that he, as a Galilean Jew, had a Greek name. So what was his name? Is there scholarly/historical agreement about this name? Are there differing religious views? This is discussed further in the article already at Jesus, and in various spin out articles. So do our already cited sources have a single name they all agree on that we should put in the lead? (no!) Archives 41, 48,49, 54, 63, 86, and 90 all presumably have past discussions on this topic, which lead us to our current state of not having various translations in the lead. Could Stevertigo please kindly respect that consensus and stop trying to force his preferred edit. I'd like to see new sources and hear arguments for why we should change the article. I might even be open for change. But this has to come through discussion and working together here on the talk page.-Andrew c [talk] 19:01, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Stevertigo's understanding of the difference between Hebrew and Aramaic is just plain wrong. As to the rest of his post, all I can make out is that he finds all points of view nonsensical so just prefers his own original research? Sorry, the web is full of places where people can spew their own BS ad nauseum. Wikipedia is not one of them. Whatever Stevertigo thinks was "probably" the case is just not Wikipedia's threshold for inclusion. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 19:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * And how is it you claim to understand the "difference" between Hebrew and Aramaic other than by interpretation of latter day scholarship (read creative or politicized interpretation). But that issue isn't really germane to the issue of including Yeshua in the lede. Indeed the Midrash usage of Yeshu(a) ha-Notzri is a serious indication of the etymology, even if it were used as a pejorative. If you want a serious source, the Catholic Encyclopedia states the etymology clearly, (spelled with a J instead of a Y) and I don't suppose you are challenging that source as "BS" are you? (My reference to that site was to indicate that their opposition was BS, not that I agreed cite it). To dispute that, or to favor disputed sources, appears itself to be a kind of original research - one which seems inclined to dismiss the historicity of Jesus, rather than asserting otherwise. -Stevertigo 19:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Um, because I have Alkalai's dictionary, read Chomsky's book, and took Biblical Hebrew in college as well as courses in Biblical and Second Temple History, so I have read a lot of scholarship on the topic. Yeshu in the Midrash and Talmud is not a serious indication of the etymology, only an indication of how complex and controversial the question of etymology is if you have studied 9as I have) the divergent understandings contemporary Rabbinic Literature scholars have of the Yeshu texts.

And while the Catholic Encyclopedia, like Wikipedia and other on-line encyclopedias, is a good starting point for research, it is not a substitution for rigorous research and not reliable on this point. The article itself equivocates on the "original" name, and provides no evidence or reasoning. Since it does not explain its evidence, I find it an unreliable source. It's only advantage is that being on line it is easy for any of us to access. But that is no substitute for walking to a library and reading real scholarship ... and guess what, editors of this article have done that!! Yup, and AndrewC kindly provided all the archives where we had extensive discussions. Those were serious discussions by people who knew the difference between Hebrew and Aramaic and did serious research. Let's not change consensus unless we have another serious conversation based on serious research.

As to your comment about my dismissing the historical Jesus, well all I can say is well-informed Wikipedians already know enough that I don't even need to respond to that.

Now, Steve, instead of bickering with me, why don't you just accept the fact tht your edit, while made in good faith, was ill-advised and when i reverted you it was based on my long experience working on this article and not a personal attack against you. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 19:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I see, so you own a Hebrew dictionary, have read a Modern Hebrew morphophonemic treatise, and took semi-historically reconstructed Hebrew in college. And from these you say there was such a difference between Hebrew and Aramaic that any related transcription or reconstructions thereof are invalid. And certainly, you have the authority of knowledge to dismiss even the encyclopedia administered by a two thousand year old institution, which has its own serious concepts of scholarship! Indeed it seems to be a battle between the rabbis and the priests as to what Jesus was all about, let alone whether or not he had a Hebrew and/or Aramaic name. -Stevertigo 19:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You asked me how it is that I understand the difference between Hebrew and Aramaic. Did you not want me to answer your question?  Do me a favor and in the future only ask a question when you are willing to read the answer.  And I did not say that my formal education was the reason I consider your reconstruction invalid.  Please read what I wrote, I very specifically said it violated NOR.  Your reconstructions, like mine or any other editors', simply do not go into Wikipedia articles.  I say this because I read our policies, not because I have read the Bible and Talmud in Hebrew and in Aramaic. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 20:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed reconstructions go into Wikipedia articles all the time, which makes the discussion of Hebrew transcription here ridiculously ironic. -Stevertigo 21:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * This is getting offtopic fast. Let's start over. It appears Stevertigo wants to propose adding "Hebrew-Aramaic ישוע Yeshua" to the lead. The only source mentioned so far is the Catholic Ency. I'm a little confused though, because that source uses J, not Y. So is the proposal with J or Y or both? If the proposal still stands as Y, then the Catholic Ency. cannot be used as a source to support that form.-Andrew c [talk] 19:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think a fair compromise would be to include Yehsua in the lede, but add a note-link to indicate the controversy. The controversy should be dealt with in more detail in the etymology section. The controversy in a nutshell is that there is scholarly disagreement as to 1, the historicity of Jesus, 2, the Hebrew identity of Jesus, 3, the transcription and transliteration of Jesus' claimed Hebrew name, 4, the transcription of Aramaic names in general, 5, the "reconstructed" aspects of indicating a Hebrew name for Jesus, and 6, the fact that a few (read some, many, or all) Jewish rabbi's dont like it, because it gives a heretical apostate a Hebrew name, when "his name and memory [should] be blotted out." Indeed, if we are to say the Catholic encyclopedia is "not reliable" there are errors even in Midrashic interpretation, and while we're at it, the yimmach shemo vezikhro (if even that is a good transliteration) is probably one of them. Note that Christian rabbis are less disinclined to use the term Yeshua, as it has gained in usage (reconstructed or not) and even at this mornings government function the name Yeshua was mentioned in a little speech.


 * Andrew, even Steven will probably agree that the distinction between "Jeshua" and "Yeshua" is largely if not entirely an issue of well-understood romanization, and therefore fairly trivial. The usage of J to indicate a Y sound is common in romance languages derived from Latin through Greek (Latin, which didn't even have a J - they both used an I for Iesus) Greek, which did have a Y, often used IE instead anyway.


 * (interpost); The Greek "Y" you claim existed was a U, "Upsilon" and had a sound value akin to ü (or the French u in sur). The palatal was represented in both Greek and Latin by "I" (J is a later invention).  Greek ofthen used "IE"?  Uh, no.  The e (an eta) is there because one existed in the Aramaic and was likely stressed as the eta implies stress.  Not sure where you're getting your info, but, well ... it's incorrect.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 18:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * And while we're at it, I can understand Steven's dislike for the concept that Hebrew and Aramaic are basically related. Indeed English scholars would be quick to point out that Ebonic is "not English", even though it's a well-understood (and quite wonderful) stylistic variant. The concept here is vernacular - something which language purists and formalists (of which there may be a few for Hebrew) dislike wholeheartedly. Vernacular language, for one, is more inclined to be inclusive of foreign concepts, while the administered theological language will be quite rejective and, um... ethnic.-Stevertigo 21:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I never, nowhere, said that hebrew and Amoraic are unrelated (they are even closer than Hebrew and Arabic); I just said they are different languages - please look up "different" and "unrelated" in a dictionary, you will see they are not the same thing (I am different from my sister, yet we are related!!) Steve continues to display his ignorance.  Both Hebrew and Aramaic were vernaculars, both were liturgical and scholarly languages too - English is a language just like Hebrew and Aramaic; it is used by people in shops and the bedroom, and by scientists and scholars, and by spiritual leaders.  Funny, isn't it.


 * And Hebrew is as inclusive of foreign terms as Aramaic or any language. Stevertigo's suggestion that it is more "inclusive" and thus "ethnic" is just another example of the veiled antisemitic slur I have heard from him in the past, although I had hoped he had changed.


 * Steve continues to misconstrue the controversy. It has nothing to do with the question of the historicity of Jesus; neither I nor Andrew brought that up.  The controversy has to do with a lack of sources concerning any Hebrew or Aramaic name of Jesus.  I do not know what your source is for your suggestion that a significant number of rabbis today are (or in the time of the Amoraim were) opposed to the opposed to the claim that Jesus had a Hebrew or Aramaic name.  I don't think there is any agreement among historians that rabbis at Jesus's time considered him a heretic or apostate, and I am not sure how many rabbis today consider him to have been a heretic or apostate (the Amoraim considered Yeshu an apostate, but they considered Yeshu his name before he became an apostate, not a substitute for his name after he became an apostate).  And I know of no Christian rabbis. Do you have any suggestion to improve this article? I hope one thing we can all agree on is that it has to comply with our core policies, including NOR, and gather enough support to overturn the existing consensus which was formed through the considered participation of many active editors working on this page. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 21:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I see, so now you're a Robert. I'm sorry to have offended your sensibilities, but nevertheless the fact stands that, despite its problems, Yeshua is a reasonably accurate transliteration of Jesus original Hebrew name, and it is used that way by Christians who at least have the illusion of being educated in certain particular aspects of what is loosely called Jewish culture. It certainly poses problems for Hebrew scholars as they might not like the idea of adding either substantiation or illumination to the concept of Jesus. The fact is that you've misunderstood both me and the so-called controversial issues completely. I have long thought of you as a reasonable and a rather enlightened being, but it seems this topic, and dealing with it, makes you rather irked and therefore irksome. Certainly my anti-Semitism is of worldwide renown, and any reference I may make to Jewish anti-Christian dogma, theology, or scholarship is no doubt rooted in my deep hatred of all things Ibrit. For the first time in our years of discourse, you've actually flown off the handle, and resorted to being pejorative and... unscholarly. As always, yours truly, -Stevertigo 21:48, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec)I'm still confused about Stevertigo's sources. It really seems like this is WP:OR. I just looked in the Catholic Encyclopedia, but I'm not even sure this is the right page because no link was provided (here). It states The word Jesus is the Latin form of the Greek Iesous, which in turn is the transliteration of the Hebrew Jeshua, or Joshua, or again Jehoshua, meaning "Jehovah is salvation." The Catholic Encyclopedia lists 3 different possible names, and offers no Hebrew characters, nor mentions anything about Aramaic. Furthermore, I'm not sure why you prefer the Y instead of the J, when the only cited source thus far uses a J. We need to have a very good reason to ignore our cited source. I mean, I hate to sound like a broke record, but what do our sources say about Jesus' original name? Please don't reply with your personal knowledge or opinion. We cannot cite that on wikipedia. We must follow sources (and the only source provided thus far contradicts the proposal at hand in at least three important ways).-Andrew c [talk] 21:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The Y is the English transliteration, as based on the Romanization of Greek, based (presumably) on the Hebrew/Aramaic. The issue with transliteration is the accurate (or more accurate) transcription of the phoneme. Transliteration is not always accurate to the original pronunciation, and this is iconically evident with the English or Spanish (etc) pronunciation of the J as a hard G or an H (English and Spanish "Jesus" respectively). At issue here is really the concept of a name being lost in translation, but the basic issue of the Greek and Roman usage of I and J instead of the Y is etymologically trivial. Note that the etymology section states clearly (and perhaps too tersely) ''"The name “Jesus” is an Anglicisation of the Greek Ἰησοῦς (Iēsoûs), itself a Hellenisation of the Hebrew יהושע (Yehoshua) or Hebrew-Aramaic ישוע (Yeshua), meaning “YHWH rescues”.

If SLR really had an issue with this transliteration (or reconstruction if you like) then he would certainly want to object to the etymology section, and deal with it there. He does not, for some reason, instead choosing to keep the same derivation out of the lede. The reason for this, one might infer is due to his giving excess weight and authority to Jewish sources on the matter of Hebrew language, disregarding certain facts about how Jews have traditionally regarded the most beloved Jew in the history of the planet.-Stevertigo 21:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * (ec) Stevertigo writes: "it certainly poses problems for Hebrew scholars as they might not like the idea of adding either substantiation or illumination to the concept of Jesus." What does complying with our NOR policy have to do with one's beliefs concerning Jesus?  Why would Hebrew scholars not like adding substantiation to the "concept" of Jesus?  Isn't it possible that Hebrew scholars care .. about Hebrew, language, and good scholarship?  What is the point of this remark?  Stevertigo thinks i am flying off the handle - i am just confused.  What does this remark mean? What does it have to do with the matter under discussion, which has to do with Stevertigo violating NOR and consensus through one specific edit?  Slrubenstein   |  Talk 22:00, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict - read above) -Stevertigo 22:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This sounds like a chewbacca defense. Repeat: If you SLR really have an issue with the Yeshua transliteration (or reconstruction if you like) then you will certainly want to object to its use in the etymology section, and deal with it there. -Stevertigo 22:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You haven't answered my questions. My objections to the lead apply equally to the etymology section.  Do you think the etymology is somehow mor e"Jew-friendly" than the edit you proposed?  What is your point?  Why do you refer to sources on Hebrew as "Jewish" sources?  Isn't a source on Hebrew a ... source on Hebrew?  Isn't a source on Aramaic a ... source on Aramaic?  What "Jewish" sources do I rely on excessively?  And again, what does any of this have to do with your repeated claims that "Jewish scholars" do not want to offer any insight into the "concept" of Jesus?  You keep making this about some people being Jewish.  Why? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 22:21, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * SLR wrote: "My objections to the lead apply equally to the etymology section." If so, please deal with it, and then we can decide if its appropriate to include Yeshua in the lede. Here is the issue: If there is an issue of reconstruction or controversy in the "Yeshua" transliteration, please summarise some of those dimensions in the etymology section, and add more detail to the Yeshua (name) article - particularly on the matter of Yeshu, and that terms apparent (and quite telling) Midrashic reference to Yeshua|Jesus. By all appearances you uphold sufficient scholarship to deal with the subject, and no doubt have access to serious Hebrew sources on the matter that I do not. I myself don't even read Modern Hebrew. If you could do this, we can then do as we must do in evaluating if appropriate weight is given to various sources, indicating those opinions which may (possibly) be anti-Christian in their conception. It is my conjecture that it is possible (if not likely) that Jewish sources tend to deprecate the concept of Jesus. (I could be wrong about this: they could be quite favorable). But we can deal with that later. Is there controversy? Enlighten us. -Stevertigo 22:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You refer to "Jewish sources" that "deprecate the concept of Jesus." What Jewish sources are you referring to? And how and why are they relevant to this specific discussion? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 22:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I initially made four attempts to explain my revert: 18:39, 20 January 2009 (UTC); 19:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC); 19:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC); 20:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC). In not one - none - of them did I bring up Jews or a "Jewish view."  The Stevertigo played the race card, saying this had something to do with Jewish Rabbis and Jewish scholars.  I still have no idea what prompted that, or how it is relevant. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 22:27, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * (Conflict) Stevertigo 22:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You referred to three sources: A Hebrew dictionary, a linguistic treatment, and a Hebrew class. Forgive me, but I assumed that these sources were in some tangential ways related to or influenced by Jewish thought and perhaps even Jewish people. I may have made the mistake of assuming Hebrew = Jewish (and by extension Jewish = Judaism) instead of the more likely Hebrew = Bengali or Hebrew = Japanese. Race card??: Its a tar-baby I know but I can deal with it. -Stevertigo 22:49, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Tar baby????? Hebrew = Jewish????? Huh?  What on earth are you saying?   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 23:20, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

You suggested a Hebrew version of Jesus' name, and then made false claims about Hebrew and Aramaic. I told you your claims were mistaken and you asked me what I knew on the topic, and I told you how I came to know about Hebrew. I truly do not understand how you think. You make an edit concerning the Hebrew language, ask me what i know about the Hebrew language, and I answer, and suddenly you think this is about being Jewish rather than the Hebre3w language? It was you who brought up Hebrew! It was you who asked me what I knew about language! Now, as to the race-card being a tar baby, I know you can deal with it, since it was you who introduced it to the discussion. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 22:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If either one of you want to start discussing proposed changes to the article with accompanying sources, please contact me and I'd be glad to discuss this further. Disputed, unsourced content has no place in wikipedia, so continuing this discussion IMO is futile. -Andrew c [talk] 23:03, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Andrew's right. There's no reason for revert warring here. Use the cn tag if needed, then discuss rationally. Take your time, if you find yourself posting to the discussion more than once an hour you may be in need of a cup of WP:TEA.LeadSongDog (talk) 23:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * SLR baited me, first with the concept that Hebrew and Aramaic were so unrelated, that any attempt to reconstruct a Jewish name for Jesus was unscholarly. In reality it appeared this was more an issue of OWN - not just SLR's acting like an edit ninja on this article, but his assertion that his sources are more accurate than others when it comes to Hebrew names, their association, and their transliteration.


 * Furthermore, the etymology section mentions no issues of controversy with regard to the Yeshua etymology. Why? Because dealing with Yeshua means dealing with Yeshu, and that means dealing with the extremely pejorative interpretation of that name, not to mention the Toledoth Yeshu, which may have had some small part in inspiring a couple hundred years of academic Christian anti-Semitism. So, as it appears from the status quo, using Yeshua in paragraph two is fine, even though it doesn't mention any of SLR's claimed controversy, nor any mention of Yeshu, which has some appearances of being a ethno-religious insult. Certainly things to avoid, but they explain SLR's ad hominem against me, which was surprising, but nevertheless par for the course.


 * So, I'm going to deal with the controversy in the etymology section. Certainly I would be interested in anyone's help. -Stevertigo 03:12, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You need to stop the personal attacks, or your editing is going to take a backseat to those attacks. You have called slr "anti-christian", an "edit ninja", and have accused him of ownership.  None of these things are true.  I've seen editors come and go.  Slr has been here for years, and unless you contribute intellectually and rationally, you won't.  That's not a threat, since I have no power over you.  It's just strong advice.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 18:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The paragraph that is being considered for insertion is shit. I fail to see how any of those names could be anti-Xian, given that the first Indo-European (and Christian) version was the Greek Ιηςους, which points to Yeshua given that the iota had to substitute for the palatal (Y), Greek had no "sh" retroflex (except "sho", but that was only used in Bactrian), the long u would be "omicron upsilon" (ou) as upsilon alone was akin to ü (or the French u in sur), and by the 1st century CE, maculine names generally ended in an "s" (sigma). What I'm getting out of the argument (which is very poorly made, I might add) is that using the real name is bad.  Like, if I used Marcus Tullius Cicero for Tully (as I am wont to do) I'd be being, what, anti bloody-British????  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 21:35, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Orangemarlin's ninja reverts
(Copied from User talk:Orangemarlin, who for some reason immediately deleted my comment from his talk) Could you please actually explain why you made the revert to the article, and not just rely on a terse and useless concept like NPOV. My edit was accurate and NPOV, and was a substantial improvement over the previous version. If you disagree, you can 1) actually read the edit and 2) comment on its specific points on the talk page. Thanks -Stevertigo 19:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Not very useful to the discussion. Please drop a note on my page when you're willing to discuss this situation more rationally.  Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 20:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ive been communicating very clearly and, by my reckoning at least, rather rationally. I suppose its your right to delete what you want from your talk page, but you seem to be violating at least a couple principles here. -Stevertigo 20:14, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, OM should have left your "terse and useless concept like NPOV" stand. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 22:53, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Re etymology
The etymology is fine, but "The name “Jesus” is an Anglicisation of the Greek" is not fully accurate as the form "Jesus" occurs in a number of languages (in some cases with the e or u accented), to wit: it occurs in Afrikaans, Catalan, Spanish, Cebuano (borrowed), Danish, German, Basque, French, Icelandic, Norwegian, etc. Sop "Anglicisation" is not correct: "variation" or "variant" or "transliteration" might be better and would certainly be more accurate. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 18:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "Jesus" actually comes directly from Latin. The common pronounciation is English. 64.149.82.228 (talk) 05:17, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I asume you mean the spelling, which was initially Iesus (there was no differentiation between I as a vowel and I as a consonant in the 5th century). The spelling with a "J" came later.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 21:42, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Jesus is medieval Latin, derived from Vulgate Latin IESVS. 75.0.9.233 (talk) 16:56, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yep. As I said, the differentiation came later.  Today, very few Latin dictionaries differentiate between the semi-consonant (it still had a vowel component as a consonant being "ee-y__(insert second vowel here)") and the pure vowel (unlike u and v).  I changed it to transliteration based in the Latin Iesus as that is more accurate. 21:12, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Can someone add Flavius Josephus' description of Jesus to the Jesus Article?
I don't understand why no one has added first century historian Flavius Josephus' account("Antiquities Of The Jews", Book 18, Chapt.3, Sec.3) of Jesus in this article? It would be a nice addition to the historical context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.239.62.212 (talk) 17:00, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Because the consensus among historians is that the passage relating to Jesus is a forgery by the Early Church. It doesn't appear until the time of Eusebius in the fourth century ... Origen in the early third century wrote about Josephus but never mentioned this oh-so-important passage.  Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * For some overview on the issue: I agree with Slrubenstein that we should not include this account in this article, its just to contentious of an issue and not needed.  The copiest that played around with Josephus's text has done history a great disservice. Hardyplants (talk) 19:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Agreed as it's highly unlikely that Josephus wrote the passages attributed to him re Jesus. Forgery was a biggie in the Early Church (there was a rather liberal reading of the 8th (or 9th) Commandment).  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 21:17, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Historians do not think its an out right forgery, but that a scribe mixed in some notations that were along the margin of the text. The Only real controversy is in determining the original words of Josephus, and we do not need that battle here on this page. Hardyplants (talk) 16:27, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I know of no such consensus among historians. There is consensus that the phrases like "if it be lawful to call him a man" are interpolations, but no consensus that the whole passage is. Indeed, I'd suggest that the balance of opinion is in favour of it, because some aspects of his comments - particularly the bit at the end in which he seems slightly surpised that some followers continue to exist - do not appear to present a Christian POV. The fact it's not mentioned by early Christians is only important if you think early Christians had to argue that Jesus existed, but there is no evidence that that was an issue. Josephus says nothing that early Christians would find it useful to quote. Paul B (talk) 00:38, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You are right - let's just say, many of the elements of the passage in Josephus that are given great value by some Christians are actually forgeries. You are right that Josephus said nothing that early Christians would find useful to quote. my point is, he said nothing that later Christians would find useful to quote, either. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

etymology/names and titles
I have made one change to the etymology, and propose another to names and titles. The change I made: I removed the link to Yshu which is an article about a character in Rabbinic literature. The majority view is that this character is unrelated to Jesus, and the article is not on the etymology of Jesus' name (we may as well provide a link to the Biblical book of Joshuah!).

My proposal: Stevertigo rightly pointed out that some of my criticisms of his edit to the lead applied to this section. I know that others have been working on the transliteration problem, I am just concerned with V and NPOV.

I propose the following (my changes bolded):
 * Jesus probably lived in Galilee for most of his life and he probably spoke Aramaic and Hebrew.[94] The name "Jesus" comes from an alternate spelling of the Latin (Iēsus) which in turn comes from the Greek name Iesous (Ιησους). The name has also been translated into English as "Joshua".[95] Based on an examination of the Septuagint some have suggested that the Greek, in turn, is a transliteration of the Hebrew/Aramaic Yeshua (ישוע) (Yeshua — he will save) a contraction of Hebrew name Yehoshua (יהושוע Yeho — Yahweh [is] shua` — deliverance/rescue, usually Romanized as Joshua). Some scholars believe that one of these was likely the name that Jesus was known by during his lifetime by his peers.

My intention is just to modify the language a bit to make it clear that a POV is a POV. Any objections? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 19:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * A bit weasel-worded, and to me a bit off. I'm not sure that there is any debate re the Aramaic/Hebrew derivation from Yeshua.  Yehoshua, however is difficult to support as I noted here  -- although it could be the derivative of Yeshua.  Personally, I'm none too happy with the rewrite as I think it flubs the etymology.  Sorry, slr.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 22:08, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

No need to apologize, I am sure we can come up with something beter. But the original is just as weasily, and also backwards. We can state that the Septuagint translaterates the Hebrew Yehoshua as Jesus. But this: "based on an examination of the Septuagint some have suggested that the Greek, in turn, is a transliteration of the Hebrew/Aramaic Yeshua (ישוע) (Yeshua — he will save) a contraction of Hebrew name Yehoshua (יהושוע Yeho — Yahweh [is] shua` — deliverance/rescue, usually Romanized as Joshua)" is weasily and overwrought. There is also still the problem that Hebrew and Aramaic are not the same. The Septuagint purports to be a translation of the Hebrew, so that is all we can say. As to whether Jesus' given name was in Hebrew or Aramaic or what it was, that remains a POV claim and we can present it as long as it is peggd 9as it is) to verifiable sources, and identified as a POV. But there is still something wrong in the Septuagint sentence.Slrubenstein  |  Talk 23:19, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The septuagint has nought to do with Jesus: the septuagint is the OT. With the exception of the ever-elusive "Q-source", the NT was written in Greek.  Now, whether all writers agreed on the Ιηςους spelling as unknown, as the "gospels" and letters were redacted by the early church and the originals seem to have gione *poof*.
 * Yeshua is likely a form of aphesis from Yehoshua, but not one that occured within Jesus' own lifetime.
 * Aramaic and Hebrew are roughly as divergent as any two Romance languages you can pick.
 * Which septuagint sentence? Again, the septuagint, except as an alleged historical source, has no real bearing on the etymology or linguistics of "Jesus" in and of itself.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 21:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Dude, I think you are misunderstanding me. I know very well that the Septuagint is not directly related to Jesus.  This is the point: the article currently has a passage relating the Spetuagint to the origins of Jesus' name.  I think there are mild NPOV issues with it and I proposed an alternative.  You say my alternative has weasle words.  Fine, no offence taken, but my response is that the current version also has weasle words.  So if you reject my suggestion, why not propose another alternative?  You do not have to keep faulting my proposal - what is at issue is the text that is already in the article which I refered to at the opening of this thread. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 21:27, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Geez. I haven't been called dude in a while. ;)  Seriously, though, can you quote or link whatever it is you're referring to, because I think we're talking past each other: or else I just totally missed it.  I'm guessing that the latter is more likely.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 21:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * As I state at the beginning of the thread, my proposal is to change a paragraph in the names and titles section. I quoted the text verbatim, except I put the changes I propose in bold - just look at the top of this thread.  Or go to the Jesus article, hit control F and paste in this portion of text "Jesus probably lived in Galilee for most of his life and he probably spoke Aramaic and Hebrew.[94] The name "Jesus" comes from an alternate spelling of the Latin (Iēsus) which in turn comes from the Greek name Iesous (Ιησους). The name has also been translated into English as "Joshua" and it will take you to the passage I quoted at the beginning of this thread, the passage I have problems with and think needs modifications. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 22:42, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Could be Joshua, based on the septuagint. If you're going to change it, cite it (of course)  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 22:56, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Legacy section
I've replaced some material that was vague with specific information on the same topics. I hope you'll agree that more-informative writing is better than less-informative writing, but I'll be surprised if I haven't, in the process of adding information, offended someone's take on Jesus. Please criticize me as you would like to be criticized. Leadwind (talk) 00:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The use of BCE/CE in this article is both stupid and insulting to the Christian Faith
I would like to know who started BCE/CE and why? And what does BCE stand for, Before Christ's Execution? Why not use BC like scholars have for a thousand years. What happened in the year 1 that was so important that it is a timemark for all the rest of history, could it have been Jesus Christ's birth? It is stupid to use BCE/CE in an article such as this as it conveys the thought that Jesus Christ's birth was not an important historical event in time. Yet BCE/CE is based on this exact same time marker. Please drop BCE/CE from this article now. Thank you.76.180.230.218 (talk) 17:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * BCE stands for "Before the Common Era" and is viewed as more neutral than BC/AD. Wikipedia strives to maintain a neutral point of view.  Cheers, Dawn Bard (talk) 17:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Use of BCE/CE is blatant anti-Christianity and is therefore non-neutral. I concur with 76.180.230.218. It should be changed. 84.9.125.170 (talk) 19:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * To wikipedia, both AD and CE are acceptable. If you have an issue with one of the specific systems, then perhaps you should try making a cite-wide change to the MoS for your preferred style. Until then, please accept that BOTH are ok on wikipedia (the MoS does encourage each article to choose one system and use it exclusively, but consensus on this specific page has lead to the current state of consistently using BOTH (so neither side looses)). Please consider reading the archives for past discussions relating to this. Thanks, and hopefully you can find other suggests to make to improve this article besides a few silly letters after years. -Andrew c [talk] 19:36, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think that using Common Era notation (instead of Anno Domini notation is biased or anti-Christian. Is it a fundamental teaching of Yeshua (Jesus) that the calendar be based on his birthdate? That it follow a Gregorian/Julian form? That it include leap years? That it be based on the rotation of the earth around the sun (or the Sun around the Earth, as some people had thought). Yeshua taught that God was the Father and that love is his law. I think you misinterpret the importance of dates and times, as being relevant to slightly more important concepts like universal salvation, (though that concept might also offend you). See Common_Era and WP:ERA. -Stevertigo 21:05, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Please, assume good faith and no personal attacks, the people here did not intend to insult Christianity, I am sure. Scapler (talk) 21:10, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you responding to me? If so, I don't understand how your comment relates to me. If you are a second responder to an above comment (as I was above), then your comment should be indented the same as mine, using 3 colons instead of 4 (WP:LCF). -Stevertigo 21:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the confusion Stevertigo, I was not responding to you, but rather 76's decision to label his topic with the words "this article is both stupid and insulting to the Christian Faith". Once again, not targeted at you at all, and sorry for the confusion. Scapler (talk) 01:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If you don't want to count years from the birth of JC then you are free to use your own numbering system. 84.9.125.170 (talk) 00:39, 29 January 2009 AD (UTC)


 * It's pretty much the same numbering system, silly. I think the phrase "a rose by any other name would smell as sweet" applies here.  Why does it matter which system we use as long as it's accurate?  You might be offended, but most Christians aren't, including me. Farsight001 (talk) 03:25, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I prefer BC/AD; however, these are abbreviations. BCE/CE could be considered "before Christian Era/Christian Era" However, they are commonly understood as "before common era/common era. Remember too that Dionysius Exiguus was a little off on the exact year of Christ's birth.--drb (talk) 04:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * We have a stable consensus here, and every month or two an anonymous user tries to stir up an argument over this because they do not have the serious intent, time, or skill to make any real contribution to Wikipedia by doing real research and writing. It is disruptive editing and ought to be ignored.  Some people prefer AD but accept AD/CE over CE alone; some prefer CE but accept AD/CE over AD alone.  So we have a stable consensus.  There is no need for discussion among serious contributors to this article who have reached this stable consensus, and there is no njeed to humor anonymous trolls.

Changes in Lead
1) According to the traditional Christian understanding of the "Nicene Creed", Jesus is one of several incarnations of God, but the incarnation of God.  2)  The Trinity as "members" not "manifestations". 3) The Nicene Creed, despite its label, was given current form only in c. 380 CE.  If someone wants to make the phrase "of the current era" conform to the dating conventions of this article, please feel free. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Midnite Critic (talk • contribs)
 * FYI here 1)You mean "Jesus is [not] one of several incarnations of God ..." He is the incarnation of God the Son, the Second Person of the Trinity, 2) The Trinity as "persons": "members" is foreign and 3) the section dealing with Jesus Christ was part of the text in 325. The Council of Constantinople (381) added the rest of the section dealing with the Holy Spirit, as the purpose of that second of the ecumenical councils was to deal with the Pneumatomachi or Macedonians, who denied the deity of the Holy Spirit.--drb (talk) 04:06, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It is good to mention the Christian belief in the incarnation of God the Son somewhere, but the Nicene Creed, while stating it emphatically "and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary and was made man," was most concerned with the statement of the consubstantiality of Jesus as God the Son with God the Father. The incarnation of God the Son is the main idea in the Apostles' Creed, which was ostensibly composed against the Gnostics, who denied the incarnation of the Person of God the Son.--Drboisclair (talk) 14:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * So long as an NPOV (i.e., non-declarative) way of saying that is fine. The statements referring to the creeds are only true in Christianity (and at that, only true after much arguing through the first four centuries CE).  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 21:04, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Recent edit to Names and titles
I just made some edits to the paragraphs on Jesus and on Christ. I felt that the references to the Septuagint were either unclear, weasily, or OR. All I did, in both paragraphs, was this: (1) the names in the NT, (2) where these Greek names appear in the Septuagint (to comply with NOR, making purely descriptive claims), and (3) how some people have used the Septuagint data to propose a translation of NT names (in Greek) to Hebrew. I do not believe I made any substantive change. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 15:22, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It looks good to me and does a good job with the history. I see nothing that should cause any dispute.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 21:00, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Why is Eusebius (History of the Church) not mentioned in this article under the historical section?
When it comes to history, we accept what the Pilgrims and Puritans had to say about themselves- both of which were religious groups. We publish every who, what, where, when and why as historical fact. We do as much when it comes to the history of the Mormon church. Yet, when we discuss Jesus and the early Christian church nothing is admissible by anyone who was remotely involved with Christianity in anyway. Not Eusebius. Not Josephus. I'm sorry, but history is not science and it never has been. At best, history is pure gossip. There are no facts in gossip. It's all information and let the reader or hearer decide and make up their own mind. When you intentionally withhold or misrepresent that information you become worse than the "copyist". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.48.139.120 (talk) 21:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * "At best history is pure gossip"? Interesting take on history.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 21:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Re Josephus: what precisely would you like? Re Eusebius: he was just a bit of a partisan, no? &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 21:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "It's all information and let the reader or hearer decide and make up their own mind." That's a profound statement and it may be true, but it isn't WP policy. WP policy is to rely on contemporary experts to tell us about each article's topic. That's why verifiability (WP:V) is so important. Since Eusebius isn't a contemporary expert, we'd need a contemporary historian to back up anything he said. Leadwind (talk) 03:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * True enough. And Josephus is touchy at best.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 15:50, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Josephus and Tacitus, same thing. Can't use them without a contemporary citation. Leadwind (talk) 18:40, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yup. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 19:27, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

This article is bias
This article is bias, Most of the references come from books published by Christen publishers, only PROVEN Scientific, and Non-religious sources should be included as FACT —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.166.3.159 (talk) 10:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Eh? Sorry, but that's not how it works here.  The article is about Jesus, not just the "non-religious" or "secular" views of Jesus.  We can use whatever source we want as long as it meets wiki guidlines on reliability. Farsight001 (talk) 11:04, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * More or less true: the article can not proselytise, nor can it dismiss

Jesus out of hand.
 * BTW, anon, it would be "biased". &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 19:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

New edits, Leadwind's revert
Stevertigo, you have some interesting points but need citations to back up your work. I'm reverting your recent edits, including your expansion of the first paragraph. Let's work together more. Leadwind (talk) 15:18, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't object to that. What I do object to is people such as yourself using the revert button to undo legitimate and constructive changes, based on a technicality.


 * I made two separate changes in separate edits; the first was to the lede, in correcting the inaccurate statement that the "incarnation of God" doctrine was a part of Christianity. It is not. It is the core concept within the Nicene Creed that Jesus and God and the Holy Spirit are in substance the same being. While the majority of Christian denominations subscribe to the creed, others do not, and disagreement varies, and related controversy is typically diminished. In order to correct the way the sentence is formed, I simply put the "incarnation" concept in context. Certainly one could argue that the concept of "incarnation" preceeds the creed in the Bible itself, but the passages which are said to support this are vague and only interpreted to indicate that concept; attributing or defining this concept as part as a Nicene concept is necessary.


 * The entirely separate second issue is a short treatment of the apparent controversy that we discussed above dealing with the name Yeshua as an accurate transliteration of Jesus. It will be sourced, certainly. But keep in mind that its a very general treatment; one which is handled in detail by the Yeshua and Yeshu articles. -Stevertigo 16:08, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

"The Yeshua transliteration is controversial, and certain Hebrew scholars have disputed its etymological derivation as an inaccurate reconstruction. Hebrew Midrash appears to support the use of Yeshua —the name Yeshu ha-Notzri directly translates as "Jesus the Nazarene." But the term Yeshu has certain anti-Christian meaning, and this fact complicates using these texts as the basis for the name's Hebrew etymology."

The Chinaman is not the issue here

 * Um, at present we are not actually talking about the Yeshua transliteration for the simple reason that I removed it and made little reference to it. What we are dealing with is the edits to the lede that deal with the Nicene concepts of incarnation and the trinity, not to mention the inappropriate elevation of Islam in imporance with reference to Jesus. I greatly appreciate your response above, and I will get to it, but for the moment let's please deal with your actions of the past couple hours; reverting my edits to the lede without so much as a comment let alone an explanation. -Stevertigo 17:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Stevertigo, please play nicely with the other editors. Leadwind (talk) 18:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I am. For one, I am actually talking on the talk page, and commenting each edit I make in complete detail. The "other editors" are not, and thus are acting like ninjas rather than editors. Because they are not communicating, I can and probably should go ahead and undo their reverts ad nauseam until they start being responsive and CIVIL. Otherwise their edits can be regarded as OWN, and I can just ignore them. They aren't actually communicating, so what else can I do? -Stevertigo 19:56, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Edit warring is never the only option that you have. Make a Request for Comment to solicit a broader set of opinions.  Or just walk away from the situation and spend a couple days in a completely different area of the encyclopedia before returning with a fresher perspective and a calmer approach.  You are not being forced to edit war; you are choosing that path, and if you continue on it, you will find yourself blocked, regardless of how anyone else is acting. alanyst /talk/ 20:29, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Never mind, looks like I came in too late. alanyst /talk/ 20:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd just like to compliment Stevertigo on a magnificent use of the "Chinaman" phrase. Top quality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.79.173 (talk) 22:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The Lead paragraph
I once again stepped in and changed the sentence on the Nicene Creed to further clarify what the Nicene Creed is and says. "Confession" may not be as clear as I thought it might be. In modifying the newly added sentence my concern was in making it accurate and NPOV.--Drboisclair (talk) 01:55, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't mention the Nicene Creed in the lead because it's more about Christianity that about Jesus, but no big deal. If we mention the NC, I prefer that we name the year 325 for the it because the original creed (no longer in use) defined Jesus as being of one essence with the Father, and 325 is a good year for anyone interested in Church history to learn. It's also shorter and more precise than "fourth century." That said, I'm not going to worry about it because the lead paragraph is pretty good. Leadwind (talk) 03:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The article was originally supposed to be about the person. The Nicene Creed really shouldn't be here.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 13:39, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You are both right here, but you might want to have something in there about Jesus' being divine and human in Christian orthodoxy. I mean orthodoxy in the general sense.--Drboisclair (talk) 15:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

What is important is that the lead provide a concise (no more than two sentence) and accurate description of what Christians believe about Jesus. My understanding (could be wrong) is that Stevertigo felt that the previous version represented the views of some but not all Christians and somehow his edit restopred NPOV/accuracy, maybe his claim is that not all Christians accept the Nicene Creed. My suggestion is to compare Stevertigo's original edit with the previous version and ask: which is more accurate and more clear? and then Can this be phrased any more concisely? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 15:29, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Which is actually true as there are Arians around . Best to paint Jesus in broad strokes, I think.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 15:49, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I hate broad strokes in general because they reduce the amount of information in the text, and the lead in particular has a duty to be packed with information. It's better to give a clear description of what most Christians believe than a vague description of what's believed by all Christians, including unorthodox and minority traditions. Leadwind (talk) 18:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I actually disagree: the lead paragraph should be a broad preamble, by way of introduction, to the article (which will deals with the subject in a detailed, structured fashion which is outside the scope of the lead paragraph). --JohnArmagh (talk) 21:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm OK with that, but will everyone else be? &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 19:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The current version is fine. I disagree with Leadwind's view, and note that his characterization of "the original creed" (was there one?) "defined Jesus as being of one essence with the Father." The term "essence" here can be interpreted in a number of ways, such that the meaning is lost if you don't qualify it and describe the concept. Arius, for example explained his concept (as "purpose") to indicate that they (Jesus and God) were basically on the same page, not that they were one being. Even the "one being" concept of Nicene Christianity is itself too problematic to treat here, but that is why its necessary to directly attribute the dominant view to the creed. Its a matter of being clear - something Leadwind appears to support, but also in a certain way contradict, by removing information that clarifies the issue. Is that what you assert Leadwind? Because you state "the lead in particular has a duty to be packed with information." and yet, because "it's better to give a clear description of what most Christians believe" you want to remove "what's believed by all Christians, including unorthodox and minority traditions." Maybe I'm reading you wrong, but you did say "I wouldn't mention the Nicene Creed in the lead because it's more about Christianity that about Jesus" which is a bit.. inconsistent with a number of concepts. "If we mention the NC, I prefer that we name the year 325" - this I can agree with - a simple (year 325 CE) suffices. Regards -Stevertigo 20:32, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The essence is just a bit outside the scope of the article. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 21:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not understand what Stevertigo is saying ... is he saying that the current lead of the article fails to describe mainstream Christian views accurately? Isn't that the only relevant issue here? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 21:29, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * (Cutting in): I don't think you need to deal with it, SLR, if you don't understand it. My comment was pretty clear enough. The issue with adding the reference to NC was to qualify the concept of incarnation, "as one substance with the Father..." That was all there was to it. We can get into theological differences later in the article. I think the current version is just about right, considering the problems with how it was before, and not to mention my general understanding of what a good lede should read like. Its not bad. -Stevertigo 21:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course, we could debate what mainstream really means. ;)  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 18:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The word "mainstream" in this context, is a bit overloaded. We can't use it without qualifying it. Better just to say "dominant statement of the faith"-Stevertigo 21:26, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Stevertigo, "Its a matter of being clear - something Leadwind appears to support, but also in a certain way contradict, by removing information that clarifies the issue." For me, being clear is more a matter of information density, how much information there is per line of text. I don't support including most tangential topics, such as the Nicene Creed. That said, if we are going to mention the NC, then I want a concise, informative description of it, so that the lede is packed with information. I oppose vague sentences, often constructed so as not to accommodate minority opinions. I'd rather be clear about what's mostly true than be vague about what's totally true. I'd rather say "Most Christians believe Jesus to be fully God and full man" than say something like "Historically and across the globe, Christians espouse various doctrines about Jesus' divinity and humans identity." I'd rather leave out the Nicene Creed because reference to it doesn't much help one understand what most Christians believe about Jesus. Leadwind (talk) 00:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * And I blieve in simplicity - not simple ideas, just simple language - in the lead. But with this noted, I agree with everything else Leadwind wrote.  If people can agree to a straightforward and direct statement of what is mainstream (majority, all major denominations) view, I woud prefer that over a vague or weasel word sentence.  I just think that the details about the complex divisions and debates among Christians belong in the Christianity or Christology articles.  I have an idea - write a sentence that provides links to those articles!  Thatway people who want to learn more about what Christians think can do so with a mouse-click, and we keep this article focused on Jesus rather than Christianity. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 00:34, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I still would prefer to see more concise language than what Leadwind has suggested. For example, instead of saying, "Christians believe that Jesus was fully and God and fully man", I would suggest saying simply, "Christians believe that Jesus is the divine Son of God." The fully God and fully man line is fairly incomprehensible to readers unaccustomed to Christian doctrines. Simplicity first while rejecting the unique turn of phrases found within Christianity. Does this make sense? -- Storm  Rider  00:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree: the "fully God and fully man" distinction matters very much in re the crucifixion -- where he could be only fully man for the crucifixion to make any sense. Also "Son of God" would cover the divinity issue as Christianity has no demigods (unless one counts angels, saints and Mary).  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 21:22, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Storm Rider, while I support your position in general, I think that we should state the orthodox view, even though it's wrong. It's useful information to the reader to know that Christians mostly see Jesus as both God and man. It's true that the first Christians weren't Trinitarians, but now they mostly are. Furthermore, most religions have much more modest estimations of their central figures, while Christians have, since the 4th century, defined Jesus as not only the image of God (Biblical wording) but as sharing God's very essence. That's worth calling out. Lots of holy men have been "Son of God," but how many have been Person Two of the Trinity? One. Leadwind (talk) 01:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * (Interpost) " I think that we should state the orthodox view, even though it's wrong". Might want to look up the meaning of orthodox .... not sure what you were trying to say but you ended up with a paradox.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 01:43, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I always support taking the majority position regardless of the article; doing anything less misguides readers. We should take the orthodox position, but can't the orthodox position be stated in several different ways? I personally seek for a different way to describe the orthodox position than "fully man and fully God." That statement skates over what is really being stated and readers who don't know much about Christianity are going to be puzzled by it. Avoid buzz words and yet state the principle in as simple a form as possible. Does this make sense? -- Storm  Rider  03:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * As to cutting the length of the sentence that quotes the Nicene Creed: the descriptive subordinate clause on what it is and its date could be omitted, relying on the linking to the article on the Creed to provide that information. As a church historian I would differ with Leadwind when he says that Christians before Nicaea (325) were not Trinitarians. The New Testament teaches the doctrine of the Trinity on the foundation of Matthew 28:19, and the Apostolic Fathers were certainly Trinitarian. It is the views of the 2nd and 3rd century thinkers like Origen, who might not be considered Trinitarians. Of course, it remained for the 4th century for the church to confess the faith of the New Testament in the Triune God. Of course, this is only a majority POV because there are the revisionists, who would disagree with me. Of course, too, Jesus' deity can be an issue separated from the doctrine of the Trinity to some extent. The New Testament specifically calls him "God." The doctrine of the Trinity is not explicitly enunciated in the New Testament, but the deity of Jesus is. You then can say, too, that the New Testament very clearly identifies Jesus as truly human as well. The consensus of Chritianity is that he is fully human and fully divine at the same time.--Drboisclair (talk) 16:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Storm Rider, sorry, but I'd rather use a more descriptive and distinct phrase ("fully God and fully man") than a vaguer phrase ("Son of God"). As for readers getting confused, the term Son of God actually leads the naive viewer to the wrong idea, that most Christians consider Jesus to be separate from Heavenly Father. It must be galling for Triniarianism to get top billing just because it's orthodox, but as long as there's a clear orthodox statement we should state it: "fully God and fully man." Leadwind (talk) 01:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * DrB, if we mention the Nicene Creed we have a duty to describe it. As for Trinitarians before 325, I'd love for you to cite something for us about early Christian Trinitarians. They might have talked about Father, Son, and Spirit, but their views would be heretical by Nicene standards. My cites are that the Trinity is a post-New Testament doctrine (Harris), and that the 2nd century Apologists considered the Logos to be distinct from God (Oxford). As for the New Testament, I'm sure Storm Rider can back me up when I say it calls Jesus the image of God, the mediator between God and man, the Christians' high priest, the firstborn of all creation, the Son begotten not eternally but in time, who became lower than the angels and earned divine exaltation by his obedience and sacrifice. Leadwind (talk) 01:19, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) In the New Testament you have Matthew 28:19: "name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit"; Jesus Christ is also called "God" (John 1:1; John 20:28; Titus 2:13; and 1st John 5:20-21). The New Testament gives all of the dots that are then connected by the Nicene bishops. The revisionism that has begun in the latter part of the last century takes issue with this and considers even Gnosticism a legitimate claimant to "authentic Christianity." The only one that was indeed considered a heretic by the Second Council of Constantinople (553) was ORIGEN.--Drboisclair (talk) 17:26, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Though I certainly support stating the orthodox, majority position, it is true I have a personal dislike of illogical statements. The mystery of fully man and fully God is beyond human understanding. For a matmatician by training it is vexing and does not follow logic. Lead, I will accept your statement realizing that my personal preference is not more than that. Anything pre 325 will get confusing and demand a more in depth discussion than the topic warrants. Can't we limit statments to when the majority postion is/was beyond question? -- Storm  Rider  01:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't understand Leadwind's comment. Does he think it heretical to hold that the Logos is distinct from God?  The penny catechism (when something could still be bought for a penny) said that Father, Son and Holy Spirit are "really distinct and equal in all things".  Soidi (talk) 20:11, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The Apologists viewed the Logos not as God but as an intermediary between God and man. It's hard to demonstrate that any particular writer contradicted the Trinity because the Trinity so readily accepts contradictions: fully man yet fully God, three distinct persons yet one being, eternal yet acting in time, etc. But if you can find a historian who thinks the Apologists or other writers before 325 depicted Jesus as fully God in the Trinitarian sense, I'd love to see it. Leadwind (talk) 23:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * See . Hardyplants (talk) 01:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems to me that this page is not meant for theological debates re the "truth", which is precisely what it has become. (I'll keep me own opinions to meself on the debate itself).  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 01:48, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. So, unless an attempt is made to insert into the article the idea (which I can't find in "Oxford") that the Apologists held the Logos to be only an intermediary between God and man, I'll say nothing about the identifying of Jesus with the Old Testament appearances of the LORD.  Soidi (talk) 14:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

The question is, how detailed do we have to get to do justice to the mainstream Christian view? I agree that whatever we say must be (1) accurate) and (2) apply to the vast majority of Christians i.e. all major sects, denominations, congregations or Churches. But with these two criteria in mind, it should also be be (3) as simple and concise and accessible (meaning, it will make some sense to non-Christians or have links taking them to where they need to go for more detail) as possible.  If we can all agree in princple at least on these criteria, how about this:
 * also known as Jesus Christ, is the central figure of Christianity and is revered by most Christian churches as the Son of God and the incarnation of God.

This matches the third criteria I set forth. If you feel it does not match the other two please propose something but also, please conform to the third criteria. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 15:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support. Soidi (talk) 16:15, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - concise, linked and works. -- Storm  Rider  16:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - it expresses what Christianity believes to be important about Him.--Drboisclair (talk) 17:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - Let's delete all the material related to the Nicene Creed. Christology is handled in the lead two paragraphs down. Leadwind (talk) 17:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)                                                                                  *Support - It’s clear and correct, and the terms are linked where they can be covered in detail on those pages. The information in the lead should be covered in more detail in the body - without turning the intro into a theological or overly historical study. Hardyplants (talk) 17:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

There are a few active editors who have not yet weighed in, but if all you guys agree I'd say we have a consensus or awfully close. I do not mind if one of you makes the change; alternatively we can wait and see if Andrew, Jim or Hardy have any complaints and then make the change. But I wish we could all put this to rest! Slrubenstein  |  Talk 17:37, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I will be bold and make the change, if Andrew or Jim have a problem we can discuss it, Slrubenstein  |  Talk 18:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me, very nice job of NPOV -- covers the points while ascribing them perferctly. Sorry I was larte in responding but my daughter broke her foot .... she needs a guy with a beard to rub her foot with mud and say ephphatha .... well, another Aramaic word, anyway.  LOL.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera!


 * Its wrong. Its imprecise. Its not correct. Saying most Christians that belong to a denomination which has historical allegiance to Nicene-based doctrines must therefore believe that "Jesus is God," is like saying all Catholics must be against birth control because the Pope says its a sin. IIRC, something like 80% of card-carrying Catholics not only disagree with the above concept, but they actually disregard it. Some people here have been quite quick to assert how certain religious attitudes can be varied, nuanced, and sophisticated - why is regard for that nuance not considered acceptable here?-Stevertigo 01:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Stevertigo, it sounds as though your point is that plenty of Christians don't buy the Jesus=God doctrine even when it's foundational to their denominations' creeds. If that's the case, please find a source that says so. Leadwind (talk) 18:44, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Stevertigo, many editors discussed this a couple of years ago and reached a consensus. You made an edit against that consensus.  We (including people who were not here a couple of years ago for the last consensus) discussed the edit for a week, a full week, and reached a consensus to go back to the, er, old consensus version.  You can spew all you want about how wrong it is, but wy don't you try showing some respect for your fellow editors instead?  We left your edit there unreverted for a week and discussed it.  None of the people who really helped build this into a great article are pursuaded by your arguments.  Time to move on. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Talk auto-archiving
Would auto archiving be useful here? -Stevertigo 23:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I think so Slrubenstein  |  Talk 00:30, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. The config is kept at the top of this page. I've set the archive size to 200K (the last one was well over this). There will be 5 threads left on the page after each archiving sweep. These can be changed, if needed. -Stevertigo 09:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

No mention of the title "Son of Man"
No mention in this article of Jesus referring to himself as "the son of man". He refers to himself by that title at least 30 times in the gospels! The number of times it appears and the context in which it appears should have been reason enough to include somewhere in this article. What significance does it have with regard to his claim of Messiahship and being the Son of God? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.19.135.200 (talk) 22:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Geza Vermes has strong evidence that this is not a title. The question is addressed in the linked article on the names and titles of Jesus. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 22:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think that Jesus was calling himself Son of Man, the apocalyptic figure from Daniel, but Christians sure do use that term as a title for Jesus. I have wanted to see more information about "Son of Man" in the article. It probably belongs in the gospels section, because in the gospels Jesus sure does refer to himself as the apocalyptic Son of Man. Plus a treatment in the Names & Titles section. Leadwind (talk) 00:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

He certainly does refer to himself as The Son of Man in the gospels, and he uses it to show his authority over the preciding legal views of the Rabbinic culture, not to mention the Decalogue itself. Reference: Matt 8:20, 9:6, 11:19, 12:8, 12:40, etc.70.19.135.200 (talk) 01:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Refers to himself, by my count, at least 80 times in the gospels.70.19.135.200 (talk) 01:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Geza Vermes has strong evidence that this is not a title. The question is addressed in the linked article on the names and titles of Jesus.Slrubenstein   |  Talk 04:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Seems more of a sobriquet, frequently found in the deliberate misuse of the Greek word Ιχθυς, which is aleeged to stand for Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, Θεοῦ Υἱός, Σωτήρ, Jesus Christ, of God, the Son, Saviour. Seems odd that no one ever came up for one for "piscis" -- it could have been easily done.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 17:23, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, slightly different, my bad. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 17:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

The Son of Man (a Biblical figure) has authority over the Decalogue? Interesting theory. Presumably part of Antinomianism. 68.123.73.253 (talk) 19:01, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * What? &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 00:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * SLR, when Vermes says that it's not a title, is referring to how historical Jesus used it or to how the gospel writers used it? This article could address both. Leadwind (talk) 19:21, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

My understanding of Vermes' argument is that it goes back to the Aramaic of Jesus, which then got altered when it went into the Greek of the NT, or parallels were made by Early Christians between the Greek of the NT and the Greek of the Septuagint. 68.123.73.253 (talk) 19:27, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Kind of - a phrase that had one meaning in Aramaic was translated literally into Greek, where it did not have the same colloquial meaning. This is a common translation problem and the web has many sites with funny examples of translations of English ad slogans into other languages or signs in English in other countries where the meaning gets hopelessly mangled (e.g. when Chevrolet marketed its car, Nova, in Latin AMerica, where "no va" means "doesn't go").  Anyway, a good deal of the article on Names and Titles was - like many other articles on Jesus - originally part of this article and spun off when Jesus got to big.  Vermes looks at every other known use of "son of man" in Hebrew or Aramaic literature from the period (e.g. 100 BCE to 200 CE) and sees that it is used as a rhetorical device to refer to one's self; apparently it was considerd bad form ot just wasn't colloquial to say "I" or "me."  You know how some people today refer to themselves in the third person and it drives everyone nuts?  Vermes concludes that that is how people in Palestine felt about the first person, and in certain situations it was just considered bad form, and people would use the phrase "son of man" as a polite way of saying "me" or "I".  I think this is all explained in the article we have linked to the section on "titles of Jesus."  I find Vermes scholarship very very impressive; his methods are very sensible and he applies them thoroughly.  I regretted it when the material representing his research was removed from this article.  But it realy was a size issue, not a POV issue. (that said, since that article was spun off, I thionk it has become a mess, mixing up original research with research based on verifiable sources; mixing up theological and historical views, etc.  But I put enough work into it and just can't keep cleaning it up. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * SLR. I buy that historical Jesus meant "I" or "a human" when he said "Son of Man." But the evangelists clearly make him out to be referring to himself as the "son of man," a divine figure of judgment, an echo of Daniel. The phrase deserves both a historical and a religious treatment, for its two competing interpretations. Leadwind (talk) 22:50, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Gonna need some verifiable and reliable sources for that, and the wording will require a "X meant A historically, however, modern evangelists have ascribed a secondary meaning of Y" type statement. &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 00:23, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, all I ever said was, "according to Geza Vermes, it was not a title." Wikipedia should include all significant views from all notable sources.  I never objected to adding other significant views from notable, verifiable, and reliable sources ... I just do not know them.  I just offered the one thing I do know, that's all! Slrubenstein   |  Talk 01:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * That's OK; but we'll still need a conditional statement. I was raised as as Lutheran and escaped when I was 13, but I do not recall Son of Man being used as a title in the same way Christ is.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 01:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible there could be a view on philosophical view as Jesus is one of the most important characters to study in modern Philosophy. Thank you. 6 February 2009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Objective33 (talk • contribs) 05:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Anything is posible! hey, we would love for you to help us edit Wikipedi!  But we can include only significant views from notable sources.  You can become an editor by doing the research for your own question!  Here is my advice; look for college textbooks on philosophy, or reviw articles on modern philosophy published in peer-reviewed journals for philosophers and by philosophers, and find out hat modern philosophers consider to be the most important people to study as part of modern philosophy!  That would be useful research!  Then if you find out jesus is on the mjor lists, we can say that.  or you may find he is not, and may discover who the most important modern philosophers are!  That would be important research too! Slrubenstein   |  Talk 06:14, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

It's not "my theory" when I said he uses the title "son of man" to state his authority over the Decalogue itself. One example:The statement, "For the son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath day"(Matt 12:8, Mark 2:28, Luke 6:5) is pretty emphatic, and is one of the reasons, as it is recorded in the gospels, why the preciding religious community was apparently shocked and appalled. They viewed him as a "blasphemer" and a threat to the norm. It's certainly not implied in any sense in the gospels. How does that title relate to the view in the Book of Enoch(1 Enoch, Ethiopic Enoch)? Whether you buy into those particular chapters in Enoch predating or postdating the gospels, it's still there, in your face. Son of Man in Enoch is simply not used as a rhetorical device or a figure of politeness. Rather, it is used as a title of a messianic figure.70.19.135.200 (talk) 14:45, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It may help if you cite scholars who are making these interpretations. Surely, just because something is written in the Gospels, doesn't mean the historical Jesus necessarily said it, right? So how do we know if something is authentic? We go to our sources. So what are sources saying about this? Where are you getting your interpretations? If you don't have sources, then we can't add your suggestions to the article per WP:NOR. -Andrew c [talk] 15:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

70.19.135.200 may want to check out Biblical law in Christianity. It's only a minority of Christians who believe the Ten Commandments have been superseded. 75.15.197.128 (talk) 20:58, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe the point I was trying to make was sidetracked or I did not explain it sufficiently. Originally, I had said that the title "Son of Man" did not receive any mention in this article. I was wrong, sort of. It receives one sentence. That being the case, consider that the word "Christ" appears 60 times within the four gospels, and the phrase or title "Son of Man" appears more than 80 times. I strongly feel that "Son of Man" deserves much more of an explanation than the single line given to it. At a minimum, a paragraph would be sufficient in the context of this article. No?70.19.135.200 (talk) 21:46, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * There is some controversy over how to translate and interpret "sone of man." This article used to include an account of that debate, but this article grew too big.  We now have a separate article on the names and titles of Jesus, and a separate article even on just the phrase, son of man.  So there are two entire Wikipedia articles that cover this issue.  There is no need to return to this article material that was removed because it is too long.  That material did not disappear, it is a link-click away.  Or type into the search box names and titles of Jesus, or son of man.  It is so easy for you to find, there is no point in discussing it any further here. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 22:12, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Let me add something here. The Aramaic phrase: "Bar Nasha" is a very common everyday term which literally means "human nature".  Gabr-  el  22:40, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * To put slr's query more crudely: what the fuch does "son of man" mean? Are the 6.6 bn of us here on this planet included, excluded, transcluded or just clouded by this gibberish.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 00:05, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you read the son of man article? -Stevertigo 00:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

You guys think I'm talking out of my ass. Here's one source, one scholar for you...R.H.Charles, British Biblical scholar:

-The Son Of Man And Its Meaning In Jewish Apocalyptic And In The New Testament -Book Of Enoch:Together With Reprint Of Greek Fragments p.307 "Its (Son of Man) import in the New Testament, this title(emphasis mine), with its supernatural attributes of superhuman glory, of universal dominion and supreme judicial powers, was adopted by (Jesus). The Son of Man has come down from heaven, John 3:13(cf 1 Enoch 48:2); he is the Lord of the Sabbath, Matt 12:8; can forgive sins, Matt 9:6; and all judgement is commited unto him, John 5:22,27(cf 1 En9:27). But while retaining its supernatural associations, this title(emphasis mine) underwent transformation that all Pharasaic ideas, so far as he adopted them, likewise underwent. And just as his kingdom in general formed a standing protest against the prevailing Messianic ideas of temporal glory and dominion, so the title(emphasis mine)"Son of Man" assumed a deeper spiritual significance..." You want more?70.19.135.200 (talk) 01:59, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Another source -. Hardyplants (talk) 02:24, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There is some controversy over how to translate and interpret "sone of man." This article used to include an account of that debate, but this article grew too big.  We now have a separate article on the names and titles of Jesus, and a separate article even on just the phrase, son of man.  So there are two entire Wikipedia articles that cover this issue.  There is no need to return to this article material that was removed because it is too long.  That material did not disappear, it is a link-click away.  Or type into the search box names and titles of Jesus, or son of man.  It is so easy for you to find, there is no point in discussing it any further here. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:39, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It's understandable that the account of the debate over "Son of Man" got moved to a separate article. However, I think this article should have a summary of that debate.  In fact, the relevant passage in the Son of Man article is only the two paragraphs from the section titled "Christian interpretation" and should, IMO, be included in this article.


 * Some argue that the phrase son of man took on Messianic significance within the Christian movement primarily due to the Jewish eschatology during the time of its early conception. These people originate the phrase in the book of Daniel, in a vision, one like a son of man is described coming upon the clouds of the sky to unite the world. Contenders point out that the phrase "the son of man" and "one like a son of man" are not the same and that in Daniel 8 the phrase "son of man" is translated as merely "mortal" therefore the eschatology is added later.


 * As a result, some Christians believe that the New Testament's, primarily the Gospels, usage of the son of man eighty-three times represents an apocalyptic title of Jesus. Some scholars and Christians have argued that the apocryphal tradition of this phrase even goes back to Jesus, himself, though not necessarily as a phrase Jesus used as a reference to himself but rather another figure alluded to in Daniel 7:13. Other scholars and Christians believe Jesus did not use the phrase, originally, as a title at all and that he used it primarily to refer to humanity generally. The phrase then became reworked toward an apocryphal slant Later, especially during the medieval ages, Christians interpreted it as Jesus showing humility Still other Christians believe the title is meant to signify Jesus upholding his identification with his humanity and fellowship with mankind, perhaps also conveying the idea that Jesus is the man par excellence. In this last context it serves as putting humans and Jesus on the same level.

--Richard (talk) 05:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Richard, I'm with you. When a section gets so long that it's spun off, a summary should remain on the main page. The summary you quote is good. Leadwind (talk) 15:07, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Help needed at Nativity of Jesus
Outside input is requested at Nativity of Jesus. It concerns a section, The narratives compared, which is a table showing the differences in detail between the nativity accounts of Matthew and Luke. Questions have been raised as to whether it should be included. Concerns include original research, novel synthesis, and dependence upon primary sources. The table can be seen at this version of the page:. Opinions concerning whether it should be included at all (given its current state, as well as the "Nativity as myth" section, which addresses discrepancies in the narratives), and if so, then in its current state, or beefed up with references, or converted to prose, are needed and would be greatly appreciated. Thanks to all who respond at the talk page. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 21:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

John on baptism and temptation
Two editors do not want our "gospels" section to tell the reader what all four gospels say abut Jesus' baptism and temptation. They want the article to relate only what the synoptics say and delete reference to what John says (or doesn't say), even when the information is cited. We have a section called "baptism and temptation." Naturally this section should tell the reader what the gospels, all of them, say on this topic. I can understand why a Christian might not want this article to point out differences between John and the synoptics, but I can't think of a good WP reason to exclude this information. Anyone? Leadwind (talk) 15:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure of the context. Any diffs you could cite?  I mean, I have my own opinions about John (the gospel and the author (whoever he was)), but I'm not able to conjure up any objections out of thin air, so if you could offer a little background, it might help.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 17:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It's basically been the only edit activity on this article for the last couple days. Here is one diff. But I believe there have been 3 reverts on each side...-Andrew c [talk] 18:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I've been deleting the fact that John says nothing about the aforesaid topics. Wikipedia should report information, not the absence of information. We should only say that John doesn't mention the baptism & temptation if there is a contradiction (there isn't!) or that there is some strong significance (is there?, and who says so?). rossnixon 02:13, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * For arguments sake, why? As someone not feeling strongly either way, your argument isn't that convincing (please, no offense intended), so perhaps you could explain it a little more.-Andrew c [talk] 02:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Ross, does your analysis derive from a WP policy? I get suspicious when someone starts deleting information from a page. I'd rather a page have more information than less. Deleting information is sometimes (not always) the mark of someone defending a POV, especially when there's no policy issue at stake. Leadwind (talk) 02:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I like to delete non-information, as non-information does not inform us and just makes an article longer. This article is already lengthy, which is OK given the importance of the subject, but I just don't see the point of unnecessary padding. If there is a good reason to say the information is missing, please let me know what it is. Thanks. rossnixon 02:41, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * In general, I would agree with Ross that commenting on what a source does not say is risky business. However, this sort of thing (what a gospel does not say) is the very stuff of Biblical analysis.  It is precisely the difference between the Gospel of John and the synoptic gospels that makes the synoptic gospels synoptic.  And it is what makes the Gospel of John unique.  Entire volumes have been written about the interpretation of these differences.  Now, we should not be doing Biblical analysis ourselves but it is reasonable for us to report what Biblical scholars have noted about what each gospel says and does not say.  I would be in favor of restoring the text that Ross reverted as long as it is cited to a reliable secondary source. (i.e. not to the gospel itself which is a primary source but to a reliable New Testament scholar which is what was done in the text that was reverted).  --Richard (talk) 02:45, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I've reviewed the edit in question and I find it to be unobjectionable. I think Ross' objection is one of principle rather than that this particular edit is saying anything objectionable.  As was commented in the edit summaries, this kind of observation is very common in Biblical commentaries.  This article is not the place for a long discourse on why the Gospel of John is different from the synoptics.  Entire volumes have been written about that and the right place to mention this is the article on the Gospel of John.  For this article, what is appropriate is to make a passing reference to some of the differences such as the edit in question makes. --Richard (talk) 02:51, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ross,

Actually, it is widely considered by Biblical scholars that each of the four gospels has a different "take" on the subject of Jesus' ministry. Another way of putting this is that each has a different message targeted to a different audience. The following text is taken from the "Character of Jesus" section of the Jesus article:


 * Each gospel portrays Jesus' life and its meaning differently. The gospel of John is not a biography of Jesus but a theological presentation of him as the divine Logos.  To combine these four stories into one story is tantamount to creating a fifth story, one different from each original.


 * Mark presents Jesus as a heroic, charismatic man of action and mighty deeds. Matthew portrays him especially as the fulfillment of Hebrew prophecy and as a greater Moses.  Luke emphasizes Jesus' miraculous powers and his support for the poor and for women.  John views Jesus' earthly life as a manifestation of the eternal Word.

Each assertion in the article text is cited to one or more reliable sources. I didn't include them here but they are in the article text.

The argument then is that similarities and differences between the gospels are not accidental but are the product of each evangelist having a different "take" on the subject; that is, a different message for a different audience. This is explained more fully in the Gospel article under the section "Content of the Gospels"


 * The synoptic gospels represent Jesus as an exorcist and healer who preached in parables about the coming Kingdom of God. He preached first in Galilee and later in Jerusalem, where he cleansed the temple. He states that he offers no sign as proof (Mark) or only the sign of Jonah (Matthew and Luke). In Mark, apparently written with a Roman audience in mind, Jesus is a heroic man of action, given to powerful emotions, including agony.   In Matthew, apparently written for a Jewish audience, Jesus is repeatedly called out as the fulfillment of Hebrew prophecy.  In Luke, apparently written for gentiles, Jesus is especially concerned with the poor.   Luke emphasizes the importance of prayer and the action of the Holy Spirit in Jesus' life and in the Christian community.  Jesus appears as a stoic supernatural being, unmoved even by his own crucifixion. Like Matthew, Luke insists that salvation offered by Christ is for all, and not the Jews only.


 * The Gospel of John represents Jesus as an incarnation of the eternal Word (Logos), who spoke no parables, talked extensively about himself, and did not explicitly refer to a Second Coming. Jesus preaches in Jerusalem, launching his ministry with the cleansing of the temple.  He performs several miracles as signs, most of them not found in the synoptics.

Once again, this text is heavily cited. I have omitted the citations because they wouldn't show up in the right way on a Talk Page.

I understand that your reversion of the text in question was in good faith but I think that, in this particular instance, you are letting general principles about Wikipedia articles override the current consensus of Biblical scholars.

--Richard (talk) 04:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I added another citation of John not describing the baptism, and it's from a section of text that is specifically addressing how the gospels portray Jesus, which is our topic for the "gospels" section. Leadwind (talk) 15:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Why two sources to say that John doesn't mention the baptism of Jesus? Indeed why even one?  I'm sorry, I just don't get the significance of the insistence that John does not mention the baptism of Jesus. Is it intended to suggest that Jesus was not in fact baptized?   Or what other purpose does it serve?  Soidi (talk) 16:08, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Soidi, as you well know from your struggles to make a point over at Roman Catholic Church, sometimes excessive citationing is used as a rhetorical weapon to establish a point that other editors refuse to accept. From the point of view of good encyclopedia writing, sometimes the citations are unnecessary, excessive and distracting.  This is probably one of those cases.  --Richard (talk) 16:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Ross on principle. But I believe principles must be applied relative to the context. In this situation, I think Richard has provided a fine analysis and I agree with him in practice. What is the purpose of the section on the Gospel accounts? It cannot be because the Gospel accounts "speak for themselves" about jesus' life, if only because this view, like any view, is a view and Wikipedia is all about presenting all significant views as views, which are "verifiable" but not "true." This is a fundamental principle at Wikipedia and there is no point in debating or even discussing it. Moreover, there are in fact many different views about how the Gospels should be interpreted or drawn on to learn anything about Jesus's life and teachings. In my view, this section ought to provide a newtral accout of the "raw material" for all those other significant views. The significant views are summarized in this article and presented at greater langth in other articles (e.g. Christology, Historical Jesus, Cultural and historical background of Jesus, and Names and titles of Jesus in the New Testament. Our principle shoud be: provide a straightforward account of all elements of the Gospels that these significant views consider salient.  For several significant views, that John does not mention Jesus' baptism, and that Mark does not mention his birth, are salient.  Therefore these facts should be mentioned - briefly, and with no commentary or interpretation (that, I believe, belongs in other articles).  The result will be a summary of the Gospels that readers of any of the linked articles I mentioned could refer back to ... or put it this way, an account of the Gospels that anyone could read, and then go on to read and fully follow any of the linked articles. I am sure that Christian theologians have explanations for why Mark does not mention the birth, or John does not mention the baptism. Those explanations belong in the articles Christology, Mark and John. The basic (descriptive) facts that theologians (and historians) explain should be in this section in this article. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 17:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Well said, I agree wholeheartedly. --Richard (talk) 17:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * If John's non-mention of the baptism of Jesus is "significant" (Slrubenstein), it would be helpful if the article indicated why this non-mention is considered more significant than the hundreds of other non-mentions by John. What puzzles me is what "point" (Richarshusr) is it that one editor wants other editors to accept.  Does anybody deny that John does not mention the baptism?  So I can't believe that the mere non-mention is "the point" that the editor wants to get across.  What is it he wants to suggest?  Soidi (talk) 20:31, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Noting, for example, that something is mentioned by Suetonius but not by Tacitus, or by Heroditus but not by Thucydides is standard in the study of history, and as such omissions or inclusions are generally not accidental, they are of great importance in gaining a true picture of the actual history of specific items: hence, John's non-inclusion of the baptism and temptation (among numerous other things) is important. Also of importance would be Paul's non-mention of a virgin birth or the resurrection as portrayed in the synoptics as well as John.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera!


 * Paul alludes to Jesus unusual birth twice: Galatians 4:4 "But when the fullness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law," and Romans 1:3 "Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh." He uses strange phrasings to speak of Jesus birth. If we think this has a place in the article, I can hunt down a scholarly reference or two. Hardyplants (talk) 23:58, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It's Paul's allusion that is unusual, at least in the phrasing. Really, though, it is nothing more than a nod to Jesus' proper place in the pantheon (as it were).  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 21:33, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * It would seem helpful to explain why the omission is of import. The language takes the reader to a position without stating why it is important. I agree that there may be some value to this line of discussion, but this level of detail does not belong in this article.
 * It is interesting that there are these types of idiosyncrasies within what is perceived as the word of God. The Pauline letters are full of these types of situations that fuel discussions. IMHO, it is evidence that the scriptures are not complete, there was more to say. However, that is meaningless to this article. Cheers. -- Storm  Rider  21:55, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I take it you don't read much history?
 * Also, trying to define why John did not include these two (as well as a number of other) items would likely be a violation of WP:NOR. As the author of John left no working notes of which we are aware, not even historians know precisely why he left them out.
 * As for detail, as this article already goes into greater detail of a religious sense than a true history really should, I can't see what the addition of pointing out the omission harms. As these two items are rarther important in Christian dogma, it seems to make sense to note that the author of John chose not to include them.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 22:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Jim, are you trying to imply something about me personally? How about we just focus on the article and not what we think of others. Believe me, I have been around long enough to despise this type of infantile stupidity. Soidi asks the right question that remains unanswered, what is the purpose of mentioning it? I continue to hear a lot of talk about why it is important, just answer the question. -- Storm  Rider  23:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * (ex x2)I think you totally missed my point. I have twice explained the reason for mentioning it: as this article is about a historical figure, thus it is a history article, thus and therefore the standard processes used in writing about history should be used.  If you read history books (not textbooks) you'll notice a plethora of statements or footnotes that say, for example, "Suetonius does not record this", "Thucydides" records this differently", etc.
 * Re you personally, I don't know you from a can of paint. If you were offended however by my slight sarcasm, I apologise.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 00:30, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Why I include John's omission of the baptism: This section is "what the gospels say about Jesus." This subsection is "what the gospels say about Jesus' baptism and temptation." When I consult my sources about what John, in particular, says about Jesus' baptism and temptation, I see that the gospel omits the baptism, so that information goes in here. The topic is "what do the gospels say about Jesus' baptism and temptation," and this information tells the reader just that. I can't see anything more straightforward than that. On the other hand, a few editors don't want the article to say what John says about Jesus' baptism. Why not? For about 1900 years (since the Diatesseron), Christians have been trying to harmonize the four, different gospels into one, coherent story. Glossing over differences among the gospels is one tactic in this effort. Our gospel section used to be a lot like that, trying to meld the four gospels accounts into one account of what "the gospels" say. And that's a big difference between the traditional Christian POV and the scholarly view: whether there is one account of what "the gospels" say or four accounts, one for each gospel. Leadwind (talk) 00:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Storm Rider, "it is evidence that the scriptures are not complete." Yeah, if only Jesus, after his resurrection, would have gone to some other continent and explained things further. Oh wait... Leadwind (talk) 00:28, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * According to StormRider, Soidi asks the right question. With all due respect, which question was that?  Do you mean the question: "why this non-mention is considered more significant than the hundreds of other non-mentions by John?"  What puzzles me is that Soidi asks this question after I amswered it.  Let me pose a comparable question: Why mention any one thing from the Gospels, and not something else?  I mean, we have not quoted all four Gospels verbatim.  That means we have left stuff out.  So why do we include some stuff and not others?  This is in essense the same question.  And as I say, I have already answered it: our account of the Gospels should be guided by the rest of the Jesus article and linked articles.  We have a section on the historical Jesus with links to three articles.  Anything concerning the four Gospels that is mentioned in those three articles should go into our section on "...According to the Gospels."  We have an article on Christology.  Anything in the Gospels refered to in that article should go into the section.  In other words, our articles that provide interpretations of Jesus or Jesus Christ should guide what goes into the section on the Gospel accounts.  Any element of the Gospels that is subject to interpretation by any of the viewpoints covered in our linked articles should go into the section on the Gospels.  Now, why mention one thing that John does not say, and not all the other stuff John does not say?  Because this particular difference has been noted and interpreted by significant views in notable sources and is covered in linked articles.  ANY of the countless differences that are subject to interpretation by a notable source in one of our linked articles should be mentioned in the "Gospel" section.  Why not include ALL the differences?  because I do not know that any notable view covered in any of the linked articles interprets every difference.  The Gospels are important because they are primary sources for notable viewsd that interpret them.  Those notable views refer to specific items in specific Gospels ... and elements found in multiple Gospels ... and differences between Gospels.  All this stuff, as long as it is subject to interpretation by a signficant viewpoint in a notable source that is mentioned in one of the linked articles that are summarized in the Jesus article should go in.  Isn't this a simple and commonsensical principle?  Anything that is not subject to interpretation by notable sources does not go in.  Again, seems like a simple, commonsensical principle that is NPOV and meets our notability standards. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 00:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Lead, you make me chuckle; thanks. Sl, I am not sure we are disagreeing with one another. If there is a significant reason identified by a reliable source that explains the significance of this ommission, then it may make sense to include a discussion about it. I would reject a wording that states, Author X notes that John does not include ... whereas the other three gospel all mentioned... If we could instead say, Professor X states that John's omission of ... is significant because ... Does this make sense to you? I certainly support notability, but mere absence is not notable in this article unless there is a meaninng attributed to it. At least, that is my humble opinion. -- Storm  Rider  01:05, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I get the feeling you're assuming that there's a nefarious reason for the inclusion of the John non-mention. Note that we state "According to Matthew and Luke, Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea to Mary, a virgin, by a miracle of the Holy Spirit.", which by default means Mark and John don't.  Would you prefer we point this out?  Even if we did, the present prose of the baptism and tempation section (not sure why it's one section) is self-explanatory.   &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 03:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * To respond to StormRider: as always I think we need to acknowledge the concerns of active contributors to the article. If all major contributors agree that a detal concerning the Gospel's clearly is an object of interpretation, then there is no need to provide a link ot==to the section of this or a linked article that provides the interpretaion(s).  If however there is controversy among active contributors about whether a fact about the Gospels is an object ov interpretation, I would have no objection to our including a link to the place in htis or a linked article thar provides interpretations.  I do not think that the section "... according to the Gospels" however for the kind of statemtne "According to X, ...."  I think the section " ... According to the Gospelsx" should provide a neutral, purely descriptive account of the Gospels (the question we have been discussing is, "which facts about the Gospels do we describe," and my answer has been, "those alements that are objects of interpretation" but the interpretations belong in other sections of the articles and linked articles.


 * Frankly, I think that this conversation has become trite and indicative of a serious problem: many people - in good faith, I have NO doubt - spend morre time chatting on talk pages than working on articlkes. I have a feeling that there really are LOTS of facts about /of/the Gospels that have been objects of interpreataion by significant scholas publishing in notable sources, and I think our articles barely scratch the surface.  Here is what I would like to see: someone sit down with The Anchor Bible and make sure that all major issues it addresses are in our articles on Mark, Matthew, Luke and John.  I assume that there is something comparable written either by the Church Fathers or the major contemporary churches and someone whould work on adding that material to the articles on the four books AND Christology.  I'd like someone else with Vermes, Sanders and others to go ove the articles on the historical Jesus and clarify the relationship between their interpretations and the principal sources (Gospels).  Alas, I cannot do it - I already put real time into this stuff, and now have real life work to attend to.   But if we had spent the last few days clarifyong the use of specific elements of the Gospel as sources for interpretations among theologians and hisorians, mostly in linked articles, this encyclopedial would be much better AND it would be simple to resolve such disputes as this one Slrubenstein   |  Talk 05:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I haven't found where Slrubenstein had answered, before I asked it, my question about why John's non-mention of the baptism of Jesus is so much more significant than, for instance, his non-mention of Baptist John's proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins (Mark 1:4) or the Baptist's garb and diet (Mark 1:6). The reader of the article is left wondering why the article singles out that particular non-mention.  There would be much less puzzlement if it were made clear that this is by no means the only non-mention by John in his gospel, even in the immediate context.  However, I won't lose any sleep about the lack of a clear answer to my question about the content of the article.  Soidi (talk) 05:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Soidi, if I read SLR right, they're saying two things: 1. this particular non-mention deserves citation because it's referred to in RSs as part of their notable interpretations. 2. Could we pretty please spend more time finding RSs and feeding them into articles and less time going round and round on minor points in talk-page discussions? If that's SLR's point, then I concur. There's another reason to include it, I think, and it's that Jesus' baptism by John the Baptist is one of two or three other events that historians are most likely to accept as historical. For a gospel not to mention a true fact is noteworthy. In John, not only is there no baptism scene (as in Luke), but there's no mention of Jesus being baptized at all, and John isn't even "the Baptist." These same sources don't mention John's lack of a Temptation. Why not? Maybe because it's not as historically relevant as treatment of a historical event is. And, as a point of fact, the "per the gospels" section contains lots of instances where John differs from the synoptics, so one more case is going to seem par for the course. Leadwind (talk) 16:18, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, Leadwind of course you read me correctly. My answer to Soidi was quite plain when I answered before he asked on 17:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC), and repeated my answer at 00:45, 14 February 2009 (UTC).  StormRider understood my point, and you, perhaps Soidi just is not reading what I wrote.  We include mention that John does not refer to the baptism (or Mark to the birth) because it is verifiable that it is a significant view found in reliable sources that this absense is considered notable by historians.  We do not include "all other things that are not found in John but are found in the synoptics" for the simple reason that historians do not say that all other differences are notable.  Soidi, if you can provide me with a verifiable  significant view found in areliable source that claims that it is notable that something else is not found in John, well, then of course we should note that in the account of the Gospels!  But if you cannot provide me with a verifiable  significant view found in areliable source that claims that it is notable that something else is not found in John, well, in this case we could not make note of it in the section on the Gospels.  As with any other article, what we include or do not include starts with notable sources presenting significant views, like the historians Leadwind alludes to.  Or perhaps Soidi you are confused about this simple point because you have never read any of these sources and thus do not know what they say.  But Soidi, if you have not done any meaningful research, why are you even bothering us about this matter?  Maybe you should edit articles on topics you are prepared to research? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:21, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Maybe this is silly of me, but the article currently contains: There is probably more... Point being, comparison and contrast is already all over this section of the article, and we specifically mention multiple things that are not found in other gospels. I'm not sure why the John material was so controversial and singled out among all this other stuff. Is anyone considering removing all this other material for the same reason the John/baptism/temptation stuff is objectionable? I'm not saying this is an OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument. I'm saying this is the manner we generally have taken in describing four similar, but sometimes conflicting stories. We mention notable places where material is unique, and notable places where material is omitted throughout the section. Is our whole approach problematic? Have the objectors read the entire section and agree with it all except the John/baptism/temptation stuff?-Andrew c [talk] 21:06, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Only Luke tells that Jesus was found teaching in the temple by his parents after being lost
 * Matthew omits this reference, emphasizing Jesus' superiority to John
 * John describes three different passover feasts over the course of Jesus' ministry, implying that Jesus preached for at least "two years plus a month or two". The Synoptic Gospels suggest a span of only one year.
 * In the synoptics, Jesus' ministry takes place mainly in Galilee, until he travels to Jerusalem, where he cleanses the Temple and is executed. In John, Jesus spends most of his ministry in and around Jerusalem, cleansing the temple at his ministry's beginning.
 * In John, and not in the synoptics, Jesus is outspoken about his divine identity and mission.
 * And your post reminds me that I really need to get moving on my "NT Discordance", which I have no doubt will be much bigger than any concordance. Hell, only two of the Gospels partly agree as to what Jesus allegedly said on the cross -- but overall it's a hodge-podge that offers statements that are contradictory in mood.  But, I digress.  Bottom line is that the approach follows the proper standards of historical writing.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 21:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but we cannot commit OR - safest way is to peg "notability" to a verifiable source. Makes for a better encyclopedia all around. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 22:24, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I wasn't being serious in the context of the article -- the discordance is something I've always meant to do since I was a wee lad in Sunday School. I've started it a few times, and then I get bored with the material.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 23:04, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It is a funny idea ... sorry I was obtuse (Jews generally take discord for granted, so at first glance it sounds like a perfectly reasonable thing to do or something that would already have been done!) Slrubenstein  |  Talk 23:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Which explains why I admire Judaism more than Christianity -- Jews ask questions because they want answers and are willing to disagree, Christians ask questions (often, they aren't questions but tropes) to prove dogma (see Aquinas and the RCC). &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 23:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * A joke:
 * Q: Why do Jews always answer a question with a questio?
 * A: Why not?
 * Slrubenstein  |  Talk 02:59, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Eusebius' understanding of why John's gospel was different was rather simple. When John, in his old age decided to put his memoirs into writing, he decided not to cover what had already been covered. The story was already well known. There would be no point in saying the same things. He gave it a different perspective and added that there was much more that had not been written down..."volumes that would fill the earth" or something to that extent.70.19.135.200 (talk) 03:47, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Muslim "Scholars" a misnomer
Muslim "scholars" do not debate the crucifixtion of Jesus, they simply believe it because it's in the Quran. It isn't scholarly, nor did they come to such a conclusion through scholarly work. It would be sufficient to say Muslims do not believe in the crucifixtion because the Quran says so. They have no historical records other than two holy books, and a choice to believe in the one they see fit to come to a "scholarly" conclusion. This needs to be changed, it's just plain stupid. Jesus like Christian "scholars" do not debate a fact they believe in the Bible, it is not debatable, it is written in stone, so to say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.231.144 (talk • contribs) 12:32, 12 January 2009
 * you have no idea what "scholarship" means, do you. Nor ever tried your hand at exegesis of ancient texts. If it isn't "scholarship" that compiled the disparate ancient and medieval manuscript of the New Testament, compared them, edited them, translated them, and then debated their content, I have no idea what you understand by the term. The fact that you can go to a shop and buy a copy of "the Bible" is the result of literally centuries of scholarly efforts. --dab (𒁳) 11:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Anon, you have poorly characterized an entire people and hundreds of years of Muslim scholarship. It may be easy to skim newspapers today, read about Islamic fundamentalists and make an assumption about Muslim efforts to educate their people, but it would be a terribly naive conclusion. You may want to read more history and less NYT and WP. Cheers. -- Storm  Rider  16:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not his points are prejudicail or not, it remains unclear whether it is actual scholarly activities, or simply the Quran that is being referenced. If a scholarly view was used by Muslims fine, but if it's the Quran being referenced this should be reflected in the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.146.200 (talk) 23:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Burkbraun's comments on Jesus Myth section/bias
[note, moved from the to-do list by Andrew c [talk] 17:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)]

I think the Jesus myth section is rather biased in its blanket statement that most or all scholars accept the historical Jesus and dismiss myth hypotheses. Most or all scholars interested in the area are Christians, as shown by every single reference cited in the section to support this contention. What then would one expect out of such a devotional viewpoint? The sampling is hopelessly biased, being self-selected. One unaffiliated, skeptical, and discerning analyst is worth a hundred apologetic ones.

It would be more appropriate to say that we have no evidence for Jesus's existence outside of what is internal to the tradition- the people who propagated the nascent faith and the documents they produced- all well after the time about which they wrote (including the interpolations to Josephus and all the rest...).

Thus the fair conclusion of the page should be while it is likely that these traditions trace back to a real person, there is no independent evidence to that effect, and indeed quite a few lacunae where evidence should exist. And the many correspondences to other mythical traditions floating around the Jewish and Mediterranean worlds of the time make the majority of key elements of this tradition quite suspect as to their historicity.

Note that all this needs to be presented in a probabilistic manner- this is not a question of refuting X, or being sure of Y, but of recognizing the lack of solid data either way.

http://www.christianorigins.com/wellsprice.html http://mama.indstate.edu/users/nizrael/jesusrefutation.html etc. etc... Burkbraun (talk) 17:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * There appears no reason not to quote these scholars. Broad, unreferenced statements asserting facts should be tagged for citation requests. I see no problem with just following standard Wikpedia editing policies. -- Storm  Rider  18:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. I think we have done a great job of providing the significant views from notable sources. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 20:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The link provided above seems to be no more than an essay with a name that may be a pun.
 * On the other hand, our one footnoe, "^ "...if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned. ... To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars.' In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." M. Grant, Jesus: An Historian's Review, pp. 199-200. 1977 " is illogical and possibly very POV (which is OK, if a source with a competing POV were to be inserted). But then again, the answer to Jesus' real existence will never be found based on anything other than extrapolation.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 21:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The Jesus-Myth hypothesis is discredited even among mainstream, nonsectarian scholars, not because the scholars are Christian but because there's every reason to believe he lived (as a mortal man). Leadwind (talk) 01:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * To be accurate: they believe there was at least a basis in a real person who became the myth.  &#0149;Jim 62 sch&#0149; dissera! 21:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If you have been over to the disjointed mess that is Jesus myth hypothesis you will see that there is a lot of confusion as to what the Christ myth theory even is. The biggest problem is that different authors use different definitions for the term.  Remsburg's and Dodd's definitions include a historical person with other says it only refers to the idea Jesus never existed.  In short the literature on this is a mess.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * this goes to show that there should be no "Jesus myth" section here. A "historicity" section is enough. --dab (𒁳) 11:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Jesus was Korean fabrication
There is some Internet lies going around web lately claiming Jesus was Korean theory, please note Jesus have nothing do with Korea and Koreans, but it seems Chinese & Japanese do believe this is correct which I can only think of this was lie was invented by Chinese/Japanese nationalists in attempt to make fun at Koreans. Please note this is very controversial claim coming from Chinese/Japanese communities. I do believe this has to stop, so please add this event on main article to show this was total fabrication. --Korsentry 02:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)
 * Uh, I don't think we could include that with WP:FRINGE. You'd need to satisfy WP:REDFLAG. And considering the sudden rise in other forms of this propaganda that is (|supposedly Budda, |and Mao Zedong), I personally would be disinclined to believe any of it w/o major evidence from reliable sources. Soxwon (talk) 04:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

this sounds interesting, but we'll need evidence of the notability of this "Christ was Korean" thing before we can debunk it. --dab (𒁳) 11:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Occupation
jesus was a Rabbi and a Carpenter.

please add this two!. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.80.216 (talk) 10:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Not Jewish here, but he wasn't an "ordained" Rabbi, he was a vagrant who preached about peace and love whom his followers referred to as Rabbi. Not sure that counts though. 2CrudeDudes (talk) 18:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I remember making a few suggestions for Jesus' occupation. Alas, they were not taken up. ja fiswa imċappas bil-hara! (talk) 18:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I am Jewish, and I am a rabbi (an "ordained" one, too), and I'm wondering whether 2CrudeDudes has proof of that at all or whether he/she/it (they?) is just guessing.... RavShimon (talk) 19:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well Rav you should know there's no ordination involved. Jesus was an itinerant preacher, sometime carpenter, alleged messiah. ja fiswa imċappas bil-hara! (talk) 19:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, that's rather my point: the whole "he was a vagrant... whom his followers referred to as Rabbi" bit needs support. There were "real" rabbis at the time, and the concept of ordination goes back to the beginning of Jewish history, so saying definitively that he wasn't would require proof just as much as saying he was.  In absence of sources to either effect, the best we can do is to say that we don't know whether he was.
 * There are indications to the fact that he wasn't—rabbis weren't exactly very common back then, and after all his "innovations" there most likely would have been some mention of his ordination being rescinded (yes, that can happen)—but that's just a bit short of definite proof. RavShimon (talk) 20:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * What you mean is, there is no statement in the sources describing Jesus receiving smicha. But it is understandable that an Orthodox Jew would infer that a person addressed as "rabbi" would have received smicha i.e. that the title was used only to address men who had received smicha.  Non-Orthodox Jews - at least, some who are historians - might question whether the word "rabbi" was used that way during the first century, but I think all Orthodox Jews believe that it was. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 20:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, no, that's not what I mean. The term rabbi as used then was quite different from the term as used today.  I'm addressing 2CrudeDudes's comment that Jesus wasn't ordained. Even if Jesus was a rabbi by the then-current usage, we simply cannot say for sure whether he actually was given semicha at any point. RavShimon (talk) 20:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I'd say my comment holds a fortiori then. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 22:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Jesus got authority from John, in the Essene community. And it's pretty reasonable that Jesus was proficient in halakha. ja fiswa imċappas bil-hara! (talk) 22:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * We'd need sources for these claims; I don't think the major historians of Jesus or the period would accept your assertions. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 16:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Imagery
We have 11 out of 11 images depicting the adult Jesus in the "standard average" convention of a bearded man with dark hair.

This does not reflect iconographic tradition accurately, since there is a parallel, although weaker, tradition of depicting Jesus as a beardless young man. here is Jesus as a boy (Bulgaria, 13th c.) -- which does not count, but which would be a welcome intermediate stage between the ubiquitous Baby Jesus and Bearded Jesus images. Here and here are examples for the beardless adult Jesus. Here we have a beardless Christ-as-Orpheus, which is probably intended more as an allegory than as a portrait, but which is nevertheless notable for its age (4th century. The oldest image currently in the article is 200 years younger). Early depictions of "Jesus as Good Shepherd" such as this, which also show him as a beardless youth are similar (allegory, not portrait). I think there is a theory that beardless depictions were the rule prior to the 6th century, when with the appearance of the Mandylion, an "authentic" portrait became available, which subsequently set an iconographic standard. --dab (𒁳) 11:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello D, I don't see any reason why beardless iconography should not be inn the article. The diversity would be good. If you are looking to replace a picture, maybe you could provide which ones you would replace. It may be easier just to add one. I would suggest being bold in this case. Cheers. -- Storm  Rider  16:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Being beardless would not be accurate considering he was Nazarene and as such didn't use a razor. Soxwon (talk) 16:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee, he was not a Nazirite. Hardyplants (talk) 17:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a particular preference. My suggestions are contained in the post above. I may try fiddling with the images today or tomorrow if I have time, but my intention was mainly to encourage others to widen iconographic coverage. In fact, the main article on this topic, depiction of Jesus, loses itself in "Early Iconography", "Acheiropoieta" and "in Islam" but fails to cover mainstream Christian ionography, which should ideally make for the bulk of the article, so I'll try to invest some work in that some time.

Of course this isn't about the question whether the "real" Jesus had a beard. None of these images are painted after life (if we exclude the Turin shroud debate for the moment). The idea that these images are in any way accurate suffers from the "Muhammad FAQ #3 fallacy". --dab (𒁳) 10:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hardyplants is right that Jesus being a Nazarene doesn't make him bearded. Shaving was nearly universal among Jesus' people, and the earliest depictions of Jesus show him clean-shaven. For instance, a 3rd century bas relief in the Roman Forum shows a bearded John the Baptist (an ascetic from the wilderness) and a clean-shaven Jesus (not an ascetic). Leadwind (talk) 17:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

So how do we edit a page if it's "semi-protected?" Is it possible to re-format pages anymore? This prohibition from editing doesn't seem very wikipedia-like. :)

Somebody let me know what's going on please... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scttvnzn (talk • contribs) 22:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The page is protected against IP edits, probably due to ongoing vandalism issues. It can still be edited by anyone with a registered account who logs in. Doc  Tropics  19:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Editing changes needed
I'm putting this edit request here as the main article has been locked to edits.



In the "Chronology" section, where it mention "the current year is 2009", "2009" should be replaced by the template CURRENTYEAR (all caps) in order to show the current year automatically without need to edit the year over time. (Place double curly braces before and after the template please.) This will not change the way the year is displayed, only effect is to change the year to match the current year, i.e.: on Jan 1, 2010, the year shown will change to "2010'.

Please delete this section after the above editing has been done as this section will no longer be relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.247.77.63 (talk) 16:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry forgot to sign. Added editsemiprotected 98.247.77.63 (talk) 16:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Edited to reflect current changes. Also added expanded explanation to "currentyear" after reading the request to not change date espression. The above "currentyear" template will not change the appearance, only change as the years roll by. 98.247.77.63 (talk) 16:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That section already uses 2024 . — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Year of birth
If the chronology of his life is what is drawn upon for most of this article, would it not make sense to put Jesus's birth at the year zero? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.73.64.155 (talk) 17:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * To begin there is no Year 0 in the Gregorian calendar. Next, there is much disagreement as to what year Jesus was born in, so it is not possible to put a definitive year as to his birth.  A new name 2008 (talk) 17:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Birth Date
Astronomer John P. Pratt, The Planetarium Vol. 19 Number 4 Dec 1990:

"The date of the reported lunar eclipse shortly before the death of King Herod has long been recognized to be important for delimiting possible dates for the birth of Christ. For many years it has been believed that the eclipse occurred on March 13, 4 B.C., and hence that Christ must have been born about 6-5 B.C. However, recent re-evaluation has raised questions about that eclipse, and two other dates have been preferred: Jan. 10, 1 B.C., [1] and Sept 15, 5 B.C. [2 ] This paper proposes yet another eclipse as the correct choice: that of December 29, 1 B.C. It also suggests that Christ was born at the Passover season of 1 B.C. and discusses compatibility with traditional Christmas dates."

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.18.159.103 (talk) 02:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

"son" of man or "child" of man?
I've got a detailed grammatical question for someone who knows something about Aramaic. In some languages, the word "son" is specifically masculine (e.g., in English). In others, the word "son" is generic, but the corresponding word "daughter" is specifically feminine (e.g., Spanish). In Spanish, if one is talking about a "son" or "sons" in general (hijo or hijos), the term strictly means "child" or "offspring." If I ask you how many hijos you have, I'm asking about your children, not about your male children. European languages with gender often have word pairs that don't map to English, as in "sibling & sister" instead of brother and sister. Or "parent & mother," "teacher & female teacher," etc. What's the case in the term "son of man"? I've seen it translated as "child of humanity" (Ehrman). In Aramaic, does the term "son of man" mean "child of a mortal man" or does it mean specifically "male child of a mortal man"? Leadwind (talk) 19:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Aramaic distinguishes between son and daughter, and in this case uses the word for son. However, the best scholarly explanation of the phrase "son of man" that I know of is Vermes, who shows how it is used to refer to one's self in polite conversation.  There is no direct equivalent to this in English today, except in life science journals and some other academic journals where authors are not allowed to use the word "I" and instead use the passive voice ("It is argued ...")  Perhaps an analogy would be the time - now past - when scholars instead of using "I" would use the first person plural, "We."  There are a great many books and articles one may read (by one, I mean you), in which the author consistently uses the word "we" ("We shall argue") and every informed reader knows that this is purely a formality, that the article or book was written by one person and the view of only one person is being expressed (no informed reader would conclude that the name of the author is actually a pseudonym for a collection of several authors, readers understood that "we" was a convention).  Similalry, Vermes shows how in contemporaneous texts people seem to be using bar nasha or whatever the Aramaic was to mean "I," but politely. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 20:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "Aramaic distinguishes between son and daughter, and in this case uses the word for son." And in particular, it distinguishes the way English does and not the way Spanish does? It's a very particular question. As for "son of man" meaning "I," my understanding is that this is one meaning, but that it could also mean "mere mortal" or "mother's son," that is, roughly, "somebody." When Jesus says the son of man has nowhere to lay his head, it could refer Jesus himself, or to people in general. Maybe he meant it in both senses. Leadwind (talk) 07:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * My understanding is, it that it does not mean mere mortal or somebody. What is the evidence for that?  If our task is to understand what it meant in the Gospel's, we need a meaning that of course makes sense when substituted in the specific Gospel contextx - but I would think a reliable interpretation would have to be based on non-Gospel sources, if we are making a claim that the meaning was generally understood.  Vermes does this.  I have not read Ehrman (whom I respect) - what is his evidence?  By the way, it seems to me that hijo and son mean the exact same thing, in what way are Spanish and English different?  I think you mean "hijos" which means children.  But just because hijos means children does not mean that hijo means child.  I am fairly certain that bar in Aramaic means son, and not child.  But if "bar nasha" means "I" perhaps women used the phrase too ... you would have to go back to Vermes to see if the term occurs in that context.  I think what is more important is that both Spanish and English are very different from 1st century Aramaic. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If "son" in Aramaic is like "hijo" in Spanish rather than like "son" in English, then "son of man" could be translated "child of humanity," as Ehrman does. If "son" in Aramaic is like "son" in English, then "child" is not a fair translation. That's why I want to know whether the Aramaic word for "son" is like Spanish (in which gender is only assumed) or like English (in which it is explicit). It sounds as though you can't answer my very technical question, which is no surprise. It's a very technical question. As for "son of man," Crossan sometimes translates "son of man" as roughly "human being," which is how it was used in Hebrew scripture. Funk translates it as "son of Adam," which sound's a lot like "mother's son" to me. In Mark, when Jesus says that the Sabbath was made for man, so the son of man is lord of the sabbath, that two-part argument makes sense if you translate it as the sabbath was made for mortals, so the mere mortal is lord of the sabbath. The logic of the argument is lost if "son of man" is translated simply as "I." In Matthew and Luke, Jesus' argument is truncated so the reader can no longer tell that Jesus meant "son of man" to mean "human being." Leadwind (talk) 00:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Spanish: hijo for son, and hija for daughter. Child:(boy) niño m; (girl) niña f. Only CHILDREN - niños - would be ambiguous - so much for Spanish --JimWae (talk) 00:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I can speak neo-Aramaic and write it at a lower level; son of man in Aramaic is "bar-nasha", which has nothing to do with the word child. It has a loose mening to the words "son of man" but a more accurate translation is "human nature", and many Assyrians and Chaldeans say "ana hon bar nasha" (I am only a human!) as a sign of complaining for instance.  Gabr-  el  00:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

"bar" means son or "of" whilst nasha just means man.  Gabr-  el  00:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Jim, in Spanish one can say "Da cada niño una lâpiz" and mean "Give each child a pencil" not "Give each boy a pencil." Sometimes "niño" can mean "child," not "boy," even in the singular. That makes it different from English "boy." Leadwind (talk) 02:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Gabr-el. I was hoping I'd run into someone with some unusual language expertise. Follow-up questions: could a woman say "ana hon bar nasha" to mean "I am only a human"? Or would she have to say something else, since she's not a son of man? Leadwind (talk) 02:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Let me go ask a Priest who will be more knowledgable in aramaic than I, but I know that she can use it to mean that she has human nature, but I don't think that she can use it to mean that she a daughter of God. Besides, in those days, and even today, the masculine is often used for all, male and female.  Gabr-  el  06:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

In English, someone can say "she is the boy who cried wolf;" "the boy" stands in for all children. Leadwind, I think you are missing the point: even if "bar" always means "son," "bar nasha" is an ideomatic phrase that means something else. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 20:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * It can mean two things; word for word it translates to son of man, but its real meaning is "human nature". Child of Man is not what it means, definitely not.  Gabr-  el  22:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If the analogy with Hebrew holds, it seems that you cannot use the masculine form instead of the feminine to refer to an individual female person in Aramaic. Compare "Bar and Bat Mitzvah".  Nor can you in Spanish speak of an individual girl as "el niño".  "Da a cada niño un lápiz" does not refer to any one individual, but to a group, being equivalent to "Da a cada uno de los niños un lápiz".  Compare "Bnei Mitzvah".  Soidi (talk) 14:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Selection of sources
I am not here to question the content of this article nor it's neutrality but rather the reliability of the sources used when considering wiki's neutrality philosophy. I can't help but notice that The Jesus Seminars are extensively relied upon and seem to be assumed to be a neutral source. This is far from true. There really are only two position to take on the issue of who Jesus was and what he did in light of what is recorded in scripture. Either you believe that it is all true--every word of it--or you don't. There is no middle ground. The Jesus Seminars do not accept the text of the scriptures in there totality and are therefore by default entirely on one side of the fence. So what I am ultimately asking here is if we can progressively phase out the Jesus Seminar sources and replace them with sources who do not take an open and declared stance of non-neutrality (which the Jesus Seminars most certainly have--though perhaps without realizing it?). Or, is it possible to flag sources in some way as questionably neutral/non-neutral (as opposed to flagging the entire article)? Thanks. MorbidAnatomy (talk) 03:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Wait, I'm a little confused where you're coming from. Are you saying we stop citing the Jesus Seminar in favor of saying everything in the scripture is true? Please forgive me if I am misinterpreting you.-Andrew c [talk] 04:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Not at all! I am well aware that this is a place to discuss improving the article based on wiki policy, not a place for sermons.

Absolute neutrality on this issue is impossible but using sources that are self-proclaimed non-neutral seems deleterious to the quality of the article (unless they are balanced by other sources taking the opposing stance). What I'm saying here is that The Jesus Seminars are, as an organization, not a neutral source. So anything we cite from them is not neutral. This jeopardizes the neutrality of the article. I see only a few possible solutions: 1) don't use The Jesus Seminars as a source (that's a difficult option to chose!); 2) balance all Jesus Seminar information with other scholarship taking the opposite view (a lot of work but probably the best way to ensure neutrality); 3) some how flag either the information in the article or the sources themselves in the Notes section as of questionable neutrality. Any thoughts?  MorbidAnatomy (talk) 15:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia's policy is simple: we present all significant views from notable sources. That isn't so complicated, is it?  You write above that the Gospels are either all true, or not, that there is no middle ground.  Obviously you are wrong: the Jesus Seminar exists, so obviously there is a middle ground.  You may not agree with that view, but so what?  None of us are here to put our own views in articles.  Editors' views do not go on: only significant views from notable sources.  The Jesus seminar is significant.  You say the Jesus Seminar is not a neutral source.  Again: so what?  Our policy does not say we should use neutral sources.  It says we should use notable sources.  Please tell me where in our policies it says we should use neutral sources?  In fact, our NPOV policy says that no source is neutral.  So your point about it not being neutral, well, uh-duh, none of our sources are neutral.  Finally, you say we need to balance the Jesus Seminar with the "opposite" view.  I am not sure what you mean by "opposite" but be that as it may, I must again ask, where in our policy does it say that we must include "opposite" views?  Our policy says: we include all significant views from notable sources.  I repeat: that's simple, isn't it?  Why do you wish to make it complicated when our policy is so simple?  Provide us with a significant view from a notable source and we will put it in, if this is the right article (for example, we have a different article for views of Jesus Christ).  I do not know about "opposite" views, but we certainly include other significant views from other notable sources.  We also include views of historians who do not belong to the Jesus seminar, like Sanders, Fredriksen, and Vermes. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Um, you clearly did not follow what I was saying at all. Also, though I did not want to allow myself to deviate away from focusing on the article, you successfully tempted me into this: The Jesus Seminar is not middle ground in any way shape or form. Let me clarify what I was saying regarding absolute truth. There are only two views to take on the matter. 1) every word of the scriptures is absolutely true, or 2) not every word of the scriptures is absolutely true (this second class includes the spectrum ranging from "one word is wrong" to "the whole thing is false"). That's why there is no middle ground. It really is a black and white issue. The Jesus Seminars do not accept every word of it as truth and are therefore fall entirely into the previously enumerated group 2 (not a middle ground). What I was getting at before--in an attempt to improve the articles neutrality--was suggest a better balance of sources. I know we are not requiredto use neutral sources. I was merely listing the possible options, fully realizing that some of them are not realistic, not what I felt was required. I'm not trying to pick a fight here; I really am just trying to suggest means of improving the article. If no one is interested, forget it. I'm not that emotionally attached, I thought I would present the idea and see if anybody agreed or disagreed. I got my answer. MorbidAnatomy (talk) 18:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The claim that there are two views only is itself a view, and if it is a significant view from a reliable source we can add it, although since it is not a view about Jesus but rather a view about scholarship on the Gospels I would suggest this particular view would belong in another article. You also claim that there are neutral sources, but you have not named any.  In any event, opur policy does not recognize neutral sources; no source is neutral; all sources represent some view.  A source may claim to be neutral but that does not make it neutral, it just means that it claims it is neutral.  One source may describe another source as neutral; again, that does not make the other source, neutral, it just means that someone views it as neutral (and we would need to know if that someone were significant and notable).  I do not think anything I have said is combative, i am not trying to pick a fight, I was just clarifying the inclusion criteria: all that matters is that a view be significant and come from a reliable (and verifiable) source.  If you know of any that meet these inclusion criteria you are free to add them. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 20:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Note also that the proposed dichotomy is at least arbitrary. Why not split it as "no historical truth at all" vs. "some historical truth"? Why can't I have a three-way split - all truth, some truth, no truth - and demand balance between these three positions? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)


 * MorbidAnatomy, if you want to help, go find a good, conservative book by a respected author, like N T Wright, and edit the expert's conclusions into this page. That will make the page more to your liking and probably better. Leadwind (talk) 07:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Meier is a very reliable source, and conservative, too. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 16:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Meier is in the exact same camp as the Jesus Seminar. They both clearly do not believe that every word of the scriptures is absolutely true. :Þ -Andrew c [talk] 02:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Riiiiiiiiiight, I forgot - that category of "eveyone who isn't me." Yup!Slrubenstein  |  Talk 02:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)