Talk:Jesus/Archive 109

error on page
Where is the EDIT button on the main page of Jesus?

error:  at bottom, it reads:

"Names of Jesus in the Old Testament"

BUT the link leads to:

"Names of Jesus in the NEW Testament" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.252.179.26 (talk) 11:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You can't edit the page because it is protected. But I've deleted the link you mentioned altogether because it is already linked (more accurately here in the article. Belasted (talk) 17:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Please comment
On this AfD Slrubenstein  |  Talk 20:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Typos
"in or our of technical circless" contains 2 typos, "our" and "circless". It should either be corrected to "out" and "circles", or else marked with a [sic] template, by someone with access to the source: Walter P. Weaver, The Historical Jesus in the Twentieth Century, 1900-1950, (Continuum International, 1999), page 71. Art LaPella (talk) 23:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Consider it done. Here's the source.  Good catch!    .`^) Paine  diss`cuss (^`.   07:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

The last sentence of the next-to-last paragraph of the section on "Resurrection and Ascension" uses "principle" where the adjective "principal" is intended. The corrected version should read: "Later he appears to seven disciples who are fishing, and finally talks with Peter, foretelling Peter's death[74] and assigning him the principal role as shepherd of the new community.[74][77]" 212.150.94.78 (talk) 18:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * done; thanks.-- Storm  Rider  20:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Jesus told his friends one night that he was the son of God but one day Jesus died because A few guards A pilot and A master of all but the master did not want Jesus to die he did not tell anyone but he agreed for Jesus too die this is how he died the guards grabed him in the night when all his Dissipples were sleeping in the morning when they woke up they noticed that Jesus had gone they all went out side they saw Jesus carrying A giant cros and they remebered last night he said that he was going to die and then they all started crying with sadness when Jesus reached the top Jesus got nailed to the cross and was shouting to death with pain and blood going every where the next day he died A bit early lots of people were crying all those things that hes done for us A storm came after they had said that on Easter sunday Jesus rose up everyone A celebratian then he had to go back to Heaven but they were not crying this time because ways are ways. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.74.170 (talk) 19:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Please change "Including" to "Excluding"
In the section entitled, "Historical Views", the statement, "Including the Gospels, there are no surviving historical accounts of Jesus written during his life or within three decades of his crucifixion" means, prima facie, that the Gospels themselves don't exist (a contradiction indeed!). I suggest changing "Including" to "Excluding", so that the intended meaning, which is clearly that there are no surviving EXTRA-BIBLICAL historically reliable accounts of Jesus's life, comes through.
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: the Gospels weren't written within 3 decades of the crucifixion either. —Ms2ger (talk) 13:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Let's remove this
Jesus told his friends one night that he was the son of God but one day Jesus died because A few guards A pilot and A master of all but the master did not want Jesus to die he did not tell anyone but he agreed for Jesus too die this is how he died the guards grabed him in the night when all his Dissipples were sleeping in the morning when they woke up they noticed that Jesus had gone they all went out side they saw Jesus carrying A giant cros and they remebered last night he said that he was going to die and then they all started crying with sadness when Jesus reached the top Jesus got nailed to the cross and was shouting to death with pain and blood going every where the next day he died A bit early lots of people were crying all those things that hes done for us A storm came after they had said that on Easter sunday Jesus rose up everyone A celebratian then he had to go back to Heaven but they were not crying this time because ways are ways. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.74.170 (talk) 19:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Speargun3D (talk • contribs)

Move to Jesus of Nazareth?
I believe the principle of least surprise suggests that this article should be at Jesus of Nazareth, the common, neutral, and unique way to refer to the article's subject matter. Accordingly, I'm proposing the move. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 18:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Support -- there were in fact other itinerant preachers named "Jesus" in the area at that time. One such "prophet" was killed by a large rock shot from a catapult. The name "Jesus of Nazareth" uniquely names, and does not presume anything. This name is common in the credible literature. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 18:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. In addition, most "genealogical" resources use the "Jesus of Nazareth" moniker.


 * Oppose - In the English language whenever the name Jesus is said there is only one inidividual that comes immediately to mind, Jesus Christ. I have never heard of anyone ever being confused about the topic..."do you mean Jesus of Nazareth or the Jesus that was killed with a stone or the one who always wears blue?" Jesus of Nazareth is simply another way of referring to Jesus Christ. -- Storm  Rider  18:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The "comes to mind" criterion is inherently subjective, which makes it problematic from WP:NPOV perspective. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 06:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose -- There are more than one Muhammads, Abrahams, Davids, but there is no suggestion that these articles are moved. Universally it is recognised that 'Jesus' primarily refers to the Jesus of this article, and that anyone named Jesus (particularly in Hispanic areas) is specifically named after this Jesus.  Furthermore the "of Nazareth" is a paraphrasing.  The Biblical reference is actually to Jesus the Nazarene - which some sources have stated may or may not actually refer to Nazareth, and therefore opens up an avoidable discussion over the ambiguity and POV of the proposed article title. --JohnArmagh (talk) 19:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the naming issue relates to Jesus uniquely. I don't see how other people's names are relevant to this discussion.


 * It shows that if Mohammad, whos name is so widely used, does not have a title to it, then why should Jesus, whose name is so unique in vernacular English? There were many Jesus', even Bar Abba, the one who was released at passover, had Jesus as a first name. But as Storm Rider humorously pointed out, no one confuses Jesus Christ with a Jesus, whom Storm Rider postulates wore blue. (And I don't doubt that such a man existed if you say so Storm Rider!) Gabr-  el  01:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Support, though Jesus Christ might be better. I'll take either one. Belasted (talk) 01:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose, According to the policy on naming articles we should 'Use the most easily recognized name'. In my experience, Jesus is the most recognized name, with Jesus Christ second and Jesus of Nazareth a distance third.  A new name 2008 (talk) 01:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose - agree with previous. Would prefer 'Jesus Christ' myself, but Orthodox Jews would not like the implication. rossnixon 02:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose - most Jews, not just Orthodox, would reject Jesus Christ. This title works fine, no one has compained about being confused.  The day we have articles on other Jesuses, is the day we provide a disambiguation page and address the problem.  Right now I see no problem. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 03:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Well its not about what one group accepts or rejects. Orthodox Christians would reject Jesus without "Christ".  Gabr-  el  03:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstand me. NPOV simply does not reequire us to say Jesus is the Christ.  It requires us to say that some people believe he is the Christ, which this article does, with no objecions from me. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 04:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Er, no no, I think you misunderstand me. Yes. :)  Gabr-  el  05:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay. How about something like Jesus (Christianity)? Belasted (talk) 15:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * A title with a disambiguation should only be used when there is a primary topic and another topic has the same name and needs to be disambiguated, or when there is not clear primary topic and the disambiguation page is at the name and all topics are disambiguated. I believe this is the primary topic and should not be disambiguated like this suggestion.  A new name 2008 (talk) 15:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I was hoping something along the lines of Jesus, Christ, God the Son - you know, in that way no one will be confused as such.  Gabr-  el  06:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Folks, we are getting far afield here. The proposal "Jesus of Nazareth" was made, not to correct some deficiency in the title "Jesus" other than the fact that A) it is more precisely and uniquely descriptive B) this is the prevailing name format in genealogical records (I would trust genealogists on this type of thing) C) it is NPOV (and for this reason "Jesus Christ" or "son of god" etcetera will simply never be appropriate and obviously so). If we could restrict our votes and commentary to the merits and demerits of "Jesus of Nazareth" please. There is no other move under consideration.Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 18:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * "the prevailing name format in genealogical records" is neither here nor there. We have no policy concerning the name formats of genealogists. We have a policy that the most common name be used. That's why "Jesus" is user, and that's why it's been pointed out that "Jesus Christ" would be the next opition, since it's the next most common. It's also why the innacuarate but well established names "Mark Antony" and "Zoroaster" are also used. There are no other Jesus's remotely likely to comete, even including Bradford Jesus. So the name should stay as it is. Paul B (talk) 18:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose. "Jesus Christ" is not even the most commonly used name for Jesus in many Christian churches. "Jesus" provides proper understanding of the subject matter, is the most common name, far more so than any of the following: Jesus of Nazareth; Jesus Christ; Jesus the Christ; Jesus, Son of God; Jesus, Born of Mary. Jesus is both specific enough that no one will be confused, and Neutral enough not to offend. While Jesus of Nazareth fulfills these criteria as well, it is not His most common name used by people of all religions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darryl Hamlin (talk • contribs) 23:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose. But I don't really care between Jesus and Jesus of Nazareth. Jesus Christ is untenable, and Jesus (Christianity) is a different page. Leadwind (talk) 03:10, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose. I think "Jesus" alone is easily recognisable (and non-POV, unlike "Jesus Christ"), while "Jesus of Nazareth" just seems a bit like overkill. And yes, there were others named Jesus; so what?  This particular one was far more famous than any other who shares his name. RavShimon (talk) 07:27, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

grammar error's?
anyone else noticing the not-so-fluent-english?--69.203.28.14 (talk) 22:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you have any specific examples that need to be addressed? A new name 2008 (talk) 17:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

FIRST PARAGRAPH:...by most Christian Churches...
I would submit that the difference between The Christian Church and non-Christian churches or sects is the belief that Jesus is the Son of God, the Incarnation of God and the second Person of the Holy Trinity; that one's disbelief in this basic tenant of Christianity determines the extent of one's distance from Christian thought;  and that one may not deny Christ's basic nature as God and honestly claim to be Christian. Therefore, I strongly urge that the word most be stricken from this sentence.

Christian doctrine has taught since the first century AD that Jesus, divorced from His divine nature, is naught but a teacher or a prophet-this coincides with the Mohammedan vision of Jesus(Isa)-that he was merely a propeht; a great prophet, but a prohet nonetheless-not divine, not the Incarnation of God. Nor are they alone in this. There are other sects that teach the philosophy of Jesus but refuse to believe His divinity. For this overriding reason they cannot logically call themselves 'Christians'. I call for a consensus on this.--Lyricmac (talk) 19:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * alredy covered Nontrinitarianism jbolden1517Talk 20:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Jesuse's tablet and another thing..
1.it sould be written in his ethnicity: "jewish" alone.

2. he wasen't really a healer but the son of a carpenter he probably did help Josphe but in never says that Jesus was a carpenter

the other thing is about changing the article's name from "jesus" to "Jesus of Nazereth". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.179.132.188 (talk) 03:49, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

please add Psalms 2 & 110, Second Coming
Please add a ref to Second Coming that is clear in Psalms 2 and Psalms 110 predicted by David approx 1,000 BC or 3,000 years ago. David / J desc 69.121.221.97 (talk) 05:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Question about features of Jesus' story that come from previous myths or beliefs
With all due respect, wouldn't it be valuable to mention and list all the features attributed to JC which were taken from previous myths or beliefs? Just to mention some (and please forgive if I don't name then in their proper English name):

ATIS died for mankind's salvation, was crucified in a tree, descended to the subworld and resurrected on the third day. MITRA had 12 disciples, gave a Sermon on a mountain, was called the Good Shepherd, sacrificed for mankink's peace and resurrected on a third day. BUDA tought at the temple when he was 12, healed the sick, walked on water and fed 500 men with one basket of bread; his followers were committed to poverty. KRISHNA was the son of a carpinter, his birth was announced by a star from the East.

All of course previous to JC. I am sure there are more examples but these are the ones that come to my mind. These are all facts relevant to JC.

With regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.77.17.241 (talk) 06:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Attis- where is the evidence that anyone believed he was crucified in a tree? From what I can see he cut his genitals off and went mad- Zeus made him a tree so that he would not decay...fitting considering he was an acorn.
 * Mitra- I have found no evidence about this god other than s/he was paired up with an Iranian god. No evidence for what you claim.
 * Buda? (Buddha?) He didn't become a religious teacher until he renounced his possessions at 29. So it is unlikely he was teaching. I can't see evidence for any other of the things you have attributed to him.
 * Krishna- His father was a royal called Vasudeva. No evidence to suggest he was a carpenter. The only similarity I can find concerning his birth was that he was percived as a danger to the reigning king and had to be hidden. However, this has happened to many people, mythical and factual.
 * You have failed to provide evidence for the things you attributed to these gods. You need to show that people DID believe what you say prior to the life of Christ. A reliable source is not one which was published online in recent years which simply makes makes statements without citing primary sources. Gavin (talk) 10:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Alternate answer: We do discuss those things on wikipedia.  We have a whole category dedicated to them and this article links to some of the more important articles in that category.  jbolden1517Talk  20:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, if we can find a reliable source, it would be really interesting to have a section like, "The early Christian stories about Jesus appear to be influenced by stories of gods and holy men current when the gospels were written, etc." Just find a reliable source that says it. Leadwind (talk) 03:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * We have tons of RSes that say that Category:Christ_Myth, but honestly I don't think we want a major section in the main article jbolden1517Talk  06:21, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Ethnicity
A recent edit changed the ethnicity line from "Jewish" to "Galilean Jew." I, for one, have never heard of "Galilean Jew" as a specific ethinicity as opposed to ye olde generic Jew (in fact, the link was left as "Jewish|Galilean Jew"). As such, I reverted. Apparently, however, there seems to be at least one other editor who feels the ethnicity should be left with the addendum. Any thoughts on the matter from the general community? RavShimon (talk) 04:34, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I am guessing that the person thinks that Jew comes from judean and thus a Galillean is not a Judean and must be a different kind of ethnicity. That is my guess of the other editor's motive.  But historians have shown how by the time of herod "Jew" had ceased refering to someone specifically from the tribe of Judah and had come to refer to a nationality including people who were not from Judah (e.g. Herod) so clearly, Jesus' ethnicity is "Jewish" and I agree with your revert.  I think this stuff is too technical to explain in this article, though perhaps it could go ino the article on the Cultural and Historical background for Jesus ... Slrubenstein   |  Talk 23:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, if one is to believe that Jesus is of Bethlehem, that would make him from Judea.  Gabr-  el  23:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Galileans were more of a mixed stock than the Judeans, less prone to keeping kosher, and harder pressed by Roman occupation. Jesus' identity as a Jew is primary, but his identity as a Galilean is relevant, if secondary. The two stories by which Jesus is born in Bethlehem are generally recognized as fictitious. Leadwind (talk) 02:59, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * No scholarly consensus has ever proposed that Jesus was not a practicing Jew; this is at best fringe. Leadwind, I think you also know what a fringe idea this is. Further, you also know that there is no consensus that Jesus was not born in Bethlehem or that he was born in Galilee. If you wish to argue the point, I am happy to oblige. Always start with references from reliable sources.-- Storm  Rider  04:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I would like to suggest that Leadwind has a point but just lacks a full understanding of the mainstream scholarly view. The point is not that Galilleans were more of mixed stock - I know of no evidence for that.  But Galilleans did have a reputation for being country bumbkins (amei ha'aretz) among Jerusalemites.  As to not keeping kosher, it is not at all clear to what extent most Jews of the time kept kosher or what we mean by "keeping kosher."  There are two principle views: the Orthodox view holds that the Talmud provides a recoord of the oral law revealed to Moses and observed by most Israelites following Sinai.  But non-Orthodox scholars see the law as developed in the Talmud (and cal v'chomer - or if you prefer a fortiori) in codes like the Shulchan Aruch to have developed much later, and not to have been observed by most Jews during the Rabbinic and Second Temple period.  In other words, it is not at all certain what any Jew considered kosher in the first century (boiling a kid in its mother's milk is clearly wrong ... but what about eating some chicken and a glass of milk?) and whatever rules of kashrut the Pharisees were developing by that time may not have been observed by most Jews not because those Jews rejected God's covenant with Israel but because there was no consensus that they applied to all Jews.  The Essenes for example had their own rituals that were not shared by other Jews.  Thus, Jesus may have considered himself to be fully in compliance with the Torah, and his practice was both likely shared by many others and likely differed from others.


 * But the issue here is ethnicity and as I said all historians of the periods consider Jews from the Galilee ethnic Jews equal to those from Judea. The best source is Shaye J.D. Cohen. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 15:06, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with what you have stated. I always get concerned when editors are strident in a position that is not supported by the majority of scholarly opinion. It makes me think that there is an agenda behind the position. What is most significant is that Jesus was a Jew; attempting to classify him into a specific subset of Jewish culture is meaningless and does not add anything to the article. -- Storm  Rider  15:13, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Strident? Meaningless? Why the harsh words, Storm Rider? For the record, I think "Jewish" is the right entry for "ethnicity." "Galilean Jew" would be more precise, but it's not necessary. It does add something to our understanding of Jesus to know that he was from Galilee, but that's covered in the article. As for Bethlehem, modern historians recognize the gospels' two birth narratives as fabrications and no one has any historical reason to imagine that Jesus was actually born in Bethlehem (or that Herod slaughtered the innocents, etc.). As for kosher, there wasn't any one single standard of what kosher meant, but the country bumpkins of Galilee were, in general, less kosher than the Judeans. Leadwind (talk) 20:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * They were not meant to be harsh; I readily apologize. The issue of Bethlehem for the location is still of some debate (at least that is how my memory serves, but I could easily be wrong), but I would certainly agree that the innocents being slaughtered does not have support outside of the New Testament. Then again, modern scholarship casts doubt on historical support for many of the events, activities, and/or stories of the New Testament. I tend to resist efforts to over-classify. For example, I prefer limiting belief to Son of God, rather than God incarnate. The classification goes too far because it is more of a 4th century teaching rather than the time of Jesus. Back to this issue, Jesus was known as coming from several different areas and we could classify by city, region, or state. The priority, IMHO, is ethnicity and that is why I edited the article to just use Jewish. I am not arguing that Galilee is not applicable, it can be, but rather that I don't think it adds to the article. If we are going to use Galilee, it would be better to say something similar to Jesus' life was spent teaching in and around Galilee. Again, I apologize if I spoke too strongly. I think we are on the same page.-- Storm  Rider  22:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, let's not dwell too long on how messed up the Trinity is. Not productive. As for Bethlehem, if anyone could find a historical reference for Jesus actually being from Bethlehem, I'd really love to see it. Historians don't think much of the first two chapters of either Matthew or Luke. The gospels disagree on why Jesus was born in Bethlehem (because his family lived there or because of a census), and it sure looks like pious evangelists arranged for their Son of God to have been born in the city of David. If there's a historical source that takes these references as reflecting historical fact, let's find it. Leadwind (talk) 22:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Storm Rider, with all due respect, the concept that Jesus is God incarnate is as old as the Gospel of John; we know from the letters of Ignatius of Antioch that some people believed that Jesus was only God and not man at all. See [] and also Docetism. Its implausible that one jumps from the belief that Jesus is only man to that Jesus is only God; there must have been a transition point when people though he was both  Gabr-  el  02:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello Gabr-el, it is good to hear from you. I was only stating my personal preference, not stating an opinion on what the article should or should not say. My personal belief is that the followers of Jesus knew he was the Son of God and the Son of Mary possessing the traits of both. You might remember that I am a non trinitarian in that I believe in three distinct members of the Godhead, but also three separate members, but one in purpose. It is my opinion that the formulation of the Trinity was a product of dealing with monotheism; if there is only one God there could not really be a Son of God, but only God himself therefore Jesus must be God the Father. I emphasize three persons in one God, whereas the Trinity emphasizes one God in three persons; the difference is sleight, but real. This is a complicated topic; suffice it to say that I focus on Jesus born of the virgin Mary, lived a perfect life free of sin, performed miracles, bled in the Garden, was crucified for our sins, rose on the third day, appeared again to his disciples, returned to sit on the right hand of the Father, and will return again one day. -- Storm  Rider  15:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Leadwind, it sounds like you have been reading Ehrman among others. There are at least two ways to read the Bible; from a devotional perspective and from a historical perspective. In topics of faith, a dedicated historian has little respect, meaning that disciples of Christ will not be too interested in their opinion. Instead, a disciple will seek out teachers of great faith who instruct us in how better to follow Jesus, provide sacraments, etc. To confuse or mix the two in conversation leads to conflict and offense. The doctrine of the Trinity should be respected simply because it is held as a bedrock belief of the majority of Christianity; there is no need to criticize it in an offhanded manner. It is better to just state your beliefs without giving the impression of denigrating those of others. In an intellectual conversation, I fully understand what you have said and I am versed in its provenance. However, when it comes to faith I freely admit the weakness of my own intellect and rely on God. Cheers. -- Storm  Rider  16:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Gabr-el, the gospel of John doesn't say that Jesus was God incarnate. It says that he was the Logos incarnate. As the Logos, he was understood to be distinct from God. That's how it played out in the Logos controversy and theology of the 2nd century. The New Testament epistles portray Jesus as the first-born of all creation, the be-all and end-all of creation, the image (not the essence) of the invisible God, and the heavenly high priest for Christians. It wasn't until later that Jesus was reinterpreted to be fully God.  Oh my, we have drifted far afield, haven't we? This will be my last tangential post on this thread. Leadwind (talk) 13:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * John 1:1 -BaronGrackle (talk) 16:48, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

A healer for living? - no, a carpeter for living? - yes
plese change from healer for carpter, Jesus never worked as a healer for living. while the signs show that he might have super-natural abbilities. none show a was an herbist or something, correct me i wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.176.59.232 (talk) 08:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Jesus lived as an autonomous charismatic prophet, an itinerant preacher and healer (especially an exorcist). He apparently relied on the hospitality of his hosts and on the support of patrons (including women). He made his way as a healer. Before that, he had been part of John the Baptist's following, perhaps an ascetic disciple, or else still living with his family in Nazareth, doing carpentry. Presumably before John came along, Jesus was a carpenter like his father. Leadwind (talk) 01:20, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

The Bilbe never says that Jesus was a follower of John the Baptist. Jesus only followed God. He did not come to be a healer, even though he did do healings and wonders, His sole purpose was for Him to come and die upon a cross so that we might have salvation through Him.

Depiction of jesus
In the movie "Malcolm X", it was explained that there was a phrase in the bible telling that he was yellowish in skin tone. Perhaps the main picture needs to be altered at the article. Also, I know that at the article "depictions of jesus", there is a image of a black jesus, but this wouldn't probably have been accurate neither (just like the picture that is on the main article now). Instead of black, he would be have been between black and white (-quote said: woolly hair and bronze-colored skin-), just like the population's skin tone of Palestine (Nazareth) Also see following link: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/11/07/DDG0VM628B1.DTL —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.246.145.23 (talk) 15:03, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Hebrew spelling of Messiah
The spelling of the Hebrew origin of Messiah is highly unusual: מֹשִׁיַּח. All dictionaries offer the much more intuitive vocalization מָשִׁיחַ, to which i corrected the current spelling. I also added a common Latin spelling "Moshiach", used in many English texts. User:RavShimon undid it without an explanation. I try to follow WP:1RR, especially on an article as sensitive as this; so - is anything wrong with my edit? --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 21:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * While מֹשִׁיַּח is the pronunciation in modern Hebrew, is there any evidence that this was the pronunciation in use when the Greek word "Χριστός" (from which "Christ" is derived) appeared as a translation of it? As you say, all dictionaries give מָשִׁיחַ as the pronunciation in the Hebrew of that time.  To make the matter less contentious, I have removed all Latin-script indication of the pronunciation, leaving only the indication in pointed Hebrew of what is considered to have been the most likely pronunciation at that time.  If that still does not meet your desires, we can, I suggest, just give the consonantal spelling, about which there is no dispute.  OK?  Soidi (talk) 08:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * מֹשִׁיַּח is not the pronunciation in modern Hebrew. I have never seen this word vocalized like that in a Hebrew text. The only Hebrew vocalization of that word is מָשִׁיחַ. Maybe someone tried to artificially vocalize in Hebrew the Ashkenazi pronunciation Moshiach, which is common in Chabad publications in English, for example; in Hebrew it is still written מָשִׁיחַ. (It's interesting to note, that whoever did that, bothered to put a dagesh in yod, which is not obvious, but theoretically correct, and didn't use furtive patakh on the heth, which is much more obvious.) Correct me if i'm wrong.
 * Mentioning the spelling "Moshiach" and the Israeli pronunciation may be useful to some readers, so they will be able to relate the word with what they may see in modern Jewish publications, though it is less important. Correct Hebrew spelling and Tiberian transcription are essential. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 08:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the information that, in spite of what is given on several websites (are they perhaps all based on Wikipedia?) מֹשִׁיַּח is not the "standard" vocalization in Hebrew (modern or non-modern). That confirms that it should not appear in the article. While "Moshiach" may, just perhaps, be helpful to some readers, I think that for by far the greater number it is only confusing, and will have most of us mispronouncing the first vowel as in "Moses".  Soidi (talk) 11:42, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * מֹשִׁיַּח is a very weird spelling. If other sites are using it, it is quite troubling. This vocalization is pretty much impossible in Hebrew. Any proper Hebrew dictionary gives the spelling מָשִׁיחַ, for example BDB.
 * Actually i met a lot of people who confused Moshe (Moses) and Moshiach (with its various spellings). Mormons also have Mosiah to add to the confusion :)
 * When i think of it, the various spellings of Moshiach can be discussed in the article Messiah and they don't have to be here. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 13:04, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Mystery solved, here's where it comes from:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Messiah&diff=190273307&oldid=189964172
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Messiah&diff=prev&oldid=259933060
 * Oh well. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 13:20, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

reference
There are no references for the first paragraph —Preceding unsigned comment added by Narendramodi1 (talk • contribs) 09:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * That is because it is the lead paragraph, which is supposed to summarize the rest of the article and should thus be without citation unless a statement is extremely controversial. Farsight001 (talk) 11:27, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe that the guideline that the lede requires no references is no longer current. I couldn't find it last time I looked for it. Leadwind (talk) 12:49, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Go ahead and write it - in most cases it is common sense (the only exception I think is when the lead contains highly contentious material) Slrubenstein  |  Talk 18:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * As the lead text is a summary of the article, the information reappears below. IMO, notes should be placed there. Now we have notes both in the lead section and in the text and I think they appear unduly scattered. It's better to simplify the lead section as much as possible. Those who look up notes read more of the article, anyway. --Årvasbåo (talk) 19:16, 1 May 2009 (UTC)


 * In theory I agree that there should be no need for citations in the lead. In reality, however, articles get altered piecemeal over years, and there's no way to maintain a neat relationship between lead and body. I'd put a citation anywhere someone asks for one. Leadwind (talk) 04:25, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Joseph
"Joseph, husband of Mary, appears in descriptions of Jesus' childhood. No mention, however, is made of Joseph during the ministry of Jesus." It says he's the 'husband' of Mary; as an Eastern Orthodox I'd only regard him as being the 'betrothed' as they never got married, and I presume this to be fairly significant because if they had been married the expectation would have been to at least try for children, as it is, we do not even believe that Mary slept with anyone, hence the title 'Ever-Virgin'. Eugene-elgato (talk) 08:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please tell me where in the Gospels it says "they never got married" and where does it say "they never had children?" Just the book, chapter, and verse please. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I take your point, and indeed agree. But the gospels are a primary source. I suspect there are secondary sources that take a different point of view. If yes, how do we reflect this? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The historians I have read say little, aside from what is in the well-cited sentence in the intro (so there are no reliable secondary sources to my knowledge ... maybe Crossan has commented somewhere?). As for theological iews, I suggest those would belong in articles on Mary and Joseph who are little-noted as historical figures but are of importance in diferent religions.  Or it can go in articles on Catholic and Muslem beliefs ... Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree; there is not historical support for this position. It lies firmly in the realm of beliefs and theology. I think you will find a conflict here because of the brothers and sisters that some believe Jesus had; again, even that is left up to the interpretation. -- Storm  Rider  18:36, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Sikhism
I think its fair that if all other religions are mentioned about their views of Jesus, that a small little section must be included. I added a small section... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mannyisthebest (talk • contribs) 02:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Ascension
The article cites Mark 16:19 as Biblical evidence for the Ascension of Jesus. This passage is from the longer ending of Mark, and is unknown in manuscripts dating from before the late second century. Isn't citing it here somewhat misleading, to say the least? Perhaps it should be qualified by a phrase like "attested in Luke, a claim echoed by a later addition to the Gospel of Mark." fishhead64 (talk) 03:25, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

If I understand the contributor correctly, he is suggesting the 'Ascension' never took place?. There are hundreds of reliably reported cases of levitation in history; (St Therasa, St Francis, even none Saints like D.D.Hume). There was a man in Rome who could remember the name of every person living in Rome. Do we erase him from history because that seems unbelievable to us today?Johnwrd (talk) 01:08, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

issue with lead.
I have an issue with the lead, reproduced below.
 * Jesus of Nazareth (7–2 BC/BCE – 26–36 AD/CE), also known as Jesus Christ, is the central figure of Christianity and is worshipped by most Christian churches as the Son of God and as God incarnate. Christians also view him as the Messiah foretold in the Old Testament; Judaism rejects this claim. Islam considers Jesus a prophet, while several other religions revere him in some way.

I'm not sure about the use of 'is worshipped by most Christian churches'. Why not just 'is worshipped by most Christians'?-Zeus-u 00:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Something to add...
First, I want to say that I have never been to this page before, so if this has already been discussed, just tell me how to get to the archive so I can read it... Why isn't the (supposed) relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene mentioned? While I myself do not think it happened, this is a NPOV site, and there is significant acknowledgment of the possibility. Remember, if this discussion has already been had, just tell me so.  Josh  ua In  gram   02:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no significant acknowledgment of the possibility. A Dan Brown novel does not count as significant.  Books by people with PhDs who teach history in universities - that's significant. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:44, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And films starring Tom Hanks are also questionable sources, too! (but they do make for interesting possibilities, don't they! Ref.: The Da Vinci Code (film); ALSO see: Jesus Christ Superstar.  Too bad the story sounds only like so much fantasy/fiction.    .`^) Painediss`cuss (^`.   23:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * "There is no significant acknowledgement'? Maybe you should check your sources. The Woman with the Alabaster Jar: Mary Magdalen and the Holy Grail, The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail, are just a few of many properly published books on the subject. If you go to the Jesus Bloodline page, there are several sources, and none of them are written by Dan Brown. Again, I have no special interest here. Just curious why it isn't mentioned, even as a point of contention.  Josh  ua In  gram   03:06, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I think what might have been meant, Joshua, is that there is no significant acknowledgement of the relationship within the confines of the Bible. All else is pretty much conjecture, and the possibilities are also brought out in the Historical Jesus article.  The Jesus article, subject of this talk page, has evidently striven to fit the description of Jesus of Nazareth to the Jesus of the Christian New Testament.  There is nothing in the NT that would even imply a relationship between Jesus and Mary M. other than one of teacher and devoted follower.  And that in my opinion is why no mention is made of any other possible, and perhaps dubious, relationship in this article.    .`^) Painediss`cuss (^`.   04:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * These are works of fiction or pseudoscience. Tell me which one you think is a work of scholarship.  I mean, let's add a section on the (brief) time Jesus spend time in a space ship. Oops, that was Brian, sorry. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 03:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

So, in your opinion, someone has to agree with you in order to create a scholarly work? You know what? Nevermind. You'd think I would have learned my lesson by now, trying to reason with the people that control the pages, but you know what? I am wasting my time. But here is a thought: If your faith is so weak that you can't allow one tiny bit of dissent, then you should reexamine your faith. I believe in God, I believe in Jesus, I believe in the Bible. And I have no problem reading these books, because my faith is strong enough to know that I am right, even in the face of contrary opinions. And it is strong enough to allow those contrary opinions to be heard, unlike some people's. Good riddance.  Josh  ua In  gram   03:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I wrote, "Tell me which one you think is a work of scholarship." You could not.  Typical. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hopefully, Joshua, your faith will also lead you up the ladder to the lofty virtue of temperance. A good beginning might be found by reading the Assume good faith article.  (You will note if you read this that even I, in my striving to be a better editor, have violated the "Assume good faith" policy by not assuming the assumption of good faith in you!  Nobody's perfect.)    .`^) Painediss`cuss (^`.   04:53, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Agreed that fictional creations by Dan Brown do not warrant mention in this article.--Melchiord (talk) 17:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Davidic Lineage

 * Both accounts trace his line back to King David and from there to Abraham.

How does either account trace Jesus to the Davidic dynasty? The lineage mentioned is merely that of Joseph, from whom Jesus did not arise?  DRosenbach  ( Talk 03:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There is more information on this in Genealogy of Jesus; specifically in the Maternal_ancestry_in_Luke and subsequent section. The sources apparently address this although I have not read the book in question.  Cheers, meshach (talk) 05:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

good RSs
I've recently acquired two very good RSs about historical Jesus. One is a university-level textbook (the gold standard of RSs). The other is a book by perhaps the most prominent scholar in the field, E.P. Sanders. I don't agree with everything these sources say, but they're top-notch sources. With them, we can be a little more descriptive about who Jesus was and what he did. The lead in particular doesn't even address the basics, such as that he led a renewal movement preaching about the kingdom of God. That's pretty basic and historically solid. So heads up, some day I'll propose some better, more informative text for the lead. Leadwind (talk) 01:32, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I read one book by Sanders (which was recommended to me by a college professor) and foound it very compelling. I don't think everyone agrees with him, but he cites people who do not and thus points in the direction of other views.  My understanding is he is widely respected. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 02:56, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sanders provides a concise list of what historians are now able to "know" about historical Jesus. When a prominent scholar provides us with such valuable information, we should probably work it into the article. Leadwind (talk) 15:06, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I get a little concerned when there appears a focus on just two reference books. I interpret what you have said is that after further review you will be adding information from these two sources. I don't have a problem with Sanders; he is not without opposition, but he is a good resource. A textbook...actually causes more concern. There are text books and then there are text books. I trust that any controversial positions would be kept balanced. There is a tremendous amount of scholarly resources today and we should all be aware of what is there and how they can improve the article. Cheers. -- Storm  Rider  15:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * For what it is worth I have the same concern about textbooks. In my own field, a popular textbook seldom is "wrong" and often is a good gage of where the "middle of the road" is in the field.  But once they are often dated, and ones that are in their 16th edition are by that point usually the accumulation of revisions by graduate students or committees of graduate students.  This is not true of all textbooks.  There are some textbooks aimed for graduate students that are at a much higher standard, but there are far fewer of them since graduate schools usually do not rely on textbooks.  I have no idea how to find out the following: if there are three or four books that are commonly assigned in graduate school courses at major "Research I" universities?  If so, these are the books I would consider the gold standard.  But I do not know how to find that out.  I have only one colleague in the field, he recommended Sanders, Fredricksen, Meier (advisedly), Crossan (advisedly) and Vermes, and Shaye JD Cohen for the Jewish history of the period.  There is a series of publications Stanford puts out, Annual Review of ... - they have them for different fields.  It is a single volume (per field) that comes out once a year with a range of review articles.  I do not know if they have one in history, Classics, or Biblical Studies but they might have on that, perhaps in the past ten years, had a review article on scholarship on Jesus.  Annual Reviews is almost always at the top of the citation indexes and generally well respected and I would trust any review article published in them as an up-to-date rigorous survey of the academic research on the topic. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 23:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) WP:V identifies university-level textbooks as among the most reliable sources, but that's beside the point because that list of items about Jesus' life comes from Sanders' Historical figure of Jesus, which is a regular old book from Penguin. Here's a paraphrase of the historical findings that are almost beyond dispute, per Sanders. I'd like to work this into the lead, where some of this material but not all currently lives: "It is almost beyond dispute that Jesus was born c 4 BC/BCE; grew up in Nazareth; was baptized by John the Baptist; called disciples; preached the 'kingdom of God'; traveled to Jerusalem c 30; caused a disturbance at the Temple; had a final meal with his disciples; was arrested and tried by Jewish authorities, especially the high priest; and was executed on orders of the Roman prefect, Pontius Pilate." It surprises me that his exorcisms don't make the cut. I don't agree with everything Sanders says, but WP is about RSs, not about editors who think they understand Jesus better than E. P. Sanders does. The book is from 1993, and Sanders is recognized as a prominent scholar on the topic. Leadwind (talk) 14:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The intro already has a version of this, not quite as extensive. I have already registered my respect for Sanders, but if someone could look at Fredriksen and Ehrman or Vermes and see whether they provide a similar account of what historians say, I would feel better (and have no objection to putting it in a prominent place in the article).  May I also sugest to Leadwind that he can use this to structure and develop the article on the historical Jesus and the cultural and historical background for Jesus (what is the difference between the two?  I see the latter as primarily explaining the Jewish and Hellenistic antecedents for the Jesus story, so for example, following Leadwind's reading of Sanders, the Cultural Background article should explain the difference between the Galilee and Judea; locate John the baptist (and baptism see mikvah in his Jewish context; what did Jews mean by "Kingdom of God;" what is Passover and why would Jesus be in Jerusalem; why Jews had a Temple and what it meant to them; what was the role of the High Priest, for Jews and for Romans; why did Romans crucify people.  I have worked on that article but I admit it doesn't cover all of these topics adequately.  It would be great of others could improve it.  Anyway, I think this research should be noted in this article, but more important I think we need to work on the two article, the historical Jesus and the Cultural and historical context (and then, when those articles are great, revise the summaries of them, here). Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

died AD 29?
Where did this year come from? The article cites Sanders, but he says "c 30," not "29." The "29" figure is too precise. Let's change this to c 30. Leadwind (talk) 16:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * This is how it got changed. I think the range is better, as the year is not known --JimWae (talk) 17:24, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * "Competition Success year book" is not my idea of a good source! I am sorry I did not catch this myself! Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:10, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Sanders says c 4 to c 30, and everyone basically agrees, so let's do that. We are already expecting our harried reader to swallow the dual-designation for "AD/CE" and "BC/BCE." Let's not the years even harder. If it's really important to spell out the exact range of possible years, do that in the body, not in the first sentence. Leadwind (talk) 22:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Noi objection from me! Slrubenstein  |  Talk 22:21, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm so sorry, but there is no consensus on this. IMO it is not encyclopedically defendable to delete several authorititave sources and replace them with one quite controversial source (Sanders). Please, read the hidden message in the article. Antique Rose (talk) 07:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Antique Rose, is there a consensus to use ranges instead of "circa" years? Is there any source or encyclopedia that uses ranges this way? All the detail and the authoritative sources appear now in the body, where the detail belongs. As for Sanders, he's the most mainstream historian of Jesus I can locate. Who would you consider to be more mainstream? Leadwind (talk) 17:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * As I see it, "circa" is a less precise but equally accurate and more concise way to present the information. I think that in the section specifically on dates, we should provide an account of the issues and obstacles to coming up with one definitive date, as well as the range of views.  But in the intro and infobox we should of course go with anything that is equally accurate and more concise, that is simply good style.Antique Rose's argument is a red herring.  Sanders uses "c" precisely to signal that there are a variety of diverging views on the date, which seems to be what Antique Rose cares about, thus, there is no conflict here. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, the range for Jesus' death is wrong. Paul was converted c. 33, so Jesus must have died before that, not as late as 36. Leadwind (talk) 17:46, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

which "ancient texts" are these?
"Most critical scholars in the fields of history and biblical studies believe that some parts of the ancient texts on Jesus are useful for reconstructing his life,[6][7][8][9]" We're not talking about the apocrypha, here. We're talking specifically about Christian canonical scripture. This should say, "Most critical scholars in the fields of history and biblical studies believe that some parts of the New Testament are useful for reconstructing his life,[6][7][8][9]." Leadwind (talk) 22:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps this is phrased that way because of the "Five Gospels" by the JS, and Crossan's analysis of the Gospel of Peter, etc. While generally the four gospels (mostly the synpotics, less so John) have the most historical information, the point is that they are not the sole and only source of information regarding the historical Jesus. Additionally, you'll often find analysis of Jewish and Pagan sources (Josephus, Tacitus, etc) in discussions of the historical Jesus. -Andrew c [talk] 19:06, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Maintainance List
Stevertigo accused me of removing his name from an ownership list. I did no such thing. There is no ownership list. I did remove him from the list of people who have maintained the article and can be turned to for questions about sources. I removed his name because he has never playd an important role in maintaining this article, has made no significant contribution to the article, and in the last discussion in which he attempted to make edits, revealed that he had no knowledge of the sources, and no interest in supporting his views with verifiable sources. He is not qualified for any reader to go to with questions concerning sources. This would only harm the project. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 15:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Also, Stevertigo should refrain from personal attacks against me. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 15:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * My goodness, SLR, you're usually pretty accommodating. I'm not questioning you. This must be an exception. Leadwind (talk) 16:13, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

I am accommodating to people who do research, even if their sources are not necessarily my faves. But were you around for the one time in three or four years that Stevertigo tried to make an edit (concerning Jesus' name)? He consistently refused to provide a source for anything, and his claims were lmost uniformly nonsense (which is why noone supported his edit, and it was reverted, and reverted, until h gave up). Do you think this describes somone who helps maintain the article? Look provide me with one example where Stevertigo brought to our intention a new, reliabl verifiable source and made a constructive contribution to the article - one example - and I will defer to you. That list is to help people who have questions about sources. Shouldn't such people be editors who have demonstrated some knowledge of sources? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 17:11, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It is one of the inherent problems with those types of lists at the top of the page. Why was he ever added in the first place? Who verifies that the initial editors merit being on the list and then keeping the list current with current editors? These lists often cause more problems than they are worth, such as the current situation when deleting an editor from the list. Steve has not been a leading editor for this list ever in my memory. My recommendation is delete the entire list and be done with it. Editors that need instruction or help, will just ask here or go elsewhere for the same purpose. -- Storm  Rider  17:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Stevertigo is on the list because he put himself there on May 17. Before May 17, his last contribution was a debate with Leadwind and hardyplnts over Christianity and the Nicene Creed, and then the original Hebrew/Aramaic of Jesus' name; in both cases he failed to produce sources for his claims, it as just his POV.

As to why I am on the list, I have no idea, I certainly did not place myself on the list. I do not know who did. I have no objection to getting rid of it. But can whoever devised the list strp forward and weigh in? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 18:12, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Had I created the list I would have gladly put you on the top of list, but that is not the issue. I still think the list creates more problems than its worth. You and I could easily create a list of valuable editors, but it would always be fundamentally flawed because you and I don't know all qualified editors. More importantly, such lists are not needed on Wikipedia. When someone wants to know about references, a quick look at WP:RS will answer their questions. If any questions remain on a given topic, a quick question on a discussion page generates a quicker response. If my logic is sound, it would be best for those on the list to delete it than anyone else. Just my two pence. -- Storm  Rider  19:27, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

If one other person agrees with you, I will gladly take my name off myself. And I m not opposed to anyone taking my name off - I hope nothing I wrote gave that impression. As I said, I did not put my name on the list and have no objction to your proposal to get rid of it. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 20:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Steven Rubenstein. There's no point in there being a list that should not exist, let alone that my name or his be on it. -Stevertigo 22:57, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

That is what you think? Then why did you add your name to it? That seems a contradiction (I never added my name to it). Slrubenstein  |  Talk 00:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Do not foment strife when you yourself along with StormRider have contributed substantially to pioneering a solution. My opinion, in case your interested, is that the list is unnecessary and treads into WP:OWN territory, even while its interface text says it does not. AIUI you have a different view? -Stevertigo 03:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

I have done nothing to foment strife. What did I just write that foments strife? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 13:51, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * These lists are not meant to imply ownership of articles, but often they do! Also it is not really for any editor to take it upon himself to judge the value of another users contributions or if they have been longstanding enough to merit some form of recognition in a formal sense. (Such as explicitly naming them in the article talk page.) I agree with StormRider, these lists just breed controversy and it should be removed. Besides what purpose does it serve? Anyone who wants to ask questions about the article will do so on the talk page or perhaps seek out a user who has previously commented on the talk page. These lists provide no functional use and only breed controversy and argument. Remove it! Gavin (talk) 18:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, don't know why we have the list. I didn't put my name on it. I'd be totally fine with the entire list's removal. -Andrew c [talk] 19:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I decided not to wait around any longer; it is now deleted. Let's move on.-- Storm  Rider  19:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That was easy. I had gotten used to writing a page of talk text just to get rid of a semicolon. We may be getting better at this collaboration thing after all. -Stevertigo 02:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Would the incredible strife fomenters be a good name for my band? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.122.70.121 (talk) 01:05, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Only if its a hair band. Otherwise "the incredible solution pioneers" would be your best shot at achieving whatever it is bands can achieve these days. -Stevertigo 15:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Hindu views
Under this heading, I had posted the following paragraph, which has been removed:  "There is a belief on the Indian subcontinent that Jesus studied theology in Kashmir during his teenage and went back to the Levant to preach. It is believed that he didn't die upon crucifixion but went back to Kashmir and died there. His tomb, called Roza Bal, is in Srinagar." This is not my personal opinion, there is an article on this even in wikipedia under Roza Bal shrine, with appropriate external references in it, and it was even telecast on BBC. Numerous books have been published on this theory even by Europeans/Americans. Lilaac (talk) 03:13, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Did you reference those books etc. with your edit in the article? Talking about references here is not same as citing them in the article.Civilizededucation (talk) 10:05, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm I didnt add external references in my edit, they were there in Roza Bal which I'd hyperlinked.. I'll re-include that paragraph along with direct external references! Lilaac (talk) 16:36, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey Lilaac. I just read the "Hindu View" section and i do not see anything about the Raza Bal reference above.  Did you not get a chance to put it back in the article.  I think it would be a very interesting addition.  I had heard something like this before - that Jesus had spent time in India during the years between teenage years and beginning his mission.   Bigweeboy (talk) 19:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Baha'i views on Jesus
Greetings to everyone: I'd just like to contribute the following. The current page says: The Bahá'í Faith, founded in 19th-century Persia, considers Jesus, along with Muhammad, the Buddha, Krishna, and Zoroaster, and other messengers of the great religions of the world to be Manifestations of God (or prophets), with both human and divine stations.[218]

However it would be more accurate to say:

The Bahá'í Faith, founded in 19th-century Persia, considers Jesus to be a Manifestation of God with both human and divine stations.[218] Shoghi Effendi explains:

"As to the position of Christianity, let it be stated without any hesitation or equivocation that its divine origin is unconditionally acknowledged, that the Sonship and Divinity of Jesus Christ are fearlessly asserted, that the divine inspiration of the Gospel is fully recognized" -- Shoghi Effendi, The Promised Day is Come, p.109

Bahá'ís also consider Bahá'u'lláh, the Báb, Muhammad and other founders of the great world religions to be Manifestations of God.

From the Bahá'í point of view there Shoghi Effendi's explanation is better than that of some other author. It also clarifies better to Christians and others what beliefs are held by the Faith regarding Jesus Christ.

I re-edited the text of the paragraph describing Jesus as a Manifestation of God "or prophet".. because it does not exactly explain the Bahá'í point of view. Bahá'ís do not equate the prophet Elijah, Daniel and Isaiah and others with Jesus, Muhammad, Buddha and the other Manifestations of God. These are considered "minor prophets" whereas Jesus would be a "major prophet" (imprecise term) or Manifestation of God. From my limited understanding, Bahá'ís understand Manifestations of God to be the revealers of all that is known about God at the time on earth.. so simplifying the term as "prophet" not only has the potential to give the wrong impression.. but it is also wrong. I'd refer instead to the article on the term "Manifestation of God".

190.52.137.192 (talk) 02:23, 29 May 2009 (UTC) am

Evangelical Christians as sources
So I checked 3 sources and discovered all of them to be evangelical or fundamentalist Christians. Not very neutral, yet used as references for factual statements. Wikipedia has problems.

FF Bruce. "one of the founders of the modern evangelical understanding of the Bible" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Fyvie_Bruce

Herzog II, WR Author of "Jesus, Justice, and the Reign of God: A Ministry of Liberation" http://www.tcpc.org/about/bio.cfm?person_id=150

Komoszewski, JE http://www.google.com/search?q=Komoszewski%2C+JE&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a Noloop (talk) 07:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Surely, the religious background of a scholar does not undermine or determine his or her scholastic credibility. The credibility of the scholar's works should be judged by the quality and the relevant community's acceptance of the works, not the background. Otherwise, only the works of non-Christian (or perhaps, more "moderate" Christian) scholars can be cited here. Chensiyuan (talk) 07:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem is a conflict of interest, not religion. Also, in this case, the references aren't scholarly. They are books, not scholarly articles, published by evangelical houses, not academic journals, peer reviewed, if at all, by other evangelicals.
 * I accept this: "The credibility of the scholar's works should be judged by the quality and the relevant community's acceptance of the works" The relevant community is the community of historians. Provide evidence that community accepts evangelical Christian works like "Jesus, Justice, and the Reign of God: A Ministry of Liberation" as neutral and scientific historical analysis. Noloop (talk) 19:45, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Another important question to ask is how are these sources being used? Their apparent bias towards some view point, which has not been proven but only speculated, may be critical to what is being cited - like a certain viewpoint on who Jesus is.  Gabr-  el  04:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Bruce is being used to cite what is commonly accepted among scholars; that the New Testament is written around the Apostolic Age, until 100 AD. As for the other two, how are they being used? I can't find them.  Gabr-  el  04:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The conflict of interest argument is a red herring and is a misunderstanding and mis-characterization of policy. A scholar is a scholar; it is meaningless to qualify them as Christian scholar, agnostic scholar, atheist scholar, Jewish scholar, etc. This is rather a poor attempt to belittle, promote, and delinate a scholar based on their religious background; that is exceedingly POV. The only issue of concern is do the references meet the standards of a reliable reference; if they do, they are acceptable and if not, they aren't. -- Storm  Rider  13:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * well stated. There is an irrational reaction whenever a Christian is used to cite an article on Christianity, but no so when it comes to other religions.  Gabr-  el  01:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

StormRider wrote:
 * "The conflict of interest argument is a red herring ... A scholar is a scholar; it is meaningless to qualify them as Christian scholar.. a poor attempt to belittle, promote, and delinate[sic] a scholar based on their religious background; that is exceedingly POV."

Please be precise: The issue raised was with regard to the perhaps excessive usage of *evangelical sources, not "Christian" ones &mdash;a term which itself seems often enough used in a way that rejects even Christians that are not conservative Protestants. It's a red herring itself to deviate from the issue via such peculiar usage of terms.

StormRider wrote:
 * "The only issue of concern is do the references meet the standards of a reliable reference; if they do, they are acceptable and if not, they aren't."

This statement lacks accuracy. For one, we also have to write our articles with an NPOV balance such that gives serious regard to issues of undue WP:WEIGHT. There are plenty of sources, most of which will not fit &mdash;the issue is selection of diverse sources, and not just those who might think even Rick Warren is a heretic.

And characterizing a valid criticism of possible evangelical excess as "irrational" is not going to win you any argument. More light than heat, rather than otherwise. -Stevertigo 06:17, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Steve, did you even read the thread? I was responding specifically to Noloops's edit, "The problem is a conflict of interest, not religion. Also, in this case, the references aren't scholarly." I don't know how you interpret what he said, but what I understand is, 1) Noloop is alleging a conflict of interest, which I think is a red herring. There is no COI, if so, please explain, 2) Noloop is alleging the sources are not scholarly. My response was simple, if they meet the standards of RS they are acceptable.


 * Noloop did not discuss balance, that is your topic and not germane to what noloop stated. Please be on topic and precise. If Noloop had alleged Evangelical excess, which he did not, then you might have a leg to stand on, but that is not what he stated. Is that your criticism? Exactly what are you proposing for the article and its improvement? -- Storm  Rider  17:19, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I have read the whole thread, and I endorse Storm Rider's very constructive point. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 17:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)


 * (StR) Is the issue of undue weight something you can discuss in some rational way? Rational discussions involve 1) conceding certain points, and 2) interpreting the other's points in a constructive (not destructive) way. For example, NL indicated the context of this discussion to be *evangelicalism, to which you responded with a mis-reintepretation of "Christian." An egregious error that, along with the overgeneralized "irrational reaction" comment by G makes void all your so-called constructive responses. Point 1 requires that you concede that your language was inexact. NL is in your company, as he appears to make similar mistakes, saying "The problem is a conflict of interest, not religion.. also, in this case, the references aren't scholarly." Point 1 requires that he concede that his issues of COI and lack of scholarship are incorrectly conceived, and I agree with you on those points, even while I cringe at the excessive reproach and generalized mal-characterizations.


 * But he won't get to point 1 if you don't abide by point 2, which requires that his comments be reinterpreted in a *constructive way, and not simply ridiculed ("red herring") for their inaccuracy. I did this by simply dismissing his concepts of COI and 'lack of scholarship' and taking his material evidence (a random sample, apparently) to indicate a matter of possible undue weight. So, in that context my above points about your inaccuracy, impatience, and lack of constructiveness stand, and likewise I concede these apply to NL equally as well, with the exception that he raised the issue quite without coloration or interpretation. I further grant you that there may be some other issue with NL that explains your lack of sophistication, but maintain that if you follow the basic principle of AGF you will be able to deal with any such criticism. Of course this means you will have to deal with any such criticism, but that's the price we pay for the freedom from reacting obstinately to the countless half-right people now and for all time to come. -Stevertigo 00:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I believe the question is, and please read it slowly because there seems to be a problem with comprehension, "Exactly what are you proposing for the article and its improvement?" I will ignore everything else except that which deals with the article and how to improve it. Cheers.-- Storm  Rider  00:59, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I thought I was clear on why I rejected the sources: "...in this case, the references aren't scholarly. They are books, not scholarly articles, published by evangelical houses, not academic journals, peer reviewed, if at all, by other evangelicals....The relevant community is the community of historians. Provide evidence that community accepts evangelical Christian works like "Jesus, Justice, and the Reign of God: A Ministry of Liberation" as neutral and scientific historical analysis."
 * I agree with the point that how the sources are being used is important. A professional evangelical is fine as a source on what evangelicals think. It's not fine as a source on, say, Darwin or the consensus view among historians. The latter is how the sources were being used here. Noloop (talk) 02:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

And the real issue is (get the terminology) WP:WEIGHT. It's not quite easy to assert qualitative judgments about "publishing houses" or other possibly biasing factors. Taken to a ridiculous extreme, all of Western culture is likewise a "publishing house" of sorts, as its writings are all typically Western-culture centric.

At issue then is the possible undue weight given to evangelical concepts. Never mind the sources &mdash;they are all quite qualified according to their own denominational criteria I'm sure &mdash;just deal with the concepts. Is there a promotional usage of evangelical sources in this regard? My issue with making the change from "[all] Christians [regard Jesus].." to "most Christian denominations..," is just a possible such example of anti-non-Trinitarian bias that was the very first sentence of the previous version. It should be illustrative, at least, of a certain tendency for inaccuracy in dealing with balancing different theological ideas, if not exactly the slightly excessive influence of a particularly Americanized restorationistic (!) Protestant system. -Stevertigo 04:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey Storm Rider, just this once let's give Tigo the benefit of the doubt. Now, Stevertigo: you are claiming that "The theory of Jesus' nonexistence is now effectively dead as a scholarly question" is an Evangelical view, but not a "Christian view?"  And you are claiming that because the source is Christian, he cannot possible make accurate statements about scholarly views?  What is your evidence for making these two claims?  Slrubenstein   |  Talk 14:12, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

The issue is not the religions of the scholars but the standing of their publishing houses. University presses are best. Prominent, well-regarded publishers are also good. Books from atheist presses, evangelical presses, Muslim presses and other such sources are not good for general scholarship. If you took a nonsectarian university course about Jesus, you'd probably be assigned university-press works or maybe books by major mainstream publishers (e.g., Sanders) but not something from InterVarsity or from American Atheist Press. It's not a reliable source for historical information. And, yes, I did recently delete an atheist-press source from another page where it was being misused, so this rule doesn't apply just to evangelicals. Leadwind (talk) 15:40, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * (SlR) I made neither of those assertions, nor did I extend my comments into the substance underlying multiple threads &mdash;I simply dealt with certain issues in this thread that appeared to bring about more heat than light. I made no statement that remotely can be interpreted as meaning "the theory of Jesus' nonexistence is now effectively dead as a scholarly question." What I did do was indicate that an articles' concepts must be written with consideration of WP:WEIGHT &mdash;this is not always easy.


 * You also asked if I was saying this was an "evangelical view, but not a "Christian view," and my answer is that is I did not make any such statement (read it again). What I did say was that StR's comments were less than helpful because he blurred the distinction made by NL of "evangelical sources" into a red-herring assertion that NL was launching a "red-herring" attack on all Christian sources. You further ask "and [are] you [] claiming that because the source is Christian, he cannot possible make accurate statements about scholarly views?" Again I made no such statement or claim (read it again, if you want), though I understand it all must be confusing. All of this builds up to a loaded question "What is your evidence for making these two claims?" Indeed, the answer is because I never actually made "th[o]se two claims, that I have no such "evidence" should not be cause for concern. :)


 * The only issue left then is whether or not you had an actual question somewhere in there. I understand you have some issues with regard to dealing with theosophical scholarship? -Stevertigo 07:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It is now clear to me that you are here only to be a troll. You are adding nothing constructive to the discussion, and are only trying to derail constructive discussion with your won agenda.  Storm Rider wrote "A scholar is a scholar; it is meaningless to qualify them as Christian scholar, agnostic scholar, atheist scholar, Jewish scholar, etc." and I think he is right.  Do you not know the meaning of "etc.?"  It means "and so on" i.e. Evangelical scholars, Ba'hai scholars, Buddhist scholars, etc.


 * We should be discussing whether these are reliable and notable sources, If you cannot make a useful contribution to this discussion, please do not be disruptive. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 19:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Your account, SlR, is in error. Collapsed: click "show" for a brief recap:

I corrected StR for his accusation that NL was attacking "[all] Christian" sources, and I corrected NL for getting into qualitative arguments, rather than finding balance. I then corrected you (SlR) for attributing two incorrect inferences to me, and then turning these into a loaded question, which you put to me under a premise of "giv[ing] [me] the benefit of the doubt." I am now (humbly) asking that you (again) take correction for your personal attack ("troll").

SlR, do you really think that "[any] scholar is a [valid] scholar[ly source]?" Neither do I, though I do agree somewhat with StR's statement that "it is meaningless to qualify them," if one ignores for a minute the ambiguities, subjectives, and pontifications inherent to the usage of a word like "meaningless."

I disagree with his usage of "qualify them" (scholars). If we say a certain scholar is "a Jewish scholar," it means something in the context of dealing with religious belief, and therefore its not as much a "qualification" but a "quantification" of a person as belonging to a certain concept. An identity, in other words. That said, I don't think its particularly necessary to identify people as such in the article, except in certain cases. In discussions here, and with regard to editorial decisions about the article, it does have at least *quantitative bearing, if not a certain aspect of *qualification as well. Taking an unusual example, we don't for example allow Irving, David to be quoted on the Jewish Messiah page without qualifying him as being notably incorrect on certain unhappy matters of Earthly history. Nor do I particularly see many Christian annihilationists quoted in Islam-related articles about where Muslims eventually are supposed to end up (and usually with an "according to the Bible" thrown in there, for yucks). Note, that goes too for eternal damnationists &mdash;though apparently there is as of yet no proper such term for them. (Have I just coinaged one?).

So anyway, you all appear to have been talking past each other, making use of malformed concepts, and misunderstanding what each other is saying. Count on me to take everything apart just to break it down for you. Again my issue is not so much that we judge subjectives such as "reliability" and "notability" of sources, rather that the concepts themselves be dealt with with regard to their substance. Sources of substance will be evident. If the concept in question is the promotion of an incorrect view, such as the opinion that all Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. are going to burn forever in hell, then we can simply destroy that concept and replace it with a Christian one. Regards, -Stevertigo 03:10, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

No epistle or revelation refrences
For being an encylopedic entry I was highly surprised that this article hardly even mentions the refrences of the epistle's account and the Book of Revelation. Paul's writings are the earliest known Christian writings and were completed within the first generation of Christs' death. By definition these are historical. They are epistles written to historical churches, addressing historical issues and witnessing to the "historical Jesus." Regardless of your opinion to not include what the epistles say about Jesus makes this a weak article.

Also, in the same vein, to not report what the early apostolic fathers wrote about him is also highly suspect. Clement lived within 40 years after Jesus' death and likely knew eye-witnesses to the accounts. Also, many of the writers from the early second century are significant witnesses to at least the legacy and impact Christ had on the early development of this global faith.

A good encyclopedia would obviously refer to these witnesses of Christ as they not only give information about Christ but also about how the early followers of Christ interpreted his life, death, and resurrection. Hopefully someone will make this a better article by adding this information. It shouldn't be hard finding info since Jesus is by far the most written about and studied figure of all history, and the Bible by far being the top selling, and top studied book for centuries now. Thank you. --70.136.84.179 (talk) 00:59, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you have some sources you'd recommend? Do you have specific text you'd like to add, or specific details you could go into on what you think the article needs? -Andrew c [talk] 04:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I support the comments above, and also would like answers to the questions posed by Andrew. I agree with the use of references from people close to the time of Jesus. Bigweeboy; (talk) 20:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with most of the above comment as well. A couple points though: The comment "A good encyclopedia would obviously refer to these witnesses of Christ" has the problem of attaching the encyclopedic concept to Christology. Keep in mind that the expression "the Christ" or simply "Christ," when referring to Jesus, is titular, and thus not encyclopedic. The expression "witnesses to Christ" is also Christianized terminology. When talking about Jesus, simply replacing "Christ" with "Jesus," and avoiding usage of terms like "witness" makes things more accurate and substantive.
 * And the statement "[Clement] likely knew eye-witnesses to the accounts" is speculative, and though it does appear to be put in a qualified and suggestive context, consideration of its acceptance presents the issue that too much weight may be given to that individual based on a speculation &mdash;that he had near-direct knowledge of Jesus and therefore that his theological concepts are somewhat more in accord with Jesus.' -Stevertigo 04:16, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Well spoken, Tigo. Bigweeboy; (talk) 16:32, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Paul's letters are essential to an understanding of the early Church, but that is another article. Paul to my knowledge never claimed to have known Jesus, and thus cannot be called a witness to the Jesus that this article is about, the Jesus who was baptized by John and later crucified (one could argue Paul knew a lot about the resurrected Jesus but again that belongs in another article, on Christology). As to including references to the epistles: if any major historian (Sanders, Vermes, Fredricksen, Meier) use the epistles as historical sources, let us make mention of those particular passages and explain how they are used historically. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 18:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Good suggestions, Stein. Bigweeboy; (talk) 15:44, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps historicity was unintendedly invoked by the original poster. He or she might have meant to say, how come there isn't anything substantial in this article on how and what Jesus is, as described in the NT (apart from the Gospels)? Chensiyuan (talk) 01:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The topic of this article is not the New Testament view of Jesus. Also, "how and what Jesus is, as described in the NT" is inherently interpretive. Finally, the article already devotes a disproportionate amount of space to New Testament views. There are several other articles for just that purpose. Noloop (talk) 01:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That ignores the reality that many Christians' faith, insofar as texts are concerned, are predicated on the Bible. The pulpit teaches about Jesus using primarily the NT (exceptions to this no less, but I think we are talking about millions upon millions here). "how and what Jesus is" is nothing terribly normative; one is merely stating what the book says about Jesus. The article may be giving more weight than it should vis-a-vis the Gospels (to which I don't necessarily agree), but it should also not be reduced into a repository of forks ("main article" links). Chensiyuan (talk) 01:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)\


 * It ignores that reality because that reality isn't relevant to this article. This article isn't about the Christian view of Jesus. It is not for "stating what the book says about Jesus." Articles with such titles as Christian views of Jesus and Christology and Resurrection of Jesus and Crucifixion of Jesus and New_Testament_view_on_Jesus%27_life " already do that. If we are going to have all those articles, then this article really does become something like "a repository of forks", although "omnibus article" has a less negative spin. Noloop (talk) 20:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I see NPOV not only as a policy to guide us in editing articles, but as a position we wish to communicate to the world. It is one of those things that makes Wikipedia unique.  It is important, in my view, that when people google Jesus and are taken to this article, they see in one article that there are many diverse views of Jesus.  I have - if you can believe it - met people who thought "You either accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, or you are an atheist."  The problem is not only that people of faith can be of other faiths than Jesus (i.e. you can not believe in Jesus but believe in God) ... it is also possible to be an athiest and believe that there was a historical Jesus.  Or one can be a Christian and believe in a historical Jesus.  All these views, in different forms of course, are currently represented in the article.  I think it should stay that way.


 * Now as to the matter at hand, what NT material belongs in this article? Personally, I would say, any material that is considered important by people with contrasting viewpoints (for example, historians and Christians all agree that the crucifixion is important, although of course they believe this for different reasons), and any material that we need to refer to to explain the difference between different viewpoints.


 * I do not believe we should add material that expresses only one viewpoint (unless it is essential for explaining the difference betwee that view and another). I bet that such material would find a home in another Wikipedia article.


 * The issue si NOT one of giving undue or inadequate weight to the NT. The point is to show that there existe primary source material that different people interpret differently.  It is those differences in interpretation that matter, that is the point.  Providing a summary of parts of the NT is not meant to express some NT POV, it is meant to illustrate the diverse views expressed in the article.  I urge editors to think of the NT material as "illustrations," and to be sure that any NT material illustrates a significant view from a notable source.   Slrubenstein   |  Talk 21:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Add Burial, Grave Location
See Round Templar Church, London, UK with stone effigies of 7 templars with legs crossed their crossed leg shape then forming XP or Chi Rho, indicating descendants of Jesus and also see WITH them the unidentified no. 8 effigy marking the location of the burial of Jesus, brought from Jerusalem by the Templars... lil Jay ni 69.121.221.97 (talk) 02:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Reduce the Section on Gospels by 90%
This section "Life and teachings, as told in the Gospels" is far too long. First of all, there is a link to a main article on that subject, yet the section here is article-length in itself. Either it is extremely redundant with the main article on the New Testament character of Jesus, or the information should be integrated with the main article and trimmed here. Secondly, this article is, it seems, supposed to be on the historical Jesus and shouldn't be dominated by the Christian story. Noloop (talk) 03:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree with your second point. All historians writing about Jesus acknowledge that the Gospels are the primary sources on Jesus' life (however partial - as is the case with almost all historical documents - they are.  In order to understand Sander's or Crossan's or Fredricksn's reconstruction of the historical Jesus, you need to know the source material they worked with. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 12:32, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Noloop in theory, but given the orientation and proclivities of the editors on this page, I don't see us trimming the "gospel Jesus" section down to a summary. Leadwind (talk) 13:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I doubt very much that "all historians" agree on anything, to say nothing of taking the Gospels as sources of historical fact. Actually, I wonder why this article exists at all. We already have these articles:

Historical Jesus Christian views of Jesus ...not to mention "Religious perspectives on Jesus" and several others.

So, an article called "Jesus" is ambiguous in nature, and inherently so. It's like an article on "Troy" that is never clear on whether it is talking about Homer or the historical/archaelogical city state. Noloop (talk) 03:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Noloop (talk) 03:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, according to Wikipedia, a lot of scholars dispute the existence of a historical Jesus: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noloop (talk • contribs) 04:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Those scholars are not historians (one is a geologist, another a professor of German). Find me a mainstream historian, with acknowledged expertise in the history of 1st century Judea and Galilee, who rejects the importance of the Gospels as sources for research on Jesus.  I looked, I couldn't find one.  Find me a mainstream historian, with acknowledged expertise in the history of 1st century Judea and Galilee (e.g. did dissertation research on the topic at a respected University, has published on the topic in peer-reviewed journals or books published by academic presses, teaches on this topic at a respected university), who supports the Jesus Myth Theory in its entirety (certainty that Jesus never existed).  I looked, I couldn't find one.  Slrubenstein   |  Talk 14:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree completely with Slrubenstein. Well said. NO TRIM. Afaprof01 (talk) 17:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * First, you didn't try very hard. From Wikipedia: "Doherty has a degree in Ancient History and Classical Languages." Second, and more to the point, I didn't say the Gospels are unimportant as sources for research. Homer is useful as a source of historical research too. That doesn't mean we treat the Illiad as historical fact. There shouldn't be an article-length section in the article on Troy that repeats, at great length, the story of the Illiad--as already described in the Wikipedia article on the Illiad. There is an article on the Christian view of Jesus. Article-length discussions of the Gospels belong there. Noloop (talk) 18:01, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Gosh - does this article say that the Gospels are "historical fact?" Wow - that would be a total violation of NPOV! If this is your point, think's for making it - we don't want to be breaking policy!  Um, but where do we say that they are historical fact?  Did I ever say that?  I didn't think I had.... But let us be clear: this is not the article on the historian's view - that would be a POV fork which also violates policy.  This is an omnibus article, that provides historians' views, Christians' views, Muslims' views, Jews' views, etc.  We have many linked pages that spun off of this because otherwise this would get too long - but those are content forks, not POV forks. here's my point: we ought to summarize those elemensts of the Gospel that are salient for all these views.  But obviously we cannot and should not summarize the entire Gospels. By the way, I think Doherty's degree is an MA and I do not believe he has ever published anything scholarly i.e. in a peer-reviewed journal on 1st century Roman Occupied Palestine. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 19:21, 30 May 2009 (UTC)


 * 1. Sarcasm and strawman arguments suggest a closed mind
 * 2. I accept this: "This is an omnibus article, that provides historians' views, Christians' views, Muslims' views, Jews' views, etc."
 * 3. That is precisely why the article-length section--with nine sub-sections--all about the Christian view and no other is excessive. There is already an entire, separate article to develop the Christian view and no other. Repeating that here is redundant. It is even redundant within this article, as this article has another section called "Religious Perspective" which contains a sub-section on Christian views.
 * 4. I accept this: "we ought to summarize those elemensts of the Gospel that are salient for all these views." A section that is long enough to be a separate article is not a summary. It is paticularly clumsy when the topic already has its own article.
 * 5. I don't know what you mean by "violation of NPOV" and "POV fork" or any other kind of fork except the kind you jab into food. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noloop (talk • contribs) 01:17, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Noloop, theoretically, you're right that this page is bogus. The page on Napoleon is about historical Napoleon, so the page about Jesus should be about historical Jesus. But there's no way that the community of WP editors is going to let that happen, so choose your battles. Besides, in our world today, Jesus exists more as a semi-legendary religious figure than as a real person, so if the Jesus page plays up the religious figure angle, that's not all bad. Leadwind (talk) 15:48, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually it's completely and all bad because Wikipedia is supposed to be about verifiable facts. The fact that Wikipedia editors have allowed unverifiable accounts of Jesus' life to be considered verifiable facts is just a result of religion refusing to die. If people wrote their theories in a biography of a living person, as pretty much 100% of the references are doing in this article, they would be deleted immediately (hopefully). If this was actually a biographical article, which I don't think it necessarily should be, the mentions of religion would be completely gutted. LonelyMarble (talk)
 * There may be a conflation of the verifiable assertion in question here. The section is named "... as told by the Gospels". It is a verifiable fact that the Gospels said so and so about Jesus. No one is making the assertion that the Gospels provide the historical basis for Jesus. Chensiyuan (talk) 12:09, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I was being a little dramatic in my comment, basically I agree with the original poster that much of that information should simply go to its main article because the main article on Jesus should be more of a biography of the historical Jesus. Getting veriable information about Jesus as a real person is really hard to do though, which is one of the problems this article has. LonelyMarble (talk) 15:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It's just not clear what the article is about, since it isn't clear what "Jesus" refers to. It's hard to see why we need this article when we have other articles that cover every possible meaning of "Jesus." We shouldn't have a lot of material on a historically based figure, because we already have an entire article for that (and a couple of related ones). We shouldn't have a lot of material on the view of Jesus in Christianity because we already have 2 or 3 or 8 articles on that. We shouldn't have a lot of material on religious view of Jesus generally because there is already a long article on that. Basically, the only legitimate function of a "Jesus" article is to be what seems to be called a "disambiguation page." I guess an "omnibus" of summaries is OK, but this article, now, has been turned into a Christian platform. Noloop (talk) 02:36, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That's a cop out and Jesus will never be a disambiguation page so it's better to discuss how to better improve the article. LonelyMarble (talk) 02:41, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Why is it a cop out? It is, in fact, my reasoning. No name-calling, please.
 * Isn't there some policy or guideline somewhere about summarizing the content of other articles in sections, rather than duplicating it? Noloop (talk) 02:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You are definitely right that main articles like Jesus should be summaries, I am saying your comment that your comment that "the only legitimate function of a "Jesus" article is to be what seems to be called a "disambiguation page." is never going to happen so it's not constructive to debate that point. I didn't call you any names and I'm sorry if I offended you at all. My main point is the main article on any individual should be a biographical account of that person. The religious perspective of Jesus is not that verifiable and should not be featured as prominently in his main article as it currently is. I don't think it shouldn't be mentioned, but right now this article is a biography of the "founder of Christianty", not of "Jesus of Nazereth". If Jesus was a real person this is not really a suitable biography type article. LonelyMarble (talk) 02:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * My comment about disambiguation needs to be taken in context. You make it sound like I argued for that. My very next sentence was that an "omnibus" of summaries is OK too. It does seem to be mostly disambiguation when every summary is based on a link to a main article. I don't agree that it is possible to have a biography of the founder of Christianity. We have all these different views, even definitions, of Jesus. That's what disambiguation pages are for.....Noloop (talk) 07:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry I took your mention of "disambiguation page" a little too literally. This page is sort of like a disambiguation page I guess. Although almost all main scope articles like this one that cover a lot of information will basically have a bunch of sections with links to the main article for the sections so that it is a summary-type article. This doesn't necessarily and shouldn't have to make the main summary articles disambiguation-like pages. LonelyMarble (talk) 15:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * While there are different views on Jesus, if we don't have a holistic article that discusses all views, then we just have a bunch of POV forks that aren't linked through a unified parent article. That said. I worked hard a few years back (2006) to reduce the size of that section, and move content to the associated parent article, New Testament view on Jesus' life. Since then, apparently this section has grown in size independent of that article. I believe that we should do something along the lines of what I did 3 years ago. 1) Go through to make sure that the section here doesn't have information not found in the parent article 2) start copying content from here that is useful that should also be in the parent article 3) reduce and summarize. In April of 2007, when article size began being saved in the page history, this article was at 101kb. Now the article is 146kb. The NT section has doubled in size since then. Now, a portion of that increase in size is the addition of 3rd party references (currently references #33-80), where the 2006 article has maybe a dozen short references to biblical verses. But even if we account for that, we still have a net content text increase from ~14kb->26kb. Meaning, in 2006, the parent article was twice as long as the section here, where today they are roughly the same size! With all that said, I think the first, most important thing to do is to get the main NT article back in line with the NT section here, so that we don't have content here that isn't found in the parent article. The next thing, I would not oppose a slight reduction in the size of the section. I don't believe taking an ax to the section is helpful, and would not support that major cut that Noloop and Civilizededucation made, especially given the current circumstance where content that was added here but not to the main NT parent article would be lost (it needs to be merged first). I think the previous 2006 size was clearly workable for an article like this, Could we agree in such a reduction? It's a compromise between getting rid of it all and keeping it all. Plus, I think we can all agree that the 45kb article creep that has occurred over the past 2+ years isn't all helpful. Here is a diff, FYI.-Andrew c [talk] 14:04, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Basically, this article is too big per WP:Article size. The most important thing is readable prose. Currently the size of the readable prose in this article is approximately 62 KB. The approx. guide is >40 KB may need to be divided, >60 KB probably should be divided. There are plenty of sub articles for this topic so I think the readable prose definitely needs to be cut. The Gospels section is probably a good start and the religious perspectives section could be shortened too. You could sharpen and cut the historical section too if you wanted, however my opinion would be this article should be more weighted to as many facts about a historical Jesus as possible because that would be what usually a person's main biographical article would be about. Jesus is obviously an exception so I don't know if this article will ever be a real biography type article about Jesus the person (and maybe it shouldn't be, who knows). LonelyMarble (talk) 15:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with LonelyMarble that "his article should be more weighted to as many facts about a historical Jesus as possible". Perhaps some of the "results" of his life can be described in other Wiki pages, such as New Testament view on Jesus' life.  I also agree that the Gospel section should be shortened.  I am happy to read thru the Gospel section and make some suggestions for edits/cuts.  Bigweeboy (talk) 20:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

This is the omnibus article on Jesus. The main articles on Christian views are in other articles - as are the main articles on historians' views. This article is about a Jesus that both historians and Christians refer to. It should provide a summary of the sources that both Christians and historians rely on. It should provide an account of mainstream Christian views and mainstream historian views. It should provide an account of other views in some appropriately proportionate way. But we cannot give undue weight to one view, we must obey NPOV, and we must avoid POV forks. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 22:10, 8 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That's OK with me, if "provide an account" means "provide a summary." The problem is that the "summaries" that are Christian in viewpoint are not summaries here, but article-length expositions that duplicate what is already--and more properly--contained in whole, dedicated articles. In addition to the Gospels section, there is excess redundancy in the "Christian views" subsection of the "Religious Viewpoints" section. Noloop (talk) 22:28, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Is there a general agreement that the sections on the Gospels and Christian views, that link to articles on those topics, should be summaries rather than article-length expositions themselves? In other words, that they should be reduced? Noloop (talk) 21:03, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Reduced, sure. Blanked, heck no. On top of that, my main concern was continuity between the articles. I suggested merging content, then summarizing. Blanking, with no effort to preserve the content in the spin out article is clearly disruptive. I'd be glad to work on this myself, but you'll have to be patient as the time I have to devote to Wikipedia lately is limited. -Andrew c [talk] 14:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * First of all, name-calling just turns things into a personality war. It wasn't disruptive. I asked here for a general opinion, and 48 hours later nobody made any objection. In fact, the edit brings the article into compliance with non-negotiable Wikipedia policies. If anything was disruptive, it was the religiously motivated addition of Biblical material in violation of guidelines on article size, section length, neutral content, and neutral weight. Second, I reduced the material in Religious Persepctives/Christian views, and removed the section on Gospels, because not only is the Gospels section redundant with an entire article devoted to that topic, it is redundant with the section of this article on Christian views. I preserved the article link from the Gospels section, so the user can still easily access the relevant material.


 * You said I made no effort to preserve the content in the "spin out article." What material that I removed is not present in any of the three referenced articles???? Noloop (talk) 14:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Are you being honest when you are asking what material did you remove that wasn't present in any of the three referenced articles? Just, for starters, compare the table of contents of this articles Gospel section, and the table of content for the New Testament view on Jesus' life article (9 headers here, 6 headers there). Then compare the reference sections (references 33-80 in this article) and (references 1-26 in the NT view article). 46 versus 26 is major, especially when you note that that the NT view article cites 7 scholarly sources, and the rest are just footnotes are bible verses, and this article cites over 25 scholarly sources. Leadwind and others spent a lot of time getting that section sourced to scholarly, non-primary sources, while no one has done that to the NT views section. Your proposed wholesale deletion, with no merge, would aim to erase all that work (and all those sources). Furthermore, if you go through sentence by sentence (which someone is going to have to do if we really want to preserve content), you'll find many addition found here that are not in the NT views article. Furthermore, while there is support for reducing the size of these sections, outright deletion of the gospel section was not supported (let alone even proposed here). I don't think anyone agrees that the Gospels section is really just the Christian views section either. Please be much more careful in the future when it comes to deleting the hard work of other editors. As stated previously, I personally would support a merge and partial reduction/summary of this content. But someone needs to be careful and thorough when doing this in order to preserve the content. I'd be glad to help work on this over the next week or so. -Andrew c [talk] 20:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * If we're going to talk about honesty, we should talk about yours. I didn't compare the Gospels section only to one article. The point is that many of the sections and subsections have their own main articles. If you want to argue I removed material from Wikipedia you need to compare the removed material to all the articles these sections reference. When the guideline is that a section with a main article should be a brief summary and a link, it is hardly defensible to have multi-paragraph subsections within the sections that are, themselves, supposed to be brief.
 * The proper comparison isn't merely to New Testament view on Jesus' life, but rather to an extensive list of main articles:
 * The gist of your objection was a quantity comparison; you compared the sections to one article. The sections actually summarize about 20 other articles. Compare that. Now, we could continue to accuse each other of dishonesty, or we could assume good faith... I don't believe my removal removed any important material from Wikipedia, and I do believe it brings this article closer to guideline-compliance and general leanness. Noloop (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I cannot disagree more. I guess we disagree on the function of the NT views article. And I disagree that those sub-spinout articles contain all the content here. I have mentioned in both my posts, the hard work Leadwind put into sourcing that section. This work has not been properly disseminated into the main spinout article, nor all the minor articles (now that you mention it). Please don't blank sections of this article again. I see no consensus here for such actions, which you have done on the 6th and the 17th. -Andrew c [talk] 18:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The gist of your objection was a quantity comparison; you compared the sections to one article. The sections actually summarize about 20 other articles. Compare that. Now, we could continue to accuse each other of dishonesty, or we could assume good faith... I don't believe my removal removed any important material from Wikipedia, and I do believe it brings this article closer to guideline-compliance and general leanness. Noloop (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I cannot disagree more. I guess we disagree on the function of the NT views article. And I disagree that those sub-spinout articles contain all the content here. I have mentioned in both my posts, the hard work Leadwind put into sourcing that section. This work has not been properly disseminated into the main spinout article, nor all the minor articles (now that you mention it). Please don't blank sections of this article again. I see no consensus here for such actions, which you have done on the 6th and the 17th. -Andrew c [talk] 18:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The gist of your objection was a quantity comparison; you compared the sections to one article. The sections actually summarize about 20 other articles. Compare that. Now, we could continue to accuse each other of dishonesty, or we could assume good faith... I don't believe my removal removed any important material from Wikipedia, and I do believe it brings this article closer to guideline-compliance and general leanness. Noloop (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I cannot disagree more. I guess we disagree on the function of the NT views article. And I disagree that those sub-spinout articles contain all the content here. I have mentioned in both my posts, the hard work Leadwind put into sourcing that section. This work has not been properly disseminated into the main spinout article, nor all the minor articles (now that you mention it). Please don't blank sections of this article again. I see no consensus here for such actions, which you have done on the 6th and the 17th. -Andrew c [talk] 18:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The gist of your objection was a quantity comparison; you compared the sections to one article. The sections actually summarize about 20 other articles. Compare that. Now, we could continue to accuse each other of dishonesty, or we could assume good faith... I don't believe my removal removed any important material from Wikipedia, and I do believe it brings this article closer to guideline-compliance and general leanness. Noloop (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I cannot disagree more. I guess we disagree on the function of the NT views article. And I disagree that those sub-spinout articles contain all the content here. I have mentioned in both my posts, the hard work Leadwind put into sourcing that section. This work has not been properly disseminated into the main spinout article, nor all the minor articles (now that you mention it). Please don't blank sections of this article again. I see no consensus here for such actions, which you have done on the 6th and the 17th. -Andrew c [talk] 18:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The gist of your objection was a quantity comparison; you compared the sections to one article. The sections actually summarize about 20 other articles. Compare that. Now, we could continue to accuse each other of dishonesty, or we could assume good faith... I don't believe my removal removed any important material from Wikipedia, and I do believe it brings this article closer to guideline-compliance and general leanness. Noloop (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I cannot disagree more. I guess we disagree on the function of the NT views article. And I disagree that those sub-spinout articles contain all the content here. I have mentioned in both my posts, the hard work Leadwind put into sourcing that section. This work has not been properly disseminated into the main spinout article, nor all the minor articles (now that you mention it). Please don't blank sections of this article again. I see no consensus here for such actions, which you have done on the 6th and the 17th. -Andrew c [talk] 18:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The gist of your objection was a quantity comparison; you compared the sections to one article. The sections actually summarize about 20 other articles. Compare that. Now, we could continue to accuse each other of dishonesty, or we could assume good faith... I don't believe my removal removed any important material from Wikipedia, and I do believe it brings this article closer to guideline-compliance and general leanness. Noloop (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I cannot disagree more. I guess we disagree on the function of the NT views article. And I disagree that those sub-spinout articles contain all the content here. I have mentioned in both my posts, the hard work Leadwind put into sourcing that section. This work has not been properly disseminated into the main spinout article, nor all the minor articles (now that you mention it). Please don't blank sections of this article again. I see no consensus here for such actions, which you have done on the 6th and the 17th. -Andrew c [talk] 18:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The gist of your objection was a quantity comparison; you compared the sections to one article. The sections actually summarize about 20 other articles. Compare that. Now, we could continue to accuse each other of dishonesty, or we could assume good faith... I don't believe my removal removed any important material from Wikipedia, and I do believe it brings this article closer to guideline-compliance and general leanness. Noloop (talk) 17:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I cannot disagree more. I guess we disagree on the function of the NT views article. And I disagree that those sub-spinout articles contain all the content here. I have mentioned in both my posts, the hard work Leadwind put into sourcing that section. This work has not been properly disseminated into the main spinout article, nor all the minor articles (now that you mention it). Please don't blank sections of this article again. I see no consensus here for such actions, which you have done on the 6th and the 17th. -Andrew c [talk] 18:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It would be helpful if you at least tried to produce evidence and reasoning. You keep saying there is content here that isn't in the other articles, but you haven't actually given any examples. As for consensus, consensus isn't required regarding Wikipedia-wide policies. The article is in violation of basic guidelines. (And, one objector doesn't erase consensus anyway.) It's a little odd that you're citing Leadwind in defense of this article, as s/he calls this article "bogus" above.


 * This article is simply not for the promotion of Christian views. But, that is how it is being used. Noloop (talk) 22:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see how this article is being used for the promotiono f Christian views. I have read several books by historians and other scholars reconstructing the "historical Jesus" and the "Jewish jesus" and they all begin with the Gospels, primarily the syncretic ones, for data. Why not argue that this article promotes the historical Jesus? It is certainly dominated by the source material historians use and it has prominent sections on how historians interpret those sources. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 02:20, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It promotes Christian views by having 35k of text in just the Gospels and Christian Views sections. The entire article is 72k of readable text. So, just two sections---dedicated exclusively to the Christian POV--constitute half the article. And those two sections repeat information that is already contained in about 20 other articles. It promotes the Christian view by engaging in an egregious violations of guidelines on due weight and how sections and subsections are supposed to be used. Sections and subsections should not be article-length. Noloop (talk) 18:43, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * So you are saying an article on Jesus having 49% of it focused on the Christian perspective is an "egregious violations of guidelines on due weight". I am curious, why would say that Jesus if talked about today? I am going to take a shot in the dark here and say that almost exclusively, the notoriety of Jesus today is due to Christianity. I am surprised that the article is not 95% based upon the Christian perspective given that the entire religion of Christianity is based upon Jesus. Without the Christian concept there would be no understanding of Jesus today. Just curious, do you have any references that indicate that Jesus is more important outside of Christianity? Cheers. -- Storm  Rider  20:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I am really tired of Noloop's campaign to cut down the historian's view of Jesus n this article I am drawing a line here - I will not tolerate this anti-historian POV pushing. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 02:43, 22 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think there are some typos in your comment, so I'm not sure what you're saying. For instance, I'm not sure what this means: "I am curious, why would say that Jesus if talked about today?" In any case, this article isn't about the "notoriety" of Jesus nor is it about the Christian concept. Again, I'm not saying the Christian material doesn't belong in Wikipedia. I'm saying it is so important it is already in Wikipedia in whole articles dedicated just to Christian perspectives, and shouldn't be repeated, in 35k of text, in a sections of an article that isn't supposed to be just about Christian persepectives. It is interesting that the main point here has to do with Wikipedia policies and guidelines regarding summaries and sections and main articles, and the objectors here keep ignoring that. Are you willing to work on Wikipedia within Wikipedia guidelines, or not? Noloop (talk) 03:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Well...Is anybody going to give some actual examples of text in these sections that isn't present in the main articles? Or, explain how these sections don't violate guidelines on sections, summaries, and main articles? Noloop (talk) 15:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There are dozens of forks, and the summaries look concise enough. Your conception of a summary appears to be something that doesn't exceed two sentences... Chensiyuan (talk) 15:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Please address what has been said. The summaries here are as long as articles. One section and one sub-section (both pushing Christian POV) are 32k in length and constitute half the article. They violate the cited guidelines for due weight and spinning off articles, and they push a Christian POV.
 * You are supposed to work toward consensus. That means not sneering, ignoring, and misrepresenting what others say. I said the two Christian "summaries" here are 32k long--over half the article. I didn't say they are "two sentences." Make an effort. Noloop (talk) 02:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I can see why practically everyone has been ignoring you. I don't see a single summary that is as long, or even close to as long, as the corresponding forked article(s). Chensiyuan (talk) 04:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * 1. Nobody said the summaries were longer than the daughter articles. It doesn't matter. A 20k summary would be too long, even if its daughter article were 25k.
 * 2. In fact the section on the Gospels is 24.5k, while the main article is 25. Thanks for drawing our attention to the fact that the section which supposed to be a summary is essentially as long as the entire main article. Noloop (talk) 16:37, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Herre's the official rule. These two sections alone are in the range of the maximum for a whole article.

Readers may tire of reading a page much longer than about 30 to 50 KB, which roughly corresponds to 6,000 to 10,000 words of readable prose. If an article is significantly longer than that, it may benefit the reader to move some sections to other articles and replace them with summaries (see Wikipedia:Summary style).


 * What does the term "may" mean to you? It does not mean "must", "required", etc. -- Storm  Rider  16:43, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

The section in question does not provide a view. It provides raw material - a summary of primary sources - about which different people have views. This primary source material is used by all major historians. To remove this material is to undermine any account of critical historians' views of Jesus. I will not support Noloop's attack on work by historians. The view of historians is essential to this article. Stop attacking it. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 16:47, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * However, there is room for minor reductions here and there, if they are done intelligently rather than indiscriminately Soxwon (talk) 17:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't say or imply that "may" means "must."
 * I didn't say or imply that the sections "provide a view".
 * The Gospels section--which is supposed to be a summary--is near the max length recommended for articles. All of the information it contains is already contained in the many daughter articles.
 * The article promotes Christianity by having over half its material dedicated to Christian views, despite a consensus that this should be a omnibus, non-Christian, article.
 * This article violates a binding policy regarding neutrality, and it violates a guideline on summary style. Removing the excess and redundant Christian material doesn't remove any information from Wikipedia or Christian articles on Wikipedia. It brings the body of material on "Jesus" into compliance with policy and guidelines.
 * The burden of proof is one those who would break guidelines and policies. Nobody has even attempted to meet that burden. There has been a fair amount of name-calling and strawman argument, however. Noloop (talk) 19:15, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You can't block changes by refusing to engage, and calling that a failure to get consensus. Particularly when the status quo version violates official policies and guidelines.
 * I think there is a consensus that this should be an omnibus article, i.e. not primarily about Christian views.
 * How can an article be neutral regarding Christian views when it is more than 50% about Christian views?
 * How can a section be a summary when it is near the max length for an entire article, and as long as its main linked article?
 * How can a sub-section be a summary when it contains multiple sub-sub-sections, and is long enough to be an article?
 * What is lost when material that is replicated in multiple articles is removed from one article, and replaced with a link to the others? Particularly, when the removed material is 100% promotional of views in an article that is supposed to be neutral?Noloop (talk) 18:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I've made a compromise edit to the Gospels section, and left the Christain view sub-section alone. If you revert, please ALSO propose an alternative to the problem with neutrality (from undue weight) and summary style. Don't just announce "there is no consensus" and then refuse to engage. Thanks. Noloop (talk) 18:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I just noticed this template... A 25 KB section on the Gosepls even more redundant than I realized:

Category:Jesus templates Noloop (talk) 16:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * While this may be a bit blunt, NO solution where you outright delete section is acceptable. We should make a MUCH better effort to MERGE content, and then reduce and summarize the content here. Deletions like that are clearly disruptive, so STOP.-Andrew c [talk] 22:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)


 * After the content is merged, then we would "outright delete" it. Right? So, PLEASE answer the basic question: What content is not already merged in the other articles????? I've asked this repeatedly. I don't intend to delete any content from Wikipedia. I intend to remove material from this article that is already, and more appropriately, in other articles. This pretense of offering objections to the edits that actually address none of the concerns is not a reason to block the edits. The article violates policies and guidelines. What solution does ANYBODY else propose? Noloop (talk) 03:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Circuitous. A solution is warranted when a legitimate problem has been identified, and the purported policy breach correlated and corroborated. In the absence of which, a solution cannot be demanded and relief sought for the non-response. Chensiyuan (talk) 13:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This avoidance of any interest in consensus makes it illegitimate to revert on grounds of "no consensus." You could revert anything and everything with that trick. If you won't address people's concerns on an article, you shouldn't be editing the article. The article is--by consensus--supposed to be Christian-neutral, yet over 50% of it advances Christian views. Consensus doesn't override neutrality.Noloop (talk) 17:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You are being extremely immature. You already know that your blanking of 50 KB of text is going to be reverted, so it makes no sense to keep doing that. I have many guesses to your motives but since public conversation generally refrains from actually being honest, my only question is what is your motive. (Feel free to follow this comment with a convoluted lie that is probably laziness at its base.) By the way, I have already supported what your initial intention is, so this is nothing personal against you at all. LonelyMarble (talk) 01:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The comment that you "have nothing personal against [someone]" is funny, following accusations of "being extremely immature", hidden motives, convoluted lies, and laziness. What are you like when you do have something personal against someone? I've made the recent edit twice; it is reduced from my original edit in an attempt to compromise, and nowhere near 50 KB. The entire section is 25 KB of readable text. I continue to make it because, 1. I believe it's based on correct principles, 2. Little to none of the "discussion" here has addressed those principles. Instead, it has mostly been flat contradictions and insults (such as you produced). Noloop (talk) 02:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with what you want to do with this article. Sorry my comment came off pretty dumb, by actually insulting you when that wasn't what I was trying to do. Deleting chunks of text will never come off well, and is a slap in the face to people who worked on that text. I think I agree with what your ultimate goal for this article is, it's just going to take a lot of effort, probably more effort than I personally care to spend. That's why I asked what your motive is. Do you want to spend some time and improve this article or just stir up some trouble and be forgotten about like countless editors? LonelyMarble (talk) 03:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Monday: What important information about Christian views isn't included in the spun-off articles about Christian views? Noloop (talk) 23:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Tuesday: What important information about Christian views isn't included in the spun-off articles about Christian views? Noloop (talk) 23:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Wednesday: What important information about Christian views isn't included in the spun-off articles about Christian views? Noloop (talk) 22:14, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * My concern has always been for the NT views section. That said, shouldn't it be your job, if you want to delete information from this article, to make sure it is included in the spinout articles?? I mean, how do you want me to answer this question? Do you want me to read the Christian views section, then go through the various spin out articles, and report back to you what you cannot "safely" delete? I don't get what you are asking from us here. And as I said, my concern is more for the NT plot summary section than the Christian views section. -Andrew c [talk] 23:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yet, I still feel very strongly that we should not delete any summary of Gospel sources that is used by critical historians. The Gospel accounts provide absolutely essential points of reference for current research by critical historians.  I oppose any campaign to remove material important to historians from this article. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 00:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)


 * 1. I read the spin off articles. It seems to me all the important information is contained in them. How do I document that I didn't find information missing from the other articles.
 * 2. I don't think it's my job to defend the edit, when the article is currently out of compliance with guidelines and policies. The burden should be on those who add material. You can't add material and then demand others do the work of proving your addition was not proper.
 * 3. Slrub, we aren't deleting "any summary." The section is 25 KB. It is article-length, needlessly so, because the information it contains has been spun off into other articles. When you spin off a long section into its own article, you are supposed to reduce and summarize the long section. What seems to have happened here is that info was spun off into new articles, and now people are refusing to reduce and summarize here. I agree with everything you say about the Gospels: that is why that information has its own article. This article cannot and should not contain every important piece of information on the topic of Jesus. Also, it is not particularly oriented toward historical use. There are sections on the resurrection, for instance. It's very theological. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noloop (talk • contribs) 20:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Well? The modus operandi here seems to be nothing but strawman arguements, followed by silence and reverts. Again, the point isn't to delete material. It's to move material. The way you move material to its own, more specific article is a copy, followed by "deleting" most of it from the more general article. Noloop (talk) 14:38, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You changed the topic from the NT plot summary section to the Christian views section. When you deleted large portions of the NT section, you neglected to "move" the content. Also, you are mistaken about Summary style and Splitting. Generally speaking, a good, lead sized summary of multiple paragraphs should be left for each section and subsection. The issue with your previous bold edits is a) you didn't move any content b) you didn't leave behind a lead size summary of multiple paragraphs, but instead outright deleted section with nothing left behind. Maybe, instead of going on and on about who is to blame and who did what and who is breaking what guideline, why don't you make some specific proposals. I'd be glad to work with you to help summarize and move content. What is the biggest issue to you? Where do you think we go into too much depth about a topic? What subsection do you think is the most problematic and needs to be reduced? -Andrew c [talk] 15:40, 8 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The content has already been moved. The important content is already present in articles specifically devoted to it. That's the whole point of now removing and reducing the sections here. As for the size of the sections, I'm not sure what you are getting at. Yes, a "lead" sized summary in a section is OK, which is why a 25 KB, article-length section is not OK. The section on Gosepls is 25 KB with almost all of its content being repeated in specific articles where it belongs. My last edits haven't deleted the Gospels section, they have only removed the sub- and sub-sub-sections that already had entire articles devoted to their topics. However, I see no difference between the Gospels section and the Christian views section and/or the historical views sections, so I do think it would be appropriate to delete it, provided the material is present in other, appropriate places. I'm not saying we should delete material from Wikipedia.... Noloop (talk) 23:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * You seem not to understand the difference between a source and an interpretation of the source. This distinction is essential bothto Wikipedia and to modern research. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I plan on going through this article sometime soon with the specific intention of combining all the stubby paragraphs throughout. There are a lot of one sentence or two sentence "paragraphs" that should be combined with other paragraphs. As I am doing that if I see a sentence that is clearly overly specific to be in this article I can remove those sentences, which should help this article be more summary style. This is the way to go about this task, deleting whole sections without putting any effort in is I doubt ever going to be accepted here. If you really want to help this article be more summary style, you are going to have to go through it sentence by sentence and remove the sentences that are either 1. unreferenced and 2. clearly overly specific for this main article. Reducing a subsection that has a main article from maybe two to one paragraphs would probably be a good thing, but outright deleting that subsection is probably going overboard. LonelyMarble (talk) 00:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * What makes a sentence overly specific? Similarly, what makes a sentence overly general? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 15:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * By "overly specific" I meant that it goes into too much detail for this article. The readable prose size in this article is long and I'm sure there are some overly detailed sentences in parts that could easily be cut to subarticles without losing any pertinent information. My first plan is to combine the stubby paragraphs without changing any of the actual content at all. As I am doing that if I notice sentences that are too detailed I will list them on this talk page as examples. I'm not trying to remove any relevant information, just clean up the layout and flow of the prose, because that's the biggest problem this article has, and even though I am not that specifically knowledgable about this topic, this is mostly a copyediting job I want to do. LonelyMarble (talk) 18:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Original Name

 * ''Renamed from "Original Name and how to SPEAK it"

i dont know what is the ORIGINAL Hebrew name of jesus, and how to speak that word. please someone add a voice... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.65.150.99 (talk) 19:15, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The way it would be said in Syriac, which is mutually intelligible with Palestinian Aramaic the language Jesus and the Jews back then would have spoken would be "ee-shoh". Thats not proper phonetic notation, but its an "ee" sound and then "shoh", with the last being pronounced the way h would be in herb.  Gabr-  el  19:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Ashalom alecha, Jesus's hebrew name is Yeshua ben yosef (Jesus son of joseph). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.181.118.56 (talk) 01:07, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * sources, please? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 15:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * SlR, the current etymology section uses the term "transliteration," and makes no mention of 'Yeshua's' historical and linguistic reconstruction aspects. Can you deal with this please? -Stevertigo 18:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Using which sources? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 18:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You don't know of any? I had assumed your argument that "Yeshua" was a reconstruction was based on sources. -Stevertigo 21:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I do not think I ever made that argument. I can tell you what Yeshua means in Aramaic, or what Yehoshuah means in Hebrew,  I can tell you that Jesus is a transliteration from the Latin from the Greek.  But I have never said that Yeshua is a "reconstruction" of anything. At most I would say that you have proposed this reconstruction, and some other Wikipedia editors have.  But I never claimed that a verifiable source proposed this as a reconstruction.  Now, can we get back to the matter at hand?  YOU want to make "mention of 'Yeshua's' historical and linguistic reconstruction aspects."  I now ask you: using what sources?  If you have no sources, why do you want this discussed?  Slrubenstein   |  Talk 22:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

SlR, the basis of your earlier disagreement with my suggestion of including a short mention of "Yeshua" in the lede sentence was that such connection between Jesus and "Yeshua" had no Hebrew sources. Because this argument of Hebrew canon gets into historicity or religious territory, I had to try to understand your scholarly and vague argument in confined terms, and I used the term "reconstruction" to confine the issue to linguistics. You at one point also used the term, and thus we had a basis for disagreement that could avoid (for the moment) getting into either historical or religious issues.

You say 1) "I do not think I ever made that argument", 2) that you "never said that Yeshua is a "reconstruction"" and 3) that I (SV) "proposed this reconstruction ." I understand that you might not be expressing yourself clearly at the moment, but on the last two counts you are not correct: 1) Your argument was more in the domain of lack of Hebrew sources, but 2) you did follow my example and once used the term "reconstruction." 3) I did not "propose this reconstruction," rather I suggested its usage is sufficiently notable, regardless of its problems, such that it should be included in the lede, with necessary footnote-link to the etymology section that explains its debated relevance.

I agreed with your argument that the (what I called) "reconstruction" issue made this problematic and then added a little treatment of the "debate" to the lede of Yeshua (name): "In modern Hebrew, Yeshu (ישו) and Yeshua (ישוע) are in fact the common transcriptions for Jesus. But the claims that this pronunciation and Hebrew spelling accurately represent the original and historic name of the person known as Jesus remain the subject of ongoing religious and scholarly debate."

At the time I suggested you similarly treat the issue in this article's etymology section. You thus have not. Why not? My purpose here, again, was to add a little clarification, of the same type that I added to Yeshua (name), to the etymology, such that explains why "Yeshua" is not universally accepted. Instead of using the term "reconstruction," we can simply do as I did on Yeshua (talk) and call it a "debate."

But note that in my usage of the term "reconstruction" I was simply trying to classify the argument against associating "Yeshua" with Jesus, or at least one dimension of it &mdash;the one that draws upon a linguistic concept. There are other religious and historical issues that underly the objection to the 'Jesus was called "Yeshua"' concept, notably that accepting (even for a minute) any "Hebrew name" for Jesus means giving Jesus (and to some degree Christianity, and even Christian dogmas) certian Hebraic legitimacy &mdash;something Jews may simply not want to do. The remaining non-religious arguments against the connection generally can all be classified as arguments against Jesus' historicity.

So of the three relevant dimensions; religious objection, historicity objection, and the linguistic reconstruction objection, the latter two we can deal with, and the last we can deal with in the etymology section.

Now "reconstruction" is somewhat subjective, and depending on the subjective context it can mean something either legitimate or illegitimate. I used it simply because it got to the gist of a serious criticism you noted about the Jesus → "Yeshua" connection, and because it clarified this argument as separate from historical or religious objections. So, while we may call something simply a "debate," I think its useful to break the "debate" down into its constituent dimensions, such that they can be explained in summary. I'm certain I'm not the only one who has used the term "reconstruction" to refer to this or similar connections, and in fact that is why I raised the issue that "Abraham" could itself be called a "reconstruction," simply because the being predated Hebrew writing by several hundred years. -Stevertigo 15:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You mention three objections, religious, historicity, and linguistic reconstruction - please provide your sources. Remember, we only provide accounts of significant views from verifiable sources.  So, what are your sources? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 22:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You write, "I ... added a little treatment of the "debate" to the lede of Yeshua (name): "In modern Hebrew, Yeshu (ישו) and Yeshua (ישוע) are in fact the common transcriptions for Jesus." What is your verifiable source for this?  I do not accept your claim, but if you provide me a reliable source I would appreciate it. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 22:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Jesus → he:ישו → http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/ישו
 * Now, I can't vouch for that source &mdash;some kind of Hebrew encyclopedia &mdash;but that's the best I can pull up in five minutes. Looking for more.. -Stevertigo 20:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Getting back to the original question, the article Yeshua under pronunciation says that Yeshua "is pronounced something like yay-SHOO-a`." It also says that there is scholarly disagreement about whether his original name would have been Yeshua or Yehoshua ("yeh-O-shoo-a`"?) or, by minority views, several other names, like Iesous, Yēšū‘ or Yeshu. Names and titles of Jesus in the New Testament also has a long discussion about the personal name of Jesus. In my opinion, all arguments and comments about "the original name of Jesus" would better be left to the discussions of those two articles, here and here, rather than on this talk page.

However, this article (Jesus) mentions the derivation of the name "Jesus" in three different places: in the lead, in Etymology and in Names and Titles (under Historical views). The last two of these talk about Yehoshua/Joshua. I'm wondering if Yehoshua shouldn't be mentioned in the lead. For example, in the phrase "His Hebrew-Aramaic name, Yeshua (or Yehoshua), means...". Italics mine showing possible insertion. Comments? --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 10:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree. I think the lead should contain what everyone agrees to, or what we are most sure of, to whatever extent possible.  Since providing two names necessarily raises questions, I think we should leave this for the body of the article, where we can take the time to provide the answers. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Slrubenstein, I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you but both Etymology and Names and Titles say that the two names, Yeshua and Yehoshua, are of equal validity, so far as their derivation is concerned. So, if we don't use both names, it seems to me that we could use Yehoshua instead of Yeshua with equal soundness. Do you disagree? If so, why?


 * (I'm not an expert on the transliteration of ancient Middle Eastern languages so, if anyone can quote sources that say the derivations are not approximately equal, I'll shut up. Of course, these sources should be cited in the article.)


 * You seem to have two arguments against my suggestion:
 * The lead should only contain what what we are most sure of.
 * We should not raise questions in the lead.


 * For point 1, I think that I have already answered with the argument about equal validity, unless you disagree. If the two names are not of equal validity then this should be made clear in the rest of the article.


 * For point number 2, I don't know of any policy or guideline or rule of thumb that says controversial material should not be included in the lead. I agree this is a matter of taste and, perhaps for such a long (and contentious) article, questions are better left to the rest of the article. But, in the first sentence of the article, we state that Jesus is "also known as Jesus Christ or occasionally Jesus the Christ" (italics mine). Shouldn't that ambiguity (and others like it in the lead) be removed, in line with the argument of not raising questions upfront. (Please bear in mind that this is not my view; I think that Yehoshua should be added to the lead.) Comments, concerns?


 * (By the way, I believe your point that "the lead should contain what everyone agrees to" is equivalent to saying "the lead should contain consensus". That's undeniably true but it isn't an argument. I think it's the same thing as saying that:
 * the two names aren't in the lead right now,
 * this must have been the consensus at one time
 * so, because it's consensus, we can't touch it.
 * It's a closed circle saying we can't improve Wikipedia anymore so let's all go home. I like editing Wikipedia and don't want to go home when I'm having such fun. :) --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 13:02, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Dude, there are SO many ways to improve Wikipedia! For example, none of the current scholarship on Paul is in the article on St. paul.  Someone created an article on Saul of Tarsus but it does not reflect any of the research on the Jewish Saul.  I wish we had more people with time to read lots of books and put the information in.  I can think of a hundred other important projects!  But to return to the name ... I afraid I actually am not the one to discuss this with.  I have an opinion about the relation between the body and the lead, that is all.  I also have an opinion on how to translate the Hebrew Yehoshua.  Behond that, nada.  The reason there are two names in the etymology ... I do not remember and I was not an important participant in that discussion.  I do not feel qualified to answer your questions.  I hope other editors do. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 14:24, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * As I said, whether to include an alternate version of a name is a matter of taste or, forgive me, Editorial Discretion (in capital letters). I got interested because a program on the History Channel said Jesus's name was Yeshua and I remembered that Herod said (in Claudius the God) that a minor dead prophet named Joshua (Yehoshua), son of Joseph, was starting to attract followers.


 * What do you say if we leave it for someone more knowledgeable than either of us to pursue? If they care to. Good talking to you, though. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 01:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm leaving my original suggestion open but not changing the article. At least, not yet. Just because the second name was important to my interest, doesn't mean it belongs in the lead. If anyone wishes to comment further, I'll be monitoring this talk page off-and-on for the next week or two. --RoyGoldsmith (talk) 12:40, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

DOB

 * ''Original title: "born berfore he was born is impossible!"

There is no way he could have been born in 6 BC, because BC means BEFORE christ. How can he be born before he was born? He couldn't. I would change his life span to Born: December 25, 0; Died: April 5, 34. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.210.130.117 (talk) 14:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If this is satirical, good job. If it isn't, good grief. LonelyMarble (talk) 14:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Well to be fair, our average intended audience is the human fetus, the type whom may not understand much at all yet about how calendars are imperfect and have drifted historically. For such readers, the terse 1st footnote: "Sanders, E. P. The historical figure of Jesus. Penguin, 1993" is insufficient. And in fact it's innacurate &mdash;there is nothing in the line "Sanders, E. P. The historical figure..." that actually directly addresses the issue of the birth date (indirectness ~ inaccuracy ;) ). A footnote or link to the chronology section is necessary, as it is necessary to note there briefly that the concept of Jesus' birth date (as with all antiquity) has some inherent discrepancy. -Stevertigo 18:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The citation of Sanders is not inaccurate. The citation is for a book that directly addresses the matter.  It seems that in addition to not knowing what a "source" is, you do not know what a "citation" is.  More and more I wonder what your goal at WIkipedia is, aside from trolling. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 22:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand that you are misreading me again. I used the term "innaccurate" in an academically specious way &mdash;such as to link the use of non-explanational citations to a concept of indirectness, of the form indirectness → incompleteness → inadequacy → inaccuracy. They, like the one in question, are "indirect" because they don't actually quote the relevant passage from the book that deals with the issue, and thus even though this case may be an iconic example of a citation (sans quotation) it still nevertheless is "inaccurate" as far as explanations go. Such kinds of citations are typically made with the assumption that the casual reader will either 1) accept at face value that the expressed concept is supported by the source, even without actual content they can read, or 2) [they will] go run out and get a copy of.. in this case.. E. P. Sanders' The historical figure of Jesus somewhere &mdash;ostensibly the local Christian theological library keeps enough copies in stock.
 * Which looks like a very interesting book, by the way &mdash;I'm on my way to the local LibraryThing/bittorrent right now to look for someone who might want share a copy. -Stevertigo 06:52, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If no one else has noticed, the original comment by the anon user actually suggested that we change the date of his birth to the year 0. There was no year 0. Calendars are man made and the subject of the needs of civilization.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think we were really dealing with his particulars, just his abstracts, and even then those only had value in raising a tangential issue of making citations more quotational and explanationistic, rather than just telling people to go look it up somewhere in some book written by some individual. -Stevertigo 20:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Jesus was reported to be born in Judea under Roman occupation. Surely there was a Roman or other calendar in Judea that could reference the year that Jesus was born?  Bigweeboy (talk) 23:07, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Even in rural parts of first-world countries there are births that go unrecorded with regard to precise date. At least this was true not so long ago, and remains true in the non-first world. Same goes for two thousand years ago. -02:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The meaning of Jesus is "moving rat" in Chinese. What's the meaning of Jesus in Hebrew?
I heared that the meaning of Jesus in Chinese is "moving rat". What's the meaning of Jesus in Hebrew? I mean the views of Hebrews/Jews. Should we add it to the article? -Jacksole (talk) 18:00, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Please see Jesus. Also note that Jesus native language was Aramaic, which related to, but different from Hebrew. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Do Jews agree to take the meaning of Jesus as "the Lord rescues" or "the Lord delivers"? If yes, then what name do Jews use to mean the son of Mary, who is worshipped by Christians? -Jacksole (talk) 18:21, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Jesus is a transmogrified form of Yeshua or Yehoshua and was a common name throughout much of Jewish history (alternatively represented as Joshua, he of the battle of Jericho). Yes, Jews "agree" that that is the original meaning - in fact, it's their language. But it's a name, not a statement of faith - just like John Smith rarely is a smith, Mike Miller probably does not own a mill, and Amadeus may not be the beloved of God... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:32, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. Thanks. So are there many Jesuses or many people named Jesus? I mean even in Nazareth there was many men named Jesus, right? -Jacksole (talk) 18:36, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There are certainly many people named Jesus nowadays, see Jesus (disambiguation) and Jesus (name). Jesus himself was not named Jesus, but this is the form of his name that entered many western languages. Yes, many people were named "Yehoshua" or equivalent variants of that name. It's not clear if Nazareth even existed during Jesus (if he existed ;-) lifetime. If it existed, it probably was very small, so it unlikely that there were "many" men named Jesus (or similarly) there before the later Roman period. Is there some particular point to your questions that we might come directly to? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:35, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Whoever told you the point about "moving rat", doesn't speak or write Chinese. Chensiyuan (talk) 03:52, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Era Notation
A question; which has no doubt been asked and answered many times before, but it's a tedious business trawling the archives: Why, when quote "Jesus is the central figure of Christianity", do we use the clumsy era notation of BC/BCE and AD/CE? It looks very bad and, dare I say it, is unencyclopedic. Given that Jesus is the central figure in Christianity, and is of lesser concern to all other world religions, why do we not simply use AD and BC? LevenBoy (talk) 17:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Jesus was Jewish, so I think we should use BCE and CE. Now, you and I could go around in circles forever about this.  As another editor has usefully asked, if given the choice between AD/BC and what you can a clumsy notation, which would I choose, I say: the clumsy notation.  Now, if you are willing to compromise with me and make it BCE/CE as I prefer, I am VERY happy to accommodate you and go with BCE/CE.  Otherwise, I ask you the inverse question: given the choice between BCE/CE and this clumsy combination, which would you prefer?  This is how we achieve a stable compromise.  And it has been stable for years. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 22:23, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * My compromise - and it's a true compromise - would be BC and nothing. In other words BC for years previous to the common era, and no notation, neither AD nor CE, for years in the common era. That would accommodate most people's views. BC doesn't make a statement in the way that, aguably, AD does, and nearly everyone agrees that Christ did exist, so Before Christ shouldn't be too controversial. The fact that the article has been stable for years is irrelevant. LevenBoy (talk) 17:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I absolutely detest all things PC; if it even smells of being motivated by PC I tend to reject it quickly. However, the more biblical scholars, theologians use the BCE/CE notation, but more comfortable I become. I know it is PC and I dislike it, but I think it is only a matter of time and all notation will follow this method. It makes me wonder if I am losing it? Have I become as the sheep who follow, not out of conscious thought, but only because everyone else is going that way? Is this worth taking a stand about? Up until now, I have felt it was, but I begin to waiver. I have always felt to abandon this is to abandon our cultural heritage. I still don't buy into the argument that BC/AD is offensive and yet I still waiver on this.
 * I know that we have a consensus that it is better to compromise at this horrendous current notation, which is anything but proper....and yet it has worked for us. I am just anal enough to just go with one (BCE/CE) for the sake of appearance. Well, I have babbled on and said nothing, made no decision, and remain beholden to the past, but realizing change is coming. -- Storm  Rider  17:16, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * We don't have a consensus... how could we even be having this discussion (again) if that were so? "Consensus" has a meaning, you know, and it's not "this is the way the guys who yelled loudest wanted it". ¦ Reisio (talk) 20:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Why would you "absolutely detest all things PC"? I agree that there are excesses that violate good taste and common sense. But at the very basic, it's just old-fashioned politeness. Don't give offense when not necessary. As AD/BC being "offensive", that's not quite the problem. It's less the offense, but more a violation of certain religious interpretations. "Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain" has been read this way (although some less traditional translations seem to be more targeted). --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * But, alas, do we use the term "n word" at the article for nigger? Wikipedia is not censored. I find BCE/CE to be a (mild) form of censorship that exists merely because people are "offended". There's no other good reason for it. The people who argue that "Jesus wasn't born in 1 BC anyway" are the same people who say he never existed at all &mdash; `C RAZY `( lN )`S ANE ` 07:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The anti-religious simply don't want to be reminded that our dates are based off the Christian calendar, nevermind that they are regardless of which of CE or AD you use. This is of course nonsense. Try to change them and you will be reverted with the best defense Wikipedia zealots could ever have hoped for "no consensus"... nevermind that there was never any consensus for the idiotic combination now in use in the first place. ¦ Reisio (talk) 20:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know about Wikipedia zealots but there are Wikipedia sneaks. I've seen a few articles recently where AD/BC has been used for some time and then someone has come along and changed to BC/BCE without indicating what they've done in the edit history. Have a look at where the IP was trying to restore the original usage but was accused of vandalism. The change to BCE/CE then held. I guess the opposite has happened as well. All editors should be reminded of the current policy, but none of this deals with the stupidity we have in this article.  And it is stupidity because it's not intended to assist the reader but merely to appease editor POV. LevenBoy (talk) 21:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please type "AD/BC" into the search box at the top of the article (or follow this). Unless you (generic you, that includes YOU) have something to say that's not already in the archive, please refrain from commenting on this issue at all. I think I have been through 3 cycles so far, and I know there have been several more. Now if people could just agree to my brilliant ACE and BB compromise... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from advising others on how they should contribute to this, or any other, debate. Your comments are unhelpful and if you don't like this debate there are plenty of other areas of Wikipedia for you to work on. I already said that I acknowledge this issue has been debated before - big deal. LevenBoy (talk) 15:32, 26 June 2009 (UTC) You can absolutely say apartheid was discrimination in favor of humans, just not all humans. While you're considering that (if you've cared to), consider this:
 * This is the status quo fallacy, or consensus fallacy.
 * If the article started with BC/AD (and it did ), then the status quo is BC/AD
 * If there is no consensus, and someone makes a "compromise", and there is still no consensus, then the status quo is not the compromise version, because there was never consensus
 * Even if there had been a consensus (there hadn't been, but just for the record), no consensus is set in stone.
 * ¦ Reisio (talk) 03:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I prefer AC/DC. (and note that i find it funny that some people write "anti-religious" when they mean "anti-Christian" as there are plenty of religions other than Christianity ... ooops. iI hope I did not hurt anyone's fragile feelings by pointing that out!) Slrubenstein   |  Talk 00:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This contributes nothing useful to the discussion (not saying that was your intention), except to show that you don't know what a generalization is. ¦ Reisio (talk) 03:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Wrong generalization. Was World-War II fought "against Europe"? Is apartheid discriminating "in favor of humans"? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:01, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Mwha? anti-: against, religious: concerning religion, christianity: a…religion…  Have you read this?  I have trouble quantifying "Europe" based solely on temporary majority geographical dominance, but it could technically work if you take the side of the allies and ignore everything before 1943.
 * There are about 1500 pages in Category:Christian Wikipedians, for which apparently one user box suffices
 * There are about 2500 pages in Category:Atheist Wikipedians, for which apparently there was a need for no fewer than 24 user boxes
 * According to various sources — and I think this will come as no surprise to anyone — somewhere around three times as many people identify themselves as "Christian" than those identifying themselves as "atheist"; even more merely concern themselves with Christianity over atheism.
 * You, User:Stephan Schulz, are almost certainly an atheist.
 * Draw your own conclusions. ¦ Reisio (talk) 10:14, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Whoosh. By your argument, someone who is a devout Muslim is anti-religious (as they are anti-Christian) - as is, btw, someone who is a proselytizing Christian (who is anti-pagan). And everybody who voted for Obama is black. If you like to Google people, you might be able to find out that there is some a-priory evidence that I have a reasonable understanding of logic... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "Muslim is anti-religious (as they are anti-Christian)" — yeah, that works
 * "a proselytizing Christian (who is anti-pagan)" — mmhmmm
 * "everybody who voted for Obama is black" — and for a second there I thought you were taking this seriously :p Should've known better considering your past "contributions" to discussions on this matter.
 * Alas, from your reply to LevenBoy it was apparent not only are you illogical, but you also have no interest in this debate short of preserving B/CE. Anyways this has digressed enough. :p Maybe we can mix it up more next time.
 * ¦ Reisio (talk) 14:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

When Christian introduced the notations BCE and CE in the 19th century, I do not think they were being anti-religious, i think they were simply acknowledging that non-Christians use the Gregorian calendar. Why is this so complicated? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 18:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC) Obviously, that's because in the intervening 2000 years someone (or almost everyone) mismeasured chronology. Rather than go back and re-date works from the 1300s etcetera to shift each one to account for the two years difference, it's simpler to just switch to the system in common use for the most recent several centuries, especially since we usually are more interested in how long between an event and NOW, rather than how long between an event and Christ's birth. When people insist on AD/BC, that's fine for estimations and periods of decades or centuries, but they must remember to mentally shift historical dates when precision is important. --AuthorityTam (talk) 21:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not complicated at all. Anyway, here's a another attempt at compromise. I think the AD/CE notation just looks daft and send the wrong message to the readers of this article. The Wikipedia guidelines state that only one notation should be used within an article, but we don't have to abide by the guideline in every case. I think it says somewhere that if a rule is getting in the way just ignore it, and so we could ignore the era notation rule here. In so doing we could have half the article using CE/BCE and half using AD/BC. I think that would be preferable to the current, ridiculous "compromise". At the moment I'd just like to sound out interested editors, and not necessarily get into the detail of just which half uses which notation, or how such a split would work. Maybe this suggestion has already been made and discounted - no problem; there's no reason why I shouldn't bring it forward again to ascertain current thinking on the matter. LevenBoy (talk) 20:25, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Many devout Christian scholars date Jesus' birth as "year 2 BCE". Really, any birth year except exactly 1 BCE. would cause problems. Or is that any year except exactly 1 CE?
 * Yes, but what about this article and the current use of notation? LevenBoy (talk) 21:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This article gets unique immunity to mix because it's about Jesus, that is, it's about the "C" in BC and the "D" in AD. If the body includes even brief scholarly quotes, the notations will be mixed no matter what editors decide. We certainly don't want to censor which scholarly works we quote just to enforce this "rule".--AuthorityTam (talk) 21:35, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The problem is, Jesus was not the Chist, nor was he Lord. Well, I guess some view exists that holds this.  We sure should include that view in the article, but remember wikipedia is about verfiable views, not the truth.  We cannot preset this view as if it were the only view. Slrubenstein   |  Talk
 * So in terms of maybe splitting era usage in this article, are you saying that it would be fine to have some (or all) of the article using BCE/CE only, but it would not be acceptable to have any part of the article using BC/AD only? LevenBoy (talk) 09:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The fact is that the birth date and death dates are unknown, so you are arguing about how to report an unknown date. If you look at the Wiki articles on Pontius Pilate or John the Baptist, no attempt is even made to give birth and death dates.  Why are we attempting to do so here?  The dates are unknown, you shouldn't be arguing how to present the dates, the birth-death date citation after Jesus' name at the head of the article should be removed just as it doesn't exist for John the Baptist or Pontius Pilate. Perhaps the article needs a subsection on when Jesus existed, the arguments, and the problems faced with the use of different calendars throughout the ages. Akuvar (talk) 18:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Akuvar, I don't wish to sound impolite but if you can't address yourself to the current discussion then don't bother adding your irrelevant views. The matter you raise is something else completely. Please feel free to start a separate duscussion on it. LevenBoy (talk) 18:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

''Mwha? anti-: against, religious: concerning religion, christianity: a…religion… Have you read this? I have trouble quantifying "Europe" based solely on temporary majority geographical dominance, but it could technically work if you take the side of the allies and ignore everything before 1943. You can absolutely say apartheid was discrimination in favor of humans, just not all humans. While you're considering that (if you've cared to), consider this: There are about 1500 pages in Category:Christian Wikipedians, for which apparently one user box suffices There are about 2500 pages in Category:Atheist Wikipedians, for which apparently there was a need for no fewer than 24 user boxes''
 * What are you trying to say? Religions stretches farther than a religion. That's why it's a plural. That has nothing to do with generalisation, more with carelessness. Someone who has been raised christian can hate christianity and convert to islam. Yes I've seen it.

Neither is PC, since they're both offensive. One's offensive to uptight Christians, one's offensive to uptight non-Christians. Both are completely inoffensive to 99% of our readers (those that aren't uptight). Just pick one, please. AD/BC does not actually reflect the date Christ was born, and CE/BCE does not actually reflect the calendar that everyone uses. So they both don't make sense. Let's just pick one. They're both NPOV, and half the editors are going to be disappointed either way. Let's help our readers and not let this bickering make the article harder to read. We're trying to write a professional-quality encyclopedia, and no professional-quality anything would use "BC/BCE" and "AD/CE" throughout the whole article. The Sanders source uses CE and BCE, so that's what should be used. —Noisalt (talk) 15:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)


 * And plenty of other sources use BC/AD. In fact, some uncommonly good scholars prefer the traditional convention. Unfortunately, it will be difficult to reach consensus on this at the moment. Majoreditor (talk) 20:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, the Manual of Style says "Do not change from one style to another unless there is substantial reason for the change, and consensus for the change with other editors." The first version of this article used BC–AD. There was no substantial reason to change it, and certainly no consensus to. The MOS also says "Use either the BC-AD or the BCE-CE notation, but not both in the same article." Therefore the current version (BC/BCE–AD/CE) is in violation of the MOS, whereas BC–AD or BCE–CE would not be. So the solution's pretty clear, if there's no consensus then BC–AD's the way to go. —Noisalt (talk) 00:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Or you could read the talk archives, where we hashed out a compromise to use both after much discussion, and then this has been challenged maybe every 6-8 months, sometimes resulting in large RfC which result in no consensus to change it to something else. This is the working comprise. It isn't hurting anyone. You know, maybe, if any of you really care about the state of this article, you should work on contributing sourced content, copy editing, revising, and working towards FA status, as opposed to starting a tired old ruckus dealing with some stupid, silly letters that come after years. Really, all this talk page discussion, and no progress? Even if one style was chosen over the other, would the state of the CONTENT of the article be improved? My advise... move along, and find ways to be productive. -Andrew c [talk] 00:20, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Any article that doesn't use one date notation obviously has a lot of stability issues. Pretending this "compromise" is stable is just because no one feels like bothering to argue about it. It's going to take massive work to ever get this article featured, and the date notation is the least of the problems, but it's still a problem. LonelyMarble (talk) 02:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It's pretty clear based on what Andrew said that this compromise has not worked at all, assuming the purpose of the compromise was to prevent pages and pages of debate. Has anyone noticed that this is the only article with this problem? And it's the only article using both date systems? Doesn't that tell you something? This compromise was made back when a very small minority complained. It was a mistake. That's all. At some point we need to put our foot down and say "Sorry. We're using BC/AD because that's what the first editor used. That's it. When you have a solution that doesn't violate the MOS we would love to hear it." —Noisalt (talk) 04:24, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The purpose of the compromise was not to end debate - are you kidding? Debate is always welcome at Wikipedia!  The purpose of the compromise was to prevent endless edit warring.  Edit warring, which you propose, is not at all welcome at Wikipedia.  By this light the compromise has been incredibly succesful as the dates have been stable - completely stable - since the compromise was reached years ago.  If you change it to BC/AD, I will change it to BCE/CE, which I prefer by far.  And we can go back and forth, unless you are willing to compromise. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 10:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Sacrificing the quality of the article to prevent edit warring is not a good solution. The only reason there is no edit warring is because there are plenty of editors looking over this article to make sure there isn't. If it is decided here to change the date format to one system, which I hope it is decided, those same editors can continue to look over the article and make sure there are no edit wars. The quality of Wikipedia has greatly increased over the last couple years, so a compromise made a couple years ago is most likely not the best solution to have a high quality article. The best course would be to use whatever date system is the most common in the references and sources used for this article. Whatever date system is the most common among prominent scholars of Jesus should be the one used in this article. That way if someone asks why the date system is the way it is, the reason is "because the references use that system". That is a far superior reason than "because of a compromise made years ago". LonelyMarble (talk) 12:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Couldn't agree more. —Noisalt (talk) 00:33, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Also agree. I just read the last FAC, and this ugly format was an objection, which i agree with. Just check the sources and use whichever is most popular therein. Or go with whichever was used first, like WP:ENGVARYobMod 10:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I personally do not see how using a composite dating notation affects the quality of the article one way or another - as references to MOS make clear, this is a matter of style not substance. As for the instability of the article, well the facts speak for themselves: this article has been remarkably stable for a long time, given the potential for controversy (which by the way is never about the dating notation, it is about the jesus myth theory versus Jesus is everon'es lord and savior). Now i would like to know something. LonelyMarble, Noisalt, and Yobmod, what substantive contributions have you ever made to this article? What research have you done? have you read the Anchor Bible volumes on the Gospels? have you read Meier's 3 volume history of jesus? have you read Ehrman's book on the orthodox corruption of the Gospels? Have you read Geza Vermes? morton Smith? Anyone? I have seen no evidence that any of you really care about the quality of this article. I have seen no evidence that you care to build a better encyclopedia. Do some honest research and show us how we can provide a more nuanced or accurate account of the current scholarship on Jesus, and then you can preach about how the rest of us - people why I hasten to add have done serious research, have read a great deal, and have spent days, weeks, months discussing ways to improve the quality of thie article - are somehow "sacrificing the quality of the article." When you can show us that you have done even a fraction of the work AndrewC, StormRider, Wesley, JimWae, and others have done to make this a great article, informed by all significant views from notable and reliable sources, then I will continue to discuss this with you. In the meantime, I think this is a pointless discussion that is just disrupting positive work on the article. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 13:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Nobody's going to read that. Everyone knows what that much text on a talk page on Wikipedia means. ¦ Reisio (talk) 14:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I only came here to review the article for the GAR. It looks likely to be delisted, which is not suprising considering the unfriendliness to any differing opinions here. I think my numerous good and featured content contributions make it clear that i aim to improve wikipedia. How is writing pompous condescending tracts in response to uninvolved editors suggestions an attempt to improve the encylopedia?YobMod 18:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I have never made any significant contributions to this article, and that point is irrelevant to the discussion. We are discussing some basic Wikipedia style guidelines, that is all. I have little interest spending time significantly altering the content of the article because it seems to have some ownership issues. I am not an expert on Jesus, I was hoping someone who has read the literature would tell us what the most common date system used is. For some reason you decided to go an irrelevant tangent instead and didn't even address the matter at hand. The current date system is sloppy and annoying to read, picking one or the other would improve the article in my opinion. LonelyMarble (talk) 18:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I haven't edited this article at all as I know nothing about the subject—as you said, you've all done a lot of work and have far more knowledge of the sources involved. My only contribution to this article is trying to come up with a solution for one small problem that, in my opinion, damages the article. There are articles I've written entirely and I know the aggravation when other editors try to change it in ways I disagree with. But the solution is not to dismiss the other editors' concerns based on how much they've contributed. —Noisalt (talk) 22:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Based on this discussion it seems like all the editors here wouldn't mind changing it to BCE/CE. Most of the "uninvolved" editors just want to pick one or the other. Slrubenstein prefers BCE/CE. StormRider seems to have said he wouldn't mind BCE/CE. The other editors I'm not sure what their opinions are. Is there anyone that would object to changing it to simply BCE/CE? There is also good reason to change it to that beyond simply a consensus here, the source used for the birth and death dates uses this notation. So is there any objection to this? LonelyMarble (talk) 20:06, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * No objection. I would rather have a policy-based solution, but since we're unlikely to agree on one, this makes sense. —Noisalt (talk) 22:05, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I would oppose BCE/CE. Not only is it a pointless change from the well-known and accessible BC/AD (the system itself doesn't change - just the name, in order to pretend that it has nothing to do with Christianity.) BCE/CE is also immensely more confusing. When seeing CE or BCE, I have to stop and work out what era is being referred to, since the terms are so similar and confusable.  Xan  dar   22:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There may be cultures where AD and BC are not that recognizable. We would also not be changing it from BC/AD, we would be changing it from the double system. I would think the current double system would be more confusing than either of the single systems. The CE and BCE can also be linked so the people who don't understand these terms can quickly learn what they mean. If people are that bothered by the artificial change they could just make the CE mean "Christian Era" to themselves. A good amount of people probably don't know what AD stands for off the top of their heads. LonelyMarble (talk) 23:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

All scholars use BCE/CE the same way. It is perfectly consistent. Thee is no ambiguity. Therefore, no cause for confusion. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 22:54, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * There is clearly an ownership problem with this article, as evidenced by the remarks above from Slrubenstein. That aside, I object to the single use of BCE/CE and would again urge consideration of a compromise where both notations are used, but in different parts of the article. This goes against MOS but surely not as much as the preposterous BC/BCE does. In fact AD and CE could just about be abandoned completely. The BCE/BC notation is not there to assist the reader, it's there to appease the POV of the major editors. I've also noted that the "stability" excuse is used increasingly in Wikipedia to suppress change. It's being used here, but it holds no water and is irrelevant. Failing all of this I suggest that the preferred notation of the original editor is reinstated. It was changed, as noted above, without consensus and without a substantive reason. LevenBoy (talk) 17:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Why would you want to go against the MOS when we could use the consistent BCE and CE throughout? This would be supported by the fact that the reference for the birth and death dates uses this notation. The guideline to use what the first editor used is meant for a last resort, so other options should be exhausted first. To me it makes more sense to use the notation that the reference uses, as this is a better reason than what the first editor used. I also do not want to use different notations in different parts of the article, that is possibly a worse solution than the double consistent system in place now. Why are you personally against using BCE and CE throughout? LonelyMarble (talk) 18:35, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Because as a Christian I find it offensive, doubly so in this article because "Jesus is the central figure of Christianity". I can offer three versions of a compromise. What is your compromise? (BCE/CE throughout is not a compromise). LevenBoy (talk) 18:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I was trying to offer a solution rather than another compromise. At least now it's clear why you want to put so much weight on the guideline to use whatever the first editor used. Unfortunately I don't like the compromise to use different versions in different places of the article; I like consistency better and it's less confusing than switching between notation styles. LonelyMarble (talk) 19:19, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

How do my remarks suggest any kind of ownership issue? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 17:51, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You imply (strongly) that the opinions of editors who make major contributions to this article should count for more than those of other editors. Quote "When you can show us that you have done even a fraction of the work AndrewC, StormRider, Wesley, JimWae, and others have done to make this a great article, informed by all significant views from notable and reliable sources, then I will continue to discuss this [era notation] with you.". There is also an undertone of having to ask these major editors for permission to make changes. LevenBoy (talk) 18:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Quite. I do not consider that "ownership" because it is non-exclusive. I consider it simple common sense. I find it bizarre when people come here thinking BC/BCE is a big problem with the quality of the article because it is hard for me to tak the concern as good faith. Someone who really cares about the quality of the article would (as you may be doing) put real effort into improving the article by checking references and fixing citations. Or someone would come and take the time to do what encyclopedia article authors are supposed to do, namely, research the topic (e.g., read books on Jesus and first century Palestine) in order to improve the content of the article. I believe most readers will find BC/BCE trivial at most. What they will care about is the sentences and paragraphs on Jesus and how different people view Jesus. We want them to learn something they did not know before. That means reading the cutting edge research out there that many people do not know about. If someone wants to make a big deal about the quality of the article, this is the kind of work I would expect them to do. As for mentioning Wesley, JimWae and others, I think it is massive sign of bad faith on the part of editors who criticize the dating system to be critical of a consensus reached by editors who put a lot of time and energy into writing this article. Perhaps you are not aware of how controversial this article is, but trust me, among Christians, Roman Catholics, Greek Orthodox, and various protestant groups have some key difering ideas about Jesus, ditto Jews, ditto critical historians. To write an article that editors of all backgrounds find acceptable took a great deal of discussion and compromise. To write an article that holds up to scholarly standards also took a lot of research. The compromise on date notation was one part of a set of compromises that enabled these editors to work together. Why not assume that these editors did so in good faith? Anyway, I stand by my basic point: someone who comes here and nit-picks about an issue from WP:MOS does not really care about the quality of the article, they just want to stir up a time-wasteful debate. Someone who cares about the quality of the article will come here and say "Hey, I just read this article (or book; anyway, a notalbe and reliable source) and learned x about Jesus (or the context of his life), how can we incorporate it into the article?" That is someone who cares about the quality of an article. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 10:51, 11 July 2009 (UTC) Incidentally, editors need not agree that Jesus is "Christ" or "Lord" (that is, the C in BC and the D in AD) to agree that the originators of the BC/AD system intended that. Do editors make similar protestations trying to disconnect the name Saturday from Saturn? --AuthorityTam (talk) 21:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the odd BCE/BC compromise in itself is proof alone that many editors have collaborated intensly over the years to successfully improve the overall quality of this article. It's basically a (perhaps overt) statement saying "nothing... no really, nothing is biased in any way in the Jesus article"; and that's a great quality. Leave well enough alone I say. &mdash; `C RAZY `( lN )`S ANE ` 11:09, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. But this is clearly a case of "everybody has an opinion on the colour of the bike shed"... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:45, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand the regular editors have seen this argument a lot, but the quality of Wikipedia increases every day, the quality of new featured articles is light years ahead of articles that were promoted to featured two years ago (a compromise made several years ago shouldn't be thought of as the final compromise). If this article is every going to pass a FAC, the regular editors are going to have to be more friendly to people who like to improve Wikipedia by changing (perhaps trivial) style points, not just the content. This article is a perfect example, the content seems to be there, but it's presented in a less than ideal way at the moment. The date notation is the least of the problems, but it would be nice if editors could swallow their own preferences and decide on one format, because it would make the article look a lot more professional, and thus the content could be taken more seriously. I think one of the problems is once you see the format like this for awhile, it begins to look normal, but readers who see it for the first time think it looks pretty odd. LonelyMarble (talk) 15:50, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I honestly do not know what you mean by "look profssional" unless you mean "look like other encyclopedias." if that is what you mean, I am unpersuaded - Wikipedia is diferent from other encyclopedias in other ways.  You are right that the citation style used is the least of this article's problems, which I admit is why I am suspicious when newcomers to the article focus on it.  But CrazyinSane makes a good point.  The founding claim of Christianity is that jesus is Christ and Lord.  But jesus was Jewish and reject, absolutely, the claim that Jesus was Christ or Lord.  This article is among a ery few articles here the topic of the article is an object of such controversy and using both systems is a testimony to our commitment to NPOV.  If we were to make any change the only one I would support would be a paragraph, either up top or (my preference) in the "legacy" section saying that one of Jesus's legacies is the widespread use of the Gregorian calendar, noting that people who reject Jesus as Christ and Lord prefer BCE and CE, and that this article uses both systems to acknowledge the notability of both points of view.  Now, you suggest there are more serious problems with the article and I think you will find people who regulary watch this article quite welcoming of changes that are improvements.  OWN is really not an issue here, any more than it is at the Evolution article.  It is just that here, like there, sometimes someone comes by suggesting a change that has been discussed to death by devout Christians, observant Jews, atheists, and academic historians or students of history who have read a great deal of critical scholarship on the subject.  Well, when such a group of people have talked about every side of an issue and have worked out a compromise that satisfies all of them, you bet any of them would resist change because so far every proposal for change we hae seen - in such cases - is a proposal we discussed and rejected for good reasons and believe me, after much discussion.  But I am talking about a handful of lines - our dating convention, a couple of sentences in the lead, how the Jewish view is represented, a sentence or two in the legacy.  This leaves the vast majority of the article open to improvement and I would certainly welcome an obvious improvement.  But please do not think that someone wrote this article a long time ago, and has since prohibited any change.  This article has grown a lot over the years.  In my opinion, there are much more serious problems than the dates. For example, Wikipedia should have an article on each of the books of the NT, or at least let's start with the Gospels.  Such articles, to comply with NPOV, should provide the mainstream Christian clerical or theological interpretations, as well as commentary by historians and critical scholars (e.g. what would be found in the Anchor Bible and the Cambridge Companion to the Bible) - man, such articles would to a lot to educate people and do a great job of supplementing this article.  Also, there are linked articles that have bibliographies but no in-line citations, it ould be great if someone looked at one of those articles, read the books and any other works that are notable but not in the bibliography, and make sure that they represent the mainstream scholarship.  If someone did that, then it might be possibl to revise the sections on the historical Jesus in this article (the linked articles used to be part of this and were spun off).  So actully I see lots of work others could do.  Why is it that as the number of ditos at Wikipedia has expanded, of all the many new members, no one is willing to do this important work? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:20, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think there are two main reasons. First is that there are probably a limited amount of people knowledgable about this topic, people that have actually read the Bible and could contribute to those articles. The other reason obviously is because it's hard work. I am focusing my copyeditting on other areas right now. The thing is, if someone wants to copyedit this article, as I am, the first thing we see is this clumsy double date notation. It's right there in the first sentence. That is a big reason why this is argued about so much. LonelyMarble (talk) 17:05, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I think you are right, but i think that is a shame. When Wikipedia says, it is the encyclopedia anyone can edit, copyediting is of course very much welcome (and I appreciate much of the copyediting you have been doing).  But it also means helping write an encyclopedia, and yes, that does take time and effort.  The majority of the first Wikipedians were peole who did just that - who created stubs, and then who went to libraries (or used the internet when appropriate) to read articles and books about stuff they did not know a lot about.  Call it a hobby - it requires someone who wants to become skilled in or knowledgable about something they currently aren't.  The reward is that in the end you know more about something, and have helped write an encyclopedia article.  I am not knocking the copy-editing you are doing.  But we need more new editors who are willing to take a weekend to read through books and learn about something new, so they can write a new article or improve an existing one.  Frankly - and please, this is not directed at you - I think there are a lot of lazy people who take pride in being registered editors and then go around making minor edits.  Sometimes these do add up to be real improvements.  But we really need people who will read books and academic journals, desperately! Slrubenstein   |  Talk 08:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems a mistake to assume or insist that laziness and defeatism are the only reasons to tolerate dual (or "duel", heh heh) systems of year notation in this particular article, not coincidentally about Jesus. As I noted earlier, if the rule (that is, MOS) has one exception, this article has a strong case to be that exception.

Although I am a firm proponent of using BCE/CE in articles that are relevant to other religions besides Christianty, in this article, I can see the exception. As was said, this is the article which, in a sense, gave birth to BC and AD. -- Avi (talk) 21:30, 14 July 2009 (UTC)