Talk:Jesus/Archive 88

JW view
I have reverted a large addition to the Jehovah's Witnesses section. We have to keep in mind that this article is already pretty long, and that being a top tier article, we are basically only summarizing content found elsewhere. On top of that, we have to always keep in mind undue weight. The JW's are a very small movement when compared to Islam or Catholicism or any number of other groups we discuss elsewhere in the article. By expanding the JW's section, we are giving them more space, and thus undue weight. I think we should work to have a good, strong concise paragraph that states straightfowardly how JWs view Jesus. But the smaller details belong in another article. Perhaps we can work on finding out the most important facts that should be covered, and work up a version here on the talk page. Also, I wanted to make sure that others agreed with me that we need to be conscious of size and undue weight. What do others think? How can we improve this section without making to too wordy?-Andrew c [talk] 22:39, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree; I'd noticed quite a bit of information being added to this section by BrotherLawrence, but it seemed to me that up until this point, the majority of text was actually in the footnotes (therefore, the concern for undue weight was not so pressing).--C.Logan (talk) 23:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree also -- I came close to reverting it myself, but wanted to see what others thought. LotR (talk) 01:59, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You're right. Sorry. --Brotherlawrence (talk) 14:41, 29 December 2007 (UTC)BrotherLawrence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.1.220.95 (talk) 15:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Template
What say we add a "don't feed the troll sign" to the talk. Something like:

 bibliomaniac 1  5  00:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * agree.Tourskin (talk) 03:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It certainly wouldn't be an exaggeration to say so. LotR (talk) 14:03, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * how do you know who is a troll and who is trying to say something but no one wants to listen. does this phrase make me a troll? LOL —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iulian28ti (talk • contribs) 20:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

relatively preserved New Testament?
In the critical historian section of this article, I wanted to suggest a change to the discussion about how the NT books were chosen and whether they were well-preserved after being chosen. Right now, the article has a quote from a scholar saying that the books were well-preserved. I suggest adding the perspective of Dr. Erhman, who argues that the NT books were not well preserved, for NPOV and balance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.98.88.5 (talk) 21:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Unless you have a good reference, its not for this page. Wikipedia is not interested in the opinion of one isolated "scholar" holding an unorthodox view. Unless the idea you wish to add has a concensus amongst the academic community, don't even bother, we have enough trolls here. Tourskin (talk) 08:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello again. Rereading what I wrote, I see wasn't specific enough, and I apologize if I sounded like I was trying to be controversial without a source. The viewpoint I wanted to add is widespread, but the way I stated it sounded a little extreme. To start over, I wanted to make a suggestion on a sentence that seemed like it was from one perspective.

"Having been written, the New Testament sources encountered insignificant changes, according to scholars such as the late Sir Frederic Kenyon.[55]"

When I read this sentence, I interpreted it as saying that the New Testament didn't really change at all after it was written. If that was what was meant, I wanted to suggest another source as well, since that's a bit controversial. I suggested the work of Dr. Erhman, because he recently wrote a book on changes that may have taken place in the New Testament. But we can just reference English editions of the Bible as well; they generally mark a few passages (such as the Pericope_Adulter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pericope_Adulter%C3%A6#History_of_textual_criticism_on_John_7:53-8:11; or perhaps Mark 16 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16#Scholarly_conclusions) as perhaps having been added later to the NT.

I'm not suggesting that these changes in the NT necessarily happened, or even that they're necessarily significant. My point was just that weighing in on their significance isn't necessarily wikipedia's job. I guess it's just the phrase "insignificant changes" that jarred me, from a NPOV perspective.

I hope this is more helpful than my first post. Good luck everyone, and thanks for a very interesting article.--207.237.129.76 (talk) 05:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Christians know that God preserved the very words of the NT. If you want to state a different opinion, you'll need good Reliable Sources. If you want to state a minority opinion, you'll need to qualify it as a minority opinion. Plus, lots of minority opinions just aren't notable enough for inclusion. Leadwind (talk) 02:02, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Instead of citing an individual author, one who is a self-described apostate, why not go to a library and look up the NT in a good encyclopedia or dictionary of religion. See what general references say before worrying too much about one guy. Leadwind (talk) 02:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Leadwind's comments are utterly inappropriate for Wikipedia. We do not provide the Christian view and have ni higher a threshold for non-Christian views than for Christian views, it is called NPOV.  Ehrman's scholarship is well-known and well-regarded and certain is both a reliable and notable source and his views must be included.  It is evident that this anonymous user has already done  some serious research and Leadwind should not bite newbies, especially well-informed ones. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:04, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Responding to the initial inquiry here: The point of the sentence in question was that it was a part of a concise, but general, statement regarding scholarly support for the reliability of the New Testament. Note there are plenty of statements to the contrary in this article (with more than enough weight). The statement does not say, nor is meant to say, that "the New Testament documents were typeset by the original authors, then photocopied, so that they come down to us 120% intact." It merely says that they encountered insignificant changes, i.e., they were transcribed accurately (something that scribes were quite good at). If the word "insignificant" is a stumbling stone here, then we can substitute "small." LotR (talk) 17:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I suspect "small" may be best in this situation. I happen to have Bart Ehrman's The Orthodox Corruption of Scriptures but I am the wrong person to draw on it for an article 9and it wouldn't be this article, anyway, but the NT article) - i am not expert in the NT and frankly found his books dense and too detailed; it is obviously based on serious research but I think someone who knows Church history and the NT better than I would better understand the book.  But as I understand it he argues that earl debates between heretics and Church leaders affected the transmission of NT texts and in some cases let to small but significant and documented changes (I do not think he is arguing that heretics were "right" or had an uncorrupt version of the Gospels, but rather that all factions in sectarian debates had their own versions ... but you had better read it yourself; it is very well-reviewed). Slrubenstein   |  Talk 18:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Ehrman says there were significant changes: the comma johanneum, the adulterous woman, Luke's version of God calling baptized Jesus his son, Jesus being angry (not compassionate) toward the leper who asked to be healed (Mark), Jesus sweating blood (Luke), Jesus dying "apart from God" (Hebrews?), etc. But are these the idiosyncratic views of a lone apostate who lost his faith in higher education? Or does it represent good, contemporary scholarship? Obviously, we can't look to Ehrman to see whether he represents good scholarship. Where would we look to confirm or deny Ehrman's attack on NT reliability? I'm suggesting a good, neutral reference work. Leadwind (talk) 00:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Substituting the "small" for "insignificant" is a possibility, but I rechecked the source and realize the following is probably more the intended meaning:
 * "Having been written, the New Testament sources did not encounter any significant changes that would affect material questions of historical fact, according to scholars such as the late Sir Frederic Kenyon.[55]"
 * For what it's worth, I'm also not an expert. But based on my limited readings, there is much scholarly support for the reliability of the NT canon as a whole, and I want to ensure this is reflected in the article. LotR (talk) 15:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that needs to be added. Changes that are very small from a historical perspective can be seen as huge from a religious perspective. Wrad (talk) 16:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Leadwind, characterizing Ehrman as an apostate is irrelevant here. As for his scholarship, I think everyone acknowledges that he is a leading scholar in the field. This is evident from the stellar reviews of his books in leading journals; the peer-reviewed journals that have published his articles; the fact that he is a Distinguished Professor at a top University; that he got his PhD. Magna Cum Laude from a top school; that he is on the editorial boards of six, seven or eight leading journals ... There is no evidence that he has lost his faith in higher education, only evidence that you do not respect scholarship. What NPOV calls for is not "neutral" views but that we identify views clearly. Clearly, Ehrman does not represent any Church. Clearly, he is an outstanding critical scholar. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 16:16, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * SR, I bow to your superior grasp. If Ehrman is a reputable scholar, then by all means his work should be reflected here and cited in good order. As to his being an apostate, it might be irrelevant, and I grant that it is. But it is true, by his own admission. As a show of good faith, I'll put his material on the page myself. Leadwind (talk) 23:31, 23 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I concur with Ruben, Bart D. Ehrman is one of many scholars in the field of textual criticism. I have read three of his books and his scholarship, based on other experts, is very good. His current faith or lack of it has no bearing on his scholarship. The last fifty years have seen a rather significant shift in our understanding of early Christianity. Scholarship today would not say the Bible we know today is the result of insignificant changes from the days of the first apostles. It is much more nuanced than that. First it should be understood to be a book of faith. Second, it has been translated countless times and mistakes were made; some very simple and others outright additions or changes of meaning. For the purposes of this article it would be more accurate to state that Christians believe... Leave the rest of the conversation to be discussed elsewhere. Does that make sense? --Storm Rider (talk) 05:18, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Life and teachings, as told in the Gospels
This section contains very little expert citation. Why is that? Aren't we supposed to cite expert opinion on WP? Certainly there are experts who've said things about Jesus as portrayed in the gospels. Plus, there's a main article on the topic already, so this can just be a summary (per summary style). And the four gospels are basically treated as a unit, rather than as four separate and distinct works. Is there a WP guideline I don't know about that says "describe important religious texts yourselves, and cite the primary texts"? What gives? Leadwind (talk) 01:58, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This sectin is meaqnt to provide a summary of the primary source material, hopefully with no explanation or analysis. It thus does not lend itself to expert citation.  This article is already too big to contain the many articles that would merit expert citation - for example, an article on the formation of the Gospels (drawing heavily on research by Bart Ehrman I imagine) and then articles on specific books of the NT with both critical (e.g. Anchor Bible) and theological or homiletic interpretations, or the article on Christology, which focuses specifically on Christian interpretations of these 9and other) books). Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * What's the point of this section? If we want to know what the gospels say about Jesus, aren't there experts who can tell us? Why invent an original harmony of the gospels? If we want to know what the gospels say about Jesus, why not summarize each gospel? If the gospels are four books, why merge them into one narrative? Leadwind (talk) 23:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If there are places where the Gospels are in agreement, we can compress the narrative. When they differ, i agree with you, we should note the differences.  In short, we should provide as neutral an overview as possible, and leave it for other articles - which would indeed rely on commentaries by experts - to cover apparent inconsistencies or other elements that demand some interpretation. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 00:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Why not let the experts tell us what the gospels say about Jesus? Why invent an original harmony? Isn't it WP style to represent expert opinion? There's no expert opinion in this section, and there's plenty of expert opinion to be had on the topic. Leadwind (talk) 00:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It is perfectly legitimate in ikipedia to provide a summary of a document as long as we introduce no new interpretation or synthesis. As for "experts," Wikipedia is unconcerned with "experts."  What we are concerned with are notable views from verifiable and reliable sources.  This is an article on jesus, not on the Gospels.  In the article(s) on the Gospels we should provide all nobable points of view as to the meaning of the Gospels, as I already explained to you.  Here we just need to provide a concise summary.  Now please tell me in my three responses to you where have I ever said we should provide some invented harmony?  Why should anyone respond to you when you do not read people's responses to you? Why do you keep bringing up "invented harmony" when I have made it clear we do not do this? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 00:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You may have never suggested that we invent a harmony, but that's what this section is. It's a harmony of the gospels. It comes not from some outside source but from the collaboration of editors. It's an original work. According to original research policy, "Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources." This section implies that there is some valuable information for the reader in a narrative that blends the four gospels. Who says that's true? What RS says we should read the four gospels as if they were all parts of a single story? And if WP doesn't care about experts, let's call them reliable sources instead. WP cares very much about reliable, secondary sources. This section doesn't. Leadwind (talk) 00:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I read what you wrote, but you misunderstand Wikipedia and our policies, or haven't read my responses. The section does come from an outside work, the Gospels.  All wikipedia articles are the result of collaboration among editors. Neither of these are problematic.  Do editors unreasonably go beyond what the original sources say in "inventing" some harmony not originally there?  Well,I responded to this and I responded on 00:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC). Slrubenstein   |  Talk 00:44, 17 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe the article at one point did present a "harmony". I went through that section (with the help of other editors) to try to make sure every concept was cited to the bible, and places where there was biblical disagreement, it was noted. Just reading through the first two section again on the nativity and the baptism, it makes it clear that the sources don't all agree, and I don't believe we are presenting a "harmony" in those sections. I too had the same issue that we, as wikipedia editors, couldn't combine an event from Luke and an event from Matthew to create a single narrative. I did feel that it was ok to state that "Luke says X, while Matthew says Y". If you feel there are specific places that still need work in that regard, then please point out where, so we can work to fix it. As for citing experts, what we are doing in this section is basically giving a plot summary of 4 similar books that have overlapping content. We don't need an expert to tell us that Luke 2:41–52 describes the event of Finding in the Temple. As long as we aren't interpreting the source, but instead summarizing the plot, I don't see why we should cite an intermediary. Also, I'm not exactly sure who we could cite. Are there books out there that give "scholarly" plot summaries? I mean I guess we could cite the CliffsNotes. But go to any article about a book or film that describes the plot. What are we using as a source in those sections? The work itself. Likewise, we can use the work itself in this case to cite for our summary of the narratives (as long as we avoid original synthesis or interpretation). -Andrew c [talk] 15:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Andrew, my goodness, I must sound crazy. I can remember when this section made perfect sense to me. Thanks for your patience. Please bear with me. You say, "As for citing experts, what we are doing in this section is basically giving a plot summary of 4 similar books that have overlapping content." The issue is how similar the books are. To a Christian, they're similar. They're God's Word about Jesus. To a historian, however, they're different. The Synoptics represent Jesus very differently from how John does. The "Ministry" section of this page, for example, doesn't make it clear that in the Synoptics J uses parables to describe the Kingdom of God and denies signs to the people. In John, J gives seven signs and talks at length about himself in prose that sounds more written than spoken. In the Synoptics, J's ministry is one thing. In John, it's another. This page lets you read through the ministry section thinking that the four books say basically the same thing. "Are there books out there that give "scholarly" plot summaries?" Yes. Those are the books we cite for this section. Leadwind (talk) 01:50, 22 December 2007 (UTC)