User talk:Peter Kirby/Historical Jesus

This is just an update to indicate that this is a live project which I am returning to. --Peter Kirby 09:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm working over this article for overlaying onto Historical Jesus. Please make comments here on how to make it ready for prime time. --Peter Kirby 16:13, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I just noticed that some of the Greek has typos. Should I fix it directly, or list them all here?  Stephen C. Carlson 17:32, 2005 August 13 (UTC)


 * Hi Stephen. Anyone can edit this particular page, since I do hope it to go to the main Wikipedia. But you are doubly welcome to edit the page. --Peter Kirby 21:22, 13 August 2005 (UTC)


 * It might be nice to discuss the relationship of the resurrection to the study of the HJ. That is, the resurrection is excluded from the study of the historical Jesus almost by definition, which limits the HJ to the period between his birth and death.  Stephen C. Carlson 17:36, 2005 August 13 (UTC)


 * Not bad; but I see a few questionable wording choices; I'll try to fix them. Also, the logic in the Literacy section is hard to follow; you should expand on the arguments presented there, and perhaps explain the significance of the Bible verses cited, so the reader doesn't need to look them up. Ben Standeven 00:30, 17 August 2005 (UTC)


 * It's still looking better than my article, I'd say, though. Ben Standeven 01:07, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I fiddled with the introduction thinking that it might be worded more simply. If I've failed, I hope you'll feel free to undo what I did. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 02:30, 17 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I am rather fond of the introduction as it is. I agree on the simplicity thing though.  I hope that Jesus Mythers don't try to overload it with material that belongs in historicity of Jesus, as the did in the current historical Jesus article. --Peter Kirby 03:44, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Controversial issues
Objective articles about matters of faith are going to be very difficult to keep NPOV. I very much approve of your use of the sentence "Reference to the historical Jesus presumes the historicity of Jesus, that is, that he existed," in your introductory paragraph. If only other articles included such disclaimers.... The Bearded One 01:56, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

To clarify my position: I am not a scholar on these topics. My interest is merely to check for NPOV. The Bearded One 02:03, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Suggestions
1 - I was drawn to the page because it is under "User". I wondered about that, and had to dig a bit to understand the significance of that. How about a banner at the top explaining this convention? (not just in the discussion)

2 - Put detailed book references as endnotes rather than in-line. Include ISBN wiki links with them, for ease in finding the book to buy.

Yehoshua ben Yosef
I like the format you've developed. I was pointed towards your page after a few other editors started a discussion about NPOV and POV forks and this issue being covered elsewhere. I have a huge interest in this topic, and I was wondering if you'd like to co-operate on one page for the main section? I'm also curious whether you are you looking for a non-religious attempt at historical scholarship, or a scholarly attempt to find proof of the religious story in history... Scientz 20:57, 1 November 2005 (EST)