Talk:Jesus/Archive 101

Archive 95

←

Archive 99

Archive 100

Archive 101

Archive 102

Archive 103

→

Archive 105

Edit war over capitalization

Editors battling over capitalization of pronouns referring to Jesus (or other religious figures) may wish to review the manual of style, in particular Wikipedia:MOS#Religions, deities, philosophies, doctrines and their adherents, which states in part: "Pronouns and possessives referring to figures of veneration are not capitalized in Wikipedia articles, even when they traditionally are in a religion's scriptures. They are left capitalized when directly quoting scriptures or any other texts that capitalize them." – Luna Santin (talk) 23:35, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Has there been an edit war? I just undid a recent change citing that same policy. From now on I'm just going to revert any changes back. It didn't look to me like any big edit war was going on though. LonelyMarble (talk) 23:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Nothing too big, just yet, but I figured it couldn't hurt to head it off at the start. :) No harm reminding people of project norms (I hope). – Luna Santin (talk) 01:45, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Historical Evidence for Jesus' Homosexuality

This article needs to address the Secret Gospel of Mark which presents evidence that indicates that Jesus was gay and also preserved passages missing from the current extant text of the Gospel of Mark. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.212.18.53 (talk) 17:39, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think a letter of doubtful authenticity which makes reference to a manuscript which has never been found really constitutes compelling evidence. Certainly not worth mentioning in this article. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Sexuality of Jesus. Also Homosexual readings of Jesus and John.Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 18:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

There is an article for everything, this encyclopedia never ceases to amaze me! Charles Edward 01:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing to indicate that Jesus was involved in anything outside the natural laws of God. It will only appear that way to someone who them self is outside the natural laws of God. When God said be fruitful and multiply, it was not a suggestion, it was a commandment. Man can through free will chose what he does, natural and unnatural, consistent or inconsistent with what God said to first man and first woman. But Jesus came to fulfill the will of God only. Tom 04/08/08

Please stay on topic Tom. We're discussing the article and the sources provided, not the article's subject. On that note, the authenticity of the aforementioned "gospel" is exceptionally dubious, and the homosexuality of Jesus definitely falls into the category of fringe theories and representing it prominently would be undue weight.

Tom, I can understand why you find this offensive, but us religious folks have to play by the rules, and allow viewpoints that we might not necessarily agree with to be represented. In order to promote the truth, we must be fair. May you go in God's care. Peter Deer (talk) 13:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

We cannot make bold declarations about a historical figure based on texts which are either non existant or non verifiable. There is no good evidence that Jesus was anything but asexual. It would also seem like allowing this would dilute an article on an important historical figure to allow a contemporary special interest a platform. You can believe that Jesus was gay if you want to, just like I believe that Jesus was the Son of God, but neither of us can make that assertion boldly on this page because there is a lack of empirical evidence. Whiteknight521 (talk) 07:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

There is already an article about all this "homosexual Jesus" nonsense. It needn't be put in this article as well. --Andrew from NC (talk) 08:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Carlaude's Majority view

I'd like to discuss the major changes made by Carlaude to the Majority view section. I believe some of the content was either redundant with existing content or was too detailed for a top tier article, and have removed or altered the text accordingly. I believe the paragraph on Communicatio idiomatum was the least valuable addition because it went on and on saying the same thing in different words (not to mention we already had a sentence in the next paragraph discussing the very same topic). I also felt that the new paragraphs were poorly placed, i.e. a paragraph discussing the importance and significance of the resurrection before a paragraph describe the basic belief, and a paragraph about the birth of Jesus occurring near the end of the section. I also made some changes to the use of "Christ". I believe that since Christ is a title not recognized by all, that we should generally avoid it (similar to how we avoid putting PBUH before Muhammad). If there is a specific reason to use the word "Christ", or if a cited source uses it or any number of possible valid reasons, then I feel we should obviously use it and not simply black list the term. But we should be aware of NPOV and be conscious that "Christ" is not simply synonymous and interchangeable with "Jesus". Finally, if we are striving for FA status, we should make sure that all new content is backed up by sources. If we are simply summarizing existing articles, we should make sure we use the sources cited at the parent article. I have thus added a couple fact tags throughout. I hope this explains my most recent edits. I'd be glad to discuss them further, and of course discussing more changes to improving the article (one thing that jumps out at me is that we should go over the majority view section and make sure that the paragraphs flow and work well together, that we don't have redundant content, and that we don't oversimplify nor overwhelm the reader with jargon). Anyone a good copy editor with a good sense of organization?-Andrew c ^[talk] 01:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am, but I unfortunately I don't have the time to dedicate to this article. I agree with your statement that this is "too detailed for a top tier-article". Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 16:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I also want to point out that Wikipedia has a Christology article. The Jesus article certainly should contain a summary of notable Christian views of Jesus, along with Muslim, Jewish, academics', and other notable views. But for many people Jesus is not the same person as Jesus Christ. There are so many diverse views on Jesus Christ that they deserve their own article and I suggest that Christology is it, and the proper place for detailed exposition of views of Christ. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this. Peter Deer (talk) 10:32, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I do; Christology focuses more on who Jesus is than on what he does. However, there are various other articles that the details can go into (Such as Christian views of Jesus, atonement or substitutionary atonement, Soteriology, &c. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 16:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

n.b. I added this material obecause it was pointed out by someone else this (Christian Majority) section was to short. While normally in this article would not say "Jesus Christ" it is the majority view for Christians that Jesus is the Christ (and more).--Carlaude (talk) 13:34, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

True, but remember WP:SUMMARY. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 15:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

What exactly did Jesus save us from and how?; Carlaude's Majority view part two.

I can't find this information in the article. 70.89.165.91 (talk) 20:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

See Soteriology Charles Edward 20:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Sin, death and Satan. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 17:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

See Jesus: Majority view - third paragraph. --Carlaude (talk) 13:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

That may be too specific; not all Christians believe in the Satisfaction view of Atonement. Some mention should be made of the governmental, moral influence, and ransom views; or we could just summarize with a link to the main article Substitutionary atonement. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 13:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

No; this section is for the majority view. It should cover that view-- or the parts of it that are in majority-- or say nothing. --Carlaude (talk) 16:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Well then, say nothing. Or rather, go into detail in the subarticles. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 16:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

No church seems to endorse the "moral influence" view and only major group holding the "ransom" view today is the JW's. Other views today seem to me to be just minor variations on Thomas Aquinas' veiw. I name the satisfaction view only as a major precursor to it.--Carlaude (talk) 14:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Well...maybe no major churches hold this view, but some individual Christians might. I don't, but I want to be fair. However, my point was really about WP:SUMMARY. I also saw your comment above; but while you may feel that the Majority View section was too short, I personally feel that the rest of the article is currently too long (weighing in at 122 KB). Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 15:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

We can not make any article at WP about what "some individual Christians might hold"! -- much less this article that not an exclusively theological topic. --Carlaude (talk) 16:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

That seems rather high church to me. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 16:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

To me a view that is only what "some individual Christians might hold" is only an unnotable fringe theory. But hey, this is the first time I have been accused of sounding high church. .--Carlaude (talk) 17:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you can reference them in the article on Substitutionary atonement and then refernce Substitutionary atonement in this section.--Carlaude (talk) 16:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver}

PS: That makes it the 358th longest page in Wikipedia. BTW, it's 103 KB of readable prose.Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 15:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes Jesus is too long-- and I point this out myself a few weeks ago-- but noone at the time seemed to think so. All the regular seem convise that any articale they work on is "the longer the better." That said I still like the additions (that were not redundant). --Carlaude (talk) 16:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

"Other views today seem to me to be just minor variations on Thomas Aquinas' view" But, is that really true? I may be wrong, but it seems to me that this statement is biased in terms of Western Christianity--what do the Eastern Orthodox, &c, believe? Also, according to the article on the "Satisfaction view", "The satisfaction view of the atonement is a doctrine in Christian theology related to the meaning and effect of the death of Jesus Christ and has been traditionally taught in Catholic, Lutheran, and Reformed circles." I might add Anglican, and I'm not sure about Lutheran; but even this excludes many protestants such as Methodists, Mennonites, Quakers, &c.

You seem to have opened a can of worms here. I agree with the comment made on this page a couple of years ago by User:KHM03 (a Methodist minister). I can't find the exact quote (too many archives), but he commented that we don't have to get into specific views of the atonement on this page. I quite agree. I also agree with Andrew c's statement that this is "too detailed for a top tier-article". Better to reference specific theories in the articles on Substitutionary atonement and Soteriology and Christian views of Jesus &c. OTOH, I disagree with Slrubenstein's suggestion to put the details in the Christology article; Christology focuses on who Jesus is, not on what he does.

"But, is that really true?": I spoke to some Eastern Orthodox since yesterday and they are hard to pin down to anything-- but otherwise yes.

"The satisfaction view... been traditionally taught in Catholic, Lutheran, and Reformed circles." This is true if by "satisfaction view" you also mean all the minor (compared to any & all views before it) "views" the derive from it-- views that hard-core theology types count as different views but that church history types are not as worried about distinguishing. BUT it is false if you do distinguish the various changes in wording theologians use since as different views.

At this point I could see the paragraph as being rewritten to be more general, a bit more general... by someone... but then the challenge would be finding sources to cite, which is the goal of everyone seeking the "FA prize." I would just rather have a good article if it means it is more informative and useful.--Carlaude (talk) 17:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I cannot answer why no one else seemed to think that the article was too long. Maybe the other long-term editors have just given up. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 16:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I completely agree, that section is fine as is, at the most just add a "see also" or "main article" to reference the other topics. NO need to repeat in detail what already exists in other articles. I also agree the article is probably too long, some of it could be split off in to separate articles Charles Edward 17:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Title

The name Jesus was extremely common in Nazareth at the time Jesus *Christ* was alive. This article should be titled Jesus Christ. Anyone who has a scholarly interest in this topic would know this.--98.26.119.133 (talk) 03:44, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any references to prove this? I am in favor of renaming the article to Jesus Christ, but Wikipedia states that a name must not carry a point of view. The word "Christ", which means the annoited one suggests that he is the Messiah, something that non-Christians and non-Muslims do not believe in as well as many other people and would therefore be placing a Christian point of view on the title. Furthermoore, though Jesus was a common name in the 1st Century AD or 1st Century BC, it is not these days. There are not many other people with the name Jesus around who are notable enough so there is not so much confusion that this is a necessary change. Tourskin (talk) 03:51, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about Nazareth, but the name "Yeshua" (from which we get both "Jesus" and "Joshua")was extremely popular in Iudea at the time. Not to mention that Jesus (pronounced HEY-sus) is an extremely popular Hispanic name...

I would support changing the article title to "Jesus of Nazareth" and adding a disambig header. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 17:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I propose that we stick with the single name Jesus, because in the overwhelming number of cases where someone is looking for an article on a jesus, they will be looking for this jesus. if we end up having other encyclopedia articles on other Jesus's, we can have a disambiguation page as we do in comparable situations. So far I do not even see a need for a disambiguation page so I wonder what the point of this even is. But if the time comes when we need one, it is easy enough to create one. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

PRJS

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.^[?]
• The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.^[?]

*You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. ^[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually). Done.

• Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, if January 15, 2006 appeared in the article, link it as January 15, 2006.^[?]

*Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally do not start with articles ('the', 'a(n)'). For example, if there was a section called ==The Biography==, it should be changed to ==Biography==.^[?]

• Per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings), headings generally should not repeat the title of the article. For example, if the article was Ferdinand Magellan, instead of using the heading ==Magellan's journey==, use ==Journey==.^[?] Done (headings)
• Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) may be too long – consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per Wikipedia:Summary style.^[?]
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 17:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Dazed and Confused

I would like some clarification about editing this page. Who is allowed to edit it? why are they allowed? How do I address issues without getting stuck in an all out war of information?

Could someone please let me know. Thank you

Morninbrd (talk) 20:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyone who is absolutely commited to our core cpolicies, WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NOR is welcome to edit. Of course you should know something abou the scholarship on the Gospels, on 1st century Judaisnm, or on Jesus according to the Church fathers or according to modern historians ... always cognizant of the fact that your vies like ours is partial and never the truth. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Newly created accounts must wait four days before they can edit semi-protected articles. Since this article is fairly high profile it's best to discuss any changes here (especially if you're new to Wikipedia) before making them. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 01:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

However, while what NeilN has stated is true, remember to be bold and if you see a change that needs to be made make it; If there is sourced information that you can add, add it; If there is grammar that needs correcting, correct it; If there is vandalism that needs be reverted (though that never lasts long on this page) revert it. Everyone's ability to participate is an integral part of wikipedia, so edit away. Peter Deer (talk) 11:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Why was Jesus baptised?

Why was he baptised by John? I thought he was perfect so what sins would he need to wash away? 65.102.200.170 (talk) 19:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

As an example.

Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to be baptized by John. But John tried to deter him, saying, "I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?" Jesus replied, "Let it be so now; it is proper for us to do this to fulfill all righteousness." Then John consented. (Matthew 3:13-15 NIV)

See also Baptism of Jesus. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 19:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jesus article-- not Jesus himself. If you really want to improvement an article, take this to Baptism of Jesus. If you haven't found the answer yet, it sure doen't belong in a "top tier" over-long article.--Carlaude (talk) 21:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Dates

The dates at the top of this article read (7–2 BC/BCE to 26–36 AD/CE). This is clearly a Christianity related article and the dates should be in BC/AD only. --Andrew from NC (talk) 01:12, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE DO NOT CHANGE THE WAY DATES ARE EXPRESSED IN THIS ARTICLE. Things are the way they are due to a long struggle to attain consensus, and unless you have attained consensus with other editors via the discussion page of this article, the dates should remain AS IS. Thank you!-Andrew c ^[talk] 01:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for being short with you. However, the above text I quoted from the article. You have twice removed BCE/CE from the intro, yet I see no new consensus for the change (and the mixed era notation usage remained throughout the article after your edits anyway). I have been around for quite awhile and been through many of the discussions here on the talk page related to era notation. None of these discussions have lead to a new consensus to support using either notation exclusively, so we have been stuck with using both. I think editors should spend time trying to get this article up to featured status instead of worrying about a few letters that come after years. So forgive me if that makes me jaded. I would suggest letting the dates issue go, and look at other ways to improve the article. There have been arguments on both sides for using one era notation exclusively (yet neither side has been able to "win" this argument in the past). Wikipedia policy does not have a preference, and we use both consistently throughout the article. If you haven't already, I'd suggest reading some of the archives that deal with this topic. Hope this helps more than my first reply.-Andrew c ^[talk] 01:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

(Andrew from NC... Andrew c...Hope I don't get you guys confused).

There is a reason I added the "round and round in circles" template: "Discussions here have repeatedly involved the same arguments and views. Please review the recent comments below, or in the archives. New views and ideas on the subject are welcome; however, if your beliefs reflect already existing contributions, please consider withholding them."

See, for example, Talk:Jesus/Archive 14#Dating System (and all subsequent discussions). Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 13:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Infobox vs. the historical Jesus

This article is not only about the Christian, New Testament version of Jesus, but also about the historical Jesus. Therefore, I find it problematic to include the majority Christian POV only in the infobox when there is considerable scholarly dissent on some of these issues. For example, Jesus' birth town. Anyone familiar with popular Christmas carols (or the accounts in Matthew and Luke) knows that Bethlehem is the traditionally ascribed place of his birth.

According to Gerd Theissen and Annette Merz's The Historical Jesus: A Comprehensive Guide:

• "Our conclusion must be that Jesus came from Nazareth. The shift of his birthplace to Bethlehem is a result of religious fantasy and imagination: because according to scripture the messiah had to be born in Bethlehem, Jesus' birth is transferred there."

According to Bart Ehrman's Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium:

• "All four of our Gospels assume that Jesus came from Nazareth. But two of them-Matthew and Luke again-independently claim that he was born in Bethlehem. We examined these traditions in chapter 2, and saw (a) the sources are inconsistent with one another at key points (if Matthew's account is right, it's hard to see how Luke's can be also, and vice versa); (b) both present serious historical problems when taken on their own terms (e.g., the worldwide census under Caesar Augustus in Luke); and (c) both had a clear reason for wanting to affirm that Jesus came from Bethlehem, since a Hebrew prophet had predicted that a ruler would come from there (Mic. 5:2; quoted in Matt. 2:6). As a result, most critical historians consider the tradition of Jesus' birthplace in Bethlehem to be highly problematic."

According to John P. Meier's A Marginal Jew vol. 1:

• "While Jesus' birth in Bethlehem cannot be positively ruled out (one can rarely "prove a negative' in ancient history), we must accept the fact that the predominate view in the Gospels and A ts is that Jesus came from Nazareth and -apart from Chapters 1-2 of Matthew and Luke-only from Nazareth. The somewhat contorted or suspect ways in which Matthew and Luke reconcile the dominant Nazareth tradition with the special Bethlehem tradition of their Infancy Narratives may indicate that Jesus' birth at Bethlehem is to be taken not as a historical fact but as a theologoumenon, i.e., as a theological affirmation (e.g., Jesus is the true Son of David, the prophesied royal Messiah) put into the form of an apparently historical narrative. One must admit, though, that on this point certitude is not to be had."

Similarly, scholars do not have a consensus on where and how Jesus was buried. I know it is hard to contextualize all these little tidbits in an infobox, but for NPOV sake, we must try (or remove the items completely). The infobox currently doesn't say anything of Nazareth. Maybe we could add "traditionally" before "Bethlehem"? I'm not exactly sure what could be done to address these concerns, but I figure I could bring them up here and see if people agree, and see if we can't brainstorm how to make the infobox less POV.-Andrew c ^[talk] 16:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Good point, Andrew. I'm in favour of "Bethlehem (traditional) / Nazareth", if we can word it so as to acknowledge each view without implying that one or other is correct. The same is true of the other categories - we can agree that Jesus was a carpenter and preacher, but saying his occupation was "Lord and Saviour" is not only POV, it's a silly. If true, it's got to be more important that 'occupation'; if false, it doesn't belong here. If we cannot come to a reasonable compromise without complicated wording for each category, maybe we should drop the infobox and accept that Jesus was sui generis and the usual approach cannot be applied. --Rbreen (talk) 16:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Sadly I think I have to agree that much of the article focuses on the religious view of Christ as opposed to the historical view of Him. Indeed, the accounts of His birth appear to indicate Bethlehem, but there is certainly much evidence that the place where He lived from childhood was Nazareth. Sadly I am unfamiliar with any extensive record of His early travels or the travels of His parents. The Bethlehem birth notion is currently the most popular and is supported by Luke and Matthew, but I am unaware of any other Gospel stating specifically that He was born in Nazareth as opposed to Bethlehem, as Luke and Matthew are the only gospels that give a narrative of the nativity. As neither location, however, can be ruled out entirely in an encyclopedic manner, I would suggest expanding the birthplace to Judea as opposed to specifically Bethlehem or Nazareth, as the general location is widely agreed upon, and including a link to the Nativity of Jesus article, and perhaps stating that He is reported to have been born in Bethlehem, as that is undeniably accurate. May you go in God's care. Peter Deer (talk) 16:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Nazareth is in Galilee, not Judea, as in: "no prophet comes from Galilee" John 7:52. 75.15.199.53 (talk) 19:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

He was "from Galilee" -- the gospels plainly say he grew up there-- and lived there still. If you think the "born in Bethlehem" is wrong then that is one thing, but no text claims a birth place anywhere else. Is is either Bethlehem or unknown. --Carlaude (talk) 20:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It is not Bethlehem or unknown, it is Bethlehem or the Galilee. Many texts - books by notable historians - suggest he may have been born in Nazareth. This is a notable view, so it gets included. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Suggesting he may have been born in Nazareth is not that same a information that he was born in Nazareth.--Carlaude (talk) 21:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

All we have are suggestions about where he was born. We have suggestions from Early Christians (in the Gospels) and suggestions from recent historians. Thee is no one "truth," just two points of view, both notable. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I see what you are tring to say but I think you have to admit that the writings of Matthew are not the same thing as the writings of Meier -- even if you like Meier better.--Carlaude (talk) 13:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I do agree that they are not the same! Slrubenstein | Talk 17:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course they are not the same, but it is not immediately obvious which one is more trustworthy; certainly not without actually reading Meier and seeing what he has to say, which I have not. Pleading in favor of Matthew over Meier is that he lived closer in time to the events, but pleading against him is that he was the follower of a charismatic religious leader who believed that leader's life was the fulfillment of a prophecy; it would only be natural for him to interpret the facts in the light of prophecy, or maybe even to bend them.76.102.67.107 (talk) 09:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

. The former writings are specifically meant to convince the reader that Jesus' life fulfilled prophecy, the latter is a historical examination.