Talk:Jesus/Archive 111

Archive 105

←

Archive 109

Archive 110

Archive 111

Archive 112

Archive 113

→

Archive 115

Neutral point of view in general

Reading over this article and its discussion page there seem to be a lot of issues both raised and not mentioned regarding NPOV. I'm sure its been beat to death here but this seems like a pretty important article to get right. I'll leave the details to the experts on this subject but just looking at the basic flow of the article and presentation of the viewpoints its obvious that there's considerable bias. Obvious examples that struck immediately are his dates of life and presentation of his name itself. First lets compare how his date of birth and death are viewed throughout the article. I think this shows a good example of the bias presentation which seems to be weighted towards to top of the article. The article starts out stating he lived (c. 4 BC/BCE – c. 30 AD/CE). This is the strong statement regarding his dates in the article. Farther down the page it is then clarified "Scholars conclude that Jesus was born 7–2 BC/BCE and died 26–36 AD/CE.[34][35]" as a stand alone statement with a further clarifaction being added to that in the paragraph below it questioning even those dates. The statement "Scholars conclude that Jesus was born 7–2 BC/BCE and died 26–36 AD/CE." is clearly an attempted to breach the NPOV policy. "Scholars" is the key word here. It should really have some kind of clarification. If we went around presenting what 2 or more scholars have agreed upon in that manner in every article we could just write fiction.

Lets really think what would happen if someone wrote "Scholars conclude that Jesus was fabricated."

The weighted presentation of this article is amplified when taking into account that in this very same article the existence of Jesus is questioned by 2 or more scholars. Of course, this is towards the bottom after nearly every paragraph has had matter of fact statements regarding the man. One of these statements being "Jesus of Nazareth". I know this is a common name to refer to him but his location of birth is contested. Presented in that wording followed by how his dates are presented really start the article painting an overly simplistic and defined picture of the man and do a disservice to the research on the field.

In general this whole article needs to be rewritten to present a more impartial view. This article reads very easily as a summation of the religious view point of Jesus. The counter viewpoints of that detached and even then they are accompanied by statements refuting them, some of them entirely too vague, while the religious based recount of Jesus goes with little or no mention of its critics intermingled. Just look at the first section. No where does it discuss the refuting of much of what is claimed about him. "Aside from these few conclusions, academic studies remain inconclusive about the chronology, the central message of Jesus' preaching, his social class, cultural environment, and religious orientation." is probably the strongest statement toward that yet there are several articles devoted towards the critical science and investigation of this man. Simply taking the more critical or even complex views and placing them in their own sections or pages neither meets the requirement for NPOV nor allow an article to circumvent it.

As to not just bash on your efforts, here's a suggestion. Look at Gautama Buddha's article. At least for the date, this article presents a much better depiction of the uncertainty surrounding a man important to many people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.78.112.96 (talk) 18:58, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

We used to give a range of dates in the lead and infobox, but that was changed because some felt that having that many numbers and that many hyphens was a bit bloated. the prefix c. stands for circa, which means "around", and is intended to signify to the reader that these numbers are an estimate or "approximate" date. Arguments could be made to reverting back to giving ranges instead of circa. That said, almost all historicans/scholars of Jesus agree on dates within that range. Before we go saying this is biased and what not, can you name any scholar that dates Jesus' life outside those ranges? I can see with Buddha, if a number of contemporary scholars have changed their mind, or only give a 20 year estimate, that would be one thing, but scholars of Jesus are more precise, and unanimous. I'd consider your proposed changes online in light of new sources disputing these years. We need to make sure we are giving due weight to prominent and minority views, and we need to make sure what we are presenting is verifiable and sourced. Thanks for your critical analysis of the article, I'm sure you have a lot to offer to help improve the article! -Andrew c ^[talk] 19:22, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the discussion here is a good place to start. Alvar Ellegard's conclusion is that Jesus was not from Nazareth, and lived 100 years earlier that taught by the Church. St.Trond (talk) 19:54, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Is this Ellegard an internationally renowned biblical scholar with a PhD, or is he, like so many others, autodidact? Antique Rose — Drop me a line 21:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

May be Soviet Union had education on PhD level for "religion as a practical subject". There are probably no biblical studies for those who does not believe in ghosts. Ellegard is a linguist, so it is a science complementary to the ordinary history. The point is, imho, that he arrives at a chain of events, i.e. an order of appearance of texts, which may have a logical explanation, without relying upon the gospels at all. I hope you will read the book, then you could explain where I am wrong. Best regards St.Trond (talk) 15:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not understand the above comment. Many leading universities in the United States 9and UK) have Departments of Biblical Studies; many universities have departments of Ancient Near Eastern studies that have within them people who specialize (as professors or graduate students) in Biblical Studies. Smaller Universities might have a Department of religious Studies or Religion, and even smaller ones usually collapse Biblical Studies into History. But Biblical studies is a well-established secular discipline. It requires knowledge of Biblical languages (Greek, or Hebrew and Aramaic) and depending on one's focus languages required for comparative or source documents (Uggaritic, Akadian, etc.). It requires some knowledge of archeology. It requires skills that are also employed by other historians and by people in departments of comparative literature. The old-fashioned break-down of Biblical Studies was Higher Criticism, which seeks to establish when different parts of Biblical texts were written, by comparing them to contemporary texts and archeological data, and Lower Criticism, which studies the texts as literature and employs various methods of hermeneutics - in fact, hermeneutics grew out of Lower Criticism, although it is employed by philosophers and literary critics today.

What matters about Ellegard is whether he was trained in Biblical languages and the study of texts written in those languages. He certainly can have expertise in this and have found employment in some other department than Biblical Studies. But he does not. His expertise is in English and no, despite what some die-hard British nationalists may thing, Jesus did not speak English. Ellegard made the Dead Sea Scrolls his hobby after he retired but I do not see ANY evidence that he studied Biblical Hebrew and Aramaic, or Koine Greek, or that he has any graduate degree in Biblical Studies or Ancient Near Eastern Studies that would give him the expertise and skills needed to contribute to researchon the Dead Sea Scrolls. Ellegard's conclusions are certainly fringe; whatever his chain of reasoning, so far he has not convinced people who are experts in New Testament Studies or the history of Second Temple Judaism or the history or Roman occupied Judea and Galilea. What makes a view fringe is of course not our judgement as to how "logical" the person's argument is. What makes a view fringe is its standing among experts in the relevant field. Apparently St. Trond is ignorant of the existance of this field, but I guess all of us who come to Wikipedia are ignorant about something. In this case, there is an established scholarly field, and the leading scholars in that field agree that it is likely that Jesus lived during the first century, and was born in Nazareth. Ellegard belongs with erik Von Daniken, and not in an encyclopedia article on this topic. We must have academic standards for scholarly research. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Then Ellegard is in the same league as your biblical PhDs when they discuss metrology, like souls living on clouds, as they did in biblical times, or medicine, where most of the biblical miracles belong. St.Trond (talk) 21:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Please stay on topic. Antique Rose — Drop me a line 22:25, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Please be more specific. St.Trond (talk) 06:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Please provide page references in works by Vermes, Sanders, or Fredricksen where they discuss souls living in clouds. And in what way would Ellegard be in the same ldague as them, when he does not know anything of the literary or historical contexts in which 1st century Jews talked about "miracles." You seem to think that history gives everyone permission to bullshit their way around a conversation. Sorry. I continue to insist that we hold to scholarly standards. If you want to write with authority about 1st century BCE Judeans or first century CE Galileans, you need to have studied the languages and the primary sources available, not just on a topic but on their historical and cultural context, and must be trained in the proper way to read such texts, so as to avoid anachronistic readings. This is what we expect of a Medieval French historian, or of a scholar in Classics, and we should expect the same of a scholar in Biblical Studies. What is distrurbing is not just your promoting Ellegard, who lacks any expertise in Biblical Studies and in this case is expressing a fringe view that has no place in a scholarly article, what is disturbing is that you just do not care about the difference between an established scholar who worked hard to earn a PhD, and credibility through publication in peer-reviewed journals, and a luney dilettante. If you do not care about this difference, what business do you have editing an encyclopedia?

At this point your brazen display of ignorance is such that I can conlude only that you are a troll. You do not know anything about Biblical Studies as an academic field, so you cannot offer anything to improve this article. Your attachment to a pseudo-scientist as in your view a reliable source just shows you to be a POV-pusher as well as a troll. Since you are not capable of a well-informed and intelligent discussion of the topic, I see no point in communicating any further with you. I'd say it is pretty clear that other editors to this page can simply ignore you, it is the best way to deal with a troll. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Slrubenstein: I got stuck in your expression "anachronistic readings". If someone were to perform a play by an ancient writer, we would not be surprised if the performance was based on the reading and the setting of the originating period. When we evaluate life in times long ago, most of us will use our current context, knowledge and expectations. This is were you are wrong. You do not evaluate the biblical content based on the current context. You try to construct a context which is not valid (any more). The content of this page is not generally accepted as valid according to the readers' expectation of an encyclopedia, and it should carry a warning on top. Like: Warning: This page contains religious constructs, and cannot generally be accepted as true. St.Trond (talk) 13:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about St. Trond? We already have such a disclaimer on the "Life and teaching, as told in the Gospels" section Critical scholars find valuable historical information about Jesus' life and ministry in the synoptic gospels but more or less discount much of the miraculous and theological content. I think we have gone a bit out of our way to be neutral, at the risk of possible offending many Christians. So I find it odd that there is opposition from the other side of the debate as well (but I guess in polarizing debates such as religion, there will always be the fringe views). Could you please be more specific on what content of this page is not generally accepted as valid? What parts need further disclaimers in your opinion? To me, it seems like you are just being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative. I'm fairly familiar with the content of this article, so I'm at a loss to imagine to what portions you are taking aim. Thanks. -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

St Trond makes claims about how I read the Bible. How I read the Bible is irrelevant as we do not put our own views into articles. But NPOV demands we put in significant views from verifiable sources. All significant views refer to the Gospel account so we provide a summary of that account. One significant view is that of Christians, and we summarize that view. Another significant view is that of secular scholarship (whether the scholars are Christian, Jewish, atheist, pagan, whatever their personal views), people with PhDs in Biblical Studies or comparable University programs, and we provide a summary of those accounts. Ellegard's view is not significant, it is fringe, and has no place in an encyclopedia article. I really do not see what else there is to discuss.Slrubenstein | Talk 18:26, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Slrubenstein:Find one MD that the claims Biblical resurrection method is a probable, proved, or significant way to heal dead persons. You are so fringe it is unbelievable. St.Trond (talk) 21:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Andrew C: There is no undisputed evidence at all that Jesus lived in the period taught by the Church, so how can you have gone out of your way to be neutral. I am myself counted as a Christian. You ignore the majority of Buddhists, Hinduists etc who cares even less than me. This article belongs in Jesus (Religious view), and not in a general article named just Jesus. St.Trond (talk) 21:16, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Trond, where have I ever said that the Biblical resurrection "method"(method? Method for doing what? I mean, besides resurrecting) is probable or proved? Where? You also wrote that I should "not evaluate the biblical content based on the current context." Please tell me where i have done this? Are you hallucinating? Please back up your claims with actual evidence. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I also note you have stopped bringing up Ellegard - I infer this means you now acknowledge that his is a fringe view that you should not have tried to introduce into the article, good for you. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no undisputed evidence at all that Jesus lived in the period taught by the Church but the real question is "disputed by whom?". So you are upset that we have a section on the historical Jesus, because you personally don't believe there was a historical Jesus. Even though virtually all historians of the historical Jesus agree he lived, you want us to give undue weight to your personal beliefs? On Wikipedia, we are supposed to present summaries of all notable published views, and we are supposed to present them in a way that avoids giving undue weight to minor and fringe views. You are saying this article is not neutral, even though we are simply repeating what our sources say? Maybe you disagree with our sources that say the majority believe there was a historical Jesus? Seems odd. The only source you have mentioned (that I remember) is Ellegard, who is obvious a fringe view. We do not bend over backwards for fringe views on Wikipedia. This is why the evolution article and global warming articles are they way they are. They represent the majority view of relevant scholars. Similarly, the historical Jesus section of this article represents those scholars (and we even mention the mythist minority). So I really don't see any validity in your complaint. Furthermore, do you have issues with the other sections of the article? About the gospel plot summary, or the religious views section, or the cultural impact section? Or are you just focusing on the chronology/historical Jesus sections. -Andrew c ^[talk] 23:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Non-Christian sources confirm that there was a Jesus early in the 1st century, and that's good enough for neutral historians. The idea that Jesus never existed reached its apex 100 years ago and is no longer current. If anyone wants to tweak Christians on this issue, there's no point in using 100-year old scholarship. Current scholarship does a fine job of that. Leadwind (talk) 03:25, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The wiki indeed starts in a nonneutral way. The first paragraph, for the most part of it, correctly states what we KNOW: Jesus is the central figure in the religion. However, the dates, c. 4 - 30, are something we SUPPOSE, or think to deduct, but do not know. The unsuspecting reader is wrongfooted that way. Because these dates are not something we know, they do not belong in the header paragraph.

One alternative would be to change "circa 4 BC - 30" to "supposedly circa 5 BC - 30". But that leaves the immediate question "supposed by whom ?". A better choice is to just state the years around which Jesus was preaching. That is the most relevant period. And there is less controversy on his active period, than on his early life. So, some years somewhere between 25 and 40 CE. This is a very natural thing to do. For ancient emperors also, it is common to state the period of their reign, instead of their life.

The wiki also does not mention whether the scholars mentioned are Christians, theologicians, historians or sociologists. Even if they are "internationally renowned biblical scholars with a PhD", this would be useful. For obvious reasons, most scholars interested in the matter are Christian or theologician. This does not appear clearly in the wiki. To return to the date of birth, as an example: The wiki says "most scholars" agree on a date from 6 - 4. The reference shows that this is coming from Prof. J. Dunn. He is a "Lightfoot Professor of Divinity": His research has been done from a Christian point of view. Nothing wrong with that, he is a renowned scholar, but this must be mentioned. Kohir-gabr (talk) 14:19, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not know about "most" scholars, it depends on how you define scholar, for one thing. But I know that many scholars, including ones who in their personal lives are devout Christians, are in their professional lives critical, and the second paragraph clearliy identifies a view dominant among "critical" scholars. "Critical" is a good word-choice because it can refer both to the higher and the lower criticism. These are two very different endeavors, but that is relevant to this thread is the fact that their findings come from a scholarly point of view, by which I mean (at least right here) a view that is concerned with verifiable evidence, and moreover when we are talking about the scholarship of any text - in this case the text being the Bible - interpreting or explaining texts in relation to their historical context. Some of these scholars teach in divinity schools because that is where they could get jobs, plus, some divinity schools embrace critical scholarship and expect their scholars to act independent of any theological or clerical agenda (some of these divinity schools are attached to leading universities). I do not know Professor Dunn but regardless of his title or employer, I see no reason why he cannot come up with a 6-4 estimate using the same methods and criteria as any historian, rather than relying on some Church authority. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:04, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually Dunn is referred to, as the source for the wiki's statement that "most scholars" agree on 6-4 as the date which is consistent with the gospels. Dunn is not the source for the determination of the date itself. All the authors in this matter make choices in their analysis. Given the nature of the research, many choices can go either way without being methodologically incorrect. That is the reason why scholar's background is relevant.

The point remains that the first paragraph lumps together what we know (Jesus is the central figure in Christianity, etc.), with what we deduce (actual lifetime -4 - 30 ). All that we know, is that scholars have found the dates 4 bC. and 30 to be most consistent with (selected) parts of the gospels. We do not know any more than that! There is every reason to be precise in the first section.Kohir-gabr (talk) 14:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

This is nonsense (or on wikipedia, we call it "original research", and it is forbidden, see WP:NOR). If you have specific sources that are notable, reliable, and dispute the date range, then we can consider discussing this matter further. However, if you yourself are skeptical of what scholars state, then we have no business questioning them based on your personal feelings. We are only supposed to summarize published sources that meet verifiability, reliability, and notability guidelines. We don't interject our own theories. So, if this is to proceed, can you site any scholars who question the dating, and phrase it in terms that you do? (while I agree that at times, it may be correct to qualify our sources, what you seem to be implying is that if a scholar is Christian, she may reach one conclusion, and that scholars of different faiths reach different conclusions. Is this actually the case? if not, then the religious background of our cited sources is irrelevant, and such addition may be considered "poisoning the well", or simply unnecessary). -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

npov use of reference for islamic view

I do not know about islam itself. But saying (first section) that "Islam teaches that Jesus ...", with reference to a quote from the koran, amounts to fundamentalism (who knows how muslims interpret their text?). There should be reference to a text on islam for this interpretation, or the wiki should say "The koran says that Jesus ...". The current text is like saying that Christianity teaches that women are not allowed to speak in church, and refer to a quote from 1 Cor. 14 for it. You cannot do that. There is context, interpretation and custom.Kohir-gabr (talk) 14:25, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

That is a valid point. Out guidelines clearly say for us to be cautious, and/or avoid outright primary sources. It shouldn't be hard to find a secondary source to back up our text, though. -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:30, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Historical compatibility of descriptions of the birth of Jesus.

Herod had been dead for 9 years when the census was performed. Thus both historical indicators cannot be true simultaneously. The two descriptions are incompatible. Source: Chronology section on Jesus page. St.Trond (talk) 13:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

We need a reliable third party source on that. Wikipedia cannot be its own source. Antique Rose — Drop me a line 13:47, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I welcome the new level of scrutiny, and look forward to see it applied to some other parts of this page, resurrection, virgin birth, etc. What about using the same sources as were used in the chronology section, would it suffice? Or is it the word "incompatible" that has to be sourced? Regards St.Trond (talk) 14:30, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about truth, it is about verifiable views. It is not our task to explain what appear to us to be contradictions between Gospels or between a Gospel and other historical texts. Christians surely have their own ways of interpreting this. Historians have their own ways of interpreting this. The question is, do we want this level of detail in the article? Does't one of the linked articles go into greater detail on debates among critical Biblical scholars about this? Don't other linked articles go into more detail on Christian beliefs? The Anchor Bible has critical commentary on each Gospel - and the amount of commentary is huge. We cannot possibly fit it all in one article. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:09, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

FYI - Herod was not just a name, but a title and a position. When one Herod died, another Herod replaced him. so yes, Herod died 9 years before the census. His replacement, also called Herod, was there for the census though. Hence no contradiction.Farsight001 (talk) 09:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Should we clarify that one is Herod the Great and the other Herod Antipas? Slrubenstein | Talk 12:09, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

If only to keep from confusing people, sure. Just one problem - I don't know which is which. >_< Farsight001 (talk) 06:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually "Herod" was a family surname, like "Ptolemy" or the "Tudor dynasty" or the "Rothschild family". History has recorded which Herod ruled where and when, and the Bible is quite clear which Herod was being referred to in the Gospel, so there was actually a very serious contradiction. Maybe you could look up the Herod dynasty in an encyclopedia? Wdford (talk) 08:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Surely, editors working on this page know the difference. Herod the Great was the first Herodian king, the one who came after the Hasmoneans. He is the king mentioned in Matthew 2:1-22. Antipas was his son and tetrarch of Galilee and mentioned in Matt. 14:1-6. The Herods refered to in Acts (by the way) are Agrippa I and Agrippa II, Herod's grandson and great-grandson. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

In fact, as far as I can tell, Herod the Great was the only Herodian "King" - his descendents held lesser titles, as you mention above. Wdford (talk) 18:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you are right! Worth double checking though. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

It's true that Matthew's and Luke's nativity accounts contradict each other on Jesus' birth year and other points. Since the reference to the census is Luke's invention by which he gets Jesus (from Galilee) to be born in Bethlehem (the city of David), historians don't credit it. Historians don't use the census as a marker for Jesus' birth year. Leadwind (talk) 22:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

• It is not clear to me why historians, who discount so much of the gospels, grant so much validity to the claim that the Herod in the nativity story was Herod the Great and not Herod Archelaus (who ruled from 4 BCE until 6 CE). With so much else associated with the nativity story rightly considered mythical (especially the star), are there not some historians who think the title used for Herod might have been mistakenly used some 70 years later or so?--JimWae (talk) 21:13, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
• I see Herod Archelaus died much later - 18 BCE -- and was deposed in 6 CE. Still, there is no claim that the nativity story came from directly his family, and many details could be confused together--JimWae (talk) 21:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
• I see Matthew 2:22 mentions Archelaus (But when Joseph heard that Archelaus was reigning in Judea in place of his father Herod, he was afraid to go there). Given that there is no agreement that Matthew had a single author, I still remain unconvinced that the gospels are enough to support any historical conclusion that Herod the Great was alive when Jesus was born. I know this is not the place to argue about this, but are there no historians who find the conclusion a weak one? --JimWae (talk) 23:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit to comply with the Manual of Style re reckoning years

Wikipedia:Manual of Style provides:

• • Years are numbered according to the western calendar eras based on the traditionally reckoned year of the conception or birth of Jesus.
    • AD and BC are the traditional ways of referring to these eras. However, CE and BCE are becoming more common in academic and some religious writing. No preference is given to either style.
      • Do not use CE or AD unless the date would be ambiguous without it. e.g. "The Norman Conquest took place in 1066." not 1066 CE or AD 1066.
      • BCE and CE or BC and AD are written in upper case, spaced, and without periods (full stops).
      • Use either the BC–AD or the BCE–CE notation, but not both in the same article. AD may appear before or after a year (AD 106, 106 AD); the other abbreviations appear after (106 CE, 3700 BCE, 3700 BC).
      • Do not change from one style to another unless there is substantial reason for the change, and consensus for the change with other editors.

[Emphasis added]

Using both reckoning notations is awkward and silly. If any article should have the BC style it is this one. Moreover, this article began with that style and should have retained it (per the second bolded portion from the Manual of Style). Mamalujo (talk) 23:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Please review the archives, and there surely is substantial reason to change (according to some at least. page after page after page of reasons). Furthermore, the MoS (first bolded point)'s intention was to make sure editors don't change back and forth between the different styles. It's intention was to maintain consistency in articles. I say that we are following the spirit of that due to our consistent use of the same notation (even if it is awkward). We are not switching back and forth between the two. Besides, a couple silly letters after years are not hurting anybody. There are much more serious issues to tackle (like bringing this article up to FA status). (and to play devil's advocate) If any article should have the CE style, it is this one because it is nonsense and a logical fallacy to say "Jesus was born 4 years before Christ". So what? Christ descended 4 years after Jesus was born, like adoptionism? Furthermore, arguments could be made that BCE is more neutral, and it is even more important to not take sides on the "Christ/divine" issue on religious articles. But again, those are just theoretical arguments.:P Being awkward and silly is fine with me if it keeps the peace, and we focus on more important content related matters. -Andrew c ^[talk] 00:42, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

And one more thing to think about. What do you care more about, the MoS, or promoting your preferred era notation? The MoS does not give preference to either AD or CE. So would you be willing to accept using only CE, for the sake of being in line with the MoS, or are you more interested in promoting AD? -Andrew c ^[talk] 00:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

It should stay with whatever it had first - which was probably BC/AD. Eraserhead1 (talk) 18:57, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

After reading the FAQ it seems its been agreed to leave it as-is, so I'll go with that and retract my point. Eraserhead1 (talk) 11:06, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Source for Jesus' birth incomplete

The source for Jesus' birth is labelled as "Sanders (1993)" which is incomplete - should this source be removed until a better/more complete source can be found? Eraserhead1 (talk) 18:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

After looking again at the article this applies to quite a few of the other sources too. Eraserhead1 (talk) 11:07, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

You are istaken. What you are looking at is an in-line citation. The complete informatiuon about the source is in the works cited section. This is a standard academic practice. Remember, Wikipedia's guidlines for sourcing have changed over the years. There was a nime when (like many encyclopedias) no sources were provided. Then there was a time when in-line (or Harvard) citation was dominant. Now another form of citation is dominant. But do not mistake two styles for sourcing as meaning that one is incomplete, the other complee. It sounds like you were just unfamiliar with how inline citations work. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:08, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I guess I just didn't realise how they worked. However if that's how they are going to be done they should all be done in that style, and there is a definitely a mix of styles of referencing in the article. Eraserhead1 (talk) 13:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I would say in this case, the Sanders citation IS incomplete, because it is likely not referring to the entire work, but instead a specific page (or set of pages). Even with the short hand, we should be including page numbers where ever possible. -Andrew c ^[talk] 13:51, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

You are right, the page numbers were missing, I added them in, p. 11 and page 249. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:34, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Eraserhead1 (talk) 18:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

No mention of Jesus' relation to the sun

Looking through this article, I was surprised to find absolutely no mention whatsoever that Jesus' birth, death, and ressurection all seem to coincide with the movement of the sun in northern hemisphere.

This seems like a hugely significant fact to have missing from the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.107.145.15 (talk) 16:23, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Is this theory published? If so, by whom, and is this view notable? If so, then we can easily add mention of this information, and cite our source, in accordance with basic Wikipedia policy. However, the way you present the material, it seems like "original research", which is forbidden here (see WP:NOR). Also, on Wikipedia talk pages, we "bottom post", meaning the newest messages go at the bottom of pages.-Andrew c ^[talk] 16:27, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Not sure 100% what you're refering too, however the christmas article does discuss the date of christmas and it's coinciding with the winter solstace. As to his death, gospel accounts date his death as immediately folowing the passover meal. Passover always occurs on the full moon. Not sure if there's something deeper you're thinking of.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:43, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

This theory is refered to by thomas paine and cyprian. Paine uses it to denounce christianity, while the Cyprian sees it as a sign of truth: "O, how wonderfully acted Providence that on that day on which that Sun was born...Christ should be born" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.111.196.157 (talk) 00:40, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

2nd paragraph issue

The second paragraph of this article needs revision. What is the point of referring to the "synoptic gospels" or the "canonical gospels"? This isn't a christian study text book. The names of the gospel's arent' that long to list. For example, instead of:

"The principal sources of information regarding Jesus' life and teachings are the four canonical gospels, especially the Synoptic Gospels"

It should read:

The principal sources of information regarding Jesus' life and teachings are the Gospels according to Matthew, Mark, and Luke (often referred to as the Synoptic Gospels) and the Gospel according to John, which together with the Synoptic Gospels, form the the four canonical Gospels of the Catholic Church. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.224.17.21 (talk) 18:52, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The gospel of John is not generally regarded as a source of historical information about Jesus. Leadwind (talk) 03:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I find it odd that the sole book that really gives us an accurate description of the Christ, the Bible, is not used more often in making an encyclopedia page about Him. Is this for neutrality's sake? How could recalling His personality and works be considered controversial? I think that the original Scriptures, the Dead Sea Scrolls, etc. should be used in describing Him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fernando93 (talk • contribs) 19:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Was Jesus christ a christian?

I don't want to come over like someone from a forum (which i am.). But i wonder if Jesus Christ was a Christian himself? On many pages of Wikipedia there is a place in the box that says Religion: Christian (Roman-Katholic/-//Protestant,), but Jesus was born a Jew and he never actually renounced his religion. So my question is was Christ a Christian or a Jew?

Gr. Neo-S.S.R.

--82.134.154.25 (talk) 02:50, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

The article talk-page is not for discussing issues related to what the article is talking about. The talk-page is meant for Wikipedians to discuss ways to improve this article. Please refrain from posting such questions here. Optakeover^(Talk) 02:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Your question points to a weakness of the article, the lack of source criticism. It is common among scolars in Biblical hermeneutics to assume that Jesus was a Jew. The New Testament has presented two incompatible lists of predecessors to prove it. It is however disputed. If being "Nazarene" means being Essene, or being of an earlier Christian sect, then local names of places he is connected to (besides Jerusalem) are Tyre and Sidon. Then he don't actually have to be a Jew. St.Trond (talk) 09:04, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Jesus was a Jew and his restoration movement was within the scope of Judaism (see E. P. Sanders, etc.). Doesn't the article already say as much? Leadwind (talk) 22:52, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I would like to point out that Christianity started out AFTER Jesus died and rose again. A Christian, per say, was a title use to mock the followers of Jesus: they were being called "little Christ", in the literal sense of the word. How then could one be a "Little Christ" when He was the Christ Himself? I do hope that this clarifies the point. Also, you misspelled "christ". It takes a capital "C".--Fernando93 (talk) 19:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

birth of jesus

why does it say jesus was born in 4 bc? wasnt he by definition born in 0?--99.237.222.73 (talk) 16:32, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Because they thought he was born in 0, but were off by 4 years :) Difu Wu (talk) 16:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Who's they? He had to be born in year zero.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• There is no year zero in the current calendric system. No associate nor near contemporary of Jesus ever bothered to write down what year it was that he was born or died or anything. (Many of the early Xns believed there were not many years left before the end of the world, anyway.) All the NT says is that Jesus was "about 30" when he started preaching, and that John the Baptist started preaching "in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar"; it also gives the names of other people in power at the time. About 500 years later, Dionysius Exiguus (who "invented" the present year-numbering system, which took several more centuries to "catch-on") tried to figure out how many years it had then been since Jesus was born. It took about 1,000 years before anyone realized Dionysius had apparently miscalculated the year Herod died by about 4 years, and we are stuck with that. See Jesus#Chronology--JimWae (talk) 22:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, never mind, the first year was year 1, but if Dionysius Exiguus created the system of years, how could he be "off"? Or how could anyone determine that he was off?--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 20:50, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

When assembling the timeline they used dates of things Herod constructed to figure out the date of Jesus' birth but were off by four years with one of the buildings they used to try and figure Jesus' date of birth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.82.92.236 (talk) 05:27, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I would like to point something out:

Has it actually been determined that Herod the Great died in 4 BC? I think not. Please read this excerpt:

"But modern scholarship has deepened our understanding of Josephus' manuscripts. A recent study was made of the earliest manuscripts of Josephus' writings held by the British Library in London, and the American Library of Congress. It revealed a surprise that allows us to target our mathematical telescopes better than could Kepler (10). It turns out that a copying error was a primary cause of the confusion about the date of Herod's death. A printer typesetting the manuscript of Josephus' Antiquities messed up in the year 1544. Every single Josephus manuscript in these libraries dating from before 1544 supports the inference that Herod passed in 1 BC. Excellent scholarship confirms that date (11). Knowing this, and since Herod died shortly after Christ's birth, our investigation turns to the skies of 3 and 2 BC."

http://www.bethlehemstar.net/stage/stage.htm#why

I suggest that readers would look to this website for more information. I have found all of his references to be quite valid. I am very surprised that no one has noticed that a more accurate date has been discovered, and no one has reported this. I strongly suggest that the content (His birth and death, most specifically) be put up to date, at least with the title of a theory, as displayed here.

--Fernando93 (talk) 19:20, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Using BC/BCE and AD/CE versus using BC/AD

Is there truly a valid reason for both notations to be used? Those who object to just BC/AD used on this article: please give a valid reason why. It seems to me (by looking through the talk page and archives) that nobody has a legitimate reason to have both notations on this page. Straight from WP:Mos: Use either the BC–AD or the BCE–CE notation, but not both in the same article. There is absolutely no reason to use the other notations, especially in this article (BC = Before Christ ... see the connection?) --ΙΧΘΥΣ (talk) 02:09, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Is it that time of the year again? Seriously, you did not look well enough. This has been debated over and over again, with, in the end, always consensus to maintain the status quo (or at least "no consensus to change the status quo"). Note that Jesus is not the Christ (i.e. the anointed/Messiah/King of the Jews) for many people. While "Christ" is used as a name by many, it actually is a religious claim, and one that is incompatible with many religions. There is a separate article on Christ. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:50, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. BC/AD should be used. Not doing so is particulary silly in this article. Mamalujo (talk) 00:52, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I normally chime in about this time and try to discourage people from arguing over some silly letters after years, and instead ask them to focus on improving actual article content, and trying to let this article reach FA status. If you want, you can read when I did that seven topics up ("Edit to comply with the Manual of Style re reckoning years"). If there honestly was consensus to use one notation, and we could agree on which one to use (since it honestly really doesn't matter a lick because the MoS shows no preference between the two), then I'd be entirely fine with that. It just seems like a polarizing controversy which no room for compromise (outside of what we already have). -Andrew c ^[talk] 00:58, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• Stephan, saying that "Jesus is not the Christ (i.e. the anointed/Messiah/King of the Jews) for many people. While "Christ" is used as a name by many, it actually is a religious claim, and one that is incompatible with many religions" does not give credence or reason to use both notations. BC/AD is used by MANY people that do not believe Jesus is the Christ. Andrew, my point for making this section was to find out what exactly the controversy is. BOTH NOTATIONS refer to the same exact calander -- why not use the one notation that at least mentions Christ? It seems absolutely pointless to use both (and, like I stated above, MoS prefers that ONE notation be used). I would like to here the valid reasons why some people are against using only BC/AD for this specific article. --ΙΧΘΥΣ (talk) 01:43, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

While many non-Christians have no problems with BC/AD, many others have, both some of the more fundamental Christians ("Thou shallst not use the name of THE LORD in vain") and among religious non-Christians. That is a good reason for me to avoid BC/AD. What I have not yet seen is any good argument against using just CE and BCE exclusively - it makes no religious claim and is entirely neutral in this sensitive article. I would prefer that to the current situation. Would you? But, again, we have been over this every year since the creation of Wikipedia, and, for some reason, have not come to any consensus. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:54, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• BCE/CE makes no religious claim? It refers to the exact same thing as BC/AD which is Christian calendar that revolves around the birth of Jesus. It is just as "entirely neutral in this article" as BC/AD. I have many arguments against using BCE/CE exclusively. One reason is that the BCE/CE notations are absolutely pointless; all it does is attempt to hide the fact that our calendar revolves around the birth of Jesus Christ. Should Wikipedia be trying to hide the facts? Should Wikipedia use a notation that actually tries to hide the HISTORICAL and FACTUAL reasons behind the BC/AD notation? Abolsutely not. This page (and every other page for that matter) should have the BC/AD notations exclusively. --ΙΧΘΥΣ (talk) 02:16, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree for various reasons you can find in the archives. But let's make your position clear. Do you prefer the status quo to CE/BCE only? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:11, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) As long as we are polling I prefer BCE/CE on all articles, so yes on this one. jbolden1517^Talk 12:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• Stephan, I would prefer both notations to be used rather than BCE/CE only. Also, I'd love to here your responses to the points I raised above. jbolden1517, would you mind giving reasons why you think that only BCE/CE should be used? It looks bad and goes against MoS to use both notations, so how about using only one? Then the question becomes: which one do we use? We should use BC/AD only because it more accurately describes the historical and factual aspects behind the calendar. Whether some people would like to admit it or not, the historical fact is that our calendar revolves around the birth of Jesus; so why not use the one notation (BC/AD) that references that more accurately, and is used a LOT more than the BCE/CE notations. The only reason that the BCE/CE notations came about is to attempt to hide the historical facts about our calendar. --ΙΧΘΥΣ (talk) 19:17, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

• Go here and you'll see that the BCE/BC consensus has been challenged a dozen times in this article's history, but after several straw polls and lengthy discussions, there has never been consensus to change it to either BC/AD or BCE/CE. With there being less involved editors on Wikipedia than ever, we definitely won't be sparking much discussion about it now. Let it die, please. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 20:36, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I find it encouraging that people care about this article, and that there is energy to discuss things here on talk. But at the same time, I'm a bit discouraged that it's about some stupid letters. Even if the battle is "won", we won't be any closer to reaching FA status. I wish there was something I could do to redirect this energy and care people have for the article, into actual content building, and working on actual article improvements! (was that a motivational speech? ha. )-Andrew c ^[talk] 23:10, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the previous post that the notation is not important, but I noticed that in the article the two notations are also used interchangeably, instead of both in the same time. Antipastor (talk) 13:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

That usually results from recently added material whereby the person who added it was not aware of the AD/CE compromise. You are welcome to change all instances of bare BCE or BC to BC/BCE, and all instances of bare CE or AD to AD/CE. — CIS ^(talk | stalk) 22:50, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe, it is better to leave them be as long as there's no edit war. It also shows how barely noticeable they are if not in the first sentence... Antipastor (talk) 05:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I am beginning to see how strongly people small details. I think we should leave well enough alone. - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:30, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Jesus Ethnicity

I would say Judaism is his religions and his ethnicity is something more specific, also is his ethnicity really important on the infobox. DWood 17:49, 7 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Repiceman89 (talk • contribs)

I agree, Judaism isn't appropriate for "Ethnicity" It should instead be "Middle-Eastern". Could someone with the proper authorization please change it? Once Upon a Spiked Birch (talk) 17:13, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Wrong. "Middle Eastern" is not an ethnic group, it is an area of the world. Moreover, it is anachronistic as no one in Jesus' time refered to that are as Middle Eastern. Jesus' ethnicity was Jewish. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

"Judaism" is a religion, and "Jewish is an ethnicity". So I concur with Slrubenstein. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 22:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Trustworthiness:Vendor reliability:Privacy:Child safety: Trustworthiness:Vendor reliability:Privacy:Child safety:

Existence

Well obviously people have mentioned the non-existence of Jesus before, but there is still a problem when there is no mention of it. If the topic has been mentioned enough times to have a place on the "FAQ" list, then why is there still no place in the article that mentions that there is supposedly a debate on whether or not a single man named Jesus Christ actually ever existed? This is the most important thing to include in the article, because anything else you could possibly mention will only be an extended elaboration on something every English-speaking human being is already aware of... whereas the point of reading parts of an encyclopedia is generally to learn something new.Rayvn (talk) 08:37, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Because of WP:WEIGHT and WP:FRINGE, that's why. Peter Deer (talk) 14:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, not to be short or rude, but have you read the article? see Jesus#Mythical view. We DO have a section on that view specifically. Not sure what your complaint is because there clearly is a place in the article that mentions that there is supposedly a debate on whether or not a single man named Jesus Christ actually ever existed. And you didn't even have to read the whole article to find it. It is clearly a section in the table of contents (not to mention footnote 11 in the lead).-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Besides, Jesus Christ existed. Don't worry Rayvn, we'll do our best to speak for you on Judgment Day. Not sure what we can get done though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.219.88.71 (talk) 17:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that's definently wikipedia-worthy... Nikandros (talk) 21:45, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe Nikandros's curt tone is appropriate for this comment. Please keep in mind that this is not a place for cutting comments or religious debate. Please keep your religion to yourself and the facts in the edit box. Thank you. Once Upon a Spiked Birch (talk) 17:17, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I am definitively with Ravyn, just read the unsigned threat regarding judgement day to understand why it is important that the fact that Jesus could very well be mythological should be presented. I do not believe it is FRINGE and it has not been given enough weight as the article currently stands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by IFeito (talk • contribs) 16:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

But since there is no direct evidence that this figure existed, and no contemporanious accounts of his "life", shouldn't the opening paragraph state that? I'm thinking of << The principal sources of information regarding Jesus' life and teachings are ...[11] >> Isn't it actually an ALLEGED life that's being discussed? I would think in the interest of accuracy that's something important to make clear up front.Codenamemary (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:24, 28 January 2010 (UTC).

Is this really how Jesus is presented in history books? In other encyclopedias? Even if your point may be valid in rhetoric, it isn't representative of the mainstream. We must follow our sources, and give due weight to views (and the mythist or ahistory view has been discussed in the past as being near fringe, and clearly minority). We should not allow unsourced hyperskepticism to color our article.-Andrew c ^[talk] 23:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your answer. I will start noticing how Jesus is referred to in other mainstream books, but, hardbound encyclopedias and textbooks/history books ARE developed, edited and marketed for the majority, and probably do not want to create controversy...while something free and current like Wikipedia seems to be in a different catagory, in a sense. It does not have to fear of "not selling" if it doesn't repeat a middle-of-the-road view, as earlier encyclopedias did. I don't know how my college history books from the 90's discussed him, but I think they were rather neutral, and did use the word "proported". But I will have to check. As far as how "history books" refer to Jesus Christ, I'd think it would depend on what the book is presenting a history OF. Again, thanks for the response. Codenamemary (talk) 23:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

"Alleged?" How silly? Are we talking about a guy accused od shop-lsting? Do we write "The alleged Homer?" At most we would say hat Homer is the name for a peson many believe to have authored ... But, at Wikipedia, everyhing is about view, not truth. Wenever make any flat claims. Einstien is the person believed to have discoverfedth thoery of relativity; March is the month most people believe to be third in the calendar - but we never stuff article filled with "believed" it would get overwrought. What is important is that some people do not believe Jesus ever existed - and thie view is clearly and explicitly shared in the article.Slrubenstein | Talk 23:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The point is, there is no independent evidence he ever existed apart from the bible. The Romans who have been pretty good with keeping records did not describe him at all. A group of people have believe based on this figure who try to make others see their point. However, with a neutral point of view there the statement that he existed cannot be made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nomen Nanne (talk • contribs) 20:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

True - there is no real historical evidence of his existence. The Bible is not a reliable source. - 109.121.200.5 (talk) 08:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I really don't mean to be rude, but those who doubt the historical existence of JC really don't know what they are talking about. The consensus among modern historians is overwhelmingly that he indeed did exist. And any historian who disagrees is definitely in a fringe area. So, before you respond to this comment, go read the Christ myth theory article. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 08:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Consensus among people doesn't automatically mean that something exists. Centuries ago, the overwhelming consensus was that the Earth was flat. Nowadays we know that this is not true. - 109.121.200.5 (talk) 09:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The only way the consensus can honestly change is if a bunch of new, and very strong, evidence to the contrary is discovered. Until that happens, the probability that he existed historically is very high. In fact, it's so high, that almost no reputable historian believes otherwise. I encourage you to read the Christ myth theory article. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, forgive me if I can't believe in the existence of a person, who hasn't been mentioned in any historic record. - 109.121.200.5 (talk) 06:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I forgive you.  :) Although you are entitled to your personal opinions, you are not entitled to insert them in a Wiki article and, as such, they are meaningless on the article's Talk page. My opinion, however, is that you are completely wrong.  :) See the Christ myth theory article for an in-depth analysis on the historicity of Jesus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill the Cat 7 (talk • contribs) 08:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd think it could be cleared up by simply acknowledging there's no evidence this person existed (yet still not ruling out the possibility) by addressing it somehow in the 1st or 2nd paragraph. It could be phrased along the lines of "Whether an actual, living person or a mythological figure, Jesus remains one of the major influences in human history." Or in the 2nd paragraph, somehow taking the word "life" out, as well as editing "principle sources"...as what other sources are there? (Perhaps "The sources of information regarding Jesus are the four canonical gospels...etc.") This seems more solid to me, as it covers both possibilities. Codenamemary (talk) 20:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Codenamemary, I think it's great that you're trying to find active solutions to put to rest what is obviously a contentious point regarding this article. However, I don't think your suggestion regarding everyone "simply acknowledging there's no evidence [that Jesus] existed" will work because there is plenty of evidence that Jesus did exist; there is an entire separate article on the matter at Historicity of Jesus. The majority view of the credentialed scholars in the respective fields of Biblical, Jewish, and Classical Studies are in agreement that Jesus was a historical figure as much as any other person from that time. Any treatment on the subject by this article to the contrary would be prohibitted by WP:WEIGHT. However, if you know of currently accepted scholarly works in this field that deny the existence of Jesus please feel free to link to them or refer to them.Jstanierm (talk) 20:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. Thank you. Codenamemary (talk) 22:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Improve Hindu

the hindu section of this page only deals with the Ramakrishna order of advaita hinduism - a prominent sect in the US, but hardly representative of hindu beliefs in general. can someone please globalize this? I don't have sufficient knowledge to do so. --Ludwigs2 01:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

The Character of Jesus Christ

I believe that the section of Jesus Christ's Character should include more information on His behavior during His time here. His behavior is a major importance for people seeking Him to know about and it will improve allot of people's behavior as well knowing that the bible teaches to imitate Jesus Christ.--Edwin A. Matos 09:36, 19 January 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4evrwithGod (talk • contribs)

People seeking religion should probably look elsewhere, this tries to be an encyclopaedia, not a church document. Schicchi (talk) 18:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Gospel of the Holy Twelve

This article is locked, some 'free' ecyclopedia this is.... Anyway, please fix the link in this sentence:

"Krishna Conscious people beleive Jesus taught basic forms of Karma, Reincarnation, and Vegetariaism as supported in the Gospel of the Holy Twelve"

82.173.52.101 (talk) 13:51, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

It's still locked. Please make a link for Gospel of the Holy Twelve. 82.173.52.101 (talk) 11:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, I highly recommend starting a Wikipedia account (I believe you need one to edit this article). Thanks again looking forward to more edits from you.Jstanierm (talk) 13:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Lead Section

The lead serves both as an introduction to the article and as a summary of the important aspects of the subject of the article.

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarise the most important points—including any notable controversies. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should usually be established in the first sentence.

While consideration should be given to creating interest in reading more of the article, the lead nonetheless should not "tease" the reader by hinting at—but not explaining—important facts that will appear later in the article. The lead should be short, containing no more than four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate, and should be written in a clear, accessible style to invite a reading of the full article.

This is easier said than done, therefore I welcome improvements to my attempt to to accomplish the aforementioned. - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:36, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Jim, I just looked through some of your edits. Great work on an emotion charged topic. - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Jesus in America

mormons believe that Christ came to the Americas after his resurrection, they also believe that Joseph Smith saw god and the son in 1820 after praying about witch church to join. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.4.191.21 (talk) 15:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Well there's an interesting nut to crack open there. The account from a scriptural standpoint is on equal footing with any other scriptural account, and has to be given equal weight. But, from a biographical standpoint, Jesus the actual person appearing in America is just not rationally possible. Everything biographically known about Jesus is that he was born and lived his entire life in the vicinity of the Middle East, possible side trips as far as India being speculative. Now, there have been stories of visions or hallucinations of Jesus all over the world, and there's no reason to believe that that appearance claimed in the Book of Mormon was an actual corporeal appearance by Jesus. It could have been someone pretending to be Jesus, or a mass hallucination, or it could just be that all texts said to be scripture are completely made up. Torquemama007 (talk) 20:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The WP:LEDE should highlight the lack of contemporaneous records.

I want to insert before para 2 in the lede that starts, "The principal sources of information regarding Jesus' life and teachings are the four canonical gospels, etc etc" with "There are no contemporaneous records (ref) from the time that Jesus was alive so the principle sources of information regarding Jesus' life and teachings are the four canonical gospels etc etc". Does anyone care for refs to support this ? If so then I think there are a reasonable number that would survive WP:RS, e.g. "The Biblical World vol.39 pp80 (1912) which is edited by Benjamin Rush Rhees. Ttiotsw (talk) 18:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The idea that Jesus never existed, if not WP:Fringe, is darn close. Today, few even among atheist/agnostic scholars hold such a position. As far as the documents not being contemporaneous, the earliest writings of Paul are perhaps as little as 16 years after the crucifixion - that's pretty contemporary for an historical figure who lived two millenia ago. The earliest gospel writings are only a few decades after that - written within the lifetime of witnesses to the events. Plainly, the proposed addition does not belong in the lede. Mamalujo (talk) 21:08, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I asked does anyone want to bother adding refs to support my new addition to the lede ?. If there are contemporaneous records then obviously that contradicts the ones that say that there are none, but I thought it was a given that there were none and that this needed no further elaboration. We need to highlight this as this is why the other later records are used. It is a significant point that explains very quickly the problems with Dating the Bible. I don't see the relevance of what you are going on about. The lack of contemporaneous records doesn't mean that the person didn't exist e.g. what records do we have of Alexander the Great and yet it would be WP:Fringe for you to consider that Alexander didn't exist ? Ttiotsw (talk) 14:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

The idea that Jesus never existed is not "darn close" to being fringe; it is definitely fringe (see Christ myth theory). Also, saying that "There are no contemporaneous records..." is false, mainly because contemporary is not a set period of time (like the word "decade" is). It could represent a time span of a few years or even a life time. Finally, all four gospels were written by either an eyewitness or by somebody who had access to eyewitnesses. To say that there were no records from when JC was alive is pointless. I mean, does it really matter that there were no records written about Socrates while he was alive? I don't think so. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Well that makes no sense at all. "Contemporaneous" to Jesus life doesn't mean any old record from any old timeframe. Look up the word in a dictionary. If you are in an employment review then you take "contemporaneous notes". You don't just write up your impressions much later when you plan disciplinary proceedings against an employee. Also it is not me that is saying this - my reference uses this same phrasing. Is there a problem with my reference ?. For Socrates we do have writings by his students and contemporaries. If this was the case with the Christ we wouldn't need to explain this as the record would be based on a more solid ground. It's not like there is little; there is none. It's not like there is none from Jesus himself; there are none from anyone at the time. Given the relative importance this is an essential point that helps establish why the later canonical documents are used. Ttiotsw (talk) 14:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

There are sources that were written by those who lived contemporaneously with Jesus and who were possibly eyewitnesses.

Matthew is believed to have been written in the latter part of the first century. Wikipedia notes that Mark was written circa 70. Luke is said to have been written as early as AD 37 to AD 61. These are all referenced dates from Wikipedia. Assuming Jesus died circa AD 33, then these biographies were easily written by someone who was at least contemporaneous with Jesus -- possibly an eyewitness or a disciple.

I don't really see what you're getting at... could you be more clear as to what it is that you are claiming exactly? Thanks!Jstanierm (talk) 17:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

As Jstanierm said, I too would like to ask you to be more clear. In the mean time, you say,

For Socrates we do have writings by his students and contemporaries...If this was the case with the Christ we wouldn't need to explain this as the record would be based on a more solid ground. It's not like there is little; there is none.

You are flat wrong. The author of the Gospel of John states clearly that the events described are eyewitness-based (c.f., John 21:24). Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 05:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Why not just say "The principal, and earliest, sources on Jesus' life are the canonical Gospels" or something like that (I know Paul is earlier, but he is nerally not writing about the life of Jesus). I would not oppose this if others support it, it merely adds the words. However, I would be opposed to adding any more words than that. In the lead, all that is important is naming the main sources. Explaining why they are the main sources, and issues in dating, can be developed in the bod of the article. The lead should provide the minimum amount of information necessary. let's not fetishize "contemporary;" contemporary documents are often unreliable, at least as unreliable as sources composed later, so the dating of the sources is not important enough for the lead to this article (of course, it would beong in the lead to an article on the Gospels!!) Slrubenstein | Talk 19:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the lede really needs any addition regarding the matter of this discussion, do you? Mamalujo (talk) 20:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The suggested "The principal, and earliest, sources on.." wording fails to highlight quickly that there are no records from the time. We're trying to make it understandable for people: as a group the canonical gospels are imprecisely dated and of uncertain authorship. They probably came from around the time after Jesus but the one thing that we can be certain of today is that there are no records at the time. As it's only a few words that helps clarify the timeline of the sources then I don't understand the objections as my question was if we needed to reference what I was suggesting. So far no one has commented on the reference at all. Ttiotsw (talk) 14:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

When you say "there are no records from the time" what do you mean exactly, and what is your source?Jstanierm (talk) 17:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Ttiotsw, do you mean to say that there are no surviving original documents? Also, who is the source and what exactly is he asserting (a short quote from the source should be enough for now)? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 05:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I was just offering a simple suggestiong. The fact is, I do not think this needs to be in the lead, and I think it can be covered economically later in the article. A great deal of history is not based on contemporary sources - and all historicans know that contemporary sources can be unreliable. Should we add that nugget to every article that covers a historical topic where scholarship is based on contemporary sources? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Removed Citation Needed Tag in "Life and teachings, as told in the Gospels"

Regarding the sentence,

They all characterize him as the miraculous Son of God.

There is no need for such a Citation Needed tag for unquestionable claims, since the sentence is not asserted the claim as a fact. If anyone disagrees, or if I'm mistaken about the intent, please discuss before adding the tag in again. Thank you. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 08:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You have to demonstrate with a source that it is almost unanimously agreed by reliable sources that all 4 gospels characterize him as the "Son of God" - especially if capitalized, but even if not--JimWae (talk) 09:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Note how little "Son of God" appears in Mark in this translation: http://www.biblegateway.com/keyword/index.php?search=son+of+god&searchtype=all&version1=72&spanbegin=1&spanend=73 - only the devil & the centurion mention it. The situation in Luke is similar --JimWae (talk) 09:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

No, you are mistaken. Obvious statements have no such requirement. Just do a search for "son of god" in your favorite online Bible and see for yourself. Page 8 of the link you provided above uses the phrase "Son of God", so I'm not sure what that was all about. I mean, what does it matter how many times the title is used as long as it is used at least once?

Also, regarding the use of a capital "S" in "Son" in the Bible, see Son of God. By the way, I removed your bullet points (the "*" character) and replaced them with tabs (the ":" character). Bullet points are not normally used for replies. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 10:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I already did the search & presented it to you! You said they "characterize him as the Son of God". It is not clear that a (deceitful) devil saying it twice (once as "if you are..") & the centurion saying it once constitutes an obvious characterization by the author(s) of Mark. Can you not find a source? Moreover, much of what that sentence says is already in that paragraph, and the rest could be said another way.--JimWae (talk) 10:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I also question the appropriateness of the topic of the entire sentence for a lede to a section entitled "Life and teachings, as told in the Gospels". It looks like one of those sentences that somebody sticks in because they wanted it to be "somewhere in the article"--JimWae (talk) 10:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Sir, I know that you did a search, and I DID follow the link. I just don't know what your point is. All four Gospels clearly apply the title Son of God to JC. For example:

• Matthew 16:16 - Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.”
• Mark 1:1 - The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, theSon of God.
• Luke 1:35 - The angel replied, “The Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Most High will overshadow you. Therefore the child to be born will be holy; he will be called the Son of God.
• John 3:18 - The one who believes in him is not condemned. The one who does not believe has been condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the one and only Son of God.

It should now be obvious that all four Gospels characterize JC as the "Son of God". Even the Wiki article Son of God says the same thing:

"Son of God" is a phrase which according to most Christian denominations refers to the relationship between Jesus and God, specifically as "God the Son".

If I'm not answering your objections at this point, then please state them more clearly. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 12:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

This sentence needs to go because it is, frankly, disingenuous. It's characteristic of carefully phrased statements that are intended to imply something without saying it directly. Yes, Jesus performs miracles in all the Gospels, so in that sense he is "miraculous". Yes, the phrase "son of God" is used. But these are entirely separate, and a quick look at the son of God article will show that the phase was hardly unknown and did not imply being a literal offspring. "They all characterize him as the miraculous Son of God" links separate claims as a single claim. Combining "miraculous" and "son of God" in this phraseology is clearly designed to imply that all the gospels explicitly assert that he was born through a divine miracle, and that's misleading. Bill the Cat keep highlighting the word "the" as though it's the same as "only". It isn't. "The son of God" need not mean that, nor imply any special miracle in his birth (indeed Paul's statements can easily read to imply adoptionism). Paul B (talk) 13:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey everybody, I was doing general cleanup on the article last night and encountered this sentence. At first it said that the Gospels "are the main sources for the Christian biography of Jesus' life as the miraculous Son of God." I changed it to say that the Gospels describe his life (period). And then a new sentence which states that they characterize him as this and that etc. I didn't look to the talk page, but I see the issues now.

Because the Gospels are the main sources for Jesus' biography, my edit last night should make the topic of discussion the new sentence: "They all characterize him as the miraculous Son of God."

I would suggest we change this sentence to say: "These Gospels characterize him as the Messiah: he performs miracles and is often described as having a very close relationship to the Jewish God -- the phrase "Son of God" is attributed at least once to Jesus in each Gospel."

Let me know if this new sentence is agreeable to everyone; and I want to remind you all to assume good faith. If something is obviously NPOV to you (or seems to be pushing an agenda) that doesn't mean it is obviously NPOV to the editor who wrote it (or that he had an agenda).Jstanierm (talk) 13:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to pipe in for Bill, check out WP:PSTS. We ask our editors to use care when using primary sources (such as the gospels), and that interpretations of those sources need to be cited to scholars. Since there is a dispute if this is a common characteristic of all 4 gospels, in the manner described, it may be best to simply find a secondary source which we could cite to support the claims, or (perhaps better yet) rephrase the sentence to avoid the more sticky issues, as Jstanierm has suggested. -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Jstanierm's suggestion works for me. And, now that I think about it, what "Son of God" (rather than "son of God") means should be sourced. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 14:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Jim and PaulB are quite right, the sentence must go. For one thing, as Geza Vermes points out, the Gospels have many ways of referring to Jesus. Moreover, no Gospel refers to Jesus as the Son of God capital S, the original Gospels don't have capital letters. This has special meaning to Christians, and singling out "son of God" of all the ways of refering to Jesus is also special to Christians. But it is not at all clear that this is what the authors of the Gospels meant. The point is that this is not an article on Christianity, it is an article on Jesus. We have a section for the Christian POV and I fully support emphasizing whatever Christians consider important in that section. But the account of the life of Jesus according to the Gospels should not favor any one POV. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Not to be picky or anything, but the Gospels (at least those written in Greek) had no lowercase letters. That is, everything was what we would now call uppercase. Your point is well-taken, however.

And FWIW, my original thought was that their was doubt that the exact phrase "SON OF GOD" was found in all four Gospels. As I noted above, the phrase is indeed found in all four. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey everybody, just a note -- The article in its current form is not what is being described at the top of this talking point. Since this talking point began there has been some consensus and quite a few edits in an attempt to create a more perfect article.

As it is now seems alright to me, but I do think that there could be a better arrangement of what is up now in order to flow better.

Also, its been pointed out that the original language doesn't really distinguish from capital letters, so whether or not the phrase "Son of God" is probably best left to whatever the convention is elsewhere in Wikipedia (or even better if a reference could be found discussing this element of the phrase we could cite that).Jstanierm (talk) 18:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

An editor wanted to remove a cited sentence wholesale, confirming my suspicions that what we had up did not quite flow right. I have completely reworked the section to make it much more logical in its progression. The section now states, essentially, that: The Gospels are the main source of Jesus' biography, the Gospels were not intended to be biographies so much as religious texts or apologetics, despite their religious intentions and supernatural elements modern critical scholars do use them and find them to be valuable worthy sources for Jesus' life.

I think this works much better. Let me know if I have overlooked something.Jstanierm (talk) 03:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't work for me. "the Gospels were not intended to be biographies" is an opinion of Sanders. As such, and assuming other modernist scholars agree; it should say that "most scholars......" or similar. ^rossnixon 01:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

You make a good point rossnixon. However, I don't think that the Gospels can't be both a biography as well as having a religious agenda. After all, in the Gospel of John, the agenda is spelled out clearly:

But these [miraculous signs] are recorded so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing you may have life in his name. (John 20:31)

Also, although Suetonius's book The Twelve Caesars is not intended, IMO, as complete biographies on those Caesars, they still have biographical information and thus be considered "biographies".

By the way, what is this Trustworthiness:Vendor reliability:Privacy:Child safety: that is appearing after each edit and "Show preview"? Wiki problem? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 01:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Jesus affirms that he is the Messiah before the Sanhedrin,[Mk. 14:53–65] the only time in the Gospel that he makes such a claim.[

The article states the following "Jesus affirms that he is the Messiah before the Sanhedrin,[Mk. 14:53–65] the only time in the Gospel that he makes such a claim."

Footnote [85] references Richard Harris as the source of this article's assertion that Jesus's claim that 'He is the Messiah' was made only before the Sanhedrin.

This statement in the article is false.

Jesus also directly affirms that "He is the Messiah" to "the Samaritan Women at the well" in John's Gospel, the Fourth Chapter.

Please see the following from the New King James Version of the Gospel of John (most specifically, verses 25 and 26):

John 4 (New King James Version)

John 4

A Samaritan Woman Meets Her Messiah

1 Therefore, when the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John 2 (though Jesus Himself did not baptize, but His disciples), 3 He left Judea and departed again to Galilee. 4 But He needed to go through Samaria. 5 So He came to a city of Samaria which is called Sychar, near the plot of ground that Jacob gave to his son Joseph. 6 Now Jacob’s well was there. Jesus therefore, being wearied from His journey, sat thus by the well. It was about the sixth hour. 7 A woman of Samaria came to draw water. Jesus said to her, “Give Me a drink.” 8 For His disciples had gone away into the city to buy food. 9 Then the woman of Samaria said to Him, “How is it that You, being a Jew, ask a drink from me, a Samaritan woman?” For Jews have no dealings with Samaritans. 10 Jesus answered and said to her, “If you knew the gift of God, and who it is who says to you, ‘Give Me a drink,’ you would have asked Him, and He would have given you living water.” 11 The woman said to Him, “Sir, You have nothing to draw with, and the well is deep. Where then do You get that living water? 12 Are You greater than our father Jacob, who gave us the well, and drank from it himself, as well as his sons and his livestock?” 13 Jesus answered and said to her, “Whoever drinks of this water will thirst again, 14 but whoever drinks of the water that I shall give him will never thirst. But the water that I shall give him will become in him a fountain of water springing up into everlasting life.” 15 The woman said to Him, “Sir, give me this water, that I may not thirst, nor come here to draw.” 16 Jesus said to her, “Go, call your husband, and come here.” 17 The woman answered and said, “I have no husband.” Jesus said to her, “You have well said, ‘I have no husband,’ 18 for you have had five husbands, and the one whom you now have is not your husband; in that you spoke truly.” 19 The woman said to Him, “Sir, I perceive that You are a prophet. 20 Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, and you Jews say that in Jerusalem is the place where one ought to worship.” 21 Jesus said to her, “Woman, believe Me, the hour is coming when you will neither on this mountain, nor in Jerusalem, worship the Father. 22 You worship what you do not know; we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews. 23 But the hour is coming, and now is, when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth; for the Father is seeking such to worship Him. 24 God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.” 25 The woman said to Him, “I know that Messiah is coming” (who is called Christ). “When He comes, He will tell us all things.” 26 Jesus said to her, “I who speak to you am He.”

Thank you for making the appropriate correction to "Jesus affirms that he is the Messiah before the Sanhedrin,[Mk. 14:53–65] the only time in the Gospel that he makes such a claim." in this article.

The Gospel of John, Chapter 4, verses 25 and 26 render this articles statement incorrect.

Kevin John Bradford Wilbur BA, Philosophy, College of William and Mary MA, Economics, Governor's Fellow, George Mason University. kjva2@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.196.247.164 (talk) 00:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Kierkegaard

The way Kierkegaard's objection to the "search for the historical Jesus" is worded, it is clear that he thinks the task is doomed to failure IF the aim is to find "Jesus Christ, the 2nd person of the Trinity". However, his comment has no relevance to finding out more about the historical person, Jesus of Nazareth - which is indeed the aim of many. --JimWae (talk) 01:01, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

There seem to be a number of barely relevant and wandering paragraphs that have wandered into the article. The sentences about K are both unneeded & irrelevant, and should be deleted. --JimWae (talk) 02:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

OK. I moved it to the Quest for the Historical Jesus page. Please let's keep pruning back the "barely relevant and wandering paragraphs." Leadwind (talk) 05:27, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

historical views, description

This section is thin and it should be meaty. It has a few important bits, such as why Jesus was executed, but it fails to give the reader an overall vision of who the historical Jesus was (according to historians):

Descriptions

Historians of Christianity generally describe Jesus as a healer who preached the restoration of God's kingdom[124] and agree he was baptized by John the Baptist and crucified by the Romans. Jewish and Roman authorities in Jerusalem were wary of Galilean patriots, many of whom advocated or launched violent resistance to Roman rule.[13] The gospels demonstrate that Jesus, a charismatic leader regarded as a potential troublemaker, was executed on political charges.[13]

John the Baptist led a large apocalyptic movement. He demanded repentance and baptism. Jesus was baptized and later began his ministry. After John was executed, some of his followers apparently took Jesus as their new leader.[125] Historians are nearly unanimous in accepting Jesus' baptism as a historical event.[125]

According to Robert Funk, Jesus taught in pithy parables and with striking images.[126] He likened the Kingdom of Heaven to small and lowly things, such as yeast or a mustard seed,[126] that have great effects. He used his sayings to elicit responses from the audience, engaging them in discussion.[14]

Jesus placed a special emphasis on God as one's heavenly father.[126]

This is where the article should recount the history of Jesus as historians reconstruct it. It should be called something like "Life and ministry." There's lots to say here. Leadwind (talk) 01:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Seeing no objections for a week, I've expanded this section. Leadwind (talk) 03:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

historical views, names and titles in the NT

Since the "Names and titles in the New Testament" material is New Testament content rather than historical-Jesus content, can it go in the Christian views section? Or can we make a "New Testament" section for the Gospel summary and this name & titles section? A New Testament section would allow us to describe Paul on Jesus, Jesus in Hebrews, Jesus in Revelation, etc. Leadwind (talk) 01:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Seeing no objections for a week, I've done it. Leadwind (talk) 03:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Date of Jesus' death

Since 33 AD is the date more commonly arrived at by several independant studies (see connected Wiki article "Chronology of Jesus"), it seems to me more than coherent to write "33" rather than "30" at the head of the article, otherwise Wikipedia lacks coherence: "which would favour 33 AD." "the year 33 AD as the accurate answer." "Using similar computations, in 1990 astronomer Bradley Schaefer arrived at the same date, Friday, April 3 33 AD." "A third method, using a completely different astronomical approach based on a lunar Crucifixion darkness and eclipse model (consistent with Apostle Peter's reference to a "moon of blood" in Acts 2:20) arrives at the same date, namely Friday April 3, AD 33." Any objection? Does everyone agree?--Little sawyer (talk) 22:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

"Circa 30" is accurate and roughly as precise as history allows us to be. The year 33 is more precise than we can justify. The astronomical estimates are beside the point. Most mainstream historians disregard them because they likewise disregard the miracles associated with Jesus' death. Leadwind (talk) 20:49, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Date of Jesus' birth

On the same note, most studies (again, see article "Chronology of Jesus") point out that Herod died in Feb. or spring 4 BC, meaning Jesus was born either in 6 or 5 BC. So it seems to me more logical and coherent to write "c.5 BC" at the head of the article rather than the "impossible" 4 BC. Any objection? Does everyone agree? --Little sawyer (talk) 22:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Just leave the date at 4BC. It is not possible to settle on a date with any certainty until (a big if) more ancient textual evidence is found. ^rossnixon 01:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

But this obviously contradicts both Wiki articles "Herod the Great": "died 4 BC ", and Wiki article "Chronology of Jesus", "Matthew describes King Herod as the ruler during the time of the Nativity, and Herod died in 4BC." Jesus has to be born in 5 or 6 BC, but not 4, and this is according to Wiki. Why should we leave such a contradiction??? Doesn't make sense to me.--Little sawyer (talk) 17:58, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

We used to give date ranges, but it was rather complex, and redundant with circa. (i.e. [1]) So that explains why, partially, exact dates were chosen. That said, we cannot use Wikipedia articles as source, as you suggest (it's against our guidelines). We can (and must), however, cite reliable sources to back up our content. Currently, we are citing a source for these dates (Sanders). Since it is entirely possible for someone to be born in the same year (but before) another person dies, I don't see how 4 BCE is impossible. If you think you have better sources, or evidence that our current source is wrong, or not representative, you can present new sources. That said, I just checked some books, and Meier and Thessian both prefer 30 as a year of death. Thessian says the year of birth is basically impossible to know, but gives the range 6/4 BCE. Meier similarly only mentions 7-4 BCE. So, I don't see any reason to change the year of death, but maybe changing birth to 5, as it is in the middle of the range, wouldn't be a bad idea (still curious what Sanders has to say, as I don't have access to that book).-Andrew c ^[talk] 19:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

....I definitely agree with you that 5 BC is a better approximation. --Little sawyer (talk) 19:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, if we stick to rounder numbers, it may not give the impression of false precision. Saying something is about 250 yeas old, connotes something different that saying something is about 244 years old. Similarly, c. 5 BCE - c. 30 CE seems more like round numbers, as opposed to the false precision of 4 BC - AD 33. Anyone with access to Sanders to see if he gives a good reason for sticking to 4 (instead of a range 6-4 or simply 5)?-Andrew c ^[talk] 21:00, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with both Lindwind and Andrew c that "circa" implies round numbers. --Little sawyer (talk) 20:24, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Sanders says c 4 BC to c AD 30. Vermes says "6/5 BC (?)" to "AD 30 (?)." If we said c 5 BC to c AD 30, we would be right on the money as far as these two leading experts are concerned. Leadwind (talk) 01:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

All right with me but I can't change the date myself. Can anyone change it please?--Little sawyer (talk) 20:21, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Yahshua-Yahshuah

See Talk:Yahshua#Merge regarding a proposal to merge the articles Yahshuah and Yahshua. --AuthorityTam (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Those articles are about names. This one is about a person. They shouldn't be merged. Leadwind (talk) 05:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Editors will note that the discussion at Talk:Yahshua#Merge never suggests that either Yahshuah or Yahshua be merged with Jesus.
--AuthorityTam (talk) 16:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

NPOV: Is Jesus Seminar the gold standard for Wikipedia lede? Only "some parts" of the NT are useful?

The lede says this:

Most critical scholars in biblical studies believe that some parts of the New Testament are useful for reconstructing Jesus' life

The first source cited is: Funk, Robert W.; Hoover, Roy W.; Jesus Seminar (1993). Introduction. New York: Maxwell Macmillan. pp. 1–30. ISBN 978-0-02-541949-0.

Is Jesus Seminar now the gold standard of reliability on Jesus? How about Jesus_Seminar#Criticism_of_the_Jesus_Seminar?

• the Jesus Seminar creates a Jesus who is separated from both his cultural setting and his followers;
• the voting system is seriously flawed;
• the criteria defining what constitutes red/pink/grey/black are inconsistent;
• it was an error to exclude apocalyptic messages from Jesus' ministry;
• the attempt to popularize Jesus research degraded the scholarly value of the effort;
• the conclusions largely represent the premises of the fellows, even though the seminar has warned themselves to "Beware of finding a Jesus entirely congenial to you";
• the Jesus Seminar is hypercritical of canonical accounts of Jesus, but unduly credulous and uncritical when it comes to relatively late extra-canonical accounts;
• only about 14 of the fellows are leading figures in New Testament scholarship; and
• the fellows do not represent a fair cross-section of viewpoints.

Why only some parts are useful, and not most? Why not all? And again why the Jesus Seminar?

The lede statement, as it is, is not neutral. Historyprofrd (talk) 01:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

While I can understand the motives behind your comment, I feel like it is a bit of an ad hominen or red herring argument. Do you have a competing source which contradicts what our sources say or are you just skeptical of the source because of it's association with the 'controversial' Jesus Seminar? It'd be helpful if you had a proposed change in mind, and a new source to back up the change. I'm not sure having a controversies section in a Wikipedia article is a reason alone to discount a source (though there may be more to your argument than that). You ask "why not all of the New Testament?" Well, only the gospels talk at Jesus' life (and there are only a couple very basic facts found in Paul, see Historicity of Jesus for more. Most of the epistles have very little to do with the historical Jesus, right? And then, this doesn't even get into the issue of historical reliability (how many sources are 100% historically reliable, especially classical sources or religious sources...) I think you may be reading a bit too much into the sentence, but perhaps we could rephrase it to avoid confusion (and I wouldn't mind finding another source, if you want, but I'm not sure if we really have reason enough, per WP:RS, to discount Funk). -Andrew c ^[talk] 01:50, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

In this case, the JS is saying what other contemporary scholars say, such as Harris, Vermes, and Sanders. The JS represents the mainstream minority when it rejects the apocalyptic speech attributed to Jesus, but otherwise it's in line with general scholarship. I agree with Andrew: If you have a source that disagrees with this sentence, please cite it. If you can get 15+ leading figures in NT scholarship to disagree with this sentence, even better! Leadwind (talk) 02:33, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

The Jesus Seminar is interesting for what they do: quest for the historical Jesus. Wikipedia is of course neutral to Jesus Seminar, but they are not anathema. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 07:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

remove "Nazarene" section

This section doesn't seem to have a good citation. It says "The Gospels record that Jesus was a Nazarene, a term commonly taken to refer to Nazareth, his boyhood home, but sometimes understood as a religious title.[135]" That citation, however, is earlier used to define the religious groups as four: pharisee, sadducee, essene, and zealot. My sources continually refer to these four groups and never suggest that "Nazarene" refers to a group. Since this section doesn't fit with the best sources, and the citation is questionable, how about we eliminate it.

Or else someone can actually provide a good citation for the idea that "Nazarene" might have meant a religious group. Leadwind (talk) 03:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Nazarene (sect), Notzrim and psossibly Mandaeism. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 07:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Reading the text you refer to, it seems the "reference" makes a synthesis. I think removing it is justified. Whether the Nazarenes were related to Notzrim is (I think) unknown. Whether the Notzrim, which might possibly be the originators of the Mandeans — they are alleged to name their elders "Nazorene" or something in that direction — are related to a hypothetical group that by hypothesis Jesus belonged to, is highly speculative. By the Bible he grew up in Nazareth, the connection to Nazarene or to Notzrim seems like a modern speculation. I think we shall not speculate in this connection and instead keep to dry citable conventional "wisdom". Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 11:31, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Since you agree that removing the reference is justified, I've removed it. Leadwind (talk) 06:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

remove "correction of religious heritage"

This section isn't really about Jesus' legacy, it's not clear what it's saying, and it has a weak, 30-year old source.

Correction of his religious heritage. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus preached six antitheses in the format "You have heard it was said...but I say unto you...."[Mt 5:21-48] Evelyn and Frank Stagg cited this as evidence that Jesus intended to correct his religious heritage.[213]

I figure we should just remove it. Or, if this section really is related to something noteworthy, can we figure out what we can say to be informative and useful to the reader? Leadwind (talk) 05:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Lacking any objection, I've removed the section. This article is pretty good, but questionable material sometimes gets added. Leadwind (talk) 06:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

relics?

Maybe the "Legacy" section could treat relics associated with Jesus. The Shroud of Turin is the most famous, but there are also slivers of the True Cross, the holy foreskin, the Holy Grail, the Spear of Destiny, etc. I know that most people today think that most or all of these things are silly, but it would sort of round out the Legacy section. Leadwind (talk) 05:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME DISCUSSION OF WHETHER JESUS WAS A JEW OR NOT! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.184.81.201 (talk) 14:58, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

He was a jew. I thought everybody knew that? 90.208.113.56 (talk) 13:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Not everyone agrees with that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.184.81.201 (talk) 12:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

This is not a chatroom. Please make comments directed to improving the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:12, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The view that Jesus was not Jew is held only by a tiny minority, not worth discussing here. Se WP:FRINGE. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:50, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Statement in "Life and teachings, as told in the Gospels"

The end of the opening paragraph in the above mentioned section seems to contain a sentence ("Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.") that is both out of place and lacking a source. This kind of statement seems to be a matter of opinion instead of a fact since the statement is not universally accepted by Christians. Mayofmay (talk) 19:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that to our attention. Looks like someone slipped that in on the 14th. Feel free to make bold edits yourself (I understand this article is semi-protected, so that only established users can edit. In a couple days, after you've made 10 edits, you will be "autoconfirmed" and able to edit semi-protected pages like this article). For the time being, I've gone ahread and removed the sentence. Thanks again, and welcome to Wikipedia. -Andrew c ^[talk] 22:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

As far as the first comment in this section goes. The book of John chapter 14 verse 6 states (new living translation) "Jesus told him "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me."" So there is a source for it. It may have been out of place, but it seems like an important statement and maybe should be added to the appropriate section.

Also, in the section about his death, there is a line that reads "He asks God to forgive those who are crucifying him, possibly the Romans and possibly the Jews." I believe he was praying for all of mankind when he said "Father, forgive them, for the don't know what they are doing" (new living translation, Luke 23:34) Also translated as "Father god, forgive them, for they know not what they do" It is because of the sins of all mankind that he was crucified, so while he was dying, he was praying for all of humanity as well as his executioners. I think that point of view should be pointed out as I have heard it from many different churches and ministers. —Preceding Chris H, AZ, No Wiki Profile comment added by 24.119.230.242 (talk) 04:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

See WP:PRIMARY. We should not be using the bible directly as a source, as it is open to interpretation, and because of WP:NOR, we cannot present your personal interpretation in the article. We must cite sources making these interpretations. That said, since you say many churches and ministers make these claims, it shouldn't be hard to track down a source and then attribute it. If you find a source, and come up with a new phrasing, I'd be glad to help you get the content back into the article. That said, one final note. Because of WP:NPOV, we cannot say stuff like "Jesus is God" or "Jesus is the truth and the way", because we are taking disputed statements and presenting them as facts. We'd need to qualify them with something like "Christians Church X believes Jesus is...." or "Scholar J. Q. Public states that Jesus is..." Get the idea? Anyway, if you have questions about that, or have sources, I'd be glad to assist you further. -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Pontius Pilate

Pontius Pilate did not order Jesus' execution. He found Jesus innocent, but the Sanhedrin made him take a vote from the general population. The people voted for him to be crucified.

Agreed. This is a complicated topic for several reasons, not the least of which is because it sometimes has the tendency to turn into an argument over whether Christianity is, by it's very nature, antisemitic. My understanding of the issue from the scholarly perspective is that the Gospel authors and their redactors have taken pains (to lesser and greater degrees) to specifically place blame for Jesus' crucifixion squarely on the Jews, because the major evangelical push of the gospels was to demonstrate the righteousness of proto-Christian theology over that of the Jews, who in the period subsequent to the destruction of the temple were Christianity's number one opponent for the hearts and minds of potential converts. By misrepresenting Jewish theology and portraying the Jews as vile, blood-thirsty hypocrites, the gospel authors (and their redactors) were waging a kind of negative political campaign against their theological opponents. The statement in Matthew 27:25 seems the most pronounced on the subject of placing blame on the Jews: "And all the people answered, "His blood be on us and on our children!" In my experience, the relatively "modern" attempt to blame Pilate for Jesus' crucifixion is an attempt to salvage early Christianity from the garbage heap of anti-Judaism (not necessarily anti-semitism). While we may consider such an effort morally upright, it's simply Biblical revisionism. It's clear that the gospels try to portray Pilate as attempting to release Jesus, and that he was, against his better judgment, persuaded by the angry Jewish mob (whom he supposedly feared might revolt) to crucify Jesus. Obviously, the historicity of this event is extremely suspect given the Barabbas element (for numerous reasons), but this article isn't specifically designed to address the historicity of the Jesus narrative in the New Testament documents. In my opinion, any references to Jesus' crucifixion in the article should be scoured over and edited for false attribution to Pilate. It's not our job to apologize for the anti-Jewish character of the New Testament, but rather to accurately represent what the documents demonstrably say.--Kglogauer (talk) 15:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

How does recent Bible scholarship, where there is in effect a consensus that Pilate made the decision, in any way exculpate the authors of the Gospel accounts from anti-Judaism?

First off, I think you're very confused about what I wrote above, and I would suggest that you reread my post. Secondly, you really need to sign your posts so that people can more accurately track the discussion and discern just who it is they're responding to. Thirdly, your comment that "there is in effect a consensus that Pilate made the decision [to crucify Jesus]" is not, insofar as I'm aware, born out by any contemporary scholarship (I noticed that you conveniently neglected to provide any references for this claim), nor is it born out by the gospel accounts of the Sanhedrin trial and public hearing before Pilate. The gospels are unambiguous on the point that Pilate, while being legally responsible for giving the order for Jesus' crucifixion, was doing so against his will and only to mollify the Jewish mob. It was the Jewish mob that pushed for Jesus' crucifixion, not Pilate. My point was that the push to make Pilate appear to be solely responsible for the crucifixion is a modern Christian apologetic attempt to make the gospels less anti-Jewish, and that this is nothing but pure Biblical revisionism. I never suggested that the gospel authors were "exculpated" or in any way absolved of the charge of being anti-Jewish; anti-Judaism was one of their guiding principles in composing the gospel narratives. Absolving them of this charge is exactly the revisionist move I'm arguing against. Again, reread my post.--Kglogauer (talk) 18:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

This article correctly summarizes what the reliable sources by notable historians say. It has nothing to do with attacking or defending Christianity. You decide for yourself how learning history might affect your personal beliefs. But this is not the place to voice them. Your proposal would not improve the article, it would just push your POV and violate NOR. Wikipedia is not a soapbox.

On the issue of trying to lay blame for the crucifixion squarely on Pilate, this article goes against the gospel tradition. It was the gospel authors' intentions to blame the Jews -- not Pilate -- for the crucifixion. I and the original, unsigned poster who began this section are in agreement on that fact. You can claim that there's no attempt to defend the gospels -- or more accurately, to salvage them from well-deserved charges of anti-Judaism -- but the attempt in the article to blame Pilate for the crucifixion is clearly a move toward revisionism. The rest of your comments seem, as far as I can tell, to betray the fact that you don't even understand the topic, as it seems that you think I'm a Christian apologist trying to defend "the one true faith", when I can assure you I'm not. My interest is fidelity to the documents, and the documents (i.e., the gospels) clearly place the moral culpability for Jesus' crucifixion on the Jews. According to the gospels, Pilate explicitly said he could find no guilt in Jesus and tried to release him, at which time the Jewish mob demanded his crucifixion, which Pilate took as a warning that they would rebel if he didn't respect their demand. Now obviously, the whole story reeks of fiction, since it's unlikely that a Roman prefect would cave in to the demands of the very people he was charged with ruling over, much less that he would release an anti-Roman Jewish rebel (Barabbas) instead of what he believed to be an innocent man (Jesus), but what we're discussing is what the gospels say, not whether the event is historically true. In point-of-fact, anyone who claims that we can determine anything historically about the event is simply lying through his or her teeth. All we have are the gospels, and as such, we are obliged to only present what they say, not what some armchair apologist claims is a historical "probability". The gospels clearly place the blame for the crucifixion on the Jews. Blaming Pilate (which the article currently does) is nothing but pure revisionism designed to hide the anti-Jewish tone of the New Testament documents.--Kglogauer (talk) 18:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Two things. First, what content are you discussing specifically. Quote what you find problematic in our article. Second, what sources do you have to back up your view? If we are already citing 'historians 'saying one thing, who on earth is making your claims (different 'historian')? We need to be able to attribute them to a reliable source, per basic Wikipedia policy. Thanks. -Andrew c ^[talk] 19:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The sentence I object to is the following statement made in the introduction:

Most critical scholars in biblical studies believe that some parts of the New Testament are useful for reconstructing Jesus' life, agreeing that Jesus was a Jew who was regarded as a teacher and healer, that he was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman Prefect of Judaea, Pontius Pilate, on the charge of sedition against the Roman Empire.

Now, in some sense, I would defend the author of this statement because I understand that there are some historians who have personal convictions that the statement about Pilate executing Jesus for "sedition against the Roman Empire" is an undisputed fact, but this exactly demonstrates the problem with Biblical studies. In truth, no honest historian can make such a claim, as it's sheer surmise. We have absolutely no historical evidence that Jesus was executed specifically by Pilate for sedition against Rome. The historians who claim that such a thing can even be known are simply floating a hypothesis that preserves -- against all odds -- their own personal inability to consider the possibility that the event may be a wholesale gospel fiction. It might be historically true (I don't want to get into the Christ-myth theory here), but we simply have no way, as of yet, of knowing. So: 1) When the article claims that we have good historical reason to believe that Pilate was responsible for executing Jesus, it's a misrepresentation of what we can even know, since all we can say we do know is that the gospels blame the Jews for his crucifixion (regardless of whether it actually occurred), and; 2) when the article claims that Jesus was executed specifically for "sedition against the Roman Empire," that's simply sheer surmise, and we have no historical documents to back it up. Including these kinds of pet theories is akin to positing that Jesus would "most likely have been married" or "most likely have worked as a carpenter," which are similar kinds of hypotheses that historians have tried to present as historical plausibilities, or worse yet, as historical facts. Let's just stick to the facts, and in the absence of any such facts (as is the case here), the best we can do is avoid speculation and simply state what the gospels claim happened. I'm not saying that historians aren't entitled to hypothesizing on such things, it's just that with a figure like Jesus, whose character is so encrusted with myth, historians are obligated to exercise serious caution when hypothesizing anything about them. In this case, such caution is being abandoned for the sake of preserving Jesus' historicity, which, I'm sorry to say, just simply can't be taken for granted.--Kglogauer (talk) 15:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

OH, you are taking issue with the sentence with 12 f'n references backing it up? A few years ago, a number of editors gathered as many of the leading sources on the historical Jesus and worked on coming up with a basic sentence that all cited sources (of historians and biblical scholars from different backgrounds) could all agree with. We came up with that basic sentence. Feel free to open any one of those 12 sources to confirm that the author agrees with those basic premises. We were unable to come up with any other details that they all agreed upon (well there might be some, but they are minor). While you may know better than scholars, and think their work is all speculation, you have no right to second guess reliable sources. What you are doing is called original research and is forbidden. Therefore, I again ask you to review the second part of my reply above. Where are YOUR sources? We can't cite your own personal pet theories, unfortunately ;) I mean, the sentence begins "Most critical scholars in biblical studies", so are you saying that this actually isn't the case? That only few "critical scholars in biblical studies" accept the crucifixion by Pilate for sedition? I see you don't like their conclusions, but other than personal disagreement, are you saying our sentence isn't true? This isn't what the 12 cited scholars believe? And again, do you have sourced to back up alternative views? -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll never agree with an editor who wants to change a cited sentence without offering RSs to back it up. Unfortunately, however, I'm going to have to say that this part of the sentence has long bothered me. The sentence barely addresses Jesus' life (e.g., no mention of having disciples or being an exorcist), then it spends a disproportionate number of words on identifying the Romans as his killers without ever mentioning the Jewish authorities who arrested him and handed him over to Pilate. It reads like a sentence meant to counter the ahistorical anti-Semitic theme in the Passion story that exonerated Pilate and blamed the Jews, but it goes too far. Instead I'd say "and was arrested by Jewish authorities as a troublemaker and crucified by the Romans." That said, this is a can of worms I'm willing to leave closed. Leadwind (talk) 17:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, what Leadwind said. Andrew, I completely understand your point about there being Biblical scholars who arrive at this conclusion and that that's usually the litmus test for what's allowable in a Wikipedia article. But what I'm saying is that the scholars who have signed on to this conclusion are -- without a doubt -- doing so in direct contravention of the historical method. That's why I mentioned that I think there's a fundamental problem with Biblical scholarship. As it is, the desire to uphold cherished beliefs has, for far too long, allowed untenable, ahistorical hypotheses to be perpetuated as demonstrable, historical facts. I could, for example, cite a dozen "Biblical scholars" (e.g., N.T. Wright, Ben Witherington III, William Lane Craig, etc.) who all believe that the miraculous conception and virgin birth of Jesus are indisputable historical facts. Obviously, however, the mere fact that some "Biblical scholars" can be found who support such claims does not make the claims, themselves, historical facts. My quip with the Pilate remarks in the introduction is that, no matter how many scholarly references we cite for such a claim, the claim is completely bogus unless demonstrated by actual evidence. Not a single one of those scholars can back up that claim any more than an exobiologist can back up the claim that "life probably exists elsewhere in our solar system". It might, but in the absence of any evidence, we simply can't dress up sheer surmise and parade it around as historical fact. Again, I stress that the remarks about Pilate should be edited to, instead, present the crucifixion as what it is: a claim made by the gospels, in which the blame is placed on the Jewish priests and scribes and/or the Jewish mob. That's all that can be definitively said about Jesus' crucifixion.--Kglogauer (talk) 17:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I think some of the cited scholars don't find the Jewish arrest plausible, while others do. Therefore, we kept that part of it out as it wasn't part of the consensus statement. They all agreed that Pilate was a historical figure, was the Roman official in power in that time and location, and had the authority to order a crucifixion (unlike the Jewish council), and thus ordered Jesus' execution for the charge of sedition, a quite common charge and practice of the times, regardless of Jewish involvement. To make a change, such as you propose, would require rechecking all the sources. And I'd be glad to assist since I own half those books and have university library access. But I'm almost positive there are some in the bunch that don't accept the Jewish part of the story, so it doesn't have business being in a consensus statement. But that omission, and the way we phrase it, may give a false impression that they all agree Rome, not 'Jews' are to blame. -Andrew c ^[talk] 17:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand that there are some scholars who don't find the Jewish arrest plausible (in fact, I agree with them, provided the basic story of Jesus' arrest and crucifixion is historical). But you can see the dilemma: They don't know that the Jews weren't responsible anymore than scholars who think the Jews were. As such, any speculation is simply that -- speculation. Again, I don't have a problem with historians speculating, but the article needs to limit "consensus" statements to only those things that can be reasonably demonstrated via the documented evidence, and the only documentation we have that addresses the issue of Jesus' trial and crucifixion is the gospels (which very clearly do not agree with the "consensus" argument in the article). Again, a simple statement about what the gospels claim was the nature of Jesus' arrest, trial, and crucifixion is far better than surmise about what might have happened, especially since the surmise in this case is, at least in part (if not entirety), largely the product of a revisionist attempt to salvage the early Christian writers from their anti-Jewish polemics.--Kglogauer (talk) 17:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

You write "but the article needs to limit "consensus" statements to only those things that can be reasonably demonstrated via the documented evidence." No. You are asking us to violate one of our core policies, NOR. We will never do that. If you want to suggest edits I suggest you first familiarize yourself at least with our core policies, NPOV, V, and NOR. Edits that violate policy will quickly be reverted. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

scholars who have signed on to this conclusion are -- without a doubt -- doing so in direct contravention of the historical method. That's why I mentioned that I think there's a fundamental problem with Biblical scholarship so we should use you as a citation for all this? User:Kglogauer knows more than the leading biblical scholars. Yah! We can preach the gospel of Kglogauer. I kid. But I hope you get my point. Wikipedia must follow the sources. If you don't like the sources, find competing sources. If none exist, then your pet theories don't belong in an encyclopedia article, even if they are True. Wikipedia is not about The Truth, but simple re-reporting what has already been published in reliable sources. Again, no matter how much you reason and use logic against our sources, we can't bring that into the article. It is against our policies. You need to find sources to back up your claims. Pretty please find sources! :) -Andrew c ^[talk] 19:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I think we need to take a moment and consider the absurdity of your request. In the trial and crucifixion of Jesus, we have an event that, for all we know, may be entirely fictional (and in fact, that's what a number of critical scholars think). In essence, you want me to refute the "it's all Pilate's fault" hypothesis by historically demonstrating the "it's all the Jews' fault" hypothesis. But, given that we have to agree that the story, in so far as we can historically demonstrate, must be treated as legend, it's not technically possible for me to counter the "it's all Pilate's fault" argument, since arguing that "it's all the Jews' fault" is every bit as historically undemonstrated. It's a Catch-22. Your preference is that we continue to perpetuate a historically undemonstrated claim -- "Jesus was crucified by Pontius Pilate for sedition against Rome" -- in the absence of references citing the opposite (i.e., that Jesus was crucified by the Jews for theological reasons). My point is, if we can't historically demonstrate either argument with actual evidence, the best we can do is limit our pronouncement to simply what the gospels claim, which is that Jesus was crucified at the behest of the Jews for theological reasons. The French Biblical scholar Charles Guignebert summed up this point in his book Jesus (page 465):

It does not seem rash to suppose, in view of this instructive glossing of the tradition between Mark and John in the direction of incriminating the Jews, that the earliest Christian records attributed all the responsibility for the death of Jesus to the Roman procurator. However this may be, it is at any rate impossible for us to know what happened on this point, and in particular we cannot find the true facts in Mark's account.

Robert M. Price, in his book The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man: How Reliable is the Gospel Tradition?, echoes Guignebert's declaration that it's impossible to definitively state who was historically to blame for the crucifixion, since it's not currently possible to determine if the event even actually happened:

Pilate was too much a part of the story for his role to be completely expunged, but he was made at least to have declared Jesus innocent. But either way, the trial before Pilate, with the Jewish rulers standing by, filled as it is with fatal implausibilities, must be a fiction ...

Surmising that we can state with any kind of historical confidence that Pilate crucified Jesus for sedition against Rome -- which goes completely against the only documents we actually have (namely, the gospels) -- is like Muslim scholars surmising that, contrary to what the Qur'an says, the buraq (the magical, flying, white donkey ridden by Muhammad) must have most likely been blue, since a blue flying donkey would be better camouflaged against clear Arabian skies. In both instances, we have a confederacy of dunces pontificating on "what it's really like on the other side of the rainbow," when no one can honestly claim to know. And let me stress: I'm not even going so far as to suggest that we have to treat the trial as most likely fictional (even though that would be the most academically honest thing to do). I'm simply saying that we have to moderate our statements and not fill the article with silly unverifiable claims, no matter how many "scholars" sign on to them.--Kglogauer (talk) 21:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you are confused. We aren't saying "Pilate killed Jesus. It's a true historical fact. Deal with it." We are simply saying Most critical scholars ... agree ... Jesus was ... crucified ... on the orders of ... Pontius Pilate... Nothing you have written has disputed that. Price (a fringe scholar at best) says that Pilate was so integral to the story that he couldn't be expunged. Price seems to support that Pilate had something to do with the cruficixion, no? As for Charles Guignebert, I'd have to see the context, but going back to 1935 to discredit modern scholarship? tsk tsk tsk

When I ask you to cite sources, I am not asking you to prove a negative, or prove the Jews were solely responsible or anything like that. You are making wild, outlandish claims that all our cited scholars are wrong, and their conclusions are every bit as historically undemonstrated and silly unverifiable claims. We can't take your word on things like this. We need citations, if you want to make article changes based on it. We don't have to verify things based on Kglogauer's standard. You don't get to be the judge of our sources. If something is notable by our guidelines, and verifiable by our guidelines, and attributed to reliable (by our guidelines) sources, then we can put it in the article. If we have conflicting sources, we show both sides (given weight and fringe considerations). At this point, I think we should consider a rephrasing of the content to make sure we aren't saying more than what our sources agree on (such as inadvertently implying that the Jews take no blame, or that Pilate is solely responsible). But without sourced disputing the basic notion that "most critical scholars agree Jesus was crucified under the orders of Pilate for sedition", I see no reason to go further in our editing.-Andrew c ^[talk] 22:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

"Most critical scholars ... agree ... Jesus was ... crucified ... on the orders of ... Pontius Pilate..." -- Andrew, can you explain to me how it is that these scholars are able to know such a thing? That's my objection -- they can't know. They're simply surmising. And for you to claim that Price is a "fringe" scholar only betrays your POV stance on the subject. He's usually maligned as such because he has suggested -- quite correctly -- that the gospels may be pure fiction. They may not be, but in the absence of any evidence confirming the extraordinary claims they contain, we can't honestly make definitive arguments about "absolutely knowing" anything about Jesus. It's the most honest statement anyone could make about New Testament studies. We simply don't know -- not you, not me, and not any of the scholars you guys cite in your Pilate statement. And as for Guignebert, why does his book being published in 1935 discredit it? Do you honestly claim that the documented evidence we have about early Christianity has significantly changed in the last 75 years? Do you honestly think that the twelve references you guys cite in support of the idea that Pilate crucified Jesus for sedition against Rome aren't based on a far older tradition espousing the same thing? Do you really think the scholars who support this claim have just recently arrived at this conclusion because of newly discovered documents? Is the applicability of Newtonian mechanics null and void now, too, simply because it was codified in the 17th Century?

How am I making a "wild, outlandish claim", when all I'm saying is that these scholars can't possibly have any evidence backing up their claim that Pontius Pilate crucified Jesus for sedition against the Roman Empire? How could they possibly know that? Do they have hitherto unknown Roman records that record this charge? If they don't -- if their only guide in making such a claim is surmise -- then we have no business respecting their "wild, outlandish" speculation by including it in a Wikipedia article.--Kglogauer (talk) 23:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

How many scholars agree with Price? Is he in the majority or minority? Is it a big minority, or a small minority? Can you name any other scholar with advanced degrees in biblical studies or Roman/Jewish history who agrees with him? Giving due weight is not a POV. Price is simply not the norm when it comes to critical biblical studies. I really don't think I'm mistaken about this.

It's pointless to get into an argument defending someone else's scholarship, since it will turn into a volley of my sources against yours. You are right, of course -- Price is in the minority -- but regardless of whether he's right or wrong, I think it's unfair to criticize him as a "fringe" scholar, since the connotation typically is that a "fringe scholar" not only holds a minority viewpoint, but also that their arguments are loony or unjustified. They're not -- Price simply states that we can't claim to definitively know anything about a historical Jesus, since the only documents we have are the myth-encrusted gospels. And I don't think I'm wrong on this. Among the 12 references cited for the passage we're disputing are Ben Witherington III and N.T. Wright, two of the most unapologetic Christian apologists who take the gospels as undisputed historical facts (including the miracle claims). I find it difficult to see how we can include these guys as reputable scholars -- "critical scholars", even! -- while Price (or Robert Eisenman, Burton Mack, Hyam MacCoby, and others who hold similar opinions on gospel historicity) are relegated to the fringe. Obviously, Biblical studies is, as a discipline, disproportionately occupied by individuals who approach the Bible with an a priori belief in its historicity, but that's exactly the "problem" with the discipline that I was referring to earlier. Biblical studies is a historical science, and as such, the "theories" posited by individuals can't be tested in the same way that, say, a physics theory can be. As a consequence, we end up with a situation in which every Bible College-educated apologist with a typewriter can flood the market with books that contain untestable hypotheses that do nothing other than comport with cherished Biblical beliefs, thereby skewing the scholarly consensus toward the fundamentalist end of the spectrum. That said, you're right: I can't win this argument, even if I am "right".--Kglogauer (talk) 17:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

What you seem to be wanting to do is use your personal knowledge that everyone is wrong to present your truth in this article. ALL WE CAN DO is repeat what the published sources say, and give the views due weight. If the majority believe something you find absolutely ridiculous, we still are obligated, by Wikipedia policy to present it as the majority view, regardless what you think of those ideas. We don't have to justify how these scholars reached their conclusions to you. I mean, I hate to be butting heads with you, but this is basic Wikipedia policy. I like a lot what Leadwind says at the bottom here. I want to encourage your work here on Wikipedia. But please understand. We cannot remove the claim which is backed up by sources that "most critical scholars agree Jesus was crucified under the orders of Pilate for sedition" based solely on your belief that you think they are wrong, or mistaken, or lack evidence, or don't follow the historical method to your personal criteria. Wikipedia is dumb. It repeats what is in published sources, uncritically. When you apply personal views, you are doing "original research" which is forbidden. -Andrew c ^[talk] 00:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, Andrew. I do understand your point, but I find it frustrating that we have included a scholarly pronouncement that is, on its very face, not in any way historically defensible. It seems to me that we as Wikipedia editors can and often do employ our better judgment when deciding what's a reasonable opinion to include in an article under the banner of "most critical scholars think..." From my perspective, we should be able to smell a rat and not hesitate to pass over scholarly opinions that do not meet the basic criteria for scientific or historic inquiry. Again, my point is that these guys who are claiming to know such things can't actually know them. Perhaps they're pandering to Christian audiences or to their own religious beliefs -- I don't know. But I do know that they are being intellectually dishonest when they claim to know such things, or to even claim that we have good reason to believe such things. They really are doing nothing more than deciding "what it's really like on the other side of the rainbow." I see your point about including "scholarly consensus" regardless of whether we agree with it -- in fact, I never disputed that concept. But I think we do exercise some judgment when it comes to extraordinary claims made by scholars. Regardless, I'll concede the point as far as the article goes.--Kglogauer (talk) 17:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

You miss the point entirely. The subject of the sentence you quote is, "Most critical scholars in Biblical Studies." No one claims that this is true about Jesus. We do claim that it is an accurate account of what "most critical Bible scholars" claim. So yes, I have to tell you, it does matter "how many scholars sign on" to this claim. In fact, this is the only thing that matters. You yourself quoted the sentence, so you know very well that the sentence makes no claims about how Jesus died, it makes claims only about what critical Bible scholars believe.

You know, we also have this in our article: "Christians traditionally believe that Jesus was born of a virgin,[31]:529-532 performed miracles,[31]:358-359 founded the Church, rose from the dead, and ascended into Heaven ... " Now, Kglogauer, why have you not asked us to delete this from the article, given how silly it is to think a virgin could give birth, or that a corpse could rise from the dead. Why haven't you challenged this sentence? You mock AndrewC for asking you merely to follow our policies. In fact, we apply the same policy to all claims. You just wish us not to, when it comes to claims you do not believe in. That makes you a "POV-pusher." AndrewC is just being a ... wikipedian. I think this discussion is over. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Because that is, in fact, what Christians traditionally believe. There's no comment on whether the virgin birth, etc., are historical truths supported by scholarly study. If, however, you were to state that scholars believed that there was evidence that supported the idea that these things really happened, I would have a problem with that, since scholars clearly don't have evidence supporting such claims.

The above comment only betrays how apologetically entrenched articles like this one are. I'm merely asking that we respect the historical method and not include undemonstrated historical claims, and yet I'm the "POV-pusher"? Furthermore, the idea that the introduction is merely stating what "most critical scholars believe" without any connotation that that's the most likely historical truth is, on it's face, absurd. If you weren't trying to convince people that these opinions were the truth, why would you bother lending them the credibility of scholarly attribution? It's also interesting how you and Andrew keep talking about "our article", as if some secret council, to which you belong, should be the sole arbiter of what is allowed in the article. This is not in the best tradition of encyclopedic information, and if anyone is guilty of pushing thematic POV, it's you, not me.--Kglogauer (talk) 23:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Um, the introduction is simply presnting hat critical scholars believe because ... it says this is what critical scholars believe. Obviously "we" (which I use because you keep saying "we." Since you are not one person I thought you meant "editors of Wikipedia" which is what I mean. If you see some secret council, all I can say is, dude, you are hallucinating again) are not trying to convince people that these opinions ar the truth, becuase we then say this: "Christians predominantly believe that Jesus is the "Son of God" (generally meaning that he is God the Son, the second person in the Trinity) who came to provide salvation and reconciliation with God by his death for their sins." Now, it should be OBVIOUS to you that what we are trying to do is spread the Good Word and save more souls by bringing them to accept Christ as their personal savior. If you note the wording of this part of our article you see we CLEARLY refer to GOD. There is NO greater authority than GOD. Do you really think scholarly attribution has more authority than GOD? All human scholars are fallible. All human scholars admit they are fallible. Even Einstein admitted that his work could be proven wrong. Or are you saying GOD is fallible? Listen Mr. skeptic: GOD by definition is INFALLIBLE. Scholars can argue or speculate, but only GOD is omniscient and thus THE TRUTH. If it is authority you are looking for, I really urge you to accept the grace of GOD and GOD'S TRUTH. If you don't, you could go to hell. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Kg, there are plenty of religion-themed articles on WP that really need the help of a skeptic with reliable sources. This article isn't one of them because it's already been pretty well vetted by good editors with good books and good WP practice. Many of the less visible articles, however, rely heavily on the Bible or on the 100-year old Catholic Encyclopedia. If this experience is frustrating, there are plenty of articles where you could actually spend more time improving the content and less time contending with well-established editors. Leadwind (talk) 00:13, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, you had me ROFLMAO with that last comment.  :) KG doesn't realize that most of us here are "one with the body".  :) (That's a Star Trek TOS reference for those non-Trekies out there.)

Concept of salvation (citation)

"Jesus' teachings that religious works are unnecessary.[209][Need quotation on talk to verify]" Could the Bible verse Ephesians 2:8-9 be used instead of the current citation? Ephesians 2:8-9 (King James Version) 8.For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9.Not of works, lest any man should boast.Sydtrolls (talk) 19:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)sydtrolls

We generally don't allow primary sources to be used like that. We'd need at least to cite a secondary source (preferably a contemporary, notable, reliable scholar in the field) to back up this material. -Andrew c ^[talk] 01:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, the letter to the Ephesians is ascribed to Paul, not Jesus; thus it can't really be used as evidence of Jesus' teachings.Eulogius2 (talk) 04:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Jesus as God

A statement from the intro that "Scholars offer competing descriptions of Jesus as...God" was removed recently. The claim was that this applied to "Christ" not "Jesus" and that we cannot take sides on whether they were the same.

We are not taking sides by making this claim. Scholars have indeed offered descriptions of Jesus as God, and also that Jesus and Christ were the same person (hint, it's a majority view among Christians). It is something that is frequently claimed, by scholars as well as others, and we should record it. Remember we are not saying it's true, we are just saying that scholars say it. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think my real problem is this: the paragraph begins as a paragraph about what critical scholars believe. In the introduction, in general, different points of view are given different paragraphs. I think that this paragraph should be restricted to what critical scholars believe. I do not see any reason why the beliefs of Christian scholars should be in the same paragraph as the the beliefs of critical scholars, when there is another entire paragraph describing Christian beliefs. At the ver least it is redundant and it is deceptive, as some readers may think that this is one belief held by some critical scholars. I think the views of Christian scholars fall under the general category of what Christians believe. I do not know when someone slipped the views of Raymond E. Brown into this paragraph - I have no problem including his views but under Christian views. Take away his view, and the claim about God, i.e. the two Christian views, and wat is left is indeed what various critical scholars have suggested. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Our trouble here is that our intro appears to divide the world into two groups: "Christians" who believe Jesus is God and "critical scholars" who don't. Whatever the merits this creates the impression that all 'scholars' are on one side and 'Christians' on the other.

But to back up, what exactly do we mean by 'critical scholars" here? Do we mean scholars of textual criticism? Or scholars critical of Christianity? Or scholars in general (using 'critical' in the sense of theatre critics) If the first, then I don't think that scholars of textual criticism deserve their own paragraph - they are a pretty small group. If the second then we are crediting the critics of Christianity with the title 'scholars', ignoring the scholars who have come down on the side of Christianity. If the third then some 'critical scholars' clearly believe in Jesus as God. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

By critical scholars, we mean scholars of both the lower and higher criticism. It does not matter whether this is a large or a small group; their view is significant and therefore merits inclusion. As to your second point, we should not sugest that there are no Christian scholars. But what do you want to do? Have a paragraph that says "Christians, including Christian scholars ...?" Or Do we wish to have a etence on debates among Christian scholars, at the bottom of the paragfaph on Christianity? I would not oject to that. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Currently the structure of the introduction is as follows: (1) general introduction, stating Jesus' importance (2) canonical Gospels are the principal sources for his life (3) the views of critical scholars (with the exception of the last line), (4) the views of Christians and (5) the views of Muslims. It is only the last sentence of the third paragraph that does not fit easily into this structure, but this can easily be corrected. I plan on moving the views of Christian scholars from the third paragraph to the fourth. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I wish I had the time to devote to this debate right now, but I don't. I'm going to have to leave it to others. Sorry to stir things up and not follow through. I'll have to defer to others opinion. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

competing descriptions

This sentence in the lede could be better:

"Critical scholars offer competing descriptions of Jesus as a self-described Messiah, as the leader of an apocalyptic movement, as an itinerant sage, as a charismatic healer, and as the founder of an independent religious movement."

It's true that there are scholars outside the mainstream and that within mainstream scholarship there's a split about whether Jesus' eschatology was apocalyptic, but there's more agreement than this sentence suggests. The reader deserves a clear statement of the mainstream view, something like: "Most contemporary scholars of the historical Jesus consider him to have been an autonomous, charismatic founder of a Jewish restoration movement, anticipating an imminent apocalypse." This view squares with Vermes, Sanders, and Theissen. We should expand on the divergent views in the body, and for the lede we could add something like: "Other prominent scholars, however, contend that Jesus' "Kingdom of God" meant radical personal and social transformation instead of a future apocalypse." Crossan is the most important representative of this view. The idea that Jesus claimed to be the Messiah gets little play in contemporary secular scholarship, but we could deal with this idea in the body of the text. James Tabor seems to take this view. Leadwind (talk) 17:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Leadwind, I think that the existing sentences in the second paragraph are good. I think what you propose is good too. So, with very minor changes, I have added both sentences to the article. However, given (1) the real research you did to support eachsentence and (2) the chance for contention here, would you mind adding citations to the new sentences? I trust that you have them handy. Thanks. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Christ Myth Theory (CMT)

Ifeito, the "Christ Myth Theory" is pseudo-history, fringe, and is flatly rejected by modern historians as such. See the wiki article Christ myth theory, where it says:

The Christ myth theory is essentially without supporters in modern academic circles,[3] biblical scholars and classical historians being highly dismissive of it,[4] viewing it as pseudo-scholarship[5] and some comparing the theory's methodological basis with that of flat-earthism,[6] Holocaust denial[7] and moon landing skepticism.[8]

Also:

As Mark Allan Powell, the chairman of the Historical Jesus Section of the Society of Biblical Literature, has stated, "A hundred and fifty years ago a fairly well respected scholar named Bruno Bauer maintained that the historical person Jesus never existed. Anyone who says that today—in the academic world at least—gets grouped with the skinheads who say there was no Holocaust and the scientific holdouts who want to believe the world is flat."[136]

Therefore, a statement saying that he is a "mythological figure" does not belong in the lead or the body of the Jesus article. Perhaps you can add it to the "See also" section, which is what is done with the Apollo moon landing hoax in the Apollo program article. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you find it amusing to discredit a theory which has been presented in serious works since the XIX Century. However there HAVE BEEN scholars presenting it and it deserves a mention in the introductory paragraph of this article. I believe you have broken the three revert rule without reaching a conclusion here. I will revert it and I request that you DO NOT revert it until you prove that NO AUTHORS have presented it seriously. Schicchi (talk) 01:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

First, I have not broken the 3RR (just check the history). Second, I don't have the authority to discredit the theory any more than you have the authority to promote it. Modern scholars have already discredited it as pseudo-history, fringe, and akin to Holocaust denial, the so-called moon landing hoax, and flat earthism (did you even bother to read the quotes I gave above???). Also, see FAQ #2 here. If you pursue your POV pushing any further, we'll both be meeting again on the Admin noticeboard. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 07:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

IFeito, you do not understand Wikipedia policy. Many people have published books saying that God created all the forms of life on earth. But we do not mention them in the first paragraph of the evolution article because they are fringe science or pseudoscience or simply not science. The fact that some people have claimed that Jesus never existed (the proponents of the "Jesus myth" school seem to be using myth to mean non-existent, although this is not how scholars use the term "myth") is irellevant. Their views are simply not significant among legitimate scholars. This article in fact has a section covering the view, because we do not just provide scholarly views, we also provide dogmatic views such as those of the Catholic Church, for example. But this view is fringe by any standard and should not be in the introduction. This is something people who have made serious contributions here (i.e. based on serious research) have discussed at length. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

And yet outside of the bible which has no first hand accounts of Jesus, being stories written at least decades later, we have no trustworthy accounts of Jesus at all (193.248.94.202 (talk) 19:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC))

Jesus was a Judean

In the Bible, a person who was an inhabitant of the Roman Province of Judea was known as a Jew and the religion of these people was Judaism. Jesus was born in Bethlehem which was in the territory of the Roman Province of Judea. Jesus' ethniticity is not known and Jew did not refer to ethniticity in the Bible (this is a 20th century occurence). It either refered to a citizen of Roman Judea or a believer of Judaism. --Jfrascencio (talk) 06:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Jesus was from Galilee, which was outside Judea Province. The whole situation is complex, and at the very least we'd need a majority of cited, reliable sources to state he was Judean, which I highly doubt is the case, because I believe historians are in consensus he was Galilean (I'd gladly pull out Meier and Ehrman to double check). However, that said, your comments about listing "Ethnicity" as "Jewish" may be apt. Can you back up your assertions with sources? -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

That's correct in regards to his parents being from Galilee, but Jesus being born in Bethlehem (Judea). What I was referring to was references to him being a Jew in the Gospel books and if it is correct to conclude this referred to ethnicity versus being from or an inhabitant of Judea, such as "King of the Jews" ("King of the Judeans"). Also, John 4:9 [The Samaritan woman said to Jesus, "You are a Jew and I am a Samaritan woman. How can you ask me for a drink?"]. He was also referred to as a Samaritan: John 8:48-49 [The Jews answered Jesus, "Aren't we right in saying that you are a Samaritan and demon-possessed?"] Mark 14:70 [Again Peter denied it. After a little while, those standing near said to Peter, "Surely you are one of them, for you are a Galilean."] I'm leaving the article as is and will be seeing what I could find in regards to sources. --Jfrascencio (talk) 03:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

While the Roman definition of "Jew" may have been "an inhabitant of the Roman Province of Judea", I'm afraid, with all due respect to Jfrascencio, that was not the definition used in the Bible. Firstly many parts of the Bible were written before the Roman Empire existed. But even if we restrict ourselves to the New Testament (all written after the establishment of the Roman Empire) we find the word "Jew" used in a context where it clearly doesn't mean that. Much of the Book of Acts refers to Jews who live in places a long way from Judea (19:17 , 24:19 and 28:17 are merely three examples among many). Who is a Jew will give you an idea of how Jews have regarded themselves over many centuries, and it's been based to a large extend on inheritance (i.e. ethnicity) for many centuries. It is inconceivable that a Jew in the first century would have considered themselves no longer Jewish just because they moved to a different province. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the reference to "Jew" does not appear in the Old Testament until the book of Ezra. This is after the Kingdom of Israel is divided into 2 (a Northern Kingdom of Israel -10 tribes and a Southern Kingdom of Judah - 2 tribes Benjamin & Judah) because of conflict among the descendants of Jacob/Israel (the Israelites). Then the Northern Kingdom of Israel is conquered by the Assyrians. Then later, the Southern Kingdom of Judah is conquered by Babylonians and this is when reference to Jews begins to be first used in the book of Ezra and using context Jew appears to mean someone from the Kingdom of Judah. There were many people from Judah (the predecessor to Judea) taken into captivity in Babylon and they were referred to as Jews. It appears to be in reference to place of origin because despite being in the land of the Babylonians or the Persians they were referred to as Jews (In the case of Daniel and the Book of Daniel, he is only referred to only as being from Judah). John 11:7 [Then he said to his disciples, "Let us go back to Judea."] John 11:8 ["But Rabbi," they said, "a short while ago the Jews tried to stone you, and yet you are going back there?"] --Jfrascencio (talk) 00:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

No need for original research, Shaye JD Cohen (the leading historian on this time period) has a whole book on how Jewish identity took shape. During the Hasmonean period through the reain of the Herodians, "Judean" slowly but clearly changed from meaning a resident ot Judah (regardless of ancestry) to a Jew (regardless of shere s/he lives). All major historians believe Jesus was born in the Galilee; everyone agrees he grew up there and was culturally a Galilean. Everyone also agrees that he was an ethnic Jew. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Paul

While it is accepted that the gospels were written decades, even maybe a century after Jesus, for some reason, the letters of Paul are said to be mid-first century onwards (see article) but we have no evidence of this. The earliest writings we have of Paul is P46 manuscript, from about 200 AD. While we have many copies of the letters attributed to Paul, there are many variant readings to the point that there is probably not a single verse in the letters of Paul that have the same wording in all surviving manuscripts. There is also the point that christians were not persecuted till mid-third century, which casts doubt on the Saul story.(193.248.94.202 (talk) 19:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC))

You may like to read Pauline Epistles which presents a more widely accepted view of the dating of Paul's writing. You may also be confusing local jewish persecution with widespread Roman persecution. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)...

Most historians accept some of Paul's epistles as authentic (written by Paul), and also use Acts, critically, as a source for that time. But Paul is a source for the history of early Christianity, not Jesus, as he never met Jesus (in the flesh). Most historians also agree that Jewish authorities were critical of any Jew preaching the restoration of the Kingdom, which was a direct threat against Roman authority. But when paul talks o persecuting Christians, he means he was persecuting another sect of Jews - not a group of non-Jews. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

How was Paul alive a century after the gospels were written? After all the Gospels were written after the Death, Burial, and Resurrection of Jesus. Paul must have been alive years (maybe a decade or two) after. He had met some of the original Apostles, as some of his books stated. Earlier Christians, such as those that were persecuted, were not quite "Christian" yet. At that time it was a new religion (albeit a from a split in Judaism). Many times in history have religions been persecuted after inception. Halofanatic333 (talk) 11:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

CoI

It should be noted that there is little contemporary evidence that was not from a viewpoint that is in direct conflict of interest regarding many major events of the life of Jesus. Impartial evidence should be distinguished clearly as to not mislead readers. "ex scientia vera", as they say. Slaja (talk) 04:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Quite Confused - Article needs clean up!

There are so many talk pages that I did not know where to make my points, hence I'm posting them here.

We are constantly told that 'Encyclopedic content must be verifiable'. So when there's discussion on any personality, it must be clear to the first time reader on the subject, if the person is real or fictional. This is not clear at all in the "Jesus" article.

If the person were real, then the start point should be.. 1. His given name, as he was called and known when he was alive, in the language of the region. 2. There should be no ambiguity regarding his existence. 3. The sources that cite his existence, should be available for verification and must not have been 'doctored'or edited in the first place. 4. Independent verification from other independent sources should be possible.

When this rigor cannot be employed to satisfaction, then the personality under discussion cannot be cited to be historical and is clearly fictional or mythological at best.

If the person is deemed to be mythological, then once again that must come out in the way the article is presented and the tone therein, instead of any allusions to the contrary. When that indeed happens and creeps in during the course of various edits, then it needs to be cleaned up and rectified.

It makes little sense in getting the sense about a person, in an encyclopedia of all things, as J - the Myth, J- the Religious figure, J- the Historical figure, etc as if these are 3 different entities. History is fact. It need not necessarily be borne out with accurate dates. Myth, however can be documented in books and can be passed on as fact, but that would not make it factual. Myths can also be set in a particular time and period, but that would not make them factual and real.

Accepting this without emotion, in an academic enterprise such as the wiki, is key to bringing about credibility.

I would like all people who are associated with this article, to employ wiki's insistence on verifiability and employ such rigor to all sources, even the so called "primary sources".

IMO, the article needs a major clean up and a presentation of truth to the reader... TheOnlyEmperor (talk) 09:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi. (1) Verifiable content is the opposite of what you suggested. Verifiable content is that backed up by reliable sources, your suggestion here seems to undercut it with your own personal criteria. (2) Mainstream scholarship has no doubt about the historical existence of Jesus, your personal opinion to the contrary is of little weight. (3) For a focus on historical approaches to Jesus see the Historical Jesus. --Ari (talk) 10:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Verification and reliability mean different things and I presume I don't have to explain that further. Reliable content is different from reliable source. A reliable source doesn't necessarily mean reliable content emanates from it. All content therefore will have to stand on its own merit of inspection.

When presenting information in an encyclopedia, there's nothing such as "mainstream scholarship", particularly when such scholarship, in this context, was cultivated for many centuries under the pain of death to stem out other opinion and to eradicate all evidence which may destroy the foundations of "mainstream scholarship". Little has changed in the 21st century in the way "mainstream scholarship" has conducted itself, often found to have constructed an edifice based on assumptions and premise which are extremely flimsy or even unfounded to begin with. In any case, encyclopedic content has no place for putting in place stuff under the logic "because everybody says so".

Everybody's write up is an opinion and carries as much weight as the next person, especially when the said opinion raises enough 'weighty' questions on the "mainstream scholarship", so kindly keep the personally directed barbs out of the comments.

TheOnlyEmperor (talk) 12:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so apart from the stipulation that verifiable content should not be included until it passes your arbitrary "inspection" and a rant about how we cannot trust mainstream scholarship (as it disagrees with your personal agenda?) what exactly are you trying to say? Improvements? Coherent points? Specific examples? Thanks --Ari (talk) 15:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

'When presenting information in an encyclopedia, there's nothing such as "mainstream scholarship"' Sure there is. Contemporary, prominent scholar largely agree on who Jesus was and what the remaining open issues are. Leadwind (talk) 00:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Problems with citations in first section

Citations 17 to 28 are not done properly and need work. Very little of the information from the edit page is displaying on the article page. This is likely due to an error in formatting. Eh1537 (talk) 04:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Jesus myth theory

No, I do not mean to bring up discussion on this article and the myth theory again. Fortunately, there is an article addressing this theory, which handles it for us. However, there is also a FAQ page which is currently a source of major contention. People who watch this page should consider looking at the FAQ here and then participating in the deletion discusion here.

As I understand it, the bone of contention is whether the "FAQ" are not really frequently asqed questions about the Christ Myth, or Jesus, or how historians work (which I guess would be okay), but a veiled editorial opposing or defending the Wikipedia article. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Too much references on Islam in a Jesus article

The 1st paragraph has a reference on Islam. The 5th paragraph is solely devoted to islam. Why are other notable abrahamic religions such as baha'i faith or judaism not offered this type of coverage? I sense undue weight. Iwanttoeditthissh (talk) 21:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

You sense undo weight because other groups do not have information about their beliefs; the choice is then to delete the information for Islam? What about simply entering information about the groups you mentioned? It is not undue weight to discuss the views of one of the world's biggest relgions, particularly when it consists of a few sentences. --^StormRider 23:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

All right. i will do that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iwanttoeditthissh (talk • contribs) 07:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Islam is a major religion that reveres Jesus as a prophet (and the Koran has more content regarding St. Mary than the NT; I point this out only because her relevance is directly linked to her son's). Judaism has no central authority, but while individual Jews may have an opinion about Jesus, at best "Judaism" considers him one guy among thousands who was crucified by the friggin Romans, and at worst considers him a false god mistakenly worshiped by others. So that pretty much covers the "Ambrahamic" religions. It is not that the article fails to give adequate coverage of Judaism, it is that Jesus just really is pretty unimportant in Judaism. I see no need to use this article to belabor the point. "Undue weight" does not mean that all views should receive equal weight, it means all views should be given appropriate weight. The Jewish view, such as it is, is given complete expression. You really can't ask for more than that, can you? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with what Slrubenstein says here. If there's something on the Baha'i faith you'd like to see covered there's a number of editors such as myself who would be willing to look into it provided it meets Wikipedia's criterion for inclusion. Peter Deer (talk) 18:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Its inclusion is valid. Though incorrect, the beliefs of Islam on Jesus are popular enough to be discussed in an article on Him. (It is "encyclopedic content") See: Wikipedia:NPOV/FAQ#Religion —ron2^(talk) 23:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Alternative theories on Jesus Christ´s life and death

There are several claims that Jesus was influenced by Buddhist thought. It is claimed that he spent his youth in India where he came into contact with Buddhist thinking which is obvious in his teachings, like peacefulness and reincarnation. Several authors (e.g. Elmar Gruber and Holger Kersten) claim that he did not die on the cross, but was in a coma and was brought back to life by good care. He was then urged to return to Persia and India where he would be safe. His frist sighting was in Damascus, on the way to the Fars East. He lived and taught there until his death in Srinagar where he was buried. His grave has been preserved until today by his descendants, now Muslims. Many of these claims can be verified by historical evidence. e.g that there were Buddhists in Palestine at that time, and Jews in India. There are many parallels between the evangelists and Vedic teachings. Modern Christianity has more similarity to Buddhism than to Judaism. Some examples: Christianity and Buddhism know monasteries, Judaism does not; note folded hands when praying in Buddhism and Christianity, not in Judaims; ancient Judaism has a vengeful God, Buddhism and Christianity preach love etc. The three Wise Men who came from the East to worship newborn Jesus, believed to be astrologers, could have been ancient colleagues of those Buddhist leaders who, with astrological methods, find the new Dalai Lama. Thus it seems possible that little Jesus was chosen as an early Dalai Lama, taken to India as a teenager, taught Buddhism and then returned to Palestine where he taught love and peace. This teaching was not welcome with the established Jewish authorities, and he was handed over to the Romans to be executed. He was not dead, however, when taken from the cross, but simply unconscious. He was not on the cross too long. This can be confirmed by the fact that he bled when the Roman soldier pierced his breast with a spear. A corpse does not bleed. All this makes more sense than the official teaching of Christianity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ontologix (talk • contribs) 06:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, of course. That Jesus was a Buddhist who went to India, based on no reliable historical evidence makes much more sense than those first century gospels those pesky Christians throw around. --Ari (talk) 11:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow. This may actually belong in the museum of the dumbest comments ever made on a talk page (I mean the one by Ontologix, which shows that people who cannot spell logics may also lack it.) Look, we do not have a section on Jesus according to Andrew Lloyd Weber, even if he did author an extremely popular account of Jesus' life. I don't oppose articles on fictionalizations of Jesus' life, but they do not belong in this article. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

See for example Caesarion and donations of Alexandria. Read also what Cleopatra VII had planned. Caesarion fled to India and came back years later to hang out with the Essene and Nazorean people. Isa/Issa means son of Isis. Issa Nezer means means branch of the son of Isis. There are no historical mentions of Nazareth, Isa of Nazareth mean son of Isis branc of son.

Caesarion fled to India and Himalaya, spent some 15-20 years there, before returning to Syria/Palestine to look for his sister and brothers. He had became highly spiritual during his journey and wanted to conquer back his dad's kingdom, but not with weapons and bloodshed, but by creating a new religion (as was planned in the new era plan Cleopatra VII (and also Julius Caesar)). Caesarion was thought to be a son of god as his father was declared a god by the Roman senate after he was murdered. He had already years ago taken a new identity Issa (son of Isis) Nezer (Nazar). After returning to Syria/Palestine, Jesus found his sister Cleopatra Selene II who took a new identity Mary Magdalene and his brothers Alexander Helios who is known as Thomas Judas Didymus and Ptolemy Philadelphus who is known as James. It is not known, if the crucifixion happened, who of the four siblings were actually hanging on the cross. Anno Domini could refer to anointing. Perhaps year 0 or 1 refers to year when John the Baptist baptised Caesarion, so that he could start his public work in Jerusalem. Otherwise years roughly 50-1BCE and 1-50CE were superimposed. Caesarion had already spent time in the Essene community, teaching them spirituality and they were highly cosmological, a new group evolved which were the Nazorean (branch of son of Isis), who were not that hardcore in their devotion to asceticism as the Esseneans were. Nazoreanism eventually evolved into christianity that we know today, although heavily altered by the Piso family (caretakers of Caesars will) of Rome who edited the later canonized NT gospels and by the emperor Constantine I and the likes like of the Nicea council. The philosophy of the Essenes and Nazoreans, refuse of violence (wars), temple sacrificial, nonacceptance of slavery and vegetarian eating were in conflict with the agenda of pharisees and Roman emperors, hence the new age medieval version of christianity. Jesus also spoke that he is an example of how to live, act and think, not anything people could outsource their killing, murdering, robbing and raping on.WillBildUnion (talk) 01:08, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I really hope you don't plan on adding that to the article without citing sources. My atheist friends would be raising eyebrows. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:11, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Cool story. --Ari (talk) 01:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Bio Dates

I went ahead and updated the first note concerning the birth date. Its a minor change, that most readers wont see, that expands the note to say: "Sanders says ca. 4 BC/BCE. Vermes says ca. 5/6 BC/BCE. Finegan says ca. 3/2 BC/BCE. Sanders refers to the general consensus, Vermes a common 'early' date, Finegan defends comprehensively the date according to early Christian traditions." I feel this gives the new reader a sense of where these scholarly dates currently stand. I feel Finegan is noteworthy because he comprehensively supports the traditional date 3/2. Finegan doesnt enjoy wide consensus, but he does enjoy wide respect and is considered plausible even by those who support the 4 BCE consensus. Id like to see a similar note for the timing of the crucifixion. I along with others am strongly convinced the date is exactly year 32. So in the article the "ca. 30" is slightly annoying. Other scholars argue 33. I didnt change anything with regard to the death date however. Haldrik (talk) 21:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed, I inadvertantly continued a previous error, the Vermes date should say "6/5" not "5/6", since it is BCE. Il go ahead and update that too. Done. And I also changed the words so-and-so "says" to so-and-so "supports" the given date. This better reflects the scholarly tone. These scholars certainly didnt discover these dates, but merely continue the conclusions of earlier scholars. Haldrik (talk) 21:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

On the death date, Meier, in A Marginal Jew devotes a bit to this, citing a lot of scholars and discussing the various views. In his conclusion: "In brief, then, the year of Jesus' death, in the opinion of most commentators, must lie within the range of A.D. 29-34-and even then we are casting the new as widely as possible., As we shall see, the net is more often cast within the range of A.D. 30-33. In ligh of our frequent ignorance of the exact year of the death of many notables in the ancient world, we should be happy that we can be even this precise about the year of Jesus' crucifixion." Then he goes on to say that 32 and 29 can be excluded because the fourteenth of Nisan probably did not fall on a Friday in those years, gives some more information, and goes on to give his personal view "In my opinion, A.D. 30 is the more likely date."

Theissen and Merz say 27 and 34 fit the Nisan 15-Friday of the Synoptics, and 30 and 33 fit the 14 Nisan of John, and that "the year 30 CE seems most probably as the year in which Jesus died, but other years can by no means be excluded". Therefore, I think it is perfectly fine to say c. 30, because not only is it a round circa number, many notable scholars find it the most likely year as well. Both of these sources seem to completely write off 32, so I'm curious why you are so strongly convinced of it.-Andrew c ^[talk] 21:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

"Then he goes on to say that 32 and 29 can be excluded because the fourteenth of Nisan probably did not fall on a Friday in those years."

Yes, but these views depend on those who read the Synoptics to mean Jesus was crucified on the First Day of the Festival of Unleavened Bread *after* eating the Passover lamb, thus he died on the Jewish date Nisan 15, so then the Passover meal would have happened on the day before Shabat. However, the Gospel of John explicitly and unambiguously records Jesus dying on the day *before* anyone ate the Passover lamb (John 18:28), thus Jesus died on Nisan 14, therefore in that year the Passover meal occured on Shabat. Many scholars prefer the account of John because it seems more archeologically informed and closer to the local Jerusalem traditions about Jesus. Jesus died while the passover lambs were still being offered at the Temple for the Passover meal that night, before Jesus was able to eat it. Thus Jesuss last supper actually refers to the Jewish tradition of 'Checking for Leavening' (Bdikhat Khamets), which occurs on the evening before the evening of eating the Passover lamb. That evening Jews ritually remove leavening, especially by eating whatever leavened bread remains in the household. With the last supper being the checking of leavening, it explains *many* problems. One, all Synoptic Gospels have a conspicuous absence of the passover lamb itself at his last supper ... because it wasnt slain yet. Two, the chief priests can call an emergency council together to discuss the imminent danger of a Roman response to Jesuss activity ... *legally* ... because it isnt the evening of the Passover meal yet. And so on. Anyway, the account of John is the right one, the Synoptics are actually ambiguous under scrutiny, and in that year the Passover meal occurred on Shabat. Therefore, the only reasonable year possible is 32. Haldrik (talk) 22:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no "right one." Or at least, it does not matter what Wikipedia editors think is the "right one." We have to provide all significant viesws from notable sources. Period. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

While what Haldrik says is interesting, and I sure opened the door to that one (sorry), I agree. It isn't which argument seems most logical to us, it's which arguments are most commonly found in the literature (cited sources...) Given the sources, I feel comfortable with c. 30, and leaving it at that. c. 5 is OK with me as well. -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Really, Im talking about what should go into the endnote, similar to the endnote about birth dates. Something like: "So-and-so supports the consensus. So-and-so supports 33, a common 'late' date. So-and-so supports 32." Besides personal interest, I feel the conflict between Synoptics and John is noteworthy, a fact most scholars note. This gives the new reader a sense of where these dates currently stand. Haldrik (talk) 17:25, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I have to rescind my call for year 32 as a death date. I checked the Finegan book, and he *lists* the calculations that he refers to for the months of Nisan that are considerably different from the ones I had referred to. The ones I accessed used a complex formula that retroactively calculated the Jewish dates from the current year - which Im guessing becomes unreliable after a time. The ones Finegan refers to rely on astronomical precision for the phases of the moon, which not only corresponds to the new moon for Nisan 1, but also helps determine when Jewish 'leap years' (with an extra month) are likely or not. The calculations that he used were published in 1934, and corroborated in 1956 as having an accuracy that enjoys a 'very high degree of probability'. While I would be happier with more recent dates for corroboration, Finegan feels these calendar calculations are reliable, and on a point like this, Finegans opinion cannot be taken lightly. Anyway, Finegan strongly prefers the Gospel of John over the Synoptics for historicity concerning the timing of the crucifixion. So, Jesus died on Nisan 14 before the Passover meal took place. And with these calendar calculations, the date of Nisan 14, the day agreeing with John, actually falls on a Friday in year 30 or 33. So, there is clearly the choice of these two. Interestingly, while Sanders refers to the consensus that prefers year 30, Finegan prefers 33 the common 'late' date. Haldrik (talk) 02:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the endnote, it should say something like:

"For the death date, Sanders supports 30 AD/CE, referring to the general consensus. Finegan supports 33 AD/CE, a common 'late' date."

Maybe even add something like:

"These two dates derive from astronomical calculations for the new moons of the Jewish month Nisan. These corroborate the historicity of the Gospel of John that times the death to Nisan 14 on a Friday. On this point, the historicity of the Synoptics with their apparent date of Nisan 15 seems untenable or at best ambiguous."

Haldrik (talk) 02:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Exagerate Number References of references on certain statements

Cause of Jesus trial and later crucifixion It has a whopping 11 references !!!! that is not necessary, a simple foot note reference should suffice if in the at-the-end-of-the article-foot-note all the references are stated... Even taking into consideration that providing references is good practice (even though we all know this one) the fact of adding half a line in references for a simple sentence is not necessary... we need to explore a better way (from the editing point of view) to present this. 190.28.119.128 (talk) 00:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

11 references might be a bit much, but a lot of them are needed there because many people come by, adamantly disagreeing that he was excecuted for sedition, and want it removed. Having a large number of sources to support this statement helps to prevent said objections or article edits.Farsight001 (talk) 00:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Those references refer to the entire sentence, not just the end. It's the one that starts Most critical scholars in biblical studies believe...' Maybe we should just cite a single source which is already discussing what most scholars believe about Jesus, and maybe we have gone a bit overboard. But I guess citing a ton of scholars from diverse backgrounds and faiths is one way to make sure we are presenting what most scholars hold. And we used to have all the citations in a single footnote, but someone broke them up (but did a poor job of it, because some are still combined in a footnote). Maybe, to make the page read better, we should combine the footnotes again? Or maybe we could discuss a single source which conveys what we are currently conveying. But of course, if we choose a Christian source, we risk getting accused of bias, and if we choose a secular historian source, we risk get accused of bias. :) -Andrew c ^[talk] 02:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I kinda agree with Farsight. A higher-than-usual number of endnotes helps deter POV editors from 'fixing' challenging data and helps keep the article more stable and reliable. Haldrik (talk) 03:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I was about to comment on why there are so many references, but it I guess it does make sense. There are a lot of people who would go into this article and post "Jesus did not exist" and other nonsense, just as creationists/ancient alien theorists will go to evolution articles and state "aliens/God/Chuck Norris did it." Though not in those words I guess. So yeah, more references is really a good thing, despite the fact that it looks bulky. But that's really subjective. 98.198.83.12 (talk) 19:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

If there are two or more citations for one sentence, and all the citations are only being used once for that sentence, then it is perfectly acceptable to combine all the cites together into one footnote. In the case here, cite notes 18 to 29 are all only being used once for one sentence, therefore they should all be combined into one cite. This improves readability in the article. I've seen this requested at Featured article candidates many times and this article should probably adopt that format. The main thing is to make sure not to combine cites that are being used multiple times in different places since this will cause inaccuracies. LonelyMarble (talk) 05:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Anyone who is not satisfied with what they learn from an encyclopedia article should do further research. Our citations are great ways for letting people know just where to look if they wish to learn more about a specific issue. If we just had the article with a long list of references at the end, people would not know where to start. but if someone sees the same reference cited for all the parts of the article they find most interesting, they can infer that this is a good book or article to read. Multiple citations have no costs and various benefits - how can anyone in good faith argue against them? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

My suggestion was not to remove any citations, just combine them. Footnotes 18-29 can all be combined into one cite of footnote 18, separating the previous different cites with semi-colons or some other method. And for this 18-29 example, most of the cites are to page numbers of authors listed in the references section, so there shouldn't be any confusion on where to look for more information. Also I'm not saying this article has this problem, but sometimes an article can have "too" many references, mostly if they are low quality ones or very repetitive ones. LonelyMarble (talk) 20:28, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you - I hope no one took my earlier comment to express disagreement with what you wrote earlier! Slrubenstein | Talk 23:26, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

So, Do we have an agreement on the point that some sources need to be grouped in a footnote already? The other point is that from a wikipedia editing point of view, I wouldn't know how to do it; Any example (article) that uses the proposed method (several references on a footnote) ? Also, some 3-4 footnotes should suffice and do the same get-away-spammer-non-scholar editor type of message without using an entire row for just references. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.28.151.116 (talk) 03:17, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Han Dynasty is an example of an article that combines footnotes. It separates the multiple ones with a semi-colon. If you do this yourself though I wouldn't remove any of the cites, just combine them. LonelyMarble (talk) 15:31, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd advise not combining footnotes. It might make the text easier to read, but it can make the text harder to edit. Leadwind (talk) 13:34, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Dang. I just combined the footnotes because I thought I remembered there being loose consensus to do so here, but I guess I never read Leadwind's last statement. I think what makes editing the footnotes worse than combining them is adding the citation book template. These were mostly shorthand footnotes which were to be used in combination with the full citation found in the References section. We really should only have author, year, and page number in the footnote. It appears now that some have publisher and title information and others don't, and the added text from the citation template isn't helping. Anyway, feel free to revert my combination, if you feel like it, but make sure that you don't go back to the version that said the Sander's book was a publisher and otherwise combined multiple citations into one. -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:55, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

References to other religious views in the lead

Currently, the lead has two references to other religion's views, in the first and last paragraphs, and it is disorganized. Shouldn't it be combined into one lede paragraph? Flash 13:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReaverFlash (talk • contribs)

Right now the first paragraph includes the views of every religion that cares about Jesus. The second paragraph covers how critical scholars view Jesus, because that is a very significant view, and then the third paragraph has more detail on what Christians believe, because that is also a very significant view. This all seems quite reasonable to me. Judaism has no view, so you can't really say that the last paragraph is about Judaism's view of Jesus. But since Jesus was Jewish and preached to Jews (and perhaps also because Christians spent a good deal of the last two thousand years moaning about why Jews don't care about Jesus) it makes sense to cover this in the lead. But of all the things covered in the lead, I'd say it is the least important, and fitting that it goes last. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:15, 10 June 2010 (UTC)