Talk:Jesus/Archive 86

Archive 80

←

Archive 84

Archive 85

Archive 86

Archive 87

Archive 88

→

Archive 90

Date and Year that Jesus Christ was born

Just wondering how can people determine time before or after Jesus time????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.195.139.80 (talk) 04:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

How do you mean? Your question is somewhat vague.--C.Logan 04:21, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

"Using greek times perhaps. For example, Livy writes his history in Rome according to the Olynmpiads - like he would say " on the 400th Olympiad... etc etc". So you see the ancients had other events to use as starting points. Then perhaps one might correlate a certain Olympiad with the crucifixtion of Christ. Then they can trace back 33 years and know what Olympiad meant what year. Tourskin 04:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

If that's what was meant, then I believe some clear answers can be found at Anno Domini.--C.Logan 04:29, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I remember only a few things from our religious education lessons, and one of them was something about Jesus being born like 5 years past the "zero year". So, how do you explain that if we say that its the year 2008 and we mean it like jesus was born about 2008 years ago, but still he was born about 2003 years ago.Skele 21:08, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I believe most religious scholars put Jesus' birth at 4 BC or even earlier (using Herod's death as an upper bound). Hence, 2008 is more like 2012 years after his birth. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

See, it doesn't make any senseSkele 23:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, it does, actually. It's simply due to a miscount of regnal periods, I believe... the discrepancy was not realized until relatively recently, and obviously it's a bit late to change things. We base our history on the thoughts and works of ancient scholars, and so we're bound to inherit some of their errors. It's kind of disturbing when you realize that some cultures and periods of time are only known to us through these men; our history could be fabricated, or misread. In any case, just chalk this one up to human error.---- C.Logan (talk) 21:33, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Jesus is a Greek Name, Not Hebrew

See Talk:Yeshua_(name)/Jesus#Jesus_is_a_Greek_name.2C_Not_Hebrew Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

"A-Class Jesus work group articles"

Is anyone ever going to get around to creating that page, or should it simply be removed? I've seen it as the redlink at the bottom of this talk page for quite some time now, and I'm wondering if it's even necessary at this point. Does anyone have any information regarding this category, and its current status?--C.Logan 05:00, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a simple enough task to start a category (just add a header and a few categories). But I'm concerned that there is only a single article in the whole Jesus workgroup (Category:Jesus work group articles). I guess the best place to take this up would be Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Jesus work group. The group looks fairly inactive.-Andrew c ^[talk] 13:45, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Section was moved to the relevant talk page at Talk:Yeshua (name)/Jesus#His Name Is Not Jesus. Erudecorp ? * 08:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

FAQ

Since there always seems to be so much posting and discussion of unverifiable/bogus/already-rejected-by-community information, I believe we should make a FAQ about the article like that of Talk:Super Smash Bros. Brawl/FAQ. There we could outline the discussions and consensuses about certain facts that appear to pop up. bibliomaniac15 A straw poll on straw polls 01:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Good idea, could even provide the relevant wikilinks as evidence of prior discussion, as well as the links to the relevant WP policies. Chensiyuan 03:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Section was moved to the relevant talk page at Talk:Yeshua (name)/Jesus#Yeshua is english. Erudecorp ? * 08:48, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

---

Section was moved to the relevant talk page at Talk:Yeshua (name)/Jesus#Jesus is a Greek name, Not Hebrew. Erudecorp ? * 08:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

---

Categories and religions

While I generally am not a fan of filling articles with categories, it is clearly understandable that notable individuals are going to have more categories. That said, I noticed someone recently added Category:Manifestations of God in the Bahá'í Faith, and that was reverted. I also notice that we don't have Category:Prophets in Islam. I am proposing now that we include both in order to have a more holistic, NPOV stance on how other notable religions categorize Jesus. Note that we currently have a Messianic Judaism category, which is by far less prevelant than Islam, and Bahá'í is also a larger group (by a factor of perhaps 15) than Messianic Judaism. -Andrew c ^[talk] 06:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this is necessary for NPOV reasons. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

2nd paragraph of lead and mythists

We had reached a previous consensus on the wording of this sentence at Talk:Jesus/Archive_83#Some_Scholars_.3D_fourth_sentence.3F.3F.3F. IFeito changed the sentence from Very few modern scholars believe that all ancient texts on Jesus' life are either completely accurate[5] or completely inaccurate.[6] to Some modern scholars believe that Jesus is a mythical character [5], while some others have presented the opposite thesis on his historical existance [6]. I believe these changes are problematic because it adds ambiguity and possibly undo weight (very few is more descriptive than some). Also, the sentence is confusing because what is the opposite of a myth? The previous wording was better in that it stated that the scholars we cite believe the ancient texts regarding Jesus' life are completely accurate. Accordingly, I have restored the long standing, consensus version and I welcome everyone to comment about Ifeito's proposal (or bring up new suggestions).-Andrew c ^[talk] 00:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Andrew. I took the liberty of editing because the sentence as it now stands "Very few modern scholars believe that all ancient texts on Jesus' life are either completely accurate[5] or completely inaccurate.[6]" makes no sense at all. I tried to make it objective and present both points of view. I presented the "Jesus Myth" reference first because the "Jesus Real" reference is in reaction to it. How about: "Very few modern scholars believe that Jesus historical existance is questionable[5] while some others have defended the opposite thesis[6]". After reading the debate that would be my proposal as a phrase that makes more sense than the original and still complies with all issues discussed. Schicchi (talk) 00:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm shocked that you would try to start an edit war by adding controversial material before consensus was raised on the talk page. The last version has been there for months, and was brought about by consensus. It won't hurt to keep that version in the article and wait a few days while this discussion is on going to see if there is a new consensus. You did not even try to address my concern that I cannot parse what the opposite of a myth is. I'm not trying to be dramatic, but I cannot in good faith work under these conditions. Hopefully other editors will come along and comment. I'd be glad to continue working with you if you revert yourself. If not, good luck.-Andrew c ^[talk] 01:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi IFeito, You claimed the sentence "Very few modern scholars believe that all ancient texts on Jesus' life are either completely accurate[5] or completely inaccurate.[6]" makes "no sense at all." I'm curious why you feel that way. The problem is that it isn't a debate as you seem to imply. I'm pretty confident you'd have trouble finding more than one or two scholars who are leading in the field of biblical scholarship who doubt that Jesus was to some extent a real historical figure. Unfortunately, to the lay population Jesus has been placed in the same mythological box as figures such as Luke Skywalker, Aslan, or any other fantasy character as a recent South Park episode has shown.

Yes, it is a fact that there are some who debate Jesus' actual existence. It is often mistaken that to argue against that position is to argue for Jesus as understood as most fundamental conservatives would. There is, however, a middle ground that is accepted by a vast number of scholars. Jesus was a historical man who lived in a historical period. To argue otherwise would be very daring in light of the evidence. Many people do not understand this, and I think the article does a good job of explaining that it's not a black and white issue.

The article as it is does not make any bold or NPOV statements concerning a rather contentious issue. It simply says there are few who completely accept or completely deny. This is the truth. I don't see a reason to change it.Jstanierm (talk) 02:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi All, I'm not trying to start any edit war, I'm being bold and trying to fix a sentence that doesn't make any sense as it used to stand. I believe that by moving historical sources to the third paragraph of the introduction the issue is less prominent. But if historical references are mentioned in the introduction then the fact that several scholars question his historical existance should be mentioned then. Schicchi (talk) 14:59, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I just made two changes, I e3xplain in the edit summary but I will amplify here. First, I changed the text back to few historians believing the sources are entirely accurate or inaccurate because this is the issue for historians. Historians study sources and evaluate sources, the principle issue ofr them is the status of sources available concerning jesus, any discussion of Jesus's existence - for historians - follows from their assessment of the sources. Theologians and philosophers can debagte whether he existed, historians instead debate over the meaning of the sources. Second, I put that paragraph before the Christianity, for two reasons. First, given that virtually all claims about Jesus are based on interpretations of a small set of sources, it makes sense to introduce the sources before introducing various interpretations of them. Second, this placement then has the Christain view and Islam view following - I think it makes sense to have all the paragraphs on what different religions believe together rather than split up. The only alternative would be to end the introduction with the paragraph on the sources but I go back to my first reason for making this the second paragraph. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks SL! See, to spend a whole sentence on the introduction stating that some scholars believe references to be accurate and some others don't is not really saying anything. If you read the articles referenced you'll find that they deal with the possibility of a mythological Jesus. I agree that the sentence should be presented as neutrally as possible, but not in a way that it doesn't make any sense! Schicchi (talk) 15:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Lower parts of the article do seem to discuss the varying degrees of reliability that various scholarly type folks attribute to the Bible and other sources about Jesus. In that sense, the sentence seems entirely appropriate as a summary. The Jesus myth hypothesis, on the other hand, is not mentioned very much in the article, and having a sentence in the lead dedicated to it at the expense of the sentence now would not be very useful. Homestarmy (talk) 15:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Homestarmy, I believe that if historical references to Jesus are presented in the introduction then a brief reference to the fact that several authors question his historical existance should be included. Not doing so is very strongly POV, even if many of the editors believe otherwise. My proposition is to move the religious paragraph ahead to emphasize this issue and then edit the questionable sentence. I'm being treated like a Vandalizer! Schicchi (talk) 16:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

One nice thing about being heavily involved in WP:GA is that you get a very good sense of what kinds of things make an article reasonably high quality. One of those things is having a lead that summarizes the rest of the article concisely, gives space in relative proportion to how much content is in an article, and doesn't summarize things in large articles that are not mentioned very much. In this article, the historical perspective on Jesus is mentioned signfigantly, and so has its own paragraph. This paragraph summarizes some of the general things that most historians and scholarly type folks more or less agree upon about Jesus, and mentions that most scholars do not necessarily trust all ancient sources that mention Jesus' life. And, in the body of the article, the Historicity section mentions many of these same opinions that scholars have about Jesus, in more detail. In this section, there is a part about "questions of reliability", detailing how various people from different time periods doubted the accounts of various sources concerning Jesus, mostly the gospels. There are two sentences in this section about the Jesus myth, and the section as a whole does not focus on it. In the next section, (Which does not appear to be using specific wording anymore, since "scholars" in this case almost never involve scholars of a field relevant to reaserch on Jesus) you have three sentences about the Jesus myth. And, as far as I can see, that's every time the article mentions the Jesus myth.

And yet, the proposed sentence for the lead seeks to replace a summary of the "questions of reliability" and "possible external influences" sections with a sentence which summarizes neither section, but rather, summarizes five sentences which aren't even strung together. This is not a very logical way to make the lead more appropriatly summarize the rest of the article. Substituting mention of two sections with mention of five sentences is not in keeping with the principles of what a lead is, a summary of an article. Homestarmy (talk) 17:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

At this point I fear we are feeding a troll. Feito, if you make your changes one more time you will be in violation of 3RR. It is clear that you are forcing your own view against an established consensus. Several people have tried to reason with you but you do not seem to care. You have not managed to convince anyone that the consensus version is wrong. Please give it a rest. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, I can assure you I'm not trolling, I started trying to fix a sentence that does not make sense as it stands, at least in my view. Actually it is even worse if you try to read it from the viewpoint of those who believe in an historical Jesus. Let me put it this way, that sentence obviously started as a way to introduce the Jesus-Myth hipothesis in the introduction of the article, but it touched many sensibilities and was downplayed to a point where the paragraph makes more sense if that sentence is removed altogether. I appreciate Andrew's suggestion on my personal page to devote my energies to other less sensitive articles, but I assure you that I don't particularly like that patronizing attitude. It's clearly stated that even though you guys are the most active contributors to this article it does not mean you own it. I will not make any further edits as long as there is a will to discuss changes. Schicchi (talk) 02:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

As the sentence now stands it states that "Very few scholars consider historical references to be either accurate or inaccurate". It's akin to saying that Very few people believe that car's tire to be either punctured or unpunctured. It may have been something that was arrived at by compromise but it just doesn't make any sense! How about There's an ongoing debate among scholars on the accuracy of ancient texts on Jesus' life [5][6]. That shouldn't hurt any sensitivities and probably describes the article a little bit better. Schicchi (talk) 02:23, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The sentence makes sense to me (well not the one you paraphrased, but the one that is actually in the article). The sentences you are suggests are false dichotomies. It is true that very few scholars believe the gospel accounts of Jesus to be entirely fictional (or mythological). It is also true that very few scholars believe that every single detail ever written about Jesus actually historically happened. This leaves the majority of scholars believing that the sources on Jesus life do contain some historically probable accounts, but not everything written about Jesus can be considered historical. Like I've said before, I'm open to rephrasing this sentence, but the sentence you proposed simply does work (i.e. Very few modern scholars believe that Jesus historical existance is questionable[5] while some others have defended the opposite thesis[6]) The first half of the sentence is awkwardly phrased very few modern scholars question Jesus' historical existence. reads better. The second half of the clause makes no sense to me because I cannot parse what the opposite thesis of "questioning Jesus' historical existence" is. Perhaps we could phrase it, "likewise, very few modern scholars believe that every single detail found in the Gospels are depicting historical events."? Do you have any suggestions on how to modify the current sentence to make more sense to you, while accounting for the fact that "the opposite thesis" is a poor choice of wording IMO.-Andrew c ^[talk] 02:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

A handful of modern scholars question Jesus historical existence makes sense. The references on [5] are actually rebuttals to the arguments presented by those questioning his existence, that should be reflected in the second phrase of that sentence. How about this thesis has faced strong opposition... not perfect bt perhaps it's a start. Schicchi (talk) 03:38, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

IFeito, did you read my comment above about WP:LEAD concerns? NPOV and the style guidelines are not contradictory, if part of the lead doesn't mention something, that might be because that something simply makes no sense to be summarized in the lead. Homestarmy (talk) 04:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes Homestarmy, if you don't deem it important enough then by all means let's remove it, my original edit was not made to force the Jesus Myth hypothesis but to fix a sentence that didn't make sense. If there's no consensus then it probably should be removed. In all honesty, I believe that the Jesus Myth theory should be presented in the lead, but that's open to discussion. I've made some edits on the "Controversies" section, I hope you find them adequate and shouldn't bring such a strong debate as my first edit! Schicchi (talk) 04:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It was my first time reading this article, and admitting that I am biased by my belief that the biblical gospels are 100% accurate, I was stunned by the quality of the initial summary, especially the sentence under discussion here. To me, it boiled down a widely (and often wildly) debated issue, explaining that scholars are of a wide array of opinions on the mater, but mostly fall between the two extremes, and led me to expect further discussion of that debate in greater detail later in the article. The sentence was clear, concise, and understandably summarized the coming article. The careful work was apparent. Well done. Brad (talk) 14:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I favor the current sentence, which was tediously arrived at by consensus several months ago as Andrew has pointed out. While it may not be the most elegant sentence in the world, it clearly conveys, while conforming to WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, the intended meaning that a spectrum of scholarly opinions exist, with those on the extreme ends being extreme minorities. LotR (talk) 15:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

A tire is either punctured or not. There is no middle ground. When referring to Jesus few scholars think in absolute terms. The importance is that the sentence in the article deals with the texts. Yes, Jesus was either historical or not, but the question deals with the sentence in question deals with the acceptance of texts. Few accept them wholesale or not, and that is what it states. There is much middle ground in accepting what parts of texts are historical and which are not. Jstanierm (talk) 22:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, I don't think anyone is trying to shoo you away, but I also don't think anyone appreciates unilateral edits to this article. It requires much debate, and I think we all expect discussion before important changes. Especially changes to sentences that were arrived at with consensus.Jstanierm (talk) 22:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)