Wikipedia

Talk:Jesus/PR-and-FA

< Talk:Jesus
Latest comment: 18 years ago by Aiden



Here are some things to consider for the Jesus article.

Alternate versions

Robsteadman version of the article

Just to let you know, Rob has posted a draft of his proposed revisions (as some have asked him to do). Link: User:Archola/Robsteadman's Jesus Draft Arch O. La 16:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I liked the use of "authoritative", it's just such a funny word to me :D.Homestarmy 17:03, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
The intro is not far different from where we're at. Most of the difference have already been considered here and rejected, but, if we're willing to be civil and not repeat the same arguments over and over again, we could look at them on the subpage. Again, as I said above with other issues, I'd rather not discuss it in detail on the main talk page. --CTSWyneken 17:12, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
It's been interesting, though. In the Chinese curse sort of way. Arch O. La 17:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Peer Review

The article is surprisingly comprehensive and there are not POV tags(surprisingly). It is well sourced, so I'm posting it here to see how it could reach FAC. Newbie222 02:28, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

First off this would be amazing to get as a FA and would get you kudos from everyone here :). Anyway, here are some structure issues:

  1. One sentence paragraph in opening... for the lead try to have three long paragraphs here instead of the several splintered ones - see WP:LEAD
  2. "Religious perspectives" - section could use an intro
  3. #"Christianity" - several one-sentence paragraphs here. In general this is quite long compared to the other subsections of "Religious perspectives", I'd try to keep them all around the same length
  4. #"Islam" - kill the list here and make it into prose... no need for it :)
  5. #"Ahmadiyya Movement" - One sentence paragraph
  6. #"Hinduism" - two one sentence paragraphs - both too short
  7. #"Judaism" - again, no need for a list here
  8. #"Other perspectives" - one sentence paragraphs, several too short. This can be difficult because of the subject matter, however
  9. "Life and teachings" - generally uneven paragraphs - some too long, some even veer on being too long (although the shorts are the real issue)
  10. " Names and titles" and " Cultural and historical background" some paragraphs too short
  11. "Relics" - too short in general - consider making it a subsection someplace else or something
  12. " Interpretations of Jesus" - this sounds like something that belongs in see also - if you want to describe these I'd try to do it with actual prose...
  13. "Sources and further reading" - you need to separate the sources from the further reading :)
  14. "See also" needs to be sorted - see Autism#See also for an example.
  15. "External links" - link farm alert!!! You should generally shoot for around 15 links for FAs

Ryan Norton T | @ | C 15:39, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

FA Nomination

Previous FA noms: (Nov 2003, May 2004, Jul 2004). December 2005 nom follows.

I'm nominating this article because I feel the peer review issues have been resolved. Well written article. The layout is nice. All important information is there or linked to. NPOV is exemplified well. And links and external links are well organized. This is a self-nomination because I participated in editing the article. Scifiintel 08:17, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Strong object Object, at some length:
    • No inline citations—and no explicit references at all, for that matter!
    • The article is very unbalanced; the gospel account is dealt with at proper length, but the remainder of the article is a glorified "See also" section with inadequate use of summaries. In particular, the lead mentions various religious interpretations, disputes about historicity, etc., all of which need to be dealt with in this article. As an aside, the article is less than 26K in size, which is surprisingly short for such a fundamental topic.
    • A number of technical issues:
      • Why is there a template for the apostles at the bottom?
      • Should the article be in Category:33 deaths if the date of his death is an issue of dispute?
      • {{Main}} should probably be replaced with {{Details}} throughout.
      • Explicit "See also" statements within the text (e.g. "See articles on Barabbas and Pilate for more about the trial before Pilate") should be removed where possible.
More generally, I think this article is in need of expansion—possibly massive expansion—before it can be considered comprehensive. —Kirill Lokshin 08:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
        • I fixed all your technical issues except "{{Main}} should probably be replaced with {{Details}}", what does that mean? Also, the inline citations are substituted for intext citations of the bible, and the gospels are expilicitly cited as the main source for the "Jesus' life" part of the article. I got rid of the lead problems. Articles are supposed to be 32K and below so we can't add much more without going over that. The "see also" sections are used because they do not pertain directly to Jesus' life. A biography is always the main part of a wikipedia "person" article. And a biography has been shown in a NPOV way, because his life is shown as best as historians know how to show it, and that is through the Gospels, while making the disclaimer that they're not considered accurate by most scholars. Few other sources on Jesus' life exist. I hope that resolves most of your issues with the article. Scifiintel 18:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
          • The technical issues are rather minor in any case. My more significant objections—the ones concerning referencing and balance—have not only not been resolved, but have actually become stronger. What we have now is essentially Jesus in the Gospels with a large "See also" section. To be considered comprehensive, this article must include significant material from Historical Jesus and Historicity of Jesus. Further, it must cite reputable secondary sources, since the Gospels cannot adequately reference their own accuracy. Until some effort is made in these areas, my objections stand. —Kirill Lokshin 00:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
            • Why not just include a section on historicity. Any article on the historical Jesus is up to Jesus without the use of the Gospels. Very little text is about him outside of that before 200 A.D. making most of it completely inaccurate. So really, the historical Jesus is simply what a historical Jew would be plus his teachings. And that is just background. I believe that is adequately covered in one paragraph. Falphin 16:52, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
            • The secondary sources are the external references at the bottom of the page. The religious perspectives section has been added to keep it neutral to religion. Is that better? Scifiintel 05:11, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
              • Some clarification of my earlier comments: I don't want an article on the historical Jesus—we already have one. However, the historicity debate (that is, whether the Gospel account is accurate) is central to any scholarly treatment of Jesus, and I think that elements of this should be better integrated into the biographical sections. On an entirely separate issue, I'll point out that (1) the external links are not cited, and (2) random websites are not (necessarily) reputable sources. I would like to see substantial use of published works (preferably academic ones) on the subject. —Kirill Lokshin 19:37, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

The historicity section and some notes are back, is that better? Scifiintel 20:51, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Better, much better! A few points I think can still be improved though: the "See also" section should be pruned of any links already present in the text (which is a lot, now that several sections have been added). Also, footnotes should be provided more liberally. In particular, any statements of the form "John Doe has said/claimed/argued ..." need to have an associated citation, as do any references to a specific book. The various "Some scholars/people/etc. believe ..." should also be tied to something more specific; a small selection of examples could prove sufficient here. Finally, the last paragraph of the lead needs to be reworked to make clear that the (non-Christian) scholars may agree with the Gospel account of his life while disagreeing with their assertion of his divinity. —Kirill Lokshin 03:48, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I got rid of the links that are explicitly stated as main articles already. I have a question about what you wrote. I think some non-Christian scholars agree with the Gospel accounts and they also agree that Jesus asserted his own divinity, this does not mean they agree with Jesus and believe he was divine. Scifiintel 17:53, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Object -- structurally unbalanced, as per User:Kirill Lokshin, and in general written as though it were Jesus in Christianity. BYT 14:58, 9 December 2005 (UTC) -- Support, given improvements in historicity section, and other revisions. BYT 02:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    • Please see my above comment to see that this is the only way a biography of Jesus can scholarly be represented.... it's because we only have a few main sources, and those are the 4 gospels. If you can think of another way to present Jesus' life, please tell. Scifiintel 18:33, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • OK -- no attention to speak of has been given to non-canonical gospels like Thomas, to the impact of prevailing theories of textual development (See Q document) or to other attempts to identify the underlying oral tradition that existed say pre-50 AD, or to the phenomenon whereby Jesus appears considerably more human in the earliest Gospel, Mark and considerably closer to divine in the latest Gospel, John, even though the wording is generally very cagey in Johannine sources. Another way to present Jesus' life would be to examine each of these scholarly debates, and place them on the same historical footing as the orthodox (fiction), sorry, belief, that the four Gospels present a coherent life story or message. As it stands, it is an article about Christian belief, which is not the same thing at all as an article about Jesus.BYT 20:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • I still don't see a plausible way to incorpaorate those three things. I think you're wrong. The Gospel of Thomas is only sayings of Jesus and to include what Jesus says in the article is not NPOV, at least seemingly bacause it always gets reverted... so we can't include that. The Q document is a theory of a document which multiple canonical Gospels were based on. This can't be incorpaorated because it's only a hypothetical theory and it's fairly recent, no more than 200 years old. All are other sources are almost 2000 years old. Can't use that. And we can't put oral tradition in the article, because it's speculation. Scifiintel 22:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
"To include what Jesus says in the article is not NPOV" -- you're obviously playing games here. I thought you were interested in an actual discussion. Present article is manifestly about Christian orthodoxy, nothing else. So sorry, I'm not changing my vote. Even if I were to vote to support, this nomination would be in trouble, I think. BYT 23:02, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Look, I know you want to get this up for Christmas, but the article simply isn't ready. Here's what you added:
Although Buddhism in general attributes no spiritual significance to Jesus, some Buddhists believe that Jesus may have been a Bodhisattva, one who has dedicated his or her future to the happiness of all beings. Some Buddhists also interpret Jesus through Zen Buddhism, sometimes basing their perspective on the Gospel of Thomas.
  • Please look again at the points I raised and ask yourself the following questions.
  • "After reading this article, would someone know that the canonical Gospels were created from oral sources, with the narratives added later than the sayings?"
  • "After reading this article, would someone know that the canonical Gospels exhibit a pattern of exaggerating Jesus' supernatural character -- i.e., he is closest to human in the earliest canonical Gospel, Mark, and closest to divine in the latest canonical Gospel, John?"
  • "After reading this article, would someone know that there were many non-canonical Gospels that were destroyed by church authorities?"
  • "After reading this article, would someone know that important finds in later years have identified some of these suppressed non-canonical gospels?"
  • "After reading this article, would someone know what a sayings Gospel is, and how it differs from a narratively driven Gospel?"
  • "After reading this article, would someone know anything at all about the immense amounts of work carried out to determine the process by which the four canonical Gospels were created, what their relationships with each other were, what order they were created in, and what constituencies they each appear to have been addressing?"
  • "After reading this article, would someone know the context of the term "Son of God" and understand how a Jew of Jesus' time would have interpreted that phrase? Would the reader even know that it is applied to other persons than Jesus in the Bible?"
  • So for example: I'm not talking about mentioning the Gospel of Thomas. I'm talking about making it clear who that Gospel's audience was, and why that matters to people today who are interested in actual historical insights on Jesus. That is one of about a half-dozen areas where this article is either silent or where it offers answers drawn from half-baked Christian proselytizing, and that is insufficient. I've tried to give you some insight on those half-dozen areas where the article isn't working for me in the questions I've posed above. If these kinds of questions remain unaddressed, then for me, the current article falls woefully short of its mark, and is not ready for prime time. BYT 13:14, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't care when this article is featured, I just think it should be featured. I'm reexpanding the Historicity of Jesus section because it is a major aspect of Jesus. However, what you're asking for is a description of the gospels and there historicity and names such as Son of Man. Essentially it's as if you want this article to describe Jesus, but also describe every item that describes Jesus. I don't mind describing Jesus, however, the point of an encyclopedia is to describe the topic at hand, and if you don't understand a descriptor, you look that descriptor up. And especially in Wikipedia this is true, because if you ever don't understand a term or are unfamiliar with it, such as canonical gosels, gospel, Son of God, or gospel of matthew, Mark, Luke, John, or Thomas, you can just click it and see all about it. So, you wanting there to be details about the details of Jesus is wrong. That's what creates bad aritcles and articles that are too long. The article needs focus and in this case the focus is Jesus. I would like to hear what other people think about this. Thanks. Scifiintel 19:29, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

  • With respect, we disagree. I do want the focus of the article to be Jesus. But I don't think that's the same as having the thrust of the article being determined by mainstream Christian interpretation of the canonical Gospel narratives, ignoring, for instance, the recent work of people like Burton Mack and the Jesus Seminar. You apparently do want a traditional approach, and do want to ignore that work.
  • If we were doing an article on Thomas Jefferson, we would include the latest and best information on, say, the paternity disputes and the allegations of personal financial irresponsibility, even though historical research on those issues was not complete in 1824. Jesus is different because ....? BYT 20:07, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I looked up Thomas Jefferson and did not see what you suggested, but I also realize that Jefferson may be a bad example. However, the reason the most recent acedemia that your talking about is not included in the Jesus article, and in most articles, is because those ideas are still considered controversial. In fact, the recent work you are referring to has not gotten large scale academic acceptance, and that's why it's not included in the article. The work is on the fringes of truth with respect to scholarly endeavor. Therefore, it is of minor significance with respect to Jesus and is not included in an article about him. If these things need to be added to the Historicity article about Jesus, I support you. Scifiintel 20:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

  • OK, we seem to be getting somewhere. BTW, I only meant "if I were writing an article about Thomas Jefferson..." and didn't bother to check what was actually there. But you got the point.
  • I do want to mention that the questions I'm unwilling to airbrush out of Jesus have been routinely derided as "on the fringes" and "controversial" by the Christian right ... for a very long time. That they have made this argument so loudly, so consistently, and so angrily, for so long, is certainly indicative of something, namely that people don't want the questions posed in the first place. Now, Funk's stuff has been around for two decades and is still standing, so it seems worthy of discussion not only to loonybins like me, but also to some more demonstrably objective folk [[1]], [[2]], [[3]], [[4]].
  • PS: If this stuff is "controversial," well, so is the implication that the Gospels are historical records.
  • Finally, I think we are talking about a historicity subsection, not just a link to a separate article, right? BYT 21:27, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, the historicity subsection is there. Scifiintel 02:00, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Historicity section is a huge improvement. Wow. I'd like to see how long it lasts, whether it will be commented out, etc., but I am now leaning toward supporting this article for featured article status. Very nice work. BYT 16:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

*Object any article about Jesus that won't even mention that he is believed by millions of people to be divine....is missing something.Gator (talk) 18:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Object not ready yet and a really controversial article. A main concern of mine is that any reference to Islam keeps getting removed from the intro again and again. He is very important in Islam too and although editors might want to make a lot of the information from Christian POV, I think at least the reference to his position in the of the world's second largest major religion can be kept, especially now that the entire religious perspectives section has been moved to its own article. Maybe some information on Islam can be added in the life and teachings section, too but the intro definitely needs it. I like working on the article and organizing information but not when much of it keeps getting removed or added. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 20:00, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Hmmm and yet doesn't mention anything else about his position in another religion in which he is considered important. That is very POV since the other 18 paragraphs of the article are devoted to christian beliefs. One sentence is enough for Islam according to you? --a.n.o.n.y.m t 20:23, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

also, please add information from Islam to life and teachings, and be sure to include your sources in the article.... I'm not knowledgeable in that area so I can't do that. Scifiintel 20:25, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I would like to, but wouldn't it be nice if his position in Islam was kept in the intro? This is my only major concern with the article and that paragraph keeps getting removed. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 20:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Good to see that it wasn't deleted again. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 21:53, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
Anonym, I was wondering if the Qu'ran had a specific account of JEsus's life. I'm sorry I'm not very familiar with it comparted to the Torah, Gospels, or Book of Mormon. But if it has its own chronalogical account it may be worth adding in teh Islam section. Right now, the article Isa only includes a large trivia section which would be difficult to use. It would provide a religious balance to the article. Falphin 17:01, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, the Qur'an has several accounts about Jesus' life. Mostly they regard his status as prophet and messenger or his miraculous birth. But yes, I think that the Islamic perpective is in need of attention and I will try to work on it. --a.n.o.n.y.m t 18:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Surah Miryam (number 19) [5] is, I think, the Surah most commonly cited when non-Muslims ask for Qur'anic references to Isa and Miryam, though pls be advised Falphin that this story (as with many, many other topics in the Qur'an) is addressed in small and large chunks throughout the entire text of the Qur'an. BYT 19:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

There weren't cameras back then, but a few paintings are in the article. Scifiintel 05:26, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure this was a joke. BYT 19:39, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Object, unbalanced. Historicity, background, religious and cultural perspectives are all at least as important as the Gospel biography. The balance was actually decent until a short while back when Scifiintel started throwing out everything except the text under the "Life and teachings" heading. The article was indeed too long back then, but the problem should have been addressed by cutting details from all sections, including "Life and teachings" (there is lots of fancruft in it presently), not replacing most of the article with a gigantic see also-section. (On the positive side, removing the second table of contents from the lead section and removing the list of interpretations by influential leaders were good moves.) - Fredrik | tc 00:25, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree that the religious and cultural perspectives should be expanded and maybe we should move it up to expand it. But I don't think Historicity and Background should be expanded simply because I don't think you will find one other "person" entry in Wikipedia which includes these sections. Can you show me an example where these sections are employed so we can at least know how to go about doing them? Thanks. Scifiintel 04:48, 10 December 2005 (UTC) ... I expanded religious perspectives as most other biographies have a "public perception" category and I feel this category takes it place for an ancient religious leader. is that better? Scifiintel 05:09, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
      • The reason you won't find these sections in most biographies is that they usually aren't big issues, but in Jesus' case, they are. All articles can't follow a standard layout. If you want an example, Adam and Eve seems fairly well structured in this regard. Fredrik | tc 09:43, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

So I suppose this means the historicity section needs to be reexpanded. You ask for a cultural interpretations or influence section, but wouldn't you say that Religious perspectives is the cultural interpretation of Jesus? Scifiintel 19:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Neutral-to those above who think the article is unbalanced, I believe they should look at the previous article. I would like to see this article expanded to 40-45kb however, by adding a section on the historicity of Jesus. The Gospels are considered more accurate by most schollars than the Gospel of Thomas although a mention is meritable. I will gladly support when these plus sources(for non-biblical resources) are added. Falphin 16:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
    • One other note, I've never seen "external references used." Some of those articles should be moved to External links while some others should be inline cited, to specific points or paragraphs that they were used to write. Falphin 16:49, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
Maybe they should just be named "references". --a.n.o.n.y.m t 16:50, 10 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure if they all are. If they all are references then that would work. Falphin 17:02, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm adding reexpanding the Historicity section, so hopefully that's better. Scifiintel 19:18, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I see there is a note section which is nice, but could you clarify the external references. After which I will support. Falphin 22:28, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I fixed up the notes and references sections. Scifiintel 02:46, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Good, you've worked hard. I change my vote to Support. Falphin 03:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Comment. Make sure that you state that all this information is from the New Testament texts; there's no scientific proof. That doesn't mean that it's not true, nor does it mean it is, but non-Christians (like me) would appreciate you citing that. --HereToHelp (talk) 16:56, 11 December 2005 (UTC) Sure, I can add that. Scifiintel 17:32, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Very strong object. Awkward writing, poorly-organized, seems to have lost a great deal of its value from several months ago, when it had vastly more information (is the new path to FAdom to scourge most of the information from the article and bury anything objectionable in low-quality sub-pages?). Use of "BC/BCE" "AD/CE" is very inefficient, space-consuming, and nonstandard, verging on POVed; what's next, "Wednesday/Fourth Day of the Week" to protect people who are offended by the name "Woden"? Jesus' satellite articles also vary from mediocre to horrible in quality, many of them little more than stubs (Parables of Jesus) and many of them in violation of Wikipedia's article standards (Jesus' sayings according to the Christian Bible, an attempt to bring Wikiquote into Wiktionary "for Jesus's sake"). Needs cleanup tags galore, not FA status. -Silence 03:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree AD/CE should be removed but not for the same reaosn. ON wikipedia, it is assumed that after the birthdate any numer with out BC/BCE is AD.(Hope that makes since). BC/BCE should remain, I've discussed this with people before and have learned it is best despit ruling to stick with the compromise. Satellite articles don't have to be good for a featured article, that's a requirement for Wikipedia:Featured topic. You should look at the progress of the article. I'm really confused on the your objections to quotting the NT. After all, that is Jesus's main biography. Falphin 00:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the organization is there, and the information is there, but I do agree that the writing is sometimes awkward and we can all work on fixing that. Scifiintel 04:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Object - I'm sure that for a subject that's been studied for 2000 years, one could find a few more references for the claims made there. Also there doesn't seem to be nearly enough secular thoughts on the subject. Also where is the section on popular culture? Everything from Jesus Christ Superstar to Buddy Jesus (from Dogma (movie)) there's so many I can't even name them all. This is very important and I don't see any significant treatment. Also I don't see anything in there about the debate within the Christian faith about the scope of the salvation due to his sacrifice - to many christians the single most important aspect of his life. This debate has gone on for centuries (universalism - the belief that the sacrifice "counts" for all individuals, not simply those who profess specific belief, isn't mentioned at all in the article). There also seems to be very little treatment of differing theological implications of Jesus for Catholics and Protestants, or debates about the mono/polytheism of Christianity depending directly on the character of Jesus (see Oneness Pentecostal for more info). I'm not saying that *all* of this must be in the article, but I find it blatantly absurd that *none* of it is. This article is about a topic that's so complex, controversial, and important throughout the world that I believe that it would behoove Wikipedia to improve it *drastically*, and provide good referenced sources, before it's even considered for featured article status again. That being said, it is still much better than the majority of wikipedia articles, though I'm not sure how much that really means. - JustinWick 03:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
    • It would be nice to have a treatment for a popculture section similar to the other sub-Jesus articles. It doesn't need a big section because unlike other biography's this would be way too big. The article could be suggested to be added to Wikipedia:Good articles. Falphin 02:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Very strong object There is a huge, offensive double standard going on here over the BCE/BC AD/CE wars. Not only are people violtaing Wikipedia policy in the change to BCE/CE but there is an ENORMOUS double standard going on here. See Jewish or Muslim related articles and related BCE/CE discussions. The choice should be that which offends Christians the least, as is the case with Jewish and other articles. This is not Craetionism/Evolution here. This is basic stuff.

Review of historicity section

Not quite a peer review, but I received the following from an agnostic friend:

  1. "the time when Jesus was purported to live" -- this seems to be bending over backward for the Jesus-mythers. You already mentioned that they exist, but are a small group.
  2. "Although some critical scholars, including archeologists, continue to use them as points of reference in the study of ancient Near Eastern history[9] some have come to view the texts as cultural and literary document" (emphasis added). -- and some don't give a damn? "Some" is too weasely. Are there any percetages available? Do more argree with statement one, or with statement two?
  3. Since you link to hagiography, do you really need this explanation? "Hagiography has a principal aim of the glorification of the religion itself and of the example set by the perfect holy person represented as its central focus."
  4. This indicates that there is proof that Paul had visions: "Paul saw Jesus only in visions, but he claimed that they were divine revelations and hence authoritative (Galatians 1:11-12)."
  5. Develop this a bit more? Admit that they may not exist because they may have been intentionally destroyed? "Questions of existence of earlier texts" (I would change the title to "Earlier texts" or "Possible earlier texts" as "questions" carries a certain implication that the documents never existed).
  6. The footnote doesn't exactly support this, in addition, there is no indication of potential bias on the part of the scholars. "However, most scholars accept many details of the Gospel narratives"
  7. Is the many and some true in this section, "External influences on gospel development"? Also, are these historical scholars (i.e., non-reliously inspired) or Biblical scholars?

Please remember that I am merely the messenger and do not deserve to be shot. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. LaTalkTCF 22:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Paul having visions. I agree with the reviewer, but I cannot figure an appropriate rewording. "Allegedly" or "According to the bible" both could work, but I wanted to get other's input.--Andrew c 03:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
"According the Bible" is good, reference to specific verses is better. It's in Acts at least 3 times and all over the Pauline epistles. It shouldn't be too hard to cite. In fact, we alreadty cite Galatians. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. LaTalkTCF 06:55, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Most of the suggestions sound good. I only request that if we include something about the possibility of "intentionally destroyed" older texts, we attribute it specifically and source it. --MonkeeSage 17:50, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I changed this to a numbered list. Please let me know when you've taken these steps so I'll know when to archive this section. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. LaTalkTCF 09:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Have these suggestions been implemented? If so we need to strike this off the to-do list. —Aiden 19:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jesus/PR-and-FA&oldid=1136842655"