Talk:Jesus/Archive 50

Archive 45

←

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

Archive 51

Archive 52

→

Archive 55

Jesus Dynasty

This has been in the news lately; it was a segment of Nightline and on the cover of U. S. News and World Report. Does anyone have any comments on this? Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 03:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Odd. Statements like these in the summary (and excerpts): "[Jesus] regarded [John the Baptizer] as his teacher. . . [cf. p. 133]", "[Paul] transformed Jesus and his message. . .breaking with James and the followers of Jesus in Jerusalem", and claiming to have access to "a Hebrew version of the gospel of Matthew untouched by the Greek copyists [p. 134]", make me think that this book won't make any huge impact on Jesus studies except in groups where anything other than the traditional view will do. But that's just my impression. --MonkeeSage 08:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Talk Page Heading Level

As discussed in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (headings),

Nest headings correctly, for the same reasons as above. The automatically-generated top-level heading of any page is a H1 which gives the article title. The headings within the article must therefore be H2, ie "==".

The heading levels in this talk page violate this, as "=" is used for the headings. This should be changed to match the wikipedia style.

Edit: Looking at the archive pages, it seems that this style has been in use for the Jesus article for quite a while. Is there a specific reason that this article is not using the wikipedia standard? If so, perhaps my statement should be taken back. —matthew0028 06:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I can only speak for myself in saying this, but I belive it's due to plain, simple... laziness. :-) One person at the start used a single = heading and everyone else followed. The amount of effort one would have to put into re-formatting the entire discussion (archives and all) would be substantial. --Steve Caruso 03:51, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think it would be reasonable to just fix the main talk page, and leave the archives as they are. We can even reationalize it as not needed, since they're archiving the articles as they were at the time of archival, heading errors and all. Or, just do the main talk page, and put off fixing the archives until later. No need to do everything at once. —matthew0028 06:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I can't remember who it was. Back in January, somebody came by and used one = for a header, which messed up the TOC for the other sections (which were using ==). If I remember correctly, that was the first time someone brought up Jesus in India. Since then I've been using = for primary headers to avoid messing up the page. I apologize for not following the style manual. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 04:53, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've changed the header levels on the main talk page. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 17:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Biographical Information

As you may have noticed, I've instituted some of the more expanded biography I've worked on at User:Aiden/Jesus. This is by no means a full account nor do I wish to see the article as such. However, this is after all a biographical article first and foremost. Thus, I think it is imperative that the article actually tell the story of Jesus. Now, the changes I've made are pretty minor in the grand scheme of things--mostly due to lack of time on my part. However, I've added the Geneology section and merged the Family section into it. I've also added Nativity/Childhood Baptism/Temptation sections. I feel these changes, and hopefully more to come (such as a better account of specific ministries) help make the article what it should be--a biographical article. A good example of this is the Muhammad article. I'd like to know what everyone thinks. —Aiden 04:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

And here Andrew C was wanting to condense the Life and Teachings section! I see a potential conflict. The article is now 83 KB long; how long do we want it to be? I know, I know, Wikipedia isn't paper, but still, those of us on slow modems might be overwhelmed if the article gets to be too long. Finally, the Baptism/Temptation section duplicates in part the first paragraph of the ministry section. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 05:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Relative to the rest of the article, the section is very small. And I for one don't see why we should have to condense the biography section before condensing other sections, such as the six paragraph rambling on the origin of Jesus' name. What's most central to a biographical article is in fact the biography part. —Aiden 05:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I, CTSWyneken and Steve Caruso definitely agree that the names section should be condensed, and most of the information moved to subarticles. Overall I'm more concerned about concise wording than length. The whole thing, not "condense the biography section before condensing other sections." Where in the world did that statement come from??!!!!! 3 and a half screens isn't exactly "very small" relative to the rest of the article. It's the longest section of the body! It's also longer than New Testament view on Jesus' life. Something is a little off when a summary is longer than the article it is meant to summarize. At 1280*1024, the article divides into:

• One third of a screen for the intro
• Three quarters of a screen for the TOC
• Half a screen for the chronology section
• 3 and a half screens for the Life and Teachings section
• Just over two screens for the Historicity section, with more than half a screen for the name section (this definitely needs work)
• 3 screens for the Religious Views section
• One third of a screen for the cultural impact section
• 2 and a third screens for notes
• a screen and a half for references, see also and external links

---

15 screens total.

We have an extensive appendix and TOC, so that's actually only 10 screens for the body of the article. About a third of that is the Life and Teachings section. That seems about right to me. There is another third for the religious views. That also seems about right to me. Other than that, about a fifth of the article covers the historical Jesus. About a sixth of the article is the Chronology and Cultural Impact sections combined. I'm not convinced that the Chronology section is not redundant, since it's mostly about the birth and cruciixion dates; perhaps it belongs in the historical Jesus section? Like the name subsection, the chronology section could also be condensed IMHO.

IMHO, about 30–35% of the body of this article should cover the Gospel account, 30–35% should cover scholarly views of the historical Jesus, 30–35% should cover religious views, and the rest should cover the cultural impact. That seems to be the proper balance to me. Aiden, I don't mean to criticize you. I just think that if we're going to expand our summary of the Gospel account, we should first expand New Testament view on Jesus' life and then decide how to summarize it in this article. Again, something is a little off when a summary is longer than the article it is meant to summarize. That article was created on November 14, 2004 because this section was getting a bit long. That is precisely the reason why we have "daughter" subarticles. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 05:42, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

"It (the baptism) is a very important event in Christianity as it not only marks the beginning of Jesus' public ministry, but also sets a precedent of baptism adhered to by Christians to this day." First of all, do we need the editorializing? Any sentence beginning "It is a very important event in Christianity" belongs in the Christian views section. Any clause beginning "sets a precedent" might also belong in the cultural impact section. Secondly, this isn't entirely accurate. It is true of many, but not all, Christian denominations. I had some interesting conversations with two Quaker ministers a while back about why they reject water baptism (they reject rituals and believe in an entirely spiritual baptism). Then we get into the whole issue of believer's baptism vs. infant baptism, not to mention immersion baptism vs. sprinkling baptism (see above re:the controversy about the baptism picture). Thirdly, once again, this level of detail belongs in New Testament view on Jesus' life. Fourthly, this article is about Jesus, not baptism. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 06:56, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your points about editorializing and agree with many of the changes you have made. Still, I think our disagreement rests in the length of each section. I for one see the article as a biographical one, of which the majority of content should be related to the biography of Jesus. I feel that it does a great disservice to a reader unfamiliar with Jesus who comes across an article such as this and fails to really learn anything about the life of Jesus, but rather is subjected to ramblings about the supposed nonexistence of Jesus and the views of fringe minorities who consider Jesus the reincarnation of Buddha or some obscure view which really has no bearing on popular discourse. Those are the articles that should be confined to a host of breakout articles, not something as fundamental as the life of the subject. Again, in terms of a true biographical article, I recommend everyone look at the Muhammad article. —Aiden 18:11, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I did. I also checked the talk page. "Muhammad was removed from the good article list. There are suggestions below for which areas need improvement to satisfy the good article criteria. Once the objections are addressed, the article can be renominated as a good article. If you disagree with the objections, you can seek a review." I'd hate to see Jesus suffer the same fate as Muhammad. Also, as Homestarmy said earlier, Muhammad led armies and thus left his military legacy in the historical record. Jesus' life wasn't so violent. Jesus taught, debated with various Judaic factions and went willingly to His crucifixion. Christians believe that He rose again on the third day, redeeming humanity from sin. Jesus' primary legacy is Christianity, and that religion even affected other religions, no matter how "fringe" you may consider those religions to be.

Of course, it's important to summarize the primary information we have, primarily the Gospel accounts and some background stuff from Josephus and the like. The thing is, there are several biographies out there, both religious and secular. Thus the biography is more than just the life and teachings section; the whole article is either about His life or His cultural impact. The nonexistence hypothesis is indeed dismissed as a small minority. The reincarnation Hindu/Buddhist stuff is more about cultural impact and comes late in the religious views section, as it should.

Finally, New Testament view on Jesus' life needs more work than this article does. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 18:49, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

PS: A better example than Muhammad might be Moses. Moses, like this article, lists various perspectives, although the Moses article needs some citations. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 18:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, just reading the talk page, I would venture that mohammad was delisted for instability, it looks like there's some pretty bad content disputes and an edit war broke out, those sort of situations warrent delisting, as one GA criteria is stability :/. Homestarmy 19:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I have been helping to resolve the issue at the Muhammad article. It was delisted by joturner so we could resolve a dispute over the presence of fringe religious perspectives and views of Muhammad as the founder of Islam, which we have ultimately decided not to include in the main article per WP:NPOV#Undue_weight. Secondly, I sincerely hope this article does not in any way resemble the Moses article, but mainly for reasons other than subject matter. —Aiden 19:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, for one thing, Moses is important to three world religions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam. This article is better than the Moses article. I was talking about the overall outline: Moses in the Bible, religious views, historical views. There's even a section on philosophical views ("Ethical dilemmas"). Beyond the general outline, though, Moses needs fact-checking and citations.

I like to be (reasonably) comprehensive. Also, I'd like to see this article eventually succeed as an FA. There were a lot of negative comments at our last FA nomination. One editor wrote that "Historicity, background, religious and cultural perspectives are all at least as important as the Gospel biography." Someone else wrote that "there doesn't seem to be nearly enough secular thoughts on the subject." Well, we've been working to find the proper (due) weighted balance. Finally, there's the whole systemic bias thing. We have Christian views of Jesus (another article that needs work) for the purely Christian views of Jesus.

Like CTSWyneken said earlier, it helps to answer Jesus' question: "who do men say that I am?" Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 20:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Aha, but just because men say Jesus is something doesn't make them correct :). Homestarmy 20:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but remember WP:VERIFY: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." That's why we spend so much time on citations. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 05:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I am of the school of having a very concise new testament plot summary, and linking to the main article on that topic. I do not believe that we can come up with a "biography" of Jesus, due to the huge number of POVs that claim they know who the real Jesus was (different religious views, different scholarly, historical views). All of these POVs have their own articles (Isa, Jewish view on Jesus, Historical Jesus, NT view on Jesus). Saying the NT plot summary IS the biography of Jesus is a POV statement. I'd agree with Arch that the expanded content belongs in the NT views article, not this one. --Andrew c 02:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I support Andrew c's views, especially when he says that saying the NT plot summary IS the biography of Jesus is POV. Drogo Underburrow 02:50, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I fail to see how having 2/3 of an article critically analyzing someone who the article fails to provide a decent biography for constitutes a "good article." If anything, these in-depth critical analyses should be in breakout articles. First and foremost our job is to provide a biography of Jesus. And frankly that is not a hard thing to do. We do not have to go into great detail or dwell on controversies. We know the subject matter and main source, according to WP:NPOV#Undue_weight that'd be the Gospels. It should not be a big deal to dedicate a larger portion of space to the main reason for the article existing in the first place. Then we can give everyone a soapbox. —Aiden 03:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with using the Gospels to provide a biography of Jesus, as long as no attempt is made to harmonise the Gospels, the different versions of the Jesus story as given in each Gospel are clearly told, and the article is clear that Jesus is a character from the Bible. The article would be similar to telling the biography of Bilbo Baggins, where you have a couple of sources that tell slightly different versions of his tale, though the Baggins tale is far more consistent and internally coherent, having been written by the same author. If by biography you mean the story of Jesus the person who actually existed, then you are by definition in the realm of the "historical Jesus" debate, where views range from non-existance to the extensive historical speculations of some scholars. Drogo Underburrow 04:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

We've done some work attributing the accounts "according to John" or "according to Luke" wherever appropriate. I think we do need more work to cover the range of the historical Jesus debate, both here and in related articles such as Historical Jesus and Historicity of Jesus. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 05:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Honestly Aiden, which is better: Content alone, or content and analysis? Even from a purely religious perspective, analysis is important. That's why, for example, Lutherans don't always agree with Catholics. It gets even more diverse when you add major secular viewpoints, which, frankly, we must in order to be NPOV. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 05:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

You can't analyze content that isn't there. —Aiden 21:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Of course, now that you've added content, we have more to analyze. How to explain why Luke says that Jesus' birth was during the reigns of Herod and Quinirius, when Quinirus became governor of Syria about ten years after Herod the Great died? There are secular historians who find the nativity account ahistoric (in whole or in part), and there are Christian apologists who offer explanations. You've just complicated things. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 21:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, I for one would not be opposed to linking said apologetics sites if they would help elaborate on the content :). Homestarmy 22:05, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Dissident Jesus

An anon IP (69.236.67.78 (talk · contribs)) added the following paragraph:

A secular interpretation of the possibility of a historic Jesus is that he was simply a human revolutionary who correctly perceived a corrupt political elite of his time as cynical manipulators of traditional religious symbol system. Lacking a modern vocabulary to say that directly, and having a utopian vision of a cooperative society, he spoke (often sarcastically) using religious vocabulary—eloquently enough to become an effective leader of a politically threatening dissident movement. Yet, in his own primitive way, he was an early example of deconstructionism in practice. The tradition of Gnosticism, and most recently the Gospel of Judas support this view (from a secularist perspective). This secularist view has many origins but can be found recorded in popular culture works such as the theatrical show Jesus Christ Superstar.

This dosen't belong in the Christian views section, so I moved it to the historical reconstruction section. However, I thought we might also need to discuss this. So, discuss away ;) Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 08:55, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi. I'm the author of said paragraph. I'm also new to trying to edit wikipedia so I'm sure to make beginner mistakes. I left an easy-to-delete paragraph on your personal discussion page that I'll delete myself if you haven't already, for example.

So: I'm not so clear why you think this doesn't belong in the section on early christian views. You would seem to be favoring the readings of various churches of the texts over certain secular readings --- hardly a neutral point of view. I ask you to restore my paragraph. 69.236.67.78 lord@emf.net

That's just the point: they're certain secular readings. We have a section for secular, as opposed to religous, readings. The section on Christian views presents Christian theology, not "certain secular readings." Yes, that is a POV, but it's balanced by other POVs in the article. WP:NPOV means we discuss all relevant views and give them appropriate weight,Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 10:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

MPerel has added "fact" tags, so we definitely need to discuss this. To be honest, I have no idea what source 69.236.67.78 used. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 09:06, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

yes, hopefully the anon will return to back up these ideas. It wouldn't be hard to cite that some believe he was some sort of revolutionary, but most of the rest is analysis that needs to come from some authoritive source. Besides, adjectives like sarcastic, eloquent, primitive are subjective terms that really only belong in attributed quotes. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 09:27, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

lord@emf.net again -- MPerel: what kind of "back up" would you suggest? I did include one cultural link and I guess I could conjure up more. It's a fairly obvious idea on it's own. "sarcastic" and other terms -- I don't understand the distinction you are drawing there. I think it is an incoherent one. -t —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.236.67.78 (talk • contribs)

It's just better to give names, published works and page numbers than to hide behind the vague "A secular interpretation." The question is, whose secular interpretation is this? A number of interpretations have been discussed at the subpage Talk:Jesus/Historical Jesus (well, subpages of that subpage; the discussion got quite long). We've gathered quite a few sources at Talk:Jesus/Historical Jesus/Sources, not to mention Talk:Jesus/Cited Authors Bios. In short, we need sources for this paragraph. Without sources, it violates WP:NOR. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 10:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi lord@emf.net and welcome to Wikipedia. :) The ideas you stated are interesting analysis. As a newbie, one of Wikipedia's policies that you'll need to familiarize yourself with is No Original Research. What this means in a nutshell is that as editors, we only express published ideas, not our own synthesis or interpretation (no matter how true or intelligent it may be). So for example, can you cite a specific published source that expresses the idea that Jesus "was simply a human revolutionary who correctly perceived a corrupt political elite of his time as cynical manipulators of traditional religious symbol system"? Is there a published source that describes Jesus an early example of deconstructionism? These ideas may very well be true, but unless they have already been stated somewhere by an authoritive source, we can't put it in the article. Does that make sense? --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 10:15, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, to clarify on the subjective adjectives... words like "sarcastic, eloquent, primitive" are in the eye of the beholder, so they're not really neutral voice. We only use subjective terms if we are directly quoting someone in order to describe a particular point of view. Does that help? --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 10:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused as to how Gnosticism, with its view of Jesus as an unearthly being, and emphasis on secret, esoteric knowledge, and so forth, can be seen as even vaguely compatible with the idea of Jesus as a human revolutionary. The Jesus of the canonical gospels (and especially the synoptics) is much closer to this idea than the Jesus of Gnosticism. john k 16:37, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Nazarenes

A recent edit has changed 'Jesus was the Nazarene' to 'The Gospels record that Jesus was a Nazarene, but the meaning of this word is vague.[25]'

Whilst agreeing that the discussion of the names of Jesus should be continued on another page, I would like to change the line to

' The Gospels record that Jesus lived for some part of his life in Nazareth. There may have been other reasons why the Gospels refer to him as 'Jesus the Nazarene'. [25]' Any comments? Johnmarkh 14:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, the Life and Teachings section already says "Jesus' childhood home is represented as Nazareth in Galilee" before you even get to the historicity section. That particular paragraph was written from scratch, not changed from anything else. It summarizes (scholarly opinion of) Jesus in relation to other Jewish sects. There was an early sect of Christian Jews known as the Nazarenes. That may be what Christianity was known as before they were first called Christians in Antioch (Acts 11:26) That sect is what the word "Nazarene" is referring to. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 14:58, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Well I changed it to "a" because I specifically remember Jesus being in the same category as Lord of Lords, but not Nazarene of Nazarenes, "the" seemed incorrect. I didn't put in the "vauge" thing though. Homestarmy 15:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

It's "vague" because, as Nazarene states, there are several proposed derivations besides "from Nazareth." Of course, it is possible that one of those derivations was why Nazareth was named Nazareth. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 15:29, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Bring to others' attention

Please note that a couple of participants on this page are currently up for adminship, if any of you wish to weigh in. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 22:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Main section billing

Shouldn't the "Religious perspectives" section, which accounts for the religious views of most of the world, be listed before the historicity section according to WP:NPOV's guidelines on prominence? —Aiden 21:29, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I could go either way. It depends on whether you want to emphasize religious or historical views. Some people will have strong feelings either way. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 22:59, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Cutting down some more

I would like to just delete the following paragraph (2nd paragraph under Nativity and childhood):

According to Luke 2:18-20, an angel visited some local shepherds in the night, telling them "Do not be afraid, for behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy which will be to all people. For there is born to you this day in the city of David a Savior, who is Christ the Lord. And this will be the sign to you: You will find a Babe wrapped in swaddling cloths, lying in a manger." After this an innumerable company of angels appeared with the herald singing "Glory to God in the highest, on earth peace, good will toward men." (See The First Noël.) The shepherds went quickly to Bethlehem, finding the sign to be as the angel foretold. They subsequently publicized what they had witnessed throughout the area. According to Matthew 2:1-12, some men from the east (traditionally called "wise men" or "Magi"), presented the infant Jesus with gifts of gold, frankincense, and myrrh. The men were following a star which they believed was a sign that the Messiah, or King of the Jews, had been born.

While these details are interesting when discussing the nativity story, I feel that they have very little to do with Jesus, and more to do with the first Christmas. At least, I think we should cut down on the bible quotes (what is the point of linking to the quote if we are just going to copy and paste it into the text). --Andrew c 02:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I second the suggestion. » MonkeeSage « 02:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

At the very least, it should be heavily cut down. john k 03:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I have heavily condensed the paragraph and merged the main points in the first. Please let me know what you think. —Aiden 03:55, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I made some slight changes, and feel that you did a great job of condensing the two bits from each gospel into their own consise sentences. Thanks!--Andrew c 04:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)