Talk:Jesus

	Archives of older discussions may be found here:	Key to archives, Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24,25, 26,27, 28,29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44.

	Subject-specific:	Talk:Josephus on Jesus, Talk:Virgin Birth, Talk:Jewish views of Jesus

	ACTIVE sub-pages	/Cited Authors Bios, /Christian views in intro, /Scribes Pharisees and Saducees, /Dates of Birth and Death, /2nd Paragraph Debate, Related articles, /Historicity Reference, Comments, Sockpuppets, Languages Spoken by Jesus

---

Archives and Live Subpages

Recent Archive log

/Archive 40 sorted, here's the key: Archive and subpage logs. Discussion of first three paragraphs, including date issues (range and notation). Skeptic's view of Jesus, including philosophy of ethics and literary analysis. Other stuff: Help with Miracles of Jesus article, Rick Norwood's copyedit, and calm talk.

/Archive 41 is a long debate over the use of Hebrew in the first paragraph (etymology of the name "Jesus").

/Archive 42: Life, the universe, and everything; Ecumenical councils and Biblical canon; New NIV Template; Dates of Jesus; Led Zeppelin and Jesus; Gnosticism; sources controversy and a picture; Assessing the FA Drive.

/Archive 43: March 9 archive; Translation of Mishneh Torah; Proposal to rename this article "Jesus Christ"; Referencing (new footnoting system); SOPHIA's revision of the intro; Redundant sections on Christian views; etombment vs. burial; Andrew c's recent changes.

/Archive 44 - Life and teachings or biography of Jesus?, Date Notation Sillyness, Wikinfo on Jesus.

Subpage Activity Log

Judaism's views of Jesus

To save space, this section has been moved to Talk:Jewish views of Jesus/Judaism's views of Jesus.

Sockpuppet issue, Kdbuffalo's proposed revision

Discussion of recent sockpuppet allegations against Robsteadman and Kdbuffalo have been moved to Talk:Jesus/Sockpuppets. Discussion of Robsteadman's draft has been moved to Talk:Jesus/PR-and-FA.

Paragraph 3 (Christian views in intro)

Discussion archived to Talk:Jesus/Christian views in intro.

Non-Christian religious views

Eastern religion section

It doesn't appear to me that we have any citations or references beyond those 2 things in that paragraph, I thought i'd find some websites for some of it so we can either reference or cite it more:

| 1 | 2 (I think that second one might be what our article gets everything from) | 3 these all seem to be be good for citing everything before the Swami part. I can't find anything about Ayyavahzi or whatever, a google search of "Ayyavahzi and Jesus" yielded I think 720 results, and none of the first ones seemed helpful. Is this even a notable religion? | 4 | 5 (This one has a list of books on the subject) these 2 seem to be helpful for the Buudhist sentence, the first one especially for the gospel of Thomas thing. Im not so sure the Bahai sentence is correct, alot of the websites im seeing seem to say that Jesus was Bahaulla or that Jesus was God, | 6 | 7while some apologetics sites claim Bahai says He wasn't much of anything, | 8 so im a bit confused there. Are any of these links helpful source-wise? Homestarmy 19:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

You may prettify, but don't kill my babies! Please? ;-) --CTSWyneken 19:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Is this to me? I was careful with your babies : ) Go look, I converted to exactly what you had, it's just linking differently. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 20:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Oooops-sie! This belonged in the section above. Yes, its for you and you put baby to sleep very gently. ;-) --CTSWyneken 21:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Im not good at scholarly reference standards, i'll just add in a few as numbered links so that they can be reference-ified in the future. I'll try to see if I can change the Bah'ai sentence without making it too long as well. Homestarmy 19:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Homestarmy, I was just going to convert your latest links to the new style, but I'm not sure that first one is an appropriate link. It's better to cite Hindu beliefs from an authoritive Hindu source, rather than from a site that's targeting Hindus to convert them to another religion. Do you want to replace that with a better source?

I did think about that when I was citing it, but you know, I just plain trust apologetics sites :/. I'll go try to find a different citation though. Homestarmy 21:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

These might count almost like blogs but im not sure, once again from beliefnet.com, it has 3 sections concerning stuff in this article including the yogi and journey to india things: 42 Homestarmy 21:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Hindu views on Jesus christ could include

1. Fable of Saint Peter's arrival to india in early christian era.
2. Syrian christians coming to south india as asylum seekers
3. Colonian period and conversion. Infamous Goa inquisition.
4. Spread of Gospel in regional languages - through the missionaries of Germany, Spain, Portugues etc.
5. English education and renaissance period
6. Keshavachandra Sen and brahmo get influenced by Christianity
7. Life and teachings of Jesus christ on leaders and saints like Sri Ramakrishna, Swami Vivekananda, Mahatma Gandhi etc
8. Acceptance of Jesus Christ as divine personality while rejection of Churchianity by hindu leaders
9. Christian separatist movements of North-East India
10. Role christian missionaries in the field of health, education and evangelism
11. Missing years of Christ, Jesus in India
12. No hindu religious leader ever making derogatory statements against Jesus Christ though colonial masters were christians

Ramashray 16:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Re:"Hindu beliefs in Jesus vary…to those who believe that he was an avatar of God."

Which god? Vishnu? Arch O. La^TalkTCF 22:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Vishnu, usually, though in Smarta Hinduism Vishnu is himself seen as personality/emanation of God, not as one of several discrete gods.Paul B 22:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I would very much prefer we find some sources for the Hindu claims beyond religioustolerance.org, in my experience, it often glosses over issues in its articles and although I admit the apologetics site link might of been a bit off for citing, the hindu citations were not off at all, we should find some citations from Hindu sources. Homestarmy 13:39, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, now someone removed them so I put the old one's back in, what are we gonna do about these? I replaced the apologetics citation with a different one.... Homestarmy 19:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I would take religioustolerance.org with a grain of salt...they are not the most accurate source of information. For example, in a discussion of abortion and OT passages they say that the Jews were given to ritually sacrificing children, but in a different context they say that such accusations arise from hate and anti-semitism and are simply a "Blood Libal" invented by people who do not understand Judaism! Now I'm not saying not to trust them, I'm just saying to be on the lookout for talking out of both sides of the mouth when you're there. --MonkeeSage 22:31, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Islamic section

More references:

Jesus as prophet, 1 similiarities, (virgin birth, miracle capability) 2 return to earth stuff in Islam 3 Injil stuff 4 and I might look up the life of Jesus claims and that last sentence when I get home. Homestarmy 20:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Why are there so many fact tags in the Islamic view section? Are the articles on Isa and Yuz Asaf not reference enough? I believe all, if not most of this information is repeated in these articles which are referenced themselves.--Andrew c 21:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

That's just it, the Isa article didn't have references when I looked, wikilinking to other articles doesn't cut it, we're aiming for FA status. I was going to finish looking up that section, but im a bit busy with school :/. Homestarmy 21:51, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Well the first fact tag is covered by source #14. The part about Yuz Asaf is just a statement of belief of one small sect. This belief is stated in an article on the offical webpage of the Ahmadiyya Muslim Community [1]. As for the second fact tag, I haven't found anything yet to back that up, but i'm still looking--Andrew c 22:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

that first sentence seemed to go more into specifics than source 14 could cover, and i'll try to add in what you found. Homestarmy 22:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I could have added the source I found, sorry. Anyway, this is what the first fact tag is referencing Muslims believe he will return to the world in the flesh following Imam Mahdi to defeat the Dajjal (an Antichrist-like figure, translated as "Deceiver") once the world has become filled with sin, deception and injustice, and then live out the rest of his natural life. Source 14 says " Hadhrat Isa (A.S.) will have two flexible swords and one shield with him and with these he will kill Dajjal at the Gate of Hudd. " and "It will be time for Fajr prayers, and Imam Mahdi will be the Amir (leader) ... at the time of Fajr, Isa (A.S.) will descend. " and "After his descension on earth, Hadhrat Isa (A.S.) will marry. He will have children, and he will remain on earth 19 years after marriage. He will pass away and Muslims will perform his Janaza Salaat and bury him net to Rasulullah ". The only part of that sentence that isn't sourced by 14 is the "once the world has become filled with sin, deception, and injustice" but it does mention the Day of Judgement and the "last era of the Ummat". I would say source 14 covers that sentence, but I could be missing something.--Andrew c 22:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I must of not noticed it there or something, I was just skimming over the stuff I found to see if I could see the information, I guess 14 does apply then, which just leaves that last thing, which im pretty sure is backed up somewhere by something. Homestarmy 22:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Muslims do indeed recognize the crucifixion of Christ, and the event is even related in the Koran. The important difference, however, is that Jesus ascended directly from the cross to Heaven according to the Koran. Hence Muslims believe in the crucifixion but not the resurrection of Christ. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.249.47 (talk • contribs)

Interesting. Do you have a sura we can cite? Arch O. La^TalkTCF 07:23, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Sura 4:157, "they said 'We killed Christ Jesus, the Son of Mary, the Apostle of God,’ but they killed Him not, nor crucified Him. It was made to appear to them so and those who differ therein are full of doubts with no certain knowledge. They follow only conjecture for assurity. They killed Him not. God raised Him up to Himself". Thus, the statement by anon appears to be incorrect. Additionally, see the initial comments by Dr. Jamal Badawi, here [2]. See this too, although I'd probably not use it as a reference in the article [3], and yet more, [4]. Enjoy.  :) Jim62sch 16:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but there are now a couple of suras quoted in the Isa section already. I was asking for citations, not quotes, but we have what we have. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 19:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The omnicontroversial second paragraph

We have been debating the second paragraph for nearly two months, and it remains controversial. We created the subpage /2nd Paragraph Debate so that we could continue the discussion withoout stifling discussion on other parts of the article. I just moved 66 kilobytes to that subpage. I, for one, do not mind having some discussion on this page, because many editors will be more likely to notice it here. However, please keep any discussion of paragraph 2 within this section, and not in other sections of this page. Also keep in mind that any comments may be moved to the subpage at any time.

Among the items currently being discussed:

1. Clarification of the identity and reasoning and range of positions of the "majority" and the "minority"
2. The reason for the minority position
3. How to accurately represent the variety of views.

Further discussion should be undertaken under /2nd Paragraph Debate or below with a new subsection (use == to start a new subheader). Again, any discussion on this main talk page may be moved to the subpage at any time. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 08:34, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Skeptics and other philosophers

Old talk moved to Talk:Jesus/Archive 40#Skeptic, part two.'

I mean, alot of that stuff looks easy enough to find information for, if the debate over what is and is not the popular view will continue for awhile, I think we might as well look up citations for what we have right now. Homestarmy 17:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

There were two references given for the Skeptics' view; see #Sources of skeptacism regarding Jesus. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 18:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

But do just those 2 references cover everything in that paragraph and are they listed as references already? Homestarmy 20:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph is both brief and unsourced. All it says is, "Many Humanists, Atheists and Agnostics, whilst rejecting the concept of God, and therefore of the divinity of Christ, nevertheless have empathy with some of the moral principles taught in the New Testament." Arch O. La^TalkTCF 21:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Well even though it is pretty vauge, im sure we could find plenty of examples of it to cite :/. Homestarmy 15:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I suspect such people see Jesus much as they see Socrates. They would say, maybe Jesus existed as a man, and maybe Jesus didn't, but that's not important. They would say, what is important is the ideas attributed to Jesus. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 20:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's something else to consider. The historical Jesus and the Biblical Jesus are different concepts. However, they're closely related. The historical Jesus is reconstructed from the Biblical Jesus and from what else we know about that time and place. This is the province of historians. The Biblical Jesus is the province of philosophers of religion. Some of these argue for the Jesus-Myth. The more cautious say that there may have been a real historical Jesus who is probably different from the Biblical Jesus. The less cautious argue for the nonexistence hypothesis.

Think about this: what would people say in 3959 if the only extant records of David Koresh are from Branch Davidians? In that case there would be no absolute proof. There was a real historical David Koresh, but Branch Davidians saw him as the Lamb of God and await the Second Coming of Koresh. OTOH, the Boogeyman is entirely urban legend. How would the people in 3959, so remote from our time, be able to tell that David Koresh was not as much of a myth as the Boogeyman?

I think all this talk of the Jesus-Myth is obscuring the fact that the Jesus-Myth school is just a subset of opinion in the field of the philosophy of religion, which in turn is a subset of philosophy. We have brief mentions of the Jesus-Myth school and the Ethicist school, but I wonder how well we are portraying the various philosophical views of Jesus. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 05:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I just want to cite stuff so it qualifies for FA status heh :D Homestarmy 15:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that those with a purely secular philosophical view either see Jesus as good like Socrates, bad like David Koresh, or somewhere in between. The reference to Koresh was also my parable about the Jesus-Myth.

Actually, Rick's got some excellent stuff on his talk page. It may need to be edited, but here it is: User_talk:Rick_Norwood#Jesus. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 18:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

(posted on Rick's talk page) "To me, what Rick wrote is quite good, as well as quite likely rather true. However, Arch has a very real point as well. Nonetheless, the very real question comes down to a point I raised about a week or so ago: the Jesus article has, for all intents and purposes become the Jesus Christ article. A decision needs to be made as to whether that is really the best course of action, or if you wish to return to FA status, whether you should create a more historical article." Jim62sch 16:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not exactly either, nor should it be. We have separate articles for both. Here, history, theology (not just Christianity) and art are all important. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 17:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Yet another point I found in Q document:

Basing their reconstructions primarily on the Gospel of Thomas and the oldest layer of Q, they propose that Jesus functioned as a wisdom sage more analogous to a Greek Cynic philosopher than to a Jewish rabbi.

From the article it's unclear whether "they" is referring to the Jesus Seminar or other "recent seekers of the Historical Jesus." If someone can find and cite sources on this, well, this definitely fits in with the philosophical views of Jesus. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 19:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course, Theists can also have a philosophical view of Jesus, If the reviews are any guide, than Garry Wills' What Jesus Meant makes the case that Jesus' moral teachings are different than what the Christian church has become. If so, then I believe Will's book will work well here.Arch O. La^TalkTCF 16:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, technically speaking, everyone has some sort of philosophy, even when it is unavowed/undiscerned, and there are specifically Christian philosophers (e.g., Van Til, Dooeyweerd, Vollenhoven, Hegel, Kierkegaard, Plantinga, Swinburne, Hasker, Basinger, Craig). But I understand what you're getting at about a philosophical view of Jesus. This section definitely needs some work on expansion / sourcing. I don't think I'm the one to do it however. Ideally someone who holds to that school of thought and is familiar with the sources could do it. --MonkeeSage 17:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Rick Norwood mentioned Skepticism. I'm thinking more of Ethicism and Philosophy of Religion, especially those that draw a distinction between Jesus' moral teachings on the one hand and Christianity on the other. I also found an analogy to Cynicism, but as I said I'm not sure who is making that analogy. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 17:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Sources of the philosophical views of Jesus

• Skeptics Bible
• Richard Carrier
• Wills, Garry, What Jesus Meant (2006).
• John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant, HarperSanFrancisco (1993), ISBN: 0060616296
• Bart Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why, Harper San Francisco (2005), ISBN: 0060738170
• Robert W. Funk, The Five Gospels: What Did Jesus Really Say? The Search for the AUTHENTIC Words of Jesus, Harper San Francisco (1997), ISBN: 006063040X
• Robert Walter Funk, The Acts of Jesus: What Did Jesus Really Do?, The Jesus Seminar, Harper San Francisco (1998), ISBN: 0060629789 #The Jesus Seminar, The Gospel of Jesus: According to the Jesus Seminar, Robert Walter Funk (Editor), Polebridge Press (1999), ISBN: 0944344747
• Albert Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus: A Critical Study of its Progress from Reimarus to Wrede, Scribner (1968), ISBN: 0020892403
• Thomas L. Thompson, The Messiah Myth: The Near Eastern Roots of Jesus and David, Basic Books (2005), ISBN: 0465085776

Some of these are Ethicists, some of these are Skeptics, and some may even be Jesus-Mythers. Wills was proposed by Jim62sch, and the rest were proposed by Rick Norwood. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 23:19, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, this seems pretty good reference-wise! Homestarmy 23:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, we've already gotten into Wills and Funk/Jesus Seminar, but someone should a look at these (or Rick should tell us what he's found). Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 23:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Alternate Antenicene Christianities

User:Clinkophonist has added data to the Historicity and Religious views sections that need to be fact-checked and cited. If accurate, this data does improve the article. Arch O. La^TalkTCF

I did a copyedit. I notice we now have a mix of American and Commonwealth spellings. Confusing. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 23:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

So pick one and copy edit the whole article. I have a preference based on the style and format of the article, but y'all figure it out. Jim62sch 17:12, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Ebionites

This section looks like it violates NOR. It has only one source, ant it is a primary source. The wording of the passage also seems highly POV. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm changing the header level, because this is one of the sections that Clinkophonist revised, and the POV language arguably comes from Clinkophonist. The source was added not by Clinkophonist but by later editors. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 14:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I know enough about the Ebionites to know that they are important. But I just do not know of any good studies of them - though I am not claiming that if I do not know, no one knows! If anyone knows the good sources on them, by all means let's learn about them. That said, I am not, however, sure how important they are for this article (as opposed to say, the history of Christianity). Do we have appropriate sources on what the Ebionites thought of Jesus? If we do not, then this may just be something that we have to leave out for now. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The Ebionites have been there for quite a while, although the reference was briefer until recently. Since the Ebionites were already there, and since a comment on the Good Article Collaboration of the Week suggested the Gnostics, we added the Gnostics and Marcionites to the article. The other point is that these aren't entirely historical. As I believe the linked pages indicate, there are neo-Ebionites and neo-Gnostics, though I don't know whether or not they identify as Christian. However, if there are also neo-Marcionites, I am not aware of them. Finally, we may need to condense the data from all of the article sections and take some of it to appropriate subpages. Jesus is starting to get a little long again. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 14:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I know that many histories of early Christianity (e.g. Hall) address the Marcionites and Gnostics in detail; Pagels has written extensively on Gnostics. i just haven't seen as much on Ebionites - but I'd love to learn! Slrubenstein | Talk 14:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm the one that expanded the Marcion and Ebionite sections during the GA/FA drive. The source I used was Bart Ehrman's The Lost Christianities. I added the book to the references section, but didn't include inline footnotes. The book is at work, and when I get there I can cite the page numbers from where I got the info (such as the vegetarian sentence). I also tried to focus on what their actual views were on Jesus as well, however I do believe it is beneficial to give a little bit of background on these early sects. I guess if we want to make these sections more concise, we could cut out the paragraph about the Ebionite's gospels. As for the Marcionites, it appears that most of the information that I added about how they viewed Jesus was lost (perhaps it was redundent?) But now, that whole section is basically the quote and talk about their canon.--Andrew c 15:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I think this information was lost when Clinkophonist merged the Gnostic and Marcionite sections. The reference SOPHIA provided on the Gnostics was also lost (I originally wrote the Gnostics paragraph based on other Wikipedia articles). The factual data added, if accurate, is valuable, but some of it belongs in other articles. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 15:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Ehrman is, as far as i know, a very well-recognized and well-thought-of source. I think it is a good idea to provide an inline citation, especially as others may at some point add more info. from other sources. The best source I know of on Gnostics is Elaine Pagels' The Gnostic Gospels which hews pretty closely to source material she is discussing i.e. other scholars may rely on other sources and add important stuff missing from Pagels' account. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I condensed the Gnostic paragraph. I restored SOPHIA's citation, but not her quote, and moved the details of gnosis to that article. I'll let Andrew c rework the Ebionite and Marcionite sections. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 15:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC) PS: Andrew, you should explain how the Marcionites differed from the Gnostics, or the sections may be merged together again. Arch O. La^TalkTCF

Here are the relevant portions of Schaff on Ebionism: 2:11 §112-114. I'm not overly familar with the Ebionites or current scholarship on that subject, so this may be superfluious. --MonkeeSage 21:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Other ... views

I don't know whether someone has commented on this already, but here it is: for my taste the section on other's views is bloated with information on the groups themselves, e.g. Marcionites, Ebionetes etc. when this article should be about Jesus and about views on him. Wiki-linking these groups should be enough and their views only be include when being concerned with Jesus himself. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree - I think lots of detail is good, but belongs in an article on Christianity or early Christianity. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, a lot of this comes from the edits that Clinkophonist made yesterday. When I wrote the Gnostics paragraph, I only mentioned the material/spiritual duality and the importance of gnosis in one sentence: the rest was about their view of Jesus. Andrew c (I think) likewise wrote a paragraph on the Marcionites that focused on their views of Jesus, and added that the Ebionites held an adoptionist view of Jesus. The rest that is there came from Clinkophonist. I didn't remove the tangential data because I thought it should be fact-checked before we move it to other articles. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 14:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Str brings up a good point, we should be detailing how different groups view Jesus rather than talking about who they are so much, let other articles do that :/. Homestarmy 15:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I just think we should fact-check the tangential stuff before we move it to other articles. When I copyedited I tried to remove obvious POV language and add a few "citation needed" tags, but my copyediting was fairly light. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 15:07, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Also, part of my contributions to this section was adding the info on their different gospels. Because the bio section and intro focus almost exclusively on the 4 canonical gospels, people had discussed somehow incorporating more info from non-canonical sources. I felt that adding this info under the different sects was one way of doing it, but perhaps it takes the focus away from the main subject matter (namely Jesus).--Andrew c 15:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

It is probably enough just to say that these sects had holy texts beyond Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. For the Gnostics, all I said is that they wrote several texts. I would have linked this to a separate article on (all) the Gnostic texts if such an article had existed. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 15:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

PS: What I think is missing from the "Life and Teachings/Biography" section is more about the historical/cultural background than about noncannonical texts. How many people miss the point of the Good Samaritan parable because they don't know of the existing antipathy between Jews and Samaritans? How many people don't realize that Hillel the Elder expounded a version of the Golden Rule before Jesus did? Not to mention that the complex relationships between various Jewish factions and the Roman occupiers contributed to Jesus' path to the cross. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 15:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

At this point, why don't we ask for another peer review, we need to figure out what exactly is supposed to be in this article, and at this rate, more of the article will be about a list of who believes what about Jesus than stuff that is actually about Jesus. Homestarmy 16:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that we give Andrew c a chance to rework the info on the Ebionites and Marcionites so that it focuses on their views of Jesus. Andrew's working off of Lost Christianities and will work those citations in when he gets the chance. After that, then we can request a peer review. Tomorrow, perhaps?Arch O. La^TalkTCF 16:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Ebionite Messiah?

I commented out the reference to Jewish Messiah because it seems to contradict the information in Ebionites. That article maintains that Ebionites saw Jesus as both a potential Davidic (kingly) and Josephic (priestly) Messiah due to his lineage as the natural-born son of Mary and Joseph. However, that article states that Ebionites believed that Jesus never actually became the Messiah (of either type), but rather became the last and greatest of the prophets (much as Muslims see Mohammad). Also, modern Ebionites, who identify as Jewish and not as Christian, do not believe that Jesus was the Messiah.

Is this correct? Arch O. La^TalkTCF 04:45, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Schaff says that the "common Ebionites, who were by far the more numerous" held that "Jesus [was], indeed, the promised Messiah, the son of David, and the supreme lawgiver, yet a mere man, like Moses and David, sprung by natural generation from Joseph and Mary. The sense of his Messianic calling first arose in him at his baptism by John, when a higher spirit joined itself to him." (2:11 § 113.II.1(a)). That seems very close to the Ebionite article, excepting the messiah bit. I'm not sure where they got their info from there, however. Schaff is older (1910), so it may not be up to date with the latest scholarship. --MonkeeSage 22:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is Ehrman: "The Ebionites Christians that we are best informed about believed that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah sent from the Jewish God to the Jewish people in fulfillment of the Jewish Scriptures." p. 100, Lost Christianities. This is from 2003, but I am not exactly sure the source of Ehrman's claim. I guess both authors are going on what the early Church Fathers wrote about them. If you want, I can try to track down a translation of these primary sources to see what they say. Otherwise, I think its pretty clear that some, if not most, historic Ebionites believed Jesus to be the Jewish Messiah.--Andrew c 23:05, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, the word "moshiach" originally referred to any leader (priest, prophet or king) annointed with oil to show Divine favor. During the Roman occupation (or perhaps before, I'm not sure), the word began to be applied to the prophecized leader/redeemer of Israel.

"Jewish Messiah" is misleading because there was a diversity of first-century Messianic views, some of which differed in various ways from both the modern Judaic (mostly Davidic) concept of Messiah and the mainstream Christian view of Christ. "Messiah" would thus be better phrasing than "Jewish Messiah."

Obviously, if Ebionites regarded Jesus as a prophet they would have thought of him as a Messiah, but not necessarily the Messiah. It really comes down to asking what "Messiah" meant to the Ebionites. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 23:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Jesus Seminar

I think it's fair to include their views. KHM03 ^(talk) 19:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Not only fair but essential. The biography cannot be called an NPOV biog without them and other views - otherwise it must be called "christian" spin. I am not happy that Gator1 has reverted the valid addition - childish and prpotectionist in the extreme. Robsteadman 19:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Watch the name calling, Rob. A section that large just needs to be dicussed first before addding it in. That's all.Gator (talk) 19:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'd favor their inclusion (not that I personally agree with all of their opinions). They represent a significant academic POV. I think Rob's proposed paragraph can be tailored a bit to be just fine. KHM03 ^(talk) 19:36, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, Gator, I thought we were trying to achieve NPOV and isn't "be bold" a tenet of WP? the current article is unacceptable as it not only gives undue prominence to one viewpoint it ignores a major school of scholarship. To revert in the way you did is unacceptable. Robsteadman 19:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure it is, whatever. Just discuss the seminar and stop the complaining. Enough.Gator (talk) 19:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Poppycock! Robsteadman 19:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I think they ought to be mentioned too, but if I remember correctly, the way the Jesus seminar "decided" what was "historical" and what wasn't was to basically cast votes, and historicity is not decided by democratic process, it is what it is :/. This doesn't mean we can throw them out, but it also means we can't give them preference in terms of authority over other sources, in other words, if their findings conflict with most sources we've already got, we should note this and possibly an explanation of how or why (or both) on why they conflict. And by the way, what's so bad about being childish? Some of my best memories are from my childhood.... Homestarmy 19:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Stop fighting. Homes, the votes were not like votes for President or dog-catcher. In many cases where a panel of scholars is convened in academe to discuss an issue, there is a vote process based on the evidence. This has naught to do with a democracy, rather it is a valid method of assuring that what the panel presents is accurate. My personal opinion is that they were quite probably right, although I think they may have erred on the side of conservatism.

Rob, if you approach this stuff a bit more calmly, things might go better (a number of your points are valid, but presentaton is often 90% of the battle). Just an observation. Jim62sch 17:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

So the Jesus Seminar voted. How is this any different than when we voted? Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 18:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how it matters how different it is or isn't, at the end of the day, all we have to do is simply note the Jesus Seminar's work, describe what they did and how they did it (including the voting process) and who they were, where some of the controversy came from and why, and then I don't see why we can't be done with it after that. Homestarmy 18:47, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

It does matter and it is different. Think of it the same way as Rabbis getting together and discussing the Torah or the Talmud. They are experts in the field. Same with the people involved in the Jesus seminar. You might want to find a source for the voting, though -- OR based on recollection isn't going to cut it.Jim62sch 23:50, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

We have a few of their publications listed above under "#Sources of the philosophical views of Jesus." Interesting collection of data. BTW have Rabbis ever voted over the Torah or the Talmud? Did they ever conduct a Moses Seminar? If so, than I am unaware of it. If not, than your anaology is flawed. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 00:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

They casted votes based on the verifiable - unlike the article which currently retells the NT story of "jesus" with no factual back up. Robsteadman 19:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

There certainly are problems with the way in which the Seminar has operated (see the article on the Seminar for more). But that doesn't mean their voice isn't an important one to represent. KHM03 ^(talk) 19:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Then if they somehow casted votes on the verifiable, that needs citation, and beyond what the Jesus Seminar decided, what criterion they used to vote should be cited as well considering the controversy over their study and the problems with their general inability to find unamity in many cases. Besides, the NT is the facts, what more do you want? Super-facts? I don't know.... Homestarmy 19:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

That's the point - the NT isn't FACTS! Robsteadman 20:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

But it is a collection of data, not all of which is supernatural. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 21:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

A "collection of data" is a meaningless phrase. If I take random pages from a cookbook, cut out a sentence from each, throw it in a hat, and toss the stuff around, I have a collection of data. Yippee! Jim62sch 23:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a lot of theology. It takes an expert to make sense of all the data. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 00:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I think if we reinstate Rob's proposed paragraph, we can use that as a place to start. Heck, it's just one paragraph. KHM03 ^(talk) 20:00, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Then it seems we have reached an impasse -____-. But anyway, all we have to do is look up what they say, compare it to everything else if there are stark differences, and so on and so forth. Homestarmy 20:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think Robsteadman's short sentences work okay in this article. However, we need page numbers. I'm sorry to say it, Homes, but it won't be that difficult to find a scholar who doubts the historicity of the Masscare of the Innocents. There's a reason we don't mention this in the second paragraph: it's not as widely accepted. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 21:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Biography Section

This is not a biograhpy at all - it is the "christian" version and is not supported by many "chrsitians" incl;uding the "jesus" seminar. Str and Gator's reverts are unfounded. Until the section is a genbuine verifiable and factual biog it needs to be called something else more approproriate. Robsteadman 19:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Not everyone in the Seminar is Christian. It's an academic seminar, not a religious seminar. KHM03 ^(talk) 19:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

As verifiable and factual as James Bond: The Authorised Biography of 007? It's still a biography, regardless of whether the guy existed or not. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 20:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Haldrik: he came up with the title "Biography of Jesus" and said that it needed more historical contextualization. I also disagree with Haldrik: I think the biography (data) needs to kept separate from the historicity (analysis) section. It's just that the data includes the historical and cultural setting as well as the extant documents (contemporaneous or not). Arch O. La^TalkTCF 19:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, if this was the "Christian" version, then why isn't in the "Christians views of Jesus" article? Besides, if it really was a "christian" version, it'd be a whole lot more fundamentalist than this :D. I could even help! I got my evidence bible right next to me here..... Homestarmy 19:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm...evidence Bible...did a panel of scholars put the evidence together? Jim62sch 18:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it was Kirk Cameron and his whole The Way of the Master team. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 18:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually Ray Comfort did most of it. But this is besides the point as this article is not a purely Christian POV article, so why do you care? I don't think i'll be citing it any time soon. Homestarmy 18:37, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Jim62sch keeps saying that this is more the Jesus Christ article than the Jesus article. I disagree, it's supposed to be more than that, that's why the title is "Jesus" and not "Jesus Christ" nor "Jesus of Nazareth." But why do keep going all sola scriptura on the Life and Teachings section? History and archaelogy also have a place in biography. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 18:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Because we tabled that merge proposal, remember? Also, SOPHIA and others convinced me that the NT is just as important to historicity as it is to Christianity. With the obvious difference that a historian never offered me salvation. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 20:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to give Robsteadman the same invitation I recently gave someone else: write Atheist view of Jesus. As for the Jesus Seminar, yes, we do need to incorporate them into the article. On that I pretty much agree with KHM03. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 20:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Archie - why not just let us all have a factual and verifiable article? There is no need for specific views of people - should there be a Nazi view of Hitler? Perhaps you'd like a Newcastle fan's view of Alan Shearer? No, this artiucle should be about the factual, verifiable things to do with "jesus" and ONLY that. Robsteadman 20:28, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of whether Jesus was God, a man or merely an idea, his main legacy is Christianity. Hence all the religious stuff. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 20:32, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

So please change the title, as I've requested, to Jesus Christ. Rob has a point that the article should equally represent all views, at least if it's merely called "Jesus". As for being fully factual, the article would be two short paragraphs. The only things we know for certain are that he lived and died -- pretty sparce for a bio. (No lectures on faith or religion here, please).

No one is going to like this, but most of those working on the article or talking on this page have very clear POV's that affect the outcome of the article in such a way that it really may never be true NPOV. NPOV is not merely reaching a compromise on content, but rather an accurate presentation of content, written in a very neutral manner, with the different viewpoints getting their proper amount of space and dignity. I realise that this is highly difficult, as humans are subjective by nature, but the article and this page bleed subjectivity. Jim62sch 18:08, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, Haldrik and I have suggested that the Life and Teachings section should include more about history, but we keep going back to sola scriptura. As I Lutheran I think this good theology, but poor history. My point to Robsteadman both above and below is that we need to include the "religious perspectives" section because Jesus Christ is a religious figure. We should also include the historical Jesus because most scholars agree that Jesus was also a real historical figure. Many feel that Jesus of Nazareth was a very different person than Jesus Christ, as noted on Rick Norwood's talkpage. I've tried to include this perspective. We even include the idea that Jesus was all myth, over the objections of some editors.

Then it comes down to asking "what is truth" and "what is NPOV." Yes, this article has become politicized, which is why I think we need a peer review. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 18:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

And that deserves no more than a link to the article about the religion - THIS article is meant to be about "jesus" - and should only be the verifiable and factual, not the fancifuil, hopeful, unproven and simply non-sensical as much of the current article is. Robsteadman 21:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, the cultural impact of Christianity is certainly factual and verifiable. The religious views of Christians, Jews, Muslims et al are factual and verifiable: just ask them, or cite the official publications of the various church bodies. The thing is that it's not just Christians who accept the historical existence of Jesus. Most historians do as well, based on historical methodology and not on faith.Arch O. La^TalkTCF 21:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with including the Westar/JS POV, in fact we should, so long as we don't label it as the historical position, or make it look like it's the the consensus POV (the fact that there is so much debate between, e.g., Crossan/Wright, in major media outlets recently, should be enough to warn against that). No that I think Rob's para. did that, I'm just saying... --MonkeeSage 21:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Ps. Rob: NPOV is not about making the article acceptable to a certain group, e.g., non-christians, it's about representing and documenting all relevant views, with due weight given to the most important/majority views. Since Christians hold the global majority in this case, their opinions are given the most exposure in this article, and where required their views are documented by the consensus of scholars of all pertenant fields. "Facts" or otherwise, the policy mandates showing all sides in their appropriate relations. --MonkeeSage 21:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I know what NPOV is - a shame that some of the editors on this page seem not to be able to work towars it! Robsteadman 22:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Rob, please stop insulting editors, especially ones you've never interacted with before. It would help in keeping with the calm spirit in which we've functioned these past few weeks. --CTSWyneken 23:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Rob has bigger fish to fry at the moment. Check his talk page. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 23:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Rob: If you understand the NPOV policy, then you realize that the article about the founder of Christianity -- the largest belief system in the world -- is going to be mainly about Christian beliefs regarding Jesus. There is no assertion of opinion, unless it is attributed (and where necessary, sourced). There is no undue weight. We're working on getting every major view represented, and even some minor ones. Hence, there is no NPOV problem. Even the "healer" issue is one of semantics and perceptions, not of policy. Please don't call the page POV-biased just because it includes (properly attributed) opinions you don't like. --MonkeeSage 06:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

This article is about Paul? Jim62sch 00:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Um, no, we include the Ebionites as well. Or was that started by John the Baptist? Hmmm... Then there are the Gnostics, but I have no idea who got that started.Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 00:10, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Rob in criticizing the title of this section (as I have been saying for the past week). However, I do not want to replace this section with a historical recreation of Jesus' life. If editors change the content of that section, the title should reflect that. Until then, I am going to revert back to the previous title: "Life and teachings based on the Gospels".--Andrew c 22:20, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not going to argue with you about the title. Lately I've been practicing WP:1RR and it's kept me out of trouble. I think the reason the second paragraph is so controversial is that creates an artificial binarity between the minority position and the majority position. The minority says either that all we know about Jesus is myth, or at the very least that there is no way to tell if any of it is historically valid. The majority accepts the most widely accepted details of the gospel accounts—that's almost a tautology because all it says is that the majority accepts those things that are accepted by the majority. There are many other details (the whole infancy narrative for one) that are much less widely accepted. In fact, we're still debating whether "healer" and "King of the Judeans" are as widely accepted as the other details, or whether the terms used for these concepts are accurate.

There is a range of opinion and you not have to accept the entire Gospel account to accept that there was a historical Jesus of Nazareth. Quite frankly, there are some things that you have to accept on faith if you are to accept them at all. The historical reconstruction of Jesus of Nazareth is not one of those things. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 22:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Ack, I just noticed the recent edits under "Early life". I think it is a bad idea to give a plot outline of the NT Gospels, and then comment on every single alleged event with the historical POV. There is a section for the historical POV already (and a page about the historical Jesus). Anyway, maybe I was too bold in reverting the title. Is it still applicable? What word or phrase best described this section? Right now (with the recent changes) I feel that there are two different directions that section is heading, and maybe we should sit down and agree what exactly we want to communicate in this section before going further?--Andrew c 22:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I feel the Jesus Seminar stuff would fit in better under the historicity section. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 22:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I see a big difference between the historical Jesus and the historicity of Jesus. The goal of the discussions are different. In the historical Jesus, Jesus is the goal. The purpose is to carefully piece together the evidence to reconstruct what this ancient person is like. It's sort of like what detectives do when reconstructing a crime scene. In the historicity of Jesus, the goal is the evidence itself, not Jesus. The purpose of examining the historicity is to determine the nature of the evidence: its biases, its limitations, whether it is literal or figurative, whether the way the moderns interpret it is the same as the way the ancients interpreted it, the source of the evidence, and so on. In this discussion, the ancient person himself is almost irrelevant. Obviously historical and historicity refer to each other, but they are very different areas of investigation. With regard to the Jesus Seminar, their goal is not the "historical" Jesus. Their goal is the "historicity" of the Gospels. The Gospels attribute many sayings to an ancient person. The Seminar investigated the nature of this information. Do the Gospels transmit verbatim quotes? Do they transmit paraphrases of the kinds of things Jesus taught? Do the even transmit information that Jesus didn't say but were said "in the authority of" Jesus? Where does this information come from? Does it originate from a Greek context (thus less plausibly from Jesus), or from a Hebrew/Aramaic context (thus more plausibly)? And so on. Because the Jesus Seminar focuses on the evidence itself, and not on the person, it seems to belong to historicity. --Haldrik 21:52, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, Haldrik also has good points, but I think the issue is that the biography section comes out of the Gospels mostly, so therefore people would like the Seminar to be mentioned, or so I think anyway. I just think the seminar ought to be mentioned if people want it because it was supposedly kinda famous, and I knew there were responses to it, so I just figure it would give the article more background on scholarly ideas or something. Homestarmy 22:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

No, I agree with Haldrik. Yes, the plot outline comes largely from the Gospels. However, a decent biography goes beyond plot. A good biography of Abraham Lincoln would have to mention the social, economic and political forces that led to the American Civil War (it's wasn't entirely about slavery, nor about states' rights. The historical situation is more complicated than that). Likewise, I think the biography of Jesus should include some mention of the social, economic, political and religous currents of first-century Roman-occupied Iudea, Perea and Galillee. Without the historical background, the biography is little more than a Sunday School lesson, as others have pointed out. This, of course, varies from historicity, which examines the reliability of the data we have on Jesus of Nazareth. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 23:33, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Just to note, whether or not the Gospels are historically true, the version of the life of Jesus which is to be found in the Gospels is by far the most important and significant thing about Jesus. The traditional view of Jesus's life may or may not be true, but it is important that it be presented without too much interruption in an article about Jesus. john k 01:49, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Good point. However, I'm in a rather odd position. I witnessed a debate on this page about whether or not Jesus and the Pharisee's were truly at odds, or were just debating as Pharisees were wont to do. The following Sunday I heard yet another sermon about how the evil Pharisees were trying to trap Jesus with their questions. A little later I come back here and I find people discussing whether Jesus was an evil prophet who changed the Torah a la Deuternomy 13. As Pilate and Socrates asked, What is truth? Or, more to the point, What is NPOV? Arch O. La^TalkTCF 02:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

"Thou shalt includest all major views, and shalt, where thou art able, includest the minor also; and thou shalt attribute them to the groups whereunto they belong. When it is asked of thee, thou shalt provide source documentation. Thou shalt not give weight unduely to any view among them, but shalt proportion the weight as to importance and majority. If you hearken to my voice this day, and lay all these things up in thy heart; and do them: then shalt thou be NPOV, and thy children and thy childrens children after them. Selah." --MonkeeSage 02:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Is that the eleventh commandment, or the 614th? Also, I don't know if people realize my point that "biography" and "plot outline" are not the same thing. I'd like to see a biography, not the outline of a biography. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 02:43, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

1 Hesitations 3:16-17, I believe. ;-) --CTSWyneken 02:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

LOL that was very good, MonkeeSage, I enjoyed reading that :-) -- Drogo Underburrow 02:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, LOL - I especially liked the reference to our dear friend "Selah". Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Jesus Taught Here

"...all other events in the Gospels are set in ancient Israel." I don't think any events in the Gospelsa are set in ancient Israel. They're set in Roman Judea. PiCo 07:23, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Iudea, Perea, and Galilee mostly, with stopovers in Samaria. Calling it Israel is an anachronism, but it's the same piece of real estate as ancient(er) Israel. Nowadays Israelis and Palestinians fight over some of the land. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 07:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The most accurate term would be "Judaea", but that has the set back of being ambigious: merely Judaea proper, or including other Jewish areas (Gallilee mainly), or even Samaria? So maybe "ancient Israel" is the best solution after all. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Wouldn't Iudaea be more accurate? I don't think the letter J was invented yet. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 08:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, lower case letters weren't invented yet either. :D --Haldrik 09:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

True, but I didn't want to be accused of SHOUTING. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 17:35, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, we say that Muhammed was in "Arabia" (not the proper "Saudi Arabia"). Same basic idea as here. --MonkeeSage 09:19, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Er, no. "Saudi Arabia" would be a complete anachronism, since it refers specifically to the Saudi Dynasty, which didn't rule Mecca until the 1920s (and the state of "Saudi Arabia" didn't exist until 1932, I think). In terms of what term to use, "Judaea" is bad because it doesn't include Galilee, which was the main site of Jesus's preaching. I'm not sure what the best term to use is. john k 00:42, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Methinks we need a map. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 00:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Map to Jesus' favorite preaching spots

Anyone know of a public domain map of the places Jesus is said to have preached to add to article - the ones I found were quite interesting, but not in public domain --JimWae 20:29, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Would any of them qualify under fair use? :/ Homestarmy 21:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's one: Palestine in the time of Jesus. The maps on this site are public domain because they were made in 1904. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 00:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's a good one - but likely not usable: http://www.bible-history.com/map_jesus/index.html --JimWae 01:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

It's © 2002 by the website. I suppose we could always email the webmaster to ask permission. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 01:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Is this along the lines of, "George Washinton Slept Here"? Jim62sch 17:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

JimWae had a valid point earlier. We need a map. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 18:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Jesus was a Galilean, but he went to Herod's Temple in Jerusalem, which was in Iudaea Province. Pilate was Prefect of Iudaea (26-36), Caiaphas was appointed High Priest of the Temple by Rome (18-36), Herod Antipas was Roman Tetrarch of Galilee and Perea (4bce-39). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.169.0.208 (talk • contribs)

All true, but I still think we need a map to clarify where all these places are. Geography has changed a lot in the intervening years ;) Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 21:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify, for the people too lazy to check links, Iudaea Province was created by Augustus in 6 by merging Judea, Samaria and Idumea, capital in Caesarea Palaestina, under direct administration from Rome, as opposed to the previous arrangement of the Roman client king Herod the Great. Iudaea was a critical land link between Rome and the Egyptian wheat fields and also an important border state between Rome and the Parthian Empire.

Yes, a map of the first century would be nice. Land of Israel has a map, but much older. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.169.0.208 (talk • contribs)

I recall people requesting this, so I made this. Can people review it, make comments and suggestions and see if it is appropriate for this article? Image:First century palestine.gif --Andrew c 19:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Good work. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 22:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Are there any major cities and places that are not included? Are there too many historic cities included that should be removed because Jesus didn't go there? Should I add in lines for historic roads between major cities? Also, one of my sources made a distinction between towns and Hellenized cities, should I do the same? Finally, should there be a line tracing Jesus' movement (Ehrman had a map of Asia Minor/Medeteranian that traced Paul's ministry according to acts/epistles)? (If the answer is yes to the last question, I'd need help in compiling the list of places and order).--Andrew c 23:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Nice, but missing Idumea. Also, it would be nice if it could be shown that Pilate's jurisdiction was Judea-Samaria-Idumea with capital at Caesarea Palaestina, and Herod Antipas' jurisdiction was Galilee-Perea with capital at Tiberias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.169.2.65 (talk • contribs)

It shouldn't be too hard to add Idumea, the historic land of the Edomites. It was right to the south of Judea. Andrew, if you need a reference, check the links to the two maps we found at the top of this section. One's an old PD map that's a little hard to read, the other is clear and with lots of detail, but it's under copyright. BTW I added the map and fixed the anachronistic geography. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 23:20, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Nice work Andrew! --MonkeeSage 23:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Calling it Palestine is anachronistic and politically insensitive, the same can be said for calling it Israel, my suggestion for a neutral term would be Holy Land. By the way, Idumea is significant because Herod the Great was Idumean, his people were just recently forcibly converted by circumcision by John Hyrcanus in 125bce.

Well done, all.

Congratulations, everyone, on a job well done. Now we can all relax, and spend more time playing golf. Rick Norwood 22:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Or, in my case, sclicing it all to heck whilst trying to play golf. ;) --MonkeeSage 22:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Im waiting for a Pizza :D. Homestarmy 23:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Historicity section

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

• "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.
• "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?
• 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."
• 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)."
• 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).
• 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"
• 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. La^TalkTCF 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 imput.--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. La^TalkTCF 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)

People for the ethical treatment of Wikipedia

This is off-topic, but I thought I should let people know about it.

Wikipedia:Wikiethics

Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 00:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Jesus Christ redirect

For some reason, there seems to be some feeling in favor of having Jesus Christ redirect to Christian views of Jesus, rather than to this article. This seems deeply unhelpful to me. The purpose of redirects is not to make sure people's sensibilities aren't offended, but to get people to the article they want to go to. In the case of people typing in either Jesus Christ or Jesus of Nazareth, by far the most likely article they're looking for is the main article on Jesus. There is absolutely no reason to make it more difficult for them, and having the redirect can only be interpreted by the most absurdly sensitive person as some kind of statement by wikipedia that we believe that Jesus was the Messiah. john k 05:21, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

While I would object to *this* article being named "Jesus Christ" rather than "Jesus", I think that most people who enter "Jesus Christ" or "Jesus of Nazareth" in the search field are trying to reach this article, so the redirect to this article (Jesus) seems reasonable. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 06:18, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Eh, I was just following the lead of the German wikipedia, where "Jesus von Nazaret" is about historical takes on Jesus, and "Jesus Christus" is about theological takes on Jesus. Also, "Christ" is a title that only makes sense in the context of Christianity. Of course, this article is about both, ie, all relevant takes on Jesus. My redirects have been reverted, and I'm not going to press the matter. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 06:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

If it helps to know this, most of the encyclopedias I've consulted name the article "Jesus Christ." So the redirect, IMHO should point here. --CTSWyneken 11:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

The Christian views of Jesus article isn't even that great because alot of our energy is right here :/. Homestarmy 13:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

True, that article needs some work. I just get frustrated when people think that "Christ" is Jesus' last name or something. Nor does "Christ" exactly mean "Messiah"; I mean, it is the Greek translation of "Messiah," but it means everything Christians believe about Jesus: see Christology. For many of us, Jesus is the Messiah and more. I see no reason to fight over the "Jesus Christ" redirect; after all, no one seems to be fighting over the "Jesus of Nazareth" redirect. If the consensus is to leave it here, than leave it here.Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 15:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Jesus Seminar, part 2

Is anyone even considering them? Here's Robsteadman's proposal again:

In 1998, however, the Jesus Seminar, a research group of about one hundred academic New Testament scholars, published The Acts of Jesus: The Search for the Authentic Deeds of Jesus (ISBN 0060629789).[5] By a system of votes they decided which events from the New testament happened, which might have happened, which were doubtful and which were highly unlikely to be true. The Jesus Seminar biography of Jesus is somewhat different than the New Testament version: Jesus was born in Nazareth during the reign of Herod the Great, his mother was Mary and he had a human father who was probably not Joseph. A virgin birth was unlikely. He was baptized by John the Baptist who was later beheaded by Herod Antipas. He was an "itinerant sage who shared meals with social outcasts" and "practiced healing without the use of ancient medicine or magic, relieving afflictions we now consider psychosomatic" though some claimed he did this in the name of Beelzebul. He proclaimed the coming of "God's imperial rule". He was arrested in Jerusalem and crucified as a "public nuisance", specifically for overturning tables at Herod's Temple, not for claiming to be the Son of God, during the period of Pontius Pilate and Caiaphas. Belief in the resurrection is based on the visionary experiences of Paul, Peter, and Mary Magdalene and the reality of a physical resurrection is doubtful.

This is probably too long for this article, but I do believe we need to say something about them in the historicity section. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^Talk PS Peter and Mary: for that, you have to cite the proper page of the TCF 22:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I must have missed the first proposal. I think that this is good information about the JS's POV. I personally don't find it too long or too short, but just right. But perhaps the summary of their bio is a little excessive. Are we going to also recap other historical Jesus bios for all the different theories? Or is the JS's the biggest and therefore deserving of the most attention?--Andrew c 22:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Notice I said for this article, which is already starting to get a bit long. I also posted it to Talk:Historicity of Jesus. This paragraph was first put in this article (not the talk page) and was quickly reverted. Many people may not even have seen it. Ergo, we need to (continue to) talk about this: the last discussion (above) went off-topic. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 23:02, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

It's good stuff. Maybe it could be included here under the "other views" section - that was an area especially mentioned in the last FA assessment. In the historicity/historical articles it would be nice to have a little more detail on why they came to the decisions they did. Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 23:13, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps. I have been interested in expanding the "other views" section. Look at how we expanded the Ebionites to include other early "lost" Christianities. I'll leave the "additional details" to others. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 23:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Wherever it goes, it should have a qualification about "alleged visionary experiences," ala the suggestion of Archie's friend above regarding the wording of current article. --MonkeeSage 23:22, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Paul definitely said that he had divine visions. Whether or not to believe Paul is another matter. Of course, I do believe him, but that's my POV. Best to just say that Paul wrote such in his epistles, especially since we already cite Galatians. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 23:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC) PS Peter and Mary: for that, we'll have to cite the proper page of the Acts of Jesus. and make clear that it's according to the Jesus Seminar. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 23:29, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. My main thing was to make sure that it was clear that the Peter/Mary visions were recorded in pseudepigraphical material, not directly asserted in the NT. So I think some sort of qualification is in order. Mabye something like "Belief in the resurrection is based on the visionary experiences of Paul recorded in his epistles, Peter, and Mary Magdalene recorded in other contemporary literature..." ...could probably be said better, but mabye something along those lines? --MonkeeSage 23:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

If we can cite which other contemporary literature, it would work. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 23:41, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Been awhile since I read anything from the JS, but I think they used Gospel of Peter and Gospel of Mary Magdalene. --MonkeeSage 23:57, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Now that I think about, mabye they mean the visions recorded in Acts about eating unclean foods? Also, is the statement that "Belief in the resurrection is based..." a reflection of a JS statement, or is it supposed to be a factual account of why Christians believe in the resurrection? If the latter, its not entirely accurate, 1 Cor. 15:4-8 presents at least three lines of evidence: scriptures, physical appearence, and visionary experience. Possibly a fourth, if you add testimony. --MonkeeSage 00:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

No, No, No. It's in the Bible. Check the Gospels for who the resurrected Jesus appeared to. These of course would be visions.

"When Jesus rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had driven seven demons." Mark 16:9

"Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven as they were eating; he rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen." Mark 16:14

Paul's vision is his Road to Damascus experience.

"And this story has been widely circulated among the Jews to this very day ... His disciples came during the night and stole him away while we were asleep." Matthew 28:13-15

"In addition, some of our women amazed us. They went to the tomb early this morning but didn't find his body. They came and told us that they had seen a vision of angels, who said he was alive. ... It is true! The Lord has risen and has appeared to Simon." Luke 24