This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
I'm not sure why the article Jesus is devoted to religious accounts and views on the man, rather than this article which contains factual and historical information exclusively. Facts and history come before religious lore and legend in an encyclopedia especially when there are numerous takes on the man which vary greatly from one to the other. This article's name should be changed to Jesus, while the information contained in the current article of Jesus, should be renamed to reflect it's religious context.
An Encyclopedia, however, has a responsibility to reflect on all information that it reasonably can, Historical accounts of Jesus should be mentioned, (And I think this article and it's counterpart do a reasonably good job of showing the sides of the debate) and the most popular beliefs in Jesus, as He is the central figure of one of the world's largest religions. Homestarmy 23:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
So I guess I can start a page about a historical Hercules, citing Greek mythology? DoItAgain 05:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, Eric Shanower proposes a historical Herakles - a ferocious pirate who had children in many different lands.- DB 3/3/2006, 10:43 AM.
This article is a sham - it is not about the HISTORICAL "jesus" but another re-writing of the BIBLICAL "jesus" for which there is no contemporary historical evidence. This page is POV and, unless a major re-qwrite is done, I would suggest it should be deleted. Robsteadman 09:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Look...guys, you need to understand something: in order to really be Jesus, you have to fit a certain number of criteria...some are as follows:
1. You have to be born of a virgin.
2. You have to be born in Bethlehem.
3. You have to fulfill ALL the feasts in the Old Testament.
4. You have to be without sin.
5. You have to fulfill the law.
6. You have to come from the lineage of David.
7. You have to die--and then rise again.
8. Last but not least--you have to fulfill ALL the above prophecies AND the rest that are mentioned in the Bible.
...So, there you have it.
If a man lived in the first century who does not fulfill these strict criteria, then he cannot be Jesus - but he could still be Yehoshua Bar Yosef or Yeshua Bar Abba. Ergo, a separate article would seem to be called for. - Das Baz, 03/08/2006, 10:35 AM.
--JJ
This section had no support whatsoever, and is the purely personal hypothetical speculations of one person (probably User:Das_Baz) who has also been making a big nuisance of himself over at the main Nonviolent resistance article (look at the history of that page...) AnonMoos 14:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Read the Discussion on that page ( Nonviolent resistance), and add your own opinions, by all means. -Das Baz, 3/3/2006, 10:46 AM.
Or as uncyplopedia would put it, Jesii. Seriously, though, I understand that the articles Historical Jesus and Historicity of Jesus, are meant to cover different perspectives, but the titles are close enough as to cause confusion. The distinctions between the articles may have blurred through later edits. The other article, after being forked from Jesus, was originally titled "Jesus and textual evidence." I believe that this article is textual evidence plus Cultural and historical background of Jesus. Is this the correct interpretation, or is the distinction different? Also, does anybody have less confusing titles? Arch O. La 07:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
The "Historicity" of Jesus and the "Historical" Jesus aren't the same thing. The Historicity debates the extent documents and the limitations of historiography. (Historicity talks about the stuff that talks about Jesus.) The Historical Jesus reconstructs a bio about what Jesus's life was probably really like. (It talks about Jesus.) Haldrik 15:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
We're working on such citations in the main Jesus article. Also see Talk:Jesus/Cited_Authors_Bios. Arch O. La 02:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
The name Yeshua was pronounced with a tsere, a long e as in "neighbor" (but not diphthongized) not with a schwa (as Y'shua) or segol (Yesh-shua).
It would be nice if someone would transcribe this using IPA so that it might make sense. How much dialectical variation do you think there is in the pronunciation of "neighbour"? Jimp 07:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that the Critical scholarship and the miracles of Jesus section of the Miracles of Jesus article needs some work. I am asking editors of the Historical Jesus for help. I have attempted to rework the section a bit, but would like someone more familiar with Biblical criticism to give it a once over. I'd appreciate any help! -- Andrew c 18:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
The German Jesus article, which focuses on the historical Jesus, is a featured article. As such it may have ideas that help with this article. Jim62sch is working on a translation: User:Jim62sch/German-English_Jesus Arch O. La Talk TCF 06:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Okay, why the POV tag? Arch O. La Talk TCF 21:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
The key question is: what do historians say?
If these are to be kept in the article, the focus should be on forensic analysis of the historical evidence. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La Talk TCF 15:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
The article says the following in the section titled as above:
"Although they are all written in Greek, the only foreign words that the Gospels put on the lips of Jesus are in Aramaic"
"Paul used the Aramaic address to God, abba, even when writing to Greek-speaking Gentiles"
This is quite misleading, because "abba" is a Hebrew word meaning father, and can not be used to argue in favour of Aramaic as against Hebrew. Also the words quoted in Matthew as uttered by Jesus on the cross, "why have you forsaken me", are perfect Hebrew. Hence I do not see the clear support for Aramaic as the spoken language of Jesus that the author of this article purports.--—This unsigned comment was added by 144.134.7.144 ( talk • contribs) 11:09, 3 April 2006.
A large chunk of this article was missing with no reference to an archive. The removed material not only started in the middle of a comment, it started with the letter "H" in "there. If the comments were meant to be archived, it was a rather poor archive. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La Talk TCF 05:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
There has been a long discussion of the Historical Jesus at Talk:Jesus/Historical Jesus. It's divided into three subpages: Jesus as moral teacher; Jesus as apocalyptic prophet or messiah; and Jesus as Pharisee or Essene. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring Talk TCF 08:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I just created the subpage and updated the links to my comments above. We also have about 25 sources on different models of the historical Jesus at Talk:Jesus/Historical Jesus/Sources. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring Talk TCF 08:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Greek was the primary language of everyday life in Egypt during the time of Jesus. A child growing up in Egypt would have constant exposure to the spoken word, if not literacy. Likewise, a Jewish emigre household in Egypt, of all places, would be strongly motivated to bolster the Hebrew education of a male. This would require learning the written word, and therefore the written law.
All this is predicated on the assumption that Joseph and Mary fled to Egypt for the time span indicated in the canonical Gospels.
In the least, it would explain a conversancy in the Law of Moses that does not require the knowledge to have been hardwired into the child's DNA.
Also, as such learning would involve training from expatriate rabbis, it might explain the historical Jesus' predisposition toward a career as a rabbi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.68.40.40 ( talk • contribs)
The current format of this article is less like an encyclopedia article, and more like an FAQ. I'd propose some sort of massive overhaul to make it organized along more historiographical lines, except that I'm sure I'd be too lazy to carry it out. But does anybody else have any thoughts? john k 03:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I've only skimmed the article briefly, but, IMO, the problem with the article is that it doesn't address the historicity of historical Jesus studies. I don't mean that to be coy, but the outcome of the Jesus biography someone is writing depends on the method used, which is historically contingent. I'll try to engage this on the talk subpage.-- Mrdarcey 15:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I think I will delete the photo of the reconstruction of a dead person that lived in Palestine in the supposed time of Jesus. Is it there to imply that if he existed he must have looked like that? What far fetched nonsense. Is like saying all people in an area look the same? what sort of bogus science is this? I leave this for comments and will proceed in few days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.174.72 ( talk • contribs)
Well, Middle Eastern caucasian, not Teutonic or Nordic caucasian as Jesus is usually portrayed. But, do we have to get racial? Arch O. La Grigrory Deepdelver 16:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
The discussion above (neutrality) never seemed to resolve the issue that the two sections in question, Final Days and Resurrection, are inconsistent with the rest of the article. I would like consensus on the following questions: (1) Can we agree that an article called Historical {whatever} needs sources other than the holy texts surrounding the subject? (2) Can we agree that these two specific sections do not reference relevant, historical sources other than said holy texts? (3) Can we pull these two sections to a sandbox where folks (hopefully including DH Voss, who seems much more capable than I) can spend some time getting it right before reintroducing it?
Yes, I phrased these three questions as something of a benign push poll: It is my opinion that the validity and neutrality of the entire article is compromised by the inclusions of these two sections. I feel very strongly that they are inconsistent with the rest of the article (which is excellent, really) and just possibly inconsistent with WP:POV. However, I will never blank or substantially rewrite any section in any article (especially a religious one) without clear consensus. Kevin/Last1in 19:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree that we should be summarizing scholarship here, not simply repeating the text of the NT; but I also want to add that we should represent both sides of the field. I know that often people like F. F. Bruce and Leon Morris are called "fringe scholars" on these kinds of issues (Robert Funk on a radio program with James White, cited in Christian Research Journal, 20, no. 3, 1998 [J981], p. 51), and I hope we can avoid that kind of thing here (no accusations, just voicing a possible concern). Scholars whose worldviews exclude the possibility of supra- or supernatural events will obviously deny things like virgin births and resurrections and look for other explanations; scholrs whose worldviews allow for those kinds of events will be more likely to accept the explanations of the NT: but their respective worldviews do not necessarily make their methods or thinking any more or less scholarly. We should represent the best of both sides and without bias. Okay, that was my soapbox preaching for the day. ;) » MonkeeSage « 04:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I hate that "these scholars are not open-minded enough to accept the possibility of supernatural events" business. It is an argument generally made by scholars who are considerably less open-minded, in that they've already determined for reasons of faith that they believe in Biblical miracles. Genuine scholarship, whatever its source (and certainly Christian scholars like Wright, et al, are worthy of inclusion), ought to be respected and discussed on this page. Apologetics should not be. When the principal purpose of a work of "scholarship" is to defend the literal accuracy of the Biblical text, I'd put it on the side of apologetics rather than actual scholarship. john k 15:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 10 |
I'm not sure why the article Jesus is devoted to religious accounts and views on the man, rather than this article which contains factual and historical information exclusively. Facts and history come before religious lore and legend in an encyclopedia especially when there are numerous takes on the man which vary greatly from one to the other. This article's name should be changed to Jesus, while the information contained in the current article of Jesus, should be renamed to reflect it's religious context.
An Encyclopedia, however, has a responsibility to reflect on all information that it reasonably can, Historical accounts of Jesus should be mentioned, (And I think this article and it's counterpart do a reasonably good job of showing the sides of the debate) and the most popular beliefs in Jesus, as He is the central figure of one of the world's largest religions. Homestarmy 23:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
So I guess I can start a page about a historical Hercules, citing Greek mythology? DoItAgain 05:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, Eric Shanower proposes a historical Herakles - a ferocious pirate who had children in many different lands.- DB 3/3/2006, 10:43 AM.
This article is a sham - it is not about the HISTORICAL "jesus" but another re-writing of the BIBLICAL "jesus" for which there is no contemporary historical evidence. This page is POV and, unless a major re-qwrite is done, I would suggest it should be deleted. Robsteadman 09:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Look...guys, you need to understand something: in order to really be Jesus, you have to fit a certain number of criteria...some are as follows:
1. You have to be born of a virgin.
2. You have to be born in Bethlehem.
3. You have to fulfill ALL the feasts in the Old Testament.
4. You have to be without sin.
5. You have to fulfill the law.
6. You have to come from the lineage of David.
7. You have to die--and then rise again.
8. Last but not least--you have to fulfill ALL the above prophecies AND the rest that are mentioned in the Bible.
...So, there you have it.
If a man lived in the first century who does not fulfill these strict criteria, then he cannot be Jesus - but he could still be Yehoshua Bar Yosef or Yeshua Bar Abba. Ergo, a separate article would seem to be called for. - Das Baz, 03/08/2006, 10:35 AM.
--JJ
This section had no support whatsoever, and is the purely personal hypothetical speculations of one person (probably User:Das_Baz) who has also been making a big nuisance of himself over at the main Nonviolent resistance article (look at the history of that page...) AnonMoos 14:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Read the Discussion on that page ( Nonviolent resistance), and add your own opinions, by all means. -Das Baz, 3/3/2006, 10:46 AM.
Or as uncyplopedia would put it, Jesii. Seriously, though, I understand that the articles Historical Jesus and Historicity of Jesus, are meant to cover different perspectives, but the titles are close enough as to cause confusion. The distinctions between the articles may have blurred through later edits. The other article, after being forked from Jesus, was originally titled "Jesus and textual evidence." I believe that this article is textual evidence plus Cultural and historical background of Jesus. Is this the correct interpretation, or is the distinction different? Also, does anybody have less confusing titles? Arch O. La 07:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
The "Historicity" of Jesus and the "Historical" Jesus aren't the same thing. The Historicity debates the extent documents and the limitations of historiography. (Historicity talks about the stuff that talks about Jesus.) The Historical Jesus reconstructs a bio about what Jesus's life was probably really like. (It talks about Jesus.) Haldrik 15:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
We're working on such citations in the main Jesus article. Also see Talk:Jesus/Cited_Authors_Bios. Arch O. La 02:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
The name Yeshua was pronounced with a tsere, a long e as in "neighbor" (but not diphthongized) not with a schwa (as Y'shua) or segol (Yesh-shua).
It would be nice if someone would transcribe this using IPA so that it might make sense. How much dialectical variation do you think there is in the pronunciation of "neighbour"? Jimp 07:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that the Critical scholarship and the miracles of Jesus section of the Miracles of Jesus article needs some work. I am asking editors of the Historical Jesus for help. I have attempted to rework the section a bit, but would like someone more familiar with Biblical criticism to give it a once over. I'd appreciate any help! -- Andrew c 18:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
The German Jesus article, which focuses on the historical Jesus, is a featured article. As such it may have ideas that help with this article. Jim62sch is working on a translation: User:Jim62sch/German-English_Jesus Arch O. La Talk TCF 06:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Okay, why the POV tag? Arch O. La Talk TCF 21:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
The key question is: what do historians say?
If these are to be kept in the article, the focus should be on forensic analysis of the historical evidence. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La Talk TCF 15:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
The article says the following in the section titled as above:
"Although they are all written in Greek, the only foreign words that the Gospels put on the lips of Jesus are in Aramaic"
"Paul used the Aramaic address to God, abba, even when writing to Greek-speaking Gentiles"
This is quite misleading, because "abba" is a Hebrew word meaning father, and can not be used to argue in favour of Aramaic as against Hebrew. Also the words quoted in Matthew as uttered by Jesus on the cross, "why have you forsaken me", are perfect Hebrew. Hence I do not see the clear support for Aramaic as the spoken language of Jesus that the author of this article purports.--—This unsigned comment was added by 144.134.7.144 ( talk • contribs) 11:09, 3 April 2006.
A large chunk of this article was missing with no reference to an archive. The removed material not only started in the middle of a comment, it started with the letter "H" in "there. If the comments were meant to be archived, it was a rather poor archive. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La Talk TCF 05:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
There has been a long discussion of the Historical Jesus at Talk:Jesus/Historical Jesus. It's divided into three subpages: Jesus as moral teacher; Jesus as apocalyptic prophet or messiah; and Jesus as Pharisee or Essene. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring Talk TCF 08:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I just created the subpage and updated the links to my comments above. We also have about 25 sources on different models of the historical Jesus at Talk:Jesus/Historical Jesus/Sources. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring Talk TCF 08:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Greek was the primary language of everyday life in Egypt during the time of Jesus. A child growing up in Egypt would have constant exposure to the spoken word, if not literacy. Likewise, a Jewish emigre household in Egypt, of all places, would be strongly motivated to bolster the Hebrew education of a male. This would require learning the written word, and therefore the written law.
All this is predicated on the assumption that Joseph and Mary fled to Egypt for the time span indicated in the canonical Gospels.
In the least, it would explain a conversancy in the Law of Moses that does not require the knowledge to have been hardwired into the child's DNA.
Also, as such learning would involve training from expatriate rabbis, it might explain the historical Jesus' predisposition toward a career as a rabbi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.68.40.40 ( talk • contribs)
The current format of this article is less like an encyclopedia article, and more like an FAQ. I'd propose some sort of massive overhaul to make it organized along more historiographical lines, except that I'm sure I'd be too lazy to carry it out. But does anybody else have any thoughts? john k 03:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I've only skimmed the article briefly, but, IMO, the problem with the article is that it doesn't address the historicity of historical Jesus studies. I don't mean that to be coy, but the outcome of the Jesus biography someone is writing depends on the method used, which is historically contingent. I'll try to engage this on the talk subpage.-- Mrdarcey 15:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I think I will delete the photo of the reconstruction of a dead person that lived in Palestine in the supposed time of Jesus. Is it there to imply that if he existed he must have looked like that? What far fetched nonsense. Is like saying all people in an area look the same? what sort of bogus science is this? I leave this for comments and will proceed in few days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.174.72 ( talk • contribs)
Well, Middle Eastern caucasian, not Teutonic or Nordic caucasian as Jesus is usually portrayed. But, do we have to get racial? Arch O. La Grigrory Deepdelver 16:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
The discussion above (neutrality) never seemed to resolve the issue that the two sections in question, Final Days and Resurrection, are inconsistent with the rest of the article. I would like consensus on the following questions: (1) Can we agree that an article called Historical {whatever} needs sources other than the holy texts surrounding the subject? (2) Can we agree that these two specific sections do not reference relevant, historical sources other than said holy texts? (3) Can we pull these two sections to a sandbox where folks (hopefully including DH Voss, who seems much more capable than I) can spend some time getting it right before reintroducing it?
Yes, I phrased these three questions as something of a benign push poll: It is my opinion that the validity and neutrality of the entire article is compromised by the inclusions of these two sections. I feel very strongly that they are inconsistent with the rest of the article (which is excellent, really) and just possibly inconsistent with WP:POV. However, I will never blank or substantially rewrite any section in any article (especially a religious one) without clear consensus. Kevin/Last1in 19:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree that we should be summarizing scholarship here, not simply repeating the text of the NT; but I also want to add that we should represent both sides of the field. I know that often people like F. F. Bruce and Leon Morris are called "fringe scholars" on these kinds of issues (Robert Funk on a radio program with James White, cited in Christian Research Journal, 20, no. 3, 1998 [J981], p. 51), and I hope we can avoid that kind of thing here (no accusations, just voicing a possible concern). Scholars whose worldviews exclude the possibility of supra- or supernatural events will obviously deny things like virgin births and resurrections and look for other explanations; scholrs whose worldviews allow for those kinds of events will be more likely to accept the explanations of the NT: but their respective worldviews do not necessarily make their methods or thinking any more or less scholarly. We should represent the best of both sides and without bias. Okay, that was my soapbox preaching for the day. ;) » MonkeeSage « 04:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I hate that "these scholars are not open-minded enough to accept the possibility of supernatural events" business. It is an argument generally made by scholars who are considerably less open-minded, in that they've already determined for reasons of faith that they believe in Biblical miracles. Genuine scholarship, whatever its source (and certainly Christian scholars like Wright, et al, are worthy of inclusion), ought to be respected and discussed on this page. Apologetics should not be. When the principal purpose of a work of "scholarship" is to defend the literal accuracy of the Biblical text, I'd put it on the side of apologetics rather than actual scholarship. john k 15:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)