![]() | 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 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
In which ancient Aramaic documents is Jesus referred to as ישׁוע משׁיח / Yēšûaʿ Māšîaḥ)? Or is this a modern phrase? Jayjg 15:20, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The article states:
On what basis does it make this claim? We know that the Greek form is a transliteration of Yehoshua, since the Septuagint translates Yehoshua that way in both the Old and New Testaments. But how do we know that it is the transliteration of Yeshua? And why do we assume that Yeshua is an Aramaic short form of Yehoshua? It's used as a Hebrew name in Chronicles.
Furthermore, the article states (ambiguously):
Which "Name" does this mean? Certainly not Yeshua, which means "Salvation" . Jayjg 19:59, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Jayjg, you picked a good example to illustrate what concerns me. Is this Christian icon an icon of "Jesus" and not an icon of "Jesus Christ"? What is more correct about "Jesus", that motivates you to fix the subtext? It's that motivation that draws attention to your edits and raises concern, for me. Boiled down that edit translates as "Jesus is not Jesus Christ": are you following me at all? Mkmcconn — 00:42, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
After actually looking at the caption, I agree with Jayig that it is rather cramped. By straying from just describing the image, it threatens to grow into an entire sidebar or something. Besides restoring "Christ" to the caption, I changed "Turkish" to "Byzantine", since the Turks were and are iconoclasts. If not for the spaced issue, I would further amend the caption to say that the way Jesus Christ is depicted is also influenced by the artist's theology. For instance, to use this one as an example, someone who didn't believe in Christ's divine nature would be unlikely to add a halo. But better I think would be to remove that comment entirely and just use the caption for labeling. BTW, the Ι for "Iesous" in the top left corner apparently got cropped at some point. Wesley 06:13, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The article is too long and needs to be broken up into separate pages for the topics addressed, and even perhaps those pages need to be broken up by point of view if all points of view are to get as much space as is given to the historical view of Jesus that dominates the article currently. Further, some of the material on the historicity of Jesus is duplicated, the same material already appearing on a page devoted to that topic. ChessPlayer 00:33, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I disagree for two reasons. First, some articles are more contentious than others; it is absurd to compare Jesus with Chess. Not to offend anyone but I think a better comparison would be with an article on the Vietnam war. Although hypertext and links are one of the great things about wikipedia, we all know that many people do and will read articles without following all links. We must be sure to provide enough context. Second, although I agree in principle that we should avoid redundant articles, I do not think there is a lot of redundancy. For example, the two historical articles do not overlap much with material in this article. One reviews debates over whether or not Jesus really existed -- the historical section here is instead on how historians and other critical Bible scholars have reconstructed Jesus' life and work in terms of the historical context. Another reviews specific debates about documentary sources, which this article doesn't really go into detail about. Slrubenstein
Just one example of the duplication I refer to: Jesus page, The historicity of Jesus section: Moreover, the same professional, ancient historians generally agree that at least some of the source documents on which the Gospels are based were written within living memory of Jesus's lifetime. Historians therefore accept that the accounts of the life of Jesus in the Gospels provide a reasonable basis of evidence, by the standards of ancient history, for the historical existence of Jesus and the basic theology of his life and death.
and again, a second time, on the Jesus page: Most scholars do not dispute that a person named Jesus, connected in some way to the events described in the Bible, once lived; they feel that evidence for Jesus' existence two thousand years ago is by historical standards fairly strong. The primary source of historical knowledge about Jesus is contained within the Christian Gospels which the majority of historians believe to have originated from sources written within living memory of Jesus.
Cute. The same material, said in a different order in both passages. But, wait, it also appears a third time, this time on the Historicity of Jesus page:
Moreover, some historians believe that, if not the Gospels themselves, at least some of the source documents on which they may have been based were written within living memory of Jesus (see Q document). These historians therefore accept that the accounts of the life of Jesus in the Gospels provide a reasonable basis of evidence (by the standards of scholarship for events in ancient history) for the basic narrative of Jesus' life and death.
and just in case the reader hasn't seen it, the Jesus page has on it yet again,
The majority of historians accept the New Testament as evidence for the historical existence of Jesus;
And of course it is mentioned in the introduction.
Do we really need this sort of duplication?
Now, contrast the Christian point of view on Jesus:
Christian perspectives on Jesus Main articles: Jesus Christ as the Messiah and Messiah
Christianity is centered on the belief that Jesus is the savior of man. According to Christians, Jesus was born in Bethlehem to Mary. He preached the new covenant across Judea, which angered traditional Jews and disturbed the Romans as he was seen as a threat to public order. One of his twelve apostles, Judas, betrayed him; and later committed suicide in remorse. Jesus was crucified by the Romans. However, he rose from the dead three days later.
That is all that is said, just a brief summary. The historical perspective not only goes on and on, but repeats itself, and then links to an article with the same subject title, which we are told is ok because the material is "different." Maybe so; I would be surprised if editors edited both pages identically. But since both pages have the same title, is there some cabal that nevertheless ensures they treat the subject differently, even though the titles are the same? But the point is, they claim to be the same, since they are called the same. So why does the historical section get so much space, and the Christian section (and other points of view) just a quick summary and a link? Is there some kind of implicit deal going on here, an agreement to give the Christian view its own pages, if they don't object to the "historical view of Jesus" arguing at length on the Jesus page that Jesus exists, as well as having a second page where the argument is treated yet again? Do we really need that? Do we need the "historical" view (which really it isn't, its instead just a subset view) taking up most of the Jesus page? I say this because it doesn't just appear in the "Historicity of Jesus" section, but its all over the rest of the sections, too. I say, get not only "The historicity of Jesus" stuff onto the " The historicity of Jesus" page where it belongs, but since almost nothing will be left if you remove all the comments giving the "historical" view from the Jesus page, make the page what it should be...a short introduction to the subject of Jesus, followed by an organised table of links to the various Jesus subtopics. ChessPlayer 10:26, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
I agree that this page is too long, so for starters I'd like to suggest the following:
What do people think? -- GRutter 15:52, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
There are two sections (with different focuses, admittedly) discussing the Historical Jesus. The sections are actually more complete than the linked Main Article. Shouldn't these be merged? Mpolo 10:22, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)
The new "Cultural and historical background" section and article looks really good. -- GRutter 19:46, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
One of the best NPOV articles I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Congratulation. One note for the "portrayal"section: any objection to include Pasolinis remarkable workpiece into it. IMHO, it has much more depth (and even more faith, but this is POV) than Gibson's torture movie.-- 80.133.107.154 07:08, 17 Aug 2004 (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 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
In which ancient Aramaic documents is Jesus referred to as ישׁוע משׁיח / Yēšûaʿ Māšîaḥ)? Or is this a modern phrase? Jayjg 15:20, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The article states:
On what basis does it make this claim? We know that the Greek form is a transliteration of Yehoshua, since the Septuagint translates Yehoshua that way in both the Old and New Testaments. But how do we know that it is the transliteration of Yeshua? And why do we assume that Yeshua is an Aramaic short form of Yehoshua? It's used as a Hebrew name in Chronicles.
Furthermore, the article states (ambiguously):
Which "Name" does this mean? Certainly not Yeshua, which means "Salvation" . Jayjg 19:59, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Jayjg, you picked a good example to illustrate what concerns me. Is this Christian icon an icon of "Jesus" and not an icon of "Jesus Christ"? What is more correct about "Jesus", that motivates you to fix the subtext? It's that motivation that draws attention to your edits and raises concern, for me. Boiled down that edit translates as "Jesus is not Jesus Christ": are you following me at all? Mkmcconn — 00:42, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
After actually looking at the caption, I agree with Jayig that it is rather cramped. By straying from just describing the image, it threatens to grow into an entire sidebar or something. Besides restoring "Christ" to the caption, I changed "Turkish" to "Byzantine", since the Turks were and are iconoclasts. If not for the spaced issue, I would further amend the caption to say that the way Jesus Christ is depicted is also influenced by the artist's theology. For instance, to use this one as an example, someone who didn't believe in Christ's divine nature would be unlikely to add a halo. But better I think would be to remove that comment entirely and just use the caption for labeling. BTW, the Ι for "Iesous" in the top left corner apparently got cropped at some point. Wesley 06:13, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)
The article is too long and needs to be broken up into separate pages for the topics addressed, and even perhaps those pages need to be broken up by point of view if all points of view are to get as much space as is given to the historical view of Jesus that dominates the article currently. Further, some of the material on the historicity of Jesus is duplicated, the same material already appearing on a page devoted to that topic. ChessPlayer 00:33, 26 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I disagree for two reasons. First, some articles are more contentious than others; it is absurd to compare Jesus with Chess. Not to offend anyone but I think a better comparison would be with an article on the Vietnam war. Although hypertext and links are one of the great things about wikipedia, we all know that many people do and will read articles without following all links. We must be sure to provide enough context. Second, although I agree in principle that we should avoid redundant articles, I do not think there is a lot of redundancy. For example, the two historical articles do not overlap much with material in this article. One reviews debates over whether or not Jesus really existed -- the historical section here is instead on how historians and other critical Bible scholars have reconstructed Jesus' life and work in terms of the historical context. Another reviews specific debates about documentary sources, which this article doesn't really go into detail about. Slrubenstein
Just one example of the duplication I refer to: Jesus page, The historicity of Jesus section: Moreover, the same professional, ancient historians generally agree that at least some of the source documents on which the Gospels are based were written within living memory of Jesus's lifetime. Historians therefore accept that the accounts of the life of Jesus in the Gospels provide a reasonable basis of evidence, by the standards of ancient history, for the historical existence of Jesus and the basic theology of his life and death.
and again, a second time, on the Jesus page: Most scholars do not dispute that a person named Jesus, connected in some way to the events described in the Bible, once lived; they feel that evidence for Jesus' existence two thousand years ago is by historical standards fairly strong. The primary source of historical knowledge about Jesus is contained within the Christian Gospels which the majority of historians believe to have originated from sources written within living memory of Jesus.
Cute. The same material, said in a different order in both passages. But, wait, it also appears a third time, this time on the Historicity of Jesus page:
Moreover, some historians believe that, if not the Gospels themselves, at least some of the source documents on which they may have been based were written within living memory of Jesus (see Q document). These historians therefore accept that the accounts of the life of Jesus in the Gospels provide a reasonable basis of evidence (by the standards of scholarship for events in ancient history) for the basic narrative of Jesus' life and death.
and just in case the reader hasn't seen it, the Jesus page has on it yet again,
The majority of historians accept the New Testament as evidence for the historical existence of Jesus;
And of course it is mentioned in the introduction.
Do we really need this sort of duplication?
Now, contrast the Christian point of view on Jesus:
Christian perspectives on Jesus Main articles: Jesus Christ as the Messiah and Messiah
Christianity is centered on the belief that Jesus is the savior of man. According to Christians, Jesus was born in Bethlehem to Mary. He preached the new covenant across Judea, which angered traditional Jews and disturbed the Romans as he was seen as a threat to public order. One of his twelve apostles, Judas, betrayed him; and later committed suicide in remorse. Jesus was crucified by the Romans. However, he rose from the dead three days later.
That is all that is said, just a brief summary. The historical perspective not only goes on and on, but repeats itself, and then links to an article with the same subject title, which we are told is ok because the material is "different." Maybe so; I would be surprised if editors edited both pages identically. But since both pages have the same title, is there some cabal that nevertheless ensures they treat the subject differently, even though the titles are the same? But the point is, they claim to be the same, since they are called the same. So why does the historical section get so much space, and the Christian section (and other points of view) just a quick summary and a link? Is there some kind of implicit deal going on here, an agreement to give the Christian view its own pages, if they don't object to the "historical view of Jesus" arguing at length on the Jesus page that Jesus exists, as well as having a second page where the argument is treated yet again? Do we really need that? Do we need the "historical" view (which really it isn't, its instead just a subset view) taking up most of the Jesus page? I say this because it doesn't just appear in the "Historicity of Jesus" section, but its all over the rest of the sections, too. I say, get not only "The historicity of Jesus" stuff onto the " The historicity of Jesus" page where it belongs, but since almost nothing will be left if you remove all the comments giving the "historical" view from the Jesus page, make the page what it should be...a short introduction to the subject of Jesus, followed by an organised table of links to the various Jesus subtopics. ChessPlayer 10:26, 11 May 2004 (UTC)
I agree that this page is too long, so for starters I'd like to suggest the following:
What do people think? -- GRutter 15:52, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)
There are two sections (with different focuses, admittedly) discussing the Historical Jesus. The sections are actually more complete than the linked Main Article. Shouldn't these be merged? Mpolo 10:22, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)
The new "Cultural and historical background" section and article looks really good. -- GRutter 19:46, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
One of the best NPOV articles I've ever seen on Wikipedia. Congratulation. One note for the "portrayal"section: any objection to include Pasolinis remarkable workpiece into it. IMHO, it has much more depth (and even more faith, but this is POV) than Gibson's torture movie.-- 80.133.107.154 07:08, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)