![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page would be more useful if it included where the extrabiblical mentions were? Texts, inscriptions, monuments? Rmhermen 13:26, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
Kuratowski's Ghost 21:42, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
We also need to be clear on what constitutes "Biblical" vs "extra-Biblical". For "Biblical figures" I propose anyone mentioned in the Old Testament, New Testament as well as the deuterocanonicals as there are some interesting historical figures in the latter particularly in Maccabees. For "extra-Biblical" I would say anything other than "Biblical" but _excluding_ material which has the "Biblical" material as its source (e.g most of Josephus) or which is part of the body of traditions surrounding the "Biblical material" (i.e Talmud, Midrash, writings of the Church fathers, Koran, Roman references to Judaeo-Christian traditions e.g. Tacitus). Kuratowski's Ghost 01:06, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Posted on the talk page of Kuratowski's Ghost on 10 August 2006: Need to re-design the article "List of Biblical figures identified in extra-Biblical sources"
In recognition of your diligent work on this fledgling article from the very beginning, Mr. Kuratowski's Ghost, I would like to at least describe to you the thorough re-design I would like to propose before doing anything about it. Here are a few points that come to mind at _prima vista_:
1. Your separation of Biblical figures who are unambiguously identified in contemporary sources from those who are only tentatively identified shows sensitivity to the gradations of strength or weakness of such identifications and _should_be_preserved_.
2. Provenanced materials excavated under controlled conditions must be treated separately from unprovenanced materials that have appeared on the antiquities market. This is simply to separate materials whose authenticity is generally beyond reproach from materials whose authenticity is unknown, i.e., potential forgeries. Possible forgery of unprovenanced materials has been arguably the hottest issue surrounding the study of inscriptions since about late 2002 or early 2003, with the filing of lawsuits against antiquities dealers in Israel. Of course, this issue also extends to fakery, i.e., modern alteration of ancient materials such as the modern inscribing of ancient-looking letters on a genuinely ancient potsherd to create a faked ostracon. (See the article that accepts the "three shekels" ostracon in _Biblical Archaeology Review_ (ca. 2002?), followed by the article on it in _Israel Exploration Journal_ in early 2005, which includes technical analysis demonstrating it to be faked.)
3. While the article still includes names that have not yet been placed into the appropriate category, such names should be listed (with their accompanying data) in a "yet to be classified" section, rather than left sitting in the list of the "unambiguously identified." It was easy to spot some that certainly do not meet the requirements of this category, e.g., Jezebel, King Ahab's queen, in an unprovenanced, carved stone seal that contains only the name, apparently without the initial _aleph_ in the Biblical spelling (unless it was chipped off). In the first place, it is relatively easy to forge a stone seal, and then, even if it were shown to be authentic, the name alone is insufficient evidence to establish an identification. There is no other identifying information beyond that found in the fact that it is a scaraboid and whatever can be learned from the letter shapes (approximate date and "nationality").
I have spent more than a decade working to evaluate potential identifications of Biblical figures in Hebrew, Aramaic, Ammonite, Moabite, and other inscriptions, using the original languages and the scripts found on the inscriptions themselves, as photographed or sketched, so I hope you will take this suggestion seriously (see under "Mykytiuk" in the "For further reading" section of the article on the "Mesha Stele") If I had not done this homework, I would probably have remained interested but silent. I sense that it might be against the Wiki-rules to mention my homework, but I mention it only to insure a serious hearing, rather than to deny that to anyone else. Lawrencemykytiuk 16:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
What specific scriptures is this supposed to be? 72.228.150.44 ( talk) 18:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
The problematic citation:
Bockmuehl, Markus N. A., The Cambridge companion to Jesus, Cambridge University Press, 2001, p. 124 [6] "The fact that Jesus existed, that he was crucified under Pontius Pilate (...) seems to be part of the bedrock of historical tradition. If nothing else, the non-Christian evidence can provide us with certainty on that score"
I find this citation to be grossly out of context, and its use to be purposefully misleading. By itself, it seems to be talking about more than one non-Christian source, but in fact, this is from a larger passage about the Testimonium Flavianum attributed to Josephus, and the "non-Christian evidence" supposedly referred to is merely the parts of the passage that aren't obvious Christian forgeries:
"This so-called Testimonium Flavianum has given rise to enormous debate (cf. also p. 89 above). There is little doubt that it cannot have been written by Josephus in its present form: the language is too explicitly Christian for that. Many have therefore argued that the whole paragraph is a secondary addition to the text of Josephus, added by Christian scribes. However, others have argued that, if one deletes the most obviously Christian phrases (those in italics above), then the rest of the passage can be plausibly read as stemming from Josephus. If so, the text may provide further evidence from a non-Christian source for Jesus' existence and his crucifixion under Pilate (along with the witness that he had a following and was credited with performing miracles).
"All this does at least render highly implausible any far-fetched theories that even Jesus' very existence was a Christian invention. The fact that Jesus existed, that he was crucified under Pontius Pilate (for whatever reason) and that he had a band of followers who continued to support his cause, seems to be part of the bedrock of historical tradition. If nothing else, the non-Christian evidence can provide us with certainty on that score."
The author is claiming that, since the portions which aren't obvious Christian forgeries seem more believably non-Christian, they are likely authentic. That is the real significance of the last sentence, and its out-of-context use in the citation transforms it into something else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueaster ( talk • contribs) 09:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
On what the authentic 1st and 2nd century documents mention:
The cited portions of Levine (HJiC) and Stanton (GaJ) establish the scholarly conensus on Jesus' historicity, but aren't relevant to the content of the "historical documents" themselves. Bockmuehl (Cambridge Companion) does mention "Rabbinic evidence" but he admits they are late (4th century). He claims they "may preserve earlier traditions", but this is not relevant to what this source is being used to verify. I based my wording off of the summary given of Tacitus' mention of Jesus (which is more concerned with the name of his followers), along with Jospephus' mention of James as his brother, which also notes that Jesus was "called Christ"). I think framing the mention in a manner closer to the primary sources mentioned by this essay is appropriate for the context, which is concerning the documentary evidence. I must mention here that, so far, this source only mentions 1 first century document (Antiquities), and 1 second century document (Annals), and does not mention any other documents or sources, only "traditions" from this era. Which makes the numerical aspects of stating "some authentic first century and many second century writings exist" problematic. Blueaster ( talk) 18:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
The words Biblical and Bible in every English country is spelt with a capital B. This article should reflect normal English usage. The koran/quran is respecte dhere with capitals, why does Wikipedia have a bias? 150.101.187.186 ( talk · contribs)
Is the Deir Alla Inscription enough to include Balaam from Numbers 22-24 in this list? 96.35.87.67 ( talk) 04:50, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
The patriarch Noah is also mentioned in the Anglo-Saxon and Norse kings genealogies. -- 197.229.149.164 ( talk) 22:39, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Name | Title | Date (BCE) | Attestation and Notes | Biblical references |
---|---|---|---|---|
Adramelech | Prince of Assyria | fl. 681 | Identified as the murderer of his father Sennacherib in the Bible and in an Assyrian letter to Esarhaddon ( ABL 1091), where he is called Arda-Mulissi. [1] [2] | Is. 37:38, 2 Ki. 19:37 |
Ahab | King of Israel | c. 874 – c. 853 | Identified in the contemporary Kurkh Monolith inscription of Shalmaneser III [3] which describes the Battle of Qarqar and mentions 2,000 chariots, 10,000 soldiers of Ahab the Israelite defeated by Shalmaneser. [4] | 1 Ki. 17, 2 Ch. 18 |
Ahaz | King of Judah | c. 732 – c. 716 | Identified in the contemporary Summary Inscription of Tiglath-Pileser III which records that he received tribute from Jehoahaz of Judah, as mentioned in Kings and Chronicles. [5] Also identified in a contemporary clay bulla, reading of Ahaz [son of] Jotham king of Judah. [6] | 2 Ki. 16, 2 Ch. 28, Ho. 1:1, Mi. 1:1 |
references |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
References
|
I propose to change the format of this article to something like the above table, at least for the first two sections, because it would improve readability. Any comments or suggestions would be appreciated. - Lindert ( talk) 14:25, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
So far this article only includes characters from the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament, in other words from the Protestant Bible. I think the article would be more complete if we also added characters from the Deuterocanonical books, as these are considered part of the Bible in Roman Catholicism and Eastern Christianity, and are also read by Protestants and Jews. I don't think a separate article for this exists, nor is one really necessary. So I've gone through some of the apocrypha, and 1 Maccabees in particular has a lot of people who qualify for this article. A preliminary list:
From 1 Maccabees:
From 2 Maccabees:
From Bel and the Dragon:
From Tobit:
I'm planning to add these and others if I find them, which is obviously going to take some work. Any help or feedback would be appreciated. EDIT: added three from 2 Maccabees. - Lindert ( talk) 13:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Lindert this is a fine piece of work. I am researching this area at the moment. When I asked an expert about where this information had been consolidated, he pointed me to this page Peter Damian ( talk) 12:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
PS Could you check this please! Peter Damian ( talk) 13:48, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
I've removed Josephus as a source from a few listings, which at times meant removing those listings. If I've miscalculated where he can reasonably be considered a contemporary please fix. I don't think an overlap of a few years between someone's supposed date and Josephus's birth would make them contemporaries because, as I understand it, we mean living at the same time enough so that the person we use as a source might have been aware of that person when he was living. A child Josephus wouldn't qualify.
There are quite a few more problems where the source clearly isn't contemporary. Doug Weller talk 10:44, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Many of these names have too much detail about the person that doesn't related to the contemporary source. That detail belongs in their articles, adding it here seems off-topic at best. Doug Weller talk 12:07, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
@ User:Epinoia Why the revert of Erastus? Did you want the bible verses where he is mentioned? He is mentioned a little more than Joanna of Chuza, for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregory david baker ( talk • contribs) 01:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
@ User:Editor2020 Why Papias of Hierapolis is not a Reliable Source?( Pseudo-Dionysius the areopagite ( talk) 15:11, 31 July 2019 (UTC)).
Continuing a discussion begun in the previous section, we need to talk about sources here. The Hebrew Bible and Apocrypha sections rely exclusively on external sources to support them, such as documents from other, non-Judaic ANE writings.
The New Testament section does not. For Matthew, the citation given is Papias, whose reliability should always be taken with a grain of salt because of the fragmentary and ambiguous nature of his writings—the fragment cited about Matthew is widely argued about for these reasons (his page does a reasonable job of explaining the litany of issues). The article also conflates Matthew the Evangelist with Matthew the Apostle, which is traditional and not supported by the texts themselves, even if the conflation seems to be occurring in Papias (who, to be clear, says that the Matthew he speaks of wrote in Hebrew, which is not the language of the Gospel; who lived likely after the death of Matthew the Apostle; and whose life overlapped with the fairly secure date assigned to the writing of the Gospel (80-90 CE), suggesting the Evangelist and Apostle are not the same by his own standards). The most glaring reason this is poor sourcing, of course, is that Papias was Christian. Of course he would report and likely believe the traditions of Christianity. Why would he doubt the existence of the Apostle or Evangelist, same or separate? He is not simply unobjective, he is apologetic—to the point where his evidence ought to be disregarded here.
The same can be said of the Paul citation, whose only supporting sources are the Church Fathers. And, really, given that we have uncontested texts written by Paul, I don't think he ought to be here at all—just as the article does not need to defend the historical existence of Jesus, I don't think it needs to defend Paul, either).
The name of the article merely specifies "extra-biblical" sources, so these are not technically warranted for removal. However, this standard of evidence is poor, and if we extrapolated the use of Papias—a Christian source who has reason to believe the traditions passed on to him—then we can do the same for any biblical figure. Just cite the Talmud and voilà, you have an extra-biblical source for Adam and Eve. The standard and scope of the article, and thus maybe also the name, should be clarified to sources outside of the respective religious traditions. This doesn't seem to be an issue for the Hebrew figures—Hezekiah, for instance, is supported through archaeological finds and non-Judaic textual references. If the same can't be said for New Testament figures, like the apostles, then I think they should be removed.
(As an additional aside, I also find it misleading that attestation and notes are combined in a single column. For Ananias, we have "He held the office between c. 47 and 59 CE, as recorded by Josephus, and presided over the trial of Paul." Though the citation is placed after "Josephus," combining the evidence (the extra-Christian writings of Josephus that verify Ananias' existence) and the tradition (that he tried Paul) is misleading and still seems to imply that Josephus reported what is in Acts. This conflation is, again, an issue largely resigned to the New Testament sections. I don't know if there have been apologetic edits happening or what, but this problem is mostly with the Christian content)
— anthologetes ( talk • contribs) 14:22, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
@ Karma1998: why are you adding sources that are not contemporary? Doug Weller talk 13:02, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Should the Biblical figure of Gad be listed because the "men of Gad" are mentioned in the Mesha stele? 132.66.129.121 ( talk) 14:07, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page would be more useful if it included where the extrabiblical mentions were? Texts, inscriptions, monuments? Rmhermen 13:26, May 2, 2005 (UTC)
Kuratowski's Ghost 21:42, 2 May 2005 (UTC)
We also need to be clear on what constitutes "Biblical" vs "extra-Biblical". For "Biblical figures" I propose anyone mentioned in the Old Testament, New Testament as well as the deuterocanonicals as there are some interesting historical figures in the latter particularly in Maccabees. For "extra-Biblical" I would say anything other than "Biblical" but _excluding_ material which has the "Biblical" material as its source (e.g most of Josephus) or which is part of the body of traditions surrounding the "Biblical material" (i.e Talmud, Midrash, writings of the Church fathers, Koran, Roman references to Judaeo-Christian traditions e.g. Tacitus). Kuratowski's Ghost 01:06, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Posted on the talk page of Kuratowski's Ghost on 10 August 2006: Need to re-design the article "List of Biblical figures identified in extra-Biblical sources"
In recognition of your diligent work on this fledgling article from the very beginning, Mr. Kuratowski's Ghost, I would like to at least describe to you the thorough re-design I would like to propose before doing anything about it. Here are a few points that come to mind at _prima vista_:
1. Your separation of Biblical figures who are unambiguously identified in contemporary sources from those who are only tentatively identified shows sensitivity to the gradations of strength or weakness of such identifications and _should_be_preserved_.
2. Provenanced materials excavated under controlled conditions must be treated separately from unprovenanced materials that have appeared on the antiquities market. This is simply to separate materials whose authenticity is generally beyond reproach from materials whose authenticity is unknown, i.e., potential forgeries. Possible forgery of unprovenanced materials has been arguably the hottest issue surrounding the study of inscriptions since about late 2002 or early 2003, with the filing of lawsuits against antiquities dealers in Israel. Of course, this issue also extends to fakery, i.e., modern alteration of ancient materials such as the modern inscribing of ancient-looking letters on a genuinely ancient potsherd to create a faked ostracon. (See the article that accepts the "three shekels" ostracon in _Biblical Archaeology Review_ (ca. 2002?), followed by the article on it in _Israel Exploration Journal_ in early 2005, which includes technical analysis demonstrating it to be faked.)
3. While the article still includes names that have not yet been placed into the appropriate category, such names should be listed (with their accompanying data) in a "yet to be classified" section, rather than left sitting in the list of the "unambiguously identified." It was easy to spot some that certainly do not meet the requirements of this category, e.g., Jezebel, King Ahab's queen, in an unprovenanced, carved stone seal that contains only the name, apparently without the initial _aleph_ in the Biblical spelling (unless it was chipped off). In the first place, it is relatively easy to forge a stone seal, and then, even if it were shown to be authentic, the name alone is insufficient evidence to establish an identification. There is no other identifying information beyond that found in the fact that it is a scaraboid and whatever can be learned from the letter shapes (approximate date and "nationality").
I have spent more than a decade working to evaluate potential identifications of Biblical figures in Hebrew, Aramaic, Ammonite, Moabite, and other inscriptions, using the original languages and the scripts found on the inscriptions themselves, as photographed or sketched, so I hope you will take this suggestion seriously (see under "Mykytiuk" in the "For further reading" section of the article on the "Mesha Stele") If I had not done this homework, I would probably have remained interested but silent. I sense that it might be against the Wiki-rules to mention my homework, but I mention it only to insure a serious hearing, rather than to deny that to anyone else. Lawrencemykytiuk 16:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
What specific scriptures is this supposed to be? 72.228.150.44 ( talk) 18:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
The problematic citation:
Bockmuehl, Markus N. A., The Cambridge companion to Jesus, Cambridge University Press, 2001, p. 124 [6] "The fact that Jesus existed, that he was crucified under Pontius Pilate (...) seems to be part of the bedrock of historical tradition. If nothing else, the non-Christian evidence can provide us with certainty on that score"
I find this citation to be grossly out of context, and its use to be purposefully misleading. By itself, it seems to be talking about more than one non-Christian source, but in fact, this is from a larger passage about the Testimonium Flavianum attributed to Josephus, and the "non-Christian evidence" supposedly referred to is merely the parts of the passage that aren't obvious Christian forgeries:
"This so-called Testimonium Flavianum has given rise to enormous debate (cf. also p. 89 above). There is little doubt that it cannot have been written by Josephus in its present form: the language is too explicitly Christian for that. Many have therefore argued that the whole paragraph is a secondary addition to the text of Josephus, added by Christian scribes. However, others have argued that, if one deletes the most obviously Christian phrases (those in italics above), then the rest of the passage can be plausibly read as stemming from Josephus. If so, the text may provide further evidence from a non-Christian source for Jesus' existence and his crucifixion under Pilate (along with the witness that he had a following and was credited with performing miracles).
"All this does at least render highly implausible any far-fetched theories that even Jesus' very existence was a Christian invention. The fact that Jesus existed, that he was crucified under Pontius Pilate (for whatever reason) and that he had a band of followers who continued to support his cause, seems to be part of the bedrock of historical tradition. If nothing else, the non-Christian evidence can provide us with certainty on that score."
The author is claiming that, since the portions which aren't obvious Christian forgeries seem more believably non-Christian, they are likely authentic. That is the real significance of the last sentence, and its out-of-context use in the citation transforms it into something else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blueaster ( talk • contribs) 09:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
On what the authentic 1st and 2nd century documents mention:
The cited portions of Levine (HJiC) and Stanton (GaJ) establish the scholarly conensus on Jesus' historicity, but aren't relevant to the content of the "historical documents" themselves. Bockmuehl (Cambridge Companion) does mention "Rabbinic evidence" but he admits they are late (4th century). He claims they "may preserve earlier traditions", but this is not relevant to what this source is being used to verify. I based my wording off of the summary given of Tacitus' mention of Jesus (which is more concerned with the name of his followers), along with Jospephus' mention of James as his brother, which also notes that Jesus was "called Christ"). I think framing the mention in a manner closer to the primary sources mentioned by this essay is appropriate for the context, which is concerning the documentary evidence. I must mention here that, so far, this source only mentions 1 first century document (Antiquities), and 1 second century document (Annals), and does not mention any other documents or sources, only "traditions" from this era. Which makes the numerical aspects of stating "some authentic first century and many second century writings exist" problematic. Blueaster ( talk) 18:32, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
The words Biblical and Bible in every English country is spelt with a capital B. This article should reflect normal English usage. The koran/quran is respecte dhere with capitals, why does Wikipedia have a bias? 150.101.187.186 ( talk · contribs)
Is the Deir Alla Inscription enough to include Balaam from Numbers 22-24 in this list? 96.35.87.67 ( talk) 04:50, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
The patriarch Noah is also mentioned in the Anglo-Saxon and Norse kings genealogies. -- 197.229.149.164 ( talk) 22:39, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Name | Title | Date (BCE) | Attestation and Notes | Biblical references |
---|---|---|---|---|
Adramelech | Prince of Assyria | fl. 681 | Identified as the murderer of his father Sennacherib in the Bible and in an Assyrian letter to Esarhaddon ( ABL 1091), where he is called Arda-Mulissi. [1] [2] | Is. 37:38, 2 Ki. 19:37 |
Ahab | King of Israel | c. 874 – c. 853 | Identified in the contemporary Kurkh Monolith inscription of Shalmaneser III [3] which describes the Battle of Qarqar and mentions 2,000 chariots, 10,000 soldiers of Ahab the Israelite defeated by Shalmaneser. [4] | 1 Ki. 17, 2 Ch. 18 |
Ahaz | King of Judah | c. 732 – c. 716 | Identified in the contemporary Summary Inscription of Tiglath-Pileser III which records that he received tribute from Jehoahaz of Judah, as mentioned in Kings and Chronicles. [5] Also identified in a contemporary clay bulla, reading of Ahaz [son of] Jotham king of Judah. [6] | 2 Ki. 16, 2 Ch. 28, Ho. 1:1, Mi. 1:1 |
references |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
References
|
I propose to change the format of this article to something like the above table, at least for the first two sections, because it would improve readability. Any comments or suggestions would be appreciated. - Lindert ( talk) 14:25, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
So far this article only includes characters from the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament, in other words from the Protestant Bible. I think the article would be more complete if we also added characters from the Deuterocanonical books, as these are considered part of the Bible in Roman Catholicism and Eastern Christianity, and are also read by Protestants and Jews. I don't think a separate article for this exists, nor is one really necessary. So I've gone through some of the apocrypha, and 1 Maccabees in particular has a lot of people who qualify for this article. A preliminary list:
From 1 Maccabees:
From 2 Maccabees:
From Bel and the Dragon:
From Tobit:
I'm planning to add these and others if I find them, which is obviously going to take some work. Any help or feedback would be appreciated. EDIT: added three from 2 Maccabees. - Lindert ( talk) 13:41, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Lindert this is a fine piece of work. I am researching this area at the moment. When I asked an expert about where this information had been consolidated, he pointed me to this page Peter Damian ( talk) 12:47, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
PS Could you check this please! Peter Damian ( talk) 13:48, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
I've removed Josephus as a source from a few listings, which at times meant removing those listings. If I've miscalculated where he can reasonably be considered a contemporary please fix. I don't think an overlap of a few years between someone's supposed date and Josephus's birth would make them contemporaries because, as I understand it, we mean living at the same time enough so that the person we use as a source might have been aware of that person when he was living. A child Josephus wouldn't qualify.
There are quite a few more problems where the source clearly isn't contemporary. Doug Weller talk 10:44, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Many of these names have too much detail about the person that doesn't related to the contemporary source. That detail belongs in their articles, adding it here seems off-topic at best. Doug Weller talk 12:07, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
@ User:Epinoia Why the revert of Erastus? Did you want the bible verses where he is mentioned? He is mentioned a little more than Joanna of Chuza, for example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gregory david baker ( talk • contribs) 01:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
@ User:Editor2020 Why Papias of Hierapolis is not a Reliable Source?( Pseudo-Dionysius the areopagite ( talk) 15:11, 31 July 2019 (UTC)).
Continuing a discussion begun in the previous section, we need to talk about sources here. The Hebrew Bible and Apocrypha sections rely exclusively on external sources to support them, such as documents from other, non-Judaic ANE writings.
The New Testament section does not. For Matthew, the citation given is Papias, whose reliability should always be taken with a grain of salt because of the fragmentary and ambiguous nature of his writings—the fragment cited about Matthew is widely argued about for these reasons (his page does a reasonable job of explaining the litany of issues). The article also conflates Matthew the Evangelist with Matthew the Apostle, which is traditional and not supported by the texts themselves, even if the conflation seems to be occurring in Papias (who, to be clear, says that the Matthew he speaks of wrote in Hebrew, which is not the language of the Gospel; who lived likely after the death of Matthew the Apostle; and whose life overlapped with the fairly secure date assigned to the writing of the Gospel (80-90 CE), suggesting the Evangelist and Apostle are not the same by his own standards). The most glaring reason this is poor sourcing, of course, is that Papias was Christian. Of course he would report and likely believe the traditions of Christianity. Why would he doubt the existence of the Apostle or Evangelist, same or separate? He is not simply unobjective, he is apologetic—to the point where his evidence ought to be disregarded here.
The same can be said of the Paul citation, whose only supporting sources are the Church Fathers. And, really, given that we have uncontested texts written by Paul, I don't think he ought to be here at all—just as the article does not need to defend the historical existence of Jesus, I don't think it needs to defend Paul, either).
The name of the article merely specifies "extra-biblical" sources, so these are not technically warranted for removal. However, this standard of evidence is poor, and if we extrapolated the use of Papias—a Christian source who has reason to believe the traditions passed on to him—then we can do the same for any biblical figure. Just cite the Talmud and voilà, you have an extra-biblical source for Adam and Eve. The standard and scope of the article, and thus maybe also the name, should be clarified to sources outside of the respective religious traditions. This doesn't seem to be an issue for the Hebrew figures—Hezekiah, for instance, is supported through archaeological finds and non-Judaic textual references. If the same can't be said for New Testament figures, like the apostles, then I think they should be removed.
(As an additional aside, I also find it misleading that attestation and notes are combined in a single column. For Ananias, we have "He held the office between c. 47 and 59 CE, as recorded by Josephus, and presided over the trial of Paul." Though the citation is placed after "Josephus," combining the evidence (the extra-Christian writings of Josephus that verify Ananias' existence) and the tradition (that he tried Paul) is misleading and still seems to imply that Josephus reported what is in Acts. This conflation is, again, an issue largely resigned to the New Testament sections. I don't know if there have been apologetic edits happening or what, but this problem is mostly with the Christian content)
— anthologetes ( talk • contribs) 14:22, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
@ Karma1998: why are you adding sources that are not contemporary? Doug Weller talk 13:02, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Should the Biblical figure of Gad be listed because the "men of Gad" are mentioned in the Mesha stele? 132.66.129.121 ( talk) 14:07, 7 November 2023 (UTC)