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.
Jesus was ethnically a Palestinian Jew, from Galilee.
(1) 'In the time of the definitive redaction of the Gospel, the differentiation of two groups of indigenous Palestinians, the Jews and the young community of the Christians, had become a fact.' Georges Augustin Barrois - Jesus Christ and the temple St Vladimir’s Seminary Press1980 p,154
2)Much is made today of pre-Pauline hellenistic Christianity, whether pre-Pauline hellenistic Jewish or pre-Pauline hellenistic Gentile. To this category all concepts that manifestly antedate Paul but are judged too advanced for native Palestinians (Jesus and his disciples) are assigned; . .Rather than building hellenistic castles in the air, this work will centre its attention upon Palestinian foundations.’ Richard N. Longenecker - The Christology of Early Jewish Christianity (1970 SCM) Regent College reprint2001 p.8 n.15
(3) Those events and that teaching would have meant much to the dozens of Palestinian Jews we call the early apostles. . . .Could any of those who were not familiar with Jesus in his native Palestine have been totally incurious about his public life and teaching, what manner of man he was that some had thought him intimately related to God and others wanted him dead.?’ Gerard S. Sloyan, Jesus: Word made flesh, Liturgical Press, 2008 p.40
(4) Jesus’ rejection of divorce outright would have offended practically everyone of His day. Further, Jesus’ view that the single state was a legitimate and not abnormal calling for those to whom it was given, went against prevailing views in various parts of the Roman Empire about a man's duty to marry and procreate, but nowhere more so than in His native Palestine.’ Ben Witherington 111, Women in the Ministry of Jesus: A Study of Jesus' Attitudes to Women and and Their Roles As Reflected in His Earthly Life, Cambridge University Press 1987 p.125
(5) The earliest church was not entirely homogeneous culturally. Acts 6 indicates that almost from the beginning two groups existed.: the Hebrews and the Hellenists. Most scholars conclude that the Hebrews were primarily Aramaic-speaking Jews and native Palestinian in dress. The Hellenists were on the other hand Jews that had .. adopted Greek as their language as well as Greek dress and customs David A. Fiensy, New Testament Introduction, College Press p.167
(6) 'Jesus, a Jew of First-Century Palestine.' Frederick James Murphy, The religious world of Jesus: an introduction to Second Temple Palestinian Judaism, Abingdon Press1991 p.311
(7) 'As I examined these scenes again, I could find none where Jesus directly challenged the forces occupying his native Palestine.' Virginia Stem Owens, Looking for Jesus, Westminster John Knox Press 1999 p.250
8) 'Jesus, and the message that he preached to the people of his native Palestine, was truly prophetic,' Joseph Stoutzenberger, Celebrating sacraments, St Mary’s Press, 2000 p.286
(9) As a man, he (Jesus) traveled throughout his native Palestine teaching the word of God (see Sermon on the Mount), healing the sick,and performing miracles.’ Eric Donald Hirsch, Joseph F. Kett, James S. Trefil,The new dictionary of cultural literacy, Houghton Mifflin 2002 p.12
(10) ‘The Bultmann era of New Testament scholarship did not encourage research into the Palestinian background of either Jesus or his movement’ (citing Freyne) Morten H. Jensen, The Literary and Archaeological Sources on the Reign of Herod Antipas and its Socio-Economic Impact on Galilee, Mohr Siebeck 2010 p.5
(11) The "influence" of Sal terrae and Lux Mundi seems to have originated, as ideas, with the Palestinian Jesus. Eric Francis Fox Bishop, Jesus of Palestine: the local background to the Gospel documents, Lutterworth Press 1955 p.73
(12) But of all the traditions to which Jesus and his Palestinian disciples would have been exposed, the most influential would naturally have been the Jewish.' John Davidson,The gospel of Jesus: in search of his original teachings, 2005 p.177.
(13) 'We can say that Jesus was a Palestinian Jew who lived during the reign of Emperor Tiberius.' Christopher Gilbert,A Complete Introduction to the Bible, Paulist Press 2009 p.187
(14) 'Jesus was a Palestinian Jew; Paul was a Jew of the diaspora.' William Baird,History of New Testament Research, Fortress Press, 2002 p.260
(15a)‘Jesus was a first-century Palestinian Jew. .His faith in God was nurtured within the context of a Jewish home and family, within the context of first-century Palestinian Judaism.’ p.30
(15b)'Catholic sacraments have their foundation in the preaching and teaching ministry of Jesus of Nazareth a first-century Palestinian Jew.' Gregory L. Klein, Robert A. Wolfe,Pastoral foundations of the Sacraments: a Catholic perspective, 1998 p.32
(16) 'Born in Bethlehem, Jesus was a Palestinian Jew,' George Kaniarakath,Jesus Christ: a Meditative Introduction, Society of St Paul, Bombay 2008
(17) 'Jesus, like many Palestinian Jews,..' Chuck Colson, Norm Geisler, Ted Cabal, The Apologetics Study Bible, 2007 p.1481 on Mark 7:35
(18) 'The title Kurios applied to Jesus by the Palestinian disciples,' David B. Capes, Old Testament Yahweh texts in Paul's christology, Mohr Siebeck, Tuebingen 1992 p.13
(19) 'The reader also will notice the new beatitude generated by Palestinian Jesus culture—'Blessed is whoever is not scandalized by me' (Matt. 11.4/Luke 7.22).' Vernon Kay Robbins, The tapestry of early Christian discourse, 1996 p.140
(20) 'How did Jesus relate to Palestinian Judaism and how was he different from other Palestinian Jews?' Mark Allan Powell, Jesus as a figure in history, Westerminster John Knox Press, 1998 p.170
(21) 'Christianity was at first essentially a sect of Palestinian Jews who believed Jesus was the Messiah.' Kathryn Muller Lopez, Glenn Jonas, Donald N. Penny, (eds.)Christianity: A Biblical, Historical, and Theological Guide, Mercer University Press, 2010 p.115 Lazyfoxx (talk) 02:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
You make it abundantly clear that you don't understand the basis of the argument against calling Jesus a Palestinian. You linked Palestinian Jew to Palestinian People in a Wikilink. Palestinian people is not being used the same way as your sources.Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 02:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I fully understand Luke, it's you that clearly does not understand semantics. Yes I linked Palestinian Jew to Palestinian people, because Palestinians are Jews, and Christians, and Muslims, historically and modernly. It is being used the same way, to describe an ethnic Palestinians who have ancestry from Palestine. If you wish to further debate, we shall remove Jesus' current "Jewish" ethnicity on the page until we can come to a consensus. Lazyfoxx (talk) 03:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I do not see an easy solution to this discussion, given that I think it is a "surrogate debate" for a somewhat larger socio-political issue. I have no personal position on the matter, except that I know apart from getting high blood pressure, participation in this debate will achieve nothing. Furthermore, given that this is a totally peripheral issue to this page, I suggest the discussion should take place elsewhere, where the participants have no doubt been debating each other before. And per WP:Forum I suggest a suspension of the discussion here. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 03:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Then Jesus' ethnicity on this page must remain blank until a proper consensus is reached. Lazyfoxx (talk) 03:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I do not mind either way on the ethnicity issue, but soon the whole page will have to blank that way if everyone wants to blank everything they want to debate. I think the page should go back to what it was before all this and you guys can come back in 2 years after you have settled it elsewhere. Else please call him to settle it, although I doubt if he will succeed. And you are not debating that Jesus was Jewish, your aim is to narrow it down. Hence the information you removed is actually "correct", per our own edit summary. The debate seems to be at Talk:Palestinian people and should be centralized there, not spread across pages. One can not blank page entries just due to a peripheral debate from another page. History2007 (talk) 03:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, reverting Lazyfoxx - this page had consensus - and completely agree with History2007's comments above. (Doesn't mean happy with Luke 19:27's edits and incidentally Luke 19:27 is a pretty aggressive verse to pick as a User name). In ictu oculi (talk) 03:49, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I kind of like Lazyfoxx's 2nd edit. No need to comment on ethnicity. There is no need for an infobox even, and all the information inside of it is contraversial. I really like the picture choice, though.
P.S. In ictu oculi I like the imagery of Luke 19:27. The table-flippin' Jesus is my favorite Jesus.
e/c I only comment on the use of the word "controversial". That is certainly not the case regarding the statement about the date ranges for birth and death as supported by many references in the article, neither is the fact that he was born in Judea, nor that the home town of "Jesus of Nazareth" was Nazareth. The information in the box is subject to "widespread" scholarly agreement. The only reason the current mayhem started is the overspill of the socio-political debate taking place on the page for Palestinian people. That debate should take place there, not spread elsewhere out of frustration. That will just increase the amount of energy wasted on that debate, not decrease it. History2007 (talk) 10:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Exactly when did this page have consensus that Jesus was Jewish ethnically but not a Palestinian Jew, might I ask In ictu oculi? Lazyfoxx (talk) 10:17, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
The point is that you already accept the "Jewish" label which has been there for long. I do not even remember the Palestenian label being discussed in the past 2 years. It seems like a new issue. In any case you guys can discuss that for ever and a day but do not revert In ictu oculi. History2007 (talk) 10:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Facts previously stated do not accept the sole Jewish [which links to the greater Jewish people might I add] label for Jesus' ethnicity and I'll tell you why. There are countless sources I have provided that show Jesus as a Palestinian Jew, a member of the Palestinian people, a Palestinian historical figure. But only the one source on this page stating that he is Jewish. Jesus is more specifically a Palestinian Jew, and to disavow him as that, disavows the Palestinian people and their History. Wikipedia is for facts, not personal agendas that would seek to ignore the history of an entire people. Lazyfoxx (talk) 10:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I am sorry to break the news here. Wikipedia is not about facts, but about verifiability, per WP:V. And again, I am not going to enter into a recent political debate. History2007 (talk) 10:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not about facts huh? Wikipedia's mission statement "The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content..." Hm...Educational content, that seems like facts to me...unless you would like to educate people with statements that are not fact? That seems a little counter-intuitive, don't you think? Lazyfoxx (talk) 10:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I do not set Wiki-policies, just follow them. Please read the talk page on WP:V and will see the loooong debate there. On that note, please read WP:3RR as well. History2007 (talk) 10:49, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Even if we are only discussing Verifiability, I have shown 20 verifiable sources stating that Jesus was a Palestinian Jew, there are countless more out there in the world, because it is a fact, one that many users here on Wikipedia would like to ignore due to their Ethno-Political Agendas. Lazyfoxx (talk) 10:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Mind you, Wikipedia is not a battleground between opposing Ethno-Political Agendas. AntiqueRose — Drop me a line 11:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand the resistance here to the description of Jesus as Palestinian when there are hundreds of sources that say this is so. Its a verifiable fact. Those opposing its inclusion have to give a compelling reason, rooted in our policies and guidelines, as to why we should censor this majority viewpoint from the article. Making vague illusions to ethno-political agendas or socio-political battles isn't a counterargument to the sources presented above. If there are sources that take issue with Jesus being described as Palestinian, please present them. We can include all significant viewpoints on his identity. But we cannot exclude a widespread one just because people are afriad of the political implications. Tiamuttalk 11:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Look, even a blind person can see that this discussion, and the proposed edit is "not about improving this Wikipedia page". It is the spillover from political grievances being discussed elsewhere. I do not take side on the politics. But Wikipedia is not the place to discuss political grievances. Please take your issues to this organization and discuss them there. History2007 (talk) 11:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't want to sound like History2007's echo but again he's spot on. ::Hi Tiamut, I cannot speak for everyone but my own personal "resistance" is to a geopolitical hot potato from elsewhere on Wikipedia spilling over to this article when very few WP:RS related to this article subject will have "Palestinian Jew" or even state the obvious that Jesus was Jewish. I just tested that doing a GB search with "Raymond Brown" as a fairly mainstream variable reducer:
The American ecclesiastical review: Volume 169 Herman Joseph Heuser, Catholic University of America - 1975 As Raymond Brown indicates: when we ask whether during his ministry Jesus, a Palestinian Jew, knew that he was God, we are asking whether he identified himself and the Father — and, of course, he did not ..
New Catholic world: Volumes 219-221 1976 As exegete Raymond Brown is so fond of saying, "He was a Galilean Jew of the first third of the first century." If Jesus came as a native, then the good news is meant to go native wherever it goes.' ..
This above discussion, some of it, just looks, to me anyway, like an excuse to unproductively editwar and add zero of value to a Wikipedia article that is not related to the geopolitics going on about these terms elsewhere on Wikipedia... In ictu oculi (talk) 11:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi In ictu occuli. I've seen your contribs elsewhere and while I haven't always agreed with you, I've always respected your approach. I do think its a little unfair to characterize people's interest in this subject as purely geopolitical. for some editors, Palestinian isn't a loaded word and they are genuine in their desire to see our articles reflect the terminology used in scholarship, even if they may be sympathetic to the Palestinian cause.
I didn't really understand your comment though (forgive my ignorance) and eould appreciate if you can restate? Tiamuttalk 13:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
But these are not the only political groups. I do not even look at the political pages in any detail, but there are many out there. And if the door is opened to this becoming like a TV talk show on current politics, it will no longer be an encyclopedia but either a "social network" or should I say "anti-social network".... History2007 (talk) 11:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Ditto. How far do we have to wind the page back to get to before all this nonsense started? 19 Feb? In ictu oculi (talk) 11:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Just one day. I will do it. But I have a feeling this type of political issue will continue across Wikipedia until everyone gets exhausted, then "community backlash" will set in and the issue will settle, and those pushing for political issues will even be set further back than when they started... History2007 (talk) 12:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Before this nonsense started? Really? You call it nonsense because it has been realized that there are fallacies on this page which need to be addressed? You have no problem identifying Jesus solely as Jewish. Editors on this page time and again wish to ignore that he was a Native of Palestine, a Palestinian Jew. He is a significant if not the most significant figure in Palestinian history, and on his personal Page it is not even mentioned once that he was a Palestinian Jew, there is definitely something wrong with that. Lazyfoxx (talk) 19:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
@Lazyfoxx OK, you have played enough. This is not your private soapbox. Please desist from propagating this absurd nonsense any further. Maybe it is even time to open up a RfC.
This is an encyclopedia and you cannot use or abuse proper names as you see fit. Although Palaestina/Φιλισταία and variations and translations thereof is a name used in various meanings throughout ancient history, none covers what you push as some nationality or ethnicity or geographical place of origin of a historical Jesus. And the term "Palestinian" is exclusively used to refer to an Arab living in or descending from someone living in the former British mandate territory of Palestine, especially after 1967 when Jordan and Egypt renounced their claims to what are now the Palestinian territories. Neither in Greek, Roman, Byzantine, or Turkish times where inhabitants of Palestine called "Palestinians" (or the translation thereof in the respective language). There is no such thing as a "Palestinian Jew" in the time conventionally assigned to Jesus. ♆ CUSH ♆ 21:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Without discussing the references etc. I would again comment that this is not a debate about sources, but a "surrogate debate" about a current political issue that needs to be addressed at the United Nations, not within Wikipedia, per WP:Forum, as stated before. History2007 (talk) 22:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
What? This has nothing to do whatsoever with any current political issue. This has to do with usage of names in the historical context of the land between the Jordan and the Mediterranean at the time assigned to Jesus, approximately six BCE to thirty-something CE. Find contemporary Aramaic, Greek, or Latin sources that call anybody living in the area at that time a "Palestinian" in the respective language, but of course there are no such sources because at the time such a designation would have been conveying no information whatsoever. The Philistines were already gone and the Romans had not yet renamed Idumaea and Iudaea into Palaestina. Geographical or political designations cannot be used out of historical context. Case closed.
Oh, and the UN does not determine the usage of names in ancient times. Historians, Archaeologists, and Linguists do. ♆ CUSH ♆ 22:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
No need to let that nonsense spill over here any further, though. It's rather time to award a few temporary editing bans to allow some heads to cool down. ♆ CUSH ♆ 22:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
There are enough editors opposing LazyFoxx's edit here that I think it will just evaporate away by itself. History2007 (talk) 23:03, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Just a note/heads up: I walked into the 1RR trap 2 days ago since there's an active arbitration enforcement concerning anything related to Palestinians; so — if this goes on for longer, an administrator could very well decide that Jesus is now part of said arbitration and block people without warning. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556> haneʼ 23:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I guess that is called "community backlash". Wikipedia should not be an "anti-social media" website. So we should just stop debate on the political items. History2007 (talk) 23:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
There are enough users opposing my sources and factual edit that you think it will just evaporate away by itself, really History2007? Will it "evaporate" away just like the Israeli's agenda would like the Palestinian history and people to? For your information there are many users on here that supported my edit, see the Palestinian talk page, which was completely factual and is supported by countless more sources than the current one source being used on this page...The lack of accepting the truth on these pages is astounding in itself, being an American, I am exposed to this type of bias on a daily basis through the various media outlets and personal accounts and have talked to many people from both the Israeli POV and the Palestinian POV of the current political agendas in the region, keeping a neutral point of view and displaying and researching facts when need be has always been my top belief. Hopefully someday Wikipedia will have more users that have learned how to not put their bias before facts and reliable sources that are provided to them, therefore to not show bias whether they be indirect of direct. Lazyfoxx (talk) 07:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Linking Jesus to Palestinian Jews in the ethnicity section rather than Jewish is not only more accurate but more historical, and helps differentiate Jesus from the modern day people we come to know as the Jews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lazyfoxx (talk • contribs) 08:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
If you feel you are the subject of bias/discrimination in your daily life, please contact the ACLU. Wikipedia is not the venue for that discussion per WP:Forum. Hence I will stop on this now. History2007 (talk) 13:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
History, when did I say that I was personally the subject of bias/discrimination? You did not read what I wrote in my last statement correctly, I suggest you re-read it, I clearly stated that I was exposed to it, as in I have gained an understanding from repeatedly seeing it performed by others, not that I have been personally a subject of the matter. Stop talking in circles, Wikipedia is the place people come to find verifiable information. The fact that Jesus was Jewish is a verifiable fact, just as the fact that he was ethnically a Palestinian Jew is verifiable information. That information improves the article by giving the reader background information about who Jesus was related to, Palestinians, and where he lived, Palestine. Lazyfoxx (talk) 22:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Strongly oppose intruding the word "Palestinian" into the lead section or the infobox, since this seems to be based solely on an illegitimate conflation or confusion between the modern meaning of "Palestinian" (as an ethnic, cultural, and political term which refers almost exclusively to Arabs) and a technical scholarly use of "Palestinian" as a narrow geographical term (not ethnic or cultural) to refer to non-Arab peoples of ancient times. Nishidani can assemble 500 numbered bullet points, but if they don't actually address the main issue of whether there is any substantial connection or continuity between the narrow technical geographic scholarly meaning vs. the modern political/ethnic meaning, then all 500 of them will be completely irrelevant and useless for this discussion. In fact, the meaning of "Palestinian" to refer to Arabs only did not become familiar among the publics of English-speaking nations until the 1960s; before that time, "Palestinian" had referred to both Jews and Arabs of the British Mandate territory (the Jerusalem Post was known as the "Palestine Post" until 1950, etc. etc.).
The use of the word "Palestine" in the infobox isn't as tendentious and quasi-revisionist as the use of the word "Palestinian" would be, but it's unfortunately semi-anachronistic, since the name of the Roman province of Judaea wasn't changed to Palaestina until ca. 135 A.D. ( a century after the death of Jesus). Before ca. 135 A.D., the word Palaestina (Latin) / Παλαιστινη (Greek) often tended to refer to the coastal plain (i.e. old "Philistia"), and it seems to be those who were remote from the area, or knew little about it who most often extended the meaning of the term to cover inland hilly areas such as Judea and Galilee (Pausanias refers to Judea as being "above" Palestine, not "in" it). The word Παλαιστινη does not occur in the text of the Greek New Testament, and it's most unlikely that Jesus would have referred to himself as being a "Palestinian"... AnonMoos (talk) 03:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Lazyfox your arguments (I haven't read them all yet) are a muddle. When the English speaking sources refer to Jesus as a 'Palestinian' - they mean that he was someone living in the area that was known (incidentally only after Jesus's death), as Syria Palestine. Whereas the meaning of the word 'Palestinian', as it is used today (in 2012), refers to the Arabic speaking populations of that same (Roman-named) area. The meaning of the words has changed over the last 50 odd years, and they are therefore now being used in a different way. From a strictly academic point of view, scholars would be laughing at us if we introduced that confusion into the article. Avaya1 (talk) 01:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Jewish (Ioudaioi)
Further to my edit, if we're going to have an "ethnicity" for Jesus in the infobox (see infobox discussion above), let's at least clarify the subtle differences between the word today and the word "Jewish" back then. The ethnic label Jews has been debated ad nauseum on this page in the past - I assume most here are aware of the issues so I will not rehash, other than to summarise that the objections center around whether Jesus was Jewish in the way the word is commonly used today (i.e. a follower of Rabbinic Judaism as codified in the Mishnah and Talmud). RS are clear that "Jew" is a very common descriptor for Jesus, so on this basis I agree with the historical consensus here that the term is appropriate as a starting point for this wiki page. My reservation is that it is meaningfully "oversimplistic" for such an important descriptor. Hence my suggestion that we add a bracketed clarifier so that the box shows "Jewish (Ioudaioi)". This additional word would be a reasonable balance, in that with a simple one word wikilink we take the whole issue off the table, directing future debates about what it meant to be Jewish at the time of Jesus to another more appropriate page. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
See Anon Moos comment below. But otherwise, some purpose in a link to Jew (word) and subsections of that.In ictu oculi (talk) 03:03, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
No, that would not be correct. There is no scholarly agreement beyond the term "Jewish". Any addition to that term would be a deviation from the general scholarly view, and per WP:RS/AC can not be used as the general state of scholarship. In her summary of modern scholarship (reference 366 in this article), in The Historical Jesus in Context 2006 ISBN0691009929 on page 10 Amy-Jill Levine states quote: "Beyond recognizing that 'Jesus was Jewish' rarely does scholarship address what being 'Jewish' means." So the label Jewish is accepted by scholars in general, but going beyond that is not. The situation is simple, and needs no fanfare. History2007 (talk) 11:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
No Scholarly agreement beyond the term "Jewish", really? There is scholarly agreement that Jesus was a Judaism practicing Palestinian Jew. Here's just a few of the sources already cited before in case you have forgotten. Lazyfoxx (talk) 23:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
(1) 'We can say that Jesus was a Palestinian Jew who lived during the reign of Emperor Tiberius.' Christopher Gilbert,A Complete Introduction to the Bible, Paulist Press 2009 p.187
(2) 'Jesus was a Palestinian Jew; Paul was a Jew of the diaspora.' William Baird,History of New Testament Research, Fortress Press, 2002 p.260
(3)‘Jesus was a first-century Palestinian Jew. .His faith in God was nurtured within the context of a Jewish home and family, within the context of first-century Palestinian Judaism.’ p.30 (15b)'Catholic sacraments have their foundation in the preaching and teaching ministry of Jesus of Nazareth a first-century Palestinian Jew.' Gregory L. Klein, Robert A. Wolfe,Pastoral foundations of the Sacraments: a Catholic perspective, 1998 p.32
(4) 'Born in Bethlehem, Jesus was a Palestinian Jew,' George Kaniarakath,Jesus Christ: a Meditative Introduction, Society of St Paul, Bombay 2008
(5) 'Jesus, like many Palestinian Jews,..' Chuck Colson, Norm Geisler, Ted Cabal, The Apologetics Study Bible, 2007 p.1481 on Mark 7:35
(6) 'The title Kurios applied to Jesus by the Palestinian disciples,' David B. Capes, Old Testament Yahweh texts in Paul's christology, Mohr Siebeck, Tuebingen 1992 p.13 Lazyfoxx (talk) 23:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I read the source "Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium by Bart D. Ehrman 1999", especially page 164, which is currently being used by some editors on this page to assert Jesus as solely Jewish, but to what I expected, when reading through the book I came across many instances where the book describes Jesus as a Jew in the context of his religion, but him and his people as Palestinian Jews regarding ethnicity and history. As well as his disciples not as solely Jewish but as a Palestinian Jews. A couple of the many instances,
"...Important enough for Josephus to mention, though not as important, say, as John the Baptist or many other Palestinian Jews who were considered to be prophets at the time..." P.62
"But the historical events leading up to his time are significant for understanding his life because of their social and intellectual consequences, which affected the lives of all Palestinian Jews." P. 107 Lazyfoxx (talk) 00:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
And do you know why Ehrman uses that term, and his point of comparison? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:03, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Actually what any single scholar says is not relevant to the "over all academic consensus". Some may say he was Norwegian, some may say Brazilian - that matters not if there is no "direct statement" regarding academic consensus. Per WP:RS/AC the over consensus (or lack thereof) needs to be directly stated by a reference. Wikipedia editors can "not" perform their own survey of the field to determine the consensus. Amy-Jill Levine directly states the lack of academic consensus beyond the term Jewish and her book is a Princeton Univ book, and fully WP:RS. Per WP:RS/AC all we can do is accept the lack of academic consensus beyond the term Jewish. Pretty simple. History2007 (talk) 03:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi History2007, of course, I'm just trying to ascertain if Lazyfox has any understanding of what language like this means from a scholar of 1st Century rather than 21st Century contexts. Could you do the honours and revert Lazyfox's latest back to the article status quo? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
It was pointed out above that there is a Wiki-wide 1RR regarding anything Palestenian. And it appears that LazyFoxx is determined to get on the train to block-land. I will wait for almost a day then revert him, just to be on the safe side. However, I think someone else may revert him in any case before then. LazyFoxx's edit is not going to stand, neither is a WP:TE approach here, about which I will leave him a message. History2007 (talk) 03:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Right, understood. Perhaps if it's confirmed that that is applied here we need to add a permanent warning at the Talk page header to prevent good faith edits reverting this sort of stuff getting snared. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Oncenawhile -- the purpose of an infobox is really not to raise issues which need to be explained at length and placed into a meaningful context, in a manner which is impossible within the confines of the infobox itself (see discussion in previous infobox section above). It's to give a convenient tabular summary of important facts which can be clearly understood even when presented very briefly. It's my firm conviction that anything which raises many more questions than it answers, or cannot be properly understood without a somewhat lengthy exposition, should be omitted from the infobox... AnonMoos (talk) 03:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
His ethnicity should remain omitted from the infobox then, Amy Levine simply states that he was Jewish as in one who practices Judaism. Lazyfoxx (talk) 03:56, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to hear AnonoMoos restatement of whether the ethnicity tag is needed.
But Lazyfox - please stop edit warring - as regards this 02:30, 8 March 2012 Lazyfoxx edit summary - "If we are to retain a neutral POV the ethnicity section must be removed until the subject is agreed upon by the current consensus.)" (undo) ...I don't think you understand how WP:Consensus works - it doesn't mean you have to agree. Various sources give various qualifying geographical adjectives - Galilean, Judean, Palestinian, "of the Land", but these isn't consensus here for anything but the way the page was last week. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Lazyfoxx -- he was not a convert to Judaism or a children of converts to Judaism, so I don't see what the objection to describing him as ethnically Jewish (technically "Israelite") is... I don't know whether it's important to include ethnicity in the infobox, but his being ethnically Jewish seems to be far more solidly-based and factual than his being "Palestinian"... AnonMoos (talk) 04:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
As stated above, nothing beyond the "Jewish" label can apply given no academic consensus beyond "Jewish" in a general sense. History2007 (talk) 04:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
And why can we not state his ethnicity as Palestinian Jew, that hits two birds with one stone, it shows where he was from and also that he was Jewish. Lazyfoxx (talk) 04:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Because there is no academic consensus for anything beyond Jewish, be it Palestinian or Norwegian. You have been told this enough times. Now I will stop. And please do read WP:TE. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 05:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Don't accuse me of that, it is quite clear where the bias lies on these pages, it's a true David and Goliath story. Lazyfoxx (talk) 05:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
That statement indicates that you realize the consensus is against your edit. Hence please accept that Wikipedia works by consensus, and let us move on. History2007 (talk) 05:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I'd be more interested to see a consensus of all the editors on the Jesus Christ as well as Palestinian/Israeli pages rather than the few of you posting, who I have noticed may or may not have agendas agreeing with eachother. *cough* *cough*. Lazyfoxx (talk) 05:59, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
In any case, someone else reverted you now. However, I think the Infobox could say "Background = Jewish" instead of "Ethnicity" if there is a label for it, so we can move on. I requested that field for the Infobox person, and once it becomes available we can just change it to "Background= Jewish" and be done with this saga. History2007 (talk) 09:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Lazyfox your arguments (I haven't read them all yet) are a muddle. When the English sources refer to Jesus as a 'Palestinian' - they mean that he was someone living in the area that was known (incidentally only after Jesus's death), as Syria Palestine. Whereas the meaning of the word 'Palestinian', as it is used today (in 2012), refers to the Arabic speaking populations of that same (Roman-named) area. A area that was only named that a century after Jesus died. The meaning of the words has changed over the last 50 odd years, and they are therefore now being used in a different way. From a strictly academic point of view, scholars would be laughing at us if we introduced that confusion into the article. Avaya1 (talk) 01:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Weasel tag
Cush, please provide a "complete list" of the weasel words you tagged about so they can be addressed one by one. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 08:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
You know, all the "most scholars", and "some scholars" etc. The entire article is written so vaguely that it seems pretty obvious that there is no factual knowledge contained that would be presentable in an encyclopedia. The article is based almost solely on religious interpretations. But this article is about a person that possibly existed, not about claims made by various religions about said person. And as I have stated before, the Bible is not a reliable source about the factual existence Jesus.
What bugs me the most is the use of the word "scholars" which lumps together historians and archaeologists (which are real scientists) with theologians (which are religionists with no contribution to fact-finding whatsoever). History is established by historians and archaeologists, not by theologians ("biblical scholars"). And there are too many religious=subjective editors involved here. ♆ CUSH ♆ 13:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree on the "most scholars", some scholars item, and as above, there is a suggested fix for that which I think should be just applied. The new paragraph which has minor changes, addresses that issue, as in the section above. Regarding the use of "scholars" as it happens many of those who are historians that relate to the topic also study biblical items. Perhaps a comparison should be made to the articles on Buddha, Moses and Muhammad. Those three articles are roughly the same length as this one, and have a similar flow, and any historians who could write about Buddha need to be able to read Sanskrit and they could be viewed as Buddhist scholars etc. And although a few archaeologists are involved in these issue, most of the items are textual, so archaeologists usually play a smaller role. And if you buy books on this topic, you will find them written mostly by the professors referenced here. History2007 (talk) 14:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Second paragraph
Avaya, I am actually surprised how you are commenting on the edit summary regarding accuracy as you enter items that run against the sources. After 7,000 edits I probably do not need to tell you to read WP:V as I stated above. Chapter 5 of the Lost Christianities reference begins by specifically rejecting "most" applied to Rabbi. And "most" applied to healer was discussed at length above. This issue was discussed at length (I mean at length) further above on this talk page within the last 10 days. Please read those discussions, see the references there and correct what you are doing. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 17:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
I think you wrote this just when I was in the middle of editing the paragraph. I had to answer the door and get the shopping in half way through. Comment on its current form Avaya1 (talk) 18:00, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Somewhat better now, but still (per the long discussions above) it is not entirely sourced and does not address the issues that both Cush and LordShard had raised. As discussed above healer "must move" to the second sentence, and can not exist in the first. And the existence should probably clarified and stated separately, given that there have been many questions about that on this talk page. So the only thing supported by the body (which must be supported by WP:LEDE) we can have in the first sentence is:
And I think you need to add all those references there, to avoid future discussion. The references are already in the body (and per WP:LEDE do not even need to be there) but people will ask if we do not have them. Then after this first sentence, we can have the second sentence that discusses "the labels" (to which "most" does not apply) as in the body:
Critical Biblical scholars and historians have offered competing descriptions and portraits of Jesus, which at times share a number of overlapping attributes, such as a rabbi, a charismatic healer, the leader of an apocalyptic movement, a self-described Messiah, a sage and philosopher, or a social reformer who preached of the "Kingdom of God" as a means for personal and egalitarian social transformation.[5][6][7][8]
That way the labels are applied, but healer is not given the front row seat, given that there are many labels, as discussed above again. And note that as Cush commented healer can not link to faith healer, and the sources do not say faith healer anyway. I think there will still be objections to rabbi, but that is a separate story. History2007 (talk) 19:01, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
"Most critical historians agree..." Critical historians? You mean there are some uncritical ones? Better to say simply "scholars". PiCo (talk) 23:53, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
The "critical historian" item was not my preferred item - it actually came from Avaya. I would prefer to just say "scholars". But there have been many questions on that in the past, with everyone and his brother suggesting every possible permutation of biblical, historian, scholar and window-washer. So just saying scholar will start the musical edit game again. I think we need to say "historians and biblical scholars" just to achieve stability. What do you suggest? And are you ok with the rest of it? History2007 (talk) 01:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
"Critical historians" is just plain nonsensical; there is no such category of historians. What are they supposed to be critical about, exactly? "Historians" is perfectly adequate. Other than that, I endorse History2007's suggested wording of the sentence in question. Gatoclass (talk) 01:08, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
From a logical point of view, you are right, of course. From a practical point of view, within 3 weeks someone will feel like saying that there is a field called biblical criticism that needs to be mentioned... so we somehow need to address that need, not due to logic, but practical issues. History2007 (talk) 01:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
It's because earlier historians generally weren't allowed to interpret the texts except through the official positions of the church. It's historiographically necessary to mention that we're talking about "most historians", after the introduction of biblical criticism.Avaya1 (talk) 02:58, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
"Critical historians" is a meaningless term. If you really think a qualification of some sort is appropriate, why not just "modern historians"? Gatoclass (talk) 04:11, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
I think "modern historians and and biblical scholars" may need to be used just as a form of "debate deferral" because some IP will comment in 3 weeks that some of those who express the opinions are historians, but some others are biblical-scolars. History2007 (talk) 07:19, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Let's drop the "biblical scholars". That's not a name of a profession. People dealing with the subject at hand are either historians, which are scientists with a methodology of investigating things, or theologians, who just make wild interpretations and speculations to make fit to their respective religious views what archaeologists and historians have discovered. Theologians have no methodology of investigating things and they are not scientists, although they are considered 'academics'. Except in the sections dealing with religious teachings of Jesus, "biblical scholars" have no place in this article. They have nothing to contribute to establishing the historical Jesus.
And as for the "critical historians": are there any others? ♆ CUSH ♆ 07:42, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Ok, let us do that, if someone complains then we will just talk, talk and talk again. History2007 (talk) 07:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. The references are all there - if you check ref 24, it's a compression of those references.
Ok, let's remove the 'healer' clause from the first sentence. (It's repeated in the second one anyway).
And what is your opinion about the "(or 'rabbi')" parenthesis after "teacher"? The reason I added this was because I found a qualifying footnote, which I thought would be useful for the lead (but only if people read footnotes when they're in leads). I'll quote it below:
(or 'rabbi' [ref]Bernard J. Lee, (Paulist Press, 1988)), page 119-120: "However, both Jewish and Christian scholars have advised us not to import a later meaning of rabbi into Jesus' time. Jewish scholar Joseph Klausner says that in Jesus' milieu rabbi was not a fixed title and was used in current speech as a unofficial indication of honor. Thus it may or may not have specifically named a teacher of honor. Martin Hengel takes this position too, and adds that probably by the time John's Gospel is written, rabbi is a more official designation of a teacher (and soon it designates an ordained teacher).[ref]) Avaya1 (talk) 02:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
If anything, that footnote would mitigate against use of the term "rabbi" in my opinion. Gatoclass (talk) 04:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that is the case. And Avaya, if you have to have a mile long footnote to justify and explain how rabbi is used, the case for it is already lost. And rabbi is simply used in the second sentence anyway, given that a few scholars use it. What is clear is that (as the second sentence says) there are multiple scholarly portraits of Jesus and every few scholar build a collage based on a subset of the available attributes, so there is no universal agreement on rabbi. And again (and please do read it now) per WP:RS/AC just because you have one reference that says rabbi that does not make it academic agreement. History2007 (talk) 07:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
I think you have missed the point of the footnote. It is a simple fact that Jesus is addressed by the term rabbi "ραββί" a number of times in the Gospels (including, most importantly, in Mark). The naming of Jesus as a ραββί is part of the original text of several of the Gospels. This is not under dispute. There is also a general consensus that some of the additional terms by which he is regularly addressed are Greek translations, or at least synonyms, of "rabbi". The point about my adding the footnote is to clarify that the meaning of 'rabbi' had not become formalised, and it was not an ordained position, and hence the term needs to be in brackets. The use of the word was different in Jesus' time. I agree that having a footnote to explain this is not ideal for a lead. I could add a section about this to the body of the text, instead of the lead. Avaya1 (talk) 15:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
It would certainly make sense to explain that in the body (say the 3rd or 4th paragraph of the Historical analysis section) basically as you had it, but I suggest we avoid "scholars advise us" and say "stated" or "suggested" instead, so it reads more formal, e.g.
Scholars have suggested not to import a later meaning of rabbi into Jesus' time. Joseph Klausner stated that in Jesus' milieu rabbi was not a fixed title and was used in current speech as a unofficial indication of honor. Thus it may or may not have specifically named a teacher of honor. Martin Hengel takes this position too, and adds that probably by the time John's Gospel was written, rabbi was a more official designation of a teacher, and soon it designates an ordained teacher.
And the references you had are WP:RS anyway, so they can just go in there. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 15:46, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Ok I'll add it there in a few days Avaya1 (talk) 15:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
I am sorry Avaya, but I double checked your text and references, but again they have problems that had to be fixed. The reference you used from Bernard Lee is a WP:Tertiary source, and your quoting it intact outside quotes is close to running into WP:Copyvio. So here is how I fixed and added it:
However, some scholars have suggested caution when reading modern meanings into terms such as rabbi at Jesus' time.[9] Joseph Klausner states that title rabbi at the time of Jesus was not a fixed title, as is perceived now.[10] Martin Hengel states that as a "teacher of Wisdom", Jesus was not a typical representatives of the official scriptural learnings of the time.[11]
Note that I used your Lee reference, but only for a summary. Then I used the actual WP:Secondary sources from Klausner and Hengel with the actual books they had written, and did not step on the copyrights by using the exact words they had written. Frankly, I am getting somewhat tired of giving a personal tutorial on these issues, so please do read Wikipedia policies somewhat more carefully, instead of having others explain them to you. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, more problems. I was going to add links, and realized that Joseph Klausner is a pretty old reference, so I would hesitate to use it on this issue. His book says 1989, but he died long before that. On more mundane issues (e.g. the number of books in the bible) he could have been used, but perhaps not on this. But Martin Hengel, is a solid WP:RS source and can be used. I will look for an alternative to Klausner and try to replace him with that source. But this really shows the need for more care when just clicking on Google and quoting verbatim from WP:Tertiary sources, and the general need for care when using sources to be sure they are solid WP:RS Secondary sources. History2007 (talk) 20:25, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Anyway, easy enough. I replaced the Klausner item with William Herzog who is living and teaching at Harvard as we speak. History2007 (talk) 20:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
History2007, no offense since you seem to be working hard and constructively on this article, but you really are muddled up here. Nobody, except you, has ever suggested using the source without quotation marks. Please read over this talk section again. My suggestion is to use the source as a footnote in quotation marks when we mention 'rabbi'. It's pretty bizarre reading comments like: "Frankly, I am getting somewhat tired of giving a personal tutorial" - when you are the only person who ever suggested using it except as a footnote. You appear to be having an argument with yourself. As for Klausner, he is extremely famous, and I think everyone here is aware of the fact that his work dates to before 1989.
History2007, the most bizarre comment you write above is this: "The reference you used from Bernard Lee is a WP:Tertiary source, and your quoting it intact outside quotes is close to running into WP:Copyvio." I think you'll find that the only person who has "quoted it intact outside quotes" is you. Avaya1 (talk) 22:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
No, I meant what I said. But I see no point in furthering this issue now that I have stated the need for care about using references. Leave it at that. History2007 (talk) 22:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
"The entire category of ethnicity is itself fraught with with difficulty"
Above, History2007 used a quote from Amy-Jill Levine to support his view that we should not explain what we mean when we say that Jesus was ethincally "Jewish" (in the infobox and in the Language, race and appearance section. I have had a look at the quote in its full context:
"In light of the Holocaust, the Jewishness of Jesus increasingly has been highlighted (ideological pressure and historical-critical rigor need not be mutually exclusive). However, beyond recognizing that “Jesus was Jewish,” rarely does the scholarship address what being “Jewish” means (aside from a connection to Mary's ethnic group—and here we might note, as well, that the entire category of ethnicity is itself fraught with with difficulty)."
It was misleading to the debate to have left out two key sentences: (1) "ideological pressure and historical-critical rigor need not be mutually exclusive" and (2) "the entire category of ethnicity is itself fraught with with difficulty". These statements underline that the use of the term Jewish to refer to Jesus needs proper contextualizing, as it is easily misinterpreted. For example, is it obvious what we mean by "ethnicity"? Ethnicity today means something very different to ethos two thousand years ago. And being a Jew today means something very different to Ioudaioi two thousand years ago.
All I am suggesting is a word or link to allow readers to find out more if they think appropriate. History, how strongly do you feel about this? Oncenawhile (talk) 20:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
I think the "the entire category of ethnicity is itself fraught with with difficulty" is a valid and sourced statement. Do I know the ethnicity of Jesus? Not a chance. Do I care about his ethnicity? Not at all. What he taught was not dependent on his ethnicity, and the New Testament as a whole is totally free of racial overtones, as the article states. But what I think matters not. A separate, and obvious, item to note however is that many groups like to claim Jesus as having their ethnicity, the Nazis wanted him to be Aryan, others want him otherwise. And according to the most reliable source of all (Wikipedia) he was from the far east, and Wikipedia could no be wrong, could it. But jokes aside, what Levine's statement says is that scholarship can not agree on the ethnicity of Jesus. So once there is no agreement among scholars, all we can do is avoid any label on his ethnicity. I have asked at the Infobox Person for a tag that avoids the word ethnicity and just says "background" and we just need to wait for that to become available. And again, I really think this whole issue of Jesus was of our race is not about encyclopedic content, but a surrogate debate about the "establishment of an ethnic identity" for the claimant group, not for Jesus. And Wikipedia is not the venue for that. History2007 (talk) 21:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi History, thanks for your thoughtful response. I think we are agreed at the heart of what we are both saying. Personally I disagree that "background" is any better than "ethnicity" - if anything it is even more vague. At least I have some idea what ethnicity means, but background could mean many things. Separately, when referring to Jesus' Jewish background, are you ok if we refer somewhere, or at least link to, the Jew / Ioudaioi translation debate? If you haven't already it might be worth taking a quick read of the external references listed in the Ioudaioi article - they explain better than I can the reason why this is worth being clear on. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, "background" is even more vague than ethnicity. And that was why I suggested it. As far as I can tell by looking at sources, there is no certainty about the ethnicity of Jesus among scholarly views, and hence we can not state that issue with certainty. The Ioudaioi article itself has unsourced tags on it. I did, however, do a search on the use of Ioudaioi and it seem sthat it has some undertones of its own, and John by Jo-Ann A. Brant (ISBN080103454X) says: "Hoi Ioudaioi seems to signify different Jewish constituencies rather than simply adherents of Judaism" and that "There is no scholarly consensus about to whom John refers when he uses the term Ioudaioi" in the context of the Temple incident. So from what I can tell scholars are to date debating how John used the term Ioudaioi and what he meant by it and the term is not uniformly used in other first century accounts. And Maurice Casey says in his book that the term also seems to have some unnecessary undertones based on it use related to WWII issues, etc. And Morton Smith in his book "Christianity, Judaism and other Greco-Roman cults" has a discussion of the debate about separating the uses of Ioudaioi, Judean and Galilean, etc. So the more one looks, the more debate turns up on that term. Hence, it seems to me that applying Ioudaioi to Jesus is not the subject of scholarly consensus, and Wikipedia would be breaking new ground in asserting that. History2007 (talk) 03:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Jesus was, without a doubt, ethnically Jewish in the sense that he was born to a Ancient Israelite family. But I think the issue for us is that Jewish is not a homogeneous ethnic group or an entirely ethnic category (you can convert), and the modern ethnic groups have changed since the Ancient World. But I still think we should keep it, since the hyperlink goes to an article (Jews) that discusses all these issues in a lot of depth. We're having similar discussions on some other wiki pages as well. Avaya1 (talk) 01:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
That's nonsense. Israelites ceased to exist as any "ethnic group" in the 6th century BCE. The populations of Judaea, Peraea, Samaria, Galilaea, and the Decapolis were a mixture of all kinds of "ethnic groups" like Arameans, Samarians, Judeans (which were only in small part descended from the former tribe of Juda), Egyptians, Anatolians, Greeks. Judaism at that time was only a religion split up in numerous factions, with the main temple and sacrificial industry at Jerusalem. In addition, the entire region of the southern Levant was highly hellenized in culture and everyday life (even the Romans never changed that, and it was the reason for the clash of fundamentalist Jews with the rest of the population and the ruling elite). Medieval and modern Judaism of course claims that Jews are Israelites (otherwise their whole racial ideology of being "the chosen people" descended from Abraham would fall apart), but the actual descent of Judeans from Israelites was minimal.
It is not knowable whether a historical Jesus was indeed a Judean as the Bible says he was. All that seems knowable is that he was religiously brought up to be a YHWH-worshiper (a "Jew") in the manner conducted at the Jerusalem temple (e.g. Samarians also were YHWH-worshipers but not accepted by the temple authorities of Jerusalem). During his childhood in Egypt, Jesus would of course have become even more hellenized. ♆ CUSH ♆ 07:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
To claim that there was minimal descendence of the Judeans from the Israelites, simply because a lot of neigbouring populations were culturally assimilated or forcibly converted, is contentious (I'm not aware of any studies showing the degree of descendence as opposed to conversion in the intervening period), and also irrelevant (since they were Israelites in their self-conception, re-constituted or otherwise). Mass conversions of neighbouring populations also occurred during the Monarchic period - this fact doesn't imply that the Jews were not an ethnic group at any one time, although the composition of that group changed across time. Across time, the ethnic composition of Jews changed substantially, and splintered. But at any one time, it refers to specific ethno-cultural groups, with specific profiles. Of course the 'Jewishness of Jesus' has a contentious historiography. It is clear that Jesus was born into a Jewish family, in the religious sense. I agree that the issue here is that 'Jews' are plainly not a static ethnic group that persisted unchanged across time. And the ethnic composition changed more rapidly during certain periods in the Ancient World. But the article that we're linking to in the infobox doesn't claim otherwise, although I would suggest that we link to this article instead (Jewish history). Avaya1 (talk) 19:55, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Without commenting on your reasoning, I should say that "you are arguing from facts" here, not from WP:RS references. Hence per WP:V this should refer to more references than inferences. However, I would point out that you may not be that far apart in your views, so this may not need to be a big issue. Cush's comment that Jesus grew up in a household that worshiped Yahweh is not far from your statement that he was born into a Jewish family and both statements corresponds to Bart Ehrman's extensive WP:RS statement in any case. History2007 (talk) 20:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Further to the expanded quote from Amy-Jill Levine above, please see below a quote from John H. Elliott in the Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 2007; 5; 119:
There is no direct evidence indicating how Jesus identified himself—to fellow Israelites or to outsiders, though some indirect evidence is at hand, which we shall mention below. Aside from the so-called ‘messianic titles’ or ideological labels, Jesus customarily was identified, as were his contemporaries, according to family, lineage, tribe or ethnos, on the one hand, or according to place of birth, origin, upbringing and activity, on the other. Thus, in the New Testament Jesus is identified in terms of:
his parents, siblings and lineage. In terms of his family and lineage, Jesus was Yeshua bar Yosef, of the house of David (Mt. 1.1), of the tribe of Judah (Mt. 1.2-3), of the house of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Mt. 1.1, 2).
his birthplace, geographical origin and place of activity. Thus he is depicted as Jesus of/from Galilee (apo tês Galilaias, Mt. 3.13) or ‘from Nazareth of Galilee’ (apo Nazareth tês Galilaias (Mt. 21.11; 27.55; Mk 1.9) or as ‘Jesus the Galilean’ (ho Galilaios, Mt. 26.69). Galilee was the chief locale of Jesus’ activity, the locale of Jesus’ parents and family, and the locale of Jesus’ first followers. Simon Peter is twice identified as a ‘Galilean’. Thus, of the sixty-one New Testament occurrences of Galilaia in the New Testament, the vast majority of instances identify Jesus, his family and followers as from, or active in, Galilee. Of the eleven New Testament occurrences of the related adjective or substantive Galilaios, most also are of Jesus and his followers.
A related geographical identification is his being of/from Nazareth: (a) Jesus of/from Nazareth (b) ‘Jesus of/from Nazareth of Galilee’ (c) ‘Jesus the Nazarene (Nazarênos, Nazôraios)’: All six of the NT occurrences of Nazarênos modify Jesus. Of the thirteen NT occurrences of Nazôraios, twelve modify Jesus and one identifies his followers as ‘the party of the Nazarenes’ (Acts 24.5). The creedal expressions of Acts identifying Jesus as Nazôraios (2.22; 3.6; 4.10) are ancient and consistent in their formulation. This reveals an ancient and consistent identification of Jesus, his family, and his initial followers with the localities of Galilee and Nazareth but not Judaea. Jesus and his followers were said to have visited Judaea, but they were never called Ioudaioi by fellow insiders.
The only exceptions to Jesus’ never being called Ioudaios in the New Testament are three occasions where he is said to be called Ioudaios by outsiders, namely by the Persian Magi who refer to the infant Jesus as ‘king of the Ioudaioi’ according to Matthew (2.2) [Elliott explains this was because Bethlehem was in Judea], by the Samaritan woman of John 4.1-42, who mistakenly identifies Jesus (coming from the territory of Judaea) as a Judaean (Ioudaios, 4.9), and by the Romans who executed him (Mt. 27.37/Mk 15.26/Lk. 23.38/Jn 19.19) [Elliott explains that this was in the use of INRI as a reference to the established title of the Herodian dynasty.]
Does anyone believe that referring to Jesus as Jewish without any explanation is appropriate in this article? Oncenawhile (talk) 21:08, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes I do, as Amy Jill-Levine says that's exactly what most scholars do most of the time. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:49, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
W/O reading this whole thread and at the risk of being flamed, I don't see any issue with saying that Jesus was a Jew. He obviously born and raised as one... Ckruschke (talk) 00:34, 16 March 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke
I agree, there has been an enormous amount of research that shows that the Gospels portray him as a Jewish man, specifically from Galilee. See NT Wright Jesus and the Victory of GodReformedArsenal (talk) 02:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
I hope these two last comments will end this saga to claim Jesus as a "national property" of some type through long and novel arguments that do not appear in comprehensive books on the subject by scholars such as Ehrman, Vermes, etc. History2007 (talk) 02:53, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
If forced to choose between Ehrman and NT Wright... anyone who is worth their salt and knows the academic field will go with NT Wright any day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReformedArsenal (talk • contribs) 03:21, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
That is only if Wright and Ehrman disagree, as they do on some issues. On this issue they agree, so there is no need for debate on that. For the record, Wright does have some academic respect, but for use in some Wikipedia pages, he may also have some liabilities, but I do not want to be sidetracked into that separate, unrelated discussion. History2007 (talk) 07:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
You could change your ethnicity in the ancient world, from Greek to Jewish or Jewish to Greek, or whatever. An option not available to us today :) PiCo (talk) 10:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I read a news report a few weeks ago that the top plastic surgeons are now "desperately seeking clients", given that business has been seriously affected by the recession. So these days that can be arranged pretty quickly - no waiting... History2007 (talk) 11:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
I doubt that plastic surgeons can change cultural affiliation. ♆ CUSH ♆ 12:52, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
The plastic surgeons change the external appearance, and a few hours of brainless TV watching while recovering liberates the viewer from all cultural concepts (the Kardashinas would work specially well, they say)... Then new ideas can be planted... History2007 (talk) 13:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Are you attempting humor? ♆ CUSH ♆ 14:52, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
The thought never crossed my mind...History2007 (talk) 14:56, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Part of the problem is thst some editors confuse "ethnicity" with "race". There is little doubt that Jesus was born into a Jewish family (whatever that meant at the time), but his "race" is obscure. There is then the issue of whether Jesus rejected Judaism and founded a new religion (later called Christianity) after which point he would no longer be Jewish. Please note also that a "worshipper of JHWH" would include all Muslims as well, as Allah is the God of Abraham and all Muslims are Abraham's decendents as much as are Jews.
However Jesus' "nationality" is also an issue - as it depends on when Jesus was born. Galilee and Judea were not part of the same "country" after the death of Herod, so was Jesus' nationality based on being born Bethlehem or on being raised in Nazareth?? If we follow Luke, Bethlehem was in Judea but Nazareth was at the time in Galilee (Syria). If we follow Matthew, Herod was still king and both provinces were still together in Israel - although when they were separated shortly thereafter, Jesus' family lived in the Syrian part and would presumably have had Syrian "nationality" - or maybe even "Roman". Wdford (talk) 14:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree with much of that. The "born in a Jewish family" is well sourced, race is unclear and nationality should be sidestepped. Pretty much what Levine's book said actually: not clear what Jewish means when scholars use it. History2007 (talk) 14:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Jesus had no nationality, and neither did anyone else - the concept was only invented in the late 18th century and became popular in the 19th. (Before that, people were mostly subjects of various kings, not citizens of nations; in Jesus' time it was rather similar, you were a subject of Rome, and your rights varied according to your status, not according to your birthplace - spare a thought for Paul's statement that he was a Roman "citizen" - it was something that didn't come to him by birth).PiCo (talk) 23:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, some solid logic at last. So do we agree to drop the nationality issue? History2007 (talk) 00:56, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
He didn't have a 'nationality', which is a recent term. But he was a provincial subject (a peregrinus) of Judea, in the Roman Empire. Looking at the infobox options, we could use the category "citizenship" (although it might be a little misleading, since he didn't have citizenship rights - hence why we chose nationality). At any rate, what needs to be listed is this: Peregrinus, Province of Judea), Roman Empire.
I think it's really useful to have that in the infoxbox, because it gives readers a quick reference to the historical situation. Avaya1 (talk) 15:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Ok, let us try a novel approach here Avaya. How about reading WP:Truth first, then reading WP:V again. You have no source for the peregrinus item you added to the infobox. Are other editors expected to find the source for you? Most readers have no idea what peregrinus means, so it does not help as a "quick reference". And of course, neither citizenship, nor nationality apply to peregrinus.... History2007 (talk) 20:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
'Nationality' is an anachronistic term, but Jesus certainly did have a nationality in the sense that the word is defined in the dictionary. And he didn't have 'citizenship' (in the Roman sense), but he did have a specific legal status within the Roman Empire. It certainly is useful to list this in the infobox as a "quick reference" as the readers can click on three hyperlinked articles. It's a very quick way of providing biographical facts, that the reader can explore in more depth by clicking on the words. I agree that the categories are not ideal. Avaya1 (talk) 21:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
At least you added references now. But although Kreinecker does use the term peregrinus, it is simply used as the legal/social status of Jesus, not as his nationality. And the Wikipedia reader who clicks on Peregrinus will read that: "In the 1st and 2nd centuries, the vast majority (80-90%) of the empire's inhabitants were peregrini". The reader then has to scratch his/her head when the next sentence makes it clear that people from Spain and Tunisia were also called peregrinus. Now does that help a user get any idea of the "nationality of Jesus" given that had he been born in Spain or Tunisia he would have still been called a peregrinus? I really do not know why you are pursuing this angle, or why I bother to discuss it given that it is a clearly illogical characterization of any possible nationality for Jesus, in view of the fact that people from Spain, Tunisia and Judae could all be labelled as a peregrinus. History2007 (talk) 23:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
All of the historical data that we have in both Gospel accounts, as well as extra-canonical accounts, point to the fact that Jesus was born, lived (with a relatively brief stint in Egypt according to the Gospel of Matthew), and died in Israel. Nationality not anachronistic, as Israel both considered itself a nation politically and ethnically. There is abundant research that nearly unanimously affirms this (See Wright and Ehrman)... why are we really hemming and hawing on this — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReformedArsenal (talk • contribs) 00:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
But that argument does not help the use of peregrinus. History2007 (talk) 01:22, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
@ReformedArsenal No Israel existed during Jesus' lifetime. Assigning the term "Israel" to everything that has anything to do with the Bible is a modern practice rooted in fundamentalism, religious extremism and religioracism. Please do not keep pushing that position, as this encyclopedia is not some Jewish or Christian propaganda platform.
And please properly sign your comments. ♆ CUSH ♆ 02:37, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
@Cush - There are references to the land of Israel throughout the Gospels. Unless you can give me some valid reason why we should consider the Gospels absolutely ahistorical documents... your assertion that No Israel existed during Jesus' lifetime is simply false. People like NT Wright have no problem referring to the southern Levant as Israel during the time of Jesus. ReformedArsenal (talk) 05:52, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Actually, per WP:V and WP:RS/AC we need a source (with a page number) that directly states: "Most scholars believe the nationality of Jesus was X", regardless of what X may be, before that can be used at all. I have seen no such source offered by anyone yet. None. Hence that statement can not be used. Now, from a "practical perspective" using the term Israel for his nationality is an invitation to the restart of the Palestinian debate on this page. Given the previous long discussions about the Palestinian issue, I really think we should avoid that term just for the sake of debate minimization. Else this page will become an extension of the TV debates about middle east politics. And Wikipedia is not the venue for that. The nationality issue was peacefully resting until Avaya restarted it, despite the comment in the infobox. I think we should just sidestep nationality for it will eat up time and will be debated for the next 7 years, or more. History2007 (talk) 08:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
@ReformedArsenal The Gospels as well as Acts are religiously charged and biased narratives that do not always reflect actual cultural, political, or religious circumstances of the time. References to Israel are contained for ideological reasons. "Land of Israel" has been a claim, not a description, all through the past 2500+ years, right down to modern Zionism. The Jesus of the Gospels is someone who seeks to restore a Jewish, even Israelite, past while simultaneously completely changing the ideology. And the point is, that most of that past is imaginary. Everything that Jewish scripture (Tanakh/Old Testament) assigns to before circa 850 BCE is 100% invented and even most material well down to the time of the Maccabees and Hasmoneans is, let's say, religiously enhanced history. Now the Gospels add to that by assigning new meanings to past Jewish teachings. The whole transfiguration-of-Jesus-story seeks to create continuity between Jesus and Jewish traditions and rules. But of course the teachings of Jesus do in fact reject many very basic Jewish traditions.
In the conflict between Cleopatra/Mark Antony and the rest of Rome, Herod and his extremely hellenized Hasmonean court had been on the losing side, so that Herod had to buy his kingship from Octavian. But soon after Herod's death the Romans no longer respected that arrangement and subsequently their already great influence turned into direct rule.
To make it short, during the time of Jesus, no political or territorial entity named "Israel" existed. At birth Jesus was a Galilean or Judean (depending which birth-story one follows), and a Judean when Judaea became Roman. ♆ CUSH ♆ 10:15, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
@Cush "And the point is, that most of that past is imaginary. Everything that Jewish scripture (Tanakh/Old Testament) assigns to before circa 850 BCE is 100% invented and even most material well down to the time of the Maccabees and Hasmoneans is, let's say, religiously enhanced history." - That's a pretty heavy statement to make when there is hardly a scholarly concensus regarding this statement. There are many many critical scholars who would argue that the Hebrew Bible back until at least the Exodus is flatly historical. Miller and Hayes is the standard book that comes to mind. Meredith Kline, Walt Kaiser, William F Albright... just to name a few. Beyond that, there are several well researched historians who would have no problem refering to the Southern Levantine region as Israel, both politically and geographically. (Wright, Bloomber are the two I have on my shelf right now). I will have to read the WP:Primary section a little closer, but at first blush, it doesn't say anythign at all about New Testament not being a historical source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReformedArsenal (talk • contribs) 14:28, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
What are you talking about? The academic consensus for the past 15 years or so has been that nothing in the Tanakh assigned to the time prior to the Divided Monarchy is historical. There simply was no "golden age" under such legendary rulers as Solomon and David, even Saul. There perhaps was a Judges period (some system of Canaanites tribal self-rule), but there was no Conquest of Canaan, no Wandering in the desert, no Exodus, no Sojourn in Egypt, no Joseph, no Jacob/Israel, no Isaac, no Abraham. The archaeological and historical record shows a very different political scenery and history for the Southern Levant between 2000 and 1000 BCE with no room to include the biblical stories anywhere. Only for religious reasons some people - even academics (cf. Kenneth Kitchen) - still hold on to the Bible as being any kind of documentation of (f)actual history.
Oh, and please properly sign your replies with four tildes ♆ CUSH ♆ 08:04, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
It's hardly an academic consensus when a large portion of the academic community disagrees with the conclusion. As I said, William Albright, Meridith Kline, Carl Rasmussen, and Miller and Hayes (the text book) all disagree with this concensus. These are just the the PhD holding persons I can think of off the top of my head.ReformedArsenal (talk) 13:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
William Albright was a fundamentalist Christian. Meridith Kline was a theologian. Carl G. Rasmussen makes nice photos and studies the Bible. Miller and Hayes avoid demonstrating the historicity of the biblical tales they offer as history.
As reliable sources we need publications by people with PhD in archaeology and history, not theology and biblical studies. If there were any historical truth to the biblical narrative it wouldn't be so hard to demonstrate it and come up with evidence for it. So far no part of the biblical story prior to the Divided Monarchy period has been independently confirmed. In fact, archaeology and historical research suggest a very different history. Yes I know all about the Tel Dan stone and the Moabite stone and the Merenptah stele and so forth, but that is not sufficient to confirm anything the Tanakh narrates. The fact alone that the Exodus is placed anywhere in the time from the 12th Dynasty to the 21st Dynasty of Egyt shows that there is no damn clue when and where and how such an event would have taken place. And for all the more prominent suggestions for paharaoh of the Exodus the circumstances just do not match. Period. The only time when large numbers of Semitic Levantine workers (Aamu) were in Egypt is in the 11th and 12th Dynasties. None of the suggestions involving the Hyksos as well as the 18th and 19th Dynasties, or the Sea-Peoples even begin to make any sense archaeologically or historically. The identifications that are still held on to today by certain circle were made by Champollion himself based on superficial similarity of names. Excavations conducted since the nineties have revealed that Israelites simply emerged from within Canaanites with no episode in Egypt, nor any exodus nor any conquest. ♆ CUSH ♆ 16:56, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
William Albright's religious views should not discredit him from being recognized as a valid source, anymore than a secular atheist should be discredited for their religious views. Albright's PhD was from Johns Hopkins where he later taught and director of the American school of Oriental Research. He was one of the worlds foremost experts on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Meredith Kline was both a theologian and a historian (and archeologist) who held PhDs in Assyriology and Egyptology from Dropsie College, which is "the world's only institution exclusively dedicated to post-doctoral research on Jewish Civilization." Carl Rasmussen also held a PhD from Dropsie and is an expert on Southern Levantine Geography, Ancient Hebrew Culture. Miller and Hayes, in their book A History of Ancient Israel and Judah, have no problem referring to Pre-Divided Kingdom in a way that recognizes historicity of many of the events. And the fact that you refer to the kingdoms of Saul, David, and Solomon as a Golden Age shows only a marginal understanding as not even the Bible presents them as a golden age... rather they were an age filled with turmoil, immorality, and death. Your personal views on what constitutes a valid source frankly are just as biased as you claim the Bible to be and are down right ignorant. The scholars that you disregard are well respected scholars with years of research and training to their credit, as well as copious publications. As I said, these are just the ones I can name off the top of my head.ReformedArsenal (talk) 23:59, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
Please take my word for it - I have seen the issue discussed on many cases on many pages. WP:Primary applies not only to the New Testament, but to the Quran, etc. It applies across the board. What is usable in Wikipedia is a WP:Secondary source that restates and interprets the primary, and there may be multiple WP:Secondary sources that disagree on a given issue, e.g. Wright vs Ehrman, or Fredriksen vs Luz, etc. So given the diversity of scholarly views regarding a primary source multiple secondary sources may need to be used. And even then, the majority view can only be stated based on WP:RS/AC and not by a survey done by a group of Wikipedians themselves. I am certain of that policy. History2007 (talk) 17:42, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Cush's conclusion that per WP:Primary the New Testament on its own is not a source for this item. However, the arguments he presented are "arguments from fact" and can not be used per WP:V and WP:Truth. Again, per WP:RS/AC a scholarly review of WP:Secondary sources is needed before any statement about nationality can be used. History2007 (talk) 11:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Would it be better to give "circa" dates rather than the current range dates of 7–2 BC/BCE and 30–36 AD/CE?
The DOB is cluttered enough as it is with both era notations being used, and I think the current range setup makes it even more confusing and difficult to read and follow. Most biographical articles whose subjects' exact years of birth/death are not known give circa years, and since a majority of sources give Jesus' birth as 4 BC specifically and his date of death around 30, can we change the date range to something akin to (c. 4 BC/BCE — c. 30 AD/CE)? — FoxCE (talk • contribs) 08:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
Actually I think that would lead to inexactness and would be less encyclopedic than the current situation. This is a topic on which specific scholars have performed very detailed research, as discussed in the article. In general the approximation of a range by a mean leads to ambiguity, e.g. the date 36 is firmly grounded by the date for Pilate's end of power, so it needs to be there. I think there is no need for adding ambiguity to these. History2007 (talk) 14:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Edit request on 6 April 2012
"Pre-cursor" is not an accepted spelling of "precursor". 71.67.125.132 (talk) 05:03, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it was also used as precursor, but fixed the other. History2007 (talk) 05:41, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Tag
I think the recent tag revert was right per WP:Déjà vu. History2007 (talk) 10:59, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
The "disputed tag? Well, this article reads like some religionist pamphlet. Maybe the user who posted the tag has a point... I don't know ♆ CUSH ♆ 14:53, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
If you're referring to this edit, then given the suspect quality of the users other edits, I wouldn't waste much time worrying about it. Chaheel Riens (talk) 16:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
No, it's not about that edit. It's about this article pushing a pro-Christian POV .
"Although a few scholars have questioned the existence of Jesus as an actual historical figure, ..." Really? But what exactly is a scholar? The word lumps real scientists as historians and archaeologists together with frauds as theologians and any other believers who would instantly get into a COI if they pursued real information.
"Most modern historians agree that Jesus existed and was a Jewish teacher from Galilee in Roman Judaea, who was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman Prefect, Pontius Pilate." They can agree on whatever they want, but if there is no evidence then that agreement is insubstantial and should not be presented as relevant in this article.
This article clearly blurs the distinction between the story in the Bible and historical reality. For all we actually know the writer we call Mark in Rome invented the hero Jesus following the narrative style of classical Greek writers, and then the Syrians we call Matthew and Luke, and later the Greek writer we call John copied and enlarged the story. None of the New Testament authors has been identified by name and as an actual historical figure that is referred to by any other historically verified writer or even politician. There are no Roman records about any Jesus. The Roman state only took notice of Christians when the religious group already existed, some time after the destruction of the Jewish Temple at Jerusalem, when no Temple authority watched over religious teachings surrounding the Old-Testament/Tanakh stories anymore. ♆ CUSH ♆ 17:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
You forgot that he could have been a great big fluffy bunny. Come on... This isn't a forum for pushing your anti-Christian viewpoint. Ckruschke (talk) 17:36, 16 April 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke
Actually the question of the "existence of Jesus" is not a Christian issue and atheists such as Richard Dawkins do not deny it, and Jewish scholars such as Geza Vermes also support it. And G. A. Wells, the leader of the non-existence camp changed his position over a decade ago and no longer denies it. The Wikipedia article on Jesus myth theory, also states that majority of historians agree with the existence of an historical Jesus, as does the Wikipedia article on the Historicity of Jesus. So that is not an issue just for this article. Are there a few solid WP:RS sources that state: "most historians hold that Jesus never existed." That is how Wikipedia works. As of 2012 most historians hold that Jesus existed, as three articles state. History2007 (talk) 17:49, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
The short archeology section
A short archeology section appeared right at the top of the article a short while ago. It has several problems:
The first sentence has no source, and is confusing in that it seems to imply that archeology has no relevance to Jesus research - that is not true. Archeology does have a place in Jesus research, and does influence the existence issue by shedding light on the nature of the civic structure in biblical era - Capernaum being a key example. But that is a longer discussion on its own.
The next two statements about the potentially faked James Ossuary and the fringe theories about the Talpiot Tomb are just about the most useless of all archeological items. They provide no argument for and no argument against existence: no conclusion whatsoever can be drawn from them.
The placement of the section right at the top seems to be prompting and preempting the wide scholarly consensus that Jesus existed (regardless of whether the New Testament is fiction or not). The placement of two useless statements that say nothing for or against the subject is not right.
Archeological analysis is a subset of historical analysis and should be grouped with that in its section - with sourced and relevant content this time.
I therefore suggest that a couple of sourced and valid statements about archeology be added to the historical section, instead of this. There is no need to mention highly questionable artifacts, for there is better content to add there. History2007 (talk) 14:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
I noticed that the section has now been rightly moved to the history neighborhood. I will fix and touch it up with more refs in a day or two. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 20:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Bear in mind Wikipedia is not Sunday School or a Platform for Christian Evangelism. Lung salad (talk) 13:40, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Can start a Wikipedia article on the mistakes contained in the Gospels, with full citations. Nineteenth century Christian scholarship was much more advanced than it is today in the 21st century because it was more critical, and because it was more critical it contained much more information. 21st century Christian scholarship contains multitudinous omissions and is comprised mainly of sprawling waffle by conservative scholars like for example, Craig Evans. Lung salad (talk) 13:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Your point being? The first sentence is unsourced and the two artifacts mentioned are "indeterminate" items of no value either way for or against. As I said. As for 19th century scholarship being more advanced than 21st century, I need not comment on that. That statement is too incorrect to need comment. History2007 (talk) 14:03, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Got any archaeological evidence for the historical Christ? Do you need citations that blue is blue and green is green? Sunday School type editing from a churchgoing charismatic fundamentalist Catholic who knows nothing about objectivity. Lung salad (talk) 14:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Are you discussing the article, or are you just talking generalities? And who are you referring to here anyway? History2007 (talk) 14:21, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
It suits you to cite 21st scholarship instead of 19th century scholarship because it is virtually uncritical and lacks details. No need for an explanation. Lung salad (talk) 14:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Not clear what you are saying at all. In any case, Wikipedia relies on 21st century scholarship. That part is simple. History2007 (talk) 14:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
If you think you know there is archaeological evidence for a historical Jesus Christ, then produce it. It will be the first such example. And identification of real locations in Gospels does not count. Lung salad (talk) 14:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
No, Wikipedia does not work that way. Per WP:V (remember that one?) you need to have WP:RS sources for what you type in. That is all. And I do not need to debate the issues, just the sources. And my statement was that the two artifacts are "worthless" and say nothing either way - as stated in the statement that introduces them. That is all. History2007 (talk) 14:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Anyway, I have to do something else for a short while, but let me clarify that the two artifacts mentioned are of no value whatsoever, and add nothing to for or against arguments- they are useless either way. History2007 (talk) 14:44, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
They are useless for Christian fundamentalists, not objective researchers. Lung salad (talk) 14:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Lack of archaeological evidence means nothing - we have no archaeological evidence for Alexander the Great. Dougweller (talk) 15:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
There were no early followers of Alexander the Great who denied his physical substance, unlike the early followers of Jesus Christ. The origins of Christianity cannot be analysed by using the same accepted historical methods as used towards Alexander the Great, Cleopatra, Aristophanes, Cicero and the like - since this is to do with religion and an incarnation. Lung salad (talk) 16:25, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
I do not see the logic in that argument, and I agree with Dougweller. Now Lung Salad, two separate issues:
Item 1: Are you accepting that the origins of the two artifact are "inconclusive" and hence they mean nothing? You need to clarify this.
Item 2: Are you stating that "the lack of archeological remnants about Jesus is proof of his non-existence"? Is that what you are saying?
Just clarify what you are saying without general accusations and references to Sunday schools. Just discuss the content per WP:V, and avoid peripheral issues. Just clarify what your point is and refer to WP:V without stating your own views. History2007 (talk) 16:37, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Better and logical items on archaeology
Anyway, regardless of the useless, potentially fake items such as the ossuary, what I suggest is that we should add something about the actual status of archeology in Jesus research. Jack Finegan's work in biblical archeology has been well known for some time, and can be referenced of course. But there has been a serious scholarly resurgence in biblical archeology - publish or perish I guess. So I think what we can do is dispense with the two useless artifacts that are of dubious origin and have been in court, etc. and instead survey the field from a scholarly perspective. I suggest a couple of paragraphs in the historical section, e.g.
The 21st century has witnessed an increase in scholarly interest in using archaeology as an additional research component in arriving at a better understanding of the historical Jesus by illuminating the socio-economic and political background of his age.[12][13] James Charlesworth states that few modern scholars now want to overlook the archaeological discoveries that clarify the nature of life in Galilee and Judea during the time of Jesus.[12]
David Gowler states that an interdisciplinary scholarly study of archeology, textual analysis and historical context can shed light on Jesus and his teachings.[13] An example is the archeological studies at Capernaum. Despite the frequent references to Capernaum in the New Testament, little is said about it there.[14] However, recent archeological evidence show that unlike earlier assumptions, Capernaum was poor and small, without even a forum or agora.[15][13] This archaeological discovery thus resonates well with the scholarly view that Jesus advocated reciprocal sharing among the destitute in that area of Galilee.[13]
This is well sourced, gives references to specific WP:RS texts on Jesus and archaeology, and shows how archaeology is used in the study of the historical Jesus. History2007 (talk) 21:57, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Given no further comment, I will fix it as such. History2007 (talk) 04:37, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
Gower presupposes the historical existence of Jesus Christ and then overlays it over the knowledge about Caperneum - rather like saying "America exists, therefore Bruce Wayne & Batman exist". Lung salad (talk) 14:30, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
^The Galilean Jewishness of Jesus: retrieving the Jewish origins of Christianity, Bernard J. Lee, (Paulist Press, 1988)), page 119-120
^Jesus of Nazareth]] by Joseph Klausner 1997 ISBN081970590X page 43
^Studies in Early Christology by Martin Hengel 1995 ISBN0567097056 page 93
^ ab"Jesus Research and Archaeology: A New Perspective" by James H. Charlesworth in Jesus and archaeology edited by James H. Charlesworth 2006 ISBN080284880X pages 11-15
^ abcdWhat are they saying about the historical Jesus? by David B. Gowler 2007 ISBN080914445X page 102
^"Jesus and Capernaum: Archeological and Gospel Stratigraohy" in Archaeology and the Galilean Jesus: a re-examination of the evidence' by Jonathan L. Reed 2002 ISBN1563383942 page 139-156
^Jesus and archaeology edited by James H. Charlesworth 2006 ISBN080284880X page 127
I have been searching for hard evidence of the historical, archeologically proven, Jesus high and low and I cannot say I found anything outside religious literature where it is all hearsay accounts. Even the Flavian testimony (which authenticity is highly doubtful due obvious inconsistency in style and in content with the rest of the book) was written by an author (Josephus Flavius) who was born after the hypothetical death of Jesus.
What I did find is a multitude of opinions and studies which throw the historical existence of Jesus into serious doubt and all opinions to the last of his actual existence rely on shaky sources to put it mildly.
The Hebrew Encyclopedia (Encyclopaedia Hebraica) Volume כ , Article ישו , p.412- 432 concludes: Historical Jesus did not exist Roundthing (talk) 17:39, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
User History 2007 is a fundamentalist Roman Catholic who believes the Faith-based allegations found in the New Testament and their edits are consequently based upon that agenda.Lung salad (talk) 12:09, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
That issue of "did Jesus exist?" is more relevant to the historical Jesus article of course. And the way Wikipedia works, what matters is the general scholarly opinion (see WP:RS/AC), which based on the many references presented therein states that historians believe he existed, while debating if the Christian gospels are accurate or not. These days even super-atheists such as Dawkins do not deny the existence of Jesus, they just deny that he was anything more than a carpenter in Galilee. And G.A. Wells, the leader of the "he did not exist" chorus did an "about face" at the end of the 20th century and no longer denies existence, just denies his being anything beyond a regular person, see Jesus in history, thought, and culture: an encyclopedia 2003 ISBN1576078566, page 660 for that. So your own research is subject to WP:OR and not usable in Wikipedia, while scholarly references are. I think you also need to read WP:Truth and WP:V regarding how Wikipedia works. History2007 (talk) 18:37, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
I have restored the part mentioning there is no archaelogical evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ, using Susan Ashbrook Harvey, David G. Hunter, The Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Studies (2008) as a citation. What we know, or don't know, about Caperneum has no bearing on archeological evidence of the existence of Jesus Christ. Wikipedia should be objective, not biased towards Catholic fundamentalism. Lung salad (talk) 12:05, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
You are a Roman Catholic fundamentalist who believes that Jesus literally walked on water, literally brought Lazarus back to life, literally believe that Jesus rose from the dead. Lung salad (talk) 12:13, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
You were advised to "discuss the content" not to make these types of personal statements. I notified you on your talk page that I made a WP:ANI complaint about your behavior. History2007 (talk) 14:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
I will just note here that the WP:ANI discussion on the personal attacks resulted in an indefinite topic ban on user:Lung salad on articles relating to Jesus. History2007 (talk) 10:42, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
There are a number of contemporary scholars who reject an historical Jesus. Richard Carrier seems at least sympathetic to the position (and classes himself as one here: http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/1026/comment-page-1#comment-8762). He also lists Robert Price, Earl Doherty, GA Wells, Thomas Thompson, and Frank Zindler as being well-argued. (Whether or not GA Wells later recanted is irrelevant - he made arguments in favor of a mythic Jesus and those arguments exist independent of his currently professed opinion). I am not sufficiently familiar with this literature to adequately summarize their positions, but surely someone could at least acknowledge that Jesus's historicity is disputed instead of the page's dismissive attitude to teh question? (The page can certainly do better than a single reference to a 1944 work) --69.209.53.13 (talk) 09:32, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
As you said, if one is not familiar with the subject, then that is a problem. If you seriously look at the issue then you will find it hard to find any major group of scholars who support non-existence in the 21st century. The blog site you mention is not WP:RS and is not usable in Wikipedia. People such as Earl Doherty, etc. are not scholars - Doherty has a "working knowledge of Greek" and a supplemental knowledge of Hebrew, according to his Wikipedia page. He is not a scholar. He owns his publishing company that has published only 3 books, his own and his own Wikipedia page says that his book is "academically far inferior to anything so far written on the subject". According to multiple sources, Wells was the leader of the non-existence camp and some time ago, the only scholars still standing up to defend non-existence used to be Wells and Price, and now Wells has dropped out. And the fact that he has dropped out means that he realizes his own arguments were incorrect. And the way it happened is that Wells is a professor of German, and once scholars more familiar with the subject pointed out the problems in his reasoning, he changed his mind. So as Bart Ehrman has recently stated "virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees" that Jesus existed. Those who argue against existence are usually self-published popular writers, and non-scholars and Wikipedia must reflect the general scholarly opinion, per policy. History2007 (talk) 10:10, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
Misleading statement in introduction
Regarding paragraph 3, sentence 4:
It’s deceptive to suggest that scholars alone are responsible for suggesting that Jesus is the awaited Messiah, since He declared Himself to be so on numerous occasions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.86.1.52 (talk) 16:11, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
Considering many of the Biblical pages on Wikipedia, I actually think this one is pretty evenhanded with a good lede that sums up who Jesus is (I could name many that are much worse and/or from a decided anti-Christian viewpoint). Although the later text on this page does go over His self-designation as Christ, I'm not sure people are missing anything or being misled by not stating His diety in the lede. "Everyone" knows that Jesus thought that He was in fact God incarnate (which is part of the problem that non-Christians have with Him). Yours - Ckruschke (talk) 18:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke
The issue of what Jesus declared himself to be in the New Testament is really a biblical analysis issue, subject to debate, and probably not the subject of this page. And from the view of a secular encyclopedia, the biblical content is not what matters, but the scholarly views. So I suggest not adding anything on that front for it belongs in pages such as Confession of Peter (linked in the body), not in the lede here. The lede and theme of this article needs to be scholarly rather than biblical. History2007 (talk) 18:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Grammatical Change needed in Paragraph 1
Since I'm an IP, I cannot edit the article "Jesus" because it's semi-protected. However, between the words "Christianity" and "and" in paragraph, someone needs to put a comma there. --96.242.163.228 (talk) 21:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
Untrue statement needs to be updated with new findings cited
"Most modern historians agree that Jesus existed and was a Jewish teacher from Galilee in Roman Judaea, who was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman Prefect, Pontius Pilate."
This is not the case (at least not anymore).
There is no contemporary evidence for Jesus’ existence or the Bible’s account of his life; no artefacts, dwellings, works of carpentry, self-written manuscripts, court records, eyewitness testimony, official diaries, birth records, reflections on his significance or written disputes about his teachings. Nothing survives from the time in which he is said to have lived.
All historical references to Jesus derive from hearsay accounts written decades or centuries after his supposed death. These historical references generally refer to early Christians rather than a historical Jesus and, in some cases, directly contradict the Gospels or were deliberately manufactured.
The Gospels themselves contradict one-another on many key events and were constructed by unknown authors up to a century after the events described within them are said to have occurred. They are not eyewitness accounts. The New Testament, as a whole, contains many internal inconsistencies as a result of its piecemeal construction and is factually incorrect on several historical claims, such as the early existence of Nazareth, the reign of Herod and the Roman census. Like the Old Testament, it too has had entire books and sections redacted.
The Biblical account of Jesus has striking similarities with other mythologies and texts and many of his supposed teachings existed prior to his time. It is likely the character was either partly or entirely invented by competing first century messianic cults from an amalgamation of Greco-Roman, Egyptian and Judeo-Apocalyptic myths and prophecies.
I think you need to read WP:V regarding the "arguments" you have presented. The statements you have made are your own reasoning. That is not how Wikipedia works. It works based on references as discussed in WP:V. What you need to find are a few WP:RS sources (not self-published or blogs) which say: "Most historians believe Jesus never existed". If you manage to find a few respected professors who make that statement (note the "most historians" part) then please type the names of those books (and page numbers) here so they can be discussed.
FYI There are many historians who believe Jesus "existed" but do not support the details of his life portrayed in the Christian gospels. That is a separate issue from existence. But in any case, Wikipedia works based on WP:RS sources, not talk page discussions History2007 (talk) 03:36, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I did not say or imply talk-page discussions being the reason for edit. I can not edit the page, which is why I am speaking here. All historians cited are from more than 12 years ago, but as of 2008 it is not the case. This is known information. All studies/research/polls have shown that more than half of modern historians do not believe in the existence of a historical Jesus. My statements were not of my own reasoning (especially the first two paragraphs). If I had direct links to references/citations (or could search for them) I would edit the page. I (would) have no idea what I (would) be doing. That is why I am posting here, and that is one of the reasons for talk pages.
Also, why is there no separate section (or subsection) for Arianist views on Jesus (peace be upon him)? The Christian views mentioned in the article seem incomplete and non-neutral without mentioning Arianism. Khestwol (talk) 20:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Regarding Arianism, that is a detailed issue of Christian theological history, and not a mainstream or current item. There have been many issues in the history of Christian theology (say Nestorianism, monophysitism, etc.) that are not prime time items any more and their discussion would diverge into a discussion of minor Christian theological movements rather than Jesus. History2007 (talk) 22:25, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
It's probably a matter of due and undue weight, but it probably merits representation of some sort for encyclopedic value, at least under Religious Perspectives -> Christian Views considering the early significance. Peter Deer (talk) 05:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, it is significant. Khestwol (talk) 09:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
"Self Declared Messiah's"
Why the hell is Jesus in the "Self Declared Messiah's" category? He is not self declared he is declared by God and should not be in a category with cult leaders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.119.21.148 (talk) 05:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
I am sure God did not add that category, given that the first public declaration is presumed to have been by Apostle Peter, in the Confession of Peter, and was hence not self-declared. Will remove that category. History2007 (talk) 20:50, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Anon, the category would distinguish Him from being categorized alongside individuals called such by others but never making any statement to that effect themselves. In the future I advise that you approach this more calmly and with detachment and not assume contentious implications about things like that, even "cult leaders" are to be treated with a neutral, non-contentious tone. Peter Deer (talk) 21:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
RE Carpenter, I will not bother debating it, but it is perhaps the least significant of the attributes, and although Tekton is used in the NT, it has no external collaboration. But the categories are really beside the point regarding the content anyway. History2007 (talk) 21:20, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
I will give you that there is scant "historical" evidence for Jesus' carpentry practices...but, considering the Historicity of Jesus problems and debates to begin with, that's hardly surprising. Agamemnon still gets to be in "Kings of Mycanae" and King Arthur in "Welsh Monarchs" and "Monarchs of Cornwall". Yeah there might have been ambiguity between "builder" and "carpenter"...but, well, that's probably because one's only slightly more specific than the other, particularly considering back then there were like 4 building materials. Peter Deer (talk) 21:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Not a significant issue to talk about. History2007 (talk) 21:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
Baha'i Views Section
Here are some of the issues I see with the Baha'i Views section which I am going to work to address, and I invite others to do so as well:
Lack of clarity and brevity on the Prophets/Messengers/Manifestations concept
Redundant listing of such
Excessive unsourced synthesis and exegesis of Christian primary sources (and a general lack of sources to boot!)
Lack of focus on the nature of Jesus Himself with excessive emphasis on His place within the progression
Inconsistent style and bad wiki sloppiness
I'm going to work on No. 2, it's the easiest to fix right now. Peter Deer (talk) 15:45, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
I suggest to merge this section into the section "Other views", since its content doesn't seem notable enough to merit a separate section. Khestwol (talk) 15:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
I do not know the Baha'i topic well, so I can not comment. But two users who do know it had worked on it before and discussed it. Please leave a message for User:Jeff3000 to ask his opinion as well, for he is a long time editor on that topic. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 16:12, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
To Khestwol - Could you elaborate as to why you feel its notability is in question?
To History2007 - Indeed, Jeff3000 is a prolific editor on Baha'i subjects, and I'm certain he would be able to contribute from an abundance of resources. I shall take you up on that suggestion. Peter Deer (talk) 16:47, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
I've never really liked the current section, because it's based too much on primary sources. You can see a previous discussion I had with an editor who wanted to make a change (Talk:Jesus/Archive 116#Announcing some intentions prior to editing to avoid edit warring) and we made some progress, getting to a better organization of the section, but it never made it back to the actual article, and it wasn't perfect either. I would help, but I'm out of the country for the next month or so, so I don't have a lot of time, but I would take a look at the Jesus section in Peter Smith's Encyclopedia of the Baha'i Faith to see how to fashion a section here. I would start with the Baha'i view of Jesus being a Manifestation of God, how that fits within progressive revelation, and is seen as the return in the terms of the Baha'i viewpoint, and then include aspects of Jesus' station and life that Baha'i belief contradicts the current Christian belief. Looking at the proposed section in the archives (linked above), it's not a bad start, though it needs referencing. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 17:45, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
Again, not knowing the topic I can not comment on the content or the substance of any changes - you all know more about it, I am sure. But could you guys please try to use book references rather than web sites please? Websites are at times subject to WP:Linkrot and a book with an ISBN and a page number always works better. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 20:36, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
I think that can be accommodated, there's frankly a largesse of books on the subject. I'll see which ones I can access over the internet that still have the publication information (so much easier to search) and then perhaps start thumbing through tomes (I know of at least a couple relevant secondary sources that discuss this subject.) Most of those that Smkolins linked were actually linking books though. Peter Deer (talk) 04:37, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
I've seen the Encyclopedia of the Bahai Faith before, and it did strike me as being a good basic source for what content might be relevant here, although, of course, one might prefer some more clearly secondary sources. But specialist encyclopedias of that kind have been found to perhaps count as secondary sources before on one of the noticeboards, so if necessary it could probably be used as a source. And I guess I can reasonably see a separate Bahai section, as the Bahai are seen as a separate branch of the Abrahamic faith line. John Carter (talk) 21:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
I think as long as they use a recent edition of the Bahai Encyclopedia that is probably a good source. And I agree that Bahai deserves a separate section. The only thing will be to use the more recent editions of them all, etc. History2007 (talk) 22:20, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Lights of Guidance...is that a tertiary source? It's a compilation of almost entirely primary sources (though I don't know what authorized interpretations count as, I guess secondary?) but it doesn't seem to synthesize or provide its own summaries for the most part. Peter Deer (talk) 04:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
I'd say it is akin to primary - it's mostly a way to cite an obscure primary source. I'm poking through journal searches....Smkolins (talk) 09:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
To Peter Deer - Hi. I meant I think some statements in the section can be removed. I think it's wrong to use this section to talk about when and where Bahá'í religion was founded, or talk about Bahá'í views on prophets other than Jesus (peace be upon him). The section shouldn't transgress but should focus on Bahá'í views on Jesus. Thanks, Khestwol (talk) 16:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
That seems reasonable. I do think that it could be a little less concept-oriented and more focused on the specific views of Jesus Himself (the parts that do definitely have some OR issues. The nature of Jesus, the belief that Baha'u'llah is the return of Jesus, and an appropriately concise elucidation of any relevant concepts (maybe there ought to be a Jesus in the Baha'i Faith main article? Focus, Peter!)
Anyway Khestwol, if you had to say which specific sentences seemed most out-of-place to you which would they be? Peter Deer (talk) 20:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Obviously the statemnet "founded in 19th-century Persia" seems the most out-of-place. Regarding the rest of the paragraph.. umm, I can't comment -- sorry I don't know enough about the Baha'i religion. Khestwol (talk) 20:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Yeah, that sentence seems like the sort of thing that people mention frequently when someone goes "Baha'i? What's that?" Anyway, Wikipedia has a featured article on the subject that is quite good, if you need something to base edits on. Also, I'm going to move the Arianism discussion to its own section.Peter Deer (talk) 05:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
So - knocking out a paragraph yet? Smkolins (talk) 10:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Um, no? Procrastinating, duh.
...yeah yeah fine I'll get a first draft done today Peter Deer (talk) 11:25, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Sources for Section
Okay so in addition to some of the ones cited above, I'm finding some more references. I'll post them here and add them as we hammer out the section (feel free to do this yourselves if you're so inclined) Peter Deer (talk) 21:00, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Baha'u'llah as the Return of Christ:
George Townsend Christ and Baha'u'llah (p. 9, 110) ISBN0 85398 005 5
Seeking consensus regarding the inclusion of a discussion Christology in this article
The Christianity section here is an overview which does not present a discussion of Christology. The question posed here is "should there be a discussion of Christology?". As I see it:
The advantage of having it seems to be that it will inform the reader about Christian theology, if it is done right and in a complete form and mentions all the relevant Christological perspectives.
The disadvantage is that to do it right, issues such as Hypostatic union, the Person of Christ, Council of Ephesus, Chalcedonian theology, etc. need to be treated so that the discussion covers the main issues. That may almost double the length of that section, and make it pretty theological.
My concern is that if that section become a Christooligical discussion, in 3 months we will get a complaint that there is too much Christian theology, and that those issues are related the article on Christian theology not here. So if that section is to be expanded that way, let there be clear consensus for it, so if some one complains later, then we can point to this consensus. Suggestions will be appreciated. History2007 (talk) 12:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Yup, it can be added while following the guidelines in WP:DUE#Religion. It shouldn't be too much concept-oriented though; it should keep the focus on the different views on Jesus, and be neutral. Khestwol (talk) 12:50, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
I am not sure what "concept-oriented" means. But anyway, if added it would have to include a good number of different theological perspectives. History2007 (talk) 12:52, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
Talk:Jesus/Archive 97 Removal of spurious representations of Jesus' appearance, trilemma, Mandaean views,scripture removed from historical Jesus section, Vanadalism, Pictures of Jesus, The Truths About Yeshua, Ehrman on harmonies
Talk:Jesus/Archive 98 Proposal, Possible NPOV Violation in the Geneology Section, first paragraph, at least three years in Jesus' Ministry, this article is too big.
Talk:Jesus/Archive 99 Literature to be mentioned, Timeline of birth, four gospels, lead; nontrinitarianism, historical Jesus, Jesus as myth, Manichaeism, year of jesus's birth, Edit at top of Jesus page, Colored Yeshua, Image of Jesus which currently exists, Proposal
Talk:Jesus/Archive 100 Historical Jesus, The To-Do Section, commenting out instead of deleting, 2008 Islamic movie on Jesus, Historical section/Christian views section, Laundry list of non-history scholars and works (alternative proposal), Its latin, isnt it?, this page may display a horizontal scroll bar in some browsers, Proposal on archives, First Section, The historical Jesus
Talk:Jesus/Archive 101 Edit war over capitalization, Historical Evidence for Jesus' Homosexuality, Carlaude's Majority view, What exactly did Jesus save us from and how?; Carlaude's Majority view part two., Title, PRJS, Dazed and Confused, Why was Jesus baptised?, Dates, Infobox vs. the historical Jesus
Talk:Jesus/Archive 102 religion founder, Other parameters, He is not God But rather a Demigod, Heavily christian-centric article, Jesus' Birthdate, Jesus in Scientology, Jesus name - Yeshua in Hebrew, means "Salvation" in English
Talk:Jesus/Archive 103 Writing clean-up, Jesus name in Sanskrit, Reforem Judaism, Jesus and Manichaeism, Bertrand Russell and Friedrich Nietzsche, Recent removal, NPOV, Detail about Buddhist views of Jesus that does not make sense, The Religious perspectives section
Talk:Jesus/Archive 104 Black Jesus, "Autobiography" of Jesus, Genealogy - Via What Father?, Addition to "Genealogy & Family", Resurrection, according to whom?, Bhavishya Purana, Christian history category, Quick Comment, BC/BCE?, The Truth, Was he any good at his day job?, In Popular Culture, jesus picture, views on Jesus and Muhammad, Occupation, New Dead Sea Discovery- Gabriel's Revelation, Some comments
Talk:Jesus/Archive 105 Genealogy "reloaded", Place of birth, Which religions?, was jesus ever bar miztvahed?, Bot report : Found duplicate references !, Jesus and the lost tomb, Some believe that Jesus was of middle eastern ethnicity, and not a caucasian, Mispelled cat at the bottom of this talk page, Harmony, Dating system, "Transliteration"
Talk:Jesus/Archive 106 8 B.C., ref name="HC13", Cause of death, Renewed Discussion Concerning AD/CE debate
Talk:Jesus/Archive 106 hey, I can't access this pag. Whoever can access this page there is an mistake in one of the Scriptures under the sub-title Teachings and Preachings. The mistake is when the editor quoted john 7:16. instead of saying He, as in God, he said he as in man. ok thanks --Just chilen (talk) 16:04, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
===Subpage Activity Log===The Easter Vigil, also called the Paschal Vigil or the Great Vigil of Easter, is a service held in traditional Christian churches as the first official celebration of the Resurrection of Jesus. Historically, it is during this service that people are baptized and that adult catechumens are received into full communion with the Church. It is held in the hours of darkness between sunset on Holy Saturday and sunrise on Easter Day — most commonly in the evening of Holy Saturday — and is the first celebration
Bad references for the sentence "Most critical historians agree that Jesus existed ..."
Unless someone adds neutral references, the following sentence should be changed: "Most critical historians agree that Jesus existed and regard events such as his baptism and his crucifixion as historical.[21][366][367][368]"
Suggestion for new sentence: "Christian historians agree that Jesus existed and regard events such as his baptism and his crucifixion as historical.[21][366][367][368]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.255.221.251 (talk) 09:46, 29 May 2012 (UTC)
Scholars who say Jesus existed include non-Christian scholars such as Geza Vermes, so your suggestion will not be correct. And atheists such as G. A. Wells no longer deny existence - he changed his mind well over a decade ago. As his own page says: "In his book The Jesus Myth (1999), Wells departed from his earlier insistence that there was no historical figure at the basis the Jesus of the gospels". So your suggestion is not correct. History2007 (talk) 16:13, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
How do two sources indicate that Most critical historians agree that Jesus existed? Can you provide a source that gives numbers of exactly how many historians agree that Jesus existed and how many of them are regarded as critical?
I tell you, the weasel's body is already smelling of decomposition. ♆ CUSH ♆ 16:53, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
"He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees, based on clear and certain evidence."
It says "virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian". That is from Ehrman's book, p. 285. ISBN978-0-06-207863-6. as that page also says. And there are plenty of sources in this page too. We have danced this WP:RS/AC dance before... History2007 (talk) 17:08, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Well, in that case it should be easy for you to elaborate in the article on the available evidence provided by these competent scholars of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian. Right? At the moment the section only says what some people say, but not what their positions are based on. In fact, the section is without substantial information for the reader in this regard. This section is an appeal to authorities without giving the reader anything of value. ♆ CUSH ♆ 17:29, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
The sections in this article are all pointing to Mains. The place to discuss the detail is in the Mains pointed to. This is a top level review article just as Automobile which does not discuss all the details of the internal combustion engine but points to those articles. That was the purpose for inventing hypertext after all. History2007 (talk) 17:56, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
Jesus In Islam
It should be mentioned in the first paragraph though 'Jesus' is accepted in Islam with popular title Massiah they decided Saint Paul the main author of the New Testament was a fraud, which is kind of important I think.
Specifically because Mohammed of Arabia would not have heard of Yeshua without Paul. And consider most of the Old Testament a conspiracy. Created to indict Ishmael. While Jesus explicitly uses the Old Testament letter for letter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maryester (talk • contribs) 13:09, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Ethnicity?
In the infobox it says that Jesus ethnicity was "Jewish"? How is Jewish an ethnicity? Thats like saying my ethnicity is Catholic? Judaism is a religion not an ethnicity, that sounds ridiculous to say otherwise. Jesus was most likely either Arab/Mediterranean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.189.192.240 (talk) 09:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
That was discussed on talk. If you read the footnote/reference it says: "Amy-Jill Levine writes that the entire category of ethnicity is itself fraught with with difficulty. Beyond recognizing that “Jesus was Jewish,” rarely does the scholarship address what being “Jewish” means." As on talk, scholars do not agree on how Jewish is applied here. We wanted to call it "Background" instead of ethnicity. I left a message on Template_talk:Infobox_person#Field_called_Background asking for a field "Background" which is broader than ethnicity to be added to that Infobox. But no one has done that yet - I guess they are short of people to update protected templates. If/when that field becomes available, we can change ethnicity to background. Maybe if you keep asking for the field "Background" it can get added and we can fix it. History2007 (talk) 14:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Illustrations: "representation of the race of Jesus has been influenced by cultural settings"
FYI, I've posted a comment on Jimbo's talk page regarding the present page. I posted there rather than here because the consideration arises from a discussion there (I came to this page to get a broader editorial view of the "Muhammad images" issue). —MistyMorn (talk) 12:18, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
I have no idea what your question is intended to mean. The debate over images of Mohammad arose because many Muslims consider it wrong, or even quasi-blasphemous, to depict the Prophet. That does not apply to Christianity - except for some minor sects. Also the issue of "race" and appearance is a quite separate and unrelated matter. There has been discussion of this on another page (talk:race and appearance of Jesus), in which several editors were involved (I had to bow out after a bit, being too busy). Paul B (talk) 14:36, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Nontrinitarian Christian views on Jesus
The section "Christian views" seems biased. For neutrality, views of nontrinitarian Christian denominations like Arianism (or Gothic Christianity) also need to be presented. Khestwol (talk) 21:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, the nontrinitarians need to be mentioned, but given the size of that section, Mormons, JW, etc. which are the major nonrinitarians need to get play first. And Arianism is more related to the nature of Jesus rather than the Trinity as such. If Arianism is to be in then all the other obscure early Christian sects will want to be in as well, and this will become a early Christianity article (and will need a detailed discussion of the history of the Hypostatc union, Neestorianism, Monophysitism, etc.) rather than current Christian views on Jesus. Let us see what other people say, then we can touch that section up accordingly. I think the modern nontrinitarians take precedence over the early sects, specially those which were mostly chased out anyway. But let us what everyone else says.
By the way Khestwol, for the life of me I can not figure out why you want to talk about "Gothic Christianity" in this article. Are you confusing these issues now? History2007 (talk) 09:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
I think the significance of early nontrinitarian Christian denominations can’t be denied while presenting the Christian views. Remember, Arianism was a major religion in Europe until the 7th century. For now, I guess this should be added to the "Christian views" section: “However, the earlier Christian denominations of Arianism and Ebionitism viewed Jesus as a "created" being, whose nature was not identical with God.” Do you object adding this? Thanks, Khestwol (talk) 09:41, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
If Arianism is added, per WP:DUE then Nestorianism needs to be added to, and then Monophysitism needs to be discussed, because they need to be given equal air time. If those three issues are discussed then the Hypostatic union needs to be discussed to, and a discussion of Christology needs to follow. Else someone else will rightly say why do you only discuss Arianism and not the other Christological issues that surround it. To do that we need consensus, and I will seek that just below. History2007 (talk) 12:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
I don't know if the others are important enough to deserve inclusion (maybe they are), but it seems odd not to mention at least Arianism. It was a major branch of Christianity in its time, and remained historically important after that because the later church regarded it as one of the main heresies. We could also link to a separate articles detailing the various nontrinitarian branches. Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:50, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Opinion was sought on that here and did not seem to have enough support to achieve consensus. Is there a WP:RS source that says Arianism was more important than Nestorianism, monophysitism, miaphysitism, etc. some of which still persist to date? If the door to ancient Christian theology is opened, then it needs to be done right. Else there is already a link to nontrinitarians in any case. History2007 (talk) 21:05, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
I see only you and Khestwol discussing there, just as in discussion here. I find it a bit rich to say a consensus wasn't reached when you're the only person opposing it. Martijn Meijering (talk) 21:59, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Currently the section only discusses trinitarian views in a biased tone. For now, perhaps we can add a short paragraph to it to present nontrinitarian views?._. Khestwol (talk) 13:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
I am sorry, but our understandings of Christian theology seem to be far apart. That section has a very small element of the Trinity, and as I said some nontrinitarian views should be mentioned. But your statement seems to suggest that most of the section it is Trinatarian - and that is not the case, given that many of the statements are independent of that issue. Anyway, I will add some clarifications there, but that is not a major task at all. History2007 (talk) 13:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Khestwol. That should be fixed (I'm no expert and don't feel like the one to change such an important article in terms of content.). Metsfreak2121 (talk) 20:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
A nontrinitarain addition was made in this edit on May 11 after the May 10 discussion. Were you aware of that? History2007 (talk) 21:16, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
Aramaic name
Since Jesus was a native speaker of Aramaic wouldn't it make sense to add his name in this language before Greek?--Rafytalk 11:46, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
There isn't a concensus in scholarship about if Jesus was only a native Aramaic speaker. There is strong evidence that he also spoke Greek and Hebrew. I think that since primary source about him and his life is in Greek, and we don't actually have any physical evidence of what his name would be in other languages (there are several options in both Hebrew and Aramaic) that we should stick with Greek.ReformedArsenal (talk) 12:45, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Reference 383 by James Barr is a good review of the languages. As for which comes first makes no encyclopedic difference I think, but given that the NT was in Greek, that may take a 51% advantage probably. History2007 (talk) 14:09, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
I think there is a consensus that his first language was Aramaic, though he probably knew Hebrew and Greek as well. From what I know there is a most scholars agree that his original name is written in both Hebrew and Aramaic as ישוע and not יהושע.--Rafytalk 14:18, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Yes, his first language was "likely" Aramaic, but not certain. History2007 (talk) 14:27, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
How is that not certain? The only other widely used language in the region was Greek, and I think that can be excluded. And Hebrew was out of use in daily life for at least 400 years at the time, even among priests. It is of course unknown how educated Jesus really was and which languages he knew, because it is unknown what he did in the 20 years prior to his life as preacher. Maybe he went to Egypt, where he had spent his childhood, and maybe went to Alexandria. Where else would he have picked up his ideas if not there?
And really, the suggestion that because the writings of the New Testament were in Greek that Jesus must have also known Greek has no merit. ♆ CUSH ♆ 15:39, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
I did not suggest that NT being Greek means that Jesus spoke it, but that it gave a slight edge to Greek being used in the sentence ahead of others. That was not what I suggested at all. Regarding the rest, I think the Barr article should be the basis of these and not our own discussion. In any case, given that scholars do not have a copy of his itinerary or autobigraphy, they can not be sure, and as Barr says most scholars reason that his first language was likely Aramaic. In any case, the whole issue of which language comes first in a sentence is probably not a major encyclopedic issue. History2007 (talk) 15:46, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
I did not say it was your suggestion. And of course the discussion is irrelevant, given that Jesus is an invention of Mark :-) ♆ CUSH ♆ 16:49, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Since no one really objects I will go ahead and add the following after Greek: "Aramaic/Hebrew: ישוע".--Rafytalk 00:12, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
I do not see a reason not to, but you should make it consistent with the first paragraph of the Etymology of name section so it needs to be touched up in both places. History2007 (talk) 02:30, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
What primary source are you seeing his Hebrew or Aramaic name? There are several different spellings of what people believe the Aramaic version to be... how are you guaranteeing reliability?ReformedArsenal (talk) 14:55, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
I guess your question was to Rafy who just added it. History2007 (talk) 15:17, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
The name Jesus has one single spelling in Aramaic (my native language) (ܝܫܘܥ). The name is clearly derived from Classical Hebrew יהשוע which has developed due to influence from Aramaic to ישוע after dropping the He.[8] As far as I know there are no other possible spellings for his name.--Rafytalk 21:33, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Even the article you linked notes that there are different ways that people pronounce the name... that alone should give us pause for why we would pick one over the other when we have no extant written version in either Aramaic or Hebrew. My point is that we don't have any records of how his name was spelled in Hebrew or Aramaic... so what are we going off of?ReformedArsenal (talk) 02:21, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
In Aramaic and other Semitic languages words that are written unvocalised may be pronounced in several possible ways. The name of Jesus is written YŠWʿ but we cannot tell how it was pronounced in Galilean Aramaic.--Rafytalk 13:31, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Do you have a source that states: "no records exist on how Jesus' name was written in Herbrew or Aramaic?" That would be good to add to the Etymology section in any case. History2007 (talk) 07:18, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
I would think that the burden of proof would go on the person making a statement of the Aramaic to supply a source for the spelling...ReformedArsenal (talk) 19:00, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Aramaic and Hebrew Wikipedias have articles for Jesus you can take a look at how "Jesus" is spelled there. There are several Aramaic dictionaries all of which use the name Y$W( or (w4y, both spelled ישוע.--Rafytalk 19:26, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Comment to Arsenal: Regardless of burden, is there a source that says no written record of how Jesus was written in Hebrew? I was not aware of that. So if that can be sourced will be interesting. History2007 (talk) 19:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
I'm not aware of one. I just don't think we should be putting his Aramaic name in the article if we don't actually have a record that we can supply where we are getting the spelling from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReformedArsenal (talk • contribs) 21:33, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
Comment to Rafy: Wikipedia is not a WP:RS for Wikipedia, but I think your argument does have weight via the use of the dictionaries. Not online, but if there is a serious dictionary from Oxford or somewhere then that has weight. History2007 (talk) 19:37, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
The reason why Greek is listed first is that the Greek for Joshua/Jesus relating to this particular Joshua of Nazareth is 100% certain, the NT being in Greek. The Hebrew and Aramaic forms of this particular Joshua of Nazareth don't exist in any equivalent testimony. But there's academic consensus that Yeshua (a shorter OT form of Joshua) was common at the time and is found in Dead Sea Scrolls, inscriptions ostraca and ossuaries for other Yeshuas. More footnotes can be found at Yeshua and Yeshu. To not put the Hebrew form in the article would be pretty WP:Fringe since no serious scholar has advanced that this Jesus has a different Hebrew name than every other Jesus. In ictu oculi (talk) 20:23, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. What would be your favorite reference for this, so we can just put that in and avoid the same question 6 months down the road? History2007 (talk) 20:34, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
The problem is that there are plenty of sources that claim variant spellings (Yahashua, Yehoshua, Yeshuha, etc)... I still don't understand why we feel the need to put an aramaic name in when we cannot provide an aramaic or hebrew primary source that places his name as such. ReformedArsenal (talk) 00:20, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Again, Semitic words can have several native spellings since they contain no vowels. Each spelling can be transliterated in many different ways into English. An example is the late Libyan leader whose name can be transliterated in over a hundred possible spellings. The name found in the article is written in with an Aramaic spelling common among Aramaic speaking Jews and found in early Aramaic Bibles.--Rafytalk 23:49, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
I think to finalize this issue you guys need to look at the Wikipages that In ictu oculi mentioned, or do other searches, and find some references. A discussion without sources can not lead anywhere in Wikipedia. History2007 (talk) 06:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
I did look at them, but what was or was not a common name in first century Aramaic is rather irrelevant, we don't have a source that puts Jesus' name as such, and without a source it is irresponsible to include data (especially when it is disputed). We don't know if his name would have been Hebrew or Aramaic (Problem number one), even if we did, we don't know for sure how it would have been spelled (Problem number two), and even if we did know how it would have been spelled... no one has provided a resource to verify that spelling (Problem number three). Including an unsourced and problematic point of data seems contrary to what Wikipedia is for. ReformedArsenal (talk) 12:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Anyway, I asked In ictu oculi to comment because he would have known more about it than myself. Now, I will leave it you and Raffy to figure out between yourselves. History2007 (talk) 12:17, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
I made the change. I also noticed that there is a whole section on the etymology of the name, that should be sufficient for those who insist on having the Aramaic represented. ReformedArsenal (talk) 20:29, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
And do we have any sources that claim Jesus spelled his name as such in Greek? What we did is that we took the traditional name found in Greek manuscripts of the Gospel, so I find no reason why we shouldn't likewise use the name found in the Peshitta, an Aramaic translation of the bible that dates to the 3rd century and is thought to be directly descended from the Diatessaron, written not long after the original Greek Gospels. Here are several points I'd like to make about the Hebrew/Aramaic name:
The name Jesus means "YHWH saves". This is found in the Hebrew Bible as יהשוע and is translated to English as Joshua.[9][10]
We know for sure that the Jews adopted Aramaic after the Babylonian captivity. Aramaic was the native language of Galilean Jews including Jesus. (See Galilean dialect)
The ה of Hebrew is either omitted or turned into א in Aramaic especially when in the emphatic form. We also know that the Aramaic form is written by dropping ה from יהשוע.[11][12] This Aramaic influenced spelling is the form found in Aramaic bibles and most biblical dictionaries.[13][14][15][16].
From what I see you have no knowledge of neither Hebrew nor Aramaic. If it is so then please leave this discussion to those who are better informed.--Rafytalk 09:51, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
If this was directed at me, you need to learn to think before you speak. I took four semesters of college level Hebrew, so I know what I'm talking about. We don't have any sources that claim Jesus EVER spelled his name, and some scholars actually think that he may have been illiterate. I see all of your self researched reasons that lead you to believe that his name was Aramaic and that he probably spelled it as such, and I don't even disagree with you... but the fact remains that you are unable to provide a primary source that indicates that he did so. As far as the Greek, the primary sources that tell us about him (Both the Canonical Gospels and the Apocrypha) are in Greek. We only have Greek. If you can provide even one primary source that retains the Aramaic spelling (that isn't an Aramaic translation of the Greek New Testament) then we won't need to have this discussion... if you cannot, well that's the whole root of the problem isn't it. ReformedArsenal (talk) 13:53, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
Jesus was definitely not illiterate, there is more than sufficient evidence to support the belief that he could read and write. Mediatech492 (talk) 15:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
I didn't say that he was. I said that some scholars assert this. My point, and one that I'm quite frankly shocked and disturbed that I have to defend, is that we don't have primary source evidence of how he spelled his name... so we shouldn't put a spelling that we can't substantiate into the article. Beyond that, what does it add? What are we adding to the article that is worth putting unsubstantiated claims into it? ReformedArsenal (talk) 17:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
We do know then how "Jesus" is supposed to be spelled in Aramaic. It was a popular name in 1st century Palestine and we have several inscriptions that depict this in Aramaic, one of them allegedly refers to THE Jesus.[17] I have presented my arguments supported by dictionaries, bible translations, and peer reviews books, still you cling to your point which you fail to find any references to back it up. What other spellings were possible at that time? Cite some reliable references please.--Rafytalk 17:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
I am not sure what the best solution is, but think you guys should not get worked up about it either way. Given that this is English Wikipedia, 99% of the readers will not be affected by that. And those who want a guess as to how it is written can just click here on the left panel. History2007 (talk) 17:55, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
The Hebrew Wikipedia uses modern spelling which differs from the original and the Aramaic Wikipedia uses Syriac script. I guess we should have the name for the same reason we add native names in any other biographies.--Rafytalk 20:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
A) This is not a biography. It is an encyclopedia. B) Other places we add native names, we base those native names on primary sources... this is what it boils down to... we don't have a primary source that has the Aramaic spelling, nor do we know for sure that it was Aramaic (I could give compelling reasons why it might have been in Hebrew, or even in Greek). If you have a primary source, then we don't need to discuss this anymore, if you don't have a primary source then we don't need to discuss this anymore. You claim to have presented it with peer reviewed books, I haven't seen any books at all. All I saw was a link to some guy who claims it was Yehashua... I don't really care how other people spelled the name in Aramaic, we don't know that this is how HE spelled his name. Lets assume it is Yeshua... is that a yod-tsere (Yayshua) or is it a yod-segol (Yeshua), is it a qamets or a patach at the end? This is the very nature of the debate... Provide a primary source that identifies that Jesus of Nazareth, whom this article is about, spelled his name in the way you are proposing and we can all stop worrying about it. ReformedArsenal (talk) 19:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
A) This is a biography, thats why we have Wikiproject biography above.
B) What is a "primary source" where did you find the guideline for its use?
C) Which reliable and accepted references claim that Jesus the Nazereth was a native speaker of Hebrew or Greek?
D) The name I added doesn't contain any diacritical signs. As you know, Niqqud was invented hundreds of years after Jesus. We also don't use Hebrew Niqqud with Aramaic words.--Rafytalk 20:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
A) It is not a biography. Wikipedia Biography is a work group... but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and entries should be encyclopedic.
B) If you're not sure what a primary source is, then you probably shouldn't be editing articles on Wikipedia. However, if you need some help please see WP:PSTS Wikipedia operates on sources... provide some sources that are reputable and we can talk... however just saying this is how it would be spelled if it were in aramaic is not enough... you have not provided any evidence that it was ever spelled in aramaic...
C) I never said he was a native Hebrew or Greek Speaker... what I said is that I could give compelling arguments that his name was either Hebrew or Greek. What we have recorded in the Gospel of Matthew is the Angel saying "You shall call his name Jesus." I understand that Jesus is the Greek version of the Hebrew name Joshua... however there are places in the Gospel accounts where the author refers to something specifically by its Aramaic name (and transliteration rather than translation). Matthew even preserves a Hebrew / Aramaic word by transliterating it in 23:9, 23:7, 26:25, and 26:45... If the Gospel writers wanted us to understand his name as "Joshua" they were fully capable of using the transliteration... but they did not. We have ZERO evidence (We have a lot of logical deduction that Jesus is the Greek version of Joshua, and that Joshua was spelled Yeshua during that time frame... but that's a logical deduction, not actual evidence) that anyone ever called him anything but Jesus.
D) Regardless of diacritical signs or not, we do not know if the Mater-Vav was present or not. The fact that it was not commonly spelled that way during that era is irellevant, IF it was in Aramaic (rather than Hebrew or Greek) then it still could have been spelled with the Mater Vav or not. We simply do not know, and since there is no primary source provided for the spelling of his name other than the New Testament... then why are we even having this discussion. 01:23, 8 June 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReformedArsenal (talk • contribs)
I presume the Hebrew and/or Aramaic Jeshua has been in the article for a long time. This is an article that moves slowly. Given that we know how the Hebrew Jeshua is spelled from later books of the HB like Zechariah and a wealth of archeological evidence there is absolutely no reason for removing the Hebrew/and/or Aramaic other than very WP:FRINGE arguments. Please put it back. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:40, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Actually... it was placed in there on May 27th. It wasn't there for a long time and no one cared... there was no reason to add it because we have no primary source to support the spelling or fact of that name. ReformedArsenal (talk) 02:28, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Alright, rather than go around in circles, here's the compromise that I'd like to propose. Rafy, you seem to be passionate about this, why don't you create a stub article specifically about the Etymology of the name Jesus that gives a full, sourced account of the possible Aramaic spellings. We will remove the section in this article about the Etymology and reference it to that stub (or longer if you want to and have the time). That way the knowledge that you want to have presented is there and available, but we are not having a long discussion in this article about something that is irrelevant to the majority of readers. ReformedArsenal (talk) 13:03, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
I understand that you consider the Greek bibles to be a primary source. Do they specify how jesus looked like? Otherwise we should also remove all depictions of Jesus since they don't originate from "primary sources". while we're at it why not purge historicity and all other non-biblical sections since they don't come from the primary source. I have provided tens of reference to back up the Aramaic name all from reliable sources, while you haven't even showed one. By the way the Waw is not a mater but part of the trilateral root שוע, so this argument doesn't hold water. We are indeed going in circles because you refuse to bring references to back you claim.--Rafytalk 14:47, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
By the way, I assume you guys know that there is an article Jesus (name). Right? History2007 (talk) 14:56, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, you have provided many resources showing how the name Yeshua was probably spelled in Aramaic around that time... none of those references can prove that that is actually how Jesus spelled his name. I proposed a compromise, make an adjustment to my proposal or move on... you don't get to just put information in there without a source to back it up. ReformedArsenal (talk) 03:03, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
I have rephrased the etymology a bit to show the evolution of the historical name. I took the liberty of removing the Greek name which was added by ReformedArsenal lately... If one is interested in foreign names then the etymology section is more than suffice. Hope this helps the conflict.--Rafytalk 13:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
I do not object to adding to the etymology section, but I saw no agreement to zap the Greek. I restored it, given that it is the earliest written form still on papyri, etc. History2007 (talk) 14:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
No reliable sources in section existence
"Most critical historians agree that Jesus existed and regard events such as his baptism and his crucifixion as historical...." The sources who follow are not realy reliable. There is Bernard Ramm who is an christian apologist. Then who is Marcus Wright or "Brown" or "Dunn, JG" ?? Are these well known scholors or what? Never heard of these....greets--91.89.69.192 (talk) 00:23, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Is there any difference between this topic and the one immediately above? HiLo48 (talk) 00:33, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, same story. The point is that we are yet to see a source that says "most scholars believe Jesus never existed".... sigh... I added more links anyway. And "never heard of these" is really no argument in the absence of a simple Google search... History2007 (talk) 01:02, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
That is not how this works. If you or any other editor claim that "Most critical historians agree that Jesus existed..." then you have to come up with reliable, serious sources that provide statistics about who the mentioned "critical historians" are and what their overall consensus really is. And what is "critical historian" supposed to mean anyway? What are the others? Hobby historians? The whole sentence is highly unencyclopedic, and you know that very well. A historian who is uncritical is not a scientist and therefore no historian at all. Also, historians who work for Christian institutions or adhere to certain Christian beliefs are in a conflict of interest and are not reliable sources. Also, historians who only speculate without providing evidence are not reliable sources. This article is still based almost exclusively on religious doctrine or secondary works derived from religious doctrine. So what is this article about? The real Jesus, who allegedly lived as the gospels say (without the fantastical stuff), or the mythical Jesus of Paul and subsequent Christianity? For the real Jesus no evidence exists whatsoever. Otherwise it would have been brought forward a long time ago. Where are the trial records? Where are the writings of those who knew him personally? (And no, none of the books in the New Testament was written by anyone who knew Jesus personally) ♆ CUSH ♆ 16:04, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Per WP:RS/AC that is exactly how it works. We have been through this many many times now. Look through the archives above and you will see a very long discussion on that. And you participated in that discussion too. Again, questions such as "Where are the trial records? Where are the writings of those who knew him personally?" are debating the issue (i.e. WP:OR-related discussion on the talk page) and not the summary view. And again, details of scholarly discussions were addressed in the automobile example above. There are plenty of WP:RS references in the article that address the overall academic view. History2007 (talk) 16:10, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
Also, historians who work for Christian institutions or adhere to certain Christian beliefs are in a conflict of interest and are not reliable sources.
Well, historians who hold any believe about anything are in a conflict of interest. Atheist historians who work for atheist institutions or adhere to certain Atheist beliefs are in a conflict of interest and are not reliable sources. Everyone has biases and comes in with what you call "conflict of interest"ReformedArsenal (talk) 17:54, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
As pointed out above, non-Christian scholars also assert existence. This is getting to be a repeated discussion on this. History2007 (talk) 18:04, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
By the way, for the N-th time, I do not know why this issue is just getting picked up in this overview article again and again, given that the lede in the article on Christ myth theory also states: "Virtually all scholars involved with historical Jesus research believe his existence can be established using documentary and other evidence". And as stated above the reference 5 in the article on Historicity of Jesus states: ""He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees, based on clear and certain evidence." This has been discussed many times on this talk page, and other Wikipedia articles also say the same thing. This is getting to be very repetitive. History2007 (talk) 18:17, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
This is not an "overview article". How do you come to that? And what other WP articles say is irrelevant. And again, if there were evidence, it could be and must be presented here. But weirdly enough, it is not. But if there are no sources then there are no reliable sources. Any source that claims to have evidence (i.e. trial records and writings of those who knew him personally and/or who lived during his lifetime) without presenting it is not a reliable source. And btw a secondary source not elaborating on a primary source but making up stuff that does not derive from a primary source is also not a reliable source. E.g. Josephus is not a reliable source as such, and since he does not at all address Jesus but the already existing group of Christians it is no source at all. Since there are no documents from Jesus' assumed lifetime, the statement about "most historians" is simply crap. - ♆ CUSH ♆ 15:26, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Look, three issues:
There is an article on Historicity of Jesus that is the more detailed topic. That is obvious. This is the "top level" article on Jesus, the Historicity of Jesus links via a Main. That is clear, I hope.
Now, are you saying that books such as "The Cambridge companion to Jesus" (2001) Cambridge Univ Press ISBN978-0-521-79678-1 are not WP:RS? That type of book by that type of publisher is certainly WP:RS. And it can hence be quoted in summary in Wikipedia articles. I hope that is also clear.
Again, you have not presented a single WP:RS source that says: "most historians believe Jesus never existed".
I hope that is all clear now. History2007 (talk) 16:01, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Agree. Ehrman also is a reasonable source. While one can reasonably disagree about how much the Jesus of Paul and the Gospels (and much later Christian tradition) shares with any single person, there is reasonable consensus that there indeed was a historical figure, most likely an apocalyptic preacher and originally a follower of John the Baptist, who forms the core of the Jesus story. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:32, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes. What the scholars agree on is: 1. There was a person. 2. He was baptized and crucified. Then they diverge on the details and construct different portraits and Crossan joked that they often end up doing autobiography as they attempt to do biography... In any case, the statement that most scholars agree that he existed has multiple sources, Ehrman being one of the latest, and as you said is WP:RS for sure. History2007 (talk) 16:39, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Where is the evidence that all historians today think that he existed? Did Hercules existed in the same way? Greets--91.89.69.192 (talk) 23:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
Per WP:V Wikipedia relies on references, not debate. So once that statement is made in WP:RS sources it can be entered in Wiki-articles. But I am reading between the lines here is that there is interest in understanding "how scholars arrive at their conclusion". That type of detail is not available anywhere in Wikipedia as far as I can see and should really be discussed in the Historicity of Jesus article. The reality is that different scholars have different reasons for supporting existence, but most agree on the conclusion that he existed. I will try to get to it by the end of the year, unless someone else works on it there. However, that does not change the situation per WP:RS/AC that the summary statement can be made in the 3 articles mentioned here. History2007 (talk) 23:29, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
The way how scholars arrive at their conclusion is what makes them reliable sources or unreliable sources. When scholar Ratzinger writes a book about the question of a "historical Jesus" then one does not have to bother to read the book in order to know at which conclusion this "scholar" will arrive. Religious authors are never reliable sources for issues about core components of their respective religion. Objectivity is simply impossible there. And those authors who rely on religious authors without conducting their own scientific research are not reliable as well. Of course because so much time has passed, the chain of authors who rely on what others have written before is very long. But the chain breaks at the first religionist author or the first author who relies on hearsay (e.g. Josephus). There are simply no independent unbiased contemporary sources for the existence of Jesus. Period. Josephus and Tacitus did not conduct scientific research into the matter. They both did not write about the personal Jesus anyways, only about the mythical figure already venerated by the Christian movement.
BTW, why does this article only use canonical biblical texts as references? ♆ CUSH ♆ 19:45, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
BTW 2, it is very unfortunate that editors on WP use the word "scholar" for those who write about something. The word "scholar" indiscriminately lumps together historians (scientists) with theologians (charlatans). Discussions would be much easier if this word weren't used. ♆ CUSH ♆ 19:53, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
A theologian is automatically a charlatan? Despite just as extensive education as a scientist? Despite a wide variety of personal beliefs, including atheism? Theologians can't be smart or well educated, can't have great logic and reasoning skills, by virtue solely of the fact that they chose to study theology instead of science? Makes perfect sense. Like you've already been told, find an RS. This discussion is pointless otherwise, so stop wasting peoples' time.Farsight001 (talk) 01:02, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Cush... your clear bias and hatred for Theologians should automatically exclude you from any kind of activity on anything having to do with Religion, specifically Christianity. ReformedArsenal (talk) 01:56, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
I think the blanket labeling of all theologians as dishonest is clearly inappropriate, as stated above. And most of the associated statements have no WP:RS sources, and are WP:OR and personal opinions. These opinions do, however, appear with specific regularity on this talk page and as suggested above should only appear again if there are WP:RS sources to support them, and not otherwise. History2007 (talk) 05:19, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
I concur, such blanket statements are clearly out of line. The objective here is NPOV where all relevant positions get fair voice. Keep it respectful please. Mediatech492 (talk) 08:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Spelling of Jesus's/Jesus'
The article uses two different spellings of the genitive/possessive of Jesus:
Jesus's
Jesus'
Which one is the right spelling?
--217.24.201.180 (talk) 12:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
Different editors seem to have different opinions on that so they have used them as such. History2007 (talk) 12:17, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
The standard biblical spelling (Oxford and Cambridge) is: Jesus'
"Much people of the Jews therefore knew that he was there: and they came not for Jesus' sake only, but that they might see Lazarus also, whom he had raised from the dead." (John 12:9)
Thus endeth the lesson. ("For Jesus' sake. Amen." :) —Telpardec TALK 16:57, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
From a linguistic perspective, a rule which requires knowledge of another subject in order to determine syntax is incongruous. The rules of language should stand on their own. To have to know that a subject is "ancient" should not be a prerequisite for correct usage. The fact is that the ommission of the possessive for a singular is an archaic (anachronistic) form, retained in use for poetic and reverential references (See F.G. Fowler: Modern English Usage) - and reverence is POV. JohnArmagh (talk) 18:29, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
I don't care which way it is done, but what does the Wikipedia MOS say, if anything? History2007 (talk) 19:16, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
MOS usually goes with the sources. All the cases in the article have apostrophe only, except one with apostrophe-s, so I changed that one. (One of the citations has a book title with extra-s, but we can't change that.) Thanks. —Telpardec TALK 22:51, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Christ == Messiah
What's going on here with making some artificial distinction between Christ (Χριστός) and Messiah (משיח)? The two words are merely translations of each other in two different languages with no alteration of meaning at all: "the anointed one". Calling Jesus the Christ or the Messiah is the religious claim that Jesus fulfills the criteria for the Jewish Messiah. That is what makes the allegedly historical person into a mythical figure and alters the subject of this article. However, there is no difference between Christ and Messiah at all. ♆ CUSH ♆ 19:22, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
That's a matter of perception. For very many people with low theological sophistication, "Christ" is treated as a surname with no particular meaning (I bet a sizeable minority would assume that husband of Mary would be properly addressed as "Mr. Joseph Christ"). On the other hand, everybody knows that "messiah" is a religious role, not a personal name. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
Actually multiple references in the article agree with your statement that in modern times it has stopped being a title (as Messiah is) and is part of a compound name. This had been discussed on talk before as well. History2007 (talk) 21:52, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
@Stephan Schulz: This is an encyclopedia. We are supposed to educate people, and not dumb articles down to appeal to the unsophisticated masses. People who think "Christ" to be a surname are uneducatable anyways, and I doubt such people read Wikipedia, or any other source of information for that matter. ♆ CUSH ♆ 21:59, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
@Cush, you're such an angry little man. ReformedArsenal (talk) 22:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
This is not a major issue, but:
Jesus & the Rise of Early Christianity 2002 page 27 ISBN0830826998 states that: "To accommodate the cultural problems of the Gentiles, the title the Christ quickly became a surname, as in Jesus Christ."
The Blackwell Companion to Paul by Stephen Westerholm 2011 ISBN1405188448 page 175 states: "'Christ' is often assumed by scholars simply to be a kind of 'surname' for Jesus, without any particular allusion to his Messiahship".
But again, not a major issue. History2007 (talk) 06:50, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
I know that the lead section has been intensely discussed, but there seems to be 9 references for the point Scholars have correlated the New Testament accounts with non-Christian historical records to arrive at an estimated chronology of Jesus' life which I am not sure is a very controversial topic; is it not fairly obvious? I know it's a highly sensitive topic, but isn't 9 slightly overdoing it? Anyway, it is discussed more in the body of the article, so I suggest trimming a few of the sources for this point and a couple of other points in the lead. JZCL 20:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, you are right. I guess there have been so many questions about all of these references that too many have piled up. I will look through and pick the best ones and reduce that. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 20:05, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
In some cases there are separate citations for separate clauses or phrases in a sentence. It may be simpler to combine several between only one set of <ref></ref> tags. Current footnote number 11 has already combined 12 citations into one footnote link. This article is severely bloated. —Telpardec TALK 23:06, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
There is an old saying in software development: "it works, don't touch it". I do not know how that footnote 11 with 12 citations came about, but I think it goes back 2 or 3 years - before my time for sure. There used to be long debates on this page 2-3 years ago it seems, and they added those citations to calm things down, I think. This page gets viewed about 300,000 times a month, yet is pretty stable. I think a reduction in citations will change that situation. And just look 1 or two threads above, we are still getting debate about the basic statements. I think JZCL's point about 9 citations was valid, but that footnote 11 has been there for almost ever it seems and I fear that removing it will generate debate. It does not bite - I promise, I promise. History2007 (talk) 23:58, 12 June 2012 (UTC)
I trimmed some anyway, but given that scholars such as Vermes, Crossan, Ehrman etc. have multiple perspectives, I think we should keep references to them to be comprehensive. History2007 (talk) 06:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)
Edit request on 26 June 2012
Please add the following source:
G Schiller, Iconography of Christian Art, Vol. I,1971 (English trans from German), Lund Humphries, London, p 135, figs 150-53, 346-54. ISBN 853312702
To the statement: A cruciform halo was worn only by Jesus (and the other persons of the Trinity), while plain halos distinguished Mary, the Apostles and other saints, helping the viewer to read increasingly populated scenes. It explains it in the source and helps the article remain verifiable. 86.148.198.210 (talk) 15:56, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Thanks, given that Schiller is in fact one of the best sources on the subject. History2007 (talk) 16:27, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
Apologies in advance
I realize this has been discussed ad infinitum, but as this article is going for GA-status, I feel I have to throw my 2 cents in regarding the BC/BCE situation. I'm not here to argue for either style; I'm here to argue that using both styles makes us look ridiculous as an encyclopedia. And as (I would hope) the goal of every GA is to achieve FA-status, I truly feel that this is going to need to be resolved at some point. My proposal: Go back to the earliest stable version of this article. If it used BC/AD, go with that. If it used BCE/CE, go with that. Then hand out lengthy blocks to anyone who changes the style, in the absence of firm consensus. I realize I'm opening a can of worms here, and I realize many of you will be quick to tell me exactly what I can do with my proposal. But I had to get this off my chest. Thank you, and again, my sincere apologies to those users who have worked hard on this article, and may consider my rant here to be obtrusive and disruptive. I assure you that is not my intention. Joefromrandb (talk) 21:46, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
No worries at all. Is it ridiculous to use both? But of course. Yet, C'est la vie, of course. As for grave digging on what was used first, I think that goes back too far. The best way would be to seek consensus on what should be done now. History2007 (talk) 22:10, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
I am not sure it is ridiculous. It may be an adequate compromise to an intractable and rather unimportant controversy. I predict that a straw poll would be fairly evenly split - how to achieve consensus from that? Perhaps it is better if we choose our battles, and just leave the status quo alone here. Elizium23 (talk) 22:18, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
Consensus for what people think now would be ideal, as would Communism. I do not mean this disrespectfully, only that either requires a lot of work to achieve that a lot of people don't want do or even let happen.
In my own writing, I'll use BC/AD for Christianity related topics, and BCE/CE for topics on which Christianity does not maintain a monopoly. When writing anything about Jesus (who is of central importance to Christianity, but do not maintain a monopoly on Him, however), I alternate based on my audience. As such, I cannot make up my own mind whether I'd prefer to use only BCE/CE or BC/AD.
Splitting between Jesus Christ (the figure in Christianity, using BC/AD) and Jesus of Nazareth (the historical figure, using BCE/CE) would be one (bad) option, but even the Nestorians would be shaking their head at that, as it opens up the door to all kinds of POV abuses that come with content forks.
All this makes me seriously wish we'd just convert to the Human Era and call it a day. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:30, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
For the record, the original usage was BC/AD, which was used for about 3 years before the hybrid usage was implemented. I am on the fence about the issue. I agree that the hybrid usage is a bit clunky, and I would personally prefer the BC/AD usage, but it is a very sensitive issue for many people and if the alternative is a massive firestorm and waste of editor-hours then I think we can live with a little clunk. -- LWGtalk 23:35, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
So the long and short of it is that changing it will be a large headache. So, let it be then. History2007 (talk) 06:29, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
