Talk:Jesus/Archive 43

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

→

Archive 50

March 9 Archive

I've archived a bunch. If I moved something that's a live discussion, I apologize. Please copy it back, if that's the case. It was just getting too hard to see what was going on... --CTSWyneken 15:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I usually sort the latest archive in the evening, when the page is quiter (after 10pm here, or 4am UTC). I'll have to sort out the discussion on paragraph 3 and put it in the "Christian views in intro" archives. Since Aiden is on a 48-hour block, I cannot be sure whether or not that conversation was really over ;) Arch O. La^TalkTCF 16:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Translation of Mishneh Torah

Whats up with it? Its seems to have totally changed from what it was. First Haldrik vandalize it and changes it into a transliteration. Now it has changed so much it no longer what the Rambam wrote. Can something be done about these "vandals." ems 23:16, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

One more point, the previous version seemed of been quoting more than what was its reference. I'll fix this all up in a few hours. ems 23:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

The translation you introduced is highly "paraphrastic" and inaccurate. Such a loose translation is not acceptable in an encyclopedic context. For that reason, a literal translation was provided. Jayjg edited the literal translation to standardize naming conventions, and the result is high quality. It BEST represents what the Rambam himself said, in Hebrew. --Haldrik 19:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposal on Naming

In reading this article, I've noted that it has become increasingly hagiographic -- in fact it reads like a Sunday School lesson, and much of the pretext of presenting various viewpoints and attempting to define historical disputes has disappeared. That's actually not something I'm complaining about, as you all have worked well as a team to get it to this point, so I assume that is how you wish it to be. NOTE: once again, I'm cool with that, so don't take this as negative, agnostic/atheist/humanist/realist POV pushing.  :)

What I am suggesting, however, is that you rename the article "Jesus Christ", as that really is a more appropriate title given the tenor of the article. Jim62sch 11:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I would be opposed to that as "Christ" is a title specific to Christians, and Jesus, while certainly the central figure of Christianity, has broader significance to the world, culture, etc, and this article should not just be limited to the Christian Jesus. If the article is becoming slanted to only presenting things from a Christian slant, I suggest that that should be fixed rather than the name. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 17:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with MPerel. --Haldrik 19:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The name "Jesus" as also something agreed on long ago as the most neutral name for the article. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see the point of renaming. KHM03 ^(talk) 17:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

And I don't see how this article could be deemed hagiography. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

My own opinion is that Jesus Christ might be a good name for Christian views of Jesus, but not for this article. The main article should summarize all relevant perspectives and scholarship on the man from Nazareth. If there is, as some have claimed, too much of an emphasis on the Christian perspective on this article, well then I agree with MPerel: find the balance.

BTW, reading the archives I noticed that three years or so ago there was a debate about whether the main article should be named Jesus Christ or Jesus of Nazareth. The compromise was to use the simpler title, "Jesus." Now that we have all these subarticles, there is really no point in renaming the main article. Subarticles, maybe, but not the main article.

Also BTW, Jim62sch and I have already discussed this. I guess we still disagree. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 19:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I think Jim has a point - are the editors of this page really ready for a summary of Jesus in pop culture? This was an issue brought up at the last FA drive and I don't think adding two "empty" sentences and a link to another article are what they had in mind. I suspect a summary mentioning the music/films/stageshows - possibly even the plastic toys that Jesus has inspired is the sort of thing they had in mind! Changing the name to "Jesus Christ" solves these problems as we can stick to the religious interpretations and avoid even more areas to fight about.

Thanks to Aiden - I carefully marked out changes on my printed copy only to find you'd already done them - saved me lots of work. Sophia^TalkTCF 19:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

There is a Jesus in Pop culture article as well as a Dramatic portrayals of Jesus article. BTW there is a merge proposal for those two subarticles that seems to have unanimous consent, but no one has merged them yet. There was a pop culture section in the Jesus article about the time the first subarticle was created; I don't know why this was removed. Certainly we can merge the two subarticles and summarize them here (perhaps under the "Legacy" "Cultural Impact" section). There is also a long artistic tradition about Jesus that is detailed in Images of Jesus. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 20:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The "Legacy" section was moved to after "Religious Views" and renamed "Cultural Impact", a catchall category beyond a strictly religious context. The "Cultural Impact" section can properly include subsections like "Pop Culture". --Haldrik 20:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

You're right; I caught the move, but not the name change. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 21:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Focusing on the (historical) biography of Jesus can also help keep a neutral tone and help balance the Christological tone specific to Christianity. I would rather rename the subsection Life and teachings, based upon the Gospels to Biography of Jesus. Historians understand the primary evidence about the historical Jesus happens to be the Greek Gospels. It's even possible (and desirable) to carefully describe claims concerning kingship or divinity in a neutral fashion. Then the following subsection follows naturally with Christiany's Views that further develope divine claims and so on. --Haldrik 20:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOV is achieved not by striving for some 'neutral' treatment of the subject achieved by consensus among the editors, but by faithfully reporting each side's views and attributing them to their proponents. Drogo Underburrow 20:21, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

You're both right. I was confused about why references to the Gospels were not listed under Christian views, until someone pointed out that the NT is also important to historicity. "Biography of Jesus" makes a lot of sense, it helps to separate the historical view from the Christian view (which both read the NT, just in different ways). Drogo is also correct that we should accurately summarize all relevant views and attribute them properly. Finally, Aiden is working on revising the Life and Teachings section. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 20:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Referencing

I intend to convert the references and make them all consistent with the new style the way I just did them over at Anti-semitism. The advantage is that the reference information only has to be added once in one place, it's added right where it's referenced, and then it automatically gets added to the Notes or Reference section. Does anyone have a problem with it? --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 18:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)\

I finished converting the existing references, I'll work on any new ones (like the ones Homes recently added). Here is info for adding in the future: Wikipedia:Footnotes. Basically you just put

<ref name=xyz>blah blah blah blah blah blah blah</ref>

where xyz is just anything you want for it to be a unique tag name, right in the text where you want a footnote. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 22:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

So does the Blah Blah Blah stuff just automatically appear as a note at the bottom, and is it supposed to be in that scholar format thing for Bibliographies or whatever? Homestarmy 23:41, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Yep, everything you put for the blah blah blah part automatically shows up at the bottom in the Notes section (which also makes it easier if we start shifting around paragraphs). There are different accepted ways to format the wording of the reference. To be consistent for this article, it would be good to put author's name first (if there's one noted, and in this article since we started with first name last name, I stuck to that style), then the name of the article (in quotes) or website page (in quotes) or book (in italics), the organization if it's a website or the publisher if it's a book, the date published (if book), then the page number. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 23:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's an example of how to format one of the links you just put in:

<ref name=ramakrishna>[http://www.rkmissiondel.org/inside/holly.htm "Our Holy Trinity"], Ramakrishna Mission, accessed March 14, 2006.</ref>

Oh yeah, if it's a website, you should put today's date when it was accessed, since internet links sometimes go away. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 00:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Is it worth cluttering with the date accessed? If a link doesn't work for me, I just load it up at www.archive.org "The Wayback Machine". (I use the Firefox Methusalem extension) ^rossnixon 00:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

It's common academic practice to cite the date accessed. Archive.org doesn't always work, for example if the webmaster has opted out, if the website uses a robots.txt file, if the website has dynamic content or uses a database (such as mysql), or if the website is obscure. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 01:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

SOPHIA's revision of the intro.

I really don't like the way the first section reads - I know it's all been agreed by consensus but it is disjointed and an obvious NPOV compromise. I've had a go at a smoother flowing section. This section is key to the whole FA process - the reader will not be won by this section but you can bet your life they will be lost if it doesn't flow well.

Jesus (Greek Ἰησοῦς Iēsous) (8-2 BC/BCE – 29-36 AD/CE),[1] also known as Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus the Nazarene, is the central figure of Christianity, in which context he is known as Jesus Christ, where Christ is a title meaning "Anointed", corresponding to "Messiah".

Most scholars and historians agree that Jesus was a Jewish Galilean teacher and healer who was sentenced to death by crucifixion outside of Jerusalem on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate, for claiming to be the "King of the Judeans", a crime of rebellion against Rome.[3] Information regarding Jesus' life and teachings is mainly found within the four canonical Gospels of the New Testament, which are generally agreed to have been written in the decades after his death. A small minority question the historicity of Jesus, citing a lack of extant contemporaneous documents making reference to him.[4]

Christian views of Jesus (known as Christology) are both diverse and complex. Most Christians are Trinitarian and affirm the Nicene Creed, believing that Jesus is both the Son of God and God made incarnate, sent to provide salvation and reconciliation with God by atoning for the sins of humanity. Other Christians, however, do not believe that the Nicene Creed correctly interprets Scripture. Christians generally believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, crucified and buried, resurrected on the third day of death, and ascended into Heaven where he resides with God the Father until the Second Coming. Most Christians also believe that Jesus fulfilled Biblical Prophecy.

In Islam, Jesus (called Isa) is considered one of God's most beloved and important prophets, a bringer of divine scripture, and also the Messiah. Muslims, however, do not share the Christian belief in the crucifixion or divinity of Jesus. Islam teaches that Jesus is alive in heaven and will return to the earth as Messiah in the company of the Mahdi once the earth has become full of sin and injustice.

The main change I have made is to pull all the references to documents into the third paragraph where I feel they sit comfortably. Before they were just "add ons" in odd places that broke up the flow of the paragraph.

I'm pretty sure this is a pointless attempt but I had to try. I know I've thrown out stuff that others have fought hard for and I'm sorry. I wasn't trying to settle scores or upset anyone in particular (I'm pretty sure you'll all be at me).

Please try to read it as if for the first time - are the major points there? Does it make you want to read more?

I'm going to hit <enter> and then run and hide for a while. Sophia^TalkTCF 20:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Please, let's consider SOPHIA's suggestion. My main issue is that we have a bloated third paragraph. Certainly references to sources (the Gospels) should come before any interpretations based on those sources (whether historical or theological)? Not sure what to do about the nonexistence hypothesis. Perhaps the first two paragraphs, which are both quote short in this proposal, can be merged? Arch O. La^TalkTCF 20:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I have changed it based on Arcola's very valid comments (going back into hiding now....) Sophia^TalkTCF 20:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there's need to hide, it's a vast improvement, and you didn't change content much, just reordered a bit to flow better. I think that now that you've shifted things based on Archola's suggestion, the second & third paragraphs could be combined (The majority of... Information regarding...). --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 21:02, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I like Sophia's revision a lot. --Haldrik 21:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

If the opening etymology mentions the Greek form it should also mention the Hebrew=Aramaic form, since that is the form the historical person went by. It's possible to avoid the Hebrew and Greek alphabets and just use English transliterations. This is friendlier for readers unfamiliar with these alphabets. (Details about the etymology, including the foreign alphabets, the Latin and so on, can be described briefly in a subsection below with links to articles providing a scholarly discussion.)

(Hebrew יֵשׁוּעַ Yēshûa‘ reconstructed from Greek Ἰησοῦς Iēsoũs)

--Haldrik 20:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense, we've been through this before. At least we know the Greek, no need to put lengthy speculation in foreign languages in there before we even get to the second word. I've taken the silliness out. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

More changes based on both comments above - I now think the first sentence is "clean" enough to cope with more "squiggles".Sophia^TalkTCF 21:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

No, it's silly to put a scholarly speculation filled with squiggles in an intro before we even get to any proper text. I've made a minor cleanup elsewhere as well, mostly grammatical. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Sophia, you can't hide! There's no room under this desk with me here! Seriously, I'd put large back in with majority to match small and keep the crossfire down. Otherwise, nice edit! --CTSWyneken 21:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Move over - I'm getting cramp! (more edits based on message above). Sophia^TalkTCF 21:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Works for me. Though the second paragraph seems to be a bit combobulated with the last sentence, is the "however" necessary with this version? Homestarmy 21:37, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Sophia's version is a vast improvement over the text. I am extremely impressed by her work. Its so much better that it makes the original version intolerable, I vote Sophia's version be implemented immediately. Drogo Underburrow 21:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with Sophia's proposal. KHM03 ^(talk) 22:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me. —Aiden 22:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I think the second paragraph sounds better as "The majority of critical Bible scholars and historians generally agree..." There's really no need to keep saying 'majority this, minority that." —Aiden 22:28, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I do agree with Aiden on this. "The majority" reads to me as if there is very little deviation from this view. The "small minority" still stands as quantifying the minority position is needed - could you live with it CTS? Sophia^TalkTCF 22:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Jayjg has deleted the Hebrew etymology without discussion. We really need to resolve this issue to prevent future edit wars. --Haldrik 22:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

There's simply no consensus for inserting speculative nonsense in foreign languages into the intro, so there's no point in trying to slip it in in various guises. We need to have an intro that's agreed to by everyone. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:57, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Sophia, what do you think about saying "Critical Bible scholars and historians generally agree that..." This pretty much demonstrates the consensus amongst scholars without the 'majority/minority' mumbo jumbo. It reads a lot better that way. —Aiden 22:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Tiz done - does look better. I don't want to get into the Hebrew row as I'm totally unqualified to comment. Is it only Jayjg that objects? Does anyone else know enough to comment?

I know enough that Haldrik appears to have all his sources in order to fully back up his claim as to what the Hebrew name for "Jesus" is :/. [

Homestarmy 23:11, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I think more than just Jayjg have legitimate objections. Why don't we put in the revised intro (without the Hebrew) and settle the Hebrew-in-the-intro question separately. There's no reason that part has to be settled now, and there's essentially no objection to the rest of the changes. Everyone likes it. Sophia is brilliant : ) --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 23:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, quite a number of other people object as well; however, as these attempts to slip the name in unannounced continue to go on in obscure sections of the talk page, it's not surprising that they're not all aware of the latest foray. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: etymology. I object to supplying Greek without Hebrew. Greek without Hebrew is historically misleading. --Haldrik 23:51, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Nonsense. Greek represents documented fact, Hebrew represents speculation. They shouldn't be mixed in an intro. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The Hebrew and Greek need to kept together, whether in the intro, the "historical reconstruction" section, or somewhere else. It's misleading to split them up. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 23:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

If this was an article about the Gospels, then the Greek form of the name would be appropriate. However, this is an article about the person, and the Hebrew form is necessary. The historical person DIDN'T use the Greek form of the name. --Haldrik 06:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Blush. Let me stress it has been a team effort - just look at my first post to see how it has improved! Sophia^TalkTCF 23:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Works for me, I'd like to hear from others first, such as CTSWyneken (who has placed guard over the first two paragraphs). I also thought we had already agreed to discuss the Hebrew derivation under the "historical reconstruction" section. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 23:23, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

LOL I have to recommend a miniscule change to Sophia's text: I noticed she removed one of the commas in the second paragraph, from "the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate," to "Roman governor Pontius Pilate". Removal of the article "the" and the first comma makes "governor" a proper title, and it must be capitalised :-) Drogo Underburrow 00:16, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I tend to prefer a simplification. Saying, "Roman Governor Pontius Pilate" is like saying, "King George". It's not really necessary to say, "the Roman governor, Pontius Pilate," like "the king, George". --Haldrik 00:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't care as long as she capitalizes it. (smile) :-) Drogo Underburrow 00:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I can live without the "large" if "majority" stays in, although I fear the "vast" folks coming back with a vengence. Using the same logic, I'd like to drop "critical," too, since some of the scholars in the note reject the higher critical method. This is a consensus so wide, it includes every Bible scholar and historian I've checked from secular to critical to conservative to Jewish to agnostic to atheist. Unless we're all going to guard the final edit, I'm afraid we're looking for trouble. --CTSWyneken 04:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

CTS, I haven't seen The Jesus Mysteries listed in the cited authors page. This 1999 book seems to be popular among the Jesus-Myth folk. Timothy Freke is a philosopher, and Peter Gandy is an expert on ancient mystery religions. Gandy might be a historian (not sure), but definitely neither of them are critical Bible scholars. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 04:49, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think it should simply say "Most scholars". It's more accurate, shorter, and less susceptible to "modifier wars". Also, the order of sentences in that paragraph didn't make sense. I'm going to try out some changes, let me know what you think. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:20, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

This is closer to my name-dates-sources-historicity-religion suggestion, so I like it. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 04:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Can we take this one over to talk:Jesus/2nd Paragraph Debate? --CTSWyneken 04:28, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe. I just feel it's better if we make sure everybody has seen this proposal first. To the others I say: Yes, Virginia, there is a subpage! Arch O. La^TalkTCF 04:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The way the second paragraph has been changed puts what we know about Jesus sandwiched between two differing scholarly opinions on the documents that give us that information. I still think that the most important sentence in the paragraph is the first one and therefore as this is an article about Jesus and not about the sources we should put what is gernerally agreed first with the information on how we know this second. I know this is not a true data/interpretation flow but even in astronomy papers the summary at the beginning basically just gives the conclusions of the paper with a short description of how this will be proven. I've changed it back so others can comment.

As for the hebrew/greek names. having thought about it - all we can put in this section is what we reliably know and is generally accepted. Whilst there maybe good reasons for the Hebrew it should not go here as the only early documents we have show his name in the Greek form, Puttting the Hebrew in the "names and titles" section is good though as most people would assume he commonly went by the Hebrew version of his name. Sophia^TalkTCF 07:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem with your order is that we now do not know what the "small minority" is referring to; is it "scholars and historians", or is it "four canonical gospels"? I think we first need to state what the source documents are, then give the majority and minority opinions about what their import is. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

That the name of the person that this article is about is Yeshua, is reliably known and generally accepted. --Haldrik 09:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Please stop repeating yourself. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

LOL! The only one repeating himself is you, Jayjg. You have an extremist POV, with no scholarship to back it up. And yet, you repeat it without variance. --Haldrik 17:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Please avoid violations of Wikipedia's civility policy. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Guys and gals, remember, Arab Christians as well as converted Jews (TODAY!) tend to use the Hebrew name Yeshua in reference to Jesus. These constitute huge Christian communities in Israel and the broader Middle East. That alone, in my opinion, is enough to warrant its inclusion in the article. —Aiden 07:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Why on earth would modern usage possibly be relevant? Usage of the name "Yeshua" by Jewish converts to Christianity is a late 20th century phenomenon, a reflection of Jews for Jesus strategy of making "scary" Christians words like "Jesus" and "Cross" and "New Testament" less scary to Jews by substituting modern Hebrew neologisms. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Even if modern Messianic Jews popularized the name "Yeshua" as a neologism (despite that the Modern Hebrew pronunciation "Yehoshua" would be more standard), they got this ancient dialectical pronunciation from archeologists! --Haldrik 17:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Um, possibly, but that doesn't really address the point. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

It addresses the point that virtually all scholars identify Jesus's personal name as Yeshua. It is irrelevant whether modern Christian movements use this name or not. --Haldrik 22:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

As I've said, I can live with either Jayjg's sentence order or SOPHIA's. Whatever you decide on the Hebrew and Greek, they should be kept together. The controversy over the languages seems to be based on the question of what name Jesus used. I've already given reasons why I think the etymology should be in the intro. However, if there is any doubt, we should do what the Christopher Columbus article does. I had always heard that his name was "really" something like Cristobal Colombo, but apparently there is some controversy over whether he was really Genoan, so the issue of his "real" name is dealt with later in the article. Again, I think Storm Rider's earlier proposal makes the most sense.

Aiden, it is true that Arab Christians and Messianic Jews today use the name "Yeshua." It is also true that Muslims today use the name "Isa," but that name does not appear in the first paragraph. The Hebrew and Greek should be included (together), if not in the intro than in the "Historical Reconstruction" subsection. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 08:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

But Yeshua isn't just another language. It the person's own name, the person that this article is about. It must be mentioned. --Haldrik 17:12, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I did not know that. Putting my "countering systemic bias" hat on would make me agree that the hebrew should be include just for the reason Aiden gives. Sophia^TalkTCF 08:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course it should be included. Jayjg gives valid reasons for why it should not be included in the intro, (ie that the Hebrew is not in the oldest extant sources), but again we have the rest of the article to work with. I'm less convinced by Jayjg's arguments for excluding the Hebrew entirely, which seems to come down to "we had a consensus before everybody showed up." That may be, but I think we've moved on. Haldrik and MPerel have worked out a decent "Hebrew, as reconstructed from the Greek" phrasing. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 08:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I've never argued that it shouldn't be included at all; quite the opposite. I think it should be included in the article, just not in the introduction. As I've already pointed out, for a long time there was just such a section in the article, until the article was "Christianized" in December 2005. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

In that case, I apologize for the misunderstanding. "Christianized," huh? I don't know; I didn't see the article before December 2005. However, I am one Christian who wants to be fair to everybody. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 18:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The person who this article is about calls himself Yeshua. --Haldrik 17:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

"The person who this article is about calls himself Yeshua"? Do you think he is currently alive? Have you heard him referring to himself that way? Jayjg ^(talk) 19:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I notice you can't cite any scholars to back up your POV. --Haldrik 22:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I notice you haven't answered the questions. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Two comments:

• Sophia's proposal seems good to me.
• Jayjg, regardless what side we take in the Yeshua-in/Yeshua-out game, characterizing one side as "speculation" or "nonsense" does not help. It's true we don't have Jesus' Hebrew name in any written documents, but 'Yeshua' is more than just speculation, it was the common Hebrew form at that time, transcribed into Greek as Jesus. Whether to include this into the intro is another matter, but please remain calm. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The speculation here is that it was actually the name used by Jesus; I'm not characterizing a "side" using that term, but accurately describing the origin. It may be pretty convincing speculation, and supported by archeology etc., but it's still speculation. As for the tem "nonsense", I've used that to described nonsensical arguments, not individuals or "sides". In addition, while I'm quite calm, if there's anyone who needs advice about staying calm, it's undoubtedly someone who is now telling other editors that they have "extremist POVs", and suggesting that he is on current speaking terms with Jesus. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Please discontinue from violating Wikipedia's civility policy. If a POV can't cite sources to back it up, it has no relevance in an encyclopedia. The POV that a historical person can't have the Hebrew name Yeshua ... because modern Christian Jews call him that ... is irrational. Almost all authoritative scholarly sources identify the person's name as Yeshua. There is every reason for Wikipedia to do so as well. --Haldrik 22:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Please discontinue citing irrelevant Wikipedia policies, or using strawman arguments to misrepresent my statements. Also, please stop asking for sources for things about which everyone (including you) agrees - for example, that we have no Hebrew or Aramaic source documents listing Jesus' name. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

We are not just relying on the Greek textual tradition with the Greek form. We are also relying on the Syriac textual tradition that preserves the Hebrew form, independently of Greek.

Arch has made a good point about use of Yeshua / Isa in the intro, so I withdraw my opinion on the matter. —Aiden 19:22, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Since you asked, yes, I do believe he is alive today, but he hasn't spoken to me out loud lately. 8-) But, of course, none of that is verifiable. I'll just repeat what I've said before: you're both right.

Would this be a workable solution? Include the Aramaic with a phrase like: "thought to be from the Aramaic ________" footnote it, explaining we do not have the form extant, but most scholars asset this etomology. --CTSWyneken 19:21, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd be ok with it entirely in a footnote, and the footnote link would be at the top, beside the Greek name. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

That's quite an asset to assert! ;) It works for me, but I'll let other's comment. Lately it seems to have come down to "Haldrik said, Jayjg said." Arch O. La^TalkTCF 19:27, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Why is it that we constantly have to create akward wording to cover uncontroversial information? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 19:29, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm so with Str1977 on that one! Well I've done the deed and will really hide now : ) - please read it very carefully - as they say "to err is human"! Hopefull we won't have to guard it and it will stand on it's own merits. CTS - can you check I haven't thrown your "babies" out with the bath water please. Sophia^TalkTCF 21:47, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Nice! I've moved my note up just a little, so it is with the text I know it documents. This version is better than the last, where we had the death by crucifixion separated from the general agreement I've documented. Thank you!

Now my turn to cause trouble... can we put "Biblcal" in front of scholars? That will match exactly the names in the note, then. --CTSWyneken 02:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I would support this change as long as it is in addition to my proposed change to eliminate the redundant 'historians'. I started a new section, can we move the discussion there? Drogo Underburrow 02:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

"Historians" are not redundant here (see below) Michael Grant is a highly resepected historian of the ancient world, but is not a Biblical scholar. Will Durant is a first rate historian, but also not a Biblical scholar. We've cited them to show how wide the consensus is. --CTSWyneken 03:07, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

You should cite a reference, such as: A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, Bauer-Gingrinch-Danker:" ישוע Jeshua, later form for יהושוע Joshua; s. MLidzbarski, Handb. d. nordsem. Epigr. 1898, 291; FPraetorius ZDMG 59, '05, 341f; FXSteinmetzer, BZ 14, '17, 193ff; FJWaele, Wetenschappelijke Tijdingen 5, '42, 177-81."

The parenthetical dates for Jesus are not explicitly given by the New Testament but are extrapolated according to scholarly concensus. And likewise, the parenthetical name of Yeshua is not explicitly given but is extrapolated according to scholarly consensus. Scholars agree more strongly about his name than his dates. --Haldrik 23:32, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Redundent sections

What is the difference between Jesus#Life and teachings, based upon the Gospels, Christian views of Jesus#Life, and New Testament view on Jesus' life? I think the reason why some people have been complaining about this article reading like Sunday school is because the NT biographical information is presented first, and in as much detail (pretty much) as the main articles, with little information from the Historical Jesus until the very last section Jesus#Historical reconstructions of Jesus's life. So what do I propose to remedy this? I think, perhaps, instead of having two different section presenting different POVs, we should have one general biography section that covers all bases? At the very least, I think the Jesus#Life and teachings, based upon the Gospels section should be cut down drastically, and merged with one of the two already existing pages about this. --Andrew c 01:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Life and teachings, based upon the Gospels should be renamed as Historical Jesus (or Biography of Jesus) to distinguish it from Christian views of Jesus. --Haldrik 02:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I prefer "Biography of Jesus" for the section in this article. The Life sections in Jesus and Christian views of Jesus are meant to summarize New Testament view on Jesus' life, which also informs Historical Jesus. The summaries aren't perfect and perhaps are too detailed, but we're still working out what someone once called "the Jesus data structure."

BTW that person was SOPHIA. I first met her when we had conflicting merge proposals for New Testament view on Jesus' life: she wanted to merge it with Historical Jesus, and I wanted to merge it with Christian views of Jesus. In the end we agreed the relevant sections of those articles should both be summaries of the first article, as should the section in Jesus. We do need to work to make sure that the summaries are indeed summaries and not full explanations. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 02:42, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I may strongly disagree with Haldrik. I think that when people talk about the life and teachings of Jesus, they do not mean "in their original context, as best reconstructed by historians," I think they usually mean "as non-Christians have interpreted them through the ages." I think both of these are valuable topics, and they need separate articles. It is true that historians have proposed reconstructions of Jesus's actual teachings, but many of these are highly context dependent (e.g. that he preached that the Kingdom of God was at hand, meaning that God would overthrow the Romans). These teachings do indeed belong in an article on the historical Jesus. But philosophers, ethicists, civic leaders have also made claims about Jesus's teachings - claims that are not historical, but that are influential, and these claims do not belong in an article on the historical Jesus. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, which is also why I prefer "Biography of Jesus" to "Historical Jesus" as a section name. The biography is the source, the Historical Jesus is just one interpretation/reconstruction of that source. As I've said before, I would like to see more about the philosophers' perspective, but I don't know enough about this to add it myself (it receives only a very brief mention under "other views.") Finally, aren't there nonBiblical texts that also provide biographical details? Arch O. La^TalkTCF 19:03, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Non-Biblical sources for Jesus were all rejected by the early church, except for a mention in Josephus often cited by Christian scholars but rejected as a later addition by secular scholars. Rick Norwood 19:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course, but I was talking about secular historians, not Christians. Besides Josephus, please don't forget Tacitus. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 21:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Jesus was entombed, not buried

When it was evening, there came a rich man from Arimathea, named Joseph, who was also a disciple of Jesus. He went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus; then Pilate ordered it to be given to him. So Joseph took the body and wrapped it in a clean linen cloth and laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn in the rock. He then rolled a great stone to the door of the tomb and went away. Mary Magdalene and the other Mary were there, sitting opposite the tomb. Matt 27:57-61NRSV

Now there was a good and righteous man named Joseph, who, though a member of the council, had not agreed to their plan and action. He came from the Jewish town of Arimathea, and he was waiting expectantly for the kingdom of God. This man went to Pilate and asked for the body of Jesus. Then he took it down, wrapped it in a linen cloth, and laid it in a rock-hewn tomb where no one had ever been laid. It was the day of Preparation, and the sabbath was beginning. The women who had come with him from Galilee followed, and they saw the tomb and how his body was laid. Then they returned, and prepared spices and ointments. On the sabbath they rested according to the commandment. Luke 23:50-56NRSV

After these things, Joseph of Arimathea, who was a disciple of Jesus, though a secret one because of his fear of the Jews, asked Pilate to let him take away the body of Jesus. Pilate gave him permission; so he came and removed his body. Nicodemus, who had at first come to Jesus by night, also came, bringing a mixture of myrrh and aloes, weighing about a hundred pounds. They took the body of Jesus and wrapped it with the spices in linen cloths, according to the burial custom of the Jews. Now there was a garden in the place where he was crucified, and in the garden there was a new tomb in which no one had ever been laid. And so, because it was the Jewish day of Preparation, and the tomb was nearby, they laid Jesus there. John 19:38-42NRSV —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.201.25.132 (talk • contribs)

Alright, "entombed" as per those Gospel references. I caught your edit conflict with Jason Eiler. Some free advice: people will be more likely to listen to you if you register. Go ahead, it's free! If you are registered, please sign in. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 05:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I prefer "entombed", but at an early age memorized "... was crucified, died, and was buried..." How come the creed says buried? Does anyone know? Rick Norwood 19:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

It's normal to refer to tombs as "burials", especially in the sense of being placed ceremonially underground. --Haldrik 22:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Heh. American Heritage Dictionary (definition 2): bury 1. To place in the ground: bury a bone. 2a. To place (a corpse) in a grave, a tomb, or the sea. 2b. To dispose of (a corpse) ritualistically by means other than cremation. --Haldrik 22:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Still, I probably prefer "entombed". It's meaning is unambiguous and vivid. --Haldrik 22:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

There's a lot of stuff in the creeds that's not in the Bible. Also, generally, English translations are faulty, for example: Hypostasis (religion) -> persons. (NOT!) If you really want to study the NT, you have to learn Koine Greek, if you want to study the OT, you have to learn Hebrew. It's not that hard, there are plenty of low cost books and tools to aid you. "my people are destroyed from lack of knowledge. "Because you have rejected knowledge, I also reject you as my priests; because you have ignored the law of your God, I also will ignore your children." Hosea 4:6NIV —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.169.4.111 (talk • contribs)

Four tildes, please. BTW, it's not just English. "Persons" comes from translating the Greek "hypostasis" as the Latin "persona". Arch O. La^TalkTCF 21:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

By the way, "was buried" was not in the Original Nicene Creed, it was probably added to conteract the claim by some that Jesus wasn't dead, for example, Islam, Joseph_of_Arimathea#Historical_development, And did those feet in ancient time ...

Andrew c's recent changes

I reworked and reorderd parts of the bio section. I ended up cutting a sentence that dealt with the Christian perspective here:

For most Christians, only the virgin birth and the Incarnation itself are major articles of faith for this period of time before the beginning of Jesus' ministry.

I couldn't find an appropriate place for this under the Christian perspective section because the whole this is basically about the ressurection. Personally, I am fine cutting the sentence from the entire article, but if someone wants to work to incorporate this text in the Christian perspective section, that would also be fine.--Andrew c 16:43, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

We really should work the virgin birth, incarnation and miracles into the Christian perspective section. The way the sentence is phrased, though, I'm not sure how to make it fit. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 03:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)