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.
3. This is the focus of the Article Improvement Drive. /Historical Jesus.
3.1 I added a paragraph to the historical reconstruction section about four different models: Jesus as Pharisee, Jesus as Essene, Jesus as new movement (Apocalyptic Prophet or Messiah). The very last model deals with the emergence of Early Christianity. The Seminar is mentioned in the "moral teacher" paragraph under "other modern ideas". Other points might be discussed in the historicity section. See subpage.
3.2. I've copied the data about the historical background that used to be in this article to a personal subpage. It should be condensed (preferrably to one or two paragraphs), but I feel some of the data should be worked into the historicity section.
3.3. Pending; I haven't had much of a chance to look this over.
4. I've started to do this; see suggestions below. The article is currently 77KB long. Please, be concise! However, we must do this in a way that does not compromise quality.
4.3. We might also reconsider the long quotes in Jesus#Judaism's view. We could just summarize those quotes here, and give the full quotes in the subarticle Judaism's view of Jesus.
4.4. Condensing the Gospel summary as per Andrew C.
I still have a stack of about 8 books on Jesus sitting around my apartment, one of them The Acts of Jesus. I'll see if I can't find some relevent JS information for the historical Jesus section. I'd also propose trimming down the gospel summary section. I mean, we have main articles for that, and sometimes this page is just as detailed as the others.--Andrew c 00:52, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
We do need to be careful about any section getting too long. The stuff I added was: 1) From Luke: John the Baptists' ministry beginning in the fifteen year of Tiberius, Jesus' baptism when he was about thirty, and Herod Antipas' involvement in the trial 2) From all four gospels, Jesus in relation to Pharisees, Sadducees, Zealots and Samaritans. I tried to be concise, and I'd hate to see this information removed. Aiden did a lot of work on the whole life and teachings section, so he may object if we're not careful with his babies. I'm sure there's some bathwater that we can move, remove and condense. Just as long as we don't throw out the babies with it. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 01:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I haven't forgot about the Jesus Seminar. It's hard to find the right place to put this information. The historicity section doesn't talk that much about probable events in the life of the historical Jesus. Maybe I could suppliment the reliability section. I feel like the whole historicity section needs to be reorganized and overhauled.--Andrew c 01:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for all the work you've been doing on the article Archie. By the sweat of thine brow shalt thou increaseth the quality of the article! You rock. :) --MonkeeSage 08:39, 13 April 2006 (UTC))
New skeptical link
An anon added this in, so I put it under the skeptical viewpoint area, however, I feel there is a case for simply deleting it, as it is really quite a poor effort at examining the issue, and I would think is more embarassing to the Jesus-myth side than helpful. First, there are some unreferenced statements about "Clearly the NT is a mythical account in several key areas", indicating a value judgement on Christianity and happenance which cannot be explained by science, the issues the article raises take the Jesus Seminar out of context to mean that it "Was instrumental in exposing the flaws of the NT", when all they did was vote on whether Jesus did or did not say something. The same old tiresome arguments about relations to other myths also comes in, in addition to a wonderful piece if I recall about the NT "Being our only source on Jesus' existance" which is entirely innacurate, so therefore, I ask you, my fellow editors, should this link stand, or is what we already have sufficient? Homestarmy 02:31, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Which link are you talking about? Wesley 15:55, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
The link is just bad. Saying that Paul never claimed to meet anyone who knew Jesus is simply not true, for instance. He says he met James, brother of the Lord, among other things. john k 16:17, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Was Jesus Elisha in a past incarnation?
According to Paramahansa Yogananda, Jesus Christ's last incarnation was Elisha and John the Baptist was Elijah. In the Autobiography of a Yogi, Yogananda also made a claim that Jesus' spiritual teacher was John the Baptist. This is also mentioned in the Bible in a very subtle manner. I am not sure how many Christians are aware of this piece of information but I am sure this revelation is going to stir up some debate. As I personally do not belong to any religious group, my stand is neutral in this respect. But I would like to see some comments about this from a Christian point of view. Self-Realization Fellowship members and disciples of Yogananda have long embraced this view but I do not see this being mentioned in the other Christian sects. --Siva1979Talk to me 15:06, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Could you specify this "subtle manner" of Jesus somehow being spiritually taught by John the Baptist? I mean, Jesus was God, one would think there wouldn't be anything to teach him unless it was part of the duality thing, but I don't remember anything in the Bible about subtle hints of John teaching Jesus anything.... Homestarmy 15:12, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Hebrews 5:8: "Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered." Obedience to whom? Revelation 1:1: "the Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him..."; Mark 13:32: "of that day or that hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father." John 7:16: "My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me." --Oscillate 15:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, and Holy Ganga seems to be pushing a purely Vishnaivite view as if it is the view of "Hinduism" as a whole, even insisting that God is, specifically "Krishna". Paul B 15:21, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
According to the Old Testament, Elijah never died, but was taken up into Heaven in a fiery chariot. According to Gospel accounts, Elijah was seen speaking with Jesus at the time of Jesus' transfiguration, some time after John the Baptist had been beheaded. These accounts would appear to contradict the suggestion that Elijah's soul was later reincarnated in John the Baptist. But if this is a notable view among Hindus, I've no objection to adding it to Hindu beliefs about Jesus. Wesley 15:54, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
Firstly, I would like to thank you for your comments. I would like to show you an online version of the Autobiography of a Yogi which mentions Jesus' past live and his spiritual teacher. The book and the chapter which concerns this discussion is here: [1] Mind you, this book was written by a man you had claimed to have realized God and the author is by NO means a fundamental Hindu. I believe this article would prove to be an interesting piece of information for Christians who are willing to examine a different perspective of Christianity.
Secondly, Self-Realization Fellowship is NOT an exclusive Hindu or Christian organization. This organization includes the teachings of Christ and Krishna in their sermons.
Lastly, I hope that the above mentioned website will also shed future light onto Wesley's comments. I hope this will clarify the discussion a bit and we could then bring this debate into a higher level of discussion. Your comments are appreciated. --Siva1979Talk to me 16:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
The idea that Elijah and Elisha prefigured John and Jesus is a rather old (Christian) one, isn't it? The reincarnation business would seem to be a Hindu extrapolation of this Christian view, no? john k 16:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
The type-antitype relationship is fundimentally different from the manifestation/incarnation scheme. One works by analogy, the other works by identity. But that issue aside, it would be very misleading to call a view "Christian" which has never historically been held by any specifically "Christian" group. Historically, synthetic views like the one here have been called "mysticism", "syncretism" and more recently "New Age". --MonkeeSage 16:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm confused. I wasn't saying the ideas were the same. Just that this (apparently Hindu) idea is clearly based on the traditional Christian view of Elijah/Elisha prefiguring John/Jesus. It has taken this idea which, as you note, is based on an analogy, rather than an actual identification, and reworked it into the Hindu scheme of reincarnation. All I was saying is that if this Hindu view is significant enough to be mentioned, it cannot be mentioned without providing the context that the Elijah:Elisha::John:Jesus business is not original to this Hindu view, but derives out of Christian ideas. john k 00:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
John, I agree with you. I wasn't trying to "rebut" you. Sorry for the confusion. My comments about type-antitype were just in passing, my other comments were for the original editor. --MonkeeSage 12:43, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
The Yogi is most definitely Hindu and not at all Christian. His claim is different from the Christian view that John the Baptist was prefigured by Elijah. What Christians mean is the Elijah was a kind of prophecy of John. What the Yogi is saying is that Elijah and John are the same soul or person. If we mention the view at all, it belongs in the Hindu view section. --CTSWyneken 22:05, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Vandalism
Can everyone please check they are editing a valid version when they make changes. I've just had to revert about six vandal comments by hand as they'd got overlaid by valid edits. Ta. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA SophiaTalkTCF 00:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I just reverted the removal of the baptism painting in the Ministry section. The remover left a little 'editorial' note about the image not being appropriate, because the act of a 'pouring' baptism, as opposed to an 'immersion' baptism was not used during the first century AD.
I reverted the change because it didn't seem an appropriate one to make without discussion. I for one, feel the image is still valid, because its caption notes when it was painted, in the 14th century, and it is fairly common knowledge that 14th century christianity used a lot of imagery and cultural ideas that weren't used in the first century.
Discuss amongst yourselves. :) Phidauex 21:04, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I have also reverted another attempt to delete the image. Unfortunately, much of the Art of Jesus is anachronistic -- Caucasoid features, Dress from Middle Ages, Baptism by pouring, etc. It is simply how artists at the time represented things. Ted 21:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Should the caption of the image contain a note about the type of baptism? Maybe something like, "Note the use of a 'pouring' baptism, as opposed to the full immersion baptisms common during the First Century AD." ?? The 'swedish jesus' phenomenon was in full swing in 1449, but that typically doesn't bother people as much as the different type of baptism does. But perhaps a note in the caption would help clarify, and satisfy those who want to avoid confusion about the type of baptisms historically used during the time of Jesus's life. Phidauex 21:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Where do you stop, then? Just looking at the image for 5 minutes (full painting: Controversial Image), I was able to come up with several problems:
Dress of men in the background is not of the times.
Jesus is Caucasian.
Vegetation is not from the Middle East.
Immodesty of Mary (?) is not typical of the times.
Undergarment on man behind is interesting.
Even in modern times, the Jordan river isn't that small.
Women's/angel's hairstyle is more standard European 15th Century.
Where to stop, indeed! In this case, I'm comfortable compromising. The focal point of the image is clearly the baptism itself. The other components, like vegetation and whatnot, are significant, but aren't the 'reason' the image is there. So, if we are willing to keep the image despite the anachronisms, but want to point out one of the bigger ones, then the type of baptism might be a natural one to mention. I don't have a dogmatic interest in it, because I'm not a Christian, I'm just trying to find a solution that maximizes clarity. Phidauex 22:54, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
That is a good point. I am a Christian whose denomination has rejected all rites and sacraments. If some other image can be found for that section, I'll be happy. Or, failing that, adding a note to the caption also works for me. Ted 23:06, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
For what it's worth, Piero della Francesca was making no attempt to provide a "realistic" portrayal of the occasion. Between his mathematics and his taste for allegory, it's unreasonable even to consider any physical relationship between the appearances and activities on that painting and the real baptism -- and including the image in the article implies no such relationship. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:31, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Jpgordon, this is silliness. A renaissance painting of Jesus isn't meant to suggest that it is a historically accurate recreation of what really happened. john k 00:26, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Also the reason for removal is not accurate. The earliest liturgical manual we have (the Didache) says: "But if you have no living [running] water, baptize into other water; and if you cannot do so in cold water, do so in warm. But if you have neither, pour out water three times upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit." (7:3-5, Roberts-Donaldson tr.) --MonkeeSage 12:59, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. If we remove all the "you are there" license taken by artists, no art belongs here. Ans, no, I don't think we want to be asking if there's evidence as to the mode of baptism in the time of John the Baptist! --CTSWyneken 22:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
One more comment, this article is not this historical Jesus article or any POV article. Just because someone doesn't believe in the Jesus depicted in the painting, or if it isn't 'historically accurate', does not make the person in the painting any less Jesus. Clearly, this painting is of Jesus and I have no problem with it being in an article about Jesus. Stating the context and POV behind the painting seems more than enough. I see no reason to point out the "errors" in the painting. --Andrew c 02:19, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Anachronistic depictions of baptism:
It is argued that because this article is plagued with other anachronisms, it is unacceptable to challenge this blatantly anachronistic depiction of baptism. If this kind of thinking is continued, the article on Jesus will remain perpetually stunted and deceiving. Is is invalid to argue that it is acceptable to mischaracterize a matter of doctrinal concern because you have < a l s o> allowed the mischaracterization of the Lord's Jewish features.
Furthermore, while Lord's race is not a doctrinally sensitive issue for mainline Christians, the manner of administering baptism is a painfully sensitive issue of doctrine - amongst many mainline denominations. Using illustrations which are both anachronistic and doctrinally unsound will always spark resistance and offense amongst many of the audience of this article.
The image in question adds no useful information to the article, and simply adds to downloading burden of the servers and makes the page needlessly larger.
If there is scholarly interest in the anachronistic deptictions of Christ, then it ought to be addressed as a specific issue. As it is, this anachronism is presented as a factual depiction of a first century event. As such it is deceptive and unscholarly. Those with an historically accurate understanding of the first century will be offended by undistinguished anachronism - especially so if pertaining to a sensitive point of doctrine. Those who do not have a basis to evaluate what they are seeing will merely absorb the image without critical attention - as fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aidenj (talk • contribs)
Then I ask you again to find an image that is doctrinally-sound. Images help an article. This one has many of various styles and it helps the article. Find one that fits and try it out here. We are all trying to make Wikipedia the best possible. In most cases, presenting alternatives is better than simply deleting "offensive" material.
PS On these discussion pages, use ~~~ at the end of your comment to sign it. It helps us all keep track of the conversation. Ted 22:26, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree with your basic premise, unknown one, that images depicting Jesus's life and activities can be hard to separate from the facts surrounding his life, because of the vast number of ways that people have interpreted his acts through art.
However, I don't think the image is being presented as a 'factual description', rather, the caption clearly identifies it with a painting made some 1400 years after the birth of Jesus, and all the artistic license that entails.
The problem we have with Jesus is the same as the issue we have with most historically and spiritually significant people from before the time of photography or 'image realistic' paintings. I don't know that a single image of Jesus exists that is factually accurate in every way, shape, and form. We are left with a scattering of images produced by artists over a 2000 year time period. Instead of rejecting all of these images, it makes more sense to use images that bring to mind a situation, and then, if necessary, make clarifications for the benefit of the readers.
I'll make my original suggestion again; should the image have a more descriptive caption that mentions the type of baptism? While the image has numberous inaccuracies, as Ted mentioned, I understand your point that the vegetation, and even the race of Jesus, is not considered significant from a doctorinal perspective, while the type of baptism is.
What do you think of this potential addition to the caption: "Note the depiction of a "pouring" baptism, popular during the 15th century, as opposed to the "immersion' baptisms commonly used during the 1st century." Phidauex 23:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
(to original poster) I don't think baptism is nearly as much of a "sensative" issue as your making it out to be anon, it only gets really touchy when people start lambasting each other about it. Plus, offense is not an issue for Wikipedia, see WP:NOT and look for "censorship". If pr0n is allowed under that rule, (which is bad of course) then certainly a picture showing Jesus's baptism is too, let's be realistic. It is an illustration of the event recorded in the Gospels, which are explicitly used by this article, where one John the Baptist baptized Jesus Christ. It seems probable historically that he was using a river or body of water for these baptisms, so there is one in the picture. Who cares if its pouring or submerging, it's not that big a deal, yeesh. Can it really even be inferred from that picture, I mean, the baptism could of included both pouring and submerging, the information we don't know is the key, and there's no reason to get so worked up about it. I don't see how a person's soul will be lost for eternity because they saw a picture of Jesus with John the Baptist next to him pouring water on him. Homestarmy 00:02, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
(sigh). Three years ago, there was a discussion on the use of artistic images and the proper balance of different artistic interpretations used in this article vis-a-vis doctrinal differences and historical reality. It's in the very first archives: /Archive 1 and /Archive 2, and has occassionally come up after that. The depiction of baptism shown in this painting may be anachronistic, but Wikipedia editors are also being anachronistic if they expect this painting to be realistic. Realism is beside the point. Artistic realism as a school didn't develop until around 1840. Artistic portrayals often rely on symbolism. Hence the term "artistic license." Go ahead and add a disclaimer if you think it would help, but I don't see why we should have to state the obvious. Instead we should do exactly what we do with the text: attribute significant POVs to their adherents. In this case we attribute a particular artistic POV to Piero della Francesca. That should be enough. This isn't a photograph. This is the POV of one Piero della Francesca.
We had another image of the baptism at one point from a different POV, but that image was removed because it violated copyright. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 02:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)
According to this logic any images with halos would also need to be thrown out. C'mon now; it's an artistic depiction. I personally believe in immersion baptism but went to a Lutheran school where that was not the practice. Honestly it has no bearing in this article and really is not that big of a deal. —Aiden 03:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Secondly, who is Aidenj? How confusing is this going to be... —Aiden 03:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
First Paragraph - minor wording change proposal
The first paragraph is one long sentence, and is thus (a little) overly hard to follow. I propose the following change (which I would have made if not for the request on the page to discuss these things first):
Jesus (8-2 BC/BCE – 29-36 AD/CE),[1] also known as Jesus of Nazareth, is the central figure of Christianity. In this context he is known as Jesus Christ, where Christ is a Greek title meaning "Anointed", corresponding to the Hebrew term "Messiah".
Seems fair to me. Homestarmy 00:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Change made —matthew0028 06:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Possessive form
The article seems to be split regarding which version of the possessive should be used, as both forms are used at different times. For internal consistancy, shouldn't one be used exclusively? And according to the Manual of Style:
*Possessives of singular nouns ending in s may be formed with or without an additional s. Either form is generally acceptable within Wikipedia. However, if either form is much more common for a particular word or phrase, follow that form, such as with "Achilles' heel" and "Jesus' tears".
This suggests that the form Jesus' is what should be used in the article. Should I (or someone else) go through and make the necessary changes?
Change made. (There were 11 instances of Jesus's in the article, versus 44 instances of Jesus' without the ending "s". —matthew0028 06:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for doing this. I noticed this a few weeks back and tried to 'fix it', but it got reverted. I came here to the talk page and made my case instead of edit warring over Jesus' vs. Jesus's. I guess I eventually forgot about this issue and let it slide. Thanks again.--Andrew c 02:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Moving Detail on Name of Jesus to Subarticle
Our section here has more detail by far than the subarticle section on the name. Our section should be a summary of the subarticle, not the other way around. Does anyone object to moving most of the detail from here to there? --CTSWyneken 02:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I'd encourage a thorough merge and re-write of the subsection to the actual subarticle. Although we have a lot of material, it's not as well rounded and organized as I feel it could be. (But then again, I should do something about it, no? :-) ) --Steve Caruso 03:54, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Very good idea, Steve! There isn't a better person to do it, IMHO, since you actually write in the field, if I remember correctly! 8-) Would it be too much to ask that you also find citations to back up our statements? 8-) (I know! Not everyone lives in a theological library! ) CTSWyneken 12:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)--
The only thing I need to worry about now is time. :-) Hopefully I'll be able to post a draft here on the talk page by tonight, but this is going to take a while to sort out each individual thread and angle of the name discussion and put it together in a cogent format. --Steve Caruso 16:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
There are hundreds of explanations as to where the name 'Jesus' came from, and even more explanations as to what the name means. What we do know for sure is that it originates from the Hebrew יהושוע [yehoshua`], which is a theophoric name first mentioned within the Biblical tradition in Exodus 17:8 as one of Moses' companions (and, according to tradition, later successor). Breaking the name down, we see that there are two parts: יהו [yahu], the theophoric reference to the deity Yahweh, and the three letter root שוע. Due to disputes over how to render שוע lexically,[2][3][4][5][6] there are a number of generally accepted phrases this combination can translate to:
"Yahweh saves"
"Yahweh is salvation"
"Yahweh is [my] help"
"Yahweh (is) a saving-cry"
During the Exile to Babylon where the vernacular language of the Jewish people shifted from Hebrew to Aramaic (Jesus' mother tongue), יהושוע [yehoshua`] underwent a morphological change into the form ישוע [yeshua`]. Firstoff, theophoric references, where in Hebrew would usually come in the form of יה [yah] or יהו [yahu], in some dialects of Aramaic were יא [ya'] or י [ye]. This shortening also allowed for some confusion, as the 3rd person imperfect form of שוא [shua`] (to save) is ישוע, allowing the Aramaic name to take on the meaning "He will save." (This perhaps makes sense of the the angel's discussion with Joseph, in the narrative of Matthew, to name Mary's son "Jesus" because "He will save his people from their sins.")[7]
When the New Testament was complied, ישוע [yeshua`] was transliterated into Koine Greek as closely as possible, the result being Ἰησοῦς [iesus]. Where Greek has no equivalent of the semitic, ש [sheen], it was replaced with a σ [sigma], and a masculine singular ending was added. With the range of dialect that existed in 1st Century Judea (especially around Galilee) scholars believe that the final ע [`ayin] was simply dropped altogether. The earliest uses of this transliteration are actually found in the Septuagint and in writings of Philo of Alexandria.
From Greek, Ἰησοῦς [iesus] moved into Latin with the authorship of the Latin Vulgate. The morphological jump this time was not as large as previous changes between language families. Ἰησοῦς [iesus] quickly assimilated into iesusiesus, where it stood for many centuries.
Near the end of Middle English, the vowels changed during the Great Vowel Shift in the 15th century, and the letter 'J' was first distinguished from 'I' by the Frenchman Pierre Ramus in the 16th, but did not become common in Modern English until the 17th century. As such we can see that such works as the first edition of the King James Version of the Bible in 1611 continues to the name with an I. [8]
Finally, after thousands of years and several languages later, the name finally came to rest as the Modern English "Jesus" [ˈdʒi.zəs].
Alright, how's this for a start? I know that I kinda puttered out at the end of it as it is almost 1AM over here. All we'll need to do is pare this down for the mention on this page, and replace what's on the Names and titles of Jesus article. Comments? Questions? Fashion tips? :-) --Steve Caruso 04:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Steve: Looks good to me. I have two minor suggestions. First, I would suggest dropping or qualifying the parenthetical about "Jesus' mother tongue," as there has been some dispute over what the /Languages Spoken by Jesus were. Second, I would suggest using the most common and accurate transliteration of Ἰησοῦς (viz., Iēsous), so that internet and wiki searches won't break. --MonkeeSage 17:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I've added a reference to one of five places in which Philo uses the name to the text at Names and titles of Jesus in the New Testament. I don't have time to copy it here this morn, so if anyone else would like to do this, be my guess. --CTSWyneken 13:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I'm missing the discussion on the name section. If not, I feel that 95% of the information can be cut (and moved to the main articles if it isn't already there). I mean, what do we really have to say here?
The name Jesus is an English transliteration of a Latin romanization (Iēsus) of a Greek name(Ἰησοῦς). Since Jesus was an Aramaic Jew living in Galilee around 30CE, scholars find it highly improbable that he had a Greek name. Further examination of the septuagint finds that the Greek, in turn, is a transliteration of a couple of possible Hebrew names: Yehoshua (יהושוע) or the shortened Yeshua (ישוע). Scholars believe that the name that Jesus was called during his lifetime by his peers was probably one of these.
Case closed, right? Why is there so much detail going into one small section?--Andrew c 23:05, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
I would agree, but there was a long argument between Haldrik and Jayjg over the derivation of the name. That's why I think a qualified liguist should look it over. Definitely most of the details could be moved to subarticles. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 13:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I've been so busy I almost missed this :-) Yes the changes have been made and we're all set to replace. --Steve Caruso 02:09, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
^Some of the historians and Biblical scholars who place the birth and death of Jesus within this range include D. A. Carson, Douglas J. Moo and Leon Morris. An Introduction to the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1992, 54, 56; Michael Grant, Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels, Scribner's, 1977, p. 71; John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew, Doubleday, 1991-, vol. 1:214; E. P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus, Penguin Books, 1993, pp. 10-11, and Ben Witherington III, "Primary Sources," Christian History 17 (1998) No. 3:12-20.
^ Talshir, M. H. Segal, A Grammar of Mishnaic Hebrew (Tel Aviv: 1936), p. 146.
^"שׁוע", Ernest Klein, A Comprehensive Etymological Dictionary of the Hebrew Language (New York: MacMillan Publishing Company 1987)
^Brown, Driver, Briggs, Gesenius, Hebrew and English Lexicon With an Appendix Containing the Biblical Aramaic (Hendrickson, 1985), ISBN0913573205. Cf. Blue Letter Bible, H3442
