This is an archive of past discussions about Jesus. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

←

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

→

Archive 45

Archive and subpage logs

Moved to Archive 39

Moved to Talk:Jesus/Archive 39 - Documentation Report, Archive Report, Final Avery vote and its aftermath, scholars who affirm the Gospel's historicity, viewpoint of a noob Arch O. La 23:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I also moved the rest of this section to Archive 39 ;) Arch O. La^TalkTCF 09:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Archived a whole bunch

Okay, this talk page was getting way too blody long, so I took the following actions

I moved the discussion on Judaism's views to Talk:Jewish views of Jesus/Judaism's views of Jesus. The authors are working to revise that article, and when finished will return here with a summary for this article.
I moved all the sockpuppet stuff to Talk:Jesus/Sockpuppets because it, too, was clogging the page
I archived the tabled Dane Jude/Archola proposal to the archive, as per CTSWyneken's motion.
I created a new page, Talk:Jesus/PR-and-FA, which contains this article's previous peer review and featured article comments. It also includes links to alternate versions (such as Robsteadman's), and comments about these alternate versions. There might be ideas here we can use.

I'm not sure whether the "Moving On" section should be archived. I'll let CTSWyneken make that decision. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 08:52, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

He said okay, so I did. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 18:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Discuss the third paragraph.
Discussion has been untabled and is ongoing.
1. Motion to move discussion of virgin birth to later in the article has not been challenged.
2. Salvation is being discussed
3. John 3:16 is being discussed.
Discuss the rest of the article.

Paragraph 3

Content moved to Talk:Jesus/Christian_views_in_intro.

Other Stuff

Help with Miracles of Jesus article

Copied from Talk:Historical Jesus: Arch O. La 18:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that the Critical scholarship and the miracles of Jesus section of the Miracles of Jesus article needs some work. I am asking editors of the Historical Jesus for help. I have attempted to rework the section a bit, but would like someone more familiar with Biblical criticism to give it a once over. I'd appreciate any help! --Andrew c 18:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I think some of the documentation we've been working on here may help. Arch O. La 18:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

copy edit

I've done a careful copyedit of the whole document, supplying all requested references and mostly fixing things like comma errors. At least, as the new round of edits begins, we have a clean text to start with. One problem I was not able to fix is with the footnotes. The clustered footnotes at the beginning cause all later footnotes to be misnumbered. Someone who understands Wiki footnotes better than I will have to fix that. Rick Norwood 01:05, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Calm

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Arch O. La | TCF member 04:50, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Aw man, does that mean no cursing, screaming like a banshee and hopping up and down like a man with his pants afire? :) Jim62sch 22:22, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank would be -- Yes. ;-) --CTSWyneken 00:03, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, no "cursing, screaming like a banshee and hopping up and down like a man with his pants afire." How about badmouthing (not quite cursing), shouting like an irate drill sergeant, and hopping up and down like a man who needs desperately to find some compatable plumbing? :D Justin Eiler 01:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Prob'ly not. Unless its a voice of moderation! 8-) --CTSWyneken 03:59, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I put the note here after the latest vote attempt collapsed, and after a month and a half of unproductive debate. Voting irregularities aside, the final vote was 19-17, hardly a clear consensus. As for myself, I do not want to get trapped in another hypersphere of Hell with transfinite dimensions (that's hyperbole over the "voting is evil" line.) Arch O. La ^Talk TCF 03:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

1st paragraph and date issue

BC/BCE-AD/CE

Reverted this morning to retain negotiated text and BC/BCE-AD/CE agreement. See talk:Jesus/2nd Paragraph Debate for details of former. --CTSWyneken 11:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

My own opinion is to allow the people who go through Wikipedia changing BC to BCE and the people who go through changing BCE to BC free reign. It keeps them off the street, and the devil makes work for idle hands. Rick Norwood 14:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

But if we let them on the street then the citizens will probably start rioting, and if the devil can make work for idle hands, imagine how much work he can make for a mass mob of angry people :/. Homestarmy 15:47, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I think this whole AD/CE thing is silly anyway. As I've said before, Christians do not worship the calandar, and non-Christians do not take offense at the Norse days of the week or the Roman months! At least, I haven't heard anyone objecting to the the fact that this month is dedicated to the god of war. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 16:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

No-one worships the Norse gods any more, but Christian world-view, worship of Jesus, and proselytism, is omnipresent in Western countries. That likely accounts for the different reactions. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

In otherwords all those opposing AD/BC are "jealous" of Christianity simply due to its prominence in Western culture? That's hardly a reason to discriminate against Christianity over Norse tradition, Jay. CrazyInSane 21:14, 6 March 2006 (UTC).

Please don't attribute strawman arguments to me, thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think jealous is the right word; pressured to acknowledge something they don't believe in is more like it. Remember, the Romans were completely astonished that Christians would die horrid deaths rather than put a pinch of incense on the altar of Caesar and say "Caesar is Lord." It is a small thing to allow CE and BCE to be used to lessen the in-your-face nature of the issue, and to make peace in the wiki. There is wisdom in the decision of the community on this front, IMHO.

By the way, does anyone know the wikilink to the guideline or policy that states this? --CTSWyneken 21:26, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

You bash AD/BC but, honestly, do you or anyone else (that has come forward) have any problem with the terms January (Roman theology) or Gregorian calendar? Though the term "Common era" replaces "Christian/Anno Domini era", the term "Gregorian calendar" (from Pope Gregory of the Catholic church) is for some reason unaltered for secular purpose. Why is there no "Common Calendar" but theres a "Common Era"? Not to mention that "AD/BC" simply is used to DESCRIBE events before/after the rough lifetime of Jesus; "Gregorian calendar" asserts that the everyday calendar we use belongs to Pope Gregory. CrazyInSane 21:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC).

Oh, by the way. It took a long time for everyone to accept the Gregorian Calendar. Russia held on to the extra days until the Communist revolution. --CTSWyneken 21:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Bash is too strong a word, here. I'm just explaining the emotional reaction of many (not all) non-Christians. I have no feeling one way or the other, as a Christian theologian, on labeling the eras. As you said, we live with the rest of the chronological termenology and do not give it a second thought. We've given up citing dates by the church year. (when did you last date a letter, "On the Feast of the Transfiguation 2006."

The main thing here is not to confuse readers. Both systems are in use in Biblical Studies. The wiki decision to use both systems helps people know what's going on. --CTSWyneken 21:48, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed that both the "AD/BC" and "CE/BCE" systems should be used within Wikipedia— "CE/BCE" being used for non-Christian religious articles and possibly other neutral articles —"AD/BC" being used for Christian religious articles and some neutral ones. However, I strongly disagree that "CE/BCE" should be in any way used at the JESUS page–its even more ridiculous that both systems are used together here (ie 123 BC/BCE)— that is just bulky and confusing CrazyInSane 21:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC).

Well we could vote again over the system, but i'd want to wait a couple more weeks considering the horse has long ago been beaten several times over this to my knowladge, and you can only beat a dead horse so fast you know? Homestarmy 02:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I would rather not vote on ANYTHING for a while... 8-) Seriously, I think we should respect the consensus here and in the wiki as a whole. Not to do this is to invite endless argument. --CTSWyneken 02:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee has ruled more than once that arbitrarily attempting to switch articles from one notation to another (e.g. BCE->BC) is disruptive, and grounds for sanctions. This particular page has, by consensus, reached a specific compromise regarding date notation, that it will incorporate both. The compromise has been confirmed several times, and it certainly won't be put up to a new vote every week, as unfamiliar editors suddenly discover the page. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Jay, is there an online report of the Arbitration Committee's findings in one of these instances? If so, could we have a wikilink to it? If so, I'll politely refer people to it when it comes back up again. --CTSWyneken 02:16, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/jguk_2 and Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Sortan for a couple of relevant cases. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:50, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! I considered this matter settled and will refer people to this when I revert to enforce it. --CTSWyneken 02:05, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I think CTSWYneken was right, we do need a FAQ. I'm getting tired of saying "RTF talk page" or "RTF archives." Arch O. La^TalkTCF 20:03, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Jesus born (6 BC/BCE-6 AD/CE) ... 6 AD/CE?!

Another contributor, CrazyInSane, has edited the range of dates for Jesus's birth without discussion. On the other hand, he is simply "Wiki editing" to make sure the dates here in the Jesus article agree with the dates arrived at in Chronology of Jesus article. Personally, I don't think any Israeli archeologist could even contemplate the late date of 6 CE for Jesus's birth. I haven't examined the Chronology of Jesus article yet to see how the argument handles conflicting information. Anyway, how do you guys want to handle CrazyInSane's Wiki editing. It does conflict with the dates arrived at in the Jesus article, being 8-2 BCE. --Haldrik 23:10, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

We've been gathering evidence for scholarly opinion on the dates of Jesus' life at Talk:Jesus/Dates of Birth and Death. This will take time to complete, but I have two observations: most scholars seem to go with 5-6 BC/BCE, while some go as early as 12 BCE/BC and some as late as 2-1 BCE/BC. We can go two ways: try to catalog all dates proposed by scholars in the field (8-2 BC/BCE) or state 5-6 and relate that there's a variety of opinion in the footnote. I thought we'd pretty much decided to go with the former, in which case we shoud say 12-1 BC/BCE. Thoughts? --CTSWyneken 23:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Err, it looks like we double posted about this heh. But like I said below, the source cited in the edit summary's is, quite frankly, pretty bogus looking, never mind scholarly. Homestarmy 23:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

It should be 6BCE to 4CE Jim62sch 00:29, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I thought we agreed on like 8 BC as the first date, something about us finding a bunch of historians and quoting them all to fit ideas into the widest range feasibly possible? :/ Homestarmy 00:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm still gathering evidence and you all can help by adding to Talk:Jesus/Dates of Birth and Death. Not every source I've documented is here (some of it was in the note summarily dismissed by the user who edited it). I believe that I've seen arguments from scholars ranging from 12 BC/BCE to 1-2 BC/BCE. Most agree the majority place the date at 5-4 BC/BCE. Why don't we leave it at 8-2 for now, gather more opinions and come hack to it later. --CTSWyneken 02:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

New Dates

I think Crazyjane or someone changed the dates, the source cited in the reference summary seems to rely all it's evidence solely on Josephus, and then goes on to note that because of how 2 of the books of the gospel somehow contradict each other on these timelines, that Jesus apparently could never of logically been born by Biblical standards. This seems very POV, and most certainly is erasing the dates we settled upon for, let's face it, an extremely biased source (I didn't really read far into it before I knew it was ridiculous, read it for yourself if you like). And hey, if the Jesus-myth department can slam Josephus, so can I, if people really think he's that reliable, why can we not use him to say that Jesus was notable yet the other side can use him to start throwing down weird dates? Should those dates be changed back? :: See above under the BC/BCE section. But, wait, did you say whoever destroyed my references Homestarmy 23:22, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

in this process? That's hours of work and it wrecks the references in the second note. Does anyone mind if I put the footnote back? --CTSWyneken 23:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if they messed up the citation but the dates were not only changed, the citation provided in the edit summary was, quite frankly, bogus, and certaintly not scholarly looking in the slightest. Homestarmy 23:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying not to loose my temper -- difficult to do so when hours of my work have been undone -- but I do not think the editor realizes he did this. I've left a note for him on his talk page. Hopefully, he will stop by. --CTSWyneken 23:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

What surprised me is that's Darwiner's new username, even before he says he was a Christian, he was pretty well into defending articles about Christianity, we got into this discussion over December 25 and then I guess he vanished (By the way, we just lost the Christ in Christmas in there, could use some help to get it back, ain't POV in the slighest when you've already mentioned Christmas....hmmph). He gave me a bunch of interesting links about Near Death experiences which he says convinced him of Christianity, but the source he's cited in his edit summary, it's pretty anti-Christianity. Dunno what the deal with that is, im a bit bamboozeld. Homestarmy 23:44, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

To save your hours of work, CTSWyneken, just revert back to the version you did, if the new dates are bogus. Josephus is a two edged sword. But the footnotes need work, because the numbers in the text don't agree with the numbers on the notes themselves. This is because the first two footnotes cite more than one book. I tried to fix it when I did my copyedit, but don't know enough about Wiki footnotes. I hope somebody here does. Rick Norwood 00:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

If no objections appear before morning, I'll do that. Can we work at documenting it in the dates subpage? Then we can decide how we wish to adjust the visible dates. --CTSWyneken 02:26, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

The skeptic's view of Jesus

This article says a great deal about the way Jesus is viewed in various religions, but almost nothing about the non-religious view of Jesus. Do you think that it is possible to include non-religious views in this article? Rick Norwood 17:17, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure! Maybe our resident Agnostics and Atheists can take the lead, here. --CTSWyneken 17:19, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm still waiting to hear the non-religious philosophical views... Arch O. La^TalkTCF 17:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

First, the second paragraph presents the non-religious view. Second, most human beings do not believe Jesus existed; non-belief does not signify belonging in or constituting a group, it only signifies that you do not belong to one particular group. Third, people who actively believe that Jesus never existed - i.e. who self-consciously form a group of non-believers -would necessarily have nothing to say about him. (look at it this way: most people do not believe that there was a Anna Karenina. Should their "views" be included in the Anna Karenina article? I think not. Of course, literary critics have a lot to say about Anna Karenina. They happen not to believe that she was a real human being. But their lack of belief is not the reason they have views that should be represented in the article). They would however have something to say about the Historicity of Jesus, and that is where their views belong. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

There is history, and then there is philosophy. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 17:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

From what I've read we generally fall into two camps - jesus didn't exist which is covered in the second paragraph or he did exist and was a good (not divine) person which is currently covered in the "other views" section. So I'm not quite sure what more could be added apart from references to the "other views" section which I will do if wanted. Most atheists are critical of christianity which is not the subject of this article so does not belong here. I'm sure I could add something to the christianity article if the same invite was issued there! SOPHIA 17:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The big problem with presenting the philosophy of skeptics is that--unlike Jews, Christians, and Muslims--"Skeptics" are not a monolithic group. Well, let me be more accurate: Jews, Christians, and Muslims are not monolithic groups, but they can at least be categorized conveniently. There is no single "skeptical view"--indeed, I'm given to understand that if you ask twelve skeptics what they believe about Jesus, you're likely to get at least fifteen answers. Justin Eiler 17:49, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

So you (Justin) agree with my second point? I am glad. As for Archola, I honestly do not understand your point. If you were responding to something I wrote, I have to ask you to spell it out for me. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 17:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Eh ... I personally would just say "most of the world's population has not heard of Jesus in any substantive way"--but the problem there is I have no hard statistics to back up my claim. I'm fairly sure that most of the world has not read the Bible, and quite certain that most people (including most Christians) haven't considered historicity critically. Justin Eiler 18:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

most of the world has not heard of Jesus? -[world map of religions] - [Pie Chart of world Religions]

I just think that "empathy with some of the moral principles" could be expanded, if not here than in a subarticle. At one point the title of the "Religious perspectives on Jesus" article was changed to "Religious and other perspectives on Jesus," but I pointed out that the 2nd title was broad enough that it made no distinction from this main article! Oh, and I'm sure skeptics can be categorized by philosophy.

Slburstein, aside from the question of historicity, there are also those skeptics who analyize the sayings attributed to Jesus using various schools of philosophy. Ethics is a major one from what I've seen. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 17:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC) PS: Since you brought up Anna Karenina, I'd like to point out Jack Miles' literary analysis of the character of Jesus in the New Testament: Christ: A Crisis in the Life of God. This is a sequal to his literary analysis of God in the OT/Tanakh: God: A Biography. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 18:00, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Well - if I now understand you correctly - even here the existence of Jesus is not the issue. If I understand you correctly, people may agree that someone asserted belief in certain claims, including ethical ones, and these claims (to what extent they were original and to what extent they were typical) can be understood in terms of the context (cultural, political, economic) in which people, whoever they were, made these claims. No argument from me. But you are still talking about beliefs of early Christians. What I mean is, even if Jesus did not exist, we do know that there are certain things at least a significant group of people called Christians believed in the second century. Okay, this is interesting and can and should be analyzed in terms of its context. Still, I would expect such analysis - analysis that disregards or discounts the existence of Jesus - would belong in an article on Christianity or early Christianity and not an article on Jesus. Or do I still misunderstand you? I am trying to be more precise: instead of saying "teachings attributed to Jesus" which waffles on whether Jesus actually taught them, we are really considering "teachings accepted by Christians" which I do not think anyone can contest no matter what they believe concerning Jesus's or God's existence. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I've just read your comment on AK. Would you suggest a section on "Jesus as a literary trope?" Slrubenstein | Talk 18:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how widespread a literary analysis of scripture is beyond Miles. There is an article on dramatic/fictional portrayals of Jesus, and another on Jesus on pop culture, so the literary trope is being explored there. On your first point, some make a distinction between Jesus' teaching and Christianity (Paul plays a major part here). An analogy may be that some make a distinction between the Socratic Method (which is mentioned in the Socrates article) and Platonic Idealism. There is a "life and teachings" section to the Jesus article that has been analyzed in terms of relgion and history but not, I think, philosophy. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 18:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I guess, as a Christian, I'm very interested in seeing a ____ views of Jesus section for at least every major tradition or movement that has one. It's away of answering Jesus' question, "Who do people say that I am?" --CTSWyneken 21:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Amen. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 23:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Bible as Literature

I keep getting reverted, so I'll bring it here. Having taken a bible as literature course, I am deeply fascinated by the subject. So I want to add this page to a category detailing people as charecters in a book... closest I found was charecters in fiction. If there is a less inflammatory category, please tell me, and that will be fine, but I want to tag this into some sort of category with famous figures in literature. -137.229.197.141 19:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

By the way, it would help if you register as a user and sign in. --CTSWyneken 21:08, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Closest I can see is Category:Biblical People. ^ross ^nixon 19:23, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Bible as literature? Besides Jack Miles, who was taught in that class? Arch O. La^TalkTCF 21:02, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I've taught a version of this, too. Could we create a catagory for histories and historical fiction? --CTSWyneken 21:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Ahem, it's not historical fiction -____- Homestarmy 21:58, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Clearly, The Bible as Literature does not belong here. Also, I don't think taking a single course on the subject is enough background to write an article. But, it is an interesting subject, and there should be a Bible as literature article. One thing that comes to mind that could be used in such an article is C. S. Lewis's opinion that because the Bible is unlike any other ancient writing, it must be inspired by God. He did not, however, believe that the Bible is inerrant, only that it is unique for its time. Rick Norwood 23:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

No, it's history. Notice the "and." Arch O. La^TalkTCF 23:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Archie picked it up. The Bible is a history and one that is written with high literary quality. For example, you could take a biography of Martin Luther and make a movie of it. When describing the movie, you might talk about the character of Martin Luther or the story line. That's the literary quality of the work. If we want to find an appropriate category to talk about this, we need something that talks about historical figures as literary characters. --CTSWyneken 00:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the Bible as literature is not pertinant here. Also, I do not know of any literary studies of the New Testament. Nevertheless, looking at "the Bible" as literature is quite common - Robert Alter and Frank Kermode coedited a book along this line, and Alter has written books on Biblical narrative and Biblical poetry. Tangential to this article; I just wanted to register that it is a well-established way of looking at the Bible. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I know of at least one study of the New Testament as literature and vaguely remember the new method called "Reader Response Criticism" takes it up. --CTSWyneken 14:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Again I mention Jack Miles. He won a pullizer for God:A Biography. His Christ: a Crisis in the Life of God is a literary study of the character of Jesus in the NT, as a man, as the Christ/Messiah, and as the Son of God incarnate. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 15:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that that is/was the main point raised here... to some, he is simply a character in a book. To others he is the son of god most known for a retelling of his actions in a book. Either way some way to categorize this page as dealing with a person in a book seems to be right to me, and I can't really see why anyone at all would get worked up over it, provided we don't use one so perjogative as the original 'in fiction' cat. -AKMask 18:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Isn't there a "Biblical characters" or "Biblical people" category? Wouldn't that work? KHM03 ^(talk) 18:21, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

There is a category for "Biblical people" and a subcategory for "New Testament people." There is also an infracategory for "Jesus"—which this article already belongs to. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 18:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Skeptic, part two

I seem not to have made myself clear. Let me sketch out what I mean.

Anyone who views Jesus without faith will see a preacher of peace and love, who taught rights for women in children in a way far in advance of his time, who was angered by the hypocrisy of the religious leaders and the greed of the rich, who was killed by the Romans for fear he would cause unrest among the Jews.

We know nothing about Jesus's early years except what is reported in Matthew and Luke, who contradict one another. Matthew, in particular, distorts Jewish genealogy to satisfy what amounts to numerology and tells many stories that are clearly made up to fulfill prophesy. For example, if Herod had really killed a lot of babies, you can be sure there would be contemporary accounts.

Jesus never claimed to be God, never mentioned the trinity, never talked about his youth or childhood, and predicted that the end of the world would occur within the lifetime of his listeners.

There are no accounts of his resurrection except in the gospels, and they contradict one another.

That's a very rough outline of what all non-religious people and many educated religious people believe.

Rick Norwood 00:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

You have a valid point, imo. It seems there should be some sort of skeptic/agnostic perspective section. The only challenge would be to properly cite various common skeptic perspectives with authoritive sources, especially given the broad category of people. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 00:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't we already have such a section? If these ideas can be verified as being a general sort of consensus or even just a majority, even just by a little, then by all means, put their beliefs into the section. Homestarmy 00:41, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

A very small section. Rick's point is similar to the point I've raised four times now (at least), about the secular portrait of Jesus as a philosopher of ethics. Other nonreligious philosophical viewpoints should also be considered. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 00:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Since there seems to be some agreement, now the hard work begins -- finding sources. I remember someone citing a Catholic source that basically agreed with much of the above -- but now I can't find it. There is The Bible Seminar, obviously. I know there are others, but we would need to find at least half a dozen books that were in substantial agreement. Does anyone know of some? Rick Norwood 13:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The gospels are historically wrong in the sense that they contradict known history (there was no tradition of freeing a prisoner on the passover, Herod did not murder large numbers of children), contradict the old testament (Matthew's geneology of Jesus), contradict one another (when was Jesus crucified relative to the passover; what were his last words), and contradict themselves (John has Jesus say that he and the father are one and later say that the father is greater than he). This leaves aside the many contradictions between the gospel account of Jesus and modern Christianity's account of Jesus. Rick Norwood 13:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

You do realize many of those things have been answered for a very long time, right? :/ Homestarmy 13:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course. If that were not the case, I would be proposing original research, which I very much want to avoid. Rick Norwood 14:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I still do not see what the issue is here. Sources? Look at the paragraph we have been discussing. Sanders, Vermes, and Fredricksen all write about Jesus along the lines Rick Norwood is raising, and they are the core of the group of scholars the second paragraph refers to. Their works are in the bibliography. This article is already among the longest at Wikipedia and long ago we decided that "Jesus" could only be covered in an NPOV way through several linked articles. We have two articles that focus exclusively on this point of view: Historicity of Jesus and Cultural and historical background of Jesus. Rick, if you want sources, I suggest you start with Vermes and then move on to either Sanders (which I think is a little more accessible/popular) or Fredricksen. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Just for the record, there are also scholars, among them Paul Maier, N. T. Wright and D. A. Carson that maintain the Bible, incl. the New Testament, is a fairly decent historical source. All I ask is that we represent both of these perspectives. As SL points out, this is best done in keeping the Jesus article a summary (and the intro a summary of that summary) and let the full details be flushed out in subarticles. --CTSWyneken 14:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

To repeat myself: 2 articles -- 1 Historical, 1 Theological -- works well in German. In fact the German theological article is quite long [1]. Stops all the squabbling. You get the historical version, which I've already partially translated, and then all the theological stuff. It's really pretty neat. And logical. And avoids the squabbling (or at least most is kept to the peaceful page -- the theological one). Jim62sch 20:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

We already have 2 (and more!) articles, but a good main article will summarize both Jesus in history and Jesus in religion, and for that matter Jesus in philosophy if anyone ever takes up that suggestion. There are, in fact, some well-written theological articles on Wikipedia; it's when we cross theologies that we run into problems, because some people fear being general. Hey, we're supposed to be discussing Jesus in Christianity, not merely Jesus in Lutheranism or Jesus in Catholicsm or Jesus in Anglicanism or Jesus in Methodism or Jesus in the Syrian Orthodox Church or Jesus in the Church of Latter Say Saints or Jesus in any other denomination! As Paul of Tarsus asked, is Christ divided?

However, if Jim's right, then Historical Jesus may become a featured article before the main article is. I did post a link to Jim's translation there because I thought it might help that article. On the other hand, SOPHIA has already noted the rather artificial distinction between Historicity of Jesus (sources, metholodology and analysis) and Historical Jesus (the conclusions based on this historicity). Work needs to be done there as well as here. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 20:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

PS: Jim, that theological article you cite looks similar to our New Testament view on Jesus' life. I was one of the people who suggested that article be merged with Christian views of Jesus, but the proposal went nowhere. Jim, since you've done the work of translating the German historical article, perhaps you could use that to help heal Historicity of Jesus and Historical Jesus? Then you can come back to this article with a summary, much like the people wo are working on Judaism's view of Jesus are doing. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 20:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

OK. Let's see where we get. We have too many articles on Jesus at the moment, and they run all over the place. Something tells me it could be a while before all of this is straightened out. Jim62sch 00:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

What we are working on here is the idea that there are two truths. One, the higher truth, is the religious truth, and that belongs in the main article. The other, the secular truth, should be in a separate article. I do not like this concept. The main article should briefly mention all major views, with links to more specialized articles. I agree that we have too many articles on Jesus. But I do think that the main article should have a brief mention of the non-religious view. I've been working on one, and I appreciate the suggestions for sources to use, but for it to survive, every idea in it is going to need at least one and preferably several sources. And it has got to be very short, with a link to the longer Historical Jesus article. Can these conflicting needs all be met. I don't know. We shall see. Rick Norwood 00:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I don't see anyone arguing that, for the purposes of Wikipedia, that religious viewpoints should trump non-religious ones or the reverse. What we need to do is represent all scholarly views, which I think we're close to doing in the intro.

I'd love to step back from the details at some point and outline this article and its related ones. Perhaps we could look at the way Encyclopedia Britannica and one or two others handle the topic. --CTSWyneken 02:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I already have an outline of articles; but perhaps you meant something more detailed? Arch O. La^TalkTCF 06:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll look. But let's table it now to get through the Hebrew name and the date issues first. I really do have to do other things today. --CTSWyneken 11:19, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I still do not understand Rick Norwood's view. He writes, "But I do think that the main article should have a brief mention of the non-religious view." The fact is, we already have such a mention. Indeed, it is the entire second paragraph. I do not see how providing this vie win the second paragraph in some way "excludes" this view from the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the second paragraph mentions that a small minority of scholors doubt that Jesus existed. This is not the view I am talking about. A large majority of secular historians, and many religious historians, agree that Jesus existed, but offer evidence that he was a very different person from the one described in 90% of this article. (By the bye, can someone point me to the liberal Catholic writer mentioned much earlier in this discussion. I can't seem to find that reference. It was about a group of Jews asking Catholics to explain contradictions in the gospels.)

I wish Archola well in his effort to put some sort of structure on the Wiki articles on Jesus. It seems clear to me that there should be a shorter main article, which gives roughly equal weight to the various major ideas, with links to more specialized articles. Rick Norwood 14:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Rick, the view of critical historians is clearly presented in the paragraph: "A large majority of critical Bible scholars and historians hold that Jesus was a Jewish Galilean teacher and healer who debated with the Pharisees and other authorities." This is a consise statement of what critical scholars agree about, and there is a footnote with citations. It is true that most of this article elaborates the Gospel view. But I wouldn't say 90% - there are two sections with links to Historicity of Jesus and Cultural and historical background of Jesus which do not provide the Gospel view at all and elaborate on the views held by critical scholars. These linked articles used to be part of this one, but that made the article too long for most browsers. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's hard to keep up when people keep archiving so much, but the link is in Archive 39. Here it is again: Catholic response to Judaism's questions. Slbubestein, I think Rick is talking less about historicity than he is about the view of Jesus as a philosopher of ethics ahead of his time—which is only mentioned 'very briefly' in the "other views" section. I think the view of Jesus as a philosopher has not been fully explored. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 16:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Archola. Rick Norwood 17:27, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Rick, if this is what you meant, then I have to say I agree with you. You did bring up historians, which is why I thought you were talking about views on historicity or the historical Jesus. If you mean non-Christian interpretations of Jesus' teachings, this is still in part a historical question because the only sources we have are the Gospels. That said, if you are talking about interpretations that are less about what Jesus "really" thought and did, and rather about different, not necessarily religious, ways that certain teachings of Jesus as presented in the Gospels have influenced people, well, oaky, I do agree that this is under-represented and worth researching. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:12, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. To wit, all the main article says on this perspective is "Many Humanists, Atheists and Agnostics, whilst rejecting the concept of God, and therefore of the divinity of Christ, nevertheless have empathy with some of the moral principles taught in the New Testament." Isn't there more to say? There appears to be no subarticle on this subject. Perhaps someone should create Philosophical perspectives on Jesus or some such? Arch O. La^TalkTCF 21:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd love to have such a section, but I'm not sure there's enough clear "schools" of skeptical thought regarding Jesus to make such an section practical. Justin Eiler 21:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

At one point such a section was added to Religious perspectives on Jesus, which was then (briefly) renamed "Religious and other perspectives on Jesus." I thought "Religious and philosophical perspectives on Jesus" would have been a better title, but it's a moot point now that the nonreligious perspective has been removed from that article. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 21:31, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Another point is that some of the sources Robsteadman provided were philosophers rather than proper historians. I see historicity as distinct from philosophy, though of course they overlap (for example. the nonexistance hypothesis crosses historicity with Skepticism). However, Philosophy of Ethics is a separate school from Skepticism. There may be other relevant schools of philosophy. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 21:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I sure would appreciate help in documenting Rob's list in third note on paragraph two... They are hard to source. --CTSWyneken 19:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I mean, alot of that stuff looks easy enough to find information for, if the debate over what is and is not the popular view will continue for awhile, I think we might as well look up citations for what we have right now. Homestarmy 17:06, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

There were two references given for the Skeptics' view; see #Sources of skeptacism regarding Jesus. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 18:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

But do just those 2 references cover everything in that paragraph and are they listed as references already? Homestarmy 20:03, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph is both brief and unsourced. All it says is, "Many Humanists, Atheists and Agnostics, whilst rejecting the concept of God, and therefore of the divinity of Christ, nevertheless have empathy with some of the moral principles taught in the New Testament." Arch O. La^TalkTCF 21:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Well even though it is pretty vauge, im sure we could find plenty of examples of it to cite :/. Homestarmy 15:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I suspect such people see Jesus much as they see Socrates. They would say, maybe Jesus existed as a man, and maybe Jesus didn't, but that's not important. They would say, what is important is the ideas attributed to Jesus. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 20:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's something else to consider. The historical Jesus and the Biblical Jesus are different concepts. However, they're closely related. The historical Jesus is reconstructed from the Biblical Jesus and from what else we know about that time and place. This is the province of historians. The Biblical Jesus is the province of philosophers of religion. Some of these argue for the Jesus-Myth. The more cautious say that there may have been a real historical Jesus who is probably different from the Biblical Jesus. The less cautious argue for the nonexistence hypothesis.

Think about this: what would people say in 3959 if the only extant records of David Koresh are from Branch Davidians? In that case there would be no absolute proof. There was a real historical David Koresh, but Branch Davidians saw him as the Lamb of God and await the Second Coming of Koresh. OTOH, the Boogeyman is entirely urban legend. How would the people in 3959, so remote from our time, be able to tell that David Koresh was not as much of a myth as the Boogeyman?

I think all this talk of the Jesus-Myth is obscuring the fact that the Jesus-Myth school is just a subset of opinion in the field of the philosophy of religion, which in turn is a subset of philosophy. We have brief mentions of the Jesus-Myth school and the Ethicist school, but I wonder how well we are portraying the various philosophical views of Jesus. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 05:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I just want to cite stuff so it qualifies for FA status heh :D Homestarmy 15:48, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that those with a purely secular philosophical view either see Jesus as good like Socrates, bad like David Koresh, or somewhere in between. The reference to Koresh was also my parable about the Jesus-Myth.

Actually, Rick's got some excellent stuff on his talk page. It may need to be edited, but here it is: User_talk:Rick_Norwood#Jesus. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 18:55, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

(posted on Rick's talk page) "To me, what Rick wrote is quite good, as well as quite likely rather true. However, Arch has a very real point as well. Nonetheless, the very real question comes down to a point I raised about a week or so ago: the Jesus article has, for all intents and purposes become the Jesus Christ article. A decision needs to be made as to whether that is really the best course of action, or if you wish to return to FA status, whether you should create a more historical article." Jim62sch 16:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not exactly either, nor should it be. We have separate articles for both. Here, history, theology (not just Christianity) and art are all important. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 17:44, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Yet another point I found in Q document:

Basing their reconstructions primarily on the Gospel of Thomas and the oldest layer of Q, they propose that Jesus functioned as a wisdom sage more analogous to a Greek Cynic philosopher than to a Jewish rabbi.

From the article it's unclear whether "they" is referring to the Jesus Seminar or other "recent seekers of the Historical Jesus." If someone can find and cite sources on this, well, this definitely fits in with the philosophical views of Jesus. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 19:50, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course, Theists can also have a philosophical view of Jesus, If the reviews are any guide, than Garry Wills' What Jesus Meant makes the case that Jesus' moral teachings are different than what the Christian church has become. If so, then I believe Will's book will work well here.Arch O. La^TalkTCF 16:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, technically speaking, everyone has some sort of philosophy, even when it is unavowed/undiscerned, and there are specifically Christian philosophers (e.g., Van Til, Dooeyweerd, Vollenhoven, Hegel, Kierkegaard, Plantinga, Swinburne, Hasker, Basinger, Craig). But I understand what you're getting at about a philosophical view of Jesus. This section definitely needs some work on expansion / sourcing. I don't think I'm the one to do it however. Ideally someone who holds to that school of thought and is familiar with the sources could do it. --MonkeeSage 17:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Rick Norwood mentioned Skepticism. I'm thinking more of Ethicism and Philosophy of Religion, especially those that draw a distinction between Jesus' moral teachings on the one hand and Christianity on the other. I also found an analogy to Cynicism, but as I said I'm not sure who is making that analogy. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 17:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Sources of skeptacism regarding Jesus

New Form of 2nd Paragraph Restored

I have restored the new form of the paragraph as agreed on at talk:Jesus/2nd Paragraph Debate Please discuss there before reverting or changing. Thanks! --CTSWyneken 23:18, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The German FEATURED Article

I'm not done yet -- I fact I have a good bit to go -- but this is where I am so far with the translation requested by Arch: User:Jim62sch/German-English_Jesus. To me, this is a far better article -- it avoids the 80 billion religious debates that are causing this article to tread water. Jim62sch 00:59, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

80,000,000,000 debates? Is that like the 9,000,000,000 names of God? Arch O. La^TalkTCF 01:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Pretty much. ;) Jim62sch 01:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Either I can't read, (Hey, sometimes I just plain forget :/.) or that is one skeptical POV article, What was up with that "Most things in the Gospels aren't historically accurate" comment? How do they try and prove that? Homestarmy 01:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Miracles are not reproducable, so how do we establish their historicity, Homes?

As I suspected, this is more like our Historical Jesus article than this one. They have a separate Jesus Christ article which I assume is about Chrisitian perspectives of Jesus. Do they have an article like this one, which is meant to synthesize all perspectives? Arch O. La^TalkTCF 01:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Homes, it's a historical article, the purposae of which is to present the facts without the religious baggage. The religious article on Jesus adds the religious perspective -- that is how it should be. That is also why the German article is featured -- it is historical. This article will never be featured.

Additionally, while you as a self-profesed fundamentalist will swear that everything in the Bible is the true historical word of God, many, many other Christians do not se this to be the case. There's much more to Christianity than just the Fundamentalist view. In fact, it is the dogmatic beliefs you've espoused that have this article all wrapped-around-the-axle re John 3:16, and other issues.

Sorry if you find that a bit strong, but it's my analysis after having watched this page for a bit of time. Jim62sch 01:27, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Never say never. It's unscientific! 8-)

Seriously, thanks for translating the German article. When the new term settles a bit, I'll read it.

I'm one of those fundie-like folk on this subject, but also something of a historian. (I have one scholarly history article in print). I would submit that it is impossible to write history without being influenced by one's biases. We are inclined to take the Bible (we would say, God) at its word. Secular historians are influenced by empiricism and rationalism to rule out anything that cannot be seen, heard, touched, smelled or tasted. So, for example, we will take the strong evidence of an empty tomb and see it as a sign that Jesus rose from the dead, they will take it as a historical mystery that we lack data to solve.

So, what can you do in an article where fundies and skeptics must work together? We report the various scholarly views and why they are taken. We say, the Gospels, Paul of Tarsus and the Mishnah report the tomb was empty. The gospels proclaiming Jesus to have risen from death and the Mishnah the Jesus' disciples had stolen his body.

Fair enough? --CTSWyneken 01:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I think im being mis-understood, the german article wasn't saying that most of the miracles in the Gospels were historically wrong, it was saying most of the Gospels were wrong historically period, it didn't go into specifics, so I assume it meant almost everything. If it was saying miracles couldn't be proven, that's one thing, but to say not only that they were 'obviously' historically innacurate along with the vast majority of the rest of the Gospels which are not dedicated solely to miracles goes even farther than the Jesus Seminar went, which was a heavily conflicted project to begin with if I remember, so that article looks pretty ridiculous not just from a fundamentalist perspective, but from a common sense one as well. It looked like it was trying to say things are historically innacurate for basically no reason at all that I could see, but if your not done translating, I guess I could wait and see if you find a citation or something. Homestarmy 02:33, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi

No! This is a misunderstanding: the German article does not state: that they were 'obviously' historically innacurate .

It says that

They contain virtually no accurate historical data,...

Which is different. For example the gospels do not give the exact date of birth and death and other events.

Oub 16:05, 7 March 2006 (UTC):

Jim62sch has not finished translating the article, so don't jump to conclusions. As KHM03 has said, there is a lot that is in the Bible that cannot be supported historically, and for Christians this must be accepted on faith. It not that historical analysis says the NT is wrong; rather, there is much in the NT that historical analysus cannot comment on. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 06:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Jim62sch, if you get a chance, could you also translate the German "Jesus Christ" article? I think it might set Homestarmy's mind at ease. I also agree with CTSWyneken about reporting all relevant scholarly views. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 06:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've cross-posted the link to Jim62sch's translation to Talk:Historical Jesus. BTW, the Spanish Wikipedia is the other way around from the German one: Jesús de Nazaret is largely about religion, while Referencias históricas sobre Jesús de Nazaret covers other historical sources. (However, they are working to expand their main Jesus article). We may be the only Wikipedia that tries to cover both religion and historicity in the same article!

As to whether one can be NPOV about religion…well, there is always sociology. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 06:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

The German article on the religious Jesus will be easier to translate as it is written in simpler German, and is shorter, so yes, I'll get to that.

In the long run, I think having two separate articles might be best. One just for a true historical viewpoint, the other were everyone can argue umtil the first or second coming (depends on your perspective) regarding John 3:16, and the need to accept Jesus as a personal saviour, etc. At that point, though, I'd suggest more than just a few atheists, and agnostic, a fundamentalist, two Lutherans (both Missouri Synod?), a Catholic etc. Open it up to the whole world of Christendom.

Homes, for the life of me, I cannot figure out why the statements that tick you off do so. If your faith is strong enough, (since that is what is required to believe in a virgin birth, various miracles, resurrection, etc.) why should anything critical bother you?

Anyway, I'll be getting more of the German article done this week -- and I'll squeeze the other German article in, too.

Well some people seemed eager to base this article off of the German one, so I read it under the idea that people wanted to incorprate it's ideas quickly, so when I read it the article just plain looked lousy to say "Most of the Gospels have been proven historically inaccurate" when they haven't been "proven" by anybody to mostly be one way or the other, and the miracles part can't really be falsified so you can't just say they didn't happen and hope to assert that. Im not asking we spam our article with "all the miracles were reaaaaal!" im trying to stop something from happening in case someone wants the article to say "Almost everything in the Bible is faaaaaake!" which is what that german one appeared to be saying, I don't see why I should be a fundamentalist to see this problem. NPOV doesn't mean you can say things are historically innacurate when most modern historical standards can't say things are proven to be one way or the other as far as I know. Critical things don't bother me unless people are basically making false assumptions up about Jesus or the Bible and trying to pass it off to the masses as reality, that's like wrong. But hey, if it's not done being translated, I don't want to blast real deep into it until that's done. Homestarmy 13:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Homes, I'm guessing that your exposure to Bible scholarship -- and I mean true scholarship -- is rather limited. There are a host of alleged historical items in the Gospels that, were they part of Roman mythology, you would dismiss out of hand.

Virgin birth? Added to "fulfill" a misunderstood prophesy? Did Mary run around saying, "I swear to G-d I'm a virgin"? Did jesus tell his followers, "Oh, and by the way, my Mom was a virgin?"

The miracles I won't even go into.

The conversation between Jesus and Pilate? Who was there to record it? In what language did they speak? Jesus knew only Hebrew and Aramaic (and you can't use the old, "but he was God and he can use any language" bit, because in order for the crucifixion to mean anything, he had to be acting as a an, not as a god). Pilate, being an upper class Roman knew Latin, but conversed in Greek. He would not lower himself to learn the language of the conquered. So, again, in what language did they speak?

The alleged tradition of releasing a Jew at Passover, is just that -- alleged. There is no record in any Roman documents that that was the case. In fact, the Romans were hardly known for giving a rat's ass about the religious beliefs or customs of the people they conquered.

The pun re Barabbas is too poetically sweet to be accurate -- it's allegorical.

The resurrection? Either Matthew or Mark (I forget which) originally ended with the grave being empty. Period. No resurrected Jesus walking around, etc.

Then of course, there are the sayings attributed to Jesus. I've always found it hard to believe that people willingly accept that the same person allegedly said these things: "And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other" and "Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword" and "Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth"

I could go on, but, enough for now. Bottom line is, the Gospels are not historical -- they were written to a certain audience over a period of 150 years or so. This does not diminish from their power as literature or inspiration. Jim62sch 18:28, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Jim: I'd be happy to take up such issues one at a time, via email or on my talk page. But, as I've tried to explain several times to a number of people here, it is not our place here to debate the evidence itself. I'll only say that much of what you've said above is speculation, as much as Christian attempts to explain details often is.

Our role here is to represent what scholars say on these subjects -- and they say quite a bit. There are some that take your viewpoint, others that defend the Biblical account. We would do well to let them speak. --CTSWyneken 21:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, if you misunderstood me -- that wasn't my point, I wasn't trying to argue each point (nor do I care to, I've been throygh them, with two different ministers back in the days of my youth, and the answers were hardly compelling). My point was that outside of the fact that Jesus lived (contrary to what a few nutters may think), was a Jewish preacher of some renown, and died (likely by crucifixion) the historical knowledge of him based on the Gospels is rather slight. That's why I really think two articles would be better. One histoical, one theological. Jim62sch 11:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure the German article has some quellen...Arch O. La^TalkTCF 21:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, even as a man Jesus might have known some Greek. It would have helped him with his carpentry trade. Also, the Bible is as much history as Plutarch's Lives is history—which is not to say that it matches today's historical standards. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 18:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Nope. Historical Scholars agree that he only knew two languages, Hebrew and Aramaic. In fact, that is one point the Gospels make abundantly clear. There are a number of cases where Jesus uses Aramaic, "El(o)i, El(o)i lema sabbachtani," "Raca," "Talitha koum", "Ephphatha," "Rabboni", and "Mammon". In each of these cases, the equivalent of blinky lights are use to note the Aramaic. He uses no Greek words. In addition, while apologists and some Christian Scholars (andf I don't mean scholars who are Christians) note that he may have known a little Koine, however that is the common Greek (hernce the term Koine) and not the Classical Greek used by the Roman upper class. Jim62sch 11:28, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd be interested in seeing citations for that. I've seen scholars argue from inscriptions that most Palestinian Jews of the first century spoke Aramaic and Koine Greek, with some knowledge of Hebrew and a very rare few Latin phrases. I can produce those, if you like. Shall we? --CTSWyneken 02:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I've already seen the arguments, thanks. However, I've found them to be wanting; in addition, both they and an assumption that Jesus spoke Greek would be speculative at best. There is simply no proof that he did. Jim62sch 18:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I can appreciate that. I'd still like to see references for your conclusion that "Historical Scholars agree that he only knew two languages, Hebrew and Aramaic." I haven't looked for that opinion, but I know at least Paul Maier contends Jesus spoke Aramaic and Greek.

Have you seen the book, Reading and Writing in the Time of Jesus (I think that's the title)? If so, I'd be curious to learn what you find wanting in the arguments. As far as whether Jesus spoke Koine, it is no more speculative than that Pilate spoke Greek. Because we have no direct evidence that he spoke Greek (all we have of Pilate beyond the plaque in Caesarea in Josephus), would you argue it to be speculation? ;-) But let's move this to talk pages or email. I'm interested in moving this to the exit. --CTSWyneken 12:22, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, you'll notice that when He was before Pilate, Jesus said very litle, and what he did say was simple statements like "It is as you say" and "My kingdom is not of this world." Jesus didn't exactly go into a long metaphysical discourse. In the Gospels, Pilate seems frustrated that Jesus didn't say more, but perhaps there was a language barrier ;)

Not sure of the difference between Koine Greek and Classical Greek. Of course, Pilate may also have had a translator in his court. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 11:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

And of course, given the detail of the narrative, someone forgot to mention the interpreter. :)

Anyway, the difference between the two is roughly the equivalent of the difference between Latin of Virgil's time and early Spanish. Or, the English of Beowulf and that of Shakespeare. Jim62sch 18:02, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

In other words, your analogy skips over Chaucer. Were the two dialects of Greek, which were used at the same time, really that different? Arch O. La^TalkTCF 16:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't see anything in there that makes the Bible automatically fake, (But I do see a whole lot of odd assumptions) and if the "true" scholarship your referring to has lead you to those conclusions, I question who make it accredited, and why they would do such a thing. Considering CTSW is a reverend and probably much more older and experienced however and has already volunteered to take up those issues with you, (And since he's older, and is in collage) I don't think i'm the one who should be answering those objections specifically heh. Homestarmy 02:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, my faith is strong enough. I asked to see the German article because it is a featured article, and, well, Martin Luther was German. I'm a genetic Lutheran on my mother's side, which has produced two Lutheran pastors. To answer Jim62sch's implied question, CTSWYneken is LCMS, and my uncle is ELCA. From my own views and family experience I'm somewhere between the ELCA and LCMS. However, I'm currently an unaffiliated Lutheran (I'm not officially a member of any of the congregations I attend), which raises some issues when they practice closed communion!

We can still be NPOV about the religious POV if we stick to the old journalistic citation trick. "According to Christians..." or some such. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 14:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I've set up a subpage for documentation of the issue so we can move on here, but still investigate. I'd appreciate folks putting brief quotes and citations to them on this topic in that subpage. (ugh! what horrid english that is...) The page is at: Talk:Jesus/Languages Spoken by Jesus --CTSWyneken 16:14, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

If historical scholars mostly claim Jesus spoke Hebrew and Aramic, then put it in there with the citations, but if there's no citations, then there's no point trying to fight over it yet. Homestarmy 15:55, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I've thrown out the first two citations. Anyone wanna play? --CTSWyneken 19:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)