Talk:Jesus/Archive 42

Archive 35

←

Archive 40

Archive 41

Archive 42

Archive 43

Archive 44

Archive 45

Ecumenical councils and Biblical canon?

In the earlier texts section, the article says:

The ecumenical council meetings in the 4th century that discussed which works should and which should not be included in the canon were largely unconcerned with modern historical sensibilities, utilizing few techniques of objective textual analysis. Instead, their discussions generally tended to center upon theology, rather than upon historicity. However, scholars such as F.F. Bruce and Bruce Metzger argue that some historical details were taken into consideration regarding the New Testament canon. It may be surmised that the early church leaders took for granted that historicity was not an issue to be debated, any more than debating the historicity of the Articles of Confederation or the Constitution would be major issues today. [21][22][23]

There is a problem here. There was no ecumenical council that promulgated a Biblical canon until the 15th-century! None of the sources cited claim that there were ecumenical councils that promulgated a Biblical canon in the 4th-century.

The local council of Laodicea (363), confirmed a Biblical canon for church reading, though it was not an ecumenical council. There is a theory regarding the local council of Rome (382), that it confirmed a Biblical canon, but even if that theory were correct, the council was still local not ecumenical. The councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) in North-Africa did confirm a Biblical canon, but they were both local as well. It wasn't until at least the ecumenical council of Florence (1451) or the ecumenical council of Trent (1546) that there was an official, universal conciliar promulgation of a biblical canon. See: Biblical Canon.

Also, the statement in the article may give the impression that there was no mainly agreed upon Biblical canon until a council came along and told people what to believe. That would be rather misleading. Consider the following citations from the works footnoted in the statement.

One thing must be emphatically stated. The New Testament books did not become authoritative for the Church because they were formally included in a canonical list; on the contrary, the Church included them in her canon because she already regarded them as divinely inspired, recognising their innate worth and generally apostolic authority, direct or indirect. The first ecclesiastical councils to classify the canonical books were both held in North Africa-at Hippo Regius in 393 and at Carthage in 397-but what these councils did was not to impose something new upon the Christian communities but to codify what was already the general practice of those communities. (F. F. Bruce, from footnote 22).

“The first express definition of the New Testament canon, in the form in which it has since been universally retained, comes from two African synods, held in 393 at Hippo, and 397 at Carthage, in the presence of Augustin, who exerted a commanding influence on all the theological questions of his age. By that time, at least, the whole church must have already become nearly unanimous as to the number of the canonical books; so that there seemed to be no need even of the sanction of a general council.” [Philip Schaff, 519]

In defining which books composed the New Testament canon, these councils did “not impose any innovation on the churches; they simply endorsed what had become the general consensus of the churches of the west and of the greater part of the east.” [F.F. Bruce, 97] (C. Keating, from footnote 23).

So although the consensus was not perfect, by the end of the fourth century the New Testament canon is officially fixed in the sense of being ecclesiastically defined and universally accepted. From this time on there was no real challenge to the canon until the time of the Enlightenment. (S. Voorwinde, from footnote 21).

I propose the following reworking of the statement (bolded parts show diffs, will not be bold in article):

The local council meetings in the 4th century that discussed which works should and which should not be included in the canon were largely unconcerned with modern historical sensibilities, utilizing few techniques of objective textual analysis. They were concerned to reflect the Christian consesus of their time, and their discussions generally tended to center upon theology, rather than upon historicity. However, scholars such as F.F. Bruce and Bruce Metzger argue that some historical details were taken into consideration regarding the New Testament canon. It may be surmised that the early church leaders took for granted that historicity was not an issue to be debated, any more than debating the historicity of the Articles of Confederation or the Constitution would be major issues today.

Any objections? --MonkeeSage 20:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Let me respond on three levels:

1. I'd prefer to just say "councils" instead of "local councils" - they were not "ecumenical" but there were not merely local. Also maybe we should add the word "Church fathers", as some played a highly influental role in this too (Athanasius, Hieronymus, Augustinus).
2. Another issue is the rest of the current text - the wording is quite akward "largely unconcerned with modern historical sensibilities" - we should rather start with the criteria used for canonicity: apostolic authorship (interpreted loosely, meaning rather originating within proximity of the Apostles), orthodoxy (doctrine), catholicity (universal acceptance). Within their abilities, the fathers checked all three and one criterion was used to support the other, e.g. texts not being claimed as apostolic were excluded, but text claiming apostolicity while containing false doctrine were excluded as well, orthodox doctrine OTOH made an apostlic origin more likely.
3. That is if we really want to write as much about the canonization process. After all, this article about Jesus the person, not about the Bible and its canon.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you're right about not getting into the whole canon issue in a biographical article, but since it was mentioned, it should be accurate. Some people are currently claiming in popular literature that I Nicea promulgated the canon at the end of a sword, and the current form of the article might appear to support that (very minority!) POV.

How about this:

The Early Church Fathers and 4th century Church councils that discussed which works should and which should not be included in the canon made use of a very basic criteria for inclusion. They utilized very few techniques of radical higher criticism, rather, they were primarily concerned with apostolic origin (proximity to the Apostles), doctrinal orthodoxy, and ecumenical consensus.

Does that work? --MonkeeSage 22:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I Nicea was, in a way, promulgated at the end of a sword -- Constantine demanded the council, and since Christianity had just gotten its leg-up, it was best to please the Emperor. BTW: this is not a new belief -- it's been around longer than any of us on the page. Jim62sch 00:15, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is indeed an old, minority position (and for good reason it remains the minority view). In 328 Constantine nullified Arius' exhile to Illyria, just three years after Nicea ratified it (325). Ten years later (335) he re-instated Arius and his followers to fellowship with the Church and made known his intention to restore their ecclesiastical posts, at the same time he deposed Athanasius (a very vocal Trinitarian). The next year (336) he exiled Athanasius to Trier. Arius died the same year, just before his position was restored. The next year (337) Constantine died. Constantine's "sword" was pretty blunt...and he was holding it by the wrong end! Cf. What Really Happened At Nicea?

Anyway, Constatine's (non-)involvment with the council has nothing to do with the formation of the Biblical canon, since Nicea didn't even discuss that issue...which was my point about the phrasing of the statement in the article, since Nicea was one of the two ecumenical councils of the 4th century. --MonkeeSage 01:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I think Monkee's first suggestion seems the best one if like Str said "local councils" became "councils". The second one looks like it's using loaded language to me.... Homestarmy 00:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Homestarmy, no more "loaded" than saying that the councils didn't care about whether the documents were historical as long as it fit their theology, as the present form might suggest...I think that was Str1977's point. They did consider the three criteria mentioned, as the footnoted articles attest, but they did not use the methods of radical higher criticism (i.e., demythologization, psycho-analysis/reconstruction, textual deconstruction, &c). --MonkeeSage 01:07, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

It's just "Radical higher critism" sounds, quite frankly, all cool and amazing, and the other things sound like the councils wern't actually concerned with factual accuracy. Besides, I think your first version was good enough anyway. Homestarmy 01:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm...how about we just leave out the reference to councils altogether? Biblical canon and Apocrypha are already linked immediately above...that should be enough. So the section would end with:

. . . There is little consensus concerning how and when any of these documents were circulated, if they existed at all.

How about it? --MonkeeSage 06:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The issue is: I approve of the second suggested version with the exception of the "utilized very few techniques of radical higher criticism" - they didn't utilize "very few" - they utilized nothing, as higher criticism gets invented only around 1800. Also, I don't think we should expect them to use higher criticism, which controversial in its own right. We should include what the paragraph is supposed to say - so the real issue is: "What is that paragraph really supposed to say?" I guess something about the historicity or rather the historical reliability. In that regard, the fathers checked whether certain books that were considered inspired matched with their knowledge based on oral tradition. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Paula Fredriksen wrote "This is not to suggest that the concept we designate 'the historical Jesus' was of no interest to the evangelists: the fact that they chose to present their message through a life-story, rather than through contextless sayings (like Q) suggests otherwise. But fundamentally, the gospels are theological proclamation, not historical biography ..." Why not quote this (or a similar quote by a historian) or paraphrase it and provide the citation (1988: 4)? Slrubenstein | Talk 11:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I like the Fredriksen quote. I'd add it and explain that critical scholars see the NY therefore as providing some reliable historical data while conservative (traditional?) scholars see it as providing an essentially accurate historical account from a theological prospective. But I'm taking a Jesus wikibreak -- can't you tell? --CTSWyneken 11:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the last paragraph of the earlier texts subsection. A discussion of the canonization process really has no connection with the existence of earlier texts and their influence on the canonical texts. It is distracting from the purpose of the section. It is controversial any way it is phrased, and the same information is covered in articles linked from the main section this subsection comes under. If anyone has any reason why it REALLY needs to be there, don't be afraid to share it. --MonkeeSage 18:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

New Template

I made a new template, Template:Niv, which is similar to Template:Bibleverse, but doesn't use an external redirect and is only for the NIV translation. If anyone wants to update the article using it, it should decrease the size a bit. Template syntax is at Template_talk:Niv. --MonkeeSage 02:32, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

That's pretty neat. Thanks for your efforts! I'll see if I can't convert some links when I get some more time.--Andrew c 02:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I updated the article to use the template. I think I got all the refferences. :) --MonkeeSage 08:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Paragraph 1

Dear Fellow Editors: Was there a dogfight over paragraph one before? If so, should we also revert this text to allow for discussion first?

Dates

Why are the beginning dates 8-2 BC/BCE, flying in the face of all data found elsewhere on the planet? Jim62sch 18:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

There are scholars that argue for dates as early as 12 BC/BCE and scholars arguing as late as 1-2 BC/BCE. By including the opinions of all qualified scholars, we avoid a future edit war over it and a lengthy "some say, others say" schtick in the first phrase. 8-) --CTSWyneken 19:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

And some scholars say that dinosaurs were on the Ark. In any case, the generally, widely accepted dates are between 7BCE and 4CE (I mistyped yesterday). I don't personally think you've avoided and edit war, I think you've invited one. Fot your 5 sources, I could provide one thousand arguing for the standard 7BCE-4CE. (I won't, but I'm just trying to let you know to be prepared). Jim62sch 22:50, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I still think "circa" works so much better. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 22:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I do not have a particular investment in this particular solution. I can live without the dates, move them, or any other solution the group thinks best.

On the scholars and the dinosaurs, be careful, Kemosabe! We all have our set that we dislike.

What I'm arguing for at the moment is assembling quotes from qualified Biblical Scholars and Historians, respected in their fields, published in juried works and with appropriate degrees. I think we'll find a few, like Jack Finagan, who go late on the birth of Jesus, arguing we have the date of Herod's death wrong, to others who go earlier, arguing, you guessed it, we got the date of Herod's death wrong. ;-) By and large, though, most of the scholars argue 6-4 BC/BCE. With the evidence collected, we can decide, then, to take termini ad quo and ad quem for each, or just the majority in our little quote subpage. We are then on a stronger footing when someone comes by to challenge it. --CTSWyneken 02:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

For some reason, my "modest proposal" was refiled under the Hebrew controversy and archived as such. However, I also had a suggestion for the dates in the intro: simplify them. It might look nicer if the intro read (c. xBC/CE to c. yAD/CE), with x and y each consisting of a single date. Circa means "approximately" so nothing is lost here. The range of scholarly opinion over the precise dates might be better explained under the historicity section, especially the historical reconstruction section. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 17:56, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I support this not only "modest" but also sensible proposal. The details can be dealt with either further down or in Chronology of Jesus. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:02, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not have a problem with it except... are you sure we're not going to get a number of angry date advocates barnstorming us? --CTSWyneken 19:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Zeppelin is bigger than Big J.

So there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Led Zeppelin Backstage Pass (talk • contribs)

No, you're thinking of The Beatles. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 03:13, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Gnostic Tradition

The below is copied from Wikipedia:Good Article Collaboration of the week: Arch O. La^TalkTCF 15:34, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I think some reference to the Gnostic tradition would be a good addition for the article. Cheers. SeanMack 09:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

No one has commented on this, so I'll add 2¢ American.

1. If we can include the Ebionites under "other views," we can certainly include the Gnostics.
2. This will also work under the historicity section, since many non-Biblical texts are gnostic.

Any other comments? Arch O. La^TalkTCF 23:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

By the way, it's now the collaboration, so by the end of the week, Jesus is probably going to be nominated for FA status whether we're done or not, just so y'all know :/. Homestarmy 15:56, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

That may be premature. A lot of us are still working on the first three paragraphs, and haven't had a chance to address the rest of the article! At the very least, we should get another peer review first. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 20:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The intro and the article itself

My suggested revision of SOPHIA's proposal was actually name, dates, sources, historicity, religion; but I suppose name, dates, historicity, sources, religion works just as well. I oppose MPerel's suggestion to merge the second and third paragraphs, because they cover different topics (historicity in paragraph 2, christology in paragraph 3).

A bolder suggestion: We might follow the introduction and reorder the body of the article to Life and Teachings, Historicity, Religious Views, Cultural Impact. By placing historicity before theology, we help alleviate those who feel this article is becoming a Sunday sermon. Also, Aiden has been working on revising the "Life and Teachings" section; see here.

I also think that, as Rick Norwood noted, more needs to be said about the "skeptical"/ethicist portrayal of Jesus. I don't know enough about this to do it myself, however.

Finally, Pookster noted a while ago that the Gnostics were more significant than the Ebionites. As I understand it, some of the arguments of Criticism of Christianity and Jesus-Myth rest on the question of how much Gnostic Christianity influenced Pauline Christianity. If it hasn't already been done, I am now going to add a short paragraph on the Gnostics to the "other views" subsection, between the Ebionites and the New Age views. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 22:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Reordering the body of the article isn't a bad idea. As far as combining the two paragraphs about historicity and sources, they are connected since historicity is based on the sources. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 22:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Reordering is a good idea - especially as it will follow the flow of the introduction. The reason I put the paragraphs in the order that I did was because I felt people would want to know what we know (the historicity) before they would want to know how we know it (the sources). If I was writing an academic paper I would do it in the order that Archola first mentions but there would be a summary at the front of the article so that people would know where I was going with all this data. I don't think that approach is as sucessful here as your average reader will wonder what the point of all this data is before they have the answer and will then need to reread the "how we know this" bit.

How long have we got left to be ready for the FA assessment? I have books on the Gnostics but I have an exam tomorrow so should be revising rather than doing this! Sophia^TalkTCF 22:59, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I didn't realize the sources sentence was a separate paragraph. Sure, I'm fine with merging sources with the historicity paragraph. Just keep the Christology paragraph separate.

I don't know how long we have, but I think we need longer ;). Feel free to revise (and source!)my Gnostics paragraph. By the way, SOPHIA, I have a question about Sophia. In Gnosticism, was the Sophia who was the mother of the demiurge the same as the Sophia who was the partner of Jesus Christ? Arch O. La^TalkTCF 23:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, im not sure if many people have even woken up so to speak yet on the GA collaboration page, someone suggested that since it is our first collaboration we should take an extra day or something, but im pretty sure we've got like 4 or 5 days left or something. And Archola, did you get your Gnostic paragraph from a source or something we can quote or just from other Wikipedia articles? Homestarmy 23:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Homestarmy, my sources are: 1)Other Wikipedia articles (which I have linked to) 2) Str1977's earlier comments on this page 3) vague recollections of a class I took at Wartburg College in 1991. I notice from SOPHIA's post that she has much better sources than I do, so she should be able to revise, clarify and source my paragraph. I just got it started because I was growing impatient waiting for someone else to do it. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 23:16, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to check there was no need to rush post this edit as I'd like to give it 24 hours to let everyone comment. As for Sophia my wiki namesake - she is an expression of the divine feminine which is missing in the Christian trinity but exists in others (Hindu and Egyptian for example). Bearing in mind this is all allegorical anyway (Gnostics didn't get hung up on absolutes) it depends on which version you read as to what she is. Sophia^TalkTCF 23:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Missing? It depends on who you talk to. I've heard some Christians say that the Holy Spirit is feminine, although those Christians are usually dismissed as heterodox. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 23:27, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd dismiss them as not really understanding or wanting to understand the Bible, does that mean the same thing? :D But anyway, I just wanted to know about sources is all, I wanna start looking up stuff for some of the shorter view paragraphs, as I understand it, FA nominations like that sort of thing. Homestarmy 23:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Homestarmy, "heterodox" is a nice way of saying "heretic." As for sources, SOPHIA mentioned that she has some books, I suppose you can look for others. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 23:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The books I have are by Elaine Pagels who even KHM03 grants is a respectable source. As for "missing" - I have read that the misogynist Christians would rather have a "ghost" than a woman in the Godhead! Sophia^TalkTCF 23:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, the English word "ghost" orginally meant more than the spirit of a dead person, it just meant a spiritual entity in general. To (Pauline) Christians, God the Son had a physical form in Jesus, God the Father may have sometimes assumed physical form in the Old Testament (as a man, as a bush, as a pillar of fire...), but the Holy Spirit preferred to be a dove ;) Homestarmy, here's an article on Gnosticism and the New Testament. I can't find a single article that explains the Gnostic gospels, though. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 23:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Here are some Gnostic texts: The Sophia of Jesus Christ, Pistis Sophia, Gospel of Mary Magdalene. I'm off now as I must get some sleep! Sophia^TalkTCF 23:58, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm six hours behind UTC, so evening is just now falling here. What I meant is that there is no one article on all the Gnostic texts (except for the general Gnosticism article). You've provided three, I know there are others. Well, it should help with sourcing ;) Arch O. La^TalkTCF 00:01, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget the inimitable Odes of Solomon with its famous passage (8:14[17]): "I [the Most High, v. 9] fashioned their members: my own breasts I prepared for them, that they might drink my holy milk and live thereby." Of course, the Odes may not be particularly gnostic (they may have some other esoteric origin)...but that's either a poetic reference to the "sacred feminine" or it's talking about...man-mammaries! ;) --MonkeeSage 05:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Gnostic paragraph

The Gnostics believed that matter was inherently evil, spirit was inherently good, and that salvation was achieved through secret knowledge (gnosis) of the spiritual world. Gnostic Christians believed that Jesus was an Aeon who provided gnosis, and who was sent by a higher deity than the evil demiurge who created the material world. Gnostic Christians further believed that Jesus was a spiritual being whose material body, and thus his crucifixion and death, were divine illusions. Some Gnostics believed that Jesus had a syzygy named Sophia. The Gnostics wrote several texts and tended to interpret the New Testament as allegory.

Suggestions for improving and referencing this paragraph will be appreciated. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 01:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you should include the term (wikilinked of course) Docetism in your description. Perhaps: Gnostics oftentimes held docetist views, believing that Jesus was a spiritual being whose material body, and thus his crucifixion and death, were divine illusions. or something less wordy. And off topic... I was thinking about some of the recent books I've read by Bart D. Ehrman, and it made me wonder why the adoptionist and Marcion perspectives weren't mentioned anywhere in the article.--Andrew c 02:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Check again: Docetism is linked to "divine illusions." I don't know enough about adoptionism or Marcionism to comment, but perhaps someone else could. BTW was that Ehrman book titled Lost Christianities? I've seen a sample and have been trying to find a copy. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 02:46, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

That is the title of the book (I also recently read The New Testament also by Ehrman). I got it from the Virginia Commonwealth University library (I work right next to it). Maybe I could get it again and review the information to see if I could add to the other perspectives.--Andrew c 03:02, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Jeez, I didn't notice till know that "divine illusions" was linked to Docetism, my bad. I guess I am just partial to the actual term being used. That's all.--Andrew c 02:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I've changed it in the article to give a reference that better explains the Gnostic view. They did think matter was inherently evil but the "Gnosis" was most important. Sophia^TalkTCF 11:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the reference, but I had to fix the link to Demiurge#Gnosticism. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 19:14, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. I didn't think I'd done any damage but I obviously missed that. Sophia^TalkTCF 21:48, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The lack of extant... and a picture too!

Currently although the first section mentions the documents controversy this is not picked up in the Historicity section. For consistency across the whole article you would expect to see a very slight elaboration on this issue (maybe with a link?). In the "accuarcy" part of the historicity section there is discussion of the documents so there would be scope for adding a one liner to pick up on the intro. I've put this here first so that people don't go off the deep end about adding more of this "touchy" stuff. It might be better if someone else added it anyway.

Any chance of a picture in the first section? It always does look good and gives the immediate impression of a major cleanup/revamp even if the content is mostly the same. Sophia^TalkTCF 14:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

While I will not go off to another part of the article myself, I'd like to see the article structured like this:

Intro summarizes very briefly the whole article; sections below cover the basic concepts of their subjects, functioning as summaries of the full-blown subarticles that cover the whole of their topic, all major views on their subjects, etc.

So I'd say, yes, pick up the "extant documents" thing, with the majority reply, in the section below, but try to leave the blow-by-blow to the historicity article itself. --CTSWyneken 14:30, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Absooolutely - no blown up arguments on this page. I think you are spot on with your hierarchical view of the detail structure of the article. Nice picture anyone???Sophia^TalkTCF 14:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Would the Grunewald Altarpiece do? [[1]] --CTSWyneken 15:33, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

It does forcefully bring home the power of the sacrifice. Is this the side of JC that you would like emphasized? I must admit I did imagine some aspect of JC as a teacher as this is almost universally recognized - even by non christians. Sophia^TalkTCF 17:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

For me, yes! It's my favorite artwork for that reason. But then I am a Lutheran! 8-) Seriously, any appropriate image is fine by me. The other is perfectly acceptable in my book. --CTSWyneken 18:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually the picture next to the "legacy" section is pretty good - it could just be moved up. Sophia^TalkTCF 17:45, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Is it going to upset anyone if I move the "Legacy" picture up to the first section? Or shall I upload CTS's suggestion? Speak now or forever hold your peace! Sophia^TalkTCF 14:10, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea for a picture to be at the beginning, go for it :D. Homestarmy 15:57, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

So where are we?

We need to take stock of where we are in the FA drive. If anyone has time over the next couple of days can they please read the whole article looking for consistency of language, readability, completeness of topics and implicit POV (as opposed to Christians believe.....). Particularly useful would be views of minority denominations of Christianity and agnostic/atheist as these can be under represented and are more likely to spot mainstream assumptions that may not be universally applicable (this should not to be taken to mean that their views should necessarily be expanded or even included for really marginal stuff).

This is not a call for a whinge list. If anyone has issues I expect them to provide positive solutions to those issues on this talk page for discussion.

I personally am going to print out the article and carry it round to read in spare moments. Also can someone who is less likely than me to mess it up big time look at moving the "Legacy" section picture up to the top. It's a good, universally recognised image of Jesus and will be visual confirmation to the reader that they are on the right page (hopefully help them to get through all the "squiggles" as well - only kidding!). Sophia^TalkTCF 13:08, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Let me add some things for folks to think about while they read.

1. We seem to generally agree on the structure we desire for this article. The intro is an overview of the article, the article is a summary of the subarticle. IMHO, we should avoid the details of arguments on how majority and minority opinions are arrived at, sub-arguments. (So, we should say, "most scholars conclude Jesus was born in BC/BCE 4-6 and died in 30-33 AD/CE" and not repeat arguments for 12 BCE/BC, for 36 AD/CE, etc. that are small minority opinions. We can acknowlege them with a BFFN (big, fat, footnote) if we choose.

1. Each section, then, should have a corresponding subarticle or subarticles that do render these details.

1. We need a scavenger hunt to accumulate links to all Jesus related articles. They DO tend to crawl into corners and spawn! ;-) --CTSWyneken 13:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I read it over compleatly recently, the biggest thing I saw was that many of the later paragraphs don't have sources :/. Homestarmy 13:41, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Hate to volunteer someone else for a job but Archola is the guy for the scavenger hunt as he's been mapping out the structure of all the pages. Homestarmy details would be really good - which sections are missing sources and what sort of stuff would you be expecting to see? Sophia^TalkTCF 13:44, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

All viewpoint sections besides Judaism, and everything below the "earlier texts" section. The thing of it is though, some of the viewpoint sections are taken from other articles, is it wiki-appropriate to cite sources there when those sources should come from the article the information is derived from? Homestarmy 13:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

My modest proposals (again);

1. . My "mapping out of the structure" is at Talk:Jesus/Related articles. I really need someone to look over it and see if I missed anything. Occassionally I will click the "related changes" link on that page (on the Wikipedia menu) to check for consistency between articles, but I could use some help.
2. . Don't forget the Gnostics! The Ebionites are listed under "other views," why not the Gnostics? Especially since many of the non-Biblical texts are Gnostic in origin.
3. . We might say more about the philosopher-of-ethics view of Jesus (what some have called the skeptic's perspective, although I think this label is a little too broad).
4. . I still think we might simplify the dates in the intro by pinning down one circa date for birth and death, and explaining the range of opinions (and the reasons for the dates) under the final "historical reconstruction" section. Or, as Str1977 suggested, under the "Chronology of Jesus" section. As I understand it, the dates are based on:
   1. . A lunar eclipse, which also sets the death date of King Herod
   2. . The explanation of the Star of Bethlehem as a planetary conjunction, either the Jupiter-Saturn conjunction of c. 6BC/E, or the Jupiter-Venus conjunction of C. 2 BC/E
   3. . A solar eclipse that some have used to explain the period of darkness on Good Friday.
   4. . Finally, what do we do about the fact that the only imperial census we know of from when Quinirius was governor of Syria (Cf. the Gospel of Luke) actually took place several years after Herod's death?
5. . We should also consider some of the comments from the previous FA drive.

Arch O. La^TalkTCF 18:18, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Most of the comments on the FAs and PRs seemed to mostly be about "There are no other perspectives!!11!!1111", and there's certainly much more nowadays. But hey, the Gnostics shouldn't take that long to describe, right? Homestarmy

There are more perspectives nowadays, but as Rick Norwood has suggested, we might beef up the philosophical/skeptical view. All it says now is "have empathy with moral principles." As for the Gnostics, I wouldn't think it would take long, but I leave that for others more knowledgable than I am.

I do know that Gnostic beliefs were significantly different from Pauline Christianity. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 18:45, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know their biggest belief was that Jesus was not God, and they were apparently frequently persecuted by the church for Heresy, and apparently found/made up an extra book of the Bible (I think the Epistle of John something), and eventually mostly died out and hid in back alleys and well, it sounded kinda sad. Dunno why they didn't think Jesus wasn't God though. Homestarmy 19:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Homes, the main belief of the Gnostics was that salvation was not attained by the grace of God, but through a secret knowledge (gnosis). Jesus fulfilled the role of divine messenger helping the Gnostics towards that knowledge. They did see him as divine, but not actually as the one God. They were dualists believing in a good God of Spirit and a bad God of matter (the demiurg) and as matter was bad, many considered Jesus' humanity as only a sham. They created loads of different secret gospels etc. as they based themselves on alleged secret traditions handed down from Jesus - a major factor pushing towards a biblical canon. Their heyday was in the 2nd and 3rd century, so only what was left of them was persecuted. Manichaeism is however a descendant, as are the Bogomils and the Albigensians. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:50, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, the article is in poor shape in my opinion. It digresses into discussion of controversies in far too many sections and is less of a biographical article than it should be. If you were a reader unfamilair with Jesus and read this article, I think you would come away more confused than informed. —Aiden 19:42, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Well then we could get to work more on the section discussing the Gospels, I mean, that is the main biographical source. Aren't we like resting right now or something? Homestarmy 19:49, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I agree with Aiden. I am one of the people working to help bring this up to FA status, but we have quite a ways to go. I don't think we'll be able to do it in one week. (Great--now I have BNL playing through my head). Arch O. La^TalkTCF 22:25, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I kind of wonder where all the people from the Good Article collaboration are, I mean, I don't see anyone from there here yet unless im not paying attention....

I'm out here, just engaged in real work for a change! Students want readings, profs want to get their books to the editor, a journal needs fact checking... I'm happy to see harmony and my moderating skills are unneeded at the moment. Now, if you all miss me, someone call someone else a name and I'll be all over it! --CTSWyneken 10:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I went through the entire article yesterday, fixing grammatical errors, typos, adding sources, adding some additional content, reorganizing sections, consolidating paragraphs, and rewording some content. MPerel has recently gone through and updated all of our references to the new system. In terms of readability, the article is in tip top shape in my opinion. However, I still think the NT section needs more of a biography with more detailed accounts of events. Other than that, we should be nearing FA status. —Aiden 19:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC)