Talk:Jesus/Archive 84

message: Per User Andrew C's request, my opinion is that we do a disservice to both truth and readership by sticking to the term "father." It is misleading in that it does not take into account the position of most Christians re: the Virgin Birth. I liked the most recent re-word by User RossNixon: "Joseph, husband of 'Mary" And I agree with this user that it allows for multiple beliefs (assumed father, actual father, adoptive father, etc.)
The Wiki article entitled Saint Joseph takes a lot of words, but perhaps we can "borrow" the idea expressed therein:
::"...according to Christian Gospel accounts and tradition, the husband of Mary and the legal father of Jesus of Nazareth, although Christian faith tradition holds that Joseph did not physically beget Jesus, but that Mary had conceived him through divine means (see Virgin Birth)."
My personal opinion about the Jesus article is that it has become so "politically correct"--trying to be all things to all people--that it has become quite sterile, far beyond encyclopedic. Irrespective of all the different connotations about Jesus, he is the Founder of Christianity, and I don't think this article needs to apologize for that. Thanks!  Afaprof01 05:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm just saying that this came up twice in the past, and it has come up before and we reached an agreement then. If editors want to change things, talk it out and if there is a consensus we can change it. I just want to stress the importance of process and discussion and consensus in such top tier article (especially when we have recently discussed this matter already). My concern is twofold with the text from the Joseph article. First it uses the term "legal" which isn't supported by the source material, and it introduces a Christian POV. Keep in mind that this is the Gospel summary section, and that we have a Christian interpretation section as well. I think the best thing is to follow the source material. Here is a proposal of mine for you to consider: The gospels mention Joseph in a few placed. They describe Joseph as "pledged to be married" to Mary (Matthew 1:17, Luke 1:27) and "husband of Mary" (Matthew 1:16, 1:18). They also describe Jesus as Joseph's son (Luke 4:22, John 1:45, 6:42), Joseph as Jesus' father (Luke 2:33, 2:48, John 6:42), and Jesus as "the son, so it was thought, of Joseph" (Luke 3:23). This way, we are simply following our sources. We are stating what the gospels say, which is the point of the section Life and teachings, as told in the Gospels. We can put other interpretations in other sections (or spinout articles).-Andrew c [talk] 13:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I vote with User RossNixon and User SECisek: "Joseph, husband of 'Mary". It's short and "sweet," not complicated, and totally congruous with scripture and essentially uncontested. Afaprof01 17:34, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joseph's status as Jesus' "father" 

message: *Some editors have claimed there is a consensus on this issue, but having reviewed the talk pages it appears it was still heavily contested, merely that no one really wanted to push the issue further. In any case, I feel that the current "compromise" was a poor one brought on by obstinant behaviour from some editors that violated Wikipedia guidelines, specifically WP:MOS.
:For many years the BC/AD terms were used without problem from the start. WP:MOS says that a style established for so long shouldn't be changed without good reason. There is and was no good reason not to use BC/AD exclusively. So those who wanted to insist on BCE/CE were breaking Wikipedia guidelines.
:If there are still any doubts, I refer you to the opening paragraph of WP:MOS.
:Where in doubt, defer to the style used by the first major contributor.
:BC/AD was the style used by the first major contributor, so I believe it should be restored to that.  It also makes much more sense given the primarily Christian nature of this article. John Smith's 14:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

message: Just a quick comment from an editor who hasn't bothered with this article in about two years: Has anyone thought to consult modern style guides? The Wikipedia MoS doesn't provide any help one way or the other, but I'd ask if we've ever checked, say, Chigago, MLA, APA, or any other style guides to see what their position on the matter is. --Avery W. Krouse 13:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Chicago says The choice between one or the other is up to the writer and should be flagged only if the customs of a specific field or community seem to be in danger of being (unwittingly) violated. ALA says For dates, use BCE (Before Common Era) and CE (Common Era). Do not use B.C. or A.D. I believe the APStylebook uses BC/AD based on we're staying with B.C. and A.D. as the more common and understandable abbreviations.. A number of University styleguides don't take sides and say both are appropriate (i.e. Dartmouth, Columbia, University of Illinois). So really, I don't think we can point to any one source to say one era notation is superior to another.-Andrew c [talk] 14:53, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The bottom line is that this particular can of worms cannot be closed.  The CE/BCE notation has been around for over 150 years, and in that time, neither that style nor AD/BC has been deprecated in its use.  Both forms are equally valid.  You can boil down the argument any way you like: Christian vs. Secular, Traditionalist vs. Progressive, Historian vs. Layman.  These are perennial arguments that have not been solved in the decades, even centuries or millennia they've been in play.  We're not going to discuss it down in a few months on Wikipedia; especially if we want to push for FA.  Either decision results in dissatisfaction and probable vandalism and edit warring down the road.  The "BC/BCE" - "AD/CE" standard has been an acceptable compromise for a long while.  If new information arises, I'm happy to entertain it in another debate, but I agree with Andrew c above: we need to move on with more important (or, if you prefer, more wide-reaching) edits.  Thank you.  =David(talk)(contribs) 16:17, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I too thought to look at style guidelines... but both styles are loaded with POV and there is no universal consensus.  The WP:MOS states to remain consistent throughout the article and that both styles are acceptable.  The MOS also states, "When either of the two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change."  So I went back to see what the original version was---and this article has been using both for so long that it isn't even funny.  With that in mind and the fact that either BC or BCE has POV, I support keeping it the way it is---even if it is tacky.Balloonman 15:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Style guides

message: John Smith's repeatedly claims that I have called foir AD/BC to be removed from Wikipedia.  that is a lie, and despite my explaining to him that I never said any such thing he continues to lie about me.  I consider this persistent lying about m to be a personal attack.  He ought to apologize to me.  But he must stop his lying. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 21:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Slrub, your policy (as previously explained) would have removed BC/AD from pretty much every article on wikipedia - I'm not sure where "in the context of expressing or providing an account of a Christian point of view" would have applied in many meaningful ways. You can try to spin things however you want, but what would have been the outcome of your policy is pretty clear to most people. John Smith's 21:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Smith's Misunderstanding 

message: "...raising several people, such as Lazarus, from the dead". IMHO of the given passage, solely Lazarus was resurrected. May be Martha's brother also makes sense? --Brand спойт 18:52, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the given passage only mentions Lazarus, but there are also Matt 9:25 (the ruler's daughter) and Luke 7:15 (the only son of a widow). The.helping.people.tick 06:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Several resurrected  

message: This article claims you can Reconstruct the historical Jesus by using a mythological source (i.e. the Bible)??  Give me a break! There are plenty of historical references that survive (e.g. Fragments of Celsus), of course Christians don't want the truth in here (e.g. that Jesus was born of of wedlock and that he learned magic in Egypt to fool the people in Palestine) because it might denigrate their so-called God. Last time I check, this was supposed to be an encyclopedia, not some religious site determined to spread their propaganda.
::Why don't you Christians add articles on all the Greek and Roman gods and goddesses, as well as mythological figures such as Romulus and Remus, and then attempt to reconstruct the historical Romulus or Jupiter/Zeus by using mythological sources? lol
::: If I recall correctly, talk pages are not here to discuss the topic in general, but rather to discuss improving the article. Please cite your sources and avoid original research. The.helping.people.tick 06:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, please outline the propaganda and offer your version. --Brand спойт 20:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's nice when trolls don't sign their posts because it makes it easy to ignore them if a reader so desires. In this case I'll reply in order to fix some factual errors in the original post.  The Bible is not a mythological source of information as there are many many references of peoples, places, and things in the Bible that really exist (or did exist in the past). In addition, Jesus may have been born out of wedlock but that is fine considering no sexual intercourse was required for him to be born. Glitch26 03:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Give me a Break!

message: Or leader. He wasn't a Tanna. He was the Nasi of the Great Sanhedrin. Just call him leader with a wikilink to nasi. 124.170.201.109 06:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nasi is good. Jewish Encyclopedia: Nasi: "The president of the Sanhedrin. According to the rabbinical tradition (Ḥag. ii. 2; Peah ii. 6), the Sanhedrin was presided over by a duumvirate ("zug" = "zeugos" [couple]), of which the first was the nasi, the second the ab bet din. Jose ben Joezer and Jose ben Johanan in the time of the Maccabees are mentioned in the Mishnah as the first couple; Hillel and Shammai, as the last; while the two titles were conferred upon the two chief men of the Sanhedrin during the following generations, the house of Hillel down to Judah II. in 225 retaining the title of nasi, while as ab bet din, R. Joshua under the presidency of Gamaliel II. (B. Ḳ. 74b) is occasionally mentioned, and R. Nathan under Simon ben Gamaliel (Hor. 13b). The historic character of this duumvirate, and in particular that of the ab bet din alongside of the nasi as head of the Sanhedrin, has been questioned and even denied by modern writers ..." 75.0.9.114 07:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: One more comment, if you call Hillel leader, you should specify Pharisee leader. 75.0.9.114 07:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with both anonymous editors. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:19, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No. He was not a sectarian leader. Jewish groups that had different theological beliefs still respected him as they in their view it was a commandment to do so. I totally object calling him a Pharisee leader. 124.170.85.23 07:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: What is your evidence that other groups, like Saducees and Essenes, considered him their leader? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: At first, I would ask what proof do you have, that they did not fulfill a literal commandment (this is part of the reason why they fought for control of the Sanhedrin). But then I remembered the saying of Rabbi Hillel "Use no unintelligible expressions assuming that ultimately they will be understood." If you ever walk through the mishnah you would understand me. For example, the last mishnah in Sotah, has the Pharisees banning certain rites mostly practiced by the high class and aristocrats (i.e. both tzedukim and Pharisees). If you look at the Gemera, of the Talmud Bavli by the time of Rabban Shimon when Jerusalem came under siege, there was no one except him (and other representatives to the Roman government) who knew of the banned rite and the city was still populated by Tzedukim at that time. Do not bother learning this from the Soncino translation as it is extremely inaccurate for this section. Make sure you look at Maimonides' commentary on this Mishnah as Rashi is too brief. There are many more example... I need to go to sleep. 124.170.77.14 22:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

text: You are engaging in what at Wikipedia is called original research.  This is forbidden for article contributions (see WP:OR). Slrubenstein   |  Talk 23:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know of the Original Research policy very well. I thought I said something about it this not being the location for an explanation but I guess I forgot to type it as I was too tired. Anyway, I think the Rashba (Might of been Rashbam) commentary says this was a ban the tzedukim accepted. I read what I wrote and I see it isn't very clear... I was just too tired. So lets keep this simple. Do you read Aramaic and Hebrew? 124.171.2.198 14:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Change it to Nasi

message: I've partly reverted some recent additions by User:Qwazywabbit. I edited a historiographical comparison between Jesus and Alexander the Great, to remove the unsourced and incorrect statement that no legendary material about Alexander existed by the time of Arrian. The comparison itself may be relevant, but unless it's been made by a reliable source, it's original research.
As for the additions concerning numbers of manuscripts, this topic isn't directly relevant to the historical reliability of the texts, but the placement of this section where it was in the article was likely to leave the casual reader confused between textual and historical reliability. Also, if we are going to discuss numbers of manuscripts, we need to (a) acknowledge that most "New Testament manuscipts" cover only parts of the New Testament, and (b) provide some explanation of how the number of manuscripts actually bears on textual criticism. Note that in criticism of many classical texts, most manuscripts can be eliminated from consideration as deriving from other extant manuscripts, and those that are considered can have very unequal value; in other words, having 200 manuscripts rather than 50 does not mean establishing the text is four times as easy, or even necessarily any easier. There were also sourcing problems; I doubt that Lee Strobel is a reliable source for textual criticism. EALacey 18:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So what does Alexander the Great have to do with Jesus? I seem to remember a while back that someone wanted to do a historiographical comparison with Julius Ceasar. Such comparisons strike me as superflous, if not outright specious. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 17:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I believe the number of manuscripts, as well as the dating of those manuscripts from the event to the written is very relevant to the paragraph.  It shows specifically that the New Testament can be corroborated from many sources, not all of which are copies of the New Testament.  Without this, the casual reader may infer that the one-sided view of the supposed lack of historical and archaeological evidence is factual, when in fact it is not. Why would the use of Lee Strobel not be considered a credible source?  He did exhaustive investigation on numerous criticisms on the topic of Jesus.  Incidentally, my comp crapped out on my before I could place the revised article after removing the paragraph--thank you for replacing it.  Qwazywabbit 19:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "Questions of reliability" section is about "the accuracy of early texts describing the details of Jesus' life". The relatively large number of New Testament manuscripts may help in establishing what was actually written by the author of a particular document, but does nothing to "corroborate" the accuracy of what he wrote. Textual accuracy and historical accuracy are simply different things (remember that the text of most modern novels is known with a very high level of confidence). And Lee Strobel is, as far as I'm aware, not regarded as an authority on the manuscripts of Josephus. Would any Josephan scholar cite him as a source? It shouldn't be hard to find an alternative source, such as an editor of Josephus' works, or a commentator on them. EALacey 19:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Lee Strobel is a terrible reference  and should not be used. I've read The Case for Christ and it is tub thumping for the faithful - not scholarship.  Sophia 21:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additions by Qwazywabbit 

message: I've just removed the following reference which is not a true reference for the text:
:"The nonhistoricity thesis has always been controversial, and it has consistently failed to convince scholars of many disciplines and religious creeds… Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted."—Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), p. 16.
Peter zhou 05:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a little vague. How is the reference incorrect?--C.Logan 05:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Basically here the reference has nothing to do with the text.  Peter zhou 04:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Verifiability is always a pain. I'll check the source myself, tomorrow.--C.Logan 04:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Also the statement "Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted" is simply INCORRECT since there must be at least one biblical scholar who believes nonhistoricity of Jesus, not? -- Peter zhou 04:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, of course, but it's just hyperbole. He means to say that it's almost universally a non-issue at this point. So, taken literally, its technically incorrect, but it is a quote, and it's only really as wrong as me saying "nobody wants their family to die in a fire"- surely, there are some people who do want such a thing, but they are an utterly insignificant minority. That's what the quote is saying, and so if there's a reference for it, there's nothing wrong with including it. That's why I'm going to check the reference tomorrow. The text is unfortunately unavailable online (Google Books previews every page but the ones I need... it's a trend).--C.Logan 05:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, please check that out. Also even if that's what he wrote, we also need to rewrite the statement, otherwise, it will be misleading. We may write something like, "Robert E. Van Voors suggested that biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted." --- Peter zhou 03:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect reference 

message: I have never seen such a translation. I have only really seen "God is salvation" or "the Lord is salvation." Yehoshua does not contain the letters YHWH to mean YHWH is salvation. Nor does Moses' changing of Hoshua's name to Yehoshua mean such a thing. I feel like someone did this specifically to cause offence as I don't think it was someone's arrogance. 124.170.193.25 14:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  YHWH is salvation