| Revision as of 02:21, 5 September 2013 editSmeat75 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users15,222 edits →John Painter← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:16, 5 September 2013 edit undoGreengrounds (talk | contribs)478 edits →John Painter: replying to meatNext edit → | ||
| Line 60: | Line 60: | ||
| Actually, I think I was right the first time. He really adds nothing to the article, and as for what I said that he can be used to compare historicity of Jesus to bible gibberish may be true, but it adds nothing to the analysis of historicity. Please explain how his opinion has any more weight than a Biologist would? ] (]) 01:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC) | Actually, I think I was right the first time. He really adds nothing to the article, and as for what I said that he can be used to compare historicity of Jesus to bible gibberish may be true, but it adds nothing to the analysis of historicity. Please explain how his opinion has any more weight than a Biologist would? ] (]) 01:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC) | ||
| :::Greengrounds, do you see ''four'' different people on this page, in this section, telling you that Painter is ]? I do, that is me,Akhilleus,Jeffro77 and Tgeorgescu, all telling you that there is no reason to remove material cited to Painter. To then say " I think I was right the first time" amd remove it anyway is not acceptable.] (]) 02:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC) | :::Greengrounds, do you see ''four'' different people on this page, in this section, telling you that Painter is ]? I do, that is me,Akhilleus,Jeffro77 and Tgeorgescu, all telling you that there is no reason to remove material cited to Painter. To then say " I think I was right the first time" amd remove it anyway is not acceptable.] (]) 02:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC) | ||
| Meat, there are other editors on here who have said Painter should be removed entirely, and Jeffro has said "However, if Painter is being used to suggest something as ''historical'' that ''does not'' have broader support, then those ''specific statements'' should be removed." | |||
| The paragraph I removed meets the criteria of both of those people, as the paragraph I removed has Painter, a Theologian interpreting historicity of Josephus unilaterally. He can't do that. That's why he's not considered a historian. If he were a real scholar on historical matters, he could but as it were, he's nothing more than an interpreter of "portraits" of bible babble. And like user ] (]) said the Oxford dictionary defines theology as "the study of the nature of God and religious belief." I see nothing in the definition that covers ''history''. In fact the[REDACTED] article on ] makes it clear that Theology is NOT the same as Religious Studies and states in some areas theology involves "some level of commitment to the claims of the religious tradition being studied"-- | |||
| Josephus is not "religious belief" (zombies, apocalypses, winged angels, demons, monsters) Josephus is a historian, and experts on interpreting religious belief are not allowed to do that other than attempts to reconcile their religious babble with history from a THEOLOGICAL standpoint.] (]) 03:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 03:16, 5 September 2013
The answer to your question may already be in the FAQ. Please read it.| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Josephus on Jesus article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 15 days  |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Josephus on Jesus article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 15 days |
 | This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | Josephus on Jesus received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
 view · edit Frequently asked questions
Q1: The article refers to "internal arguments" and "external arguments". What is the difference?
A1: In the general context of historiography, internal arguments are those which only analyze a document on its own, e.g. look at the tone or phraseology of a passage and compare it with the entire work, etc. The external arguments may rely on comparison with the works of other authors about historical dates, etc. and go beyond the document being analyzed.
Q2: Does the New Testament (say Acts 12:2) refer to "the death of James" as Josephus does?
A2: No, it does not. That is why the article states "Christian tradition" when discussing that issue. And the footnote explains that the unrelated New Testament reference is to James, son of Zebedee, who is killed by King Herod in Acts 12:2 with a sword.
Q3: How does the difference between the account of Josephus about the death of James and the Christian tradition indicate authenticity?
A3: That rationale does not just apply to this passage or Josephus but is used by historians in a more general context. The reasoning is that a Christian scribe would have been unlikely to differ from the Christian tradition and would have likely interpolated items to agree with it. Similar reasoning is used elsewhere about the "negative tone" in passages about Christians as indications of authenticity, in that Christian scribes were unlikely to be derisive of their own traditions.
Q4: Why does the article state that the "overwhelming majority of scholars" hold the James passage to be authentic? Did we do a survey ourselves?
A4: The formal Misplaced Pages guidelines require us not to do our own survey. The Misplaced Pages guideline WP:RS/AC specifically states: "The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view." Given that the guideline then states: "statement in Misplaced Pages that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors." we should not rely on our own surveys but quote a scholar who states what the "academic consensus" may be. That is what the article does.
Q5: The article states that most scholars hold that the Testimonium Flavianum had an authentic kernel that referred to Jesus, but was enhanced later. Are these just the Christian scholars?
A5: No. That "most scholars" agree that the Testimonium had an authentic core is supported by a variety sources, e.g. the highly respected Jewish scholar Louis Feldman, as well as the leader of the the 20th-century myth theorists G. A. Wells who acknowledges that after the discoveries of Shlomo Pines in the 1970s most scholars support that view. (The Jesus Legend, 1996, by G. A. Wells, ISBN 0812693345, page 48)
|
John Painter
John painter is a theologian see Pseudo-scholarship. He is NOT AFIK a historian, and this is a blatant disregard for proper sourcing. John Painter needs to be removed from this article. Josephus is not theology it is HISTORY — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greengrounds (talk • contribs) 05:59, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- According to WP:RNPOV theology does not trump history and history does not trump theology. Both are scholarship, albeit one of them is an empirical science and the other isn't. There is no policy saying that theology should be deleted. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:17, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- Uh, the Oxford dictionary defines theology as "the study of the nature of God and religious belief." I see nothing in the definition that covers history. In fact the[REDACTED] article on Theology makes it clear that Theology is NOT the same as Religious Studies and states in some areas theology involves "some level of commitment to the claims of the religious tradition being studied"--67.42.65.212 (talk) 07:09, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
67.42.65.212 (talk) You couldn't be more right.
Tgeorgescu (talk) Ya, I think your confusion may lie in that this is not a religious article. It is an article about a historical document. Theologians are good at "Painting portraits" of lies, myths, misconceptions, and forgeries in scripture. That's where their use is done. Observe the following passage:
John Painter states that nothing in the James passage looks suspiciously like a Christian interpolation and that the account can be accepted as historical.
What? Who is John to say that? A Theologian has no authority to make such statements. Like I said, he can interpret, reinterpret this with scripture (aka. the myth or legend parts), but he as NO authority to talk about historicity. Given that the consensus on this talk page so far is generally that he should be limited to bible babble and "portraits", not actual historicity, he should be given Misplaced Pages:DUEWEIGHT. Unfortunately for you and the amateur theologians who wish to have John Painter's theological opinions reflected in the article, some of his citations need to be moved or removed.Greengrounds (talk) 00:38, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
- Most of Painter's statements (some of which have page numbers in the body text instead of proper citations) in this article relate to a comparison of historical sources with Christian theology. There is nothing wrong with that at all. Nor is it inappropriate to indicate where Painter agrees with other broadly accepted historical sources. There is no reason to suggest that "John Painter needs to be removed from this article." However, if Painter is being used to suggest something as historical that does not have broader support, then those specific statements should be removed.--Jeffro77 (talk) 02:02, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
- " Given that the consensus on this talk page so far is generally that he should be limited to bible babble" - There is no such consensus.Smeat75 (talk) 02:25, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
- The consensus is beginning to change. 67.42.65.212 (talk) Seems to agree with me, and Jeffro seems to agree partially with my premise. What's your input?Greengrounds (talk) 04:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
- " Given that the consensus on this talk page so far is generally that he should be limited to bible babble" - There is no such consensus.Smeat75 (talk) 02:25, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
John Painter states that nothing in the James passage looks suspiciously like a Christian interpolation and that the account can be accepted as historical.(Painter pages 139-142). Painter discusses the role of Ananus and the background to the passage, and states that after being deposed as High Priest for killing James and being replaced by Jesus the son of Damnaeus, Ananus had maintained his influence within Jerusalem through bribery.(Painter page 136) Painter points out that as described in the Antiquities of the Jews (Book 20, Chapter 9, 2) Ananus was bribing both Albinus and Jesus the son of Damnaeus so that his men could take the tithes of other priests outside Jerusalem, to the point that some of whom then starved to death.(Painter pages 139-142).
Jeffro77 and others, do you think that Painter has authority to positively assert historicity without being given Misplaced Pages:Undue weight to the source. Why are we using a theologian to comment on historicity? Shouldn't it be a historian? In other words, who cares if John Painter says "nothing in the James passage looks suspiciously like a Christian interpolation and that the account can be accepted as historical. He can say the first part, but he can't say the second. Not only that, the paragraph goes on in too much detail about how John Painter came to this conclusion. If he were to simply say he doesn't oppose it on a theological ground, it would be fine.
His book, Just James: The Brother of Jesus in History and Tradition (2005) is being cited allot in this article, allot of it poorly cited, it gets repetitive some of the stuff he Misplaced Pages:Undue weight to the source states: Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority).
What I see is first, Painter was used (needlessly) to strengthen majority view citations by other scholars. Then he gets shoehorned in behind some more majority view information, and he presents a minority view scholars.
The works of Josephus refer to at least twenty different people with the name Jesus, and in chapter 9 of Book 20, there is also a reference to Jesus son of Damneus who was a High Priest of Israel but is distinct from the reference to "Jesus called Christ" mentioned along with the identification of James. John Painter states that phrase "who was called Christ" is used by Josephus in this passage "by way of distinguishing him from others of the same name such as the high priest Jesus son of Damneus, or Jesus son of Gamaliel" both having been mentioned by Josephus in this context.
Here again he is attempting to interpret historical documents as a historian, not as Theologian. It is one thing for him to say that something makes sense theologicallyfrom a theological view as well, but it's another thing to for him to say that ya historically that's what Josephus did, and from what Josephus did in the past we can assume this is what he meant not. No. Sorry, Painter's minority view is being presented as a majority view. He may be right. He may be wrong. But his use to this article is oversteps it's boundries. Anything he says outside of Theological interpretation is considered minority view on the subject unless he has historians backing him up. Likewise, Richard Dawkins wouldn't be able to assert anything outside of Biology with any authority, other than as an opinion. We might as well have him essentially putting words into Josephus' mouth. Also by adding the Painter citation at the end, it basically changed What the previous (29) citation is saying. It is a synthesis of Painter's interpretation and what Eddy and Boyd bring up. Greengrounds (talk) 04:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
- You seem to be hanging my supposed 'agreement' with your 'premise' on a single citation. I do not agree that Painter cannot be used to either compare historical and theological understandings, nor to provide views that accord with broader historical views.--Jeffro77 (talk) 04:23, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
- Jeffro77 (talk)Painter can (sparingly) be used to compare historical and theological research, and he can provide (limited) views that accord with broader historical views. But he cannot (on his own) assert or claim independently any broad historical views. In the above paragraphs, he does this by independently claiming what Josephus meant and didn't mean in his writings. He can't do that.Greengrounds (talk) 06:43, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
- That's a long way from "John Painter needs to be removed from this article."--Jeffro77 (talk) 07:15, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
- Jeffro77 (talk)Painter can (sparingly) be used to compare historical and theological research, and he can provide (limited) views that accord with broader historical views. But he cannot (on his own) assert or claim independently any broad historical views. In the above paragraphs, he does this by independently claiming what Josephus meant and didn't mean in his writings. He can't do that.Greengrounds (talk) 06:43, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
- John Painter, see the WP article is an" Australian New Testament scholar.He is currently Professor of Theology at Charles Sturt University in Canberra." The book "Just James: The Brother of Jesus in History and Tradition" was published by an academic press, the University of South Carolina and is therefore a WP:RS. Greengrounds' contention that references to the book or material cited to it have to be removed from the article because Painter is a theologian and " Theologians are good at "Painting portraits" of lies", stated above, is silly. Your argument "he is a theologian so he cannot be used to support any material which I define as historical since theologians are only "pseudo-scholars",don't know anything about history and tell lies" is juvenile. He is a professor, a New Testament scholar, the book was published by an academic press, it is a reliable source.Smeat75 (talk) 11:57, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
- No valid reason has been given not to use Painter as a source. I agree that Greengrounds' assertions about theologians are silly. A scholar can be called a theologian simply because s/he is employed within a department of Theology, which is the name that some colleges/universities use for the study of religion--in other words, the same types of scholars might be employed in a department of Religious Studies or Religion at one school, but in Divinity or Theology at another. So the term "theologian" carries no necessary implications about what methods a scholar uses to study religion, nor even any necessary implications about whether said scholar is a believer in any particular religious tradition--there are theologians who are agnostic or atheist. In addition, one of the major activities that theologians/scholars of religions carry out is historical investigation--they study the religious beliefs of a particular time period, e.g. views of Jesus' divinity (or lack thereof) in the 2nd century. In conducting such historical studies scholars are supposed to set aside their religious beliefs and other preconceptions. Perhaps they don't always succeed, but this is a far cry from the disguised evangelism that Greengrounds seems to think theologians do. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:16, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
Actually, I think I was right the first time. He really adds nothing to the article, and as for what I said that he can be used to compare historicity of Jesus to bible gibberish may be true, but it adds nothing to the analysis of historicity. Please explain how his opinion has any more weight than a Biologist would? Greengrounds (talk) 01:46, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- Greengrounds, do you see four different people on this page, in this section, telling you that Painter is WP:RS? I do, that is me,Akhilleus,Jeffro77 and Tgeorgescu, all telling you that there is no reason to remove material cited to Painter. To then say " I think I was right the first time" amd remove it anyway is not acceptable.Smeat75 (talk) 02:21, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Meat, there are other editors on here who have said Painter should be removed entirely, and Jeffro has said "However, if Painter is being used to suggest something as historical that does not have broader support, then those specific statements should be removed."
The paragraph I removed meets the criteria of both of those people, as the paragraph I removed has Painter, a Theologian interpreting historicity of Josephus unilaterally. He can't do that. That's why he's not considered a historian. If he were a real scholar on historical matters, he could but as it were, he's nothing more than an interpreter of "portraits" of bible babble. And like user 67.42.65.212 (talk) said the Oxford dictionary defines theology as "the study of the nature of God and religious belief." I see nothing in the definition that covers history. In fact the[REDACTED] article on Theology makes it clear that Theology is NOT the same as Religious Studies and states in some areas theology involves "some level of commitment to the claims of the religious tradition being studied"--
Josephus is not "religious belief" (zombies, apocalypses, winged angels, demons, monsters) Josephus is a historian, and experts on interpreting religious belief are not allowed to do that other than attempts to reconcile their religious babble with history from a THEOLOGICAL standpoint.Greengrounds (talk) 03:16, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Categories:- All unassessed articles
- B-Class Christianity articles
- Low-importance Christianity articles
- B-Class Christian History articles
- High-importance Christian History articles
- Christian History articles
- WikiProject Christianity articles
- B-Class Religion articles
- Low-importance Religion articles
- WikiProject Religion articles
- B-Class history articles
- Low-importance history articles
- WikiProject History articles
- Old requests for peer review