This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 212.12.173.177 (talk) at 06:57, 14 April 2009 (→GOD). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 06:57, 14 April 2009 by 212.12.173.177 (talk) (→GOD)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
| Skip to table of contents |
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 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 |
Template:Controversial (history) Template:Pbneutral
 | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Jesus. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Jesus at the Reference desk. |
 | 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. |
 | Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting. |
 | Jesus has been listed as one of the Philosophy and religion good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | 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.
| |||||||||||
Template:WP1.0 Template:Maintained
|
|
Recent Archive log
- Talk:Jesus/Archive 97 Removal of spurious representations of Jesus' appearance, trilemma, Mandaean views,scripture removed from historical Jesus section, Vanadalism, Pictures of Jesus, The Truths About Yeshua, Ehrman on harmonies
- Talk:Jesus/Archive 98 Proposal, Possible NPOV Violation in the Geneology Section, first paragraph, at least three years in Jesus' Ministry, this article is too big
- Talk:Jesus/Archive 99 Literature to be mentioned, Timeline of birth, four gospels, lead; nontrinitarianism, historical Jesus, Jesus as myth, Manichaeism, year of jesus's birth, Edit at top of Jesus page, Colored Yeshua, Image of Jesus which currently exists, Proposal
- Talk:Jesus/Archive 100 Historical Jesus, The To-Do Section, commenting out instead of deleting, 2008 Islamic movie on Jesus, Historical section/Christian views section, Laundry list of non-history scholars and works (alternative proposal), Its latin, isnt it?, this page may display a horizontal scroll bar in some browsers, Proposal on archives, First Section, The historical Jesus
- Talk:Jesus/Archive 101 Edit war over capitalization, Historical Evidence for Jesus' Homosexuality, Carlaude's Majority view, What exactly did Jesus save us from and how?; Carlaude's Majority view part two., Title, PRJS, Dazed and Confused, Why was Jesus baptised?, Dates, Infobox vs. the historical Jesus
- Talk:Jesus/Archive 102 religion founder, Other parameters, He is not God But rather a Demigod, Heavily christian-centric article, Jesus' Birthdate, Jesus in Scientology, Jesus name - Yeshua in Hebrew, means "Salvation" in English
- Talk:Jesus/Archive 103 Writing clean-up, Jesus name in Sanskrit, Reforem Judaism, Jesus and Manichaeism, Bertrand Russell and Friedrich Nietzsche, Recent removal, NPOV, Detail about Buddhist views of Jesus that does not make sense, The Religious perspectives section
- Talk:Jesus/Archive 104 Black Jesus, "Autobiography" of Jesus, Genealogy - Via What Father?, Addition to "Genealogy & Family", Resurrection, according to whom?, Bhavishya Purana, Christian history category, Quick Comment, BC/BCE?, The Truth, Was he any good at his day job?, In Popular Culture, jesus picture, views on Jesus and Muhamma, Occupation, New Dead Sea Discovery- Gabriel's Revelation, Some comments
- Talk:Jesus/Archive 105 Genealogy "reloaded", Place of birth, Which religions?, was jesus ever bar miztvahed?, Bot report : Found duplicate references !, Jesus and the lost tomb, Some believe that Jesus was of middle eastern ethnicity, and not a caucasian, Mispelled cat at the bottom of this talk page, Harmony, Dating system, "Transliteration"
- Talk:Jesus/Archive 106 8 B.C., ref name="HC13", Cause of death, Renewed Discussion Concerning AD/CE debate
Subpage Activity Log
- Discussion on Judaism's views moved to Talk:Jewish views of Jesus/Judaism's views of Jesus.
- Buried vs. entombed," alleged "lack of sources" archived to Talk:Jesus/Christian views in intro.
- New subpage created, Talk:Jesus/Historical Jesus, with several models of the historical Jesus and a list of sources.
- Baptism, blasphemy and sedition discussions moved to Talk:Jesus/2nd Paragraph Debate.
- Sudden move of Christ: discussion moved to Talk:Christ.
- Disputed tag and "Christian Mythology": moved to for relevancy reasons
- User:Andrew c/Jesus: sorting data b/w New Testament view on Jesus' life, Christian views of Jesus#Life, and Jesus#Life and teachings based on the Gospels.
Muslim "Scholars" a misnomer
Muslim "scholars" do not debate the crucifixtion of Jesus, they simply believe it because it's in the Quran. It isn't scholarly, nor did they come to such a conclusion through scholarly work. It would be sufficient to say Muslims do not believe in the crucifixtion because the Quran says so. They have no historical records other than two holy books, and a choice to believe in the one they see fit to come to a "scholarly" conclusion. This needs to be changed, it's just plain stupid. Jesus like Christian "scholars" do not debate a fact they believe in the Bible, it is not debatable, it is written in stone, so to say.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.231.144 (talk • contribs) 12:32, 12 January 2009
- you have no idea what "scholarship" means, do you. Nor ever tried your hand at exegesis of ancient texts. If it isn't "scholarship" that compiled the disparate ancient and medieval manuscript of the New Testament, compared them, edited them, translated them, and then debated their content, I have no idea what you understand by the term. The fact that you can go to a shop and buy a copy of "the Bible" is the result of literally centuries of scholarly efforts. --dab (𒁳) 11:34, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Anon, you have poorly characterized an entire people and hundreds of years of Muslim scholarship. It may be easy to skim newspapers today, read about Islamic fundamentalists and make an assumption about Muslim efforts to educate their people, but it would be a terribly naive conclusion. You may want to read more history and less NYT and WP. Cheers. --Rider 16:19, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Whether or not his points are prejudicail or not, it remains unclear whether it is actual scholarly activities, or simply the Quran that is being referenced. If a scholarly view was used by Muslims fine, but if it's the Quran being referenced this should be reflected in the article —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.45.146.200 (talk) 23:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Burkbraun's comments on Jesus Myth section/bias
I think the Jesus myth section is rather biased in its blanket statement that most or all scholars accept the historical Jesus and dismiss myth hypotheses. Most or all scholars interested in the area are Christians, as shown by every single reference cited in the section to support this contention. What then would one expect out of such a devotional viewpoint? The sampling is hopelessly biased, being self-selected. One unaffiliated, skeptical, and discerning analyst is worth a hundred apologetic ones.
It would be more appropriate to say that we have no evidence for Jesus's existence outside of what is internal to the tradition- the people who propagated the nascent faith and the documents they produced- all well after the time about which they wrote (including the interpolations to Josephus and all the rest...).
Thus the fair conclusion of the page should be while it is likely that these traditions trace back to a real person, there is no independent evidence to that effect, and indeed quite a few lacunae where evidence should exist. And the many correspondences to other mythical traditions floating around the Jewish and Mediterranean worlds of the time make the majority of key elements of this tradition quite suspect as to their historicity.
Note that all this needs to be presented in a probabilistic manner- this is not a question of refuting X, or being sure of Y, but of recognizing the lack of solid data either way.
http://www.christianorigins.com/wellsprice.html http://mama.indstate.edu/users/nizrael/jesusrefutation.html etc. etc... Burkbraun (talk) 17:43, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- There appears no reason not to quote these scholars. Broad, unreferenced statements asserting facts should be tagged for citation requests. I see no problem with just following standard Wikpedia editing policies. --Rider 18:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- I agree. I think we have done a great job of providing the significant views from notable sources. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:45, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
- The link provided above seems to be no more than an essay with a name that may be a pun.
- On the other hand, our one footnoe, "^ "…if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned. ... To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars.' In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." M. Grant, Jesus: An Historian's Review, pp. 199-200. 1977 " is illogical and possibly very POV (which is OK, if a source with a competing POV were to be inserted). But then again, the answer to Jesus' real existence will never be found based on anything other than extrapolation. •Jim62sch• 21:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
The Jesus-Myth hypothesis is discredited even among mainstream, nonsectarian scholars, not because the scholars are Christian but because there's every reason to believe he lived (as a mortal man). Leadwind (talk) 01:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
- To be accurate: they believe there was at least a basis in a real person who became the myth. •Jim62sch• 21:22, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
- If you have been over to the disjointed mess that is Jesus myth hypothesis you will see that there is a lot of confusion as to what the Christ myth theory even is. The biggest problem is that different authors use different definitions for the term. Remsburg's and Dodd's definitions include a historical person with other says it only refers to the idea Jesus never existed. In short the literature on this is a mess.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
- this goes to show that there should be no "Jesus myth" section here. A "historicity" section is enough. --dab (𒁳) 11:31, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- If you have been over to the disjointed mess that is Jesus myth hypothesis you will see that there is a lot of confusion as to what the Christ myth theory even is. The biggest problem is that different authors use different definitions for the term. Remsburg's and Dodd's definitions include a historical person with other says it only refers to the idea Jesus never existed. In short the literature on this is a mess.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:11, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Jesus was Korean fabrication
There is some Internet lies going around web lately claiming Jesus was Korean theory, please note Jesus have nothing do with Korea and Koreans, but it seems Chinese & Japanese do believe this is correct which I can only think of this was lie was invented by Chinese/Japanese nationalists in attempt to make fun at Koreans. Please note this is very controversial claim coming from Chinese/Japanese communities. I do believe this has to stop, so please add this event on main article to show this was total fabrication. --Korsentry 02:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KoreanSentry (talk • contribs)
- Uh, I don't think we could include that with WP:FRINGE. You'd need to satisfy WP:REDFLAG. And considering the sudden rise in other forms of this propaganda that is (Budda, Mao Zedong), I personally would be disinclined to believe any of it w/o major evidence from reliable sources. Soxwon (talk) 04:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
this sounds interesting, but we'll need evidence of the notability of this "Christ was Korean" thing before we can debunk it. --dab (𒁳) 11:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Occupation
jesus was a Rabbi and a Carpenter.
please add this two!. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.182.80.216 (talk) 10:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
- Not Jewish here, but he wasn't an "ordained" Rabbi, he was a vagrant who preached about peace and love whom his followers referred to as Rabbi. Not sure that counts though. 2CrudeDudes (talk) 18:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- I remember making a few suggestions for Jesus' occupation. Alas, they were not taken up. ja fiswa imċappas bil-hara! (talk) 18:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- I am Jewish, and I am a rabbi (an "ordained" one, too), and I'm wondering whether 2CrudeDudes has proof of that at all or whether he/she/it (they?) is just guessing.... RavShimon (talk) 19:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well Rav you should know there's no ordination involved. Jesus was an itinerant preacher, sometime carpenter, alleged messiah. ja fiswa imċappas bil-hara! (talk) 19:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well, that's rather my point: the whole "he was a vagrant... whom his followers referred to as Rabbi" bit needs support. There were "real" rabbis at the time, and the concept of ordination goes back to the beginning of Jewish history, so saying definitively that he wasn't would require proof just as much as saying he was. In absence of sources to either effect, the best we can do is to say that we don't know whether he was.
- There are indications to the fact that he wasn't—rabbis weren't exactly very common back then, and after all his "innovations" there most likely would have been some mention of his ordination being rescinded (yes, that can happen)—but that's just a bit short of definite proof. RavShimon (talk) 20:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well Rav you should know there's no ordination involved. Jesus was an itinerant preacher, sometime carpenter, alleged messiah. ja fiswa imċappas bil-hara! (talk) 19:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- I am Jewish, and I am a rabbi (an "ordained" one, too), and I'm wondering whether 2CrudeDudes has proof of that at all or whether he/she/it (they?) is just guessing.... RavShimon (talk) 19:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- What you mean is, there is no statement in the sources describing Jesus receiving smicha. But it is understandable that an Orthodox Jew would infer that a person addressed as "rabbi" would have received smicha i.e. that the title was used only to address men who had received smicha. Non-Orthodox Jews - at least, some who are historians - might question whether the word "rabbi" was used that way during the first century, but I think all Orthodox Jews believe that it was. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Actually, no, that's not what I mean. The term rabbi as used then was quite different from the term as used today. I'm addressing 2CrudeDudes's comment that Jesus wasn't ordained. Even if Jesus was a rabbi by the then-current usage, we simply cannot say for sure whether he actually was given semicha at any point. RavShimon (talk) 20:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Well, I'd say my comment holds a fortiori then. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- What you mean is, there is no statement in the sources describing Jesus receiving smicha. But it is understandable that an Orthodox Jew would infer that a person addressed as "rabbi" would have received smicha i.e. that the title was used only to address men who had received smicha. Non-Orthodox Jews - at least, some who are historians - might question whether the word "rabbi" was used that way during the first century, but I think all Orthodox Jews believe that it was. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Jesus got authority from John, in the Essene community. And it's pretty reasonable that Jesus was proficient in halakha. ja fiswa imċappas bil-hara! (talk) 22:37, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- We'd need sources for these claims; I don't think the major historians of Jesus or the period would accept your assertions. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Imagery
We have 11 out of 11 images depicting the adult Jesus in the "standard average" convention of a bearded man with dark hair.
This does not reflect iconographic tradition accurately, since there is a parallel, although weaker, tradition of depicting Jesus as a beardless young man. here is Jesus as a boy (Bulgaria, 13th c.) -- which does not count, but which would be a welcome intermediate stage between the ubiquitous Baby Jesus and Bearded Jesus images. Here and here are examples for the beardless adult Jesus. Here we have a beardless Christ-as-Orpheus, which is probably intended more as an allegory than as a portrait, but which is nevertheless notable for its age (4th century. The oldest image currently in the article is 200 years younger). Early depictions of "Jesus as Good Shepherd" such as this, which also show him as a beardless youth are similar (allegory, not portrait). I think there is a theory that beardless depictions were the rule prior to the 6th century, when with the appearance of the Mandylion, an "authentic" portrait became available, which subsequently set an iconographic standard. --dab (𒁳) 11:16, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
.JPG){kind=link}
- Hello D, I don't see any reason why beardless iconography should not be inn the article. The diversity would be good. If you are looking to replace a picture, maybe you could provide which ones you would replace. It may be easier just to add one. I would suggest being bold in this case. Cheers. --Rider 16:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Being beardless would not be accurate considering he was Nazarene and as such didn't use a razor. Soxwon (talk) 16:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
- Jesus came from Nazareth in Galilee, he was not a Nazirite. Hardyplants (talk) 17:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I don't have a particular preference. My suggestions are contained in the post above. I may try fiddling with the images today or tomorrow if I have time, but my intention was mainly to encourage others to widen iconographic coverage. In fact, the main article on this topic, depiction of Jesus, loses itself in "Early Iconography", "Acheiropoieta" and "in Islam" but fails to cover mainstream Christian ionography, which should ideally make for the bulk of the article, so I'll try to invest some work in that some time.
Of course this isn't about the question whether the "real" Jesus had a beard. None of these images are painted after life (if we exclude the Turin shroud debate for the moment). The idea that these images are in any way accurate suffers from the "Muhammad FAQ #3 fallacy". --dab (𒁳) 10:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
- Hardyplants is right that Jesus being a Nazarene doesn't make him bearded. Shaving was nearly universal among Jesus' people, and the earliest depictions of Jesus show him clean-shaven. For instance, a 3rd century bas relief in the Roman Forum shows a bearded John the Baptist (an ascetic from the wilderness) and a clean-shaven Jesus (not an ascetic). Leadwind (talk) 17:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
So how do we edit a page if it's "semi-protected?" Is it possible to re-format pages anymore? This prohibition from editing doesn't seem very wikipedia-like. :)
Somebody let me know what's going on please... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scttvnzn (talk • contribs) 22:05, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
- The page is protected against IP edits, probably due to ongoing vandalism issues. It can still be edited by anyone with a registered account who logs in. Doc Tropics 19:17, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Editing changes needed
I'm putting this edit request here as the main article has been locked to edits.
<Edit request to remove vandalism removed as someone already did this.>
In the "Chronology" section, where it mention "the current year is 2009", "2009" should be replaced by the template CURRENTYEAR (all caps) in order to show the current year automatically without need to edit the year over time. (Place double curly braces before and after the template please.) This will not change the way the year is displayed, only effect is to change the year to match the current year, i.e.: on Jan 1, 2010, the year shown will change to "2010'.
Please delete this section after the above editing has been done as this section will no longer be relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.247.77.63 (talk) 16:02, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Sorry forgot to sign. Added editsemiprotected 98.247.77.63 (talk) 16:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
Edited to reflect current changes. Also added expanded explanation to "currentyear" after reading the request to not change date espression. The above "currentyear" template will not change the appearance, only change as the years roll by. 98.247.77.63 (talk) 16:48, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
- That section already uses {{CURRENTYEAR}}. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:23, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Year of birth
If the chronology of his life is what is drawn upon for most of this article, would it not make sense to put Jesus's birth at the year zero? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.73.64.155 (talk) 17:09, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
- To begin there is no Year 0 in the Gregorian calendar. Next, there is much disagreement as to what year Jesus was born in, so it is not possible to put a definitive year as to his birth. A new name 2008 (talk) 17:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
Birth Date
Astronomer John P. Pratt, The Planetarium Vol. 19 Number 4 Dec 1990:
"The date of the reported lunar eclipse shortly before the death of King Herod has long been recognized to be important for delimiting possible dates for the birth of Christ. For many years it has been believed that the eclipse occurred on March 13, 4 B.C., and hence that Christ must have been born about 6-5 B.C. However, recent re-evaluation has raised questions about that eclipse, and two other dates have been preferred: Jan. 10, 1 B.C., and Sept 15, 5 B.C. This paper proposes yet another eclipse as the correct choice: that of December 29, 1 B.C. It also suggests that Christ was born at the Passover season of 1 B.C. and discusses compatibility with traditional Christmas dates."
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.18.159.103 (talk) 02:38, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
"son" of man or "child" of man?
I've got a detailed grammatical question for someone who knows something about Aramaic. In some languages, the word "son" is specifically masculine (e.g., in English). In others, the word "son" is generic, but the corresponding word "daughter" is specifically feminine (e.g., Spanish). In Spanish, if one is talking about a "son" or "sons" in general (hijo or hijos), the term strictly means "child" or "offspring." If I ask you how many hijos you have, I'm asking about your children, not about your male children. European languages with gender often have word pairs that don't map to English, as in "sibling & sister" instead of brother and sister. Or "parent & mother," "teacher & female teacher," etc. What's the case in the term "son of man"? I've seen it translated as "child of humanity" (Ehrman). In Aramaic, does the term "son of man" mean "child of a mortal man" or does it mean specifically "male child of a mortal man"? Leadwind (talk) 19:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- Aramaic distinguishes between son and daughter, and in this case uses the word for son. However, the best scholarly explanation of the phrase "son of man" that I know of is Vermes, who shows how it is used to refer to one's self in polite conversation. There is no direct equivalent to this in English today, except in life science journals and some other academic journals where authors are not allowed to use the word "I" and instead use the passive voice ("It is argued ...") Perhaps an analogy would be the time - now past - when scholars instead of using "I" would use the first person plural, "We." There are a great many books and articles one may read (by one, I mean you), in which the author consistently uses the word "we" ("We shall argue") and every informed reader knows that this is purely a formality, that the article or book was written by one person and the view of only one person is being expressed (no informed reader would conclude that the name of the author is actually a pseudonym for a collection of several authors, readers understood that "we" was a convention). Similalry, Vermes shows how in contemporaneous texts people seem to be using bar nasha or whatever the Aramaic was to mean "I," but politely. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:31, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
- "Aramaic distinguishes between son and daughter, and in this case uses the word for son." And in particular, it distinguishes the way English does and not the way Spanish does? It's a very particular question. As for "son of man" meaning "I," my understanding is that this is one meaning, but that it could also mean "mere mortal" or "mother's son," that is, roughly, "somebody." When Jesus says the son of man has nowhere to lay his head, it could refer Jesus himself, or to people in general. Maybe he meant it in both senses. Leadwind (talk) 07:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- My understanding is, it that it does not mean mere mortal or somebody. What is the evidence for that? If our task is to understand what it meant in the Gospel's, we need a meaning that of course makes sense when substituted in the specific Gospel contextx - but I would think a reliable interpretation would have to be based on non-Gospel sources, if we are making a claim that the meaning was generally understood. Vermes does this. I have not read Ehrman (whom I respect) - what is his evidence? By the way, it seems to me that hijo and son mean the exact same thing, in what way are Spanish and English different? I think you mean "hijos" which means children. But just because hijos means children does not mean that hijo means child. I am fairly certain that bar in Aramaic means son, and not child. But if "bar nasha" means "I" perhaps women used the phrase too ... you would have to go back to Vermes to see if the term occurs in that context. I think what is more important is that both Spanish and English are very different from 1st century Aramaic. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- If "son" in Aramaic is like "hijo" in Spanish rather than like "son" in English, then "son of man" could be translated "child of humanity," as Ehrman does. If "son" in Aramaic is like "son" in English, then "child" is not a fair translation. That's why I want to know whether the Aramaic word for "son" is like Spanish (in which gender is only assumed) or like English (in which it is explicit). It sounds as though you can't answer my very technical question, which is no surprise. It's a very technical question. As for "son of man," Crossan sometimes translates "son of man" as roughly "human being," which is how it was used in Hebrew scripture. Funk translates it as "son of Adam," which sound's a lot like "mother's son" to me. In Mark, when Jesus says that the Sabbath was made for man, so the son of man is lord of the sabbath, that two-part argument makes sense if you translate it as the sabbath was made for mortals, so the mere mortal is lord of the sabbath. The logic of the argument is lost if "son of man" is translated simply as "I." In Matthew and Luke, Jesus' argument is truncated so the reader can no longer tell that Jesus meant "son of man" to mean "human being." Leadwind (talk) 00:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Spanish: hijo for son, and hija for daughter. Child:(boy) niño m; (girl) niña f. Only CHILDREN - niños - would be ambiguous - so much for Spanish --JimWae (talk) 00:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
I can speak neo-Aramaic and write it at a lower level; son of man in Aramaic is "bar-nasha", which has nothing to do with the word child. It has a loose mening to the words "son of man" but a more accurate translation is "human nature", and many Assyrians and Chaldeans say "ana hon bar nasha" (I am only a human!) as a sign of complaining for instance. Gabr-el 00:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
"bar" means son or "of" whilst nasha just means man. Gabr-el 00:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Jim, in Spanish one can say "Da cada niño una lâpiz" and mean "Give each child a pencil" not "Give each boy a pencil." Sometimes "niño" can mean "child," not "boy," even in the singular. That makes it different from English "boy." Leadwind (talk) 02:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, Gabr-el. I was hoping I'd run into someone with some unusual language expertise. Follow-up questions: could a woman say "ana hon bar nasha" to mean "I am only a human"? Or would she have to say something else, since she's not a son of man? Leadwind (talk) 02:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Let me go ask a Priest who will be more knowledgable in aramaic than I, but I know that she can use it to mean that she has human nature, but I don't think that she can use it to mean that she a daughter of God. Besides, in those days, and even today, the masculine is often used for all, male and female. Gabr-el 06:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
In English, someone can say "she is the boy who cried wolf;" "the boy" stands in for all children. Leadwind, I think you are missing the point: even if "bar" always means "son," "bar nasha" is an ideomatic phrase that means something else. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- It can mean two things; word for word it translates to son of man, but its real meaning is "human nature". Child of Man is not what it means, definitely not. Gabr-el 22:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- If the analogy with Hebrew holds, it seems that you cannot use the masculine form instead of the feminine to refer to an individual female person in Aramaic. Compare "Bar and Bat Mitzvah". Nor can you in Spanish speak of an individual girl as "el niño". "Da a cada niño un lápiz" does not refer to any one individual, but to a group, being equivalent to "Da a cada uno de los niños un lápiz". Compare "Bnei Mitzvah". Soidi (talk) 14:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Selection of sources
I am not here to question the content of this article nor it's neutrality but rather the reliability of the sources used when considering wiki's neutrality philosophy. I can't help but notice that The Jesus Seminars are extensively relied upon and seem to be assumed to be a neutral source. This is far from true. There really are only two position to take on the issue of who Jesus was and what he did in light of what is recorded in scripture. Either you believe that it is all true--every word of it--or you don't. There is no middle ground. The Jesus Seminars do not accept the text of the scriptures in there totality and are therefore by default entirely on one side of the fence. So what I am ultimately asking here is if we can progressively phase out the Jesus Seminar sources and replace them with sources who do not take an open and declared stance of non-neutrality (which the Jesus Seminars most certainly have--though perhaps without realizing it?). Or, is it possible to flag sources in some way as questionably neutral/non-neutral (as opposed to flagging the entire article)? Thanks. MorbidAnatomy (talk) 03:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Wait, I'm a little confused where you're coming from. Are you saying we stop citing the Jesus Seminar in favor of saying everything in the scripture is true? Please forgive me if I am misinterpreting you.-Andrew c 04:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Not at all! I am well aware that this is a place to discuss improving the article based on wiki policy, not a place for sermons.
Absolute neutrality on this issue is impossible but using sources that are self-proclaimed non-neutral seems deleterious to the quality of the article (unless they are balanced by other sources taking the opposing stance). What I'm saying here is that The Jesus Seminars are, as an organization, not a neutral source. So anything we cite from them is not neutral. This jeopardizes the neutrality of the article. I see only a few possible solutions: 1) don't use The Jesus Seminars as a source (that's a difficult option to chose!); 2) balance all Jesus Seminar information with other scholarship taking the opposite view (a lot of work but probably the best way to ensure neutrality); 3) some how flag either the information in the article or the sources themselves in the Notes section as of questionable neutrality. Any thoughts? MorbidAnatomy (talk) 15:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages's policy is simple: we present all significant views from notable sources. That isn't so complicated, is it? You write above that the Gospels are either all true, or not, that there is no middle ground. Obviously you are wrong: the Jesus Seminar exists, so obviously there is a middle ground. You may not agree with that view, but so what? None of us are here to put our own views in articles. Editors' views do not go on: only significant views from notable sources. The Jesus seminar is significant. You say the Jesus Seminar is not a neutral source. Again: so what? Our policy does not say we should use neutral sources. It says we should use notable sources. Please tell me where in our policies it says we should use neutral sources? In fact, our NPOV policy says that no source is neutral. So your point about it not being neutral, well, uh-duh, none of our sources are neutral. Finally, you say we need to balance the Jesus Seminar with the "opposite" view. I am not sure what you mean by "opposite" but be that as it may, I must again ask, where in our policy does it say that we must include "opposite" views? Our policy says: we include all significant views from notable sources. I repeat: that's simple, isn't it? Why do you wish to make it complicated when our policy is so simple? Provide us with a significant view from a notable source and we will put it in, if this is the right article (for example, we have a different article for views of Jesus Christ). I do not know about "opposite" views, but we certainly include other significant views from other notable sources. We also include views of historians who do not belong to the Jesus seminar, like Sanders, Fredriksen, and Vermes. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
Um, you clearly did not follow what I was saying at all. Also, though I did not want to allow myself to deviate away from focusing on the article, you successfully tempted me into this: The Jesus Seminar is not middle ground in any way shape or form. Let me clarify what I was saying regarding absolute truth. There are only two views to take on the matter. 1) every word of the scriptures is absolutely true, or 2) not every word of the scriptures is absolutely true (this second class includes the spectrum ranging from "one word is wrong" to "the whole thing is false"). That's why there is no middle ground. It really is a black and white issue. The Jesus Seminars do not accept every word of it as truth and are therefore fall entirely into the previously enumerated group 2 (not a middle ground). What I was getting at before--in an attempt to improve the articles neutrality--was suggest a better balance of sources. I know we are not requiredto use neutral sources. I was merely listing the possible options, fully realizing that some of them are not realistic, not what I felt was required. I'm not trying to pick a fight here; I really am just trying to suggest means of improving the article. If no one is interested, forget it. I'm not that emotionally attached, I thought I would present the idea and see if anybody agreed or disagreed. I got my answer. MorbidAnatomy (talk) 18:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- The claim that there are two views only is itself a view, and if it is a significant view from a reliable source we can add it, although since it is not a view about Jesus but rather a view about scholarship on the Gospels I would suggest this particular view would belong in another article. You also claim that there are neutral sources, but you have not named any. In any event, opur policy does not recognize neutral sources; no source is neutral; all sources represent some view. A source may claim to be neutral but that does not make it neutral, it just means that it claims it is neutral. One source may describe another source as neutral; again, that does not make the other source, neutral, it just means that someone views it as neutral (and we would need to know if that someone were significant and notable). I do not think anything I have said is combative, i am not trying to pick a fight, I was just clarifying the inclusion criteria: all that matters is that a view be significant and come from a reliable (and verifiable) source. If you know of any that meet these inclusion criteria you are free to add them. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- Note also that the proposed dichotomy is at least arbitrary. Why not split it as "no historical truth at all" vs. "some historical truth"? Why can't I have a three-way split - all truth, some truth, no truth - and demand balance between these three positions? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
- MorbidAnatomy, if you want to help, go find a good, conservative book by a respected author, like N T Wright, and edit the expert's conclusions into this page. That will make the page more to your liking and probably better. Leadwind (talk) 07:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Meier is a very reliable source, and conservative, too. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Meier is in the exact same camp as the Jesus Seminar. They both clearly do not believe that every word of the scriptures is absolutely true. :Þ -Andrew c 02:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- Meier is a very reliable source, and conservative, too. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
- Riiiiiiiiiight, I forgot - that category of "eveyone who isn't me." Yup!Slrubenstein | Talk 02:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
error on page
Where is the EDIT button on the main page of Jesus?
error: at bottom, it reads:
"Names of Jesus in the Old Testament"
BUT the link leads to:
"Names of Jesus in the NEW Testament" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.252.179.26 (talk) 11:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- You can't edit the page because it is protected. But I've deleted the link you mentioned altogether because it is already linked (more accurately here in the article. Belasted (talk) 17:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Please comment
On this AfD Slrubenstein | Talk 20:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
Typos
"in or our of technical circless" contains 2 typos, "our" and "circless". It should either be corrected to "out" and "circles", or else marked with a template, by someone with access to the source: Walter P. Weaver, The Historical Jesus in the Twentieth Century, 1900-1950, (Continuum International, 1999), page 71. Art LaPella (talk) 23:29, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
- Consider it done. Here's the source. Good catch! ^) Paine (^ 07:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
The last sentence of the next-to-last paragraph of the section on "Resurrection and Ascension" uses "principle" where the adjective "principal" is intended. The corrected version should read: "Later he appears to seven disciples who are fishing, and finally talks with Peter, foretelling Peter's death and assigning him the principal role as shepherd of the new community." 212.150.94.78 (talk) 18:56, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
- done; thanks.--Rider 20:47, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Jesus told his friends one night that he was the son of God but one day Jesus died because A few guards A pilot and A master of all but the master did not want Jesus to die he did not tell anyone but he agreed for Jesus too die this is how he died the guards grabed him in the night when all his Dissipples were sleeping in the morning when they woke up they noticed that Jesus had gone they all went out side they saw Jesus carrying A giant cros and they remebered last night he said that he was going to die and then they all started crying with sadness when Jesus reached the top Jesus got nailed to the cross and was shouting to death with pain and blood going every where the next day he died A bit early lots of people were crying all those things that hes done for us A storm came after they had said that on Easter sunday Jesus rose up everyone A celebratian then he had to go back to Heaven but they were not crying this time because ways are ways. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.74.170 (talk) 19:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Please change "Including" to "Excluding"
{{editsemiprotected}} In the section entitled, "Historical Views", the statement, "Including the Gospels, there are no surviving historical accounts of Jesus written during his life or within three decades of his crucifixion" means, prima facie, that the Gospels themselves don't exist (a contradiction indeed!). I suggest changing "Including" to "Excluding", so that the intended meaning, which is clearly that there are no surviving EXTRA-BIBLICAL historically reliable accounts of Jesus's life, comes through.
Not done: the Gospels weren't written within 3 decades of the crucifixion either. —Ms2ger (talk) 13:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Let's remove this
Jesus told his friends one night that he was the son of God but one day Jesus died because A few guards A pilot and A master of all but the master did not want Jesus to die he did not tell anyone but he agreed for Jesus too die this is how he died the guards grabed him in the night when all his Dissipples were sleeping in the morning when they woke up they noticed that Jesus had gone they all went out side they saw Jesus carrying A giant cros and they remebered last night he said that he was going to die and then they all started crying with sadness when Jesus reached the top Jesus got nailed to the cross and was shouting to death with pain and blood going every where the next day he died A bit early lots of people were crying all those things that hes done for us A storm came after they had said that on Easter sunday Jesus rose up everyone A celebratian then he had to go back to Heaven but they were not crying this time because ways are ways. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.74.170 (talk) 19:37, 3 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Speargun3D (talk • contribs)
Move to Jesus of Nazareth?
I believe the principle of least surprise suggests that this article should be at Jesus of Nazareth, the common, neutral, and unique way to refer to the article's subject matter. Accordingly, I'm proposing the move. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 18:17, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support -- there were in fact other itinerant preachers named "Jesus" in the area at that time. One such "prophet" was killed by a large rock shot from a catapult. The name "Jesus of Nazareth" uniquely names, and does not presume anything. This name is common in the credible literature. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 18:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- P.S. In addition, most "genealogical" resources use the "Jesus of Nazareth" moniker.
- Oppose - In the English language whenever the name Jesus is said there is only one inidividual that comes immediately to mind, Jesus Christ. I have never heard of anyone ever being confused about the topic..."do you mean Jesus of Nazareth or the Jesus that was killed with a stone or the one who always wears blue?" Jesus of Nazareth is simply another way of referring to Jesus Christ. --Rider 18:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- The "comes to mind" criterion is inherently subjective, which makes it problematic from WP:NPOV perspective. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 06:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose -- There are more than one Muhammads, Abrahams, Davids, but there is no suggestion that these articles are moved. Universally it is recognised that 'Jesus' primarily refers to the Jesus of this article, and that anyone named Jesus (particularly in Hispanic areas) is specifically named after this Jesus. Furthermore the "of Nazareth" is a paraphrasing. The Biblical reference is actually to Jesus the Nazarene - which some sources have stated may or may not actually refer to Nazareth, and therefore opens up an avoidable discussion over the ambiguity and POV of the proposed article title. --JohnArmagh (talk) 19:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
- I think the naming issue relates to Jesus uniquely. I don't see how other people's names are relevant to this discussion.
- It shows that if Mohammad, whos name is so widely used, does not have a title to it, then why should Jesus, whose name is so unique in vernacular English? There were many Jesus', even Bar Abba, the one who was released at passover, had Jesus as a first name. But as Storm Rider humorously pointed out, no one confuses Jesus Christ with a Jesus, whom Storm Rider postulates wore blue. (And I don't doubt that such a man existed if you say so Storm Rider!)Gabr-el 01:15, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Support, though Jesus Christ might be better. I'll take either one. Belasted (talk) 01:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose, According to the policy on naming articles we should 'Use the most easily recognized name'. In my experience, Jesus is the most recognized name, with Jesus Christ second and Jesus of Nazareth a distance third. A new name 2008 (talk) 01:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - agree with previous. Would prefer 'Jesus Christ' myself, but Orthodox Jews would not like the implication. 02:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Oppose - most Jews, not just Orthodox, would reject Jesus Christ. This title works fine, no one has compained about being confused. The day we have articles on other Jesuses, is the day we provide a disambiguation page and address the problem. Right now I see no problem. Slrubenstein | Talk 03:32, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Well its not about what one group accepts or rejects. Orthodox Christians would reject Jesus without "Christ". Gabr-el 03:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- I think you misunderstand me. NPOV simply does not reequire us to say Jesus is the Christ. It requires us to say that some people believe he is the Christ, which this article does, with no objecions from me. Slrubenstein | Talk 04:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Er, no no, I think you misunderstand me. Yes. :) Gabr-el 05:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Okay. How about something like Jesus (Christianity)? Belasted (talk) 15:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- A title with a disambiguation should only be used when there is a primary topic and another topic has the same name and needs to be disambiguated, or when there is not clear primary topic and the disambiguation page is at the name and all topics are disambiguated. I believe this is the primary topic and should not be disambiguated like this suggestion. A new name 2008 (talk) 15:36, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- I was hoping something along the lines of Jesus, Christ, God the Son - you know, in that way no one will be confused as such. Gabr-el 06:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- Folks, we are getting far afield here. The proposal "Jesus of Nazareth" was made, not to correct some deficiency in the title "Jesus" other than the fact that A) it is more precisely and uniquely descriptive B) this is the prevailing name format in genealogical records (I would trust genealogists on this type of thing) C) it is NPOV (and for this reason "Jesus Christ" or "son of god" etcetera will simply never be appropriate and obviously so). If we could restrict our votes and commentary to the merits and demerits of "Jesus of Nazareth" please. There is no other move under consideration.Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 18:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- "the prevailing name format in genealogical records" is neither here nor there. We have no policy concerning the name formats of genealogists. We have a policy that the most common name be used. That's why "Jesus" is user, and that's why it's been pointed out that "Jesus Christ" would be the next opition, since it's the next most common. It's also why the innacuarate but well established names "Mark Antony" and "Zoroaster" are also used. There are no other Jesus's remotely likely to comete, even including Bradford Jesus. So the name should stay as it is. Paul B (talk) 18:51, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
grammar error's?
anyone else noticing the not-so-fluent-english?--69.203.28.14 (talk) 22:53, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
GOD
My question is please dont get me wrong.... if Jesus is a son of God that means God can also be Crucified.........or can die? if no...why...because God's son is a God too... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.12.173.177 (talk) 09:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
- Your question is a useful one for understanding the nature of God and Jesus, but this is not the appropriate place to be asking it. This space is for discussions related to improving the article about Jesus of Nazareth. May I suggest, if you desire an answer, going to www.beliefnet.com.134.84.96.19 (talk) 22:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
thanks for the kind suggestion.
Categories: