→Historicity: add to closing comment |
Strangesad (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 208: | Line 208: | ||
::Actually, I think Dawkins has said Jesus existed, but he also said that Jesus would be an atheist. What Dawkins means by Jesus is not clearly "a Jewish preacher from Galilee, baptized by John the Baptist, and crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman prefect, Pontius Pilate" as represented in this article. [[User:Strangesad|Strangesad]] ([[User talk:Strangesad|talk]]) 18:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC) |
::Actually, I think Dawkins has said Jesus existed, but he also said that Jesus would be an atheist. What Dawkins means by Jesus is not clearly "a Jewish preacher from Galilee, baptized by John the Baptist, and crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman prefect, Pontius Pilate" as represented in this article. [[User:Strangesad|Strangesad]] ([[User talk:Strangesad|talk]]) 18:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC) |
||
{{archivebottom}} |
{{archivebottom}} |
||
Regarding the "virtualy all" statements, this book review reveals that Ehrman's definition of "scholar" is surprisingly narrow. Not what the average reader is going to expect: |
|||
"By serious scholar, Ehrman means one holding a PhD ... and currently tenured in the field of New Testament studies" [http://tech.mit.edu/V132/N16/ehrman.html]. |
|||
I propose we change the wording of the article to "According to Ehrman, virtually everyone tenured in the field of the New Testament studies...." to more accurately reflect the source. Also, Van Voorst's Wikipedia page descibes him as a pastor. A pastor is not in a position to be objective about the historical reality of Jesus. [[User:Strangesad|Strangesad]] ([[User talk:Strangesad|talk]]) 16:54, 8 August 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 16:54, 8 August 2013
![]() | 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 is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Template:Controversial (history) Template:Pbneutral
Guild of Copy Editors | ||||
|
Missing reference(s)
The article cites Grudem 1994 (cite 27) and Grudem 1995 (cite 93) - neither of which are in the Bibliography. Aa77zz (talk) 20:45, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Fixed Thanks for pointing that out.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:09, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
Edit request on 27 July 2013
Curious as to why the EXACT YEAR of the Birth of Jesus is not published because in the Holy Bible(Luke 3:1 and Luke 3:23)can be verified using a timeline with Tiberius Ceasar's reign(from Wikipedia page) together with those 2 verses gives an exact year of Jesus birth(much closer than what is there now for sure). Curious why that is not good enough to date Jesus' birth using those verses when other verses in Bible are used as reference all the time?
Karon777 (talk) 08:52, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
- To begin with, different books in the Bible places Jesus birth at different times. Both Matthew and Luke write about Jesus birth, but they disagree about the time. Even if we wanted to use the Bible as our source, we could not be sure whether it's Matthew or Luke who's right, since at least one has to be wrong. Then there's the possibility that they are both wrong. So there is no definite RS for Jesus's birth, making it impossible for the article to state such a date.Jeppiz (talk) 12:25, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
Should the possible birth year span be extended back more?
Some scholars think Jesus might have been born as early as 10, 12 or even 14 BC. Irenaeus seemed to have believed so and Robin Lane Fox believes this is so. Should we extend Jesus' possible birth year back a few years?
Thevideodrome (talk) 02:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Clearing up some citations
I've removed three sources from the "Etymology of names" section, including a Messianic Bible (arguably fringe and unreliable), what looks like a second unreliable source (Natan, self-published through a POD service called CreateSpace), and a book called The King James Conspiracy, which is... um... well, it's a novel.
I've replaced it with a cite to Ehrman's last book, Did Jesus Exist?, but I've hit a bit of a snag, as I only have the Nook book and am not sure about page numbers. On the Nook PC app with default text settings, it's page 29, which is cited elsewhere in this article, but I'm pretty sure the page number will not necessarily match up with the print edition. The paragraph I have in mind is a bullet point about 2/3 through the first chapter, under the heading rebutting The Jesus Mysteries. It begins with the text "The Gospel writers deliberately constructed the Greek name Jesus".
If someone could double-check and get a print page number, then make the necessary correction (or just reply here and let me know so I can), that would be great. Thanks! Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 09:42, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- I did a Google Book search for the Ehrman book and could not find a single result for "Yehoshua". Therefore, I suspect that Ehrman's book does not support the statement in the article. We might need to find a different source.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:17, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
- Nevermind, the Ehrman source does state that Yeshua is derived from the Hebrew word for Joshua. I've added a source that states that Joshua is a rendition of Yehoshua. I think the whole sentence is now supported by RS. As for the page number, I believe page 29 is correct, because the the part about Yeshua is on the same page as the quote "nearly anyone who lived in the first century", which is what the other citation is used for.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:11, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Historicity
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I've removed text that asserts historicity as a consensus, since the sources were cherry-picked, and only expressed the sources' opinions. I'll say more a little later, when I have more time. Strangesad (talk) 16:59, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- For example, a scholar who questions the existence of jesus: Michael Martin (philosopher) Strangesad (talk) 17:00, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- Under footnote "d" we mention Robert M. Price, who believes that Jesus did not exist, but also writes that most scholars disagree with him. Regardless of what Martin believes, does he dispute that most scholars disagree with him? —Cliftonian (talk) 17:05, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- The article doesn't say "most." It says "virtually all". 51% is very different from 99%. Anyway, most of the sources have a theological background not a historical one, and they are giving their opinions. There is no clear definition of what they mean by "scholar", but they seem to mean religion professors rather than historiians. The citation says stuff like Micahale Grant is a classicist, without mentioning that his specialty was Roman coins, and never mentions that all the sources for these claims are popular books, author interviews promoting their popular books, and so on. This has been discussed at great length here and on Resurrection of Jesus. It always ends with the minority skeptics being chased off by those guarding these articles.
- I'm not sure who closed/hid this section, or why, but it seemed oppressively aggressive. Strangesad (talk) 17:16, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- Consensus can change, and saying it has been debated "ad nauseum" suggests that there are many views on it. It also doesn't address the points. When you say "virtually all" it should not be easy to find reliable counter-examples. Elaine Pagels, GA Wells, Betrand Russell, Richard Dawkins, and Price are all scholars who have expressed doubt. Strangesad (talk) 17:31, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- Be careful not to confuse "notable people who have expressed an opinion" with historians and academics whose opinions actually matter as far as "historicity". Dawkins for example is very notable, but I'm not sure what gives weight to his opinions on historical facts or not. Also be careful to separate "did a Person named Jesus exist, who was the focal point for these stories" from "Is the Bible an accurate historical record of the actions of Jesus", which are two very different questions. In particular Wells seems to argue that Jesus was attributed with the mantle of many other older myths and figures - which is very plausible, but also a separate issue from if he existed or not. Gaijin42 (talk) 17:36, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- "Jesus probably existed.” – Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, p.122 Smeat75 (talk) 17:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, I think Dawkins has said Jesus existed, but he also said that Jesus would be an atheist. What Dawkins means by Jesus is not clearly "a Jewish preacher from Galilee, baptized by John the Baptist, and crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman prefect, Pontius Pilate" as represented in this article. Strangesad (talk) 18:40, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Regarding the "virtualy all" statements, this book review reveals that Ehrman's definition of "scholar" is surprisingly narrow. Not what the average reader is going to expect:
"By serious scholar, Ehrman means one holding a PhD ... and currently tenured in the field of New Testament studies" [1].
I propose we change the wording of the article to "According to Ehrman, virtually everyone tenured in the field of the New Testament studies...." to more accurately reflect the source. Also, Van Voorst's Wikipedia page descibes him as a pastor. A pastor is not in a position to be objective about the historical reality of Jesus. Strangesad (talk) 16:54, 8 August 2013 (UTC)