In ictu oculi (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 295: | Line 295: | ||
:::::Except the edits do not bare out what you say. You still sound very upset and I am sorry that you think I am responsible. I suspect you are now trying to intimidate me. I must say I do find your erratic behavior a little unsettling. Yet I still wonder if there is any chance in working through our differences. In any event I do wish you the best in your editing. - [[User:Ret.Prof|Ret.Prof]] ([[User talk:Ret.Prof#top|talk]]) 03:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC) |
:::::Except the edits do not bare out what you say. You still sound very upset and I am sorry that you think I am responsible. I suspect you are now trying to intimidate me. I must say I do find your erratic behavior a little unsettling. Yet I still wonder if there is any chance in working through our differences. In any event I do wish you the best in your editing. - [[User:Ret.Prof|Ret.Prof]] ([[User talk:Ret.Prof#top|talk]]) 03:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC) |
||
:::::'''PS''' When people try to intimidate me I do not become "weepy", I become stronger, more determined...It is a serious mistake to confuse meekness with weakness. |
:::::'''PS''' When people try to intimidate me I do not become "weepy", I become stronger, more determined...It is a serious mistake to confuse meekness with weakness. |
||
::::::Dear RetProf, though we both know you were never a professor. |
|||
::::::You don't think it's slightly hypocritical to say "I do wish you the best in your editing" in the same breath as = I will continue to delete you? |
|||
::::::You're fortunate, you're currently throwing your weight around and bullying in a small corner of Wikipedia which is prone to OR and fringe theories by nature. But if you try this out in more general subjects you will soon discover that the aggressive and territorial approach you're taking won't be accepted as I'm accepting it. |
|||
::::::Now please leave me alone - you have had your way, 100%. You write those pages as fits with your view. I couldn't care less. [[User:In ictu oculi|In ictu oculi]] ([[User talk:In ictu oculi|talk]]) 06:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== Resumed editing == |
== Resumed editing == |
Revision as of 06:08, 2 February 2011
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/ca/Qxz-ad15.gif)
.
.
![]() |
The article you created was just deleted? | |
All is not lost. Here is what you can do right now: | ||
Many administrators will be happy to give you a copy of your deleted article, either by putting it on a special user page for you (a process called userfication) or by e-mailing you a copy.
Once you have the article, you can try to resolve the issues why it was deleted. If you've repaired the article, or you believe the reasons for deleting the article were in error, you can dispute the deletion at Deletion Review. Generally, you must show how the previous deletion(s) were in error, but this is the place to resolve disputes about whether a deletion was wrong. |
When a person goes through the time and effort to write an article or to research sources or whatever, he or she is going to have some emotional attachment to it. That's natural. Personally, I like it when someone takes an article and improves it and expands it. But if there's a danger of the hatchet coming down in the form of aggressivedeletion monkeys, then why should I put my time and mental equanimity on the line? I'm a professional writer and editor. I get paid to do this stuff. I'm less willing to write and edit articles on a voluntary basis when those contributions aren't welcome. -- Acsenray
- The above quote shows why constructive edits are so very important. It also shows why we suffered a net loss of 49,000 volunteer editors in the first three months of this year, compared with 4,900 for the same period last year. Even our fund raising is being hurt. A simple rule for groups that depend on volunteers and donations is they must treat people nicely. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:32, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
The Guardian, Thursday 26 November, Jenny Kleeman: Go to an article on a current event, or a celebrity, and you're likely to find that it's been "protected" from tinkering by newcomers. But it could be that the collaborative aspect itself is driving people away. Disenchanted ex-volunteers say they are burned by squabbling with established editors over their contributions, and some claim the site is run by an impenetrable inner circle that controls all its content. "It's colloquially known as the cabal, although it's more like a hierarchy of power cliques, each one staking out its territory," says former contributor Barry Kort.
- Jenny we are not a cabal, but we need editors of good faith to stop this from happening. - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:49, 26 November 2009 (UTC) Wikipedia: the Story
![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/ed/WikiColor.gif/75px-WikiColor.gif)
Wag more, bark less, Don't bite. |
.
.
.
Talk Page Archives: |
---|
Archive 1 (2008) |
Archive 2 (2009) |
Archive 3 (2010) |
************************************** HAPPY NEW YEAR 2011 *************************************
Christianity and the Historical Jesus: Man, Myth or Demon?
Religious articles tend to be areas of conflict and POV pushing. My project is to explore the Historical Jesus from a strictly neutral point of view. I will start with the earliest sources and try to leave my 50 years of scholarly baggage behind and see where the reliable sources lead me.
The Three Hats of Retired Professor
Christian: The first "hat" is that of a Christian. I am a priest and pastor who has a real relationship with God through Jesus Christ. I am in many ways a pretty Orthodox believer. I have found such persons as Francis of Assisi, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Mother Teresa, Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Dietrich Bonhoeffer and President Obama to be a source of inspiration. (Yes, I am one of the few people happy to see Obama take a stand against the wave of bigotry sweeping America although it was not in his political interest to do so and I find crazed pastors burning the Koran particularly offensive.) Indeed I would call myself a "born again" Christian, yet not in the way that Glen Beck or Sarah Palin are born again. Not only do I not hate other religions, but have studied them and they have helped deepen my faith. For example, Gandhi, a Hindu, has helped remind me how far we as Christians have drifted from our core beliefs.
Biblical Scholar: As a professor and Biblical scholar I have been able to distinguish between the Christ of Faith and the Jesus of History. The Historical Jesus is a composite based on historical evidence. Every time a new Gospel fragment is found or a new scroll unearthed, the Historical Jesus changes. Indeed, unlike the Christ of Faith, the Historical Jesus is constantly changing. Historians and Biblical scholars must accept that over the past 2000 years much has been lost and the Historical Jesus is but a poor reflection what once was , is, and will be.
Wikipedia editor: This "hat" is radically different from the aforementioned. I believe when editing Wikipedia, that we must put our religious and scholarly views on hold. Our focus must be to fairly reflect what has been published about any particular topic. We must put our opinions aside, and study the sources. When the sources disagree, a Wikipedia article must fairly reflect all positions. The best editors are those who are so very unbiased in their writing that it is hard to tell what their POV is on a particular topic.
In the quest for the Historical Jesus, much has been learned over the past 100 years. Yet the topic is a difficult one because religious people tend to be people of strong convictions.
Oral tradition and the historical Jesus
The first problem we face is the Sitz im Leben. Early Christians & Jews worshiped at the Temple, revered written Law called Torah Shebiktav and the Oral tradition called Torah Shebeal Peh. This Oral Tradition interpreted the written Law given by God to Moses on Mount Sinai.
When the Temple at Jerusalem was destroyed in the year 70, that this Oral Tradition was no longer viable and this midrash was written down. Scholars believe it formed the basis for the Gospels.
Persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire
With the destruction of the Temple at Jerusalem many written sources were lost. Also when Christians and Jews were persecuted by various groups whole libraries were destroyed. Only a very few works survived this period of upheaval.
Orthodoxy
By the time of Constantine much had been lost or destroyed. However as Constantine tried to establish orthodoxy throughout the Empire, even more works were "lost"
Archetypes
The writing materials of the day were fragile and primitive. The archetypes or originals of early authors have almost all been lost. What has survived are copies of copies. Into these copies crept errors additions and "improvements".
Thallus (historian)
His is the earliest reference to the historical Jesus, written about 20 years after the Crucifixion. Thallos details the Crucifixion of Jesus but explains that the darkness that fell over the land at the time of Jesus' death was not a supernatural miracle, but an merely an eclipse. This would establish a pre-Markan origin for the story spoken of in the Gospel of Mark.
James Ossuary
The James Ossuary is a 2,000-year old limestone box used for containing the bones of the dead. Researchers uncovered it in Israel in 2002. The Aramaic inscription on the artifact read: Ya'akov bar-Yosef akhui diYeshua, "James, son of Joseph, brother of Jesus."
It is significant because this archaeological evidence establishes that there was a historical person named Jesus whose father was Joseph and brother was James as written in the Bible and in the works of Jewish historian Josephus.
However, the authenticity of this artifact has been contested and is the subject to ongoing scholarly debate. It is presently before the Courts who are about to rule on the authenticity of the inscription.
Mara Bar-Serapion
Mara bar ("son of ") Serapion, sometimes spelled Mara bar Sarapion was a Stoic philosopher from ancient Syria. He wrote an eloquent letter (c.75) in Syriac to his son, who was also named Serapion. This writing is said to be one of the earliest non-Jewish, non-Christian references to a historical Jesus.
Josephus on Jesus
(Born 37 AD) Josephus , also known as Yosef Ben Matityahu (Joseph son of Matthias) and Titus Flavius Josephus, was a renowned first-century Jewish historian. Josephus writes of a Jewish sect, whose leader was James the Just (the brother of Jesus). Josephus' history includes sections on John the Baptist, the High Priest Annas, Pontius Pilate, and Jesus called the Messiah.
Caiaphas ossuary
The Caiaphas ossuary is said to be the tomb of Joseph, son of Caiaphas, commonly known as the High Priest Caiaphas in the New Testament. He was the Roman appointed leader of Judaism at the time of Christ and is said to have organized the plot to kill Jesus. Caiaphas is also said to have been involved in the trial of the "King of the Jews".
According to the Gospels, Caiaphas was the major antagonist of Jesus. However Biblical scholars argued against the historicity of such a person. Archeology ended this debate when the ossuary of the high priest, Joseph Caiaphas, was found in Jerusalem in 1990
Tacitus on Christ
(Born AD 56)
Tacitus was a senator and a historian of the Roman Empire. His writings cover the history of the Roman Empire from the death of Augustus in AD 14 to the death of emperor Domitian in AD 96. Tacitus' work called the Annals (written c. 116) is important to Christianity because it confirms the historicity of Jesus. Book 15.44 mentions Christ as a person executed by Pontius Pilate during Tiberius' reign.
Pilate Stone
The Pilate Stone is the name given to a block of limestone with a carved inscription attributed to Pontius Pilate, a prefect of the Roman-controlled Judea from 26-36. It has been deemed important, because Biblical scholars believed that he was a mythical character. Then, in 1961 an inscription with his name was found confirming the historicity of Pontius Pilate, and adding to the credence of Josephus on Jesus and the Biblical accounts.
Pliny the Younger on Christ
(Born 61 AD)
Pliny the Younger, was Governor of Bithynia as well as a priest, lawyer and author. He is known for his hundreds of surviving letters, which are an invaluable historical source for the period. Of particular interest to Christians are his references to Christ.
Suetonius
(Born 69 AD) Suetonius was a Roman historian belonging to the equestrian order in the early Imperial era. He is important to Christians because of his reference to the Historcal of Jesus.
Jesus in the Talmud
The reliable sources all confirm the saying of Monsieur Renan: That in the history of the origins of Christianity, the Talmud has hitherto been far too much neglected and the New Testament can only be understood by the light of the Talmud.
Testimony Book
Paul possessed a copy of the small "Testimony Book," more popularly known as the "quelle" gospel (shortened in all reference books to the "Q" source) which is thought to be the "lost gospel" and which formed the basis of later gospels. It was a collection of sayings. -
Pool of Bethesda
Bethesda, is the name of a pool in the Muslim Quarter of Jerusalem, on the path of the Beth Zeta Valley. The Gospel of John describes such a pool in Jerusalem, near the Sheep Gate, which is surrounded by five covered colonnades. It is associated with healing. Until the 19th century, there was no evidence outside of John’s Gospel for the existence of this pool. Scholars argued that the gospel was written later, probably by someone without first-hand knowledge of the city of Jerusalem, and that the ‘pool’ had only a metaphorical meaning, rather than historical, significance.
Then in the nineteenth century, archeologists discovered the remains of a pool exactly matching the description in John’s Gospel. Thus, archeology has confirmed the historical accuracy of John’s account.
Lucian of Samosata on Jesus
Lucian of Samosata (Born 115 AD) was a well-known Greek satirist and traveling lecturer. More than eighty works bear his name. He mocks the followers of Jesus for their ignorance and credulity, although he does credit Christians with a certain level of morality. He is considered important to Christians for giving insight into the Historical Jesus.
Celsus
Celsus was a 2nd century Greek philosopher and opponent of Early Christianity. He is known for his literary work, The True Word which is the earliest known comprehensive attack on Jesus.
Celsus explained that Jesus came from a Jewish village in the Holy Land. Jesus' mother was a poor Jewish girl. This girl's husband, who was a carpenter by trade, drove her away because of her adultery with a Roman soldier named Panthera. She gave birth to the bastard Jesus. In Egypt, Jesus became learned in sorcery and upon his return made himself out to be a god. Celsus confirmed the Historicity of Jesus but not the Virgin birth. Celsus also confirmed
Criteria of authenticity and the Historical Jesus
Important to the topic. - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:13, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
Historicity of Jesus
An important area but a difficult one, as people have strong convictions. I too have strong convictions which I have tried to put on hold. Much evidence has been lost. Some evidence has been doctored by Christians and non - Christians alike. As to the basic question as to whether Jesus was a "Man' or a "Myth" the evidence clearly indicates the answer is "YES"-
Jesus the Man
The Sitz im Leben of Roman occupied Judea makes it highly unlikely that the Jews would create a Jewish mythical God as in Greek mythology or Roman mythology. Indeed none of the historical sources from the time of Christ to Constantine ever argue that Jesus was a mythical creation. The sources both Christian and non Christian are remarkably united in their portrayal of the Historical Jesus:
- At the time of Pontius Pilate, there was an outspoken Jewish Rabbi from Nazareth who preached against the Roman occupation and those who got rich by collaborating with the regime. He was a Jewish sage who condemned the collaborators, calling them "snakes", "hypocrites", a "brood of vipers", "hypocrites" and "sons of hell".
- Those in authority, both Roman and Jewish responded in an unfavorable fashion. They pointed to his humble beginnings saying that Jesus' mother was a poor Jewish girl. This girl's husband, who was a carpenter by trade, drove her away because of her adultery with a Roman soldier named Panthera. She gave birth to the bastard Jesus, who became a sorcerer and led many in Israel astray. For this he was executed near the time of Passover.
The non Christian historians such as Josephus, Thallus, Celsus, Lucian of Samosata, Suetonius, Mara Bar-Serapion confirm the above in varying degrees. So do several sections of the Talmud (these sections have been removed from modern editions). Of equal importance is the fact that no early historical source, Christian or non Christian, disputes the historicity of Jesus.
Christ Myth
However, the evidence does point to a Christ myth being developed sometime after Paul's ministry to the Gentiles. The Sitz im Leben would be Roman and Greek. This mythical Christ bore remarkable similarities to the gods of Greek mythology and Roman mythology. It was developed by Gentile Christians and was eagerly accepted by "Pagan" Christian groups. They eventually prevailed over Jewish Christians. The following is a summary of the Gentile Christ Myth:
- God came down from Heaven. He found a girl named Mary who was and would remain a perpetual Virgin. God had relations with her and she became pregnant by the power of the Holy Spirit. As a result of these relations, the Gentile Christ God was incarnated.
- The Christ God was begotten before all worlds (æons), Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with God the Father. It was for humanity and for our salvation, that he came down from Heaven, and was made man. He taught us how to live and was the propitiation for our sins. He remains seated with God on the right hand side, from where he shall come again, with glory, to judge the living and the dead and whose kingdom shall have no end.
This "myth" has nothing supporting it from the early historical sources. Indeed, the eyewitness testimony referred to by the Church Fathers i.e. (Peter's Gospel of Mark, Matthew's Hebrew Gospel and John's Signs Gospel) records that Jesus was anointed Messiah and becomes a child (or son) of God at his baptism.
Don't get me wrong
I am a Christian, who will celebrate Christmas and will say the creeds. The foregoing is simply an "objective evaluation" of the historical evidence. It should not be viewed as Truth or the full story. Indeed, the only thing that can be said with certainty is that more evidence will be discovered and our understanding of the aforementioned will change. For example, the criminal, scholarly and scientific implications of the verdict in the James Ossuary trial are immense. Historical scholarship and Faith are two very different topics.
Hebrew Gospel Tradition
There is a theory started by Jerome that the Gospel according to the Hebrews is the Authentic Gospel of Matthew and it was an eyewitness account of the life and teachings of a Jewish rabbi named Jesus. This Gospel was discarded by the Church as Christianity moved away from its Jewish roots and developed the Gentile doctrines of the Virgin Birth etc. I am now reading through the massive amount of material on this topic which includes:
- ^ First Clement,
- ^ Didache,
- ^ Ignatius, Epistle to the Smyrneans
- ^ Polycarp to the Philippians
- ^ Barnabas,
- ^ Justin, Dialogue,
- ^ Irenaeus, Against Heresies
- ^ Tertullian, On Prayer 26
- ^ Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis
- ^ Origen,
- ^ Eusebius, Theophany on Matthew
- ^ Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History
- ^ Didymus, Commentary on Psalm
- ^ Epiphanius, Panarion
- ^ Jerome, On Psalm 135
- ^ Jerome, Commentary on Isaiah
- ^ Jerome, Commentary on Ezekiel
- ^ Jerome, Commentary on Micah
- ^ Jerome, Commentary on Matthew
- ^ Jerome’s Letter to Damascus 20 on Matthew 21.9
- ^ Jerome, Letter 120 to Hedibia
- ^ Jerome, Commentary on Ephesians
- ^ Jerome, Against Pelagius
- ^ Jerome, On Illustrious Men,
- ^ Pick Bernhard, Paralipomena: Remains of Gospels and Sayings of Christ BiblioBazaar, LLC, 2009
- ^ Sabine Baring-gould, The Lost And Hostile Gospels, Nabu Press, 2010.
- ^ Waite Burlingame, History of the Christian Religion, to the Year Two Hundred, BiblioBazaarPub, 2009. p 278
- ^ Arthur Lillie, The Gospel According to the Hebrews, Kessinger Publishing 2005.
- ^ "Artifact Record Details: Oxyrhynchus Papyrus, No. 932: Letter, Thaius to Tigrius (Fragment)". Spurlock Museum at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. 2001. http://www.spurlock.uiuc.edu/search/details.php?a=1914.21.0010. Retrieved 30 May 2007. "Artifact of the Month: Letter from Thaius to Tirius, Oxyrhynchus Papyrus, No. 932". Spurlock Museum. 2002. http://www.spurlock.uiuc.edu/collections/artifact/oxyrhynchus.html. Retrieved 30 May 2007.
- ^ S. Kent Brown comments on the text of Oxyrhynchus 840 The Anchor Bible Dictionary, v. 5,
- ^ Discourse on Maria Theotokos by Cyril 12A
- ^ Grabe, Johann Ernst - Spicilegium SS. Patrum ut et Haereticorum Seculi Post Christum natum
- ^ Kitto, John - A cyclopædia of Biblical literature.
- ^ von Harnack, Adolf - Texte und untersuchungen zur geschichte der
- ^ Weber, Christian Friedrich - Neue Untersuchung über das Alter und Ansehen des Evangeliums.
- ^ Boyce, William Binnington - The higher criticism and the Bible.
- ^ Archibald Hamilton Charteris, Johannes Kirchhofer - Canonicity: a collection of early testimonies :to the canonical books of the New Testament.
- ^Handmann, Rudolf - Das Hebräer-Evangelium.
- ^Pick, Bernhard. The Gospel According to the Hebrews, Kessinger Publishing 2005
- ^ Nicholson, Edward Byron - The Gospel According to the Hebrews.
- ^Pierson Parker - A Proto-Lucan basis for the Gospel according to the Hebrews".
- ^ Farmer, William - The Synoptic Problem: a Critical Analysis. New York: Macmillan.
- ^Walter Richard Cassels - Supernatural Religion.
- ^Edwards, J.R. - The Hebrew Gospel and the development of the synoptic tradition.
- ^Schoemaker, W. R. - The Gospel According to the Hebrews. The University of Chicago Press.
It has been a lot of work to read through this mountain of material. I would sum up these sources as follows:
1. Occam's razor
In a topic where there are many strange ideas ranging from "Jesus as alien being" to "Jesus as a mythical God", Occam's razor states the simplest explanation is more likely the correct one. In other words, Jesus was probably a 'Jewish' rabbi and one of his followers wrote some 'stuff' about him in the 'local dialect'.
2. Hebrew Gospel Tradition 75/12
The simplest explanation is also supported by the historical evidence. During the formative years of Early Christianity 75 ancient witnesses testify to the fact that there was a Hebrew Gospel in circulation. Google Link Over 12 different witnesses testify that it was written by the Apostle Matthew. Google Link No ancient writer either Christian or Non Christian challenges these two facts. Google Link
Ret.Prof (talk) 18:20, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
3. Canonical Gospel of Matthew and the Hebrew Gospel
A. Conservative, Catholic and Orthodox Position
Their official position is that the "Gospel of Matthew" is a direct translation of Matthew's Hebrew Gospel.
B. The Hebrew Gospel formed the basis of the Synoptic Gospels
This group of scholars argue that the evidence shows that the two are clearly related. However to say that the Gospel of Matthew is a direct translation is not supported by the evidence.
- The Hebrew Gospel was 2200 lines, just 300 lines shorter than Canonical Greek Matthew.Google LinkGoogle Link
- Jerome explains, "I will now speak of the New Testament, which was undoubtedly composed in Greek, with the exception of the Apostle Matthew, who was the first in Judea to produce a Gospel of Christ in Hebrew letters. We must confess that as we have the Gospel of Matthew in our language it is marked by discrepancies, and now that the stream is distributed into different channels we must go back to the fountainhead."
- Modern Biblical scholarship shows this belief to be unlikely as the Gospel of Matthew was not a translation but a redaction of the Gospel of Mark and a second unknown Greek source. Parker put forward a scenario that reconciles the different scholarly views.
However they believe that the Hebrew Gospel formed the basis for the Synoptic gospels.
C. Liberal Scholars
They believe that the Hebrew Gospel never existed and if it did it most certainly had nothing to do with the Gospel of Matthew found in the Bible
Ret.Prof (talk) 22:55, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
Temporarily stopped editing
I seem to have pissed really upset an editor at Gospel of the Hebrews and the Jewish Gospels. I tried work out a compromise which seems to have upset him even more. Before it gets really ugly, I have decided to step back and ask for Admin. support. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:17, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
- Dear RetProf. Well it hasn't got ugly so far. You have been deleting content cf. Talk:Gospel of the Hebrews etc. (which just happens to reflect the mainstream academic POV) and I haven't been reversing your deletions have I? There's no edit warring, I'm merely asking you to please explain your deletions on the talk pages, which you seem unwilling to do. I also note that you have removed NPOV tags, which I have also not reversed. This is all the more unfortunate in that I don't even have much interest in this subject. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:31, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes you are correct as it does appear we have avoided an edit war.Actually my intention was not to delete your hard work, but to temporarily revert until consensus was achieved.I am now enjoying the good natured scholarly debate.Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:52, 30 January 2011 (UTC)- Correction: We haven't avoided an edit war. I have avoided an edit war by accepting the deletions of someone who clearly is pushing a fringe view and isn't familiar with mainstream scholarship on the subject he's appointed himself king of the castle. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- A little harsh? However I will strike my comment that offended you.- Ret.Prof (talk) 17:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- No, not harsh at all. Your behaviour is that of a one-sided edit war, you are constantly firing, deleting any edit I make. And I'm supposed to apologise to you for your behaviour? And you're sitting there patting yourself on the back for how we've avoided an edit war. It wouldn't be so bad if you were familiar with the mainstream academic sources you're deleting. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- It is important to calm down. I am not deleting your hard work, but merely reverting it temporarily until we reach consensus. Although I disagree that your sources are the "standard" or more "mainline" than Parker etc. they will be fully represented in the article. Good humor and not taking ourselves to seriously would be good. Also it is important that we stop calling each other names. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:28, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- No, not harsh at all. Your behaviour is that of a one-sided edit war, you are constantly firing, deleting any edit I make. And I'm supposed to apologise to you for your behaviour? And you're sitting there patting yourself on the back for how we've avoided an edit war. It wouldn't be so bad if you were familiar with the mainstream academic sources you're deleting. In ictu oculi (talk) 19:11, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- A little harsh? However I will strike my comment that offended you.- Ret.Prof (talk) 17:57, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Correction: We haven't avoided an edit war. I have avoided an edit war by accepting the deletions of someone who clearly is pushing a fringe view and isn't familiar with mainstream scholarship on the subject he's appointed himself king of the castle. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:16, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
It seems one "old guy" is getting badly beaten by the Oculi dude. Time to take some time to heal. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Dear RetProf, Imagine if I was the one following you around deleting your contributions, would I be the one playing for pity? As it stands I have taken repeated thumps from you - you followed me round 4 pages deleting 5 hours work, and then you refused to even discuss it - you still refuse to discuss it. But, in Wikipedia terms, I have turned the other cheek, I have not reverted, I have not responded in kind by deleting your contributions, I have asked for explanation for why the mainstream view should be deleted. I made one more innocuous edit (moving two duplicate paragraphs together so another editor could edit) and you immediately deleted that too. And now you need time to heal? In ictu oculi (talk) 21:29, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
Trust but verify
- Am I really playing for pity?
- Have I been civil, or given "repeated thumps"?
- Was I "following Oculi around deleting his contributions" or simply trying to work out consensus?
- Are In ictu oculi's references really 'mainline' or just one position in ongoing scholarly debate?
- Did I really remove his tags from the Gospel of the Nazarenes and the Gospel of the Ebionites?
- Did I really delete all In ictu oculi's edits or only revert those lacking consensus?
- Have I been acting in good faith; trying to work out a reasonable compromise?
- Is Schneemelcher's numbering really the present 'standard'?
- What is really meant by "this is a minor/trivial/boring subject"?
In any event, I hope my edits speak for themselves. - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:51, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
- Dear RetProf.
- Sorry, the delete-and-go-weepy-when-challenged approach is one I've seen used before.
- Someone did follow me round 4 pages and delete 100% of changes over a 4 hour period on Saturday with no explanation, and till now have refused all requests for explanation on 4 talk pages, if it wasn't you who was it?
- As you know from the way the above verify question is phrased (sneaky) you did remove NPOV tags here and here.
- Asking questions like "Is Schneemelcher's numbering really the present 'standard'?" isn't for here, it's for on the talk page where you asked already that question - after having deleted first - and were given 8 SBL authors using Schneemelcher's numbering. After which you still restored Melissa from the Bangkok internet cafe's invented unique-to-Wikipedia numbering because you "strongly support" it. And by "this is a minor/trivial/boring subject" I mean that better editing would be done by those who are detached from the subject and happy to see in an encyclopedia article a concise/non-controversial summary of academic orthodoxy, whether it is right or wrong, and the "controversial" theories further down the page. Anyway you should be off the pages now, or you can stay and block/delete other editors, either way these pages don't mean enough to me to restore deletes in the face of an incumbent with a fringe view. Cheers.In ictu oculi (talk) 02:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- Except the edits do not bare out what you say. You still sound very upset and I am sorry that you think I am responsible. I suspect you are now trying to intimidate me. I must say I do find your erratic behavior a little unsettling. Yet I still wonder if there is any chance in working through our differences. In any event I do wish you the best in your editing. - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:01, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
- PS When people try to intimidate me I do not become "weepy", I become stronger, more determined...It is a serious mistake to confuse meekness with weakness.
- Dear RetProf, though we both know you were never a professor.
- You don't think it's slightly hypocritical to say "I do wish you the best in your editing" in the same breath as = I will continue to delete you?
- You're fortunate, you're currently throwing your weight around and bullying in a small corner of Wikipedia which is prone to OR and fringe theories by nature. But if you try this out in more general subjects you will soon discover that the aggressive and territorial approach you're taking won't be accepted as I'm accepting it.
- Now please leave me alone - you have had your way, 100%. You write those pages as fits with your view. I couldn't care less. In ictu oculi (talk) 06:08, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Resumed editing
Resumed editing to join scholarly debate. Ret.Prof (talk) 14:55, 30 January 2011 (UTC)