Talk:Jesus/Archive 51

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Unsourced statements in Jesus#Ministry

Many interpret the Gospels to suggest that Jesus opposed strict and literal observance of traditional Jewish law, advocating more the spirit than the letter of the law. Some contend that Jesus preached a "higher level" of morality than in Jewish law, preaching love for not only one's "neighbor," but for one's "enemy" as well

  • First of all, by saying "many interpret" and "some contend," we are moving beyond the Gospel accounts to particular interpretations of the Gospel accounts.
  • Secondly, we should say who the "many" and "some" are.
  • Third, I recognize these as particular Christian doctrines, but they don't cover all Christian doctrines. Christian views on the relationship between OT law and NT Gospel range from antinomianism to legalism, to those who see Jesus as a second Moses in fulfillment of Deuteronomy 18:17-20, to the Lutheran and Reformed doctrine on uses of the law found in Law and Gospel.
  • Fourth, doesn't this really belong in the Christian Views section?

Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 07:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

The 2nd sentence can stay if we remove "Some contend". Actually anyone who can read would contend that - it's the plain meaning of the Gospel text. The 1st sentence I would disagree with completely. rossnixon 10:16, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I think qualification of what "traditional" here means might help as well, as if it means the OT there might be somewhat of a clarity problem, but if it was like the "foolish traditions" Jesus spoke about then that probably needs some explanation too. But all your points seem correct. Homestarmy 12:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Homes, I think this is referring in particular to Jesus' commentary on Mosaic law in Matthew 5:17-48, which Wikipedia strangely calls antithesis of the Law. I say strangely because only antinomians really believe that this passage is antithetical to the Law! A plain reading of verse 17 disavows any claim of antithesis: "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 14:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
It seems to have been renamed "Expounding of the Law" on Wikipedia :/. Homestarmy 14:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Codex Sinaiticus renamed the page on April 15, some time after the last time I clicked the link. Much better! You can probably tell how much that "antithesis" thing was bothering me. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 14:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Ross, I half agree with you. IMHO the second half of the second sentence is supported by a plain reading of the text (it is also properly sourced). Jesus did, of course, say "Love thy enemy." Whether or not that represents a "higher level of morality" is a particular theological viewpoint. My own view is that Jesus was telling us what the law really means, but of course that is also POV. I wonder what our Jewish friends would say? Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 14:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Archola. The first sentence is inappropriate for this section. The second sentence is highly POV. Jews certainly do not consider Jesus' morality to be "higher," "fuller," or "more complete." I have no doubt that Jesus believed that his teachings were superior to those of his contemporaries, but I see no need to put that in the article (anyone who proposes something new thinks it is better than what came before). I also have no doubt that Christians think this is a higher morality, but this would belong in a section on what Christians believe. In any event, it is highly POV and must be presented as a POV. And yes, we should avoid weasel words here like some or many. I understand many non-Christians also believe Jesus's teachings were morally superior, but we can easily name names (Russell? Ghandi?) and should. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I have revised the reference. I've also moved it to the discussion of the Sermon on the Mount, where it belongs. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 22:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Jesus' teachings were both tradition and radical in some aspects. In the area of the Jewish Law, Jesus advocated and adhered to the Law of Moses (Luke 10:25-28, John 8:55). According to Matthew, Jesus stated, "Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill." However, Jesus also taught of a "New Law," whereby man was bound by a new moral code. Jesus advocated in the Expounding of the Law, among other things, turning the other cheek and love for one's enemies as well as friends (Matthew 5:21-48).

What do you think? —Aiden 18:06, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I merged some of the above with your revision. I think it reads rather well. —Aiden 18:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

The first sentence looks a little awkward to me. How about "Jesus' teachings were in some ways traditional, but in other ways they were radical." Other than that, your revision looks fine to me. However, I am less sure of the various perspectives on Jesus' teachings in relation to OT than I am about James' relationship with Jesus (and even there, apparently, I was wrong). So, what do other people think of Aiden's revision? Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 18:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
That seems a bit vauge to me, what about "Jesus' teachings were both traditional and radical in a sense compared to Jewish law of the time." Homestarmy 23:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
It's not really that vague when the next sentence starts "In the area of the Jewish law." Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 13:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Well then remove the Jewish law part and put it in my sentence and it'll go more quickly :). Homestarmy 13:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

An anonymous editor (63.201.24.138) changed it to read "interpreted by some to mean teaching a "New Law"" Same problem as before: who is some? If this is an NPOV issue, than let's discuss it. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 06:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

How about using the old wording and adding a footnote to John 13:34? Would that be acceptable to everyone? » MonkeeSage « 15:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
As long as everyone can agree to the meaning of John 13:34 (although a "new command" seems pretty unambiguous to me, you never know what other people might think). What we're dealing with here is the relationship between the OT law and the teachings of Jesus, and of course there are various interpretations of this even within Christianity (something we might discuss within the Christian views section). To be honest, when I hear the phrase "new covenant," I immediately think of the Lord's Supper—which isn't quite the same thing as the Expounding of the Law. So, I'll let others comment. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 15:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Yup. Seems clear to me also, but you never know. Also John 15:10, 12, 14. » MonkeeSage « 16:03, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Andrew c's concerns

Concern over Chronology section

What does it mean "The most detailed accounts"? Mt and Lk are the ONLY accounts if we are talking canonical. If we aren't, then this needs to be clarified. The reference makes no sense (and needs to be updated). I could not find "The Gospels of the Bible" when I searched BibleGateway.com.

  • I added an unsourced tag to this section because these claims need to be verifiable if we want this to be a FA. When I get home and have access to the book, I will look up the page number for the Meier info, and add a ref tag for it.
  • The paragraph about the creation of AD seems too detailed.

It seems ackward to introduce Herod in this fashion. Maybe we need a sentence before this one explaining that Herod is a character in Mt, and if we are to accept Mt's account, Jesus would have been born before 4 BCE.--Andrew c 00:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. I agree that section is too detailed and needs to be condensed. As for sources, I believe this grew out of the discussion on the birth and death dates in the first paragraph, so some of those sources probably apply to this section as well. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 11:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Also the census +tax wasn't introduced until Quirinus become governor of Syria in 6 CE - so this shows the gospels to be utterly unreliable. Should the article only deal with undisputed facts? http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/jesus_born.htmlYummy mummy 10:36, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

As I said earlier on this talk page, I knew this would come up. Well, many critical scholars just feel that the nativity narrative is less reliable than other parts of the Gospel. To them, the gospels are not "utterly unreliable," only parts of them are. Of course, Christian apologetics also have a response. Homestarmy, you may respond when ready ;)Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 11:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, skeptics annotated Bible eh, i'll see if I can rustle up some Bible-thumping apologetist responses to that :D. Homestarmy 12:46, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Actually, never mind.....I'll do it myself. You know what, for all the problems wikipedia has, a no censoring alot of pr0n policy, sometimes really weird cabalistic things, and weird downtime, sometimes it really is awesome....especially when the critics try to quote from it. The first claim from the skeptics annotated Bible is that Herod died in 4 BC, (Yes, 4 BC. Not 4 BCE, yeesh) where it cites the Wikipedia article. I shall quote from it:
  • "Some chronologers hold that he died in the year 5, 4 or 1 BC . Their chronology is based to a large extent on Josephus’ history.(You know, the guy people slam for Christians somehow tampering with his writings) In dating the time that Herod was appointed king by Rome, Josephus uses a "consular dating" whereby Josephus locates the event as occurring during the rule of certain Roman consuls (Onischuk note-Consular Dating was highly variable and therefore inaccurate - see Julian Calendar and Anno Domini). According to this, Herod's appointment as king would be in 40 BC, but the data of another published Roman historian, Appianos - book "Appianos Romaika" (Appian's Roman History) published 2nd Century AD], would place the event in 39 BC. By the same method Josephus places Herod's capture of Jerusalem in 37 BC, but he also says that this occurred 27 years after the capture of the city by Pompey (which was in 63 BC). (Jewish Antiquities, XIV, 487, 488 [xvi, 4]) Josephus's reference to that latter event would make the date of Herod's taking the city of Jerusalem 36 BC -- Appianos 35BC. Now, Josephus says that Herod died 37 years from the time that he was appointed king by the Romans, and 34 years after he took Jerusalem. (Jewish Antiquities, XVII, 190, 191 [viii, 1]) This might indicate that the date of his death was 2 BC or perhaps 1 BC using Josephus's consular dating, whereas Appianos would place the date at 1 BC or 1 AD.
Based on this information, I shall conclude that his death date is by no means settled upon as 4 BC, taking into account the source in question. I also conclude that the reasoning Josephus used to find the date seems to be highly debated. Therefore, it seems the Skeptics annotated Bible's conclusion of "4 BC" is not highly defendable, whereas many possible dates proposed for Herod's death here correspond just right for the Bible to come out contradiction free. :)
Nextly, The Cyrenious/Quirinius thing. At first glance, this may appear to be a rather odd little problem for the Bible....until, that is, one reads the source provided for Quirinius. As I said earlier, Wikipedia can sometimes be awesome.
  • Publius Sulpicius Quirinius (rendered in Greek Κυρήνιος Kyrenios, c. 51 BC - AD 21) was the Roman governor of Syria. According to the Gospel of Luke (2:1-2), Jesus was born during his rule.
Looks like the Greek renders it pretty close to "Cyrenious" to me. Remember, many manuscripts used for translating the Bible into English come from the Greek. No contradiction.
The Homestarmy contradictions in the Bible resolution services have been pleased to assist you :D. Homestarmy 13:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I thought I'd add my two cents: Christian Think Tank response. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 13:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Some citations on /Dates of Birth and Death are also relevant. » MonkeeSage « 15:54, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

More concern, this time Baptism

The way the paragraph reads now seems to suggest one coherent picture, where scholars find the differences between the 3 versions (and Jn's lack there of) significant. It seems like the reason Lk and Mt's versions are mentioned are to suppliment each other to paint a coherent picture. This practice seems POV. My proposed solution would be to give Mk's account, and explain in a sentence or two how Mt and Lk differ, but of couse this is just another POV (namely Markan priority). I'd propose something like this.

The Gospel of Mark begins with the Baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist, which Biblical scholars describe as the beginning of Jesus' public ministry. According to Mark, Jesus came to the Jordan River where John the Baptist had been preaching and baptizing those in the crowd. After Jesus had been baptized and rose from the water, Mark claims Jesus "saw the heavens torn apart and the Spirit descending like a dove on him. And a voice came from heaven, 'You are my Son, the Beloved; with you I am well pleased.'" Luke adds the chronological details that John the Baptist had begun preaching in the fifteenth year of Tiberius Caesar, c. 28 AD/CE (Luke 3:1) and that Jesus was about thirty years old when he was baptized (Luke 3:23). Matthew differs from the other accounts by including John's attempt to decline the baptism, saying that it is Jesus who should baptize John. Jesus insisted however, claiming that baptism was necessary to "fulfill all righteousness".

But maybe this is too much. Maybe we could just add "on the other hand" before the narative switches over to Matthew. Maybe this is just a nit pick, but reading that section didn't seem quite right to me.--Andrew c 00:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I like it Andrew. » MonkeeSage « 01:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I really like it, Andrew. Good job. —Aiden 03:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

A paragraph like that is (almost) exactly how a discussion of variant versions in the synoptics should be done. I do have one quibble, though. I think the phrase "by including John's attempt" about Matthew's version implies that Matthew is correct that John attempted to decline the baptism. I would suggest, "Matthew differs from the other accounts by describing an attempt by John to decline the baptism..." john k 04:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for your support and suggestions. I have changed the paragraph accordingly. (The anon edit was me).--Andrew c 18:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Calander notation again

I've changed the article to keep it cleaner, and more NPOV. I've erased the B.C.E. and C.E. designation, it is quite unnecessary(especially in this article!). I understand there has been some debate about that, but truly, AD and BC will always remain the standard. No other encyclopedia I've seen has ever used BCE/CE. I know this may be seen as a Christocentric point of view, but in retrospect, we still use pagan names for days of the week, and nobody seems to raise any significant backlash about that.

I also made a little change to make it more clear. Instead of using "/" in between birth and death years, I used a "-" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spotswood Dudley (talk • contribs)

The concensus here was to use both notations. » MonkeeSage « 01:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree with the anon but also feel consensus should be respected. —Aiden 03:41, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Am I the only one with a bad sense of deja vu? Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 06:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Dudley done wrong - up to his old tricks again --JimWae 06:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Aaaahhh the suspense! Homestarmy 12:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Historical Jesus subpage activity

Weren't 19th century "higher criticism" types, like Strauss, along the lines of the "ethicist" tradition? john k 22:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Somewhat, yes. The search for the historical person of Jesus starts with the posthumous publication of the Reimarus essays in the late eighteenth century. Those works were attempts to use Enlightenment rationality to rid Christianity of supernaturalism. [1] Ultimately, the claim leads to a collapse of trinitarian doctrine, and a view that the importance of Jesus lies solely in his moral teachings.
By the 1790's it was fashonable in German schools of theology to write histories of Jesus. Hegel's first published work was a life of Jesus, for instance. The whole of Nineteenth century Christology, including Strauss, is dominated by the trend, and the Unitarian Church is born in this period. This so-called First Quest for the historical Jesus was finally ended in 1907 when Schweitzer published The Quest for the Historical Jesus, followed by the existentialist Christologies of Bultmann, Tillich and Barth.--Mrdarcey 02:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The above is from Talk:Jesus/Historical Jesus/Moral teacher. I thought I'd cross-post here in case people don't read the subpage (this is actually the first comment since I created the subpage). Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 08:07, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Jesus, Mary and the Kings of France

An anon IP (80.47.174.65 (talk · contribs)) added a paragraph to the Life and Teachings section about how the Merovingian dynasty of France was descended from Jesus and Mary Magdelene. Does anyone object to my removal? Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 18:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes- I do... I think that as this controversy is being discussed by millions of people around the world, it needs to be at least acknowledged here. User:Eric 18:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Here's the paragraph in question:

It has recently been discovered that Mary Magdalene was of royal descent (through the Jewish House of Benjamin) and was the wife of Jesus, of the House of David. That she was a prostitute was a slander invented by the Church to obscure their true relationship. At the time of the Crucifixion, she was aparently pregnant. After the Crucifixion, she fled to Gaul, where she was sheltered by the Jews of Marseille. She gave birth to a daughter, named Sarah. The bloodline of Jesus and Mary Magdalene became the Merovingian dynasty of France.

First of all, it doesn't belong in the Gospel summary section, as it's not mentioned in the canonical Gospels. Cultural impact, maybe.
Second of all, this paragraph is an exact copy of a paragraph in DaVinci Code#Secret of the Holy Grail. Besides the fictional DaVinci Code, do you have a source to cite? Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 19:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Take the stuff out as it's unverified - can't wait until the film is released! Is there an article on the historicity of Mary Magdalene? LOL --Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA SophiaTalkTCF 19:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Go ahead. I took it out but Eric put it back in. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 19:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
So long as we make it clear that it is a minority view and that it is only propounded by populist authors (and mabye say who?), not scholars (and mabye list some scholarly dissent?), I don't mind a mention. And it also needs to go in the right place. Otherwise it is being given undue weight. » MonkeeSage « 19:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
The only source I know of is Dan Brown. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 19:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Shall we get CTS to check his library? (only kidding CTS!) --Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA SophiaTalkTCF 19:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
He's been busy with his RfA and a dispute on the Martin Luther page. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 19:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
It's also in Baigent-Leigh-Lincoln, The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail; Picknett-Prince, The Templar Revelation: Secret Guardians of the true Identity of Christ; and Starbird, The Goddess in the Gospels: Reclaiming the Sacred Feminine. These claim to be presenting "historical conjecture", but they are not written by scholars in relevant fields, and have been, on the whole, overlooked or rejected by serious scholarship. » MonkeeSage « 19:44, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Does that make them a "minority" or a "small minority"? Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA SophiaTalkTCF 19:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

This not a new thought. Its conjecture has been around significantly longer than Brown has been alive. Because it is a fad today does not necessarily mean that it merits specific mention.

I am a bit puzzled by the whole thing. Does it belong in this article? What about the article "gibberish from non-scholars about fictional religious thoughts that cause the uneducated to get excited". Okay, okay, let me tell you my real opinion... Cheers Storm Rider (talk) 20:08, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry - I should warn you that when the three of us get together it's usually a wind up. Apart from the anon IP post these are all in jokes from jaded editors of this article. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA SophiaTalkTCF 20:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Just as long as we don't start speculating on Jesus' DNA again./ BTW, Storm Rider has been around this page longer than I have. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 20:30, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
You are the only one obsessing about Jesus' DNA. Give it a rest. Ted 02:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
Patently false. Anyone who can read can see that you started the thread by talking about God's genes (not far from mocking God IMHO). I pointed out how silly that was, but Guettarda expanded on the idea. Your beliefs may be different, but many of us believe that Jesus' conception is simply a miracle of the Holy Spirit. To be honest, I find it odd that people wanted to run a genetic analysis when I brought up the idea that Jesus and James might have the same mother. Next thing you know, you'll be asking for a paternity test. Well, believe whatever you want to believe.Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 10:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
My apologies. The mention of God's genes was used to show how ridiculous the argument was about half-siblings, a standard technique in discourse. I forgot my audience, and I apologize for that. I said I was bowing out of the argument, which I did, despite your continued attempts to mistrepresent my beliefs so you could mock them. Now, you are trying to beat a dead horse by bringing it up in completely unrelated topics. I simply wondered why. Libel, indeed. Ted 15:46, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I accept your apology, but please stop misrepresenting what I said. It's not really unrelated since someone added a paragraph about Jesus' bloodline through Mary Magdelene, which is just as ridiculous IMHO. I also apologize if I misunderstood what you were saying. Do you have a suggestion for revising the article? Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 18:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
No, thanks. It's pretty clear I don't fit here. I'll move on. Ted 19:09, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
I have often wondered if 500 years from now an Oral Roberts tape will be found "hidden" in some old tape-player, and there will arise a common opinion that, rather than finding a scarce number of such tapes because they were not widely accepted or used, it is actually because the "evil Christian elite" tried to destroy them and true Christians had to hide them; and consequently books will be written about the true 900-ft. Jesus that institutional Christianity tried to suppress and hide. ;) » MonkeeSage « 23:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The Holy Blood, Holy Grail stuff is nonsense not supported by any contemporary sources, and there's no reason to give it any credence by referring to it in this article. There've been tons and tons of theories about Jesus. Many theories which have much more scholarly merit do not have room to be discussed in this article. There's absolutely no reason to discuss this stuff here. john k 01:21, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

None of this nonsense should be present in the article. It is based on virtually no authenticated scholarly material and this user has taken a verbatim copy from an article about Dan Brown's ficticious book. Give me a break. —Aiden 02:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
It helps to demonatrate the concensus against 80.47.174.65/Eric. Rather than get into an edit war, some of us engaged in absurdist humor. I think we all agree not to include the paragraph. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 10:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that any idea derided in Foucault's Pendulum is not historical. Then why not a section covering popular portrayals of Jesus? It could include Holy Blood/Da Vinci, Last Temptation, Passion of the Christ, Piss Christ, anything. I'd hope that could remove the pressure from the historical bits of the article.--Mrdarcey 14:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, there is a (brief) section on cultural impact that's mostly about artistic representations. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 18:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

External links

I would like to trim down on some of the external links. There are two mormon links, I'd like to remove one. I already moved the "What color was jesus" to the historical column. The wikichristian article is a stub and not that informative. The recently added Who Is Jesus--really?, despite it's great photos of the actual living Christ, should probably be removed (and I wouldn't be hurt if about-jesus.org went away also). The Hindu perspective page is about Christianity, not Jesus. The Notable Names entry seems more like spam that an actual informative EL. "The Words and Life of Historical Jesus by Jesus Institute" doesn't seem that 'Historical'. What do others think? Can we do a bit of trimming? Are there any areas that are lacking/should we look for more links on different topics/pov?--Andrew c 01:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we should avoid a link farm, but people keep adding links. --Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 10:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Archive update

I just created /Archive 50, and tommorrow I'll be ready to start /Archive 51. Quite a lot of discussion has gone on this year. Arch O. La Grigrory Deepdelver 16:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

PS: We also have a long list of scholarly sources at Talk:Jesus/Historical Jesus/Sources. Feel free to update as needed. Arch O. La Grigrory Deepdelver 16:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)