Talk:Jesus/Archive 75

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

Portaryals of Jesus

This article shoudl talk more about how Jesus is portrayed in different arts and cultures. For example, Michaelangelo was commisioned to draw him as a tall light skinned man even though Josephus' account is much different. Also explain the black vs. white Jesus argument.

I think we have some sort of article by that title already? We could make a short section here summarizing it if we haven't already.... Homestarmy 17:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
Please see Race of Jesus. {Kevin/Last1in posting from mobile} 63.148.206.250 21:42, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Michaelangelo was never commissioned to portray him as a "tall white skinned man". However, for discussions see Race of Jesus and Images of Jesus. Paul B 21:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Nav-box duplication

Did I miss some discussion about putting the Xty nav-box in twice? Do any other articles do this? --JimWae 21:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't even understand why it's in the foresnic reconstruction section in the first place, do we have some Christian Forensics thing I don't know about? But to answer your question, I think I might of seen it once in some really long article that involved Islam, I think its template was there twice, but I don't remember which article, it's just a hunch of mine :/. Homestarmy 21:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I removed it because it was only added on the 2nd, and the page had been protected since then until recently. I don't see why it needs to be included twice, especially in a section that doesn't have to deal with Christianity, but instead the historical view.--Andrew c 22:20, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I could find no other encyclopedias which denied the existence of Jesus

I deleted the sentence which alludes to the denial of Jesus's existence because I could find no other encycycopedias which denied the existence of Jesus. ken 01:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

There were verifiable sources provided for those claims. Just because other encyclopedias failed to include the information does not keep us from including it. Some people deny the existence of Jesus. The article makes no claim about whether those people are right or wrong, it just presents the fact that some people believe that. Peyna 01:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Ken's idea was reasonable, considering that this is an encyclopaedia. But some editors will have a major issue with this; as they can cite so-called scholars which do dispute that there is good evidence for Jesus's existence. It is however common for scholars to dispute the status-quo in order to produce interest and discussion within academia, so they often go to great lengths with their imaginations. rossnixon 02:08, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
And to sell books. —Aiden 02:23, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I removed again the not notable view that Jesus did not exist. It is no accident that other encyclopedias do not mention this view as it is unreasonable and not notable. ken 03:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

I feel the deleted information can be inserted into the Jesus#Other views of Jesus section. --Haldrik 04:03, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no need to delete this information. It comes from verifiable sources and is accurate. It does not violate NPOV or NOR. It states very clearly that it is a minority view. But even minority views should be represented in articles. Do delete a view you do not agree with, Ken, is POV warrioring. To delete it violates NPOV. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:16, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Well the word "minority" is a bit generous. In all fairness, it should read, "a lunatic fringe of scholars ..." --Haldrik 10:26, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I have no objection to "small" minority. Be that as it may, keeping this minority POV in has, in the past, helped ward off lengthy and tedious arguments with advocates of what you call the lunatic fringe. I see no harm in keeping it in, as long as it is written nin a way that conforms with our policies. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
LOL! For some reason, "a small minority", makes it sound even bigger than a "minority". --Haldrik 11:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I clarified the statement. It now now reads "an extremely small minority" ken 11:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
I also added this statement: "In modern times, the only reference work besides Wikipedia to prominently display the hypothesis that Jesus did not exist was the Soviet Encyclopedia." [1] ken 11:57, 21 September 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
First, to answer your concerns, wikipedia is not a print encyclopedia. We have policies in place to insure we don't take sides, and that all relevent POVs are presented as long as they are verifiable (from reliable sources) and if they are not given undue weight. Not to make this personal, but I've noticed your interest in presenting extreme minority 'scientific' views into the big bang article. How many encyclopedias mention those POVs in their corresponding articles? I'd expect you to be able to sympathize with fringe POVs. Next, your proposed sentence is problematic because it violates WP:SELF, cites something that I wouldn't consider a WP:RS for a top tier article, and the purpose of the comparison seems to be a reductio ad Stalinum akin to Godwin's Law. This issue has been debated very heavily in the past, and we have had a longstanding consensus to support this version for a while now. If you really want to help this article, instead of rehashing old arguments, I'd suggest contributing to the to do list at the top of this page. Hope this helps (and this is just my 2 cents, I apologize if my tone comes off a little stern on the internet; it wasn't my intent).--Andrew c 15:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Never seen Stalin's name in Latin - that was intersting; Lostcaesar 18:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Where do we draw the line in what fringe opinions are added to articles? I could find a 'scholar' to support just about any opinion; for instance, if i found a scholar that didn't believe that oxygen exists, should his/her opinion be represented in that article? 2nd Piston Honda 21:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, in the history section of Oxygen (Assuming there is one), the idea that Oxygen didn't actually exist was a somewhat important part of the history of discovering elements, they used to think that breatable air had some sort of life giving quantity in it (there's a term for it Chemistry books sometimes use, I think Phlogsten or something), and studying of this idea eventually helped develop the identification of oxygen itself. But Oxygen isn't exactly the same as Jesus, and all the oxygen stuff mostly has to do with science anyway, which isn't the same as history. Homestarmy 21:22, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[reset indent] This is from the NPOV policy page In other words, views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as though they are significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all. Past discussions have lead to the conclusion that this minority view is significant enough to warrent mention. And I do not believe we are giving this view undue weight (I think adding the word "extreme" may be pushing it because how do we quantify or verify the number of Jesus Mythers? If we have a source to back up that statement, all the better, but changing a "small minority" to "an extremely small minority" without sourcing seems problematic).--Andrew c 23:00, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

"Past discussions have lead to the conclusion that this minority view is significant enough to warrent mention." Why is it significant enough to mention? This view does not need representation on this page. BhaiSaab talk 15:36, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Many people have wondered over the years if Jesus was a real, historical figure. Many people (and an entire industry of books) have wondered if Jesus was, perhaps, a composite figure or even an ideal created of whole cloth to illustrate the virtue of a new sect of Judaism. To this day, no one has presented a shred of physical evidence of His existence, nor a contemporary source which mentions Him. Many non-Christians frankly think him to be a myth alongside Moses and Gilgamesh and Galahad. To pretend that no one doubts the historical existence of Jesus is false, misleading and indefensibly POV. It would be just as POV to state unequivocally that He did not exist, or that most people believe He did not exist, or that we have certain knowledge that He did exist. Accept the fact that some do not share your conviction and your faith in His existence and follow Luke 9:5. {Kevin/Last1in without cookies} 63.148.206.250 17:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
On Luke 9:5, just a minor point, but I don't think this situation here is analogous to spreading the Gospel all throughout the cities of Israel. Homestarmy 00:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
The Wikipedia page for the Holocaust doesn't include in its opening paragraph the belief that no such historical event ocurred using a tone which suggests this is an opinion to be taken seriously. I would argue that this page does something comparable in including the "Jesus Myth" theory in its opening paragraph. Theories of this nature, which are unequivocally rejected by nearly all within the modern scholarly community, and which invent unbelieveable conspiracies to explain away the considerable evidence which contradicts their basic claims, belong somewhere else on the page in my opinion. Otherwise casual visitors to the page will get the impression that the conclusion that Jesus never existed is likely to be reached by a rational modern scholar researching the evidence. It is certainly not, unless his or her book sales are in mind at the time. -KC

Forensic reconstruction?

Why forensic? Why not "historical?" This reconstruction was not for judicial purposes, nor part of some specific debate - the word "forensic" is used very strangely here. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the term forensic entered in the context of that infamous "Jesus" image, which a forensic artist reconstructed from an ancient skull. I agree the word forensic is problematic. On the other hand, historical is also problematic because it connotes texts and historiography. Modern methods for reconstruction include everything from reconstructing skulls to figuring out how tekhelet dye was made to figuring out ancient rain patterns and botany samples. The word historical isnt satisfactory, and archeologists which use all these methods dont use the word historical to include all this. ... Infact, archeologists would use the word archeological as a catchall word to mean historical analysis and everything else too. --Haldrik 10:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

How about "historical and archeological?" Forensic is just awful!! Slrubenstein | Talk 10:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

"Historical and archeological" sounds good to me. :) --Haldrik 10:41, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I seem to remember that it was one editor who was insistent that "forensic" was the technically correct word. Doubtless it's in the archives somewhere. Why not just have "reconstructions..." and drop the adjective? Paul B 10:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
I used the word forensic as an analogy to clarify the difference between "historical Jesus" versus the "historicity of Jesus", which need separate articles. Maybe that's what you had in mind? --Haldrik 10:53, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I just changed it to historical and archeological, but if others like Paul just want to drop the adjectives I will not object. I am sure that "forensic" is an inappropriate word, applicable only under one of its meanings at best, and certainly, and obscure meaning. Forensic comes from the latin fora, the forum in which magistrates and lawyers debated cases. In the US at least it is used to refer to (1) debating clubs and (2) scientific research meant to inform legal proceedings. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

BCE/CE is iconoclasm, folks

The BC/AD format has been used for 1,000 years. Changing the format to BCE/CE is iconoclastic historic revisionism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by North.east (talk • contribs) .

This issue has been endlessly debated and settled here. Read the archive if you're interested. --CTSWyneken(talk) 12:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Changing conventions is hardly historic revisionism. BhaiSaab talk 17:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Can we start a section called, "We already went there and didn't like the tee-shirt," that lists all of the old chestnuts and begs people to just leave them alone? I would nominate BC/AD, template placement, image accuracy, and Jesus's "real" name. {Kevin/Last1in without cookies} 63.148.206.250 17:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
Is this akin to the "super-duper precedent" concept of constitutional scholar Arlen Specter? I imagine you're satisfied with the current state of all of those subjects. And there was no concensus for the current 'compromise'. Look back in the archives; it was just proposed, then a few people commented, then it was implemented. Yet not even a vote which explicitly and almost unanimously rejected the combination form could overturn this, somehow. 2nd Piston Honda 05:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
What's more important, arguing every other week over a couple letters, or working to get this article up to FA status? Seriously, let it go. At the very least, for another 6 months or so.--Andrew c 12:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Missing the logic

Second paragraph:

"As the Gospels were not written immediately after his death and there is little external documentation, an extremely small minority of scholars question the historical existence of Jesus.[3]'

This should either read something like:

"As the Gospels were not written immediately after his death and there is little external documentation, an extremely small minority of scholars accept the historical existence of Jesus.[3]"

or:

"Even though the Gospels were not written immediately after his death and there is little external documentation, an extremely small minority of scholars question the historical existence of Jesus.[3]"

Or maybe a third option? As it stands, the sentence makes no sense. I haven't been involved in this article, so I'll leave the fixing to someone who has. --NoahElhardt 02:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the wording was off. I edited it with a new version. Let me know what you think. 2nd Piston Honda 02:45, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Much better. Now there is no verb disagreement. Despite what Aiden said, I don't think 'minority' qualifies as a plural except in the most stilted Oxonian usage... surely it is not needed to be said that 'scholars' was not the subject...! ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 03:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Other problems --JimWae 03:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
    • "not written immediately after his death" is an understatement. Were they written even within 5 years of his death there would be less doubt. No scholar I am aware of has then written any less than about 2 decades later
    • "little external documentation"? How about none at all (except from followers) for about another 50 years
    • there is also another reason those who doubt he existed point to - viz. the similarity with other mythical personages
      • Since the Gospels were not written until some decades after his death, and since there are no contemporaneous external documents about him, a small minority of scholars have questioned the historical existence of Jesus.
  • "some scholars, though making up a small minority" is an overbearing (undue weight) way of saying the more simple "a small minority of scholars"--JimWae 03:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I used "some scholars, though making up a small minority" because the first part of the sentence is an explanation of the scholars' reasoning as opposed to the reason that they are a minority. I was averting the problem that NoahElhardt pointed out above. I still don't like the sentence, mainly because 1) it starts with "Because" and doesn't flow as well as i'd like, and 2) "immediately after" and "little external documentation" are both subjective. 2nd Piston Honda 04:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Calling "none" little, and 20 years "not immediately after" is not a "subjective" call. Noel's substitutes (above) make no sense at all - though I can understand how the weaseliness of the existing paragraph could confuse anyone --JimWae 04:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

POV, "Little external documentation" about Jesus according to whom? Also, little is too vague/subjective

I deleted a portion of a sentence. Specifically I deleted the "little documentation" portion. Here is the sentence: "Because the Gospels were not written immediately after his death and there is little external documentation, some scholars, though making up a very small minority, question the historical existence of Jesus." Is there little external documentation? I don't believe there is merely a little documentation. I suggest reading the following book by Gary Habermas: The Historical Jesus: Ancient Evidence for the Life of Christ (College Press: Joplin, MI 1996). In addition, here is a shorter list of ancient sources mentioning Jesus. [2] ken 05:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

May I suggest that you summarize some of this documentation elsewhere in the article or in Historicity_of_Jesus, if this has not already been done by others? I agree that some cases external documentation (at least 5+? Josephus and others...) exist, and that therefore the use of "little" is at least somewhat subjective, but merely referencing a book that not everyone has access to without adding specific cited examples to the article has little constructive effect in convincing others of this fact. --NoahElhardt 05:11, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

There is NO external documentation for the existence of Jesus until about 50 years after his death. Documents written in the 2nd Century cannot be taken as "first-hand" --JimWae 05:10, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Since the documents about his life were not written until several decades after his (reported) death, and since those documents closest to that time were all written by Christians, a few scholars have doubted ...
Jim Wae, according to whom there is no external documentation for the existence of Jesus until about 50 years of his death? Do all Bible scholar camps agree to this statement including the conservative Christianity camps. Does the liberal Bible scholar John A.T. Robinson agree with this statement? Secondly, you still haven't addressed the multitude of external documention sources I cited regarding Jesus. [3] ken 05:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
NoahEldhardt, is the "little external documentation" agreed upon by the majority of scholars? I don't believe it is. If it was truly little, there would be more scholars who doubt the existence of Jesus. The amount of scholars who doubt the existence of Jesus relative those who believe Jesus existed is very minimal though. ken 05:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

Josephus seems to be the earliest - about the year 93. It is because of this 60 year gap AND the decadeS long gap for the Gospels, that people have doubts. Little is a weasel way of saying none at all was even close in time --JimWae 05:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

JimWae, none was close in time? Close according to what standard? Are you using the standard that historians of ancient history use? And you still haven't addressed the Habermas and other material I cited. [4] ken 05:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

Historical standards give more weight to reports by people who actually saw a person than 2nd & 3rd hand reports - that is why one reason some people have doubts that he lived. All external documentation is by people who never saw him -- and (most likely) who did not even talk to people who claimed to see him--JimWae 05:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

"None", "extremely little", and "much" all seems too strong of wording, so just plain "little" seems objective enough to me. From what little I know of the subject, 60 years is plenty close when you have multiple extant documents in agreement with each other. Homer, who is widely believed to have existed, has no surviving records dating to before several hundred years after his life, even though he is much more recent than Jesus. The reason, btw, that most scholars accept the historicity of Jesus is not only the few outside writings, but the strong witness that the four gospels lend his existence. True, they were written a few decades after his death, but their number, general cohesion, and the relatively short period between Jesus' life and the earliest writings about him (extant copies from the second or third century is not bad at all for their age) lend them some credence. Anyways, that's all from me, this is one article/discussion I'd rather not get too involved in. I was just passing through... --NoahElhardt 05:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
JimWae, are you using the standards that historians use to evaluate ancient history in terms of the amount of external documentation and the time period elapsed? I don't believe you are and that is why the proportion of scholars who believe in the existence of Jesus compared to those who don't is overwhelming. Are you denying that those scholars who deny that Jesus existed make up only a tiny proportion of the available scholarship? Yes? No? Can you name on reference work that denies that Jesus existed? Do reference works use historical standards rather than extreme skeptic standards? ken 05:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

I liked the sentence as it was before Aiden reverted it. "Since the Gospels were not written immediately after his death, and since the earliest external documentary evidence was not written until about the year 94, a few scholars have questioned the historical existence of Jesus." Just add some citations and it seems fair to me. 2nd Piston Honda 05:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

It is completely reasonable to doubt Homer's existence & to include that doubt in an encyclopedia article about him - Btw, he is supposed to have lived long long long before Jesus. The solution for the Jesus article seems to be specificity - mention the year of the earliest external documentation - as I have --JimWae 05:43, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

External is too vague. I favor "extra Biblical". Secondly, when is the earliest early church father work which mentions Jesus? Lastly, is 94 AD truly the earliest extra Biblical source? ken 05:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
One thing though, do all articles about historical figures make a distinction between "external" and "internal"? 2nd Piston Honda 05:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't think that matters. I have nothing vested in "external" but it may turn out to be the least vague term. It is the doubters that make this point (which is not entirely unreasonable), and we want to present some of their reasoning when mentioning them. I still think specifying the year is the way to go. "Little" is a weasel word - and not one they would use at all --JimWae 06:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
You can write whatever you want when you're representing some group's views, but the problem was that it was stating it as fact. It needs to be rewritten to start with "A small minority of scholars doubt the historical existence of Jesus, citing dot dot dot". 2nd Piston Honda 06:20, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Jim Wae, you are completely ignoring the questions I posed. I am referring to this post: "JimWae, are you using the standards that historians use to evaluate ancient history in terms of the amount of external documentation and the time period elapsed? I don't believe you are and that is why the proportion of scholars who believe in the existence of Jesus compared to those who don't is overwhelming. Are you denying that those scholars who deny that Jesus existed make up only a tiny proportion of the available scholarship? Yes? No? Can you name on reference work that denies that Jesus existed? Do reference works use historical standards rather than extreme skeptic standards?" ken 06:03, 23 September 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
  • yes, I AM ignoring that point. This has been debated here endlessly. It is not our job to prove one way or the other whether he existed --JimWae 06:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
JimWae, I don't think you should ignore that point as encyclopedias should use the standards that historians use when evaluating ancient history. It is no accident that no reference work denies the existence of Jesus since they use the standards that historians use to evaluate ancient history. ken 06:17, 23 September 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
  • You are being disruptive. This article has NOT been denying his existence. Go cool off --JimWae 06:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • It does appear that all source for this has been pumped out of this article. That does need to be remedied. See Jesus as myth --JimWae 06:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
JimWae, I don't believe Wikipedia is following historical standards when using the term "little external documentation". Nor are your standards "close in time" in accordance with standards historians use when evaluating ancient history. Your standards are more skeptical than those used by historians. Encyclopedias, with the exception of Wikipedia, use the standards that historians do. Can you find me a single encyclopedia which states there is "little external documentation" in relation to Jesus. Can you find me a single encyclopedia which uses your standards when it comes to the time elapsed in regards to ancient documents and whether something should be considered historical? ken 06:36, 23 September 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

Please do not assume that I am responsible for the state of this article. I also object to the word "little" and think we should say NONE (external to Xn accounts) until the year 93. It seems not only the references, but the entire discussion of Jesus as myth has been removed from this article - except for one sentence the intro. This article's editors are now faced with 2 choices 1> restore sections on the myth within the article or 2> remove the reference from the intro, and thus appear to be oblivious to the issue and let the article appear to be incomplete. From past experience, the latter course results in onslaughts to move the article to give a great amount of weight to the myth topic - and results in extended edit wars. I have already proposed my solution. I do not think it serves wikipedia well to have the myth topic eliminated from this article. The Jesus as myth article will have to serve as our source for now. Btw, your hasty removal of text from the Homer article is less likely to result in nearly as much dialog as here. I would guess people just do not get so excited about suggestions that Homer was not a person - or that he was --JimWae 07:00, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I still do not believe you are using the standards that historians do when evaluating ancient sources in regards to amount of external documentation and in regards to the time elapsed when a document was written. Show me an encyclopedia, other than Wikipedia, which uses your standards. I don't believe you can. ken 07:06, 23 September 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
Did you read my reply to you above, starting with "You can write..."? Please respond to it. 2nd Piston Honda 07:08, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I have now. There were too many edit conflicts before & I ended up putting off my walk for almost 2 hours. Yes, that would be one solution. But they would not cite "little" - they would say NO contemporaneous (not even 2nd hand) evidence. I think the better course is to state it in the form of specific facts - viz: the earliest "external" being Josephus in the year 93. However, the article has bigger problems on this topic - it has something in the intro that is neither sourced nor discussed later --JimWae 07:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Sorry, it IS sourced right there in the intro - but still never discussed again--JimWae 07:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Like i said before, it doesn't matter what they claim. I don't care at all if we say that they don't believe there is any external documentation, just as long as it's clear that it's their opinion and that we're not stating it as fact. To start relay "facts" that may or may not support their claims is for another article. 2nd Piston Honda 07:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
That said, your previous version would be second best in my opinion. 2nd Piston Honda 07:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree 2ndPiston Honda. Also, I put a POV tag (article is biased tag). I don't think the POV tag should be removed until the "little external documentation" is changed for more precise language. Agreed? I don't believe, judging from other enyclopedias, that the standards which historians use when writing works on ancient history are being currently being followed. ken 07:28, 23 September 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
I also changed the internal link the article goes to in the beginning to historicity of Jesus since that addresses historicity more. Agreed? ken 07:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

It is more informative to give an agreed-upon fact about the year of first "external" documentation then to use the weasel word "little" or ambiguous "same time". The doubters find that very important, the readers can then decide for themselves whether to doubt is reasonable. I never liked that sentence & I agree it appears POV. Now, we need a version that others will agree on. I do not think just hacking even more of that position out of the article is productive --JimWae 07:38, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

  • little external documentation: This is vague: external to what? Could someone explain this sentence to me?
  • not written immediately after his death: What exactly is the objection to this sentence? The only objection I have heard is that Jim wants a much later date; but dating is hardly certain and there are plenty of scholars who either argue for a very early date of Matthew or, at the least, for early traditions preserved within the Gospels through one conduit of transmission or another (traditions which may have been oral or written, depending on the hypothesis). Of course, the reason these scholars reject the historicity of Jesus is because they absurdly date the texts to the second century, and this is the main reason that the group is extremely small.

Lostcaesar 07:41, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

BY external I have always understood something written by a non-Christian. Josephus is the earliest, writing in the year 93. The Gospels are another matter - Does any scholar have them written in less than a decade. I think not even Paul is claimed to be that early. My problem is with the phrase "immediately after" - as if there is no difference between say 1 day after & 40 years after, and that even 1 day after would not have satisfied the doubters a bit more --JimWae 07:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Is it agreed that the article should go to the internal link historicity of Jesus rather than Jesus as myth so the reader can look at some of the early documentation. By the way, both those articles need to be improved and given more balance. ken 07:59, 23 September 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
Some hypotheses posit proto-gospel like texts, from sayings sources like Q to the proto-Matthew hypothesis. Some scholars argue that Matthew itself, in complete form, could date not long after Jesus' death, following the view that Matthew the tax collector is the author. As for external documentation, if you mean non-Christian then perhaps the text should say that, though this seems quite problematic to me. Lostcaesar 08:04, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

While "A small minority of scholars, based on their analysis and dating of the relevant sources, question the historical existence of Jesus." solves the NPOV problem, it does not solve the problem of the draining of content from the article - unless the article somewhere discusses the dating of the gospels and the late date for non-Xn reports --JimWae 09:12, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

JimWae, I solved the "draining of content" objection on your part I believe. I further refined LostCaesar's NPOV/nonbiased compromise so it now reads: "A small minority of scholars, based on their analysis and dating of the relevant biblical and extra biblical sources, question the historical existence of Jesus." By the way, I think we should be even more precise and say " a very small minority" of scholars from non-historian disciplines ken 09:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
I have no idea why the Jesus Myth wikilink was removed. The position being described that questions the historical existence of Jesus is the Jesus Myth. If we are going to mention the historicity article, why not use the sentences in the last paragraph of that article's intro? Scholarly views on the historicity of the New Testament accounts are diverse, from the view that they are historically accurate descriptions of the life of Jesus to the view that they are of virtually no historical value in reconstructing his life. A few have even argued that Jesus is merely a mythological figure. and then add "based on..." and include the information already in this article. But really, why was the wikilink to the article describing this position changed?--Andrew c 12:51, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Not to go and call "Cabal" in a crowded theatre, but there is a plot to keep the Jesus as myth link out of the intro. This paragraph was worked over for months until it reached a point where most people could agree on it (seriously, read the archives). Why can't we move on and work on sections that need improvement? I really hate that old arguments keep coming up and wasting time that could be spent on trying to make this a FA.--Andrew c 12:55, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
AndrewC, The historicity of Jesus article is more germain plus the historicity of Jesus article cites the Jesus as myth article. ken 14:53, 23 September 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
So, hypothetically speaking, if we were to mention the Pro-life position, it would be "more germain" to wikilink abortion debate instead of pro-life? I say, why not link them both? And maybe add that sentence from the historicity article. But I do not find it acceptable to mention a position, yet not wikilink its corresponding article.--Andrew c 16:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
AndrewC, the historicity of Jesus article is more germain to issue at hand in regards to the date and analysis of the relevant texts plus it is a broader article than the more narrow Jesus as myth article. ken 17:09, 23 September 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo
We link to the relevant article. In this case Jesus as myth is the relevant article. It is not appropriate to try to "bury" an article by delinking. Paul B 17:15, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

spelling mistake

it says "Wsetern" instead of "Western"

(sorry if i'm not doing this right, i'm new here. Please give pointers if needed, thanks. -Newlz)

I can't find it with Ctrl+f, where is it exactly? Homestarmy 23:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
Tag removed pending clarification. Feel free to re-add it with context. JesseW, the juggling janitor 06:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't Jesus Black?

I remember reading this somewhere, we should get rid of the picture of the white jesus put there by the white racist power structure of the church and put a black jesus--63.231.39.155 02:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

-_o Homestarmy 02:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Are you white? If you are, you're probably a brainwashed slave of the white racist power structure of the white church and you have nothing constructive to contribute to this discussion.--63.231.39.155 02:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
x_x Homestarmy 02:39, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Don't feed the trolls. ;-) (However, I'd love feeding legitimate conversation on this topic. :-) ) אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) 02:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
"Trolling refers to deliberate and intentional attempts to disrupt the usability of Wikipedia for its editors, administrators, developers, and other people who work to create content for and help run Wikipedia." I am not trolling. I'm sorry if your highness wouldn't like to think of his diety as a black man, but he is. The white power structure of the chuch has been censoring the truth.--63.231.39.155 03:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 :) Homestarmy 02:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
"brainwashed slave"? "your highness"? "The white power structure"? "cracker"? "deliberate and intentional attempts to disrupt the usability of Wikipedia" Please come back here when you can discuss this appropriately without insulting people left and right. :-) Heck, I'd love to discuss this, but you are far too abrasive for me to take you seriously. אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) 03:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Race of Jesus. Peyna 02:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

That's not what I care about. I want an image of the true, Black Jesus on this page. One put in by the White Racist Censorship Committe of the Church is not what I want to see. I don't pray to some cracker from a trailer park in the Middle East.--63.231.39.155 03:02, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
There's nothing wrong with Jesus being depicted as blond haired and blue eyed. That's the way Medieval Scandinavia portrayed him, and a fair complexioned Jesus entirely appropriate. However, in the interests of historical accuracy, I feel all pictures of Jesus should include comments wherever there is a glaring difference between the artist's depiction and the historical likelihood. For example, I had a problem with the icon of Jesus performing the anachronistic ritual of the sign of the cross, but at least there is a comment explaining the dissonance. So, if the User above has a problem with a particularly "white" representation, the comment in the picture can mention that the Jewish Jesus is being portrayed as if a "Northern European", or better yet a "Frenchman" or "German" if it's possible to be more precise. If anyone can find an icon of Jesus as an Ethiopian from the Ethiopian Church, I feel that with a similar explanation would be a nice addition to the article. --Haldrik 05:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
18th c. Ethiopian icon, Iyesus Kristos
18th c. Ethiopian icon, Iyesus Kristos
I found this Ethiopian icon. It's an antique icon (as opposed to a modern replica, which may have copyright issues). --Haldrik 06:42, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I agree, that would be a nice addition. --MPerel ( talk | contrib) 07:06, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I've added it to the race of jesus article. Paul B 11:03, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Anon, use of traditional pictures of Jesus are not that big a deal. Even if he is black. There are not that many early iconic representations to go with, but see Images of Jesus -- also see the important book Ian Wilson wrote on the subject called Holy Faces, Secret Places. Some of the very earliest depictions do indeed show a man of colour. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 03:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[[Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg -->|thumb|Reconstruction from a skull from 1st c. Galilee (the same time and place of Jesus), by forensic artist Richard Neave.]]

According to modern theories, Jesus would have been a man of olive or bronze complexion and Semitic features, similar to the early depictions, as well as reconstructions similar to the image to the right. אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) 03:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
A documentary about the scientists and forensic artist who reconstructed an ancient skull for this image explained that they made the skull appear the "blackest" possible within the range of pigmentation believed to exist in that time and place. The artist could have just as easily recreated the skull at the other end of the range to make it appear the "whitest" possible with very pale skin and light brown straight hair and fair greenish eyes. While the scientific project to recreate the skull was important to give a sense of Jesus's ethnic features, the scientific usefulness of the image is compromised by sensationalist elements. Chances are, Jesus was somewhere in the middle of the bell curve. --Haldrik 05:29, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is an example of the kind of silliness I imagined when I suggested that this article include ZERO pictorial portrayals of Jesus. Such images reveal nothing of Jesus, only something about how people in different places at different times imagined jesus, and we could and should have an articles solely on such images of Jesus with analysis drawn from art historians among other things. As to the question at the top of the section, (1) we do not and will never know exactly what Jesus looked like and (2) racial categories like "Black" did not exist back then. I understand how White images of Jesus have been used by racists to support racist institutions and I understand why Blacks take issue with and seek alternatives to those representations. But none of that is relevant to this article.Slrubenstein | Talk 11:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Jesus isn't Black, he is Middle Eastern. He isn't white, he isn't black, these are racist. He was born in Israel, in the Middle East, so, he is indeed Middle Eastern. It makes sense. But what does it matter if he is white or black or israeli? What matters is He is Jesus Christ, Son of God. Believe what you will, you don't have to believe what I say, but at least listen. Christians shouldn't be racist, but sadly alot are. Lets hope we all ditch this rumor he is white or black. Israel is where He was born, so Iraeli is what He looks like. --66.218.17.183 03:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Of course, none of us were around in the middle east at the beginning of the 1st century, so we don't really know what "Middle Eastern" looked like back then. Your comments would make more sense if you said "he is 1st century Middle Eastern". What I find more interesting is that almost every culture depicts Jesus in their own likeness. It's not surprising, but just interesting. Peyna 19:12, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Overall agreed. It really does speak volumes about how people identify with him to the point that he is envisioned as a part of a group's own culture and ethnicity. Similar phenomena happen with interpretation of words attributed to him, placed within the understanding or context of who reads them. Anybody who thought him of note in ancient times to record his face was subject to this identification, which would lead them (like any good painter) to express aspects of -themself- in his image (as an artist gives expression from their own identity). He's really gone beyond a mere image or icon in these societies but like Gautama Buddha, Muhammad, Abraham, or Moses has become a true symbol... which in turn makes his historical visage so difficult to nail down. :-) אמר Steve Caruso (desk/AMA) 22:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

This could have been an interesting conversation. I must have missed Jesus' conversation about the "White Power structure" and the "racist committees" of man. It would have been thrilling to have heard his advice and counsel. For some reason, it just seems incongruent to the message of Jesus; like driving a car with flat wheels. I have to agree with SLrubenstein; this topic has nothing to do with Jesus and is really not a topic, however interesting, for this page. How about the Black Panther's article or maybe our dear friend, Louis Farrakhan's article. Another potential page would be the KKK. People who think like this should stick together and feed each other's joyous feelings of love for their fellowman; it is the type of sick thoughts the rest of us would just as soon do without. They are sad. Storm Rider (talk) 00:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

 :( Homestarmy 00:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)