Talk:List of books about Jesus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Christianity
Christianity Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Wikipedia visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.
List This page is a list and does not require a rating on the quality scale.
NA This page is not an article and does not require a rating on the importance scale.
This article is supported by the Jesus work group.

Contents

[edit] Organising this list

At the moment, this list lumps all kinds of works together. I think it would be more useful if it divided the books into categories. A list could include categories like the following:

There would be some grey areas, but surely anything would be an improvement on listing Søren Kierkegaard next to The Urantia Book. EALacey 17:27, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

The grey areas is the big problem in categorisation. Wfgh66 (talk) 20:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
Latest Books section, like this: "Basic Instinct" director Paul Verhoeven, 69, a member of "Jesus Seminar," wrote the biography of Jesus book which suggested that Jesus' father might have been a Roman soldier who raped Mary, in 4 B.C. Jewish uprising versus Roman rule. Marianna Sterk of the publishing house J.M. Meulenhoff said "Jesus of Nazareth: A Realistic Portrait," will be released in September and translated into English in 2009.[1] --Florentino floro (talk) 07:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Not a good idea. Looks like promotion of a forthcoming book. Just the basic information and only after it is published.Doug Weller (talk) 08:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] use of the word theory as a section heading

Doug Weller has a very strong bias against the Jesus as Myth position, believing that Joseph was the natural father of Jesus Christ (POV, not fact). Wfgh66 (talk) 12:35, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
That's just an insult, I have no position on Jesus as whatever, and I told Wfgh66 that before he added his insult here. I don't know if Jesus ever existed -- so far as I am concerned there is no convincing evidence either way. I just don't like the word 'theory' being misused -- see theory. What Wfgh66 wrote on my talk page is "You have a bias against the Jesus as Myth Theory because you believe that Joseph was the natural father of Jesus Christ. Those who accept the Jesus as Myth theory do not themselves regard it as "unproven". Only those who disagree with it, like yourself." That looks as though he preferred the word 'theory' as he thinks it means 'proven'. And using 'theory' that way is both wrong and surely POV?Doug Weller (talk) 13:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
EALacey got it wrong as well (above, top of this Talk page). "The theory that Jesus did not exist" is a common passage found online and in most books. Wfgh66 (talk) 13:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Just because others use a term incorrectly doesn't mean we have to. And if to you it means proven, then let's not. You've already changed it but I'd prefer just 'Jesus as myth' as that reads more smoothly.Doug Weller (talk) 13:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for changing the section heading. I'm going to do some minor copyediting of the section headings as Wikipedia style says that except for the first word, only proper names get capital letters.Doug Weller (talk) 15:07, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why so little discussion, and purpose of the list?

I am amazed that a page that has been around for nearly two-and-a-half years has generated so little discussion... I also wonder at the value and purpose of this page. Technically, I could list here every New Testament commentary that has ever been published, as Jesus is pretty much the subject of every New Testament book, and therefore of every New Testament commentary. But, would such a list be considered useful in this context?—GRM (talk) 15:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty useless. It certainly has some real rubbish in it. I was involved in a discussion of List of fictional magic users and even that didn't get deleted although I think it is clearly a silly list.--Doug Weller (talk) 15:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I take it back. I was just trawling through lists of articles up for deletion, and I found this which I think will be deleted: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_cookbooks - it looks as though the reasons would apply to this article.Doug Weller (talk) 16:17, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Do Not Delete

A list of the books on Jesus gives an objective glance at the history of the treatment of the subject matter. Both for beginners and for the experienced researchers. Do not delete. Of course there is rubbish, it's not meant to be censored. Where else can you find a list like this? Sure you can find bibliographies in books but they are selective, outlining only what suited the relevent author's argument. Wfgh66 (talk) 17:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)