Talk:Historicity of Jesus/Archive 18

Missing article archives

Just wondering, does anyone know why archvies 7 & 8 are missing? Should we rearrange the archives to be consistent? Roy Brumback (talk) 06:53, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Josephus

And here is one more reference regarding my last edit: another passage in the Antiquities makes reference to an event in 62 CE under the high priest Ananus ... few scholars doubt that this passage is authentic... from From Jesus to Christianity by L. Michael White page 98. Most (dare I say the majority) of scholars believe the later, shorter passage in Josephus which references James is authentic. The last edits which I reverted made it seems like many scholars doubted it while there were some who accepted it, which simply isn't the case, and isn't supported by our cited sources.-Andrew c ^[talk] 02:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Just because Louis Feldman, or any other commentator, no matter how lofty their status, claims that the authenticity of a passage "has been almost universally acknowledged.", it does not make it so. To accept that the 'majority' believe this or the 'minority' believe the other, requires hard evidence, otherwise it's simply supposition or speculation. The use of language that is clearly biased toward the Christian desire for Josephus to confirm the existence of biblical Jesus is evident here and it is not appropriate. Unless there is absolute evidence one way or the other, the language must be neutral. This is not an article for proselytizing - Conservapedia fills that role. Monoape (talk) 18:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence that the majority of historians and scholars do not hold this? Since you are in effect calling him either mistaken or a liar, you need to back that up with real evicence and not just say you refuse to believe it. Roy Brumback (talk) 21:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

That's not the way it works. If you make a claim, you need to back it up with evidence. Without evidence it's just supposition, speculation and personal, biased opinion. If you make a claim, the burden of proof is on you, not me to refute it. Otherwise we could all wander around making the most outlandish claims and contend they are fact until someone proves otherwise. Monoape (talk) 21:37, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia works by citing sources regarding the opinions of persons, especially scholars and expects, not on the basis of how good their argument is. As we have a source from a scholar which states that most scholars believe one thing, the burden of proof is on you. No matter how good this individuals case is - the fact is, wikipedia us about quoting other sources, not arguing about how strong peoples' cases are. TJ (talk) 22:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a question of attributing biased statements - since it is an unsubstantiated opinion, it should be noted/treated as such and attributed to the author. --Phyesalis (talk) 02:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

"Non-historicity effectively refuted"

I notice that the article ends with a quick dismissal of the Jesus-myth position as "effectively refuted" by most Biblical scholars. To back up this statement, three sources are cited - all Christian theologians' books printed by religiously-affiliated publishing houses. Although it is true that most scholars secular and religious have qualms about the Jesus-myth platform, and are fairly confident he existed in some way, surely we can find better evidence for this than the testimony of Christian apologists? Brianrein (talk) 06:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I have learned from looking for such things in the literature the fact that the scholars in this area as the whole have not developed and applied a systematic scholarly methodology for exploring the question of Jesus of Nazareth's historicity methodically. Most of them simply assume that (some) Jesus of Nazareth existed (which is fully understandable in the case of Christian scholars). (It now seems that there are attempts to look at this question more systematically. E.g., I found http://www.jesus-project.com/intro.htm though it is not clear to me how this proceeds.) A problem is that one cannot say this (in fact, easily verifiable) fact in the main article since many editors would immediately revert it as an unfounded claim or something like this. I assume that if I quoted R.M.Price who also makes this fact clear in his books, the mentioned editors would certainly immediately remove such a quote - they seem to be happy just with the old quote from Grant in the article. This claim "effectively refuted" in the article is surely completely unsubstantiated in reality. Jelamkorj (talk) 15:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it is interesting to look at the recent answer by Doherty "To Warwick: Michael Grant and the "annihilation" of Mythicism"; Warwick seems to have sent to Doherty a previous version of Grant's quote in the wiki-article. The answer is here: http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/rfset28.htm. I admit that I myself have not noticed previously that Grant in his quote starts from an assumption that New Testament contains historical material ... It is interesting also to read another quotation from the same Grant which Doherty provides. In the whole, I really think that the persistent wish of some editors to conclude the article with this quote of Grant is far from a neutral objective standpoint, and I admit that I doubt that these editors really try to make the article as objective and as consensual as possible. I think this usage of an old quote containing still older quotes is a shame of this wiki-article ... but one can say "who cares, anyway ?"Jelamkorj (talk) 14:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad I'm not the only person who finds a problem with the phrase "effectively refuted". Effectively refuted by what? A questionable passage from Josephus? It is certainly true that most scholars think that guy named Yeshua (Jesus) probably existed. But the word "refuted" implies that there is some sort of hard evidence to support his historicity, and this sort of evidence simply does not exist. A statement concerning the scholarly consensus in fervor of Jesus’ historicity would be appropriate, but I hardly think we can call alternative views "effectively refuted". -- Big Brother 1984 (talk) 23:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily refuted by "hard" evidence. I'm thinking refuted by an overwhelming variety of soft to medium "beyond reasonable doubt" evidence. ^rossnixon 02:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that there is "reasonable doubt". Paul, the closest Christian to Jesus, says next to nothing about the ministry of Jesus or most of the other events in the Gospels and at one point (Romans 1:1-3 KJV) seems to refute the idea of the virgin birth. Philo, who was in the right place, at the right time, had connections to the house of Herod via marriage, and whose Lodos concept dovetailed into Jesus supposed 'son of god' message says not one word about Jesus. Philo does spend some time to write about a crazy streaker named Carabbas in Flaccus who once caught is forced to wear a makeshift crown and robe and mocked as a king.

Making matters worse is Bishop Irenaeus, the first Church father to extesively quote from the Gospels, c185 wrote: "Now, that the first stage of early life embraces thirty years (1) and that this extends onwards to the fortieth year, every one will admit; but from the fortieth and fiftieth year a man begins to decline towards old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify"- Against Heresies, Book 2 chapter 24 paragraph 5. Later on Bishop Irenaeus states "For when the Lord said to them, "Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day; and he saw it, and was glad," they answered Him, "Thou art not yet fifty years old, and hast Thou seen Abraham?" Now, such language is fittingly applied to one who has already passed the age of forty, without having as yet reached his fiftieth year, yet is not far from this latter period." If this was not bad enough the whole passage is titled "The Thirty Aeons Are Not Typified By The Fact That Christ Was Baptized In His Thirtieth Year: He Did Not Suffer In The Twelfth Month After His Baptism, But Was More Than Fifty Years Old When He Died.". Bishop Irenaeus is basically stating that Jesus preached from the age of 30 to at least 45 (already passed the age of forty, without having as yet reached his fiftieth year, yet is not far from this latter period.) and by the title to the age of 51 or preached for 15 to 21 years. Yet Christian apologists would have us believe that somehow that Philo who noticed the stories of Carabbas missed a man who talked about the son of god and according to the first man to quote extensively from the Gospel preached for at least half a generation (10 years) and perhaps as long as 20 years?!

"And even if there be not as yet any one who is worthy to be called a son of God, nevertheless let him labour earnestly to be adorned according to his first-born word, the eldest of his angels, as the great archangel of many names; for he is called, the authority, and the name of God, and the Word, and man according to God's image, and he who sees Israel."–Philo, On the Confusion of Tongues. (146)

If the gospels are even remotely historical clearly something is wrong here. Ignoring the fact that Bishop Irenaeus' timeline FUBAR's the traditional account of Jesus up one side and down the other you still have the issue of why didn't Philo take notice? This is just one of the many logical holes the size of the Hindenburg in the whole account. Of the 41 possible people who could have talked about Jesus either during his life time or a century afterword (c136 CE at the latest as Pontius Pilate was removed from power c36 CE) the best anyone can come up with is the Gospels (There were as many as 50, each with variants including a mysterious Gospel by Jesus Christ), a tampered late 1st century document (Josephus), and three early 2nd century documents one of which only prove the movement exists (which is akin to saying if the John Frum movement exists then John Frum must have existed), a claim at misspelling (Suetonius), and a document whose author might have loss access to official Roman records (Tacitus). That is the BEST they can provide. Even by circumstantial evidence standards it comes off as a bad joke.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I've rephrased this sentence because the words 'effectively refuted' suggest that the question is closed, which if course in history it never is. However, it is very clear from the vast number of historians and New Testament scholars who have written on the subject that the question of Jesus' existence - quite apart from the question of whether we can know any substantial amount about the historical Jesus - is not really an issue. --Rbreen (talk) 12:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated claims about Paul's letters

Among the claims which give a false impression to the reader of the main article are the claims about Paul's letters. To be concrete, I concentrate on the following example: "In his letters, Paul ... also offered details on the life of Jesus." Anybody who really read the letters knows that there is no word about any Jesus of Nazareth and surely none of the "basic facts" about the life of such a person which are mentioned in the second paragraph of the main article could be confirmed by these letters. In the context of the article, the claim that "Paul offered details on the life of Jesus" is completely dishonest. I am about to remove that claim but I kindly ask the editors who would like to revert such potential change of mine to say their arguments in the discussion here, and not wait until I'll really do it. Thank you for your honest approach.Jelamkorj (talk) 19:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you Jelamkor. One often sees Paul's description to the Last Supper advanced as "describing events in Jesus's life", when Paul clearly says he saw it in a vision, and, since it is the first description of this ceremony, it could easily be the source of Mark's description. E4mmacro (talk) 07:27, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, E4mmacro, there is a big problem that nothing in Paul's letters really identifies his Christ Jesus (the preexistent heavenly being ... etc.) with some (recent historical person) Jesus of Nazareth. Of course, since the late 2nd century we can see that Christians have been identifying these two `persons' but that by no means implies that we can use Paul's letters as evidence of historicity of Jesus of Nazareth. This is what many people just cannot comprehend. They say, e.g., that Paul wrote that he met Jesus' disciples since he wrote that he met Peter, James, ... and they `know' from elsewhere that these people were Jesus' disciples. It is like saying that Paul wrote that he came to the city where Jesus was crucified since he wrote that he came to Jerusalem and we all `know' that this is the city where Jesus was crucified. They just do not realize that Paul writes nothing like this, that one can see such things there only by having his/her Gospel glasses. But that's life. I just attempted to remove "and also offered details on the life of Jesus" from the main article but it is there again. I have no time and energy to try to make such changes any longer. I do not know when (and if) I will come back to a discussion again.Jelamkorj (talk) 15:21, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Relevance of James being James the Just

A number of irrelevant facts have returned to the section on the Pauline epistles. What on earth is the relevance of the fact that some people, perhaps most people, think James mentioned by Paul is James the Just? What has that to do with Jesus? What relevance is the fact that the apostles had wives? What has that got to do with Jesus being a man? I deleted this disttractions from the main issue. They are now restored. Is this a serious article about eveidence for the historicity of Jesus, or a chance for editors to repeat and make comments on any part of the new testament books they feel like? E4mmacro (talk) 23:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

It increases the value of the text by providing indirect elaboration on the identity of a particular subject. I feel that disputing the relevance of this statement is akin to disputing the "relevance" of linking to other articles in the first place- the connection here is made for the purposes of interconnection between articles, and it makes the article more "encyclopedic", as far as I am concerned. The small length of the note makes the point of "irrelevance" even less significant: it is not as if there is a paragraph of elaboration on the subject, which happens to be the case with Paul's travels.--C.Logan (talk) 03:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

So it is irrelevant, it is just there to fill out the article? No one doubts that "James the Just" existed. Sort of waffle, or padding? To each his own in terms of how to write about a subject. E4mmacro (talk) 04:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It makes the article itself more useful to the reader- that's why I compared the inclusion of this bit of information to the practice of internal linking. There's a difference between a reference to "David", and to "Scholar David X", and therefore I don't see any irrelevance in noting the fact that the individual referred to is, in fact, commonly identified with the individual linked in this manner so that the reader can acquire more information about this subject, which (here) concerns an individual identified as being a relative of the subject whose historicity is addressed in this article. If what you claim is true (that no one doubts that James the Just existed), then it would seem more important to note that he is identified as being the brother of an individual whose existence is questioned. I agree that everyone has their own method, here, but I would hardly describe this note as being "irrelevant" in consideration of the context.--C.Logan (talk) 04:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

More irrelevancies

Can anyone explain why Paul's travel itinerary is relevant to the question of the historicity of Jesus? If Paul said he was going to visit Jesus's tomb, or the place where Jesus was crucified, or to see witnesses who might tell him something Jesus said it would be relevant. But traveling to Arabia? Attending a council? Did Jesus appear in Arabia or at the Council? What does it matter for instance that Acts claims Paul's vision occured on the road to Damascus? Paul doesn't care where it occured because he doesn't tell us, and nor should he care - it is irrelevant. E4mmacro (talk) 00:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Paul's teaching on divorce is an interesting diversion, but does it have anything to do with "historicity of Jesus"? E4mmacro (talk) 02:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Because Paul says it's the Lord's teaching, which almost certainly refers to Jesus, which means Paul is asserting this is a teaching of Jesus. Quoting a person is evidence they existed. Roy Brumback (talk) 19:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't clear - I should have said Paul's own teaching was irrelevant. I deleted the bit about "I say, not the Lord", because it looked like diverting the page into a discussion of what the "right" views of divorce should be. Paul's "quoting" the Lord is relevant, I agree, so it stayed in. As a side issue, one can never be sure Paul is quoting the human Jesus, because Paul boasts about getting all his information direct from the Lord (in visions or inspiration) - he demonstrates (in the "last Supper" description) that he doesn't need any words spoken by a human Jesus in order for him to "quote" the Lord - he gets it straight form the source. E4mmacro (talk) 00:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I see Roy Brumback has now given a justification for mentioning Damascus (in his desrciption of edit): "Saying Damascus simply clarifies what event Paul is talking about here". Paul says he saw the "Brother of the Lord", does it matter if this happened before or after he went to Damscus, or if he went at all? If he had seen "the Brother of the Lord" before going to Damacus, would that make the evidence more or less strong? I can't see it - i.e. it is irrelevant to me, but I guess others see this page as a chance to re-tell the Gospel/Acts story. I thought the page was about evidence outside Gospels/Acts, because if one accepts Gospel/Acts there wouldn't be a question about the historicity fo Jesus. E4mmacro (talk) 22:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Why the falsehoods?

Someone who seems to know what Paul meant keeps changing Paul's words. If this is a serious article, it should say what Paul said, not what ANYONE assumes he meant. i.e. God revealed his Son, not Paul met Jesus. The Lord's brother, not Jesus' brother. One would almost think there is something wrong with what Paul said, since he has to be edited so persistently. At least give the correct quote then give references to say what he REALLY meant by the words he used. E4mmacro (talk) 00:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

If you can dispute the unanimity of the identification of "the Lord's brother" with "Jesus' brother", then feel free to do so. I know of no source- scholarly or not- that disputes this identification. I do know of sources which dispute the exact relationship denoted by the term "brother", but none which do not identify "the Lord" with "Jesus" in this context.

The dispute, so far as I can see, arises entirely in your own perception. I'll gladly accept source to the contrary, but at the point, it appears as if you are splitting hairs- akin to disputing that "the Prophet" (without further elaboration) in the Hadith refers to anyone other than Muhammad. It's simply an off-the-wall theorization that raises the question: "Who disputes this?". If it is only you, E4mmacro, then I can't agree with you on this particular change, although I generally find your edits to be reasonable.--C.Logan (talk) 03:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

To be clear. I am not disputing any identification of the Lord's brother. I am saying that it is not up to you to change the words that Paul wrote. Very simple idea: You say what Paul wrote, then if you want (if you think his words are ambiguous), you say what you know he meant. You probably know that mythicists would have a different INTERPRETATION of what Paul meant (see Doherty, who disputes the identification). The whole point of an article on "The Historicity of Jesus" (I would have thought) is to advance reasons to show that he was an historical person, to argue against the mythicist theory, not to ASSUME Jesus was an historical person. Question begging, meaning "assuming that which is in dispute", is a logical fallacy. Every mythicist, as far as I can see, must have some theory that when Paul says "The Lord" he means something different other than "Jesus of Nazareth c. 4BC-30AD". So show why the mythicists (who include apparently rational scholars like G. A. Wells and Alver Ellegard, and others like Robert M. Price and Richard Carrier are in two minds about the question) are wrong, but not by changing the texts. E4mmacro (talk) 04:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Very briefly. I changed -- and James, "the Lord's brother" (1:18–20)-- to ---James, the brother of the Lord--- since this is more faithful to the Greek we have (iakObon ton adelphon tou kuriou) and the translations which try to stick to the oldest Greek texts we have do it so (like Galatians 1:18-20 in Young's Literal Translation, and elsewhere). It is clear that this expression goes still a bit further from the meaning "Jesus' brother". Wikipedians like C.Logan, and most scholars, surely still INTERPRET it so but we should not put their interpretation in the texts of Paul.

Of course, the title "the brother of the Lord" can surely have other interpretations than "the (blood) brother of Jesus of Nazareth". Similarly in --- 1 Corinthians 9:5 (Young's Literal Translation)

have we not authority a sister -- a wife -- to lead about, as also
the other apostles, and the brethren of the Lord, and Cephas? --- 

the expression "the brethren of the Lord" (kai hoi adelphoi tou kuriou) has also different interpretations than "the (blood) brothers of Jesus of Nazareth". But I cannot go any further into this. I confined myself to changing the quote from Paul in the main article. I hope that, e.g., C.Logan now admits that this is NOT "splitting hairs" when we try to cite Paul as faithfully as we can.Jelamkorj (talk) 07:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Sadly that is not the way Wikipedia works. You may have a very good basis for the way you translated the passage but unless you can find a scholar to back you up it basically falls under Wikipedia:No original research. Even if you can find a bible that has this translation you still have to contend with Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. I think you have a good arguement for your translation but in Wikipedia you need to prove, verify, and prove again.--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:09, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

A modest suggestion

Can I suggest that one fairly common way to discuss the historicity of some person, if his historicity is doubted, is to arrange the material refering to that person in chronology order, according to the time it was written. Thus one would start with Paul, before the Gospels. Then some other Epsitles. Luke/Acts would probably come last, after a few pagan references. If one wanted to investigate Robin Hood and his assiociation with a Sir Robin of Loxley, wouldn't one look for the earliest things written about Robin Hood? The page looks more like "telling the story" of Jesus's life, hence it starts with the Gospels. This might be like starting with the movies made about Robin Hood. I get the impression that the truth of the Gospels is just assumed, but why then would you be discussing the historicity of Jesus? E4mmacro (talk) 23:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Not worth attempting a sequence. The gospels could easily have been all written by the end of the 50's. All the NT was written in a fairly narrow date range within the memory range of eyewitnesses. ^rossnixon 01:18, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Acccording to Richard Carrier, who might know something about ancient history and dating things, and who is apparently basing his ideas on Metzger:

"The Gospels cannot really be dated ... It is based on speculation that Mark was the first, written between 60 and 70 A.D., Matthew second, between 70 and 80 A.D., Luke (and Acts) third, between 80 and 90 A.D., and John last, between 90 and 100 A.D. Scholars advance various other dates for each work, and the total range of possible dates runs from the 50's to the early 100's, but all dates are conjectural" (emphaisis added) [1].

I assume the early 100's is outside the life-time or reliable memory of eye-witnesses, so you might tell us your reasons for knowing that the early 100's is not a possible date. I concede though that this uncertainity of dating, they may date from the 50s afterall, makes it impractical to consider the writings in historical order. E4mmacro (talk) 02:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

You are fully right, E4mmacro. Of course that one should try to be chronological when studying the question of some historical events. This is a big problem that none of the basic facts about Jesus of Nazareth ("that Jesus was a Jewish teacher from Galilee who was regarded as a healer, was baptized by John the Baptist, was accused of sedition against the Roman Empire, and on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate was sentenced to death by crucifixion") can be deduced from any Christian literature which could originate in 1st century - except from Gospels. And Gospels are completely anonymous literary works (where all the passion story of Jesus of Nazareth is tightly connected to Old Testament passages, suggesting the idea that these Old Testament passages were THE inspiration for the first author). The traditional dating of Gospels is being made from the ASSUMPTION that they contain some historical core based on eyewitnesses, and any later dating would compromise this idea. (First knowledge of something like Gospels can only be traced back to the second century, so anything more precise is really a pure speculation. We know that also the Church fathers in 2nd, 3rd century etc. just speculated about the Gospel authors, the traditional attachment to Matthew, Mark etc. is completely compromised by literary analysis. [Similarly, they did not know when Jesus was born, if he had blood brothers, what happened to Mary, Joseph etc. -- they were just promoting their `guesses'.] But good luck, E4mmacro, if you want to change something, I will hardly help.Jelamkorj (talk) 11:09, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Peer review javascript

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

• If there is not a free use image in the top right corner of the article, please try to find and include one.^[?]
• You may wish to consider adding an appropriate infobox for this article, if one exists relating to the topic of the article. ^[?] (Note that there might not be an applicable infobox; remember that these suggestions are not generated manually)
• Please reorder/rename the last few sections to follow guidelines at Wikipedia:Guide to layout.^[?]
• There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
  • allege
  • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).^[?]
• Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
  • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
• Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.^[?]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 16:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Desposyni ?

Please, can you, Roy Brumback, Andrew c or some other editor, explain how is the reference to Desposyni (explained as: from Greek δεσπόσυνος (desposynos) "of or belonging to the master or lord"[1]) is a contemporary term used to refer to alleged blood relatives of Jesus mentioned in Mark 3:21 and Mark 3:31.) relevant when mentioned that Paul referred to "the Lord's brothers" (or "the brethren of the Lord", [αδελφοι του κυριου])? I understand that it is one interpretation that "Lord" here means "Jesus of Nazareth" and the brethren of the Lord are his blood relatives. But another interpretation is that "Lord" can mean "Christ Jesus", or even "God", and the term "brethren of the Lord" denotes members of a particular religious group. Similarly "Domini canes", "Dogs of the Lord", are not necessarily to be interpreted as "Jesus of Nazareth's dogs", aren't they? I will not try to argue what seems to be more probable interpretation, given the context of Paul's letters, I am just pointing out that a reference to Desposyni can be misleading in the context of questioning historicity of Jesus of Nazareth. So please, give arguments why this reference is appropriate if you think so. Thank you.Jelamkorj (talk) 15:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

One of Wikipedia's core philosophies is to offer all notable points of view. Our goal is not to present The Truth or promote our favorite interpretation. I personally felt linking to desponsyni was only helpful. By deleting this link, we are taking sides and basically saying that those who interpret "brethren" to be the kin of Jesus are wrong. Perhaps to make things more neutral, we could preface the link with "for one possible interpretation, see desponsyni". But I strongly believe that presenting all notable points of view instead of choosing sides and presenting just one is the proper way to go. -Andrew c ^[talk] 16:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I fully agree, Andrew c, that our goal is not to present The Truth or promote our favorite interpretation. But I do not understand how not giving the reference to Desposyni and just keeping the quote from Paul is "taking sides" (and even "saying" (?) that some interpretation is wrong). On the contrary, if there is just a reference to Desposyni (which is not the word Paul uses) and there is no mention that the meaning of the phrase "αδελφοι του κυριου" is, in fact, unclear in Paul's letters then this is taking sides. In fact, the whole passage about Paul's epistles (similarly as other paragraphs) can be easily viewed as one-sided - it gives an impression that we should automatically assume that Paul speaks about Jesus of Nazareth, whose historicity is in question here; it is not mentioned that this is a traditional interpretation which is, in fact, not based on Paul's letters, nor on the other epistles. But I do not dare to try to fix this, which I find as a main problem in the article. I concentrated on such small things, like "brethren of the Lord".Jelamkorj (talk) 21:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Jesus essential to many religions?

The intro says

The historical figure of Jesus is of central importance to many religions, but especially Christianity and Islam, in which the historical details of Jesus’ life are essential.

Is "many religions" a weasel word? Why not name the many religions? Are the historical details of the life of Jesus essential to Islam? Islam would collapse if it were proved Jesus did not live on earth roughly as described in the Gospels? This sounds like it needs a soruce, because I for one would like to check out this new (to me) information. E4mmacro (talk) 01:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Important to many religions?

The article claims "The historical figure of Jesus is of central importance to many religions, but especially Christianity and Islam". In reality, as Islam also accepts Jesus as a prophet, it would seem that Jesus is of central importance ONLY to Christianity and Islam. For what other religions is he important? Not Buddhism or Hinduism and only to the Jews because historically they were persecuted by Christians. Seems like a pretty Christian-centric statement as it is written in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.124.149.222 (talk) 21:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree, furthermore stating that jesus was a historical figure in the opening of an article about that debate seems out of place if not POV. I suggest changing the sentence to: "The figure of Jesus plays a role in link several religions, most prominently in Christianity and Islam." --82.92.99.177 (talk) 16:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Baha'i is generally counted as a separate religion from Islam, and Jesus is a central figure there as well, as per Religious perspectives on Jesus. On that basis, I think the phrasing is acceptable. He also seems to potentially figure in several new religious movements which may or may not qualify as "Christian" as well. On those bases, I think that the phrasing as it stands is probably acceptable, until and unless greater specificity and length is given to that section. John Carter (talk) 14:17, 26 March 2008 (UTC)