Talk:Resurrection of Jesus - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Joshua Jonathan (talk | contribs) at 03:51, 9 May 2023 (Reverted 3 edits by 60.254.0.126 (talk): Having a rainy day?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 03:51, 9 May 2023 by Joshua Jonathan (talk | contribs) (Reverted 3 edits by 60.254.0.126 (talk): Having a rainy day?)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Resurrection of Jesus article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 30 days

Template:Vital article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Christianity: Bible / Jesus / Theology / Catholicism / Eastern O. / Latter Day Saints Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity

Top

This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Bible portal This article is supported by WikiProject Bible (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is within the scope of the Jesus work group, a task force which is currently considered to be inactive.
	This article is supported by theology work group (assessed as Top-importance).
	Catholic Church portal This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy.
	Latter Day Saints portal This article is supported by WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement (assessed as High-importance).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Death High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Religion: Interfaith Top‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Judaism Top‑importance

	Judaism portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Islam Top‑importance

	Islam portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Ancient Near East Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of ancient Near East–related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Classical Greece and Rome Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Misplaced Pages's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Mythology Top‑importance

	Mythology portal This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Misplaced Pages. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.MythologyWikipedia:WikiProject MythologyTemplate:WikiProject MythologyMythology
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Let's use WP standards

I have appealed to good faith editing on this talk page repeatedly. I have endeavored not to engage, and to engage, and three times we have simply ground to a halt. This article is not neutral. It has become a soapbox for one point of view. It does not meet WP standards.

Entombment and empty tomb Burial

Early on, the stories about the empty tomb were met with scepcis. is a half truth. The other half should be mentioned for neutrality, or this statement should be removed.
Already in the first century AD, critics of the early Christian community asserted that Jesus had not really died on the cross. Other suggestions are that the body was stolen from the grave, or was lost due to naturally causes. First, none of this is cited. I do agree the theories mentioned should be included as critiques of the traditional view, but for neutrality, it should include two sentences with the critique of the critique. Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints ... the majority view should be explained sufficiently to let the reader understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained. This has not been done here.
Critical scholars have argued that there are historical discrepancies in the stories of the burial and the empty tomb. This is a rabbit hole that would be a digression in this article, which I guess you know, since it isn't explained. But WP says don't raise a topic then fail to explain it. That's a good way to confuse the reader.
Martin Hengel argued that Jesus was buried in disgrace as an executed criminal who died a shameful death This reference has no page number, making this uncheckable, and I think it is not a fully accurate summary of what is a view which is "now widely accepted and has become entrenched in scholarly literature. which also has no page number. This is full of which should be removed according to summary style.
John Dominic Crossan famously stated that Jesus' body was thrown into a shallow grave and eaten by dogs, the bones scattered. Puffery and no critique. There should at least be a nod to historical evidence somewhere, since there are no Roman texts supporting this.
The entire next paragraph is Ehrman. Presenting this requires that how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained. They aren't.
British New Testament scholar Maurice Casey took a middle position on the matter: he argues that Jesus was indeed buried by Joseph of Arimathea, but in a tomb for criminals owned by the Sanhedrin. He therefore rejects the empty tomb narrative as legendary. A middle position on what? Only one position has been presented. This also has no page number.
A number of Christian authors have rejected the criticisms, taking the Gospel-accounts to be historically reliable. Raymond E. Brown, writing in 1973,... This has contentious labels - other writers are not characterized by their beliefs: ; it contains editorializing saying that their position is based on their belief in the gospel accounts rather than historical evidence: ; no dates are referenced for any other writer, so this stands out, as if it is an attempt to convey doubt: Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:56, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

You misunderstand WP:NPOV; it's not about finding a compromise between academia and religion. It is about accurately representing what academics say about religion. Jeppiz (talk) 18:07, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

The more serious problem in your arguments above is that you continously imply we should find some middle road between faith and scholarship. We should not, as that would be the opposite of WP:NPOV. I know many people misunderstand NPOV and think it's about meeting halfway. It is not; it's about representing the most reliable sources as accurately as possible. Jeppiz (talk) 09:52, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Jeppiz This is so off the wall it almost doesn't deserve answering. Where did I suggest any such thing as a compromise between academia and religion? I have done nothing but argue continuously for a better representation of the academics. I have asked repeatedly that all of the most reliable sources be represented accurately according to WP policies. Are you assuming that all Christian academics, and anything published by a Christian publishing house, are by definition unreliable sources that deserve to be excluded? Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:45, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

The Bibles, both the Hebrew one and the Greek one, are, in my view, largely a collection of religious myths. However, these two collections of religious myths have been also fundamental for the development of Western civilization. They have been in fact so fundamental, that they have been considered factual historical truth for most of the history of this Western civilization. Up to the so-called modern Enlightenment period (roughly from the second half of the 17th century and up to the great French Revolution of 1789), no one ever dared to even start to question the historical truth of these religious narratives or myths. Misplaced Pages tries to continue in the digital age the rationalistic traditions of the Encyclopedists of the Enlightenment period, who did question the historical truth of these myths. By the second half of the 20th century, Western thought and philosophy got close to almost completely denying there was any historical truth in them. These are the sources that open this article. However, this rationalistic turn of civilization never struck any deep roots in the popular minds of the countries in the Western world. The majority of the populations in these countries, including in the United States, are still fundamentally religious. They are still brought up to think that the Bible they read and study in their own native language is the absolute, final truth in the world. As such, by and large they are still definitely believed to contain the the factual historical truth of the ancient periods in which they were collected and put together. And so, the thin veneer of rationalism achieved by Western civilization by the second half of the 20th century is about to be wiped out by a new wave of religious fundamentalism. This current discussion here is just one of the harbingers of this new wave that is surging and is about to overwhelm Western civilization as we know it, I feel. warshy 23:14, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages's neutrality is often misunderstood as giving equal validity to mainstream and fringe views Quoted from WP:NOTNEUTRAL. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:05, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

tgeorgescu I don't mean to be rude, but I don't care what your personal views are. They shouldn't matter to a WP article, and an article's talk page is a really inappropriate place to be discussing them. I only care if you can't keep your beliefs out of a Misplaced Pages article. I am not a fundamentalist, and this sad romanticized fairy tale of the threat to rationalism posed by religious faith is really only a threat to the neutrality of this article. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:45, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

To reply to some of your specific points instead of arguing about methodology:

- - "The other half should be mentioned for neutrality" For anything to be mentioned, there should be sources about it. Do you have anything specific in mind?
  - "it should include two sentences with the critique of the critique" I am far from certain that the article should present different viewpoints in the style of a debate. But if you can source different arguments, go ahead with the changes.
  - "There should at least be a nod to historical evidence somewhere, since there are no Roman texts supporting this." Sure, as long as you can find a modern source analyzing the burial practices of this era.
  - "This has contentious labels - other writers are not characterized by their beliefs" If you want to argue about policy, keep in mind that the policy on biased or opinionated sources requires us to use these "contentious" labels.: "Bias may make in-text attribution appropriate, as in "The feminist Betty Friedan wrote that..."; "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff..."; or "The conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that..."." In other words, sources with a pro-Christian bias should be identified in the text. Dimadick (talk) 05:09, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
  - Thank you for a reasoned response. Yes, of course there should be sources. I am off-line for about a week due to RL, but I will come back with those edits.
  - Assuming you can establish a Christian bias, then I agree. Some are, some aren't. That should mean that secular apologists are also described accordingly, right? Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:50, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Response by JJ:

1: what is "the other half" which is not mentioned? Note that we have a long section with a summary of the Bible-stories, without critical remarks; these are provided later.

That it was also met with belief. A summary of the stories is background. But critical remarks should probably be moved there. Critical remarks should be kept together with what they are being critical of. Expecting sophomores to keep straight what goes with what is apparently unreasonable. That's why responses should also be included in the same places.

2: no, it's not sourced; it's a simple summary, with links. Do you doubt the existence of these 'theories'? The "critique of the critique" can be found at the respective articles.

Summaries are what we do and they all need sources. If the critique is in the respective articles, it should be in the summary here. I do not doubt the existence of these theories I doubt the accuracy of your summary of them. That Jesus's crucifixion was political/criminal - as a troublemaker - is generally accepted, but "buried in disgrace" and "died a shameful death" are over the top non-neutral claims I do not think are universally agreed upon.

3: this sentence introduces the criticisms, which are the explainrd.

No it doesn't. There are no historical discrepancies discussed or even mentioned, there are only theories with no reference to their possible historicity at all. As one example, the fact that there are no Roman texts supporting Crossan's suggestion should be mentioned if "historical discrepancies" are going to be discussed.

4: Hengel's argument is probably indeed summarized inadequately, and may need improvement; a pagenumber could be added, but since it is a direct quote, it is easy verifiable.

I don't doubt it's a quote, but it's a quote that shouldn't be quoted on WP because of the bias it contains. It should be summarized as one part of the discussion of how Jesus was buried.

5: "famously" is not puffery; his remarks have made an impression, to which many authors have responded. This is a summary, and work in progress.

I suggest you reread WP guidelines.

6: Ehrman possibly occupies too much space.
7: "Middle position" is unclear indeed; it could be removed.
8: when a person is writing in defense of his faith, it is relevant to know this. Though I must say thatCraig Evans does not seem to offer anything that's not also mentioned by other scholars. 1973 is mentioned for Brown because he refers to theories on Jesus being buried in a common grave, which means that Crossan's statements were not novel. That part has to be elaborated; Allison (if I remember correctly) mentions a number of sources, the earliest being from 1847. That Brown s responding to such theories was not mentioned in the original sentence. And he seems to have changed his mind on this, arguing for a common grave in the 1980s or 1990s. This is also not mentioned.

Who is writing in defense of their faith? You? I think so. That's the problem here. You mean Evans though don't you? So exclude him, I don't care. There are certainly plenty of scholars out there who don't reflect a bias of either kind.

The basic point still is that the stories (plural) of the entombment of Jesus raise questions, and that his entombment, or burial, was not a honourable burial with the normal mourning procedures and rituals, but a disgracefull one. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:50, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

The stories do raise questions and those questions should all be mentioned and examined in the light of what good sources say about historical facts. Please. Do that. It was certainly not a normal burial - though what a normal burial for a crucified man was is the debate, isn't it? I don't find majority support for the idea that his burial was disgraceful.

For the last month I have left you to work on this article without interference. I have never reverted you once. I have dealt with everyone here in good faith, and with good manners, but the requirements of the encyclopedia are beginning to outweigh all my other concerns. It seems to me as if you have a divided mind on this, that part of you wants to measure up to WP standards and the other part just wants to preach. I suggest squelching your inner preacher. I think you are capable of producing a quality text here if you will do that. I have duties in RL right now, but I am hoping to come back to an article that reflects your true abilities and no longer needs input from me. I have enough on my plate elsewhere. Please just fix this to meet WP standards. For the good of the encyclopedia. That's why we're here. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:37, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Jenhawk777, let me get this right: You dig up comments I wrote almost two years ago merely to comment it "almost doesn't deserve answering". Then you go on to write you have enough on your plate and don't want this article to need your input. Good news, it doesn't. Move on.
As for the article, it makes it very clear already what the Christian belief about the resurrection is, so that aspect is not missing. Jeppiz (talk) 10:33, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I didn't dig up anything. Your comments were posted yesterday, but I see now that you must have been being quoted by tgeorgescu who is the one who posted them. Why he feels the need to quote others, I don't know, but I apologize for misunderstanding and thinking it was you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:58, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Jenhawk777, my apologies in return, I didn't see my old comments had been cited earlier yesterday. Jeppiz (talk) 17:09, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

No problem. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:41, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan I think your changes to the burial section are really well done. I fixed a few typos, added a short paragraph on historical texts, and one to the empty tomb section, and otherwise, I think it's good. Thank you for your work and for your commitment to a quality encyclopedia. Bravo. Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:17, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

DO not merge Empty Tomb of Jesus and Burial of Jesus!

Will whoever merged these two articles please demerge them - there was no discussion that I'm aware of for this major move.Achar Sva (talk) 13:04, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Already done. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:06, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks mate :) Achar Sva (talk) 00:36, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Language in Advertising

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2023 and 11 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Ddarco (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Ddarco (talk) 18:30, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

Post-resurrection appearances of Jesus

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A few months ago one user deleted the content of the article Post-resurrection appearances of Jesus and replaced it with a redirect to Resurrection of Jesus#Biblical accounts, without any previous discussion, claiming in the edit summary that it was "same topic, same coverage". This is unacceptable and it should never happen again. SanctumRosarium (talk) 21:22, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

What exactly is "unacceptable"? To cover the same topic on two separate pages, and force editor's to do the same edit twice? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:07, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

As in: having the same discussion at two places: Talk:Post-resurrection appearances of Jesus#Redirect. Please stick to one thread}}. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:10, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

First to see resurrected Jesus

The first to see Jesus after his resurrection was Mary of Magadala. 65.186.177.151 (talk) 03:56, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Categories: