Talk:Jesus the Man

Oppose deletion

• Oppose deletion - This is a very important book that deals with what's become stuff of popular lore - the humanity of Jesus and stripped of all his divinity. Please feel free to modify, and edit the article but the article should stand per-se. Also, the book was a bestseller, so the argument that it is "non-notable" doesn't hold water. Thanks. dirty but clean 06:47, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Agree, keep but stated notability need a ref or two ... richi 11:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
  • the book and idea is important as it is a palatable (for non scholars) intro into gnostic belief. the scholastic disapproval is a mixed bag of conservatism (religious and academic) regarding the ideas and the style of her writing. understandable but not worth deleting the wiki entry over. 115.64.175.204 (talk) 01:47, 9 April 2011 (UTC)tim

• Oppose. But I must point out that this book isn't at all about Gnosticism, which occurred in both a Christian and a non-Christian (generally older) form. Gnosticism concerns itself with "Gnosis", a secret knowledge shared only by initiates of cults which was thought to be necessary for entering into Heaven. This book is about a similarly esoteric knowledge, but in this case, it's quite visible to all, in the New Testament. The esoteric knowledge is in how to read it, while the exoteric (plainly visible) words are among the most familiar, certainly among Christians, in the world. Funfree (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

These are very old posts and don't need a response. They refer to a deletion proposal in November 2007. I see you aren't the only one to have been confused, but there is really little point in responding to such old posts. Dougweller (talk) 17:01, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Guardian citation

The link is dead, but the Wayback Machine has it at [1].

Da Vinci Code

If any additional criticisms can be included, a notable one would be to suggest that Thiering's writings might have served as an academic justification for fiction books like the Da Vinci Code. Most scholars have thoroughly refuted Dan Brown's suggestion that Jesus married Mary Magdalene, and yet this is exactly what Thiering is talking about in her book Jesus the Man. It could probably be mentioned as an example of neo-Gnostic doctrine that accidentally appears within certain marginal strands of post-modern scholarship. ADM (talk) 15:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

If you are suggesting that this book did not influence Dan Brown, you must take it up with him. He acknowledges having gotten ideas from Jesus the Man, which he used in The Da Vinci Code. An "example of neo-Gnostic doctrine that accidentally appears within certain marginal strands of post-modern scholarship"!? What the heck? Funfree (talk) 17:11, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

"Scholarly Reception"

This does not seem to be a good fit. Those who are quoted appear to be firmly seated in their views and anything that does not support that is silly. Doing web searches I have found no neutral scholarly reviews or assessments. The book is full of references and reads like a college text book. This reminds me of the current Quantum Mechanic debate between scientists that say there is only one dimension and all the rest is junk science, while another group sees multiple dimensions as rational and explainable. I did find many reviews that had positive and favorable reception. Would it be inappropriate to say these were conservative Christian views rather than Scholarly Reception? Ahhae (talk) 23:41, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I understand your frustration with the situation, but the core policies outlined at WP:5P are vital to keeping nonsense out of the encyclopedia. When applied here, the "scholarly reception" is required and I think accurate, and there's not much that can be done about the article until a scholar, recognized as such in the field, writes something new. Johnuniq (talk) 03:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to follow that link, Johnuniq, because the new accusation you imply, that Thiering is "nonsense", is probably as absurd as the ones about "fringe" and "lead". I hope it's not another wild goose chase. In your honor, I shall open that link in a new tab! Funfree (talk) 17:26, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm back. I used state-of-the-art computer technology to scan that page for "nonsense", "scholar", and "recep...", all to no avail. In fact, all five of Wikipedia's pillars seem to mitigate against your attitude.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. (Does that rule out "nonsense"?)

Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view. (Does that rule out neutrality?)

Wikipedia is free content that anyone can edit, use, modify, and distribute. (Except who?)

Editors should treat each other with respect and civility. (But not respect?)

Wikipedia does not have firm rules. (But yours are okay?) Funfree (talk) 17:44, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

As per WP:CIVILITY, which I urge everyone to belief, we should limit our conversation to the topic, and not make personal comments, and the last comment above, while itself stating that editors should treat each other with respect and civility, seems to fail to do so itself. In this case, the five pillars specifically include WP:NPOV, which I suggest all involved read. It is one of the logical "parent" concepts of WP:FRINGE, which deals specifically with how we in wikipedia should deal with theories which meet our parameters of fringe theories.

It may well be the case, and often is the case, that individual editors have personal disagreements with those guidelines. Many of us believe something, either in the religious, political, social, or historical spheres, which qualify as fringey in one or more of the relevant academic communities. We are, of course, free to believe whatever we as individuals like, but in the event we find ourselves dealing with content regarding which we have personal opinions which are significantly different from those of the academic world, then we are also well advised to act in accord with WP:POV#Editor. I very sincerely urge all those involved to review those pages and seek to conduct themselves in accord with them. John Carter (talk) 19:40, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

My March 2011 comment above is accurate but was clumsy in its expression as I am closer to a Thiering admirer than someone who would associate her work with nonsense. I am saying that WP:5P is essential to keep out nonsense, and that a consequence is that other material which is not nonsense is also excluded because in an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, articles must follow the mainstream view of scholars in the field. We have to wait until a scholar, recognized as such in the field, writes something new. Johnuniq (talk) 00:58, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

First, I want to respond to "the last comment above, while itself stating that editors should treat each other with respect and civility, seems to fail to do so itself." I intended to point out that Johnuniq's criticism and reference to the five pillars of Wikipedia were misguided. I took the opportunity to suggest that he ought to treat me with respect. I implied no disrespect of him, but only that none of the five pillars support his argument. The book we are discussing was a best-seller. "Fringe" isn't applicable. What is appropriate in lead-ins isn't appropriate here. There is no threat of "nonsense" being introduced. None of the five pillars support his argument that "we have to wait until a scholar...writes something new".

In this case, Barbara Thiering happens to be a scholar, eminently credentialed, well focused on this subject, and having devoted a prolonged and intensive effort to it. Her book is a primary source, and need not be subjected to the criterion of "independence", and we must write articles in our own words, which is precisely what I try to do. "The mainstream view" isn't applicable to this discussion (except, perhaps, within the context of "Scholarly reception") simply because this book breaks new ground, introducing a new theory and its implications, revealing an entirely new, unsuspected history of Jesus Christ. This should be of utmost interest to all Christians.

This article is not intended to discuss the views of "scholars" in general, but simply the book, Jesus the Man. There is no intent to persuade anybody of the validity of Thiering's theory, only to represent it accurately. I have found no merit in Johnuniq's objections to my work so far, having taken each one seriously and found it erroneous (and discussed my reasoning), but I am eager to receive constructive criticism.

Barbara Thiering is not without supporters, but regrettably, the "scholars" who arise to condemn her are not qualified to do so, having failed to study her theory carefully (and the examples are quite numerous, but illogical or deceptive--perhaps an article ought to be devoted to them) and scholars capable of evaluating it on its own terms, without bias or preconception, simply don't exist, or haven't come into view.

Meanwhile, there is no reason to avoid discussion of this book. Funfree (talk) 10:30, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Fringe is a good fit. WP:Fringe says "Wikipedia summarizes significant opinions, with representation in proportion to their prominence. A Wikipedia article should not make a fringe theory appear more notable or more widely accepted than it is. Claims must be based upon independent reliable sources" and "if the only statements about a fringe theory come from the inventors or promoters of that theory, then various "What Wikipedia is not" rules come into play. Wikipedia is neither a publisher of original thought nor a soapbox for self-promotion and advertising. The notability of a fringe theory must be judged by statements from verifiable and reliable sources, not the proclamations of its adherents." Wikipedia's policy on no original research applies here. The book is a primary source, we should be basing on article on what reliable sources have said about it, not what you want to say about it. You seem to think that Wikipedia should be publicising new ideas, but that is not our role. Once again, our articles are meant to be based on what reliable sources say about a subject. If as you say there is no one qualified to comment on the book, then that makes this clearly WP:FRINGE

From WP:NPOV:

From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from a September 2003 post on the WikiEN-l mailing list:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

You might want to consider the fact that you have but a handful of edits, but you think you can tell vastly more experienced editors that they misunderstand our policies and guidelines. Dougweller (talk) 12:35, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I scoff at your vast experience! It hasn't enabled you to think clearly. This article, unless I'm sorely mistaken, is about a book. The contents of the book are not to be judged by the criterion called "fringe", only points of view. Nobody is presenting or advocating any point of view. Barbara Thiering's book is the topic of the article, and if it isn't up to your standards, or any you think Wikipedia has a right to impose (upon Doubleday, the publishers!) that is none of my concern. This article is terribly deficient, and you seem to be adamantly opposed to any attempt to improve it. If you're so experienced already, you shouldn't have any trouble contributing to it, rather than obliterating my efforts. I'd be delighted to get Jimmy Wales's opinion of your destructiveness. Funfree (talk) 17:10, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

You can improve it by finding more reviews and discussions of its content by scholars. If, as you claim, it has influenced novelists and film makers, then you need to find evidence of that. Paul B (talk) 18:06, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Notability

Can we agree, at least. to delete the notability warning? Funfree (talk) 10:47, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I was going to remove the notability tag but perhaps we should proceed slowly. The guideline is WP:NBOOK, and the essential requirement in this case is "The book has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the book itself." I did a quick search to gather some evidence, but I got overwhelmed with forum commentary. If we could list a few reviews here, it would be simple to remove the tag. Johnuniq (talk) 11:33, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

See [2], [3], [4], and[5]. None of them are particularly positive, but we can use them as sources. Dougweller (talk) 15:29, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Johnuniq, to the pointer, WP:NBOOK, but you should take a closer look at it. It requires only one of five criteria, the third of which reads, "The book has been considered by reliable sources to have made a significant contribution to a significant motion picture, or other art form, or event or political or religious movement." Dan Brown, the author of the book, The Da Vinci Code, stated expressly that he got a number of ideas (which he spoke about) directly from this book. His book was an unquestionably outstanding bestseller, and the ideas (that Mary Magdalen married Jesus and had children by him, for example) came straight from Barbara Thiering's interpretation of the New Testament. If that isn't good enough, why not look into the box office receipts of the movie? That ought to satisfy the criterion. And just to cinch the argument, take a look at some Google results for the book's title, which, by the way, isn't known as Jesus the Man in the USA, but as Jesus & the Riddle of the Dead Sea Scrolls, so both searches' results should be combined. Again, I insist that "fringe" might apply to a viewpoint, but mustn't be applied to the contents of a book in an article about the book. In an article about a Shakespearean play, would you insist that obscure words be deleted from the text of the play? Would you insist that Hamlet's ghost couldn't be mentioned on this august encyclopedia, lest it be tarnished by unrealistic ideas?

I find it rather deficient that none of those reviews cited above are among the most important ones, such as those in "The New York Review of Books", "The Times Literary Supplement", the book review sections of "The New York Times", "The Washington Post", "The Chicago Tribune", "The Los Angeles Times", etc. Further support should be derived from the notoriety of Dan Brown's book and the movie based on it.

Sorry you were overwhelmed, but that's the way it goes with these things. Are you aware that Barbara Thiering was an active contributor to, and the celebrity-in-chief of, the Yahoo! discussion group "qumran_origin"? The "forum commentary" there alone is overwhelming. I hope it doesn't discourage you. Funfree (talk) 17:42, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I know all about the forum but it's completely irrelevant here. And I am not arguing against notability, if you noticed, I am arguing for it by showing more discussions. The NY Review of Books review is at [6] and her reply, and the response to it, at [7]. I note that you aren't actually linking any sources or giving specific details for them. And fringe applies to the contents of the book - your comparison to Shakespeare doesn't work. Dougweller (talk) 18:07, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Um, there are number of flaws in Funfree's arguments above. First, Dan Brown is in no way a reliable source, and, actually, the evidence of his book makes it rather clear that he got his ideas from the book Holy Blood, Holy Grail, not Barbara Thiering. I attempted to find academic reviews of her works at JSTOR, and found only one specific review, of "Jesus and the Riddle of the Dead Sea Scrolls" in The Wilson Quarterly although there are a number of other, generally, nonfavorable, discussions of her work in other pieces. Being a contributor in any way to a Yahoo forum is completely irrelevant to our purposes, as it is a discussion board, not a reliable source. We do not really accept any such online message boards or other discussion forums except in rare circumstances, s guided by our guideline regarding identifying reliable sources for wikipedia at WP:RS, which I strongly urge editors to familiarize themselves with. It would also be useful to be familiar with WP:FRINGE, WP:WEIGHT, and other pages. They help determine our content. I can and will, at request, go through the various, few, databanks available to me and find containing material from academic and news-type sources. There is also a possibility that one or more of the notable groups included in Melton's encyclopedia of American religions and other, similar works, may hold beliefs like those put forward by Thiering, and if they do, material on that may well belong in articles on them, following the same content guidelines. And, yes, some might, maybe, even be appropriate in articles on Thiering herself. However, in journal as per WP:BURDEN, burden of proof for changing content falls on the individual seeking to change content, generally by providing reliable sources as per WP:RS. At this point, I don't think anyone would favor deletion of the article, but we are obliged to adhere to our content guidelines, including those I identified above. John Carter (talk) 19:05, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Article name

Is there some reason why this article is entitled "Jesus the Man (book)"? There is no other article entitled Jesus the Man. The blue link to that phrase is a redirect to Barbara Thiering. I've no doubt there are many other possible uses of the phrase "Jesus the Man", but we have no disambiguation page. Either this article should be "Jesus the Man", or we should have a proper disambiguation page pointing to relevant articles (e.g. Historical Jesus?; Incarnation (Christianity)? Hypostatic union?). Paul B (talk) 17:06, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree. The link to her article was done by a bot changing the revert. Anyway, it directs here now. Dougweller (talk) 18:18, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jesus the Man. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100219071158/http://www.anchist.mq.edu.au/251/Thierful.htm to http://www.anchist.mq.edu.au/251/Thierful.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:30, 22 April 2017 (UTC)