Talk:List of books about Jesus

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:

• The historical Jesus
• The Jesus as myth theory
• Historical views of Jesus
• Modern theological views
• Fiction featuring Jesus

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. --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)

I favour organising by author and date. Brief well-supported comments after an entry would give the casual reader enough info to know what to expect, from "Scholarly study" on the one hand to "Swivel-eyed woo" on the other. I own one book - not currently in the list, though it has its own WP article - which could be categorised as both of those.

A plus point to organising by date: it gives a perspective on changes in approach over time.

A (big) minus point to organising by approach: it's way too subjective. One person's fact may be another person's myth if not downright lie. WP:NPOV is necessary. Narky Blert (talk) 23:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Why does this list fail to include the Quran and the Book of Mormon? Is this list only about Jesus as understood by Catholics and Protestants? If so, that should be clarified — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.202.110.186 (talk) 20:47, 20 January 2020 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• I say delete and reorganize. This list can be useful, but it needs to be more specific. Books about Jesus is too broad and anything can go. Why not books about the life of Jesus, or something perhaps more narrower? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.107.220.143 (talk) 16:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

This list will never, ever be complete. It won't even be 10% complete. Ever. Howunusual (talk) 23:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

"Desire of Ages" by Ellen G. White?

Consider for addition in the list of books74.141.34.222 (talk) 03:13, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Anne Rice "Christ The Lord"

I wish to know why is my contributions on List of books about Jesus being deleted automatically by the user ClueBota saying that i wrote obscenities. I didn't write any obscenity. All I did was writing exactly this: Rice, Anne "Christ The Lord" (2005) Ediciones B, Grupo Z, ISBN 84-666-3072-4 How is that obscene? Thank You. And who controls these users that do whatever they want without even reading the contributions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by NocturneSoul (talk • contribs) 21:26, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Cluebot, not Cluebota, and not a person. It's a 'bot', an automated tool. If you read the edit summary it tells you to report any false positives. Do that. Anne Rice writes novels (normally vampire novels), and this is a novel and doesn't belong on this list, sorry. Dougweller (talk) 22:33, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll do that. Yes, Anne Rice wrote books about vampires, but "Christ The Lord" is a biography of Jesus. It's not about Vampires, it's considered as one of the best biographies of Jesus. I don't think it's a good thing for Wikipedia to delete contributions based on assumptions. But anyway, my contribution was deleted for being obscene. Which is ridiculous. Unless "Christ The Lord" is considered bad word. Thank you for your advice on reporting the false positive. --NocturneSoul (talk) 23:40, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

"Christ the Lord"is the title of a series of novels, starting with "Christ the Lord: Out of Egypt" which one reviewer described as "an interesting take on how Jesus might have lived as a child." It's clearly fiction and is sold as fiction and doesn't belong on this list. Dougweller (talk) 06:09, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I thought this was a List of Books About Jesus. So I thought adding Anne Rices's book since it's a book about Jesus. I didn't know this was a "List of Non Fictional Books about Jesus". It doesn't say that anywhere. You should clarify that. Where can I find a List of "Novels" about Jesus? (And by the way, it is a novel but that doesn't make it fictional. It's actually one of the most historically accurate "novels" about Jesus ever written according to most experts in the matter. But if you don't want it on this list...) --NocturneSoul (talk) 13:33, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

It's a series. How can you have an 'accurate' novel about the time when even the Gospels don't mention him? Dougweller (talk) 14:06, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Just like history books are written. Like books about Egypt or dinosaurs or Alexander The Great. He lived like 400 years before Christ and we know everything about his time, with very specific details about the society, the clothing, the politics and more. What are you talking about Besides on the top of the article it says "This is a list of written works with information or interpretations of the life and teachings of Jesus" And even the Bible is there. So what your're saying about Anne Aice's book can perfectly be applied to the Biblie.--NocturneSoul (talk) 16:55, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

So the Bible is a novel? You've lost me there. Dougweller (talk) 20:50, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

You're funny. First my contribution is deleted for being obscene, then is deleted for being a "book about vampires" which is not, then is deleted for being historically inaccurate, then is deleted for being a novel. Make up your mind people. I compared Anne Rice's book with the Bible for what you said about being impossible to corroborate historically, not for being a novel or not. You're very good putting words in my mouth I never said. NocturneSoul (talk) 22:36, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it's okay for NocturneSoul to put up that book on this list, it sounds like its level of historical accuracy can't be that bad. If it's not okay, then definitely there ought to be some hidden text saying something like "no novels please" or "only academic works please". Either way, NocturneSoul's edit was not vandalism, didn't involve obscenity whatsoever, and was definitely made in good faith, let us assure that. 71.113.25.147 (talk) 05:44, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The first removal was by a bot which presumably saw the word 'Christ', but I'm not clear why it did it. No one deleted it or said it was a book about vampires, I pointed out that it was a novel by Anne Rice who is well known for writing about vampires. I've removed it simply because a novel. I still don't understand the comparison between the novel and the Bible. We don't claim (here on Wikipedia) that the Bible is history or historically accurate - or that it is a novel. You can't claim something is historically accurate when you can't corroborate it, so why is the first volume in this series of novels being claimed to be historically accurate? Just because the setting may be accurate doesn't make the novel historically accurate. Dougweller (talk) 06:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

You're still not giving me a proper reason why this book shouldn't be on this list. You know, I'm not stupid, I get that you don't want this book to be on the list for some kind of prejudgment about the author. But it's a shame. This book is one of the most beautiful books I've ever read and it was written with so much respect and devotion to Jesus. Everyone should read it. It's a shame but I guess is true what people are saying all the time now, that we can't trust in Wikipedia anymore. Goodbye.--NocturneSoul (talk) 14:10, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Controversial books on Jesus Christ

IMO the title of this section offends against WP:NPOV. Controversial to whom? The books should be included in the main lists. If they have articles, those should mention any controversial aspects. If they don't, a comment with a reliable citation would suffice. Narky Blert (talk) 23:21, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

Narky, you're right that it doesn't make sense to have a list of controversial books. If the books or authors are cited by reliable sources that say they're relevant, then they should be on the main list. If they're not considered important by the experts, then we shouldn't include them at all. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 01:34, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

@Jonathan Tweet: Thank you for your input. I've moved all the "controversial" books into the main date lists. I've improved the bibliographical data on the two books in the "as different from Paul" section, but have left them there. I like your idea of adding {{cn}} to books of doubtful notability, to flag them as needing expert attention.

I think I've done all I can with this article. Narky Blert (talk) 17:44, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Narky. Still some work to do, I think, especially notes on what makes each book notable. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of books about Jesus. 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/20140106195957/http://www.life-of-jesus.org/biography-of-jesus-christ/ to http://www.life-of-jesus.org/biography-of-jesus-christ/

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) 01:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)