The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted 03:52, 21 April 2007.

---

Jesus[edit]

previous FAC

This is a great article that i just recently found. It has a huge amount of inline citations. It has been nominated before, but over a year ago. It is supprisingly NPOV and acurate for a controversal topic. And is well written. Overall it is a very good article.-Threewaysround 22:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This article is heavily undercited. Here is a small sample of uncited statements that should definitely be cited.

• Some scholars believe that the gospel accounts of Jesus have little or no historical basis.
• As a result of the likely several-decade time gap between the writing of the Gospels and the events they describe, the accuracy of all early texts claiming the existence of Jesus or details of Jesus' life have been disputed by various parties.
• Most modern Biblical scholars hold that the works describing Jesus were initially communicated by oral tradition, and were not committed to writing until several decades after Jesus' crucifixion.
• Historians have debated what this title might have meant at the time Jesus lived; some historians have suggested that other titles applied to Jesus in the New Testament (e.g. Lord, Son of Man, and Son of God) had meanings in the first century quite different from those meanings ascribed today Awadewit 04:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aiden seems to of taken care of the first thing, and I took care of the last when it was mentioned below.

Homestarmy 02:03, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• As I made clear in my post, these are only a "small sample" of the statements that need to be cited. Simply citing these four is not going to fix the problem. You need to take a serious look at your sources: how well do they fulfill WP:RS and does each statement that requires a source have a peer-reviewed, scholarly source supporting it? This article will more than likely take a few weeks to fix up. I agree with some of the other reviewers here; some areas of this article are well-done but some are not. The entire article needs to reach FA quality, including its research. Awadewit 03:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I wasn't trying to imply that just fixing these four things would do it, but I thought it might be helpful to actually say when something's been fixed, (or when I think something's been fixed) i've seen people do it in other FA noms....though I did admittedly see one or two questionable references as I was fixing up the notes section, the first two sentences you've quoted are two of the most controversial and edit-warred over and talk-page paged sentences of the entire article, especially because there's still no agreement on whether many hard-line Jesus myther types actually even constitute scholarly sources, or even halfway notable sources at all. Homestarmy 03:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support The article is extremely well balanced and very well sourced. It has come lightyears since the last nominations for FA status nearly a year-and-a-half ago. It has over 100 inline citations, not including the vast number of scriptural references not included as footnotes. The four examples of unsourced statements above are taken from sections with extensive background articles, all of which are well-sourced. All that needs to be done is for the appropriate citations to be copied over onto the main page. Four non-examples in a 98k article is hardly indicative of "heavy" lack of references. —Aiden 04:40, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter if the other articles are sourced - this article has to be sourced, too. Why would a reader assume that all of the articles are sourced from the same books/articles? I wouldn't assume that. I would also be leery of copying other people's sources - you need to check them for yourself. Also, these are not non-examples - they are serious; notice that they are claiming "scholars" and "historians" have made these points. Well, who? My point was not that there are four unsourced statements; I quote from myself: "here is a small sample of uncited statements." It does not matter how many citations the article has; it matters whether they have been done well. In this article, they are not yet up to snuff. Awadewit 04:55, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that in order to keep the article size within reasonable limits, most of the detailed information is contained in background articles, of which each section in the main article is a summary. The sources for these background articles are most of the time duplicated in the main article. In the few instances where such summaries are not sourced, this can be easily remedied by referring to the sub-articles. And again, the scope of the issue is quite small, as the article has a very high number of references. —Aiden 05:15, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is just not wikipedia's policy, and for good reason. Not all readers are going to click to those articles. I quote from WP:CITE: "All material that is challenged or likely to be challenged needs a source. The need for citations is especially important when writing about opinions held on a particular issue. Avoid weasel words such as, "Some people say ..." Instead, make your writing verifiable: find a specific person or group who holds that opinion and give a citation to a reputable publication in which they express that opinion." Awadewit 05:36, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose BC/AD, BCE/CE - pick one (just one), it matters not which. I've not seen both used together anywhere else. 75.105.178.150 05:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is possible, we've had polls many times over the date notation, and every time there has clearly been no consensus for either date format. Plus, I don't think there's anything mandating choosing one date style over another. Homestarmy 19:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct that there is no wikipedia-wide consensus, but according to Wikipedia:Manual of style (dates and numbers), "Both the BCE/CE era names and the BC/AD era names are acceptable, but should be consistent within an article." Awadewit 19:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know the system we have now is consistant throughout the article, or at least, its supposed to be. Homestarmy 21:36, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think what the reviewer is pointing out is that the system you have adopted is awkward and unfamiliar. You need to pick one dating system. It is odd to see "8–2 BC/BCE to 29–36 AD/CE" for Jesus' lifespan, for example. It is hard to read. Awadewit 03:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the anon - pick one dating style and use it consistently. Using both is just awkward. Raul654 20:13, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd hate to see this fail for something so mundane. Maybe one day there will be a server fix where each user can choose what dating system they prefer, but we simply have been unable to support one era notation over the other. The era notations are significant to this article, because, in a round about way, it is almost like forcing the editors to decide whether we say Jesus IS Lord, or not. It's a tough situation, and there are heated advocates on both sides. However, the working compromise is to use both systems. And we use both systems consistently (which is what the MoS says). It is a little awkward, but it keeps the peace. There are much, much more significant matters than a few letters after a date. Our system was reached by consensus, and meets the MoS. Can't we move past that and focus on the article content.-Andrew c 20:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - I don't what is FA if this isn't. Comprehensive, neutral (Islam in lead, very good) and well sourced. Alientraveller 15:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  How is "Islam in lead" indicative of the article's neutrality? JHMM13 19:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article states:

A small number of scholars believe that the gospel accounts of Jesus have little or no historical basis.[43] At least in part, this is because they see many similarities between stories about Jesus and older myths of pagan god-men such as Mithras, Attis and Osiris-Dionysus, leading to conjectures that the pagan myths were adopted by some authors of early accounts of Jesus to form a syncretism with Christianity.

Is that true? I thought the syncretism theory was a fairly common belief among scholars and people in general. How small is a "small number of scholars", and how reliable is the source provided. Publishers Weekly described your source Robert E. Van Voorst thus: "Van Voorst devotes a surprising amount of energy to refuting the idea that Jesus never existed... Seminary professors will want to consider assigning this book".[1] I think this business needs looking at to avoid POV problems. The article seems to be over-stressing the assertion that the number of scholars having this belief is small. Which has made me more curious for information, rather than suitably satisfied with the explanation.-- Zleitzen^(talk) 22:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• oppose: per the following:
  • Chart of dates of Jesus's birth and death:
    • We have a range of 8BC-6AD? According to whom are these ranges set? The reference to the dates in the lead lists 8BC-2AD, with a reference. Why the difference? Also, the text of the article lists 7BC as the earliest conjectured date for birth... These difference need to be explained and reconciled.
      • I think the 6AD at latest is based on the theoretical possibility based on the time near Herod's death, not an actual generally accepted latest date in terms of probability. The last might be an error, I can tell you that the first dates in the intro are definently the ones the article is supposed to go by. Homestarmy 03:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The 7 BC date was referenced by a linkdead about.com entry, so I removed it. Homestarmy 03:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Problem solved.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 21:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Geneology section:
    • the statement "various theories have been used to explain discrepancies" seems to beg atleast a reference to some sources that do just that. Even if THIS article does not need to be expanded, it should be referenced. Also, "see also" shouldn't be used in text, boilerplate it at the beginning of the section if needed.
      • Sources given, (The second one appears to actually address several on one page) and redundant see also removed. (It was already in the boilerplate). Homestarmy 16:07, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Looks better... Thanks--Jayron32|talk|contribs 21:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • In Ministry section:
    • "although some interpretations of the Synoptic Gospels suggest a span of only one year" whose interpretation? Reference needed.
      • Apparently some guy named Africanus or something, i've given two refs, the first is for three years, and the second is for both three years and one year in a footnote on the page I gave. Homestarmy 16:26, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Looks much better. If Africanus makes these claims, though, it would be better if the text says "Africanus claims... yada yada" than "Some claim... yada yada". If a study bible has credited Africanus as authoritative, it is probably worth citing him by name.
  • In Arrest, etc. section:
    • "Following his triumphal entry, according to the synoptic gospels,[20] Jesus created a disturbance at Herod's Temple by overturning the tables of the moneychangers operating there, claiming that they had made the Temple a "den of robbers."" Ugh. How many clauses can we cram in one sentance. Much of this section needs a bit of a copyedit for language.
      • I've given the whole section a copyedit, how does it look now?Homestarmy 16:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • There are some instances here, again, of being overly impersonal, this time with a vital character than a source. Another apostle cut of the centurion's ear??? It was Simon Peter. Go ahead and mention him by name. He won't be offended. Again in the next section, the women arrived to annoint the body? Mary Magdelene (and, depending on the gospel, also Mary and Salome) did this. Go ahead and use the actual names of the people involved.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 21:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think i've got it right, how does it look now? I've never actually taken control of fixing an article during an FA nom before, so I might not get everything right the first time... Homestarmy 21:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Names and titles section:
    • Unresolved fact tag. Needs referencing, apparently...
      • The reference was already at the bottom, I just brought it up to an internal citation. From the parent article, Vermes in the book cited apparently discusses several titles, though I don't think all on the same page. He had three books though, so i'm not entirely certain if i've formatted the cite correctly for shorthand.....Homestarmy 16:54, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Fine...--Jayron32|talk|contribs 21:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources on Jesus life:
    • "Paul wrote that he only saw Jesus in visions" is referenced to Galations, but shouldn't it also be referenced to Acts, where Luke describes Paul's conversion event? The Road to Damascus story seems an equally relevent source as Galatians...
    • Much of this section needs both expansion and referencing. For example, who says why the apocrypha were excluded? There is a lot of writing out there on the Apocrypha and its history, some of it very good, and very neutral, and yet none of it is referenced here.
    • Josephus isn't mentioned here? Really??? Why not... his absence is glaring... I understand he had little to say on Jesus specifically, but his works on 1st century Palestine are definitive and seminal.
      • I think I can answer the first and last comment here. In Acts, it doesn't actually say that Paul wrote or said that he "only saw Jesus in visions", or if it does, I don't see it. Jospehus might be a bit harder to explain. Across all of the Jesus-related articles, many editors have basically made it so that Josephus can almost never be quoted without some sort of qualification on most details of Josephus's writings, due to what, as far as I can tell, is an attitude that we "can't really know" how much of his writings have been supposedly corrupted or something, especially whenever Jesus is mentioned in his writings. I presume Josephus has been left out intentionally to avoid some convoluted series of qualifications about whatever he says. As for the Apocrypha, I don't know how much those books really adds in terms of sources on Jesus' life, but I will look into it and see what I can find. Homestarmy 19:43, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Acts isn't written by Paul, but its account of Pauls conversion is vital to establish Paul's own writings as canonical, from a theological point of view. Paul met Jesus, though it was the resurected Jesus, he still met him, and that very fact goes a long way to establishing his authority to comment on Jesus's life. The event described in Acts is important in conjunction with his writings in Galations, not in opposition to it. It is not an either/or issue. Also, the article discusses the apocrypha, (doesn't use the word apocrypha for some reason), and offers interpretations of the apocryphal gospels, but does NOT give any reference to what it talks about. That is what I was talking about. Oh, and WRT the Josephus issue: To describe what you have here is good enough. It may not be neccessary to quote Josephus as authoritative, and go on to his descriptions, that would be beyond the scope of this article. However, Josephus' writings are an important part, disputed as they are, to understanding the history of our modern understanding of Jesus' life. Even if disputed, those writings were held as authoritative for so long, and in some cases still are. To ignore them completely is to be non-comprehensive. I would be happy just to see a few sentances describe who he was, what he "supposedly" wrote, and the source of some of the controversy. We don't need an entire essay here, just a sentance or three with references.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 21:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Do you think it would be a better idea for the sentence to read something more like "Paul wrote that he saw Jesus in a vision", so that a sentence or two could indeed be included about the Acts summary of what happened? It's just, written the way it is, I assumed it was only trying to get at the idea that Paul didn't see Jesus personally like other people did. Homestarmy 02:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • Be careful there. "In a vision" qualifies the event as something less than a personal meeting. He met post-resurection Jesus. It was, for the purpose of establishing Paul as an authority worthy to be included in the bible, as real and personal meeting as did John or Peter or Mark or anyone else whose writings are in the New Testament. That John and Peter and Mark new him pre-resurection and Paul met him post-resurection is does not make the former "legitimate" and the latter a "vision". The Road to Damascus event is as real as any other. The article could also benefit, now that I am thinking of it, of a section on post-resurection appearences of Jesus. They are important events in his life. The article is for want of them... Also, though Galatians mentions visions, it is not necessarily so that his personal meeting on the Damascus Road is the same as these visions. Again, Acts is important to establish Paul as an authority on Jesus, as it establishes that he met him. That is the canonincal explanation. Of course, for non-Christians who dispute the resurection, such a distinction becomes very important, but from the point of view of the church, the difference between meeting the pre-resurection Jesus and the post-resurection Jesus is moot. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 20:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Alternative Views section:
    • Unitarians and Arians are teased in first sentance, and not given any treatment in the body the way Mormons and Jehovah's Witnesses are. Why not?
      • Compared to the Watchtower and the LDS, Unitarians and Arians just aren't as notable, and I doubt that Unitarianism or Arianism ever had as many adherants, and it appears that they're being mentioned just because they were former non-Trinitarian groups that have pretty much compleatly dissolved, though they were once important a long time ago. One of the main dilemnas over this article has been undue weight because such a large number of groups are involved with the article's subject, and the length given to certain perspectives has been rather carefully doled out, though of course, I might be wrong in this instance, do you think some elaboration on Unitarian views and Arianism would be necessary? Homestarmy 21:01, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, Arianism is a fairly notable historical heresy. There is a lot of information in history books et al. If it is worth mentioning in passing, it is worth developing. If it isn't worth developing in detail, it isn;'t worth mentioning. Also, Unitarianism is hardly a fringe movement or obscure. While not as big as LDS, it still is a sizable group of belief systems, including the Unitarian Universalist Association; it is not hard to find large UU churches in any medium sized US or Canadian city. The group has 157,000 registered members, and while the largest in North America, it is not the only Unitarian denomination in the world. Their beliefs in Jesus are certainly distinct enough from Trinitarian Christianity, and they are a large enough denomination, that it bears some development.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Islamic Views section:
    • Another see also statement. Boilerplate it at the beginning of the section instead, or find another way to wikilink it in the text so it does not interrupt the flow.
      • I removed the self-references, the last of which linked to a substandard section of another article which doesn't appear to be compleate, converted several external pipes to the Qu'ran cite template, and replaced one self-reference with the corresponding Sura. Homestarmy 21:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article is VERY good in many places, and is definately close to being featured, however, I think the above fixed need being made in order that this article meet the highest standards of Wikipedia. Also, with a topic like this, referencing needs to be scrupulous in light of potential POV problems. Not that this article has any, I think it is mostly fair and comprehensive and neutral, but it has the potential to be a target of POV from all sides. Referncing well is a way to help avoid that.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Every statement needs to be sourced with reliable sources. This is Jesus. "Most scholars agree" and links to GeoCities pages aren't going to cut the mustard. --- RockMFR 06:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, the notes really need to be cleaned up. There are broken links, messed up template calls, inconsistent and/or missing dates, and other such issues. --- RockMFR 18:18, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Myself and Andrew c have gone through it, and besides around two seemingly broken references which i've asked about on the talk page, I think everything else has been dealt with, I also replaced the geocities page ref with something else. Homestarmy 01:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can tell from a quick glance that isn't done yet. Some notes have the author's last name first and some notes have the author's first name first. Some web sources say "accessed" and some say "retrieved." Not all web retrieval dates are linked. All of this needs to be standardized. Awadewit 01:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between the accessed and retrieved thing I think is because two refs use the cite web format, and I wasn't really sure if using cite web was mandatory or not, so I left it alone in case I learned that I or someone else would have to convert the whole notes to cite web. I'll work on the other stuff however. Homestarmy 01:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Besides notes 96 and 84, I think we've got everything. (84 sort of kind of loads on my screen so maybe IE7 won't display it or something, and I dunno where 96 came from, but it shouldn't be hard to replace, whatever it is.) Homestarmy 14:28, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Not close to ready per all above. Please don't hide the TOC. JHMM13 19:16, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose Per Awadewit, I'm also not happy with the piped external links throughout the article. Additionally, as JHMM13 said please don't hide the TOC. Quadzilla99 19:21, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Fixes have been made, but this still seems to need more work. Some more stuff I caught this readthrough:
  • In "names and titles"; not enough is made of the meaning of Messiah. The Jews and Christians assign different meanings to the concept. The Jews were looking for a military leader to overthrow the Roman Empire and establish a new Jewish State; that is what Christ meant for them. The Christian view of the term is that he is to free us from the bounds of sin, not any state-opressor, but the opression of our own sin, and establish a new kingdom where God is sovereign (whether in heaven or on earth, depending on whose interpretation). To ignore this distinct difference is to ignore a VITAL part of who Jesus was, and why he was so controversial; indeed probably why he was crucified in the first place. This section needs much expansion; it feels very lacking.
    • From what i've read, the Jewish Messiah is considered to be rather different from Jesus, and I think this section was written only to focus on Jesus in terms of the Messiah of Christians, since obviously Jews don't consider Jesus to be the Messiah at all. I'm not saying that its a bad idea to talk about the subject, but I think the Judaism's view section would be a better place for that, do you really think the issue has to be discussed in the names and titles section? :/ Homestarmy 02:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • True, very true, however, it is clear that the Jews of Jesus's time considered him the "Jewish Messiah", even his own disciples up to the point of the crucifixion. To ignore this meaning of Messiah is also to be leaving something out. His contemporaries, even his disciples, considered him to be the future military and secular king of an independant Jewish state, and it is clear that this threat to both the Romans and the Sanhedrin is why he was probably executed.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 20:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Military and secular king? I don't think I ever remember seeing any references come our way stating that, or implying that many of His disciples thought he'd help them build an independant Jewish state. As for why he was executed, after a terrible debate over the issue, (and time passing apparently), we ended up with what's there now, namely that the Jews condemned Him for blasphemy, but the Roman's were going with a charge of sedition. Homestarmy 16:21, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • The following links contain reviews that explain just that. Messiah meant many things to many groups of people, as Jesus was the Messiah, we need to explain fully what that meant, since it is key not only to understanding who he is to us but also who he was to his contemporaries. I found them all in this google search:
            • a google cache of a PDF that discusses the different concepts of Messiah as related to 1st century Judaism and Christianity
            • this one discusses the matter, with citations from theological sources
              • Let's be careful about our sources here. This website, www.christian-thinktank.com, is a self-published website. The author describes himself this way "Glenn M. Miller, committed evangelical disciple of Jesus Christ for the second 25 years of my life (now 30+), research/writer/speaker, IT business executive, father of three gifted, delightful, over-stimulated, people--all seeking, questioning, open-minded, authentic people [one lives in Shanghai (just moved back to SanFran, now to Philly), one lives in heaven, and one lives in San Jose]. Philosopher, theologian, divorced (still a little ashamed, but forgiven), mild MaiTai-er, extreme empathetic, serious but passionate about the deep issues of life/existence.." This is not a reliable source because it has not been peer-reviewed by scholars in the field nor is it a scholarly source. See WP:RS. Awadewit 06:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • The rest of the google search is loaded with links that discuss the matter. I hope this is of some help. I don't have the specific issues at my finger tips, but bible study journals like Biblical Illustrator and others have dealt with this issue extensively as well.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Many of the sources in this google search would be inappropriate for wikipedia. It is best to search google scholar or to find specific websites that are reliable rather than to suggest a list of google results, many of which are unreliable. Awadewit 06:54, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • I agree that these searches would be inappropriate as sources. The first that I gave (the pdf cache) is a VERY good literature review on the subject., but the rest would be inappropriate. Look, to make the statement that Jesus is the Messiah, and then to ignore what that meant to Jews and Christians in the first century is to be incomplete. There is a LOT of literature out there, much of it very reliable, that provides information on what the Messiah means to different people. To only provide the Christian view of Messiah is disctinctly POV. Above Homestarmy states "think this section was written only to focus on Jesus in terms of the Messiah of Christians, since obviously Jews don't consider Jesus to be the Messiah at all" Why should we ignore what a Messiah means to the Jews? Who after all originated the concept, even if only to then show how Jesus isn't the Messiah in terms of Judaism. Also, to say that Jews "don't" consider Jesus the Messiah is not the same as saying that some Jews "did", and thus their treatment of the issue MUST be considered for completeness. During Jesus's life, it is clear from the Bible that his message was intended for the Jews, and though we get some foreshadowing of his future intents, he really doesn't commission his Disciples to preach to non-Jews until post-resurection. The idea that Jesus would be "Messiah" to deliver all people from their sins was NOT the concept of Messiah during his lifetime. Compare Matthew 10 to Matthew 28... Even in the Gospels there is an evolution of what it meant to be the Messiah.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 16:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Please note that I was not debating the "Messiah" issue; more than likely I would agree with you, but I would have to read around a bit to see. And that is just the point. It matters what we read and use as sources for these discussions. Thus I was trying to point out that the merits of this discussion are not going to be enhanced by referring to self-published websites. If you want to have a serious debate on this issue, you need to use reliable sources - whether you are writing articles or discussing it on a talk page. Awadewit 17:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Agreed. My point was only to point out that the Messiah issue is a large enough issue in understanding Jesus to be dealt with more comprehensively than it is in this article. I am not espousing any particular single view of the Messiah, merely noting that this article presents a narrow, POV view of the concept, that being only the Christian view. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                    • I agree with that assessment as well. Yet another problem with this page. Awadewit 04:13, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Possible earlier texts" (the section dealing with the apocrypha and other non-canonical accounts) is WOEFULLY under referenced.
• All in all, the article may not be close enough to feature ready. It is quite good in places, but the unevenness may take weeks to clean up...--Jayron32|talk|contribs 21:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support this article has been through a lot over the past year and a half. Almost all of the concerns were about style and format issues, not content issues. We have cleared up almost all of the concerns listed above. This article is robust and covers a very large number of spinout articles. It covers multiple Points of view, in a neutral manner. It is very well sourced, and has been stable. As for the dating issue, see my comment above.-Andrew c 20:25, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.