Talk:Authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Authenticity of the Testimonium Flavianum redirect.
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 Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

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

Christianity: Jesus

	Christianity portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. 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 articles
	This redirect is within the scope of the Jesus work group, a task force which is currently considered to be inactive.

Religion: Interfaith

	Religion portal This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia'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 articles
	This redirect is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive.

Please give reasons

Please give reasons why scholars do not believe the Testimonium Flavianum to be authentic, rather than saying they are all mistaken. Lung salad (talk) 21:20, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are two pretty long sections (not written by me) that give pro and con discussions. Those are some of the reasons on either sides - obviously. History2007 (talk) 00:34, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have seen how it's been written. [1]Lung salad (talk) 09:36, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to actually look at how the article is being written Lung rather than simply trying to project into the article as it lists for and [[2]] the authenticity. Considering this that the Josephus on Jesus article also has a portion in which the authenticity is pointedly disputed and their are arguments found here that are not in that, I think it might be worthwhile to discuss a merger rather than simply trying to dispute the neutrality of the article. Reason and Logic shall always prevail (talk) 23:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: User Lung salad was indef-blocked. History2007 (talk) 00:06, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]