Tmajoor

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! I noticed your edit at Human brain. You may, perhaps, also be interested in WP:WikiProject Neuroscience. Please feel free to get in touch with me any time if you have any questions at all about editing here. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:13, 21 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Please read WP:FRINGE: Steiner and Anthroposophists usually write fringe publications, as Wikipedia sees it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:12, 21 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Thank you.There is a vast literature on the Two Messiahs (see Messiah ben Joseph) and on the Two Brothers (Pistis Sophia Ch.61). Secondary literature on the Two Jesuses in: Welburn 1994, Childs 2005, Nesfield-Cookson 2005, Ovason 2013. Primary literature only in German (Lauenstein 1971, Zander 2007)--Tmajoor (talk) 10:33, 21 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

As I told you, books by Anthroposophists or from Anthroposophical presses generally don't count as WP:RS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:27, 21 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Critical literature in English is growing, e.g. Egil Asprem, The Problem of Disenchantment (2018), p.493. Steiner (1909) himself referred to the apocryphal Book of Enoch Ch.45 on the two Messiahs (CW 114, 19-09-1909).--Tmajoor (talk) 12:07, 21 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Then WP:CITE WP:MAINSTREAM WP:SCHOLARSHIP. You should not cite WP:FRINGE WP:SOURCES. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:09, 21 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

So, Steiner has used Pistis Sophia and Enoch as primary sources for his original (?) double-birth-theory.--Tmajoor (talk) 13:11, 21 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

WP:VERifying claims to WP:PRIMARY Ancient religious sources is generally banned as WP:OR. In fact, most of Steiner's work are primary religious sources, so WP:OR applies to them, too. And Goethe's scientific works were widely regarded as bad science and worthless prose, so Steiner's scholarship about Goethe is not WP:MAINSTREAM (no serious scholar wanted to be the editor of such works, such position was seen as an embarrassment). Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:14, 21 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

These days, western esotericism is scholarly studied as part of sociology of religion, e.g. Zander, Hanegraaff and Asprem. Also, since 2013 there is SKA, a critical edition of Steiner works in German (www.steinerkritischeausgabe.com/). As far as I know, no primary source exists on Steiner’s double-birth interpretation of the two genealogies of Jesus, so in my contribution I have cited from the Steiner works.--Tmajoor (talk) 05:39, 22 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Well, I know about the study of Western Esotericism since I got 10 ECTS for it during my Bachelor at the University of Amsterdam. Hanegraaff stated upfront something like "We study a marginal phenomenon of the Western culture." Oh, yes, the information about Goethe's scientific works and Steiner's job as an editor is from Hanegraaff. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:59, 22 June 2018 (UTC)Reply

Post scriptum: I don't say that Zander and Asprem are WP:FRINGE. I said Steiner and books by Anthroposophists are WP:FRINGE. Zander and Asprem are not WP:FRINGE merely because they studied Steiner and Anthroposophy. They studied them from a mainstream academic POV.

That is, the claim about two Jesus kids is WP:FRINGE, but we have to be very clear about who is WP:FRINGE. tgeorgescu (talk) 16:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC)Reply