Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Historical Jesus

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep and cleanup. Woohookitty 06:28, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Historical Jesus

Article predominantly duplicates New Testament view on Jesus' life (and other articles about the views of various religious denominations and groups own views) and is also inherently POV (partly due to the title).

• Delete ~~~~ 20:49, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. 26 articles link to Historical Jesus, not counting forks and talk pages. Unless you plan to do a massive reorganization of all of the articles about Jesus, this one should be left. It's also not clear to me how the title is POV. Pburka 21:33, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

The article title is POV because it essentially says "this is the real version of jesus", which many many religious groups are going to dispute. ~~~~ 22:27, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

It's only linked to as much as it is because someone stuck it in a template. -Sean Curtin 06:12, July 12, 2005 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed the template. Thanks for pointing that out. I have withdrawn my vote. Pburka 23:47, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep - As much as they're all redundancies, I'm in agreement with Pburka. You can't just fit all into one article about Jesus, and though this article needs to be re-thought, it doesn't need to be deleted. -mysekurity 21:38, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree it doesn't all fit into Jesus, but that isn't why I put this up for VfD. I put it up for VfD because it is virtually identical to New Testament view on Jesus' life.

• Keep - Wikipedia has plenty of room for several interpretations of Jesus which could not all fit into one article. -Acjelen 21:43, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree, but this is the same interpretation as at New Testament view on Jesus' life, only with a POV title. ~~~~ 22:27, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I would like to change my vote to Redirect. New Testament view on Jesus' life and Historicity of Jesus cover the necessary material. As a librarian, I can attest that "historical Jesus" is a frequently seen term, but WP must be careful with articles that are about terms rather than about what the term signifies. If historical Jesus research deserves an article outside of Jesus and Historicity of Jesus, then it should be titled Historical Jesus research. -Acjelen 20:08, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

• Strong keep 'Historical Jesus' is the accepted accademic title for Jesus reconstructions - if there are duplications elsewhere i'd suggest merging them here. --Doc (?) 21:51, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Why merge to here? The other article is New Testament view on Jesus' life, which is a more honest title. ~~~~ 22:27, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• • Not so, the New Testament's view of Jesus, and the actual historical reality are at least arguably divergent. There are certainly plenty of Jesus schollars who would reconstruct Jesus differently from the Jesus offered by the gospels. As I say, 'Historical Jesus' research is the accepted accademic heading for all such work, and is not neccessarily identical to interpretations of the gospels. --Doc (?) 22:34, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree they are definitely divergent, but the problem is that the articles are not, but instead are really little more than duplicates of each other. This is why I have put it up for VfD. ~~~~ 23:14, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• Delete and start overKeep. The phrase "historical Jesus" is absolutely significant is used quite frequently in academic circles to refer verifiable historical evidence (or lack thereof) for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. It needs some work; I would argue that very little of the article in its current form actually deals with the "historical Jesus", but the article space should stay. Fernando Rizo 22:49, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

The topic is significant but seeing as how the article has almost no salvageable material, it needs re-writing. Fernando Rizo 20:09, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

If you think that little of its current form actually aproaches the title, could you vote delete, so that we can restart the article from scratch? ~~~~ 23:14, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• It seems that "Historical Jesus" is a term widely accepted and used and should have space for it's story. However, this article does little to create the story of "Historical Jesus" and the roots of it's movement and beginnings. Further the article is begun with "This article presents a critical reconstruction..." I suggest a more encyclopedic approach to the "Historical Jesus." Rewrite and keep User:Jpmizell 10 July 2005

User has 15 prior edits ~~~~ 17:46, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

• Strong Keep. I never knew about the Gospel of Thomas. After watching the movie Stigmata this afternoon, I became curious to find out more about this fifth gospel. There are a few references to "historical Jesus" in the movie, so I also wanted to find out how "historical" Jesus differs from plain old regular Jesus. User:Anonymous 03:42, 11 July 2005 (EDT)

Falsely signed edit by User:24.59.1.160, who has ZERO prior edits ~~~~ 08:31, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

This VfD is not about an article on "how the historical jesus is different", the point is that the article implies it is the same, i.e. is essentially just a copy.

• Delete unless rewritten. Present article is subjective and opinionated. JamesBurns 08:45, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Cleanup Term is commonly used, per Doc. Xoloz 09:15, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  • For the record, I agree with the reasoning of Christopher Parham, given below, and reaffirm my vote, including the suggested cleanup. Xoloz 03:27, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
• Redundant fork, POV title. Merge into New Testament view on Jesus' life and Historicity of Jesus where relevant, and redirect to the latter. -Sean Curtin 06:12, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
• I have no wish to defend the contents of this article - but the title is valid and quite distinct from those mentioned above. 'The Historical Jesus' is a regular academic title for Jesus reconstructions and even university courses - it is used by believers and revisionists alike (it asks what 'was Jesus really about' and may or may not conclude that this is the same as the NT's view). There is a whole history of scholarship here which could neutrally be recorded in an article. The question of the 'Historicity of Jesus' ('did he exist') is actually seldom debated in mainstream scholarship - and so to merge the mainstream into a peripheral discussion would be POV. --Doc (?) 12:22, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

It is the content which is being VFD'd. Historicity does not concern did he exist but did he exist in the manner in which is described, i.e. did Jesus exist? and if not, was there someone by the same name? ~~~~ 17:25, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

• OK, this article is rubbish. It says it "presents a critical reconstruction of the Historical Jesus" - well that has no place in an encyclopaedia, as it will always be POV. What, IMHO, should be here is a record of the various critical reconstructions that scholarship has offered over the last 200 years. Not 'did Jesus exist?', but 'what kind of Jesus existed?'. I've simply been arguing that this title deserves an article. I understood Vfd was not the place for articles that had content problems, but for articles that shouldn't exist (that may be a moot point). If this is deleted, I'm willing to write/help a new scholarly article. If it is kept, I'll (help) re-write it - but either solution may take me some time. --Doc (?) 18:09, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Cleanup This is certainly no redundant fork. Important term widely used. Look at the number of books at Amazon.com that have the term in the title. Properly written, the article would be entirely different in perspective from that of New Testament view on Jesus' life and thus highly valuable. carmeld1 00:03, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

And what of the current content? Should it be deleted or kept? ~~~~ 23:09, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and Cleanup Despite POV, this article has some definite possibilities. -Tydaj 04:47, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

(again) What of the current content? Should it be deleted or kept? ~~~~ 23:09, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

The opening paragraph is good. Childhood and family background needs a lot more than just Biblical reference. One thing I know of is that there is some belief that "Doubting" Thomas was Jesus' twin. It should also mention his name was probably Yeshua (Joshua), but that "Jesus" derives from the Greek transcription "Iesou" (Greek having no equivalent of our "Y" sound, /j/ in IPA). It mentions this briefly toward the end, but this should really be at the beginning of the article. Works and miracles is a bit better about using extra-Biblical info (altho there's some stuff there that doesnt belong in that category). The last two sections are basiclly just rehashing the Biblical account without giving much outside info. Also, it mentions in passing the belief that Jesus was not a historical figure, but doesn't really expound upon it. Something else: I've heard that some scholars think that Nazareth was founded (I believe) around 70 BCE, therefore, as the Nazareth article says, "Such historians argue that Iesou Nazarene was not 'from Nazareth', but rather that his title was 'Nazarene.'" -Tydaj 16:37, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Other stuff: The article opens, "This article presents a critical reconstruction of the Historical Jesus, as based on the four canonical gospels. Other related articles present different descriptions and perspectives of Jesus. The problem is that it should include other material and perspectives than orthodox Christian (whatever that is). Does anybody know where these supposed other articles are? Perhaps a merge may be in order -Tydaj 16:48, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

• Comment - Basically, that is my point - the article explicitely states it "presents a critical reconstruction of the Historical Jesus, as based on the four canonical gospels". I.e. is a POV fork of New Testament view on Jesus' life.

Christian views are already discussed at Religious perspectives on Jesus, and whether he really existed, and/or was similar to the biblical description, is at Historicity of Jesus.

So the only thing suitable is to delete it. ~~~~ 17:32, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, after looking at all the other articles I see what you mean. I don't know much about scholarly approaches to the figure of Jesus, so if the term Historical Jesus really is important, then it should probably be mentioned in Historicity of Jesus. But for now, out of ignorance I shall abstain. -Tydaj 15:37, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

• Redirect. I was looking for this exact term, but the kind of information I wanted was actually in Historicity of Jesus-~~~~ 20:08, 14

FALSELY SIGNED VOTE. Above user is actually 170.61.20.228 and neither -Kingsley- nor me. ~~~~ 20:19, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

• Keep and cleanup. The historicity of a figure and his personal history are two different topics and can be discussed at different pages. As it stands, it appears that the Historicity of Jesus article mostly focuses on sources, which seems reasonable. A biographical-type article, which should exist here, also seems reasonable. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:31, 2005 July 15 (UTC)
• Merge whatever really is historical to Jesus and Redirect. The main article Jesus is (or must be) about the 'historical' Jesus. Any other POV (including the Christian) should be named as such, as there are obviously several POVs on the subject and thay will not fit all in one article. Nabla 04:46, 17 July 2005 (UTC)
• Rename to Life of Jesus or similar. Certainly Jesus is important enough to warrant multiple articles with similar content, and I can see the flow of the two is differentiated, but these two (this and Historicity of Jesus) have confusingly similar names. So I propose a name change of some sort. Garrett^Talk 10:13, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Rewrite and Cite - There are absolutely no sources cited, and this article, in my opinion, needs to present more viewpoints of prominent scholars before it can claim to be "The" Historical Jesus. I'd like to see Bultmann, Crossan, Funk, Chilton, Smith, and others. --The Thadman 13:45, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and Cleanup I'd prefer the article to provide a disclaimer at the top and more-or-less outline what the term means and the disputes surrounding precisely who the historical Jesus is. It might also do well to point out "historical Jesus" is usually contrasted with "Biblical Jesus" and the two agree on such-and-such a point and disagree on such-and-such a point, etc. Amicuspublilius 23:05, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, and keep working on it. "The New Testament View of Jesus" necessarily reflects a Christian point of view (if there are different ways Christians interpret the NT, those different interpretations should be provided). But there are many critical historians and Bible scholars who believe that Jesus existed, draw on the NT as a source, but do a considerable amount of reinterpreting and reconstruction based on their rejection of the supernatural element, and their use of techniques of comparative literature, Biblical archeology, etc. We need an article that represents this important body of scholarship. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:08, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.