Talk:Christianity/Archive 34

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Jesus Seminar/POV tag

There's got to be at least one other editor who would now agree that the Jesus Seminar amounts to a current controversy. To my mind, it is biased not to include a reference. Would someone other than me like to take a stab at a line entry for the Jesus Seminar? Please. And if you don't think that the JS is controversial, please say so here. Jonathan Tweet 22:15, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure, it is controversial. But don't subsume it under "historians". Having said nothing about its notability. Still it's far more of an actual specific controversy thant the jumbled together bit about "obstacle to progess", which is neither a specific criticism nor a controversy. Str1977 (smile back) 00:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Str, OK, "historians" is out. I checked the degrees of the fellows, and it's more like "New Testament scholars" than "historians." Can I ask how would you phrase the controversy so that it would be approprate on the "controversies" list? Jonathan Tweet 00:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
What would you like to put there? If you ask me, the issue, though controversial, is not a controversy caused by Christianity, or a criticism against Christianity, but an issue within Christianity, and as such already covered. Str1977 (smile back) 20:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
OK, since no one will let me put a reference to the JS in the controversies section, and no one else will do it, and no one can seriously make the case that it's not a controversy, I'll just put a POV tag on the section and be done with it. Jonathan Tweet 15:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
That you want to add something others do not, does not make the section non-neutral. Tom Harrison Talk 15:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

POV Tag. There's a huge controversy about modern scholarship and Christianity (see Jesus Seminar, etc.). Editors prevent this controvesy from being mentioned. That's POV. Jonathan Tweet 15:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Tom, I'm glad to see we agree. I would be a fool to think any such thing. But that's not what I'm saying. The contoversy over modersn scholarship is bigger than the controversy about Jesus being a myth. Myth gets included and scholarship doesn't. Doesn't look neutral to me. The neutrality's disputed (I'm disputing it). That's all the tag says. Jonathan Tweet 15:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
If all it took to add a pov tag was an editor saying "I dispute the neutrality of this," then any editor would be able to hold a page hostage, refusing to remove the tag until his demands were met. That is not the case. Tom Harrison Talk 15:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I moved this note up here, since there is no reason to create a new section for this.
There can be no talk of preventing this being mentioned. Jonathan has yet to make a suggestion and answer to the concerns I voiced above. Ask yourself, is what you want to include a "criticism of Christianity" (the first part of the topic) or is it a "controversy about Christianity" (the second part of the topic) or is it a controversy within Christianiy (not directly on topic). Also, the JS is not "modern scholarship" but "crappy scholarship" (voting on which parts of the Bible you like because of your ideological biases) - I don't say this to exclude it but only to set the record straight. Finally, Jonathan still carries a label on his talk page insulting other editors as "dumb". I wonder whether he can cooperate nonetheless. Str1977 (smile back) 16:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC) (posted in edit conflict with the two above)
Just concerning JT's character, in my experience with him on other pages I have found him to be someone who can be reasoned with and shows a general willingness to cooperate, and, though we have been in various disputes (quite often indeed), I have not been the subject of insults from him - though he can be a bit stubborn (as can I). Obviously, I cannot speak for others and their experience. Lostcaesar 16:16, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
I do not insult other editors as "dumb." I label myself a bright. People who aren't brights are not dumb, just like people who aren't gay are not sad. Jonathan Tweet 01:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
The only antonymous word i've heard about what the "bright" philosophy might consider everyone else to be is "dim", so I think Jonathan is probably not really insulting people with his user page :/. Homestarmy 02:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
I obviously fall outside the group regarding the "bright" movement. The terminology is beyond my experience and I haven't exerted the effort to grasp the purpose of the group. However, as I observe Jonathan I think Str is judging harshly, if not inappropriately. The Jesus Seminar's quality of scholarship is controversial and for any believing Christian "crappy" (that is not a term I would use, but it serves the purpose for now). It is not insignificant research and I think it is worthy of inclusion. I don't happen to agree with them and I believe their research is a prime example of what happens when humans rely upon their own understanding, but it is still worth a mention. Storm Rider (talk) 02:48, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, Jonathan can put whatever he likes on his user page and I don't think he means to insult other editors or people, but the term "bright" is an insult to those that don't subscribe to that narrow ideology (and it was coined to convey the message that only "brights" are bright. But as I said, Jonathan is free to label himself that.
As for the JS, I don't think it's scholarship at all. It is a bunch of scholars getting together voting on what they like and what they don't like, based on faulty reasoning IMHO. But that is not the reason why I doubt a reference to the JS belongs into the Controversy and criticism section. As I said above, "Ask yourself, is what you want to include a "criticism of Christianity" (the first part of the topic) or is it a "controversy about Christianity" (the second part of the topic) or is it a controversy within Christianiy (not directly on topic)."
Finally, why has Jonathan again opened up a new section for the same topic? Str1977 (smile back) 07:00, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
What is a "bright"? It sounds like a kind of faire to me, maybe bigger than a "brownie", and the opposite of a "wight". Lostcaesar 08:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

This topic is not about the Jesus Seminar and should not be moved under a JS header. The topic is modern scholarship. I keep referring to the JS because whenever I refer to modern scholarship, LC insists that I specify which scholars, and the JS is a handy way to point to a lot of scholars at once. The POV tag directs the reader to the Talk page. This header is a service to the reader who wants to know what the disputed content is.

There is clearly a major current controversy about how modern historians treat the Bible and Jesus, as well as the conclusions they reach. It is bigger than the "Jesus is myth" controversy or the "mystery cults" controversy. To exclude references to the scholarship controversy is POV. This controversy is not within Christianity. The JS is not within Christianity, and the topic is bigger than the JS anyway. Does the controversy also count as a criticism? Lots of people take it that way.

There are also the criticisms leveled against Christianity by communists, socialists, feminists, sex liberationists, advocates of evolution and evolution instruction, etc. My reference to these criticisms was also deleted without explanation. Jonathan Tweet 01:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The pov tag is not appropriate because it does not accurately describe the situation. I do not think those who disagree with you do so because of a bias against modern scholarship, but a from a difference in editorial judgement. (See Wikipedia:Recentism.) Tom Harrison Talk 03:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Why do we need to open up a new section for this? I have stated my objections above.
As for the "other criticisms" - it is a hotchpotch of various people all apparently making the same criticism. Many of these are awkwardly termed ("Sex liberationists"? Or what are "advocates of evolution"?) and some not accurate ("advocates of evolution", whatever this is supposed to mean, do nothing of that kind, unless you mean by that term atheists.) Str1977 (smile back) 07:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Tom, sure looks like POV to me. It looks like Christians defending Christianity against the idea that there are numerous modern scholars who reach conclusions that contradict core Christian doctrine. "Myth" and "mystery religion" aren't threatening because they're fringe. Criticisms from other religions are hardly threatening because there's nothing more pedestrian. But people get their back up over modern scholarship. "Recentism"? When I tried to place the scholarship in historical context, that was eliminated because it wasn't current. If we want to avoid recentism, let's go back to that one, that scholarship caused a huge controversy in the 18th and 19th century but now it's noncontroversial to treat the gospels as fallible historical artifacts, etc. Jonathan Tweet 14:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Str, a new section is a service to the reader, who is directed to the talk page by the POV tag. Don't you want to be helpful to the reader? If your criticism of the "other criticisms" line is that it's a hotchpotch, I say it's a summary. If certain elements need to be dropped or reworded, drop or reword them. Jonathan Tweet 14:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
What is the criticism exactly - that bishops in antiquity comitted fraud in teaching X to be true about Jesus? Lostcaesar 15:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
LC, I'd settle for just about any criticism or controversy that points the reader in the direction of modern scholarship and its presentation of Jesus as a mortal and the gospel only partially reliable. There are plenty of ways to word this as a controversy or as a criticism. Since my multiple attempts have all met wtih deletion, I'd prefer that someone else take a crack at it. Something soft and vague would do: "Modern scholars commonly portray the historical Jesus as a mortal who did not found a religion or rise from the dead (see for example the Jesus Seminar)." Jonathan Tweet 03:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Only that such a statement would be factually inaccurate and seriously misleading:
  • "Modern scholars" includes who?
  • "commonly" potraying a radical view as consensus
  • "the historical Jesus" should not to be confused with the actually living Jesus. the historical Jesus is a reconstruction.
  • "who did not found a religion" says who?
  • "or rise from the dead" we have discussed before.
  • "for example the Jesus Seminar" now identifies modern scholars and their common view with the JS which is ridiculous.
Especially the last part makes it clear that Jonathan wants to use supposed "modern scholars" to issue a statement against Christianity and push the POV taken by the JS. That is unacceptable. Str1977 (smile back) 09:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
JT, basically I think what you are doing is as follows. You already know (i.e. believe) that, in the Ivory Tower, no one thinks Jesus is God, or if they do they don't say it because they won't be taken seriously. You want the article to express this fact. So you then go looking for a source, probably through internet searches, that says what you want it to say. The problems are twofold. (1) Though not inherently flawed, this is not the ideal way to use sources. The idea way is to read something in a text, find it relevant to wikipedia, and quote the text in an article: e.g. Soandso thinks X and Y. Your approach runs the risk of moving from the particular to the general. That is, you find a few scholars who think what you already hold to be true about most scholars, and so you ref a sentence about most scholars by citing these few. (2) You may be wrong, or at least may not have a perfectly clear idea of the topic, here the religious constitution of the Ivory Tower, in which case such an edit will only cause errors. I think in an article like this, if you want to make such an edit you will have to really dot the "i"'s and cross the "t"'s when it comes to sources and their proper use. Lostcaesar 10:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
And, in the end, the "criticism" (it isn't one) given here boils down to "Many scholars are not Christians", which is hardly controversial. But why should it be important that it is scholars that are not Christian in this case? Str1977 (smile back) 10:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
LC, I'd be happy to dot my i's and cross my t's. This is why I tend to retreat to the less ambitious statement about, say, the Jesus Seminar. This section already covers the fringe ideas that Jesus was a myth and that Christianity is a mystery religion. Some way or another, those entries passed muster. In same way, the idea that Jesus was a mortal who didn't found Christianity or rise from the dead should be able to pass muster. This less radical idea is much more common. It misrepresents the scholarly challenge to Christianity as consisting of out-there theories. If "myth" and "mystery religion" can be expressed in such a way that they're not POV, then "mortal" can be expressed in just the same way. LC, if you could try to cast this controversy in as tight and defined a statement as seems right, maybe that would be acceptable. I'll also suggest that the "myth" and "mystery religion" and "Paul is the founder" controversies could be wrapped up with my "mortal" controversy into one entry. The entry would be about modern scholars' various views, including all these variants. "Some historians view Jesus as a mortal man who did not found Christianity or rise from the dead (for example, the Jesus Seminar). These scholars often name Paul as Christianity's founder. Other scholars go further and arggue that Jesus was a myth and the Christianity originally developed as a mystery religion." Now the controversy section is more accurate because it includes the majority of scholarly criticism rather than the minority. Jonathan Tweet 17:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Str, you say that this point doesn't amount to a criticism, but the "myth" and "mystery cult" statements fit here, and "Jesus was mortal" is (or isn't) a criticism in the same way. In any event, it's certainly a controversy, and the section includes controversies. Jonathan Tweet 17:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't misrepresent "scholarly challenges" because neither the "myth" theories nor yours are scholarly challenges, even though scholars might issue them. Your "The entry would be about modern scholars' various views" is exactly the problem: you want to dress this up as scholarship, when it isn't. And as often as you repeat it, the JS is not "some historians", nor does the "historical Jesus" include a denial of the resurrection. What we have here is religious disagreement. As such it can be covered but not as scholarship. Str1977 (smile back) 19:06, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I cannot summarize something on such a topic. Its just too much for me, personally. I just goes to much against my own beliefs to venture to take up such a task. Sorry JT, but I'm out on this one. Lostcaesar 22:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
LC, thanks for being honest about it being your beliefs that keep you from supporting me. Jonathan Tweet 03:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's another angle, related to the issue of how common the secular view is. The bestselling nonsectarian college-level textbook on the Bible is Understanding the Bible by Stephen L Harris. I read it myself 20 years ago when I was studying the Christian tradition, etc., in college (a Christian college, FTR). Its status demonstrates how far the secular view extends in academic circles. Far from being "radical," the secular view of Jesus and the Bible is common in college-level study. Here's a description of the book [1] and here's a Christian review [2] that makes it clear that this is what college students are being exposed to in large numbers. Harris might be totally wrong, but he's gotten his textbook into lots of schools for over two decades. That's a lot more substantial than the "myth" or "mystery religion" authors have managed. It demonstrates that the secular critique of Jesus and the Bible is a substantial phenomenon, one worthy of comment. To mention "myth" and "mystery religion" critiques and not the mainstream secular critique is unfair. Str, you call the secular view "radical" and accuse me of wrongly portraying it as common. How common this view is in academic circles is a matter of fact. Surely, even if we disagree on matters of faith, we can agree on matters of plain fact, such as that the secular view is common (perhaps distressingly common) in college level Bible study. Jonathan Tweet 03:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I too support Johnathan's view and would like even mention of S Acharya's works in the controversy section which was removed a few days back.People here remove anything unreasonably.Philosopher1 17:56, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Johnathan as well. The so-called secular view that Jesus existed and was an influential teacher but was not divine and did not actually rise from the dead is a much more common view than some of the views already mentioned in the section. And, clearly, it is a controversial view of Christianity. While there are of course scholars who disagree with the Jesus Seminar, how is their work not scholarly? According to Wikipedia's own article, its made up of two hundred academic New Testament scholars! Not only are they scholars, but they are scholars talking about a subject that is highly related to their area of expertise. I think, ideally, that the section would include a mention of this view point, summarize it (as best is possible) in a one or two sentences, and cite the Jesus Seminar as an example of it. (Oops, forgot the signature) Nimrand 18:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Since no one has proposed a wording, how about this. "Secular New Testament scholars often argue that Jesus was an influential teacher, but that divinity and certain additional teachings were not attributed to him until after his death. For example, see Jesus Seminar."Nimrand 19:08, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't sound like a criticism. A criticism would be "In the fouth century, a conspiracy of bishops fabricate the notion the Jesus, a mere man, was actually God". Something like that - you get the idea. Lostcaesar 19:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. The wording describes a point of view of significant popularity that directly contradicts traditional Christian teachings. It essentially follows the same format as any of the other listed criticisms. It describes the point of view and who holds that point of view. But, if someone feels there is a better wording, please offer one, but I don't think my wording is so poor as to justify its exclusion in the absense of an alternative. My original wording was missing one very important word, which I have now added. If more emphasis is needed on the contradiction itself, one could modify it to say "Secular New Testament scholars often assert that, contrary to what many Christians believe, Jesus was not divine or resurrected from the dead and that Jesus' divinity and certain Christian teachings were not attributed to him until after his death. For example, see Jesus Seminar." Nimrand 20:59, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually as you know LC in the 4th C a group of bishops held a vote on whether Jesus was God - maybe they were the 4thC version of the Jesus Seminar? Sophia 09:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Some guys in a bar last night might have voted on the subject too. Of the three, I think I will put my money on Nicea. =D Lostcaesar 09:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
JT, my comments were directed against your attempt to link what scholars (and not that you are switching between what kind of scholars, yesterday it was historians, now bible scholars) commonly say with the Jesus Seminar, when the two do not go together. Also, what scholars say is not necessary scholarship. I was not referring to a (non-existing) secular view. But since you talk about a secular view, you are now on the right track: this is a view. It is not a/the secular view but it is some one's view. If you can properly reword this, we might have a chance of including it.
As I have explained repeatedly, "secular" doesn't work - there are no "secular scholars" unless by way of their subject. Hence, economist, mathematicians or historians would be secular even if they are Christians, while theologians never are, even they are atheists. And finally, secular is a rhetorical attempt to paint something as neutral when it is not.
The thing about Mrs S is, that she is not notable enough (remember she is even shunned by her fellow Mythicists) on her own. I did stretch notability by including her into another section. This section is not made to satisfy the needs of her fans.
The Jesus Seminar can be included as an example of a certain view, but not as scholarship because voting on colouring Biblical (and non-Biblical) text is not scholarship.
Finally, Sophia, the Council was not a vote on whether Jesus was God but a consideration of the case of Arius and Eusebius and the definition of the faith via a creed. The voting taking place at a council is much different from the one in elections an note that the result was 318 to 2. And note that they were in agreement with preceding tradition and with, as the ensuing events showed, in agreement with the vast majority of Christians. Str1977 (smile back) 09:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Sorry Str - I did know the history and my previous comment was not meant to be taken seriously (I should have added a ;-) or something). As for the mythicists - please no Acharya - we shouldn't be making room for really shoddy scholarship when there are the likes of Pagels and Thompson to give an academic dissenting view. Sophia 13:22, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
That's all right, Sophia. If it was a joke I can join the laughter. I agree with you on Mrs S - she is the blind among the one-eyed. Not that I care much about Mrs Pagels or those "not-as-wacky-as-Acharya" mythicists, but when someone out of all people calls her a reputable scholar (or whatever he said) Big Ben is tolling not in London but right next to me. Str1977 (smile back) 16:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Str, OK, if you have particular issues with particular words and particular terms, then please take a shot at formulating what I'm saying in words and terms that suit you. It's a lot more useful to suggest an alternative than simply to criticize. And if the JS isn't scholarship, please provide evidence to that effect on the Jesus Seminar page. Jonathan Tweet 15:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, you will understand that it's hard to put into words something you is nonsense. But let me try. In order to do that please state clearly what information you want to cover. Str1977 (smile back) 16:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Str, I totally believe you that you find it hard to put nonsense into words, but I don't really understand it on an intuitive level. It's a breeze for me to put (things I consider to be) nonsense into words, like "Augustine taught that the damnation of the vast majority of humanity is a testament to God's justice." I have no trouble putting that into words. But I also understand that everyone's different, and I appreciate your willingness to do something that you find difficult. The two things that are key to the controversy are that (at least some number of) historians argue that Jesus didn't found Christianity or rise from the dead and that this view has real presence in scholarly research (unlike Jesus = myth). One could also include that Jesus didn't teach the Trinity or claim to be God, or give the Great Commission or say that he'd be back to judge his followers at the end of the world, etc. but I'll be modest in my expectations. Not to say that (at least some) scholars depict Jesus as merely mortal is to overlook a key controversy. Not to point out that this view has "legs" in academe is to understate the case. Jonathan Tweet 17:00, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

We need to cover the views of large US universities theological departments' professor's views, summed up by the Jesus Seminar, that Jesus was an itinerant wisdom sage and a faith healer. In that, he was executed by Romans for rabble rousing and didn't rise from the dead, never claimed to be God or the son of god, etc. Using redactionary criticism of the gospels, New Testament scholars formulated the Acts and Words of Jesus that are authentic, versus those later added by early Christian Prophets. These findings are detailed in the Seminar's primary sources, The Five Gospels and The Acts of Jesus. Also, the works of Marcus Borg, John Dominic Crossan and Stephen Micthell's The Gospel According to Jesus illustrate and exemplify the Seminar's findings. These are verifiable and reliable sources that need mentioning in this article. Support Jonathan Tweet efforts. JPotter 17:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Who is this Potter fellow?
JT, details about the historical Jesus belong into that article, the link to which I have restored. The thing about not having founded Christianity is already covered as well under "Paul as the real founder" item.
As for your second post, we can add a point "Some theologian view Jesus as ... Jesus Seminar."
And yes, I assume you support your comment, as I do support mine. Str1977 (smile back) 11:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Well said. In response to Str's comments, the term "secular New Testament scholars" was an attempt to to be more specific than "some New Testament scholars", not to give it a false appearance of neutrality. Nonetheless, your point is well taken. However, I would also point out that "Some New Testament scholars..." is at least as specific as most of the criticisms already listed, so maybe that is sufficient. Or perhaps, "A group of New Testament scholars known as the Jesus Seminar...". Although, I think there are more scholars who assert this view than those who are a part of this group.Nimrand 18:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't doubt you meant well. But I have encountered this "secular someone" construction to often to gloss over it silently. Str1977 (smile back) 11:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
I think this is an article about Christianity, and I think it appropriate to have this article actually describe Christianity, rather than going into the academic arguments against the historical authenticity of its origins. I have no objection to airing such arguments, but I don't think this is the right article in which to do it. There are articles on Criticism of Christianity, Historicity of Jesus, and various other places in which they can be presented without appearing to undermine deliberately the religion which this article is about. Myopic Bookworm 21:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
Which is why I don't think it should be given much discussion on the page, just a short summary and a link to the other content. By your argument, the criticims section shouldn't be there at all. But as is, I think a lack of mention of the views posed by the Jesus Seminar or similar views is serious omission from the list. Nimrand 22:34, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
I will say that the criticism section is bar far the worst in the article. It is in bullets instead of prose. Its constantly under dispute with a pov tag. It has no real theme, just a litany of camplaints. And, lastly, its basically an invitation for someone to add his personal ills. The article says what Christianity is. It doesn't have a list of what's great about Christianity and why people like it, so why should it need a section about what people don't like? I think the article would be npov without it, personally. Lostcaesar 22:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Str1977, I noticed you've edited the first line of under the criticisms and controversies list to include a reference to the article about the "Historical Jesus". For a number of reasons, I think this is a good solution to the controversy here. It required very few additional words, it leads the reader to a much broader range of information than just what the the Jesus Seminar says about the "Historical Jesus", and its probably more balanced this way as well. I propose it now be left as edited by Str1977. Nimrand 04:05, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Nimrand, but I cannot take all the credit. This note was there before and I was amazed when I found that it had been removed. In the current version we include three items of information about Jesus and history into one point: that some doubt the historicity, that historians overwhelmingly confirm it and that some try to reconstruct what they can by historical methods. This historical Jesus is, at the risk of repeating myself, not the same as denying the resurrection, as JT, wants it to be. This event is beyond the scope of historians. The JS, denying it, is already out of the historical field. Str1977 (smile back) 11:08, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Now, with the suggestion to remove this section altogether, how many reasons have believers generated to keep this information off the page? I remember these: JS is not scholarly, JS overreaches historical bondaries, JS is within Christianity itself (?), reference to JS is recentism (meanwhile historical context is deleted), historical views of Jesus are not controversial (!), historical views are not a criticism, historical views amount to nothing other than not being Christian, and now the whole section ought to go. Did I miss any reasons to keep the historical Jesus reference off the page? I'll go out on a limb here and predict that before this issue is done (will it ever be done?) one believer or another will come up with yet another novel reason that this material should not go on the page. I'll address the last two. Str, you say that denying the resurrection is beyond the scope of history. Meanwhile, over a dozen leading scholars in the field of New Testament studies (plus over a hundred dimmer lights) disagree and dare to deny the resurrection as scholars. So on one hand I have some articulate and reasonable Wikipedia editors who say that the JS's conclusions (plus those of David Strauss, et al) are beyond the scope of historical investigation and lots of prominent scholars who say the opposite. How am I to decide which group to believe? Maybe Str, et al, can produce a nonsectarian expert who can back them up, just as I have the JS experts backing me up. Second, whether this section should go away. For one thing, most controversial pages have a criticism section. Jesus Seminar for one. For another thing, this section serves as a balance to the rest of the article, which is mostly describes Christianity without comment. In this scheme, the Christians get control over most of the Christianity article and we dissenters get our little section at the back, and maybe a few line sprinkled in here or there. The alternative, dissent and criticism woven into the article itself, is infeasible. Can you imagine having this discussion over every dissent or criticism that the article invites? Jonathan Tweet 02:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Here's the current wording: "A few writers propose that Jesus is a myth, though Historians generally agree that Jesus existed and have aimed at reconstructing the so-called historical Jesus." That's good. I totally want these ideas that Jesus was a myth or that Christianity is just another mystery religion to be defined as contrary to current scholarly consensus, or at least contrary to a "solid majority" of scholars. The Jesus-myth idea was a popular idea a hundred years ago when people thought that the Hittites, etc., were legends and that the gospels were written in the 2nd century. Proponents of these arguments get more space than they deserve, but that's probably right for Wikipedia. The problem I have with this line is that it doesn't explain what is meant by "historical Jesus." I'd want to add a definition "(Jesus reconstructed as a mortal man who did not found Christianity or rise from the dead)." Clear that it's a reconstruction. Why do I want this definition here? To be clear. So the reader can't read that line without understanding how far modern secular scholaraship is from Christian doctrine. Western culture has seen a profound shift in its relation to and view of Christianity. In the space of 200 years, textbooks have gone from affirming Christian beliefs about creation, the Flood, Jesus, and the church, to treating those beliefs as just that -- "beliefs." Or take government, now understood to derive its authority from the people and not from God's appointed monarchs. Or the church, now understood to be one faith among many, with the true Christians told to treat unbelievers as equals. The government used to execute atheists for their blasphemy. Now a president who talks about God too much is in trouble. Is this shift relevant to an understanding of Christianity? I think so. Is it Christianity's death knell? Not by a long shot. But this shift is relevant to the topic in a major way. It deserves clear mention. Currently, how does the article convey this changing status of Christianity in the modern world? "In the Modern Era, Christianity was confronted with various forms of skepticism and with certain modern political ideologies such as liberalism, nationalism, and socialism. This included the anti-clericalism of the French Revolution, the Spanish Civil War, and general hostility of Marxist movements, especially the Russian Revolution." Jonathan Tweet 05:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
"For another thing, this section serves as a balance to the rest of the article, which is mostly describes Christianity without comment."
Exactly, it describes Christianity without comment except in the one section called criticisms, where it gives negative opinions. That seems amateurish and unencyclopedic to me. We have no "praise and support" section, so we need no criticism section to balance it. I am pondering evermore just cutting the section. In the end it mostly states the obvious anyway: "people who aren't Christian think that Christianity gets it wrong". Shocker there.
PS, JT, dont take what has happened in certain circles of western society as demonstrative of the greater world, or all of western society, or even as what will last in the long run. Trends come and go, and the world has known these all before. Lostcaesar 08:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Though I agree with LC's assessment of the C&C section, I do not support any attempt to remove it.
The substance of JT's addition really boils down to "people who aren't Christian think that Christianity gets it wrong" - some of these are scholars (shockingly true, theologians and Bible scholars too) and voice these opinion. But that doesn't make them scholarship. As I said, historical research cannot confirm or deny the resurrection as such a confirmation or denial is based on certain philosophical presuppositions.
JT says: "The problem I have with this line is that it doesn't explain what is meant by "historical Jesus." Well, first of all we do not need a definition here, as we wiki-link to a complete article on that, secondly we have a (sort of) definition: historians aim at reconstruct the historical Jesus = the historical Jesus is a reconstruction of Jesus by the historical method. And thirdly, we certainly don't need a wrong and POV pushing pseudo-definition that affirms the claim that Jesus didn't found Christianity (some HJ scholars might think this, but other might not) or didn't rise from the dead (as I said a non-historical question). And the mortal man is a banality and actually not disputed by the vast majority of Christians as well (you know, "fully man" etc.) Str1977 (smile back) 10:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I'll simply note that the vast majority of the Jesus Seminar fellows are Chistian. JPotter 19:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Judging by their views, they are not ... or they are insane. Str1977 (smile back) 20:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Not true Scotsmans, eh? JPotter 20:58, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the error would be equivocation, since the meaning of the word "Christian" is wholly different when members of the JS use it than what everyone else means by "Christian". It would be like Rupert Murdock calling himself a Marxist. Lostcaesar 21:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Nevertheless, they self-identify as Christians and are members and ministers of mainstream Christian churchs. They may be theologically liberal Christians, but we don't get to say who is and who is not a Christian, particularly when they self identify as such, and attend and lead Christian organizations. JPotter 21:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Well now that is a different argument indeed. Perhaps that is a policy, but we still must make the distinction that the definition of the word is wholly different in the context of JS scholars than it is in standard use. And it is worth noting that words cease to have meaning if they can mean anything. Lostcaesar 22:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
If we can't say who is a Christian, then that means we can't call them Christian, which isn't the same as explicitly calling them not Christian :D. Homestarmy 22:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
First of all, I removed "so-called" from in front of the phrase "historical Jesus". So-called adds nothing, except POV. But I wouldn't object, per JT, of adding a qualification to explain this technical term (i.e. reconstruction of Jesus' life using historical methods). Next, regardless how strongly Str1977 feels about the Jesus Seminar, I'm afraid he is not the arbitrator of what is or isn't 'scholarship'. Wikipedia has policies detailing citations, sourcing, reliability, and verifiability. Personal objection is not enough to ban content. It is much more helpful to say "Source X fails criteria Y", instead of "I personally don't think an organization that votes on history should be given space on wikipedia." On top of that, I think a large number of Str1977's argument's against the JS are strawmen, and most like stem from media reports about the JS, instead of literature actually published by the JS. (but this isn't the place for that debate. I'd welcome further discussion on my person talk page). JPotter does bring up a point. Can positions held by Liberal Christians really be used as criticism against Christianity? Christianity is a very big tent, and the idea that Jesus wasn't literally, physically resurrected, and that he never intended to start a religion, etc, don't bother some Christians in the least. And no they aren't insane, or at least not any more insane that people who think someone actually physically walked on water, changed water to wine, raised people from the dead, and was the son of 'God'.--Andrew c 00:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
In this discussion, there almost seemed to be this implicit belief that calling JS's views "scholarship" would be tantamount to saying history has proven that Jesus never rose from the dead. JS's views are scholarship, but their methods are not infallible and their view is only one of many among scholars. Nimrand 05:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I would only like to add that the matter of the "historical Jesus", defined as "Jesus as reconstructed using historical methods", is not so tranquil a domain as it may sound. There is real, scholarly debate as to just how correct, and just how historical, certain methods employed by some scholars (especially the JS) happen to be. Obviously, Chrisitans think that their construction is the historical Jesus, and while it relies on other methods (from typology to philosophy) it also employs historical methods. Just one example, to state as an axiom that any sayings attributed to Jesus that his audience would not have immediatly understood must be dubious is a very questionable assumption — frankly its a philosophical (not historical) assumption and pre-determines what the "historical" methods will construct. So I think we need to understand this topic as complex and dynamic, rather than simple. Lostcaesar 00:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem with the current wording is that it makes the historians of historical Jesus out to be the defenders of Christian ideas about jesus, as they counter the claim that he didn't exist. In fact, the historical Jesus issue is more controversial and more threatening to Christian ideas than the "Jesus = myth" arguments because they're more widespread, more common in college textbooks, and still hard to square with orthodox beliefs. We can sset the logic straight this way: "Scholars researching the historical Jesus generally portray him as a mere mortal who did not found a religion or rise from the dead. (See, for example, the Jesus Seminar). A few writers, arguing against the scholarly consensus, go so far as to deny that Jesus existed at all." I know that some people don't want to mention the rising from the dead bit, but if you read most any nonsectarian history book that covers Jesus' life, they depict him as not rising from the dead. On the topic of wether everything in this section amounts to "Nonchristians think Christians are wrong," that's too simple. Everyone else thinks Christians are wrong in different ways. Historians say Jesus was baptized by John and crucified by Pilate. Muslims say he wasn't crucified at all, etc. The issue isn't that there's disagreement. The issue is what the particular disagreements are and what they might say about Christianity or about its detractors. Jonathan Tweet 14:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

There is no one "historical Jesus" arrived at by "historians" - different scholars think different things about Jesus. Some think he is God. And adding the qualifier "non-sectarian" doesn't do any justice to the topic. If a scholar, using reason, determins that the Gospels are accurate, what religion is he likely to convert to? The question as to just what assumptions are correct forms of scholarship is a matter of dispute and, as I said, largely determines the version of the "historical Jesus" that one is to end up with. The Christian Jesus is not "threatened" by historical methods, only flawed historical methods, ones whose flaws are subject to analysis by reason and which have drawn scholarly attention. Thus we cannot state the view in simple terms. The only thing about the historical Jesus that can be said as such is that it is a reconstruction using historical methods and not additonal religius methods like typology or conciliar decrees - but the sum product of those historical methods, like the exact nature of the methods themselves, is a matter of scholarly debate. Yes, Christians have to accept the fact that some scholars think history shows that Jesus is not God. And just as well non-Christians have to accept the fact that some scholars think that everything history shows is consistent with the proposition that Jesus is God. As we all know the soundness of an argument does not in any way depend on the person making the argument, and thus qualifiers are irrelevant when discussing scholarly positions. Lostcaesar 15:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
The current wording does not make historians in general affirm Christian ideas. It merely states that historians affirm Jesus' historicity and points to their research trying to reconstruct the historical Jesus, about which there can be many differing scholarly views (and in as much views are scholarship they are covered by this). And, as LC, said, there is no general view and it certainly is not what JT wants it to be. This is the problem we have here: JT wants the article to state, with the authority of scholarship, that Jesus is a mere mortal that didn't found a religion and didn't rise. This is POV pushing. Str1977 (smile back) 15:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Guys - all this rhetoric is not getting us anywhere. Historians say this, historians say that, etc. We can have several different scholarly viewpoints in the article, as long as they are each cited. This includes the entire swath of Christianity, from the biblical litericists to the mythicists and all the people in between. Clearly, the Christian who believe that Jesus' physical body rose from the dead are in the majority to those Christians who believe in a "spiritual resurrection". And that can be reflected in accordance with Wikipedia policy in Undue Weight. JPotter 16:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
But keep in mind that this article is called "Christianity" and not "Historical Jesus". IMHO, the mythicists are not Christians and the spiritualists are deluding themselves. Just my view and not binding via NPOV. And these stances in turn have nothing to do with the historical Jesus or scholarship. We must have clarity that we have scholarly debate here and convictions of faith there. Str1977 (smile back) 16:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Str, "JT wants the article to state, with the authority of scholarship, that Jesus is a mere mortal that didn't found a religion and didn't rise. This is POV pushing." This is only POV pushing if it's wrong. If it's true, then obstructing an editor from including the information is POV pushing. The "Jesus = myth" people want to say that there's no scholarly consensus. So do the "Jesus = God" people. But there is a scholarly consensus among scholars of the historical Jesus. It's in textbooks. It's in academic journals. You might think it's a wrong consensus, and scholars have been wrong before. I don't want to go so far as to say Jesus was merely mortal. But the scholarly consensus belongs here, along with other dissenting views. If there's real debate among scholars of the historical Jesus about whether Jesus was God or whatever, reference it. It totally belongs on the historical Jesus page. Jonathan Tweet 14:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC) LC, please find the scholars who approached the gospels historically and, on their basis, converted to Christianity. That would make a nice counterpoint on the historical Jesus page. For my part, I'd really like to know how common that is. Also, thank you for confirming that one can use reason to determine whether or not Jesus is God. There had been some talk about that topic being outside the scope of historical study. I'm sorry I used the term "threatened." I think it's true, but it wasn't nice. Jonathan Tweet 14:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC) I have references (Jesus Seminar, Understanding the Bible, etc.). My detractors have not presented theirs. The ability to cite sources is Wikipedia's stand-in for a truth test. The material should go in. A weak version that still seems fair could go something like this. "Most scholars who use historical methods, and not religious beliefs, to construct a biography of Jesus portray him as merely a mortal man who did not found a religion. They treat the resurrection as a belief rather than as a historical event." Or would someone else like to take a crack at wording?Jonathan Tweet 14:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Err, POV pushing is POV pushing whether right or wrong :/. If I wrote on the Scientology article that it is more like a scam than a religion, I would be correct, but I would still be POV pushing.... Homestarmy 16:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I think the solution is simple: we either don't add this at all, or we add what they think and only say that it's what they think. We cannot say that what the JS says is the truth. Who do they think they are to say whether or not what the Bible says happened REALLY happened? We all have our beliefs(which are all POV to an extent) about whether the Bible is true or not, but just because the JS is a group of scholars doesn't give them the authority to say that any part of the Bible really isn't true. "If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book." Rev. 20:18. So I think we can add what the JS thinks, but we can't say that they're right about it. Christknight 20:37, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

JT,

  • you seriously need to reconsider your reading of the NPOV principle. Homes is right on the mark on this.
  • the question of whether Jesus is God or did rise from the dead is not a matter of science, or of historical scholarship but one of faith, and philosophy and theology. You can neither prove nor disprove that Jesus is or is not God from history. You cannot prove that Jesus rose from the dead nor can you, given the evidence of the sources.

Str1977 (smile back) 23:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

CK says, "I think the solution is simple: we either don't add this at all, or we add what they think and only say that it's what they think. " OK, you guys are right. I think I see where you're coming from now. We can't say "Jesus wasn't God." That's POV. We can only point to notable people or groups who believe that he is or isn't God, report that factually, and cite it. That's what the section already does with Muslims, etc. What we need here is not a statement about whether Jesus rose from the dead, etc., but rather a statment about some person's or group's beliefs about Jesus rising from the dead, etc. So we can agree on that now? It would be POV to say, "Jesus didn't rise from the dead," but it's NPOV to say, "[such and such people] say Jesus didn't rise from the dead." If we're agreed on that, then we've actually made some progress. Jonathan Tweet 17:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree, with the proviso that [such and such]'s opinion with respect to the subject is notable in some way. For example, to say "John Doe says that Jesus Christ was born in Andromeda" could be POV if (1) John Doe has no claim to notability wrt Jesus and (2) the editor adding such a line believes that Jesus Christ was born in Andromeda. Thus the editor is using the non-notable John Doe quote as a framework for injecting one's own POV. Jpers36 17:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree, JT and Jpers. But let me add that the whole subject of the "historical Jesus" is already covered. What remains is not that field of scholarship but the religious and philosophical beliefs. You mention Muslims and we can mention other groups, as long as they're notable. Str1977 (smile back) 17:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Str, you say that the truth of the Bible can't be determined by historical scholarship. LC says that it can (provided it's good, honest scholarship). I'll let you two Christians work it out between you. Jonathan Tweet 17:03, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
JT, you are twisting my words and I think LC's as well. You are doing so by constantly changing the subject of what you are talking about: first it is the resurrection, than the divinity of Christ, now it is the truth of the Bible. Whether you are doing it intentionally or are simply unable to focus on one topic at a time, I do not know. But please stop bothering others with questions until you are clear about what you are talking about. Goodday, Str1977 (smile back) 17:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

As any good "biblical scholar," modern or otherwise, should know, the belief of some that Jesus was not divine is not a modern occurrence. The Pharisees and Romans of Jesus' day believed as much. However, although I'm no historian, the biblical scholarship that I'm aware of, when based upon strict historical methods, points to the reliability of the New Testament. Thus, the "Jesus Seminar" can only be considered a criticism of the Christian religion, as the religion is based upon the biblical premise that Jesus was divine. LotR 18:14, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Modern Judaism is based on a premise that Jesus is not divine. Does this make Judaism a criticism of Christianity because they don't believe what Christians believe? Homestarmy 18:20, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
And as far as I know, we have an item on Judaism in the C&C section. Str1977 (smile back) 18:52, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Yes, but only because people of the religion of Judaism use that principle for a criticism, modern Judaism itself does not rest on this principle because it is a criticism of Christianity, but rather because it is what they believe. The criticism section is worded to say "Jews in general...." not "Judaism in general", it is attributed to some people, specifically who use this principle of Judaism as a criticism. The Jesus Seminar uses a similar principle in their reserch I presume, but do they use it as a principle, or specifically to be critical of Christianity? The way summary style is used there makes it seem to come from Criticism of Christianity and Criticism of the Bible, neither of which primarily use content which is "critical" in the academic study sort of sense. So it seems we're supposed to be dealing with direct attempts to challenge Christianity or a part of Christianity in this sense. Homestarmy 19:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I concur. Str1977 (smile back) 17:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Modern Judaism is not focused on the person of Jesus -- just the opposite in fact. However, if a hypothetical sect within modern Judaism rose up that was exclusively centered around Jesus as being a great rabbi, and this group made it their foremost business to "enlighten" the rest of world to their "scholarly" belief that the Christian (divine) Jesus is a myth, then I would call that sect's belief a criticism of Christianity, yes. But I digress -- my original point was that JS should not be considered YAC (Yet Another Christianity to be included in an introductory article on "Christianity"). LotR 14:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Str, "But please stop bothering others with questions until you are clear about what you are talking about." My topic has always been one thing: the vast gulf between modern nonreligious scholarship and Christian doctrine. This is such a big topic that it can take many forms, and as defenders of Christianity object to one form, I present another. Jonathan Tweet 17:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

You may do this. But you cannot then turn around and say that I and Homes contradict each other, if you are posing different questions. Anyway, your "modern nonreligious scholarship" already begs the question. How about the gulf between "modern religious scholarship and atheist doctrine"? How about just covering scholarship without immediately disqualifying someone? Str1977 (smile back) 17:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

"But let me add that the whole subject of the "historical Jesus" is already covered." Thank you for confirming my prediction that a believer would come up with another novel reason to keep the material off the page. But "the whole subject" is hardly covered. Instead, it is lightly touched on and left poorly defined. Jonathan Tweet 17:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, you may turn to the article and look at the top. The very first line reads "Christianity" and this tells you the topic of the article. It doesn't read Jesus, nor "historical Jesus" nor "scholarship" nor anything else. The topic is Christianity as it is. The subject is touched upon only, but it is also covered inasmuch it is on-topic. Poorly defined? Better this definition than the untruth you are proposing to push your POV. Str1977 (smile back) 17:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be some general agreement to include a reference to some scholars denying the resurrection, etc., provided that it's sourced to a notable source. That's the Wikipedia way. I propose as a notable source the Jesus Seminar, as it comprised over a dozen leading figures in the field of NT studies plus over a hundred others. I've got a fair idea about what would happen to any text I venture to add to the section, so would someone else like to propose wording, now that we're close to agreeing? Jonathan Tweet 17:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

It is the WP way but note the topicality of the information. This article is called "Christianity". Str1977 (smile back) 17:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
LC, please find the scholars who approached the gospels historically and, on their basis, converted to Christianity. Well that was a significant development in my conversion, but as far as scholars go I frankly have never investigated their religious backgrounds because, as you well know, the nature of the scholar is irrelevant to the nature of the argument — we take arguments on their own merit. But if I can add something it would be that, in this matter, I agree with Benedict XIV and Augustine: all Christians are converts, that's the nature of the faith.
As far as using history concerning Jesus' divinity, here is what I think. First, I think that what we know from history (or reason in general) in no way contradicts what is known in faith. Second, I think that history (and reason in general) gives reasons to believe (which is all we can ask from it). Third, I think historians should be humble in general about what we should expect to be able to show about the past. Fourth, I think scholars must be very careful when employing their methods that said methods do not implicitly determine the construction that will arise from them, and I think some scholars of the historical Jesus are very sloppy about this.
Lostcaesar 17:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi LC. What I propose is that you come up with some versions of the text, here, and that we all work on it to get the kind of wording that is acceptable. It seems the consensus is to agree to make mention of the JS as it pertains to some relevant points, but we need to iron out with the other editors exactly how to put this in a way that is not construed as 'pov pushing" for either side. I also propose that when others criticize the proposed text by LC that they do so in a constructive manner, i.e. give counter proposals about what the wording, according to them, should look like instead. I'm sure we will then be able to acheive a synthesis that everyone can live with.Giovanni33 17:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
A wise suggestion. JPotter 18:19, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I had expressed the desire to bow out of writing something along these lines, and though I appreciate the show of confidence, I am not sure if I am the right candidate for such phrasing due to my own beliefs. But I think it would be truthful to say:

"Members of the Jesus Seminar, and some other Biblical scholars, have controversially argued that their scholarship shows Jesus to have been neither divine nor to have risen from the dead, and that the Gospel accounts claiming these facts are actually literary fabrications."

I would use the adverb "controversially", since seems more of a controversy than a criticism. The last line about the Holy Gospels might need some refinement. I would also personally add, "And on the last day these scholars will have to answer for their pride, and for every sheep their theories lead astray; let us pray God have mercy on their souls…" — but I doubt this would adhere to certain policies. Lostcaesar 00:18, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the view of a "reader" as opposed to an "editor" would be useful here. I have read your discussion with much fascination, but I do not consider myself qualified (as of yet) to take part in actual editing. I am a Christian, am interested in science and learning of all kinds, and revere the scientific method. I do not feel threatened by apparent contradictions to my faith in the form of academic pursuit and progress. As an example, I believe very strongly that evolution is an engine of Creation. This may put me in a dual minority -- such a belief is liable to be despised by most Christians and most scholars alike these days. But I think it is a more traditionally valid approach to the relationship between science and faith -- a great deal of our body of knowledge was accumulated by people of faith -- and I can only hope that our society will resolve the culture wars and return to such a coordinated approach. OK, this discussion is not about evolution, but I wanted to give an overview of how I approach reading Wikipedia and the discussions. And I believe I am witnessing a little skirmish in the above-mentioned wars to the detriment of sense. I am sorry if other participating Christians are bothered by this, but JT has been right on almost every count. All he wants to do is refer to controversy among a certain set of scholars in a scholarly way, and so far as I can tell his Christian detractors seek to dissemble and make this difficult without being able to really cite the reasons. In fact what JT wants in the article is quite dry and basic -- reading context, it seems to me that he has learned to settle for very tiny steps. I may not agree with his ultimate agenda, but his methods and reasoning are sound or even admirable and the opposition's lacking. Beyond this, as a reader looking up Christianity on Wikipedia, the first thing I expect to find is controversial views, and a lot of them. Not only because Wikipedia is meant to be a consensus of many contributors, but because Christianity is by its very nature a controversial religion! The arguments about the real nature and identity of Jesus are all over the gospels and constantly referred to by Jesus himself; were a fundamental part of the early development of the Church; have defined the differences between sects; and have established the dynamic tension between the religous and secular at all times but especially the modern age. This tension is very important in my opinion: it is what gives faith the power to amaze and inspire. If countless people over the past two thousand years, from Roman officials to modern athiests, did not believe that Jesus was just an ordinary man who did not rise from the dead, what would believers have to refer or compare their beliefs to? If miracles and reserrection were mundane facts, what would be the point? A typical sermon would be reduced to a list of moral standards that most people agree with. There has always been that dichotomy both in the scriptures and in our public life between what we can detect with our senses and logic (this is just a man, this man died) and what one might call our heart (I believe this man is not dead, I believe this man can save me). Believers ought to be powered by that conflict. Modern scholars limit themselves to sense and logic and that is fair and just. So the editors of this article do not need to constrain references to controversy, but in my opinion, as a Christian and as a student of history, expand them. I feel secular opposition to my religion wherever I go -- at work, among friends, in the media. Like it or not it defines our time -- the argument that this is not so is some kind of dissembling. I don't have the research chops that some of you do, but I can sense that lot of regular people would turn to the JS to back up their own beliefs or suspicions about Jesus' being just a man in an argument with the likes of me. It is a very broad belief. Thus its inclusion is valid and necessary, unless an even more definitive and comprehensive source is available. The Wiki article about Christianity can and must be sensitive to Christian readers and refer to controversy at the same time.Yours etc. 18:58, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
Yours, please keep in mind that it took us a while to get where we are know. I for my part don't want to keep the JS out at all cost or with no reason. Yes, I'd prefer not to include it for clear reasons. This is no Christian POV thing as you can see by Elliotreed's comment below. What I wanted to disinclude is a oneside presentation of a field of scholarship, or a certain religious viewpoint marking itself as scholarship. Str1977 (smile back) 13:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I think our comments should take into account the methodological difference between objective historical inquirey and Christian faith and divine revelation. The Jesus seminar says what it believes is and isn't historic and sure there is some controversy about this - but their critics often exagerate and unfairly accuse them of drawing dire conclusions about parts of Christianity that the semiar's particular historical method does not address. Once they say the historic Jesus didn't originally say a particular phrase it doesn't allow you to conclude who did or way.
For example who said "My grace is sufficient for you" The historical Jesus? No, at least not while he was walking around Palestine before his crucifiction. But that doesn't stop Paul saying "My Lord told me 'My grace is sufficient for you'" Or who said the most famous verse in the Bible John 3:16? Jesus? Probalby not - at least I don't think so. John? Deffinately after all he is the narrator/author/evangelist. But that still doesn't mean that the Risen Christ didn't tell him since John believed Jesus was still alive and able to talk to his disciples - or that the Spirit of Christ didn't reveal it to him, since John beleived Jesus disiples had received the gift of God's Spirit who would reveal to them the truth. The bottom line is just because the historic Jesus didn't say it doesn't mean it isn't true.
Anyway here is my (so far unsourced) suggested fopr changes to LC's words:
"Members of the Jesus Seminar, and some other history and Biblical scholars, say that the gospels are based on a significant historical figure but that Jesus of Nazareth did not claim to be divine and Gospel accounts of many of Jesus' words and miracles, including him being raised from the dead, are beyond the scope of their historic method. The existence, therefor, of such accounts has been variously described as 'literary fabrications', 'faithful poesis' or 'revelation from God'. --Just nigel 20:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
JN, thanks for taking a stab at it. Do you really mean "Members of the Jesus Seminar. . . say that . . . Gospel accounts of many of Jesus' words and miracles, including him being raised from the dead, are beyond the scope of their historic method"? Or am I misreading a conjunction somewhere? Jonathan Tweet 05:05, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree with JT that the JS members are probably not saying this. In any case, they cannot make claims about "their historic method" if it isn't a historic method in the first place. And, remember: they are not historians but bible scholars. Str1977 (smile back) 13:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

As an atheist, I don't see any particular need for a reference to the Jesus Seminar in this section. This is not an article about the historicity of Jesus, the subject is already covered, and there's a link to the group in the "perspectives" section of the Christianity sidebar at the top. It seems to me that the only reason for specific inclusion would be to create the impression of POV as fact. Elliotreed 06:51, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

So there's an atheist (not that that matters) who's new to the conversation against it and a Christian (not that that matters) who's new to the conversation for it, so it's even. LC's proposal is accurate, but it understates the case. If I said "Some Christians are Trinitarians," it would be factual but misleading. The issue is the scholarly consensus against Jesus' miracles. Walk into any US state university and go to any Bible Studies 101 course and open the main textbook. I can't guarantee what you'll read but I'd be happy to bet on it. That said, I'm grateful to LC for respecting Wikipedia so much as to compose that summary. Would someone please post it and then take the POV tag off? Jonathan Tweet 04:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand, JT: it doesn't matter but adding them up makes the case even?
As for the rest of your comment: your claims are a) not consensus, and b) we are not discussing scholarly debate on the "Historical Jesus", as that is already covered by the link. We are discussing here on item for the controversy section. The JS is controversial and hence can be added but not, as you apparently still wish, with the semi-endorsing stamp of "scholarly consensus". In any case, if it were consensus, it would have no part in the C&C section, as it would no longer be controversial. Str1977 (smile back) 08:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Str, I was making light of the two new members of the conversation and their paradoxical stances. (Humor, the Interent, and religion, a tricky mix.) I'd address your counterpoints except that I'm hoping they're moot. I, for one, would accept LC's understated version. If someone would post it, maybe we can be done with this discussion. Jonathan Tweet 14:16, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't see why we have to make a serious discussion funny by an obscure form of humour. Anyway, I hope that we can be done with this soon. How about this:
Members of the Jesus Seminar, and some other Biblical scholars, have controversially argued that Jesus was neither divine nor rose from the dead, and that the Gospel accounts stating these facts are actually literary fabrications.
Merely reducing wordiness and ommitting a weasel word. Str1977 (smile back) 14:33, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
FTR, LC's version was: "Members of the Jesus Seminar, and some other Biblical scholars, have controversially argued that their scholarship shows Jesus to have been neither divine nor to have risen from the dead, and that the Gospel accounts claiming these facts are actually literary fabrications." Both versions understate the scholarly support for a natural Jesus, but I'd settle for either one, along with a tag warning editors not to delete the entry without spending way too long discussing it on the Talk page first. Jonathan Tweet 14:48, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
You can tag the entire section but not merely one item in it. I don't object to the tag as its content IMHO should be understood anyway. Str1977 (smile back) 16:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
The latest incarnation (no pun intended) is not understated, but overstated. I therefore propose the following instead: "Members of the Jesus Seminar, and some other Biblical scholars, have controversially argued from their scholarship that Jesus was neither divine nor to have risen from the dead, and that the Gospel accounts claiming these facts are actually literary fabrications." It cannot be said, even by its proponents, that JS scholarship "shows" (aka, proves) anything, anymore than traditional "scholarship" can be said to prove that he was divine. LotR 18:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Is there any objction to LotR's version? I would like to wrap this whole issue up. Str1977 (smile back) 12:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
So long as we get the sequence of tenses correct I am fine with it (either, "neither to have been divine nor to have risen from the dead", or, "neither was divine nor rose from the dead."). Lostcaesar 13:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I have posted this last version and invite JT to remove the POV tag from the section. Str1977 (smile back) 13:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. I added this hidden tag. "" I took the liberty of putting the Jesus Seminar line next to the other secular controversy lines, leaving the two "what the sister monotheisms say" criticisms at the end. Those of you who are convinced that the JS is tripe are invited to the Jesus Seminar page where you can add your well-cited and significant criticisms, lest anyone take the JS for more than it's worth. Jonathan Tweet 14:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay. I won't quarell about your moving the item around but would like to inform you that there is no such thing a secular controversy if the subject is religion. Str1977 (smile back) 14:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I've already chagned it. Sorry, but it was not accurate as it was. To say "The Historical Jesus did not claim to be divine" is not the same as saying "Jesus was not divine" - likewise to say "there is no historical basis for believing in the resurrection" is not the same (close maybe but not the same) as saying "there is no resurrection". Rest asured, in respose to earlier comments I have left out my earlier references to 'historical method'.--Just nigel 05:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
On second thought - they don't even deny the resurrection has a historical basis. In fact they say it has historical basis in appearances to (or visions by) the apostles and others. What they dispute is "an empty tomb" - and this is based partly on the lack of evidence of a tomb at all - not specifically an 'empty' one.--Just nigel 05:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)