Talk:Historical Jesus/Archive 3

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.
← Archive 2 |
Archive 3
| Archive 4 →


Contents

Historical Jesus should be the main article on Jesus

I'm not sure why the article Jesus is devoted to religious accounts and views on the man, rather than this article which contains factual and historical information exclusively. Facts and history come before religious lore and legend in an encyclopedia especially when there are numerous takes on the man which vary greatly from one to the other. This article's name should be changed to Jesus, while the information contained in the current article of Jesus, should be renamed to reflect it's religious context.

An Encyclopedia, however, has a responsibility to reflect on all information that it reasonably can, Historical accounts of Jesus should be mentioned, (And I think this article and it's counterpart do a reasonably good job of showing the sides of the debate) and the most popular beliefs in Jesus, as He is the central figure of one of the world's largest religions. Homestarmy 23:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The New Testament As a Source of Historical Information

So I guess I can start a page about a historical Hercules, citing Greek mythology? DoItAgain 05:44, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, Eric Shanower proposes a historical Herakles - a ferocious pirate who had children in many different lands.- DB 3/3/2006, 10:43 AM.

This article is a sham - it is not about the HISTORICAL "jesus" but another re-writing of the BIBLICAL "jesus" for which there is no contemporary historical evidence. This page is POV and, unless a major re-qwrite is done, I would suggest it should be deleted. Robsteadman 09:37, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Your comment is POV. I suggest you start your "crusade" with the articles on Plato, Socrates, Aristotle, and every other classical personage, since they are far less well-attested by manuscript evidence than Jesus. As purely historical documents, the New Testament texts are several orders of magnitude more reliable than any other ancient texts. Where with most Classical texts we have at most a handful of ancient mss. that date to within a thousand years or so of the events they describe, the New Testament documents exist in thousands of ancient copies, the oldest dating to within less than 100 years of the original "autograph" text. All of the NT texts can be found in mss that date to within ~300 years of the events. No other ancient texts come anywhere close to that. It's perfectly valid to treat the NT documents as evidence for the historical Jesus. Brendano 15:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
You are correct, but your comment comes a little late. This is a fairly old debate and this point has been made to Robsteadman before. Notice that Rob's post is dated two months ago. Robsteadman has recently left Wikipedia, and he requested that his user page and user talk page be deleted. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 16:05, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Grigory. I didn't note the date on his post; I did not a fairly recent date on the "Neutrality Questioned" section below, where I said something similar. IMO it's a fairly crucial part of the discussion, since the NT docs provide the most detailed picture of Jesus. Brendano 16:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Trouble with this false Jesus...

Look...guys, you need to understand something: in order to really be Jesus, you have to fit a certain number of criteria...some are as follows:

1. You have to be born of a virgin.

2. You have to be born in Bethlehem.

3. You have to fulfill ALL the feasts in the Old Testament.

4. You have to be without sin.

5. You have to fulfill the law.

6. You have to come from the lineage of David.

7. You have to die--and then rise again.

8. Last but not least--you have to fulfill ALL the above prophecies AND the rest that are mentioned in the Bible.

...So, there you have it.

Need for a separate article

If a man lived in the first century who does not fulfill these strict criteria, then he cannot be Jesus - but he could still be Yehoshua Bar Yosef or Yeshua Bar Abba. Ergo, a separate article would seem to be called for. - Das Baz, 03/08/2006, 10:35 AM.

--JJ

Deleted Jesus and nonviolent resistance section

This section had no support whatsoever, and is the purely personal hypothetical speculations of one person (probably User:Das_Baz) who has also been making a big nuisance of himself over at the main Nonviolent resistance article (look at the history of that page...) AnonMoos 14:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Read the Discussion on that page (Nonviolent resistance), and add your own opinions, by all means. -Das Baz, 3/3/2006, 10:46 AM.

Historical and Historicity of Jesuses

Or as uncyplopedia would put it, Jesii. Seriously, though, I understand that the articles Historical Jesus and Historicity of Jesus, are meant to cover different perspectives, but the titles are close enough as to cause confusion. The distinctions between the articles may have blurred through later edits. The other article, after being forked from Jesus, was originally titled "Jesus and textual evidence." I believe that this article is textual evidence plus Cultural and historical background of Jesus. Is this the correct interpretation, or is the distinction different? Also, does anybody have less confusing titles? Arch O. La 07:46, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The "Historicity" of Jesus and the "Historical" Jesus aren't the same thing. The Historicity debates the extent documents and the limitations of historiography. (Historicity talks about the stuff that talks about Jesus.) The Historical Jesus reconstructs a bio about what Jesus's life was probably really like. (It talks about Jesus.) Haldrik 15:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

"Citations needed" tag

We're working on such citations in the main Jesus article. Also see Talk:Jesus/Cited_Authors_Bios. Arch O. La 02:26, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Pronunciation

The name Yeshua was pronounced with a tsere, a long e as in "neighbor" (but not diphthongized) not with a schwa (as Y'shua) or segol (Yesh-shua).

It would be nice if someone would transcribe this using IPA so that it might make sense. How much dialectical variation do you think there is in the pronunciation of "neighbour"? Jimp 07:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Help with Miracles of Jesus article

I noticed that the Critical scholarship and the miracles of Jesus section of the Miracles of Jesus article needs some work. I am asking editors of the Historical Jesus for help. I have attempted to rework the section a bit, but would like someone more familiar with Biblical criticism to give it a once over. I'd appreciate any help! --Andrew c 18:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Check some of the authors and Wikipedia editors listed at Talk:Jesus/Cited_Authors_Bios. This may help. Arch O. La 18:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Jesus von Nazaret

The German Jesus article, which focuses on the historical Jesus, is a featured article. As such it may have ideas that help with this article. Jim62sch is working on a translation: User:Jim62sch/German-English_Jesus Arch O. LaTalkTCF 06:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Can someone with a knowledge of German help Jim finish the translation? I'd really like to see the whole article. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 21:10, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

The neutrality of this article is disputed.

Okay, why the POV tag? Arch O. LaTalkTCF 21:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I read through the article and didn't find much wrong with it until the end. The last two sections have been tagged for POV-check. I think the historical scholarly position is lacking. For the Final Days section, almost the whole section is just a plot summary of the Gospels with little historical commentary. For the resurrection section, it seems like an argument for the historicity of the resurrection, and not all POV are presented. I'll see if I can improve these sections, but I'd appreciate any help from other editors. --Andrew c 00:58, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
    • Actually, "POV" is not the core problem here; it's that the information has nothing at all to do with the focus of the article. This article purports to be an analysis of the historical evidence of Jesus as a forensic reconstruction. Final Days and Resurrection are completely devoid of that approach and their information is covered in innumerable other articles on Christian theology. These last two sections should be removed unless sources other than scripture (like those cited in the foregoing sections) can be referenced. Pending that, I think the sections should be removed. Kevin/Last1in 23:59, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The key question is: what do historians say?

  • "Last days" would cover his trial under Pontius Pilate, his crucifixion, and his burial. I would imagine that this has been investigated by historians. Was Jesus condemned for sedition, or for potential sedition? Obviously, accusations of blasphemy would have meant nothing to the Romans.
  • "Ressurection"; IMHO this is something that one has to accept on faith if one is to accept it all. If the ressurection was a miracle or a myth, than the event itself would not be amenable to historical research. Of course, historians can and do study how belief in the ressurection influenced Christianity, and through Christianity the world, but this is a separate issue. The consideration here is how many historians consider the ressurection ahistorical, and how many subscribe to alternate hypotheses such as the vision hypothesis, stolen body hypothesis or swoon hypothesis

If these are to be kept in the article, the focus should be on forensic analysis of the historical evidence. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. LaTalkTCF 15:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Unless someone is willing and able to rewrite these two sections with historical analysis and references, I think they should be deleted. BTW, I think one could actually write an historical treatment of the resurrection (or at least of the events surrounding it) if contemporary or near-contemporary sources could be cited or archaeological evidence could be found. Some articles with a similar problem include the historical treatments of Fatima, Zarathushtra and Flight 19; each article includes historical references for events or persons otherwise obscured by dogma. Kevin/Last1in 17:48, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
It is perfectly acceptable to use the New Testament documents as historical evidence. Laying aside the faith issues of "inerrancy" and "inspiration," and setting aside the skepics' uninformed dismissal of them as "fairy tales and myths", and simply looking at the NT documents as ancient manuscripts, it is easy to see that they can and should be accorded the same respect as one would give any other ancient text.
Moreover, since ancient copies of the NT texts exist in such great numbers, with so many truly ancient copies, and with so few critical variances between them, one might reasonably argue that it is easier to accept them at face value than, say, Caesar's Conquest of Gaul, of which we have only a handful of mss. or Rufus' history of Alexander, where the oldest extant mss are many centuries younger than the original. Brendano 16:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm a fundimentalist Christian, so don't misunderstand me, but there are ancient texts that talk about supernatural events which people who just look at them as texts, see as fictive (e.g., Romulus and Remus being raised by a wolf and a woodpecker and later founding Rome). One's worldview is foundational to how one categorizes a text (indeed, our worldview is what informs our view of what is possible, which in turn contrains our view of the text). But, thanks the WP:NPOV, we don't have to worry about how people view the NT, we only have to attribute it and refrain from giving it "undue weight" (in the policy sense of the phrase). ☺ --MonkeeSage 22:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Where to start? Using sacred texts as historical evidence is a tricky business. No historian is going to use the Rig Veda as historical evidence that Agni is (or at least was in circa 1800 BCE) reborn each day by rubbing sticks together. Such an historian might use it for clues about bronze-age customs, but not as a reference for whether Indus created the sun. Even non-religious texts (the Admonitions of Ipuwer, for instance) are never seen as historical proof without concrete, scientifically-verified supporting evidence. This article is not supposed to be about whether the Gospels are true, only if the story of Jesus can be placed historically. Pointing to the Gospels for proof is a pure tautology and thus invalid.
Claiming that "so many truly ancient copies" exist is fallacious. Precious few copies of the canonical Gospels survive from the second or third centuries CE and none at all from the time Jesus and his Apostles are believed to have lived. Early Christian texts are often contradictory (witness the Gospel of Judas). Even if you had hundreds of copies of a Gospel, the number of copies of the same source that exist is completely irrelevant; the countless copies of the Rig Veda are not used to place nagas in the Squamata.
As for "the skeptics' uninformed dismissal" of the "evidence" in those sacred texts, it is the job of a sceptic (and a Wikipedian) to ensure that neither Mithraists nor Baraminologists are allowed to redefine the Bos Taurus to fit their ideologies. The same applies here. The subject at hand is the historical figure of Jesus, the main character of the Gospels. If the person existed (and I believe He did), there should be evidence outside the Gospels (and I believe there is). If none exists for certain elements of the Gospels, I think you should take that part of the discussion outside this article on history to one on faith. Kevin/Last1in 20:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Good points Kevin. --MonkeeSage 09:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
The Final Days is lacking information and at sometimes is simply innacurate in its portrayal of Pilate. Based on the info on Pilate alone, I'd pull that section. There is nothing in there about Pilate's pressure from Tiberius to appease the Jews at this time. Pilate had a dilemma on his hands: he did not want to upset the Jews (and thus upset Tiberius which could lead to his death, since Sejanus is the one who appointed Pilate and Sejanus had been killed by order of Tiberius), and also he did not want to put an innocent man to death (nor upset his wife who did not want Jesus to be tried). Pilate had put many men to death and had gained a bad repuation in Rome as one who was anti-Semitic, just like Sejanus (again, Pilate thought he may be killed at any moment from the pro-Jew Tiberius) so he did not want to attract the attention from Rome at this time which explains why he tried to dismiss Jesus to Herod and later he tried to get out of it by "washing his hands" of the whole situation. His internal conflict clearly shows up in the Gospels, so, the portrayal of Pilate in this section "The Final Days" is simply an opinion which is not based on in depth research. Much more work needs to be done here. I'm willing to do the work, I'm new to this so if that's the next step, I'll do it. --D.H. Voss 13 April 2006

What language did Jesus speak?

The article says the following in the section titled as above:

    "Although they are all written in Greek, the only foreign words that the Gospels   
     put on the lips of Jesus are in Aramaic"

     "Paul used the Aramaic address to God, abba, even when writing to 
     Greek-speaking Gentiles"

This is quite misleading, because "abba" is a Hebrew word meaning father, and can not be used to argue in favour of Aramaic as against Hebrew. Also the words quoted in Matthew as uttered by Jesus on the cross, "why have you forsaken me", are perfect Hebrew. Hence I do not see the clear support for Aramaic as the spoken language of Jesus that the author of this article purports.--—This unsigned comment was added by 144.134.7.144 (talk • contribs) 11:09, 3 April 2006.

I would refer you to Talk:Jesus/Languages Spoken by Jesus. So far, all the cited scholars consider Jesus to be an Aramaic speaker.--Andrew c 15:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
The point I am making does not, in the first instance concern what most scholars think was the spoken language of Jesus. But rather that the facts brought in the article in support of this are misleading. I do not know Arameic. But I was fluent in Hebrew. I can state 100% that 'abba' is a Hebrew word meaning father. There is no reason for Jesus not to have used this word in reference to God if he was speaking Hebrew. And again the words quoted as uttered on the cross are also Hebrew. Hence it is not just a simple case of all the words quoted in the Gospel being Arameic as the article would have us believe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.5.217.3 (talk • contribs)
Re: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.5.217.3 (talk • contribs) sorry to disappoint you: abba means father in Hebrew, but it is a lean word from Aramaic. The original word, not any longer in user, is av. Oub 14:47, 7 May 2006 (UTC):


The words, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" are a quotation of Psalm 22, which is a Messianic prophecy of the Suffering Servant. It makes perfect sense that Jesus would have quoted it in Hebrew.Brendano 15:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
However as it is recorded in the Greek of the Gospels as 'Eloi eloi lama sabachthani / Elâhi elâhi lama shvaqthani' it seems to fit known dialects of Aramaic closer than known dialects of Hebrew (not to mention it also matches a reading from the Aramaic Targums). There is much debate as to where the verb shvaq came into Hebrew, as it is attested to in later dialects. Most scholars in the field believe that Hebrew was retained as a scholar's language and Aramaic loan words, spellings, and grammar in the Dead Sea Scrolls seem to point to this. :-) אמר Steve Caruso (poll) 15:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

What happened?

A large chunk of this article was missing with no reference to an archive. The removed material not only started in the middle of a comment, it started with the letter "H" in "there. If the comments were meant to be archived, it was a rather poor archive. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. LaTalkTCF 05:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Not sure, but here are the edits 144.134.7.144. --MonkeeSage 18:00, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Jesus article and sources

There has been a long discussion of the Historical Jesus at Talk:Jesus/Historical Jesus. It's divided into three subpages: Jesus as moral teacher; Jesus as apocalyptic prophet or messiah; and Jesus as Pharisee or Essene. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 08:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I just created the subpage and updated the links to my comments above. We also have about 25 sources on different models of the historical Jesus at Talk:Jesus/Historical Jesus/Sources. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 08:29, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Speculation: Jesus Picked Up Greek, Hebrew in Egypt As Boy

Greek was the primary language of everyday life in Egypt during the time of Jesus. A child growing up in Egypt would have constant exposure to the spoken word, if not literacy. Likewise, a Jewish emigre household in Egypt, of all places, would be strongly motivated to bolster the Hebrew education of a male. This would require learning the written word, and therefore the written law.

All this is predicated on the assumption that Joseph and Mary fled to Egypt for the time span indicated in the canonical Gospels.

In the least, it would explain a conversancy in the Law of Moses that does not require the knowledge to have been hardwired into the child's DNA.

Also, as such learning would involve training from expatriate rabbis, it might explain the historical Jesus' predisposition toward a career as a rabbi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.68.40.40 (talk • contribs)

Q&A Format

The current format of this article is less like an encyclopedia article, and more like an FAQ. I'd propose some sort of massive overhaul to make it organized along more historiographical lines, except that I'm sure I'd be too lazy to carry it out. But does anybody else have any thoughts? john k 03:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I concur. There is a separate article for questions of historicity. I think this article should be about scholarly conclusions of the historical Jesus. There seem to be several schools of thought on the subject. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 11:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I've only skimmed the article briefly, but, IMO, the problem with the article is that it doesn't address the historicity of historical Jesus studies. I don't mean that to be coy, but the outcome of the Jesus biography someone is writing depends on the method used, which is historically contingent. I'll try to engage this on the talk subpage.--Mrdarcey 15:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I brought this up several weeks ago by referring to "metahistoricity." I agree that we should say how the models change over time. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 18:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

a meaningless picture?

I think I will delete the photo of the reconstruction of a dead person that lived in Palestine in the supposed time of Jesus. Is it there to imply that if he existed he must have looked like that? What far fetched nonsense. Is like saying all people in an area look the same? what sort of bogus science is this? I leave this for comments and will proceed in few days. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.100.174.72 (talk • contribs)

I think the photo is helpful because it shows a historical reconstruction of an aspect of the culture from which the historical Jesus came. I have no idea why you are calling it bogus science. If you could explain that part more, maybe I'd understand your position.--Andrew c 22:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
The technique is not bogus science — it is a valid tool of forensic science, used by law-enforcement agencies[1]. All people from a location and period don't look the same; and that picture isn't meant to be exactly what Jesus looked like; but it is the closest approximation we can garner, and it contributes to the article by breaking the stereotypical image of Jesus as a caucasion hippy and by giving us insight into what a person from the same time and place would have looked like. » MonkeeSage « 22:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
I will note, just to be a contrarian, that a) people from the Middle East are and were just as "Caucasian" as people from Europe. Arabs and Sephardic Jews are considered White or Caucasian under most definitions I've ever seen, and the same would apply to the people of Roman Palestine; I assume what is meant is "Jesus wasn't Nordic" rather than "Jesus wasn't Caucasian;" and b) the hair and skin color applied to the reconstruction surely cannot come from an analysis of the shape of the skull, and must be based on other factors. john k 23:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I was meaning "White-European" (see Caucasian race). Thanks for the correction. Hair-type and color and skin-color (and eye-color) are somewhat subjective. I assume they are based on historical descriptions of peoples of the region and-or current peoples of the region, but that aspect is much more subjective and variable than the structural aspect. » MonkeeSage « 01:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, Middle Eastern caucasian, not Teutonic or Nordic caucasian as Jesus is usually portrayed. But, do we have to get racial? Arch O. La Grigrory Deepdelver 16:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Final Days and Resurrection Needs Consensus

The discussion above (neutrality) never seemed to resolve the issue that the two sections in question, Final Days and Resurrection, are inconsistent with the rest of the article. I would like consensus on the following questions: (1) Can we agree that an article called Historical {whatever} needs sources other than the holy texts surrounding the subject? (2) Can we agree that these two specific sections do not reference relevant, historical sources other than said holy texts? (3) Can we pull these two sections to a sandbox where folks (hopefully including DH Voss, who seems much more capable than I) can spend some time getting it right before reintroducing it?

Yes, I phrased these three questions as something of a benign push poll: It is my opinion that the validity and neutrality of the entire article is compromised by the inclusions of these two sections. I feel very strongly that they are inconsistent with the rest of the article (which is excellent, really) and just possibly inconsistent with WP:POV. However, I will never blank or substantially rewrite any section in any article (especially a religious one) without clear consensus. Kevin/Last1in 19:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

More precisely, the section title is #The neutrality of this article is disputed. Another issue on the table is at #Q&A Format.
  1. Agreed.
  2. Agreed. There was a call to find more sources, but the discussion stalled. We have started to compile a list of sources at Talk:Jesus/Historical Jesus/Sources. We just need to look through them.
  3. Why not?
Arch O. La Grigrory Deepdelver 19:23, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
I think these sections need to be based around what modern scholars say, rather than what the New Testament says, since this article is supposedly about modern scholars' reconstructions of Jesus. Looking at what scholars like Sanders, Fredriksen, Crossan, Brown, and so forth say about this period is what we should be doing, not simply paraphrasing the Gospels and Acts. john k 00:47, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. We have another article for the Gospel summary. As I've said elsewhere, I'm no expert. I first came to this article to learn what historians say about Jesus. I can read the Gospels for myself ;) Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 01:28, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we should be summarizing scholarship here, not simply repeating the text of the NT; but I also want to add that we should represent both sides of the field. I know that often people like F. F. Bruce and Leon Morris are called "fringe scholars" on these kinds of issues (Robert Funk on a radio program with James White, cited in Christian Research Journal, 20, no. 3, 1998 [J981], p. 51), and I hope we can avoid that kind of thing here (no accusations, just voicing a possible concern). Scholars whose worldviews exclude the possibility of supra- or supernatural events will obviously deny things like virgin births and resurrections and look for other explanations; scholrs whose worldviews allow for those kinds of events will be more likely to accept the explanations of the NT: but their respective worldviews do not necessarily make their methods or thinking any more or less scholarly. We should represent the best of both sides and without bias. Okay, that was my soapbox preaching for the day. ;) » MonkeeSage « 04:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I hate that "these scholars are not open-minded enough to accept the possibility of supernatural events" business. It is an argument generally made by scholars who are considerably less open-minded, in that they've already determined for reasons of faith that they believe in Biblical miracles. Genuine scholarship, whatever its source (and certainly Christian scholars like Wright, et al, are worthy of inclusion), ought to be respected and discussed on this page. Apologetics should not be. When the principal purpose of a work of "scholarship" is to defend the literal accuracy of the Biblical text, I'd put it on the side of apologetics rather than actual scholarship. john k 15:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely. How many classical scholars talk about keeping an open mind in regards to the supernatural events in say Plutarch's Lives, or better yet, Homer's Odyssey? --Andrew c 16:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I have no problem with that. But I equally dislike the "these scholars are not open-minded enough to accept the possibility of error and fabrication" business. I was only requesting that notable scholars who write from a Christian perspective be given equal time with notable scholars who write from other perspectives; not that we turn the matter into an apologetics discussion. » MonkeeSage « 22:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
So to clear things up, you are saying citing a N.T. Wright is perfectly fine, but a Lee Strobel is going too far? (if this is the case, I agree). Changing topics, I think this article needs a fairly extensive rewright. I think we should have a section on the history and origins of the search for historical jesus (quests). I think we need to explain why there is a search for a historical Jesus in the first place. I think we should talk about some of the methods used by scholars. And finally, I think we should discuss some of the major scholarly theories on the historical Jesus. The way the article reads now covers some of the background information about the historical Jesus (name, language spoken, family, literacy, birth place) with a couple of other random issues and a discussion on some of the events in depicted in the Gospels.--Andrew c 22:51, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
The methodlogy should be summarized here, although a fuller explanation probably belongs in historicity of Jesus. I agree completely with your other points. Arch O. La Grigory Deepdelver 22:55, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Andrew: That's correct. Fee, Moo, Bruce, Morris, Wright, &c; OK. Strobel, McDowell, &c; not OK. Habermas, &c; questionable. And I agree with your rewrite proposal. » MonkeeSage « 23:27, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I worked up a very rough outline here User:Andrew c/Historical Jesus. But I may be jumping the gun. I do not currently have the time, nor knowledge, to do this overhaul by myself. But I'll keep fiddling around and share any progress or proposals as they may come up.--Andrew c 02:11, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
That looks like a good outline to me. john k 04:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)