Talk:Jesus/2nd Paragraph Debate/5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] New Proposed Language

[edit] CTSWyneken Proposal #1

The main sources of information regarding Jesus' life and teachings are the four canonical Gospels of the New Testament, which are generally agreed to have been written in the decades after his death. Most scholars in the fields of Biblical Studies and history agree that Jesus was a Jewish Galilean teacher and healer who was sentenced to death by crucifixion outside of Jerusalem on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate,[1] for claiming to be the "King of the Judeans," a crime of rebellion against Rome.[2] A small minority of scholars from other disciplines question the historical existence of Jesus, citing a lack of extant contemporaneous documents making reference to him.[3]

[edit] Discussion of #1

Looks good, only think I'd change is "Biblical studies or history" to "biblical studies ANDS history".--Andrew c 16:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I suggest we just cut the part about "King of the Jews." It is controversial enough - and complicated enough (even in the Gospels Jesus answers the questions at times evasively or ambivilantly. I am not saying Christians think he was evading or ambivalent, only that I suspect that there is a fair amont of discussion by Christian theologians and Bible scholars as to how to interpret these passages) that it should be discussed in the body of the article. In the paragraph on what most Bible scholars and historians think, I believe that we could say this, with confidence: "that Jesus preached that the kingdom of God was at hand, and that in the context of 1st century roman occupied Judea, this act was considered by roman authorities to be seditious" - or something like this. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Can I get you to hold that thought a moment -- someone monkeyed with the text -- I think I'll have to go back and guard it again. Give me time to dredge it out of the histories. --CTSWyneken 16:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
There! Thanks! --CTSWyneken 17:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Hey, I am not going to make any changes, certainly if I think you may disagree. Take your time and mull it over. More than anything else, I just don't think anything is lost by removing "king of the Jews" from the introduction, especially as all scholars (who bracket their personal beliefs) do, I think, agree that Jesus preached that the kingdom was at hand and that this was seen by Romans as seditious. Why not leave "King of the Jews" for the body of the article? i just don't see any big downside to this. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I personally feel more comfortable being more general than specific when we are trying to convey what most scholars in the appropriate field think. And then we get into the dispute about do all scholars think Jesus actually preacehd the coming kingdom? I believe Marcus Borg might disagree with that phrasing. But if he is in the minority, we don't necessarily need to change the wording just to account for one person. On the other hand, I believe it's practically unanimous that the actual charges against Jesus had something to do with rebelion or sedition against Rome. I hope my suggestion to generalize more doesn't water down the reading. Finally, if we add too much to this sentence, we should probably split it up into multiple sentences.--Andrew c 17:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

On the "King of the Judeans," I want to keep this charge under which Pilate executed Jesus in tact. We went out of our way to begin to document it and I do not at all want to loose work we've (read I) have done.

That said, we do not have to say Jesus claimed the title. Nor do we have to use these precise words. Also, no prob with your comments. I just didn't finish my version until a few minutes ago. --CTSWyneken 17:21, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your research, and would never want to simply remove a section that is sourced. However, keep in mind we are trying to convey what ALL scholars on this topic basically agree to, and you have only cited 2 people for this claim. This is why I am cautious and urge a more generalize wording for the intro (and welcome the specifics under the historical persepective section). --Andrew c 17:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

CTSWyneken, as far as I can tell most scholars agree that the charge was "sedition." I think there is more certainty concerning this, then as to whether or not Pilate actually accused Jesus of aspiring to the crown. In short, "sedition" is no less accurate than "king of the jews" (as a way to describe the charge) and there is more consensus around it. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate the sentiments of both of you here. Sedition is certainly possible, although to use it means I have to go back and look at the sources again. This is not a huge deal, but I get very frustrated that I cannot even complete the first set of documentation before we're on to a second, third, and forth. Right now, I have to check dates of Jesus' birth and death, that he was a teacher, that he was a healer, that he died sub Pontio Pilato, that he was called "King of the Jews," as a capital charge, whether the scholor is a historian or not and if they support the non-existence hypothesis. It would be nice to get that all done. --CTSWyneken 17:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I have access to a university library. Is there anything I can do to help? I was thumbing through Meier's A Marginal Jew (not sure what volume) and noticed a chapter on chronoloogy that seemed like it had good info on the dating of Jesus' birth and death. Don't know if you have access to that book or not, but thought I'd share that and offer my help.-Andrew c 21:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
YES! You would be an enourmous help! How about catching me up with the birth and death dates and the charge of sedition, a.k.a. King of the Jews? If you can find the works I cited in note 2, check to see when the scholar thinks Jesus was born and died. There's a talk subpage for gathering such opinions. Put the data there and cite the work and page number in note one. Now, check to see what they think of the king of the jews thing. If they agree with our statement, put the info in note four. If we find the same names in note three and note four after all is said and done, we can merge the notes! Thanks! 8-) *snoopy dance of joy* (-8 --CTSWyneken 01:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad to help. I'll see what I can do. It is spring break, so the library has shorter hours. Hopefully, they will be open tomorrow. What is the link to the talk subpage? I figure the goal of all this is to have one (or multiple) sources say the 3 or 4 major points of that sentence, so the flow of the sentence isn't disrupted by the footnote numbers, right? I'll check the library catalogue online to make sure I have access to all of these sources (I looked at the R. Brown book today.)--Andrew c 03:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Ok, here are the books that are not in the library: E. P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus, John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus, Paula Fredriksen, Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews, and Geza Vermes; D. A. Carson; Paul L. Maier, In the Fullness of Time. 4 our of 11 isn't that bad, eh? I'll get back to you later tomorrow.--Andrew c 05:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
OK. Subpages are at: Talk:Jesus/Cited Authors Bios, Talk:Jesus/Dates of Birth and Death, Talk:Jesus/Languages Spoken by Jesus. Also, if you'd like, you could email and I'd be happy to find a copy of other works within borrowing distance for your library. We librarians have our ways... --CTSWyneken 11:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Library was closed today due to spring break, but normal hours resume tomorrow (open till 2am!) My userpage has the info on my location and university. I'll post my findings tomorrow night. BTW, the public library system here has the Fredriksen book as well.--Andrew c 22:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

In other words, we're still working out what the scholars say, regardless of what fields they are in ;) Well, as long as the paragraph accurately cites the scholars, then I like the way it reads. I think that Jesus' claim to be the messiah would certainly be seen by the Romans as sedition, although in the Gospels Pilate had his doubts. So I don't really see the distinction between sedition and "King of the Jews." "Scholars in the fields of" is an excellent clarification that avoids the artificial "scholars of history" that I inadvertently created. It's like "residents in the states of" to continue my tortured analogy. The context of "healer" needs to be clarified. As Slrubenstein has said, this needs to be done in the body of the article and not in the intro, but, well, last time I looked, it wasn't in the body either. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 17:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

It does look very encylopedic - my only comment is there is alot of "agreeing". SophiaTalkTCF 17:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
The way it's phrased, the general agreement about when the Gospels were written avoids the debates over "lack of extant contemporaneous documents": what this phrase means, what it refers to, and what it implies. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 18:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone say the Gospels were written during Jesus' lifetime? The way it reads it's ambivalent as to whether the "generally agreed" applies to the dates or the documents. SophiaTalkTCF 18:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
AFAIK no one says the Gospels were written during Jesus' lifetime, but this point was lost when people were arguing over "contemporaneous." I'm not sure of the distinction you're making between the dates and the documents; "generally agreed to have been written in the decades after his death" refers to the dates of the documents, which both the majority and minority agree to. The details in the documents themselves are agreed to by "most scholars in the fields of Biblical Studies and history," but obviously not by "a small minority of scholars from other disciplines." Arch O. LaTalkTCF 18:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
The gospels themselves, no. But quite a few people claim that portions of what are in them go back to the mouth of Jesus himself. So, even the Jesus Seminar assert 12% of the words reported to be Jesus' own actually came out of his mouth. Naturally, traditional scholars think that most, if not all, of the words reported by the Gospel, are his very own. So, in that sense, portions of the words were actually spoken between 30 and 36 AD/CE. --CTSWyneken 19:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I thought we had said that the Jesus Seminar accepted 20% of his words? As for the rest, I agree completely. They are Jesus' word as carried by oral tradition until people bothered to write them down. However, some are skeptical of this oral tradition. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 21:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
But it doesn't say "spoken" it says "written" - it reads as if there is some scholarly thought that the Gospels were written before jesus' death. It says "generally agreed" that implies that there is some slight disagreement with this. SophiaTalkTCF 23:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Interesting point. From a historical perspective, what we have is oral history that was written down several decades later. As for the phrasing, I'll let others comment. I don't want to throw out any more bad ideas ;) Arch O. LaTalkTCF 23:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm a little concerned at the lack of editor's - either they've all discovered there's a "real" world out there or they haven't got this page on their watch list. SophiaTalkTCF 00:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
It comes from having an active subpage ;{ Arch O. LaTalkTCF 01:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure about this subpage business - is it standard practise on topics like this? SophiaTalkTCF 01:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't really know what "common practise" is. What I do know is that people don't always check subpages, especially editors who are new to this page. I prefer to keep live discussions on the main page and only archive them after a day or three. However, CTSWyneken has a different methodology that apparently others agree with. Whatever works. If it were up to me, then I would post your concern to Talk:Jesus and see what kind of response you get there. However, it's not up to me. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 03:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure about other pages, but it has worked so far here. Notice how the "healer" debate brought all work on the main page to a standstill. We've made good progress here and the effect on the page itself was a lot more work being done. The disadvantage, of course, is that a lot of folk do not know the page is here or do not watch list it. So, if we come to some sort of conclusion, we need to let people on the main page know briefly what's going on over here. When we revert changes, we politely point here. --CTSWyneken 11:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sophia proposal #2

The main sources of information about Jesus' life and teachings, the four canonical Gospels of the New Testament, describe him as a Jewish Galilean teacher and healer who was sentenced to death by crucifixion on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate,[2] for claiming to be the "King of the Judeans" a crime of rebellion against Rome.[3] As the Gospels were written in the decades after his death a small minority of scholars question the historical existence of Jesus.[4]

[edit] Discussion

I'm being wiki bold! Throw it out if you wish but it puts the sources first and only says what they say about Jesus so they can say he walked on the moon if we can reference it without it ever being a POV. As the late writing of the Gospels is explicitly tied to the non existence quote we don't need to say again our famous "extant...." awkward sentence. SophiaTalkTCF 17:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... hmmm... do you have room under that desk? ;-) --CTSWyneken 17:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
What do you think that our small minority will say when we assume the text to say what the "vast majority" thinks it says. 8-) --CTSWyneken 17:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Bear in mind I am that small minority. If they were really awkward we could say "As the gospels were not written until decades after his death ....." but that is a bit too pointed in my view. We say the Gospels are the main source - we say they were written decades after he died - therefore if flows naturally that some question the historicity without ever having to have that nasty sentence.

I thought I would chance my luck as I was taken seriously last time. SophiaTalkTCF 17:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the issue with this is that this reads like a plot summary of the gospels, where the original wording was trying to name facts that most scholars agree in regards to a historical Jesus. The gospels also describe Jesus in a number of ways that most scholars do not agree on. Is it important to note that scholars, using the Gospels and the historical method, have found specific claims within the Gospels to be almost certainly historical? I believe that isn't exactly conveyed in your wording. That said, maybe it isn't important to make this distinction--Andrew c 17:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

We do keep the footnotes for those who think like us and want to know why/who/what. It's only an attempt - I was trying to keep the others happy that wanted the sources first and we can say what we like if we ascribe it to a source - hence no healer problem. As for the plot summary - isn't that what we're doing in the first section?

I'm not going to ferociously defend my suggestion as I know others know far more about this than me. SophiaTalkTCF 17:42, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The plot summary loses the distiniction that there are some details from the gospels that the majority of historical reconstructionists accept, while there are other details on which they do not agree. The problem with "contemporaneous" is that some people were interpreting it as "contemporaneous with first-century Roman-occupied Judea and Galilee," while others were interpreting it as "contemporaneous with Jesus' life and ministry," while still others (including myself) felt that it was irrelevant because oral tradition (both the Gospel of Jesus and the oral law of the Pharisees) was so strong before the destruction of Herod's temple. Yup, same data, differing analyses. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 17:57, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Seeing that we are arguing over virtually every word in this paragraph I tried to reduce it to knowns. The NT does describe Jesus in all the ways above - even I can check that (yes I do have a bible!) - it does lots more but we stick to the generally agreed ones. As we tie the dating of the gospels to the nonexistence view we have the chance to do away with our "extant" horrid sentence. As I said - it was just an attempt - let's move swifly on......SophiaTalkTCF 18:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
All true, but you lose the in-text citation for who is generally agreeing to these NT details (ie, the majority of scholars in the fields of Biblical scholarship and history). Yes, we have footnotes, but not everybody reads those. I think it's best to provide a general citation in the text and more specific citations (author x, in published work y, on page z) in the footnotes. Frankly, some find the historical reconstructionists more credible, and some find the historical miminalists more credible. I hope no one is offended by my use of the words "reconstructionists" and "minimalists": what I mean is that some accept some details as describing the historical Jesus, while others reject any details for which there is no direct physical evidence. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 18:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

"Generally agreed to have been written in the decades after his death" implies there is some disagreement placing the writing before Jesus' death as this is used as the time marker. SophiaTalkTCF 21:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

See CTSWyneken's comment about the written gospels vs. the words attributed to Jesus in the Gospels. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 21:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
As an "outsider" to this discussion, I think Sophia's proposal is excellent. It is simple, factual and reads better than the others — the slightly awkward or convoluted sentence structure of some proposals leaves the reader with the impression that they are stepping around something or trying not to say something. This one also neatly avoids the "healer" issue. ntennis 08:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
You do have a point about "healer": there's a slight difference between what the NT says about Jesus as a healer, and what critical scholars say about how this represents the historical context of early first-century Roman-occupied Palestine. SOPHIA's proposal does make this clearer. My main issue is what I said before: it doesn't make clear who is not in the small minority (ie, who is in the majority). Why do the majority agree that there probably was a historical Jesus? Because, despite the fact that the NT was written by people who worship the guy, there are some details that do make sense in the historical context. Also, it seems unlikely that such a complex story would develop so quickly unless it was based at least in part on historical events ("in part" being those details used in the historical reconstruction.)Arch O. LaTalkTCF 19:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MonkeeSage Proposal #3

The main sources of information about Jesus' life and teachings are the four canonical Gospels of the New Testament. Most scholars in the fields of Biblical Studies and history agree that Jesus was a Jewish Galilean teacher and healer who was sentenced to death by crucifixion on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate,[1] for claiming to be the "King of the Judeans," which was a crime of rebellion against Rome.[2] Because the Gospels were not written immediately after his death and there is little external documentation, a small minority of scholars question the historical existence of Jesus.[3]

[edit] Discussion

An attempt at synthesizing the previous proposals. Please don't cane me, but bamboo shoots under my fingernails or make me listen to Yoko Ono for this! ;) Just trying to find the "happy medium" here. --MonkeeSage 15:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Choosing one or the Other

To bring us to a conclusion on the matter, let me say I really like Sophia's version. It is simple, elegant and we can keep our footnotes too.

I'm afraid we may get some flak from those in the minority position, who will not like us implying all these are facts.

I'm afraid we'd get flak from the other side, who would insist that we point out these items are the consensus of two disciples.

I can live with both versions, but feel mine is the most easily defended. I'll go with whichever the rest of you can settle on. Just point this ol' guard dawg to it and say, "there boy!" and I'll say "woof!" --CTSWyneken 12:57, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I do like MonkeySage's version. One thing I don't think we've dealt with is that JimWae and others have questioned whether "King of the Judeans" is the correct wording. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 18:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Rick Norwood has suggested "reputation as a healer" to clarify "healer." Since a reputation can be either true or false, the phrase is factually accurate. As a Christian, I believe this was a true reputation, but of course those who are not Christians will disagree with me. My only concern is that, right or wrong, some will view the phrase "reputation as a healer" as equivication. Arch O. LaTalkTCF

I don't think so. Our scholars say nothing about it in this fashion. In my version, Monkey's version, we're saying it is the opinion of the majority in these disciplines. In Sophia's, we're saying its the claim of the New Testament. Both do not claim he had a "reputation as a healer." They say he was a healer. Such a statement, even if made of a contemporary healer, does not mean he/she is effective. We have no problem, for instance, saying the Oral Roberts is a healer, even though we might doubt he has healed anyone. Note there is a difference between saying Jesus "healed the sick" which few non-Christians, if any, would say and saying he was a healer, which nearly everyone says. While we have to accomodate minority views, this is going to the extreme. Let's keep it simple, OK? --CTSWyneken 20:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
In other words, this is equivocation. I knew someone was going to raise this objection ;) Arch O. LaTalkTCF 20:51, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I would have a problem if the Oral Roberts article said he was a healer - instead of a Faith healer - as it does in the categories. It also says he conducted healing crusades. The scholars agree "Jesus was from Galilee and took on the role of a Jewish teacher and healer" provides some qualification of the term - which a number of people have pointed out is needed to keep NPOV. Why cannot we just say what all parties here can agree on, instead of including contentious/divisive language? We all seem to agree "took on the role" is the meaning the scholars intend. --JimWae 21:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget to check the main talk page ;) Drogo Underburrow has asserted that we may be mis-representing who is a "historian" or biblical scholar. I thought somebody might raise this concern, since our cited Bible scholars no longer refer mainly to those who use the historical method (ie, higher critics). Also, Drogo has mentioned someone in the nonexistance camp who might be considered an historian. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 02:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not about to bend on the historians argument. There are representatives of every class of scholar with any qualification to speak on the matter whatsoever. We have argued this endlessly and I'm not in the mood to do so anymore. If he wishes to argue this, he needs to produce citations that invalidate what we have amply demonstrated. --CTSWyneken 03:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I see no reason also to change the text referring to healers either. Jim, there is no reason whatsoever to add these redundant words. It simply lengthens and complicates and already long summary paragraph. I will as of you what I asked of the nonexistence hypothesis folk: can you cite one historian or Biblical scholar who denies that Jesus was a healer? I have seen none. In addition, can you produce one reference that denies the label healer to anyone in any time on the basis that they had not produced a non-natural healing?
I'm going to insist we use the language that is used by our cited authors. --CTSWyneken 03:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • This is not a disagreement about whether the scholars use the word "healer" with regard to Jesus - I do not doubt they do - but everyone who has said so also said it was used within a context - and there is no context present in the intro (nor anywhere in article). Conciseness is not a virtue when it is misleading --JimWae 03:44, 20 March 2006 (UTC).
  • incidentally, wikipedia says Bruno_Bauer was a historian --JimWae 03:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
My sources have Bauer as a philosopher. What sources does the Bruno Bauer article quote to establish he was a historian? I think I'll check. --CTSWyneken 04:12, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Bauer also lived in ther 19th century. I think it's been said that the mythological school held greater sway in the late 19th and early 20th century. That's why the challenge was made to find a historian writing since 1950 who makes such a claim. Well, Drogo has put at least one name up for consideration; see my list below. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 04:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

"Healer": I'm in favor of clear wording, but I prefer not to be caught in the middle. I've made suggestions for the intro, but they have not been accepted. There is also the proposal to clarify the context in the historicity section, but that is still up in the air.

As for Drogo, here's the citations he's made that I have seen:

  • "Trying to find a construct, "the historical Jesus," is not like finding diamonds in a dunghill, but like finding New York City at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean. It is a mixing of categories, or rather of wholly different worlds of discourse. The only Jesus we have is the Jesus of faith. If you reject the faith, there is no reason to trust anything the Gospels say." - Garry Wills, Professor of History Emeritus, Northwestern University.
  • This quote does not address what Wills thinks of: 1) existence of Jesus 2) that he was from Galilee 3) that he was a teacher 3) that he was a healer 4) that he argued with authorities 5) that he was crucified. It is just a part of an argument. What is the source of the quote? I will check its context to see what Wills actually concludes. --CTSWyneken 04:05, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • I was only quoting Drogo ;) (I guess this now a quatranary souce, since I'm quoting a Wikipedia editor). This may or may not come from Wills' recent book that Jim62sch mentioned: What Jesus Meant You'll have to ask Drogo. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 04:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Scholars like Archaya S (undergraduate degree in Classics, Greek Civilization, from Franklin & Marshall College) who wrote a book claiming Jesus didn't exist, have just as much right to be called "historians"
  • A BA earned does not a scholar make. I have a BA in Greek, German, Latin and Hebrew, but I am not expert in any of them. All it means is I studied the subjects.
  • Jan Haugland's blog
  • Blogs are not scholarly sources. They are only evidence of the opinion of the blogger. --CTSWyneken 04:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Finally, CTSWyneken, don't worry about this disrupting the main page. I plan to move stuff here at Midnight local time (0600 UTC). Arch O. LaTalkTCF 03:51, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I hope Drogo reads this so he knows we have responded to his assertions. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 04:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, the source is indeed What Jesus Meant, but Drogo has admitted that Wills does not support the nonexistence hypothesis. Rather, Wills asserts that the Gospels are historically uncertain, and so he (Wills) believes in Jesus based more on faith than historicity. I can certainly relate to that. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 06:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
This work should be on our shelves here. I'll look into it. --CTSWyneken 11:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

How about "exorcist and healer?" I honestly am not trying to stir up more debate, it is just an idea, Slrubenstein | Talk 12:52, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I can live with any version although I do like #3 as we get away from the hideous "extant contemporaneous...." sentence and it keeps the bit that CTS likes about the "scholars and historians" - so a good all round compromise. SophiaTalkTCF 13:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The omnicontroversial second paragraph

[edit] Yet Another Invitation to talk:Jesus/2nd Paragraph Debate

Can we move all discussion of the 2nd paragraph to the subpage? We're inhibiting progress on the article as a whole by going on and on here. I'm going to make a new proposal on the scholars language there and rearrange the sentences as we discussed above so that we can all see what it looks like. --CTSWyneken 16:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm in the process of archiving, bur I have a habit of leaving things on the main page if they're less than two or three days old. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 07:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC) PS: I am currently sorting the second paragraph stuff together, in preperation to a move to the subpage. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 07:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More 2nd para changes (feel free to relocate this; I'm new to the page)

I'd like to alter the second paragraph, which currently reads as follows:

The main sources of information regarding Jesus' life and teachings are the four canonical Gospels of the New Testament, which are generally agreed to have been written in the decades after his death.

Specifically, I'd like to change the wording to read:

...which are generally considered to have been written late in the 1st Century.

Or something similar. — JEREMY 14:29, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The dates commonly quoted for the earliest gospel range from 68AD all the way down to 40AD (although that is not commonly accepted. We compromised on the wording so as to express this range. Technically you could say "in the latter half of the 1st Century" but that was not popular with some editors who wanted to allow for the earlier datings. It's always good to have a new editor on this page - things get interesting at times but we're a friendly bunch (and not all Christians - I'm an atheist!). SophiaTalkTCF 14:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
SOPHIA, I just think you answered your own question about "generally agreed to have been written in the decades after his death." The "slight disagreement" comes not from people who think that the Gospels were written in Jesus' lifetime, but those who argue the gospels were written in 40AD and that Jesus was crucified less than a decade earlier (33 AD is the traditional date of the crucifixtion). Arch O. LaTalkTCF 09:30, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, I dunno, "considered" does seem to be the more correct word technically speaking, what's the big difference between them? Homestarmy 15:03, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Can we take this up on talk:Jesus/2nd Paragraph Debate? We have changes on that table. --CTSWyneken 21:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I have now looked at the secondary talk page, and believe it is not the best way to address minor issues such as this. (I'm also unable to locate the discussion in which "some editors who wanted to allow for the earlier datings" objected to "the latter half of the 1st Century" or equivalent.) I'm also much less concerned about "considered" vs "agreed" than I am about avoiding the reference to Jesus' death. How about this:
...which are generally agreed to have been written after 60AD.
I realise "AD" implies dating from Jesus' death, but "CE" seems argumentative. Note that 60 is the first year article to make a claim for a Gospel (Matthew in this case) and that "generally" adequately encompasses the minority belief in earlier provenance. — JEREMY 01:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, AD implies dating from Jesus' birth, not death, (AD 33 is the traditional date of the crucifixion), but CE is just a different notation for the same dating system. As for the objection, I believe this predates our subpage practice. You'll find it in one of our numbered archives, somewhere between Archive 23 and Archive 40. Believe it or not, this range only covers about two months of discussion! That's why we started the subpage—because long debates on particular (often minor) issues were stifling discussion on other issues.
Speaking of other issues: we have yet to incorporate the Jesus Seminar into this article. How many weeks ago did Giovanni make that suggestion? I recommend the historicity section. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 02:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant "implies dating from Jesus' life", which is what I'm trying to avoid with the alternate wording. Can someone please summarise the arguments against such a wording, and perhaps why they were found to be persuasive? — JEREMY 04:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

A lot of this was discussed starting in Talk:Jesus/Archive 15 and Talk:Jesus/Archive 16 and comes up periodically after that (see the next section). The main argument against AD/BC is that it forces non-Christians to honor Jesus of Nazareth as both Christ and Lord. The main arguments against CE/BCE are that it is either "politically correct" or unfamiliar. The compromise was to use bothnotations, which apparently continues to bother some adovcates of either notation. Then there are people like myself who think the whole thing is silly.

As for "late in the first century," I think what people were really objecting to was the phrase "lack of extant contemporaneous documents": people interpreted "contemporaneous" to refer to different things (For example, did this question whether the Gospels were contemporaneous to the Life of Jesus, to the life of eyewitnesses to Jesus, to the 1st century, or did this mean non-Christian documents contemporaneous with the Gospels?). We were all the victims of vague wording. I think everyone knows the gospels were mostly likely written down after the Great Jewish Revolt and the destruction of Herod's temple c. 70 AD/CE. There are some who feel they were written slightly earlier, but certainly decades after Jesus was crucified.

Part of the controversy is that "lack of extant contemporaneous documents" challenges the traditional view that the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses to Jesus' ministry. The earliest dates make the traditional view likely; the latest dates make this unlikely. People also debated what the life expectancy was in the first century, and also pointed out that the mean life expectancy was artificially lowered by a high childhood mortality rate. In other words, many people died as infants, and many people lived into their sixties and seventies, making the mean life expectancy (30 or 40 or so) a misleading statistic. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 08:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the summary. On that basis, given nobody's likely to be offended by it, I've made the changes in question. — JEREMY 09:44, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Worth Reading

An article on a new book. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jim62sch (talk • contribs)

Based on the review, it seems that Wills has seen evidence of Christian hypocracy, and jumped to the conclusion that we're all hypocrites. Well, most of us who are not Methodists never claimed to be perfect. It's something to consider when checking our eyes for beams. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 21:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Hey! I heard that Methodist crack! We're going on to perfection...most of us aren't there yet! KHM03 (talk) 22:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
We Lutherans are already perfect! Perfectly bad and perfectly good at the same time! 8-) --CTSWyneken 22:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
I can't seem to get the pages text to load :/. Homestarmy 22:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, KHM03, but I got that Methodist crack from a comment you made to me earlier.
As for the rest, "If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word has no place in our lives." (1 John 1:8-10). I don't know about you, but I don't want to make God out to be a liar! Arch O. LaTalkTCF 22:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Hey, I didn't say anyone would necessarily like it, I just said it was worth reading. :) Jim62sch 23:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
If I can get a copy in the UK I will read it Jim. SophiaTalkTCF 23:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
So if I buy Will's book and read it, will I be opposed at every attempt to put his viewpoint into the Jesus article? Drogo Underburrow 23:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
It depends on where in the article you put it. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 23:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

"Trying to find a construct, "the historical Jesus," is not like finding diamonds in a dunghill, but like finding New York City at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean. It is a mixing of categories, or rather of wholly different worlds of discourse. The only Jesus we have is the Jesus of faith. If you reject the faith, there is no reason to trust anything the Gospels say." - Garry Wills, Professor of History Emeritus, Northwestern University. Drogo Underburrow 04:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Not suprising. Fits with the whole Westar Institute purpose and mentality, though the Jesus Seminar folks are more subtle, and use more humanities and linguistics tech-talk:
"I come now to the final point. It is a rather large one and can be made here only in the skimpiest outline. It lies central to all the other points I have made or will try to make in the course of our investigations together.
Since we are Bible scholars, let us begin with the Bible as a whole. The Bible begins, we are wont to say, at the Beginning and concludes with a vision of the heavenly city, the ultimate End. . . . And the beginning and end are viewed as wholly consonant with the real events that occur between them. . . .
There are two things to be said about this scheme. First, we are having increasing difficulty these days in accepting the biblical account of the creation and of the apocalyptic conclusion in anything like a literal sense. The difficulty just mentioned is connected with a second feature: we now know that narrative accounts of ourselves, our nation, the Western tradition, and the history of the world, are fictions. . . .
[. . .]
A fiction is thus a selection—arbitrary in nature—of participants and events arranged in a connected chain and on a chronological line with an arbitrary beginning and ending. In sum, we make up all our "stories"—out of real enough material, of course—in relation to imaginary constructs, within temporal limits.
Our fictions, although deliberately fictive, are nevertheless not subject to proof or falsification. We do not abandon them because they are demonstrably false, but because they lose their "operational effectiveness," because they fail to account for enough of what we take to be real in the everyday course of events. Fictions of the sciences or of law are discarded when they no longer match our living experience of things. But religious fictions, like those found in the Bible, are more tenacious because they "are harder to free from mythical 'deposit,'" as Frank Kermode puts it. "If we forget that fictions are fictive we regress to myth." The Bible has become mostly myth in Kermode's sense of the term, since the majority in our society do not hold that the fictions of the Bible are indeed fictive.
. . . What we need is a new fiction that takes as its starting point the central event in the Judeo-Christian drama and reconciles that middle with a new story that reaches beyond old beginnings and endings. In sum, we need a new narrative of Jesus, a new gospel, if you will, that places Jesus differently in the grand scheme, the epic story.
Not any fiction will do. The fiction of the superiority of the Aryan race led to the extermination of six million Jews. The fiction of American superiority prompted the massacre of thousands of Native Americans and the Vietnam War. The fiction of Revelation keeps many common folk in bondage to ignorance and fear. We require a new, liberating fiction, one that squares with the best knowledge we can now accumulate and one that transcends self-serving ideologies. And we need a fiction that we recognize to be fictive." --Dr. Robert Funk, Forum 1,1 (1985) [online].
When you cut through all the scholar-speak, Funk is just saying almost the same thing as Wills is, he's just suggesting a new "gospel" to put our "faith" in; one that we know is simply wishful-thinking, or more accurately, a mental projection of what we value and hold to be real, in the form of a historical-personal narrative. --MonkeeSage 10:13, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Since we're recommending books, let me recommend a very readable work by a traditional scholar. Paul L. Maier's In the Fullness of Time will give you all an idea why a historian of ancient Rome finds the New Testament a reliable source. Of course, you'd have to have the same sort of courage we have reading Jesus Seminar materials. ;-) Also on the good to read front is just about anything by F. F. Bruce. --CTSWyneken 11:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Interesting, The Funk quote sounds almost postmodern to me, although postmodernists use the word "metanarrative" and not "fiction." As Pontius Pilate once asked, "What is truth?" Of course, Pilate may have been quoting Socrates. Much more recently, Johnny Cash pointed out that this question comes from the lonely voice of youthArch O. LaTalkTCF 19:57, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Are they better written than "The Case for Christ?" I found that book quite tiresome as it was internally inconsistent and spent most of the time explaining to the reader why they dare not question the experts as they were so qualified in their fields. SophiaTalkTCF 23:17, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I've seen that in some apologietcs works and have little use for it -- on either side. I've found some "critical" scholars just as condescending as you descibe. Neither marshall much evidence. Maier doesn't go there. The particular work I've mentioned is aimed at Christians to show tangency between the NT and historical data. It's popular in tone, which, of course, isn't everyone's tea. F. F. Bruce, however, writes for a scholarly audience. --CTSWyneken 00:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
I have no idea. Here's a link that is sure to cause controversy: [2]. It's basically an argument for the Jesus-Myth from a Jewish perspective. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 00:11, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
PS: For the sake of balance, here's a response to the link above: [3]. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 00:27, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Paragraph 2, sentence 2

Here is now the controversial sentence now reads:

"Most scholars of either Biblical criticism or history agree that Jesus was a Jewish Galilean teacher and healer who was sentenced to death by crucifixion outside of Jerusalem on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate,[2] for being acclaimed the "King of the Judeans", a crime of rebellion against the Roman Empire.[3]"

Since this purports to state what "most scholars...agree", it should be a sentence on which most scholars agree, yes? Most of the objections are to the "healer", and I don't think the torturous explanations via a link -- that a "healer" does not necessarily mean "one who heals" -- satisfy anybody. Looking for something that, in fact "most scholars...agree" I suggest the following:

"Most scholars of either Biblical criticism or history agree that Jesus was a Jewish Galilean teacher with a reputation as a healer, who was ..."

Can we agree on this? (If not, then after the first two or three protests, please let this suggestion drop and we'll try something else. I'm looking for something that is acceptable to everyone. I do not want to start another firestorm of controversy.) Rick Norwood 17:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

"Reputation as a healer" is factually accurate. A reputation can be either true or false. As a Christian, I believe this was a true reputation, but of course those who are not Christians will disagree with me. My only concern is that, right or wrong, some will view the phrase "reputation as a healer" as equivication. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 19:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
Fine by me. They only mean that he had a certain social position, not that he actually worked miracles (some of may believe that, but that is not how they are using the term "healer" if I understand them), and your wording does make it more explicit that they are refering to the specific social structure at the time. ". . .teacher regarded as a healer" would work also, but I like you wording better. Of course, I believe Jesus was God and did all kinds of miracles, so I don't have a problem with any wording, heh, but for the sake of NPOV and clarity/accuracy, I think your proposal is good. --MonkeeSage 20:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

CTSWyneken has objected. See Talk:Jesus/2nd Paragraph Debate#Choosing one or the Other. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 20:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mis-representing who is a "historian" or biblical scholar

The article is misrepresenting the side that claims that Jesus didn't' exist when it says they are not historians or scholars of biblical critism. Scholars like Archaya S (undergraduate degree in Classics, Greek Civilization, from Franklin & Marshall College) who wrote a book claiming Jesus didn't exist, have just as much right to be called "historians" as E. P. Sanders (Th.d. from Union Seminary (NY) 1966.) or Vermes (doctorate in theology). We have already established on this talk page that "historian" does not mean "Ph.D Professor of History". Drogo Underburrow 01:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

If these are their credentials, then I would say that Sanders and Vermes are Biblical scholars, but not historians. The critique against Archaya may be that Archaya is not a specialist in the history of Israel/Palestine or of the New Testament. Or, I may be wrong. You are cordially invited to join the discussion at Talk:Jesus/2nd Paragraph Debate. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 02:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mis-representing the views of historians on Jesus

I would say that the following quote, taken from a web blog, is much more accurate than the Jesus article is on what historians in general believe about Jesus: "Few historians consider it overwhelmingly likely that Jesus was totally non-existant. On the other hand: very few historians will assert Jesus' historicity is beyond debate." - Jan Haugland. The Jesus article states that most historians say that without a doubt Jesus existed, and that is simply false. Drogo Underburrow 02:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I think Cultural and historical background of Jesus has it right:

[T]here are people who question whether Jesus even existed (see Historicity of Jesus for an account of this debate), and others (including critical Bible scholars and historians) who agree that Jesus lived, but reject the Gospels as a literal account of his life. The latter accept the Gospels as historical sources, but critique them as they would any other historical source.

The historical reconstructionists judge what is probable, not what is empirically proven. Once side sees insufficient evidence to conclude that Jesus existed, but the other side sees insufficient contradiction to conclude that Jesus didn't exist. I've wondered lately what historians would say if, 2000 years from no, the only documentary evidence they will have of David Koresh comes from Branch Davidians. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 03:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
First of all, please take this discussion over to talk:Jesus/2nd Paragraph Debate As we have demonstrated in the past, talking about such issues, especially ones that have been visited over and over again will bring the whole page to a standstill.
Second of all, Blogs are not acceptable sources, since they are commentary.
Third, the note contains historians and Biblical scholars of all varieties of opinions, all of whom conclude that Jesus existed and was what we say he was. They say its beyond all question. Please produce a citation to a scholarly book or article that states otherwise. I'm still waiting for the opinion of even one historian or Bible Scholar that admits any doubt on this matter.
Please cite one, even one. If you do not, I will not accept the premise whatsoever. --CTSWyneken 03:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I didn't use the blog as anything other than a source for an opinion that I believe is more true than what the Jesus article states. I dispute that your list correctly represents the views of the scholars listed. It purports their beliefs to be black and white; that Jesus existed beyond historical doubt. Some on the list may feel that way, but others would say what the blog I quoted said. Some scholars on the list take as a given that Jesus existed, then use the Gospels to speculate from. I have seen nothing in the way of quotes from these sources that "Jesus existed beyond all historical doubt". Finally, the writers who do make the case that Jesus didn't exist, are falsely denied the title of "historian" that SLRubenstein at length made the case for when discussing scholars and history. You don't see "even one historian" because you refuse to call a historian anyone who makes the claim that Jesus didn't exist. The quote I gave from Garry Wills shows that in his opinion, only faith makes him believe that Jesus existed, and that without faith, no reason at all exists to believe in Jesus.Drogo Underburrow 04:41, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I'll reserve judgment concerning what Wills means ;-) until I see his book. But, hypothetically, if he does see things as you describe, it is only evidence that one historian feels that way, which does not make the question open by any means. It would confirm our decision to avoid terms that describe the majority as vast. --CTSWyneken 13:49, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Drogo, we'd like to look into the Wills quote that you cited. Do you have a more specific citation? Arch O. LaTalkTCF 04:47, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Who is "we"? The quote comes from the book "What Jesus Meant" by Garry Wills Drogo Underburrow 05:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
It does help to look at the subpage. "We" means me and CTSWyneken. I suspected the quote came from What Jesus Meant, but I wasn't sure. A page number would also be helpful. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 05:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
The book is short. If you read it, you'll find it, its towards the front. I can't give the exact page because I no longer have the book, I returned it. I carefully copied the quote, and its not taken out of context, but comes from a section where he elaborates on that theme. Drogo Underburrow 05:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, Wills is definitely an historian, so we want to be sure not to misrepresent him :0) Arch O. LaTalkTCF 05:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • It looks to me like Wills argues that faith is required to belive in the historical value of the gospels - he does not seem to give reasons against Jesus' existence, though he might say somewhere that he finds no reason other than faith to believe he lived. He is a practicing Catholic. --JimWae 05:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I haven't read the book, but I suspect JimWae is correct. CTSWyneken has noted that we don't really have the context of the quote, so we want to be sure to consider what it is that Wills is really saying. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 05:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • In the reviews I've read so far, there is no mention at all that he even raises a question about whether Jesus ever lived, just that he says it requires faith to believe in any events in the NT --JimWae 05:30, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • http://www.history.northwestern.edu/faculty/wills.htm He would have to be counted as a historian - but he is not a Jesus-Myth person--JimWae 05:34, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Wills is not a Jesus Myth person. He believes in Jesus. He believes that Jesus existed. Why? Because he is a man of faith. Without that faith, there is no reason to believe. Therefore, if his fellow historians were so convinced of the absolute historicity of Jesus, beyond all historical doubt, there is no way that Wills would say what he said about needing faith to believe the Gospels. The fact that Wills makes his statement is evidence that among historians, its an open question wether Jesus existed or not. Furthermore, Wills states that only faith makes the Gospels of valid historical worth. Wills is a Professor of History. So, there's your "one professor", CTS. The historical profession as a whole does not claim that it is beyond historical doubt that Jesus existed, only Wikipedia makes the claim that the profession believes so.Drogo Underburrow 05:43, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The reviews I've seen show Wills to more criticial of (institutional, organized) Christianity than of the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth. The ISBN# is 0670034967 if that helps. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 05:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

  • He does not seem to ever go so far as to "question the historical existence of Jesus". His faith seems tied to events in the gospels. He seems to take Jesus's existence as a given - unless there are quotes to the contrary --JimWae 05:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Garry Wills

He doesn't question the historical existence of Jesus. Quite the opposite, he takes it on faith. But he also says, that if you don't have that faith, there is no reason to believe what the Gospels say, and that is significant. It shows that all historians do NOT treat the Gospels as strong historical evidence that Jesus existed; this historian is saying just the opposite, that without faith, there is NO reason to believe in Jesus.Drogo Underburrow 06:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • "believe in Jesus" is ambiguous (like "healer") - unless you can show he even discusses questioning Jesus existence (other than using his premises to force him to a conclusion), he cannot be counted as a person who "question[s] the historical existence of Jesus". --JimWae 06:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • Btw, historians, like Catholics, do not rely only on "Scripture" for all their conclusions. they also rely on people. Reminds me again that "Scripture" needs work in 2nd paragraph --JimWae 06:09, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I can't say. The book is not yet in Amazon Search Inside this Book or Google Books. My library has a budget crisis, and so do I. Of course, if Garry Wills doesn't question the historical existence of Jesus, then he's not among our cited "small minority of scholars." Of course, we could always ask him. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 06:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Look, I have read the book. Take it from me, he does not question the historical existence of Jesus. That is not the point. The point is that he says that if you do not have faith, then the Gospels are not believeable. This contradicts the idea that all mainstream historians accept the gospels as secular evidence for existence of Jesus apart from thier religious beliefs. Here is one historian saying the opposite, that if you don't believe, then the Gospels are nothing; Drogo Underburrow 06:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

The article presnetly states that some poepl question Jesus' historicity - Wills cannot be used to support that. Perhaps he could be used to support a claim that some historians do not believe the NT is enough support for Jesus exitence - BUT I just pointed out that they do have more than the NT - typically they point to the behaviour of people. Perhaps if enough people had believed in Elvis, historians would be less satisfied with that kind of evidence. I suspect that many people don't think there's enough evidence, but just go along with it because (though the idea is somewhat liberating) there is nothing to be gained by repeatedly denying he lived - I do not know if any historians of this time era are that agnostic about his existence though --JimWae 06:29, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's bear in mind that Wills is a Catholic and a historian, but not a historian of the NT or 1st century Judea. I suspect his book will be a very valuable resource on different ways people interpret Jesus's teachings today. But Wills is not writing as a professional historian of the time in question. Also, Drogo seems to be mischaracterizing the issue. No editor here, to my knowledge, has argued that any historian believes that jesus existed "without a doubt." The article does not say this. For Drogo to criticize the article for saying something it does not say is just BS and utterly unconstructive. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:08, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Please take this over to the subpage. I will find the book and check. If Wills is like many other historians, his point will be that the NT is accurate enough to establish the existence of Jesus and a few other details, but not much more. The reason why the items in the 2nd paragraph are there is that these details are the ones that most historians and Biblical scholars agree upon. If so, he would fit in the majority and I will add him. If not, the statement is still accurate: most... is what we say, not all. Last comment on this from me here. --CTSWyneken 11:24, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I will check Wills out. It should be in my library. Let me say that it would help if people would read what I write. I never questioned that Wills is a historian. I question the take Jim has put on his arguments.
Second, when I said "beyond all doubt" these are my words of summary of a half dozen to to dozen works. I believe them to be accurate. If someone wishes to get all the works I've cited and check them out, I'd welcome that. I can even help you get your hands on it in a library or to borrow it interlibrary loan.
My point is that none of these historians and Bible scholars believe the case to be conclusive for these facts. You can choose to interpret that any way you wish. The point is that every one of these people assert these propositions as a fact. Several make the statement that this is the conclusion of their disciplines. Barring documentation to the contrary, the statements in the three proposals are accurate, represent the fields in question and I will not support any eqivocation on them.
This remains true even if Wills says what Jim claims. He still supports what the paragraph says. Since we have not put anything like "beyond all doubt" in the paragraph, nor would I suggest such a thing, true as it is (too much extra wording; the paragraph is over long as is). It changes nothing if he evaluates strength of the evidence differently from others. --CTSWyneken 12:13, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
"The fact that Wills makes his statement is evidence that among historians, its an open question wether Jesus existed or not." ← That's not a necessary inference from the statement. It could show that he is writting in a field/about a topic he is not sufficiently familiar with. It could show that Wills holds to a Thomistic epistemology and thinks that the "realm of faith" starts after the "realm of science" stops and requires a blind leap, such that he characterizes as distinct what scholars comming from a different epistemic perspectives see as interrelated/overlapping. It could show that he wants to get people with a certain type of mindset to read his works, and perceives that unless he makes certain concessions they will never give it a chance because of his "faith-bias." It could show any number of things. Better not to speculate. --MonkeeSage 13:35, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Well, we own the book, but it's not catalogued yet, so I'll have to wait for it or get creative. I'm betting Wills is saying that it takes faith beyond the basic outlines of the life of Jesus. That's where most historians and the higher critical school of Biblical studies are at these days. We'll see when I get my hands on it. --CTSWyneken 13:45, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
For what it's worth I did exactly what I said I would do: I took over to the subpage all content from before my local midnight (0600 UTC). Of course, CTSWyneken, JimWae and myself have written directly on the subpage, but Drogo has yet to do so. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 14:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Although a historian, if the reviews are any guide than Wills is basically making the case that Jesus' moral teachings are different than what the Christian church has become. If so, then I believe that What Jesus Meant would fit better under "other views" in the paragraph on the philosophical views of Jesus, as mentioned on the main talk page. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 16:27, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Coming to a Conclusion

Friends, we have three proposals on the table which are much better than our current paragraph. We can, and will, debate other issues, but can we agree on one?

I will investigate Wills on the subject and report back later.

But I really would like to finish work on this paragraph and now I've been delayed even further by another source to check... --CTSWyneken 12:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm okay with any of the proposals, though I obviously like mine best. ;) --MonkeeSage 13:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
As I've said, I also like yours the best. We should pick one and then work on debating the rest. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 13:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Sophia weighs in with Monkee's text, too. (see above) Shall we go with it and then come back to other issues? --CTSWyneken 13:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Yep - go with it - well done MonkeeSage! SophiaTalkTCF 15:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
  • So do all these scholars say, w/o qualification, that Jesus WAS a healer? Could someone type out from one book the first sentence that uses the word --JimWae 15:46, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
In short, yes. I'll fetch one of the books... eventually. I do have a day job. Please feel free to beat me to the tomes. --CTSWyneken 17:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
How about Jewish scholar (and Rabbi) Shaye Cohen (From the Maccabees, 78):

Jesus spent much of his time healing the sick and performing miracles. In fact, many Jews in the first centuries of our era had a deserved reputation in the magical arts."

--CTSWyneken 19:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

It's not so much a matter of qualification as it is a matter of reading the text differently (ie, as the source of one's faith, or as a cultural document similiar to The Illiad or The Epic of Gilgamesh.) What's not clear in our paragraph is that critical scholars view the text differently than Christians do. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 16:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Quotes about healer. "During his lifetime, Jesus was considered a healer." Robert Funk and the Jesus Seminar, The Acts of Jesus, p. 531. "Jesus was not only a teacher, however; he was also a prophet and a healer, and the traditions about him clearly derive in part from the biblical record about Elijah and his disciple Elisha." Shaye Cohen, From the Maccabees to the Mishnah, p. 122 "Jesus, the famous popular healer, is also a much sought-after exorcist, according to the Synoptic Gospels" Geza Vermes, The Changing Faces of Jesus, p. 171 "The most prominent features of the Synoptic portrait of Jesus, those of a charismatic healer and exorcist, teacher, and champion of the Kingdom of God, are essentially dependent on the historical figure which other authors of the New Testament progressively disguised." abid p. 237--Andrew c 19:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Not to nitpick, but I still take issue to the "King of the Judeans" part. From Funk and the Jesus Seminar's The Acts of Jesus p. 156

"Crucifixion was a public exectuion; it was intended to warn others about certain offenses. It was the Roman custom to parade the convict around with a wooden placard around his neck, specifying the crime. On the ground that the use of a placard was Roman practice, teh Fellows granted the possibility that Jesus may have been similarly treated (v. 26). The Seminar was dubios, however, that the proclaiming himself "king of the Judeans" was actually Jesus' crime. A gray vote was the result."

and Geza Vermes, The Changing Faces of Jesus, p. 194 (don't have time to type it out) after examining the details of the charge as described by Luke, comes to the conclusion "The whole political charge sounds hollow." While the placard and charge are historically possible, I do not think it is one of the top 5 defining characteristics of Jesus agreed upon by all scholars. I would change the wording to "sedition against Rome" or something similar.--Andrew c 19:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's post what we have and then come back to this and other issues. On the "King of the Judeans" remark, note we have only begun to look at what the scholars have said. Right now, what we have is some sign of disagreement. If it is wider than just these two sources, we can consider dropping it. What do our other scholars say? --CTSWyneken 19:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I think we have a working consensus, CTS. The form of the paragraph appears the be settled, the specifics can be worked out in due time. --MonkeeSage 20:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I have put the text in place. Be prepared to guard it -- politely. --CTSWyneken 23:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

First, I did discuss adding the phrase "with a reputation as a healer" in talk. Second, in reference to your quotes above on the subject of Jesus as a healer, please note the qualifications in two of the three quotes. The first quote has no qualifications. The second quote says, "...according to the Synoptic Gospels." The third quote says, "...the Synoptic portrait of Jesus..." In other words, the article as it now reads is clearly false. Why do you prefer a false statement to a true one? Rick Norwood 00:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] talk:Jesus/2nd Paragraph Debate

Discussion moved to Talk: Jesus/2nd Paragraph Debate. A summary of motions follows:

  1. Agreement achieved on modifications. Archived. Current form left on subpage for further discussion.
    1. Clearer explanation of majority opinion
    2. Clearer explanation of nonexistence hypothesis. (previous discussion at Talk:Jesus/Historicity Reference) --CTSWyneken 15:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
  2. I have archived the discussions on this subpage and posted there the latest agreed text. It will be moved to the main page sometime today. We are ready for further discussion of the text there. This version I will revert to up to two times a day unless agreement is reached on this page to change it. --CTSWyneken 13:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

I moved everything on the subpage except the latest proposals to /2nd Paragraph Debate/3, and moved stuff from the main talk page to /2nd Paragraph Debate. Both the subpage and its third archive are over 90K in size! See #The omnicontroversial second paragraph for a summary of current discussion. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 08:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)