Talk:Jesus/Archive 27

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.

Contents

Ok, it's time to move on

I think we need to call for another Peer review of this article, to me, it looks like we once again have everything we need to regain featured article status, but my opinion alone of course won't get us consensus heh. What does anyone else think? Homestarmy 23:36, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. This article is probably one of the most altered on Wikipedia, by Christians and non-Christians alike, and certainly should be featured given its excellent accomplishment with NPOV, even though Jesus is a completely POV subject. Darwiner111 23:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately this article will only stay NPOV and feature-worthy as long as Robsteadman with his aggressive anti-Christian agenda is prohibited from making undiscussed drastic POV changes to it. —Aiden 00:53, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't think we need to think of it that harshly, just keep it in your watchlist and we can out-do any vandalism, besides, all he seems to be angry over is 4 letters, i'd hardly call that an anti-Christian agenda. Personally, if he comes back, I think we should try to evangelize to the guy :D. Homestarmy 00:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

It should not be a featured article - it is still heavily POV and needs to be rewritten. Robsteadman 07:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree that this is not ready for a peer review yet. The Historicity section summary especially does not properly reflect the article it refers to so needs to be looked at. I also find it interesting that an insistence on making primary data (or lack of it) prominent is seen as anti-christian and vandalism. There is nothing wrong with constructing a theory (religion) with the data you have but it is intellectually dishonest to claim a surer foundation than actually exists. That doesn't make it wrong or misinterpreted but it is a POV slant to those who don't have faith in the "truth". SOPHIA 08:24, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

It is intellectualy honest when a clearly wide base of people agree that there is a surer foundation than some people will ackowladge because they want so much proof they would have to go back in time and have Jesus walk right up to them and prove Himself to them. an encyclopedia doesn't just have to give out cold, hard, scientific facts, it reports on things, and people's belief in Christ is definently a thing. Let me go see if I can make the summary of the historicity of Jesus paragraph more in line with the existing Historicity of Jesus page however, I don't see how that can be too problamatic, though why is a summary of another article in this page, couldn't it just have that link to it? Homestarmy 15:31, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I changed some stuff, but I barely saw anything major that needed changing, all information is either cited or comes directly from obvious sources, I changed around some wording and some unclear sentences. Looking through that section, it seems to me one might argue that it is somewhat slanted POV.....Against Jesus -__-. Seriously, I don't see the problem here, what is it? Homestarmy 16:06, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

You have a point about the Historicity section linking straight to the in depth article. A brief (2 or 3 paragraph) overview of the content of the Historicity of Jesus article with a link would probably be better than a duplicate but not quite as detailed section on this page. The Christianity page seems to follow that format fairly successfully. It has the added benefit of reducing everything down to the main arguments with a sentence or two on the fringe issues thus presenting the mainstream views and addressing the "undue weight" problems.
As a personal aside - Thomas not only needed to meet Jesus, he had to put his fingers in the nail holes and the hole in Jesus' side to be convinced of the resurrection and they made him a saint. Doubt is nothing new and please remember that a lot of people of other faiths do think the christian religion is unproven for the same heart felt reasons that you think it is true. SOPHIA 00:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Im not contesting other people don't have varied reasons for not having faith in Christ, im just saying their POV seems pretty well represented already in this article. Homestarmy 14:49, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Merge

Biblical Jesus and Jesus should be merged as BJ is really a duplicate fofr much of the J article. Either that or BJ just removed. The NT views on Jesus asre quite clearly stated on the J article - to ha vee another article is pointless and POV. Robsteadman 19:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Should the vote go here or in Biblical Jesus, I'd think over there since it would be effectively deleted if merged. Homestarmy 19:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

OK - but I guess some who have been involved in this article and not the other (not wanting to part of such a POV article) might want a say. Robsteadman 19:38, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Streamlining the Historicity Paragraph

Dear Friends:

I'd like to streamline this paragraph, which is a bit awkward:

It is generally accepted that there are references to Jesus and Christians by first and second century writers which describe Jesus as a Jewish Galilean preacher and healer who was at odds with the Jewish religious authorities, and who was crucified outside of Jerusalem during the rule of the Roman governor Pontius Pilate. However, due to a lack of extant contemporaneous documents making a reference to him, a minority of Biblical scholars, and others, question the historicity of Jesus.

It is generally accepted that Jesus was a Jewish Galilean preacher and healer who was at odds with the Jewish religious authorities, and who was crucified outside of Jerusalem during the rule of the Roman governor Pontius Pilate. However, due to the small number of contemporaneous documents making a reference to him, a minority of Biblical scholars, and others, question the historicity of Jesus.

The reason why I believe this to be sufficent is that we have a whole article to explore the issue, that very few if any scholars today question the existance of Jesus of Nazareth, that, for the 1st century, the evidence we do have is contemporary. Even for the Caesars, evidence of their lives are records decades after their deaths. Were we not to receive them as such, we have little or no knowledge of the ancient world beyond archaeology. --CTSWyneken 11:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think your suggestions improve the paragraph. The term "healer" is clearly POV and will cause all sorts of problems. None of the documents that have survived are contempraneous as they were not written in Jesus' life time. Even the word contemporary is POV. I don't think anyone regards the accounts being written today of WWII as contemporary and yet we are talking of a similar time span (Josephus wrote the Testimonium Flavianum in 93AD). On the Historicity of Jesus page we have settled on "Earliest known sources" to most accurately reflect this. Your sentence refering to Potius Pilate seems to read as if there are Jewish and Roman records of these events which there are not. This is a minority view and is currently represented as such. Sorry to be so short and to the point but I'm in a rush. SOPHIA 12:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Agree with Sopia. Earlier version is better. There are no contemporary documents, even if we stretch "contemporary" to include a few years after his death. Paul B 12:27, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
On the definition of contempoary, see: contemporary.
First, I have to ask, how do you know there are no contemporary documents? Even historical-critical scholars grant that at least some of the words attributed to Jesus were said by Him. I and many scholars argue that most of what we find in the gospel was composed during Jesus' lifetime or shortly after and memorized. That's as contemporary as it gets. Even setting this aside, how do you know the next bulldozer in Israel will not find one?
Second, we do not know the dates of any ancient documents, save the ones in cities like Pompeii, and then only in terms of a "no later than" date. If we exclude a document's testimony because it was not written at the moment of the event, there is no ancient history we can trust.
Third, we are supposed to reflect what scholars say about it. In that arena, almost all scholars would report that Jesus lived, preached, died and was thought to heal. We should say that. A few scholars disagree. We should state that. If you wish, I can document these propositions. --CTSWyneken 14:59, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
In my version of the paragraph, I tried to leave as much alone as possible. Others are, of course, welcome to suggest changes in the words like "healer." On that point, it is agreed by most scholars that Jesus' contemporaries viewed him as a healer -- either with powers from below or powers from above. We should find a way to speak about that in a neutral way, for it has been a part of the way people of all perspectives have viewed him. For the moment, however, I'm not focusing on the material between "Jesus was a" and "Due to"
My reason for wishing to change the language I have suggested editing are as follows:
The language of the first sentence is overly awkward. Most historians by far believe that Jesus did exist, preached, was from Galilee. We need not qualify this.
I'm content to change contemporary to first century AD/CE, if that helps. I'd contest that these materials are not contemporary (the usual meaning of the word is applied to people whose lifetimes overlap. On the definition of contempoary, see: contemporary. By that definition, even reports today about WWII are contemporary), but it's not all that vital a word. The point behind the last sentence is to let people know that the small number of those who contest the existence of Jesus believe this to be true because there are so few records of Jesus outside the gospels that mention Him.
Whether they should doubt these documents and to what extent is a matter of opinion, of course. --CTSWyneken 14:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
While I personally believe that the documents were written by eyewitnesses, making the content contemporary, the fact is that there haven't been found any documents that were completed during the time Jesus was alive. Of course, with the Gospels necessarily containing the account of his death and resurrection, it would be impossible for a "complete" document about Jesus to have been finalized while he was alive, something "rob" misses. Nevertheless, there have not been found any documents dating from Jesus' lifetime, the standard definition of "contemporary". So, since we've gone over this so many times, please just go with the consensus that the statement about "extant contemporary documents" stands as a viewpoint in the article. It does not prove he didn't exist, it doesn't prove anything at all, and it changes nothing really. --Oscillate 15:34, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
The contemporary article is a bit of a mess (very confused about the difference between "contemporary" and "modern" in the arts, for example), and anyway, it just lists the various different usages of the term. As Oscillate says, the gospels can't be conmtemporary in Rob's sense, and anyone who expects there to be extant records of legal procedings by the Sanhedrin or the Roman authorities is living in cloud cookoo land. But we can't say for sure when the gospels ot other NT texts were written, so the current phrasing should stand. Paul B 16:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
While I disagree on the definition of contemporary (Better would be primary sources, which is what you all mean), I don't have a vested interest in the term. I think the current text, however, has the POV slant of suggesting this means we cannot trust the earliest references to Jesus. I really have a hard time letting that stand, even apart from my personal committments. It is simply bad history. Would you all go with "few first or second century"? --CTSWyneken 17:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Look higher up in this page, I tried. It's not a POV slant, really, it's a true statement that there haven't been found any documents dating from Jesus' lifetime that mention him. That is the first sense of "contemporary", not primary sources, [1]: happening, existing, living, or coming into being during the same period of time. This particular fact has indeed led some people to doubt Jesus' existance, but it is not by any means proof of anything at all. And again, the writers of the books that were completed after Jesus' death were eyewitnesses, so the content is contemporary, just not the completion of the document, which would not happen if it were to contain the account of his death anyway. No biggie, similaryly, other historical figures are not mentioned by contemporary sources. The statement being there isn't a POV slant, it's a recognition of what some people think, nothing else. --Oscillate 17:42, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Wow, you all really have been at it, haven't you? One of the reasons I go to a talk page first is out of respect for prior discussion. Let's drop the discussion of "contemporary," since neither of us really care.
I still think the way it is phrased casts doubt, which is not ideal in the NPOV dept. It is like the way "alleged" is used in a crime report. On the surface, it is even handed. In the ears of TV viewers it means "probably guilty." So I still would like to switch to "few first and second century..." In reading through the section above, I didn't see specific objection to that kind of phrase. Did I miss something? If no objection was made, would anyone mind the substitution? --CTSWyneken 19:31, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Are we still talking about the sentence "However, due to a lack of extant contemporaneous documents making a reference to him, a minority of Biblical scholars, and others, question the historicity of Jesus."? This was the compromise we ended with after days and days of circular repeating arguments. Please don't disturb it or "rob" will be back and we'll never go anywhere else. The way it is, especially at the end of the intro (part of the compromise was to place it there instead of the beginning), is ok because it is notifying the reader of other views that some have. There were objections to the phrasing of "first century" in the dating of the Gospels, so I think it's best to just let this alone. It's not breaking NPOV, in fact it does add to it by presenting additional views, and it certainly doesn't present that view as the most probable or anything like that. Just some other peoples' opinion, nothing else. --Oscillate 19:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
This looks like a fair streamline, and like Oscillate says, leave lack as lack, technically speaking, it is in a way correct, and like he says, it doesn't really mean anything, so we can leave it as it is. Though, considering how archaelology works, I'd wonder if we could put the words "There have been no discoveries of contemporaneous..." since of course, new evidence could be discovered in the future, as evidence often is. Homestarmy 20:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm not going to change anything without discussion. It's not the way I operate, unless others take advantage of that courtesy. Now, I think we're going to have to disagree on the contemporary point. I do think there's a subtle casting of doubt the way its worded. For the moment, let's set this one aside. I can understand that you are weary of the battle.
How do you feel about the revision of the first sentence to:

It is generally accepted that Jesus was a Jewish Galilean preacher who was at odds with the Jewish religious authorities, and who was crucified outside of Jerusalem during the rule of the Roman governor Pontius Pilate.

This takes into account Sophia's objection to the word "healer" and clears the awkward language. --CTSWyneken 20:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Eye Witnesses?!! Its only a tiny minority of fundamentalists who believe that. As they were (by the most widely accepte figures) not written until between 68 and 110 CE the writers (if they had been eye witnesses an, say, 20 years old would have to be 58 to 100 years old at a time when they wrote the "gospels" - this at a time when lefe expectancy was 28 and only just above 40 for those who made it to adult life. There is NO evidence for them being written by eye witnesses - in fact, most commentators and evidence suggests nothing of the sort. Robsteadman 20:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

What does it matter to you if I and others believe that? No one is suggesting putting anything like that in the article. How can you prove the original writers of the Gospels were not eyewitnesses? The writing was "completed", I repeat, and you should too, "completed" by that time. Not started being written. Your comments on life expectancy mean very little - many people today live long past the average life expectancy. Most commentators say the writing was "completed" in those years, not begun and finished. None of this has any bearing to the article anyway, so it's just you flaming me. Please return to the regular discussion. --Oscillate 20:55, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

am not flaming you - just pointing out the errors in your statements. you mentioned them first. just because you choose to believe doesn't make it true. this must be approached rationally ant verifiably. there is no evidence the gospel writers were eye witnesses and the vast majority of scholars and commentators believe to state such a thing to be nonsense. Robsteadman 21:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

"vast majority" "nonsense" "no evidence" - all your own opinion. I apologize (to everyone else) for replying to you here, but your ranting has no place here, especially when I was supporting the inclusion of your statement you were campaigning hard for. You make me regret even supporting a compromise involving you. --Oscillate 21:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
User Robsteadman, please show the common courtesy of not labeling the beliefs of others as nonsense. --CTSWyneken 21:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm afraid you are incorrect in your assumption that a "tiny minority" believes that eyewitnesses are not involved in the writing of the New Testament. Denominations such as the Lutheran Church -- Missouri Synod, the Southern Baptist Convention and others stake out that position. Between just these two there are dozens of scholars writing in New Testament studies that would assert this. In this encyclopedia, that means both positions must be represented or wording found that reflects all sides. Do you have any data to show that the majority of scholars hold your opinion? The vast majority?
Verifiability suggests you might be able to document this. Can you?
Second, setting aside the gospels for the moment, the epistles of Peter and Paul are agreed to have been written in the 40s and 50s. There we're talking 10 to 20 years after the death of Jesus.
Third, the dates of all these books are speculation. No one knows for sure that they were written as late as we currently think.
Fourth, as I said above, even higher critical scholars believe that at least some of the stories and sayings of Jesus were composed not long after his death. Even though the later editor (if there was one) was not there, does not mean that the words are not those of someone who was.
Fifth, just because we speculate that life expectancy was as short as you state does not mean everyone died at the upper age limit. So, for example, life expectancy today is about 78. Do you know anyone in their 80s? I know dozens. 90s? I know about a dozen. And there are centinarians about, too. (my grandmother almost made that age) So, simply because most people died young does not mean all did.
If you'd like, with a bit of digging, I can show that more than a few commentators do believe eyewitnesses were involved at one level or another in the composition of the gospels. Are you game? --CTSWyneken 21:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
You'll get no where here with him [on this], it's really best to just leave it alone or take it to talk pages. --Oscillate 21:26, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Do take a look at: Raymond E. Brown's An Introduction to the New Testament for the generally accepted dates. Also most scholars accept they were written in Greek (one maybe in Aramaic) - hmm.... so "jesus" and his disciples were all Greek writers? The view that the gospels were written by eye witnesses is an extremiost view hel by fundamentalists (as your list of churches prove). Let's stick with the rational and the factual. Oscillate you'll have a reasonable debate if you stick to rational and verifiable - the problem is there are some on here who want to have their "faith" given equal weight as fact.DO have a look at this: http://catholic-resources.org/Bible/Four_Gospel_Chart.htm Robsteadman 21:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC) And this: http://www.aboutcatholics.com/faith_beliefs/what_are_gospels/ Robsteadman 21:38, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Please stop trying to be demeaning, no one is trying to suggest anyone put something about "eyewitnesses in the article". Drop it. Greek was the lingua franca at the time. There have been many funerary inscriptions found in the area and from well before and well after Jesus' time that had Greek inscriptions, etc. I don't know where you're going with all this, but drop it and move on to something related to the article. Flame and rant on my talk page if you feel you have to. And please start using indention, "rob". --Oscillate 21:58, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Please start using edit summaries more often and quotation marks less often.Gator (talk) 21:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

It was not me who mentioned "eye witnesses" and made an assertion about them. I am merely tryiong to get us back to the accepted, the verifiable and the rational and away from the wimsical, the hopeful and the tenuous. Robsteadman 22:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Once again, please start using edit summaries more often and quotation marks less often.Gator (talk) 22:05, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Assertion?! I said "While I personally believe ... " and I was supporting a statement you wanted to add, which I now am regretting. This is becoming beyond unbearable now. Will you be having these discussions on Islamic-related articles, too? If you want to add anything to this off-topic rant, take it to my talk page. --Oscillate 22:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't object to changing the first part to:
Since extant contemporaneous documents have not been discovered that make a reference to him, a minority of scholars question the historicity of Jesus.
I would consider that factual as a new Nag Hammadi could happen any time. SOPHIA 22:15, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

CTSWyneken brings up a good point, as the Q document, which scholars strongly affirm (but which many conservatives tend to dislike), probably dates from a time fairly close to Jesus. Granted, we have no copies of it, but academia seems to think it is/was real. KHM03 00:11, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone have a website listing these minority of scholars? I suspect that this is a fringe view, and therefore should not be in the article. Looking at the talk page of Jesus-Myth it appears there are about 3 of them! - yep, fringe!!! rossnixon 00:37, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Woo hoo, im in a tiny minority of Fundamentalists! Thanks for the compliment Rob :D. And you do of course realize, average life expectancies mean nothing when you've got Christ on your side...right? There have always been people in all cultures who drastically have broken average life expectancy anyway whether Christian or not, it's like, un-unprovable or something :/. And Rossnixon I think has brought up an excellent point, i've never thought about it much, but the only time i've ever heard of people doughting Christ's existance was when they wern't even archaeologists or even really using facts, (And there's that one guy trying to sue the Roman Catholic Church for in his words lying about Christ's existance and all.) it could be possible the minority of actually credible archaeologists that don't believe in Christ's existance is so small, we might just strike it out altogether like we struck out Bah'ai :/. Homestarmy 02:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

"Credible archgaelogists" - you mean those that see you pPOV and support it? Any CREDIBLE archaeologist would state taht there is no evidence of any sort that supports the notion that "jesus" existed - there are simply some documents written decades later which seem to mix together a variety of stories borrowed from other "faiths". Robsteadman 07:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Why is this such a touchy issue? As long as we stick to verifiable dates with the mainstream dating taking precedence then there is no problem. The very early dating of the gospels seems to be a minority view with an obvious POV but if it has references then there is no reason not to briefly mention this. I would rather all data was mentioned in a proportionate way as this will stop any group from feeling they are suppressed and hopefully lead to an easier life on this article. SOPHIA 11:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
The reason, of course, is that the core beliefs of people on all sides are involved. On the dates of the New Testament books, all of the dates given are POVs. All of the arguments are from the texts as we have them, not from copies or fragments from the first century, of which there are few. All the scholars involved are very bright, learned and carefully argue their positions. In the end, which ones you buy have to do with your judgement of the arguments they make.
The reason why I'm replying at length here is that a user attacked my position, belittled it, me and another editor for holding it, even though I have not once suggested adding the word "eyewitnesses" to the article. At least once I want on the record what scholars are saying and why I do not hold to his opinions.
If I were to suggest something for this article on the dates of New Testament books, it would be inclusive dates from earliest to latest, with an indication of where most scholars fall. So, for Mark, "42-72 AD/CE, with most scholars advocating ca. 70 AD/CE." or something like that.--CTSWyneken 11:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I've maintained that it's fair to mention the "Jesus never existed" view...as long as it's done in an appropriate place in the article (determined by consensus), that it's noted as a minority view among scholars (and a very tiny minority at that), that we keep the mention brief (since mainstream academia does the same), and we include a link to the historicity and/or Jesus-myth articles so a reader can further explore the theory. That's always seemed a fair approach to me. We're not here to debate whether or not Jesus existed; we're here to reiterate/regurgitate the views of academia dn society, both of which believe (with a few objections) Jesus to have been an actual historic person (though they obviously disagree as to his identity, divinity, miracles, etc.). KHM03 11:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree with what you say - I'm just suggesting that if there is scolarship to support it then the early dating of the gospels deserves a similar minority mention.SOPHIA 11:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm suggesting something similar, but not yet. I want to do some more spadework below. One way for this to work is all involved document opinions on the date of Mark below. Then we can decide how to craft the text of the article.
Can I ask everyone's opinion of my recasting of the first sentence made above before the attack on the eyewitness front? --CTSWyneken 12:02, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
My issues with your redraft are the same as I previously said - you have provided no evidence to change this. All you seem to be showing is that there is some minority scholarly support for early dates on the gospels. If the scholars in question are reputable I don't see a problem with including this view as a minority issue as it can be verified. The references to the non existence of Jesus may cause you issues but it is a topic that is of growing interest to the general public as can be evidenced by the appearence of a number of widely read books that speculate on this. SOPHIA 12:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Let me set aside the last sentence, which is much improved with your latest changes to it. I'm still not completely happy with it, but can let it go.
My main problem with the first sentence, while true, is that it is very awkward to read. Would a redraft of it like this work?

It is generally accepted that Jesus was a Jewish Galilean preacher who was at odds with the Jewish religious authorities, and who was crucified outside of Jerusalem during the rule of the Roman governor Pontius Pilate.

--CTSWyneken 12:59, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid "generally accepted" is too vague. Most generalisations are attached to a group such as "scholars" or "christians". This particular paragraph tries to shows the main historical context from a NPOV way and is really only applying to the documentation available and the claims made in them. If you want the term "healer" in this section you could add it to the first or second paragraphs as they deal specifically with christian beliefs and so POV stuff such as that is perfectly ok there. The way your sentence reads you would think that everyone generally accepts Jesus as a healer etc. which may be true in the circles you move in but I'm afraid is not a generalisation you can apply to the world. SOPHIA 17:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Maybe I'm missing something, but he has removed the word "healer" altogether. --Oscillate 17:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
You are right of course - I meant "preacher". I was just trying to explain I have no issue with the word "healer" when it is part of the belief system. SOPHIA 17:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
As I said earlier, my main motive is to eliminate the convoluted language in the first sentence. Im not particularly committed to any particular wording, just reflecting in clear language what scholarship can agree on with respect of Jesus of Nazareth. I've tried to avoid changing the language that was clear, but am happy to try for other terms.
That being said, except for the very few scholars that deny Jesus existed, there is a broad agreement on the basic outline of who Jesus was ranging from the Jesus Seminar to the most conservative scholars. That he was born just before the 1st century AD/CE in Roman Palestine, grew up in Nazareth as a craftsman, became a wandering Rabbi, had disciples, was thought by his contemporaries to heal the sick (his friends with power from above, his oppenents with power from below), was in conflict with the leadership of every Religious/Political party of his day and was crucified by Pontius Pilate in the 30s AD/CE. I can document this, if you like. --CTSWyneken 20:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
You don't need to document it - please don't make the mistake that the only reason you don't believe it is that you are in ignorance of the facts. The details you give are all first reliably mentioned in the NT which is regarded as a POV source (obviously). The first two and a half paragraphs make clear the mainsteam NT view with just this last sentence voicing the dissenting view (this is pretty much the only mention in the article other than in passing and links). The language of the first sentence is not convoluted it is factual with regard to all (christian and non christian) documentation in existence (quite generously pro christian actually as we are really dealing with the latter half of the 1st century)- this is an encyclopedia not a novel.
I notice you mention the Jesus seminar in a way that indicates you consider them the most liberal in their views which since they are christians is an interesting take on extreme scholarship. You also only mention the "good man - bad man" hypothesis whereas there are many who would consider he had no powers at all. SOPHIA 23:05, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Note: I like the Jesus Seminar and am a fan of much of their work (when it is responsibly applied), but not all of them are Christians. They are Jesus scholars...some are Christian, but some are atheist and some are agnostic. Just to clarify. KHM03 23:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
What I meant was that as far as I'm aware they accept the historicity of Jesus - am I mistaken? SOPHIA 00:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, they accept the historicity of Jesus; most scholars do (and likely all mainstream scholars/historians). KHM03 01:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure what you're trying to say above, so please be patient with me. Let me try to restate what I'm saying. By convoluted I mean that the first sentence is long, with mulitple clauses that seems to be going out of its way to make a very narrow point.
The whole article has similar problems and sounds like no encyclopedia article I've seen. I don't think a detailed summary of Christian points of view are at all necessary in the intro. I'd prefer it to be one short, sweet paragraph. But considering how hard it is to reach consensus here, since everyone's core beliefs (Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Atheist and otherwise) are involved, I find it wise to go slow.
If this paragraph is not about stating the consensus of scholars of the life of Jesus, I do not understand its purpose at all.
As far as the New Testament being POV, of course it is. So is the Talmud, when it calls Jesus a Sorcerer, Roman historians when they speak of Christians in unflattering terms, etc. There is no such thing as an NPOV source in the ancient world. The whole concept presenting all sides of an issue is a very modern one. No source should be denigrated simply because it has a point of view. The task is to understand that viewpoint, correct for it when examining its testimony and meshing that with others.
My point on the Jesus Seminar is that group does recognize that Jesus exists and the other points I made, even though they find the smallest amount of authentic detail in the scripture of any scholarly group. They represent one side of the scholarly spectrum while D. A. Carson, Paul Maier, and Ben Whitherington represent the other. Where they all agree is, in my opinion the closest point to consensus in this discipline that anyone can get. There is no "good man," "bad man," arguement here. It is simply an argument that, if everyone of the scholars from the one end of the spectrum to the other agree, then we should represent such.
If the whole point of this paragraph is, however, just to represent the very small minority of scholars that cast doubt on the existence of Jesus, then we should simply say that some very few scholars don't believe Jesus existed, but the vast majority of scholars of all viewpoints reject their arguments. We can point to the historicity subarticle for the details and be done with it. --CTSWyneken 01:24, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Your main problem seems to be that the intro has a sentence suggesting that Jesus may not have existed. Am I right?
AS for the POV sources - I'm glad you accept that all historical sources were written to push a particular POV and that balance is a modern concept. However this article is written for a modern readership so balance and NPOV are important. You can go into any high street bookshop currently and buy books that question the existence of Jesus. People may then come here for further info. To make no mention of the debate makes this page look POV and out of date. The Historicity of Jesus page is linked in the sentence which gives all the detailed info. I personaly feel that it's important not only to have all the info but that that info can be found by an interested reader. This to me is the whole point of an encyclopedia. The sentence is highly qualified as a minority view with which I have no problem but I'm concerned at attempts to loose or bury it so it won't be found by those who are interested. SOPHIA 08:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I have no problem with representing the Jesus myth folk, as long as it is clear that it is a minority view. When I waded in, the wording could be read as subtly suggesting that the majority was wrong. The first sentence was a concern mainly because it was hard to read.
However, since slrubenstein has taken us back to a form of the paragraph that I believe does the job well, my points are satisfied. --CTSWyneken 11:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
The new version seems to endorse the scholars mentioned as the foremost biblical scholars at present - is this valid? Normally individual authors are not mentioned in the summary as this leads to others trying to balance the picture and it then gets too long. It doesn't in it's current format look like a summary. It looks like one group staking it's position. As long as the historicity paragraph with it's link stays in view (with whatever qualifiers deemed suitable) then it should go wherever it fits best so I have no problems where it currently is. The sentences before it now look unsuitable for a summary. If I'm alone in this view then I will leave it alone but it would be interesting to hear the views of others. SOPHIA 12:49, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we need a litany of scholars who endorse the mainstream, majority view. Truthfully, hundreds of names could be listed there. We may want to list a scholar or two who are outside mainstream view (like the Jesus myth folks), but we probably don't need a list of those who maintain the majority view. KHM03 13:42, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

This is actually the old version (or should I say, one of the older versions) I saw it here at the beginning of the year or the end of last. I think it is useful to state what almost all scholars would say and document it with a few scholars. I'd propose to take the names of the scholars to a footnote and provide full documentation there. I'd add scholars from the other end of the spectrum. We can then document the very few scholars that suggested Jesus did not exist in a footnote at the end of the paragraph. I do think it important to have the names there, simply because it authenticates the words as not OR and shows that it is indeed not trying to stake a position. --CTSWyneken 15:55, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I wrote much of this paragraph. I included the list of names (which, based on how frequently they are cited in journals or assigned in university courses, at least in the USA, are the leading names) in response to some contributors who - I admit quite some time ago - denied that any scholars accept the existence of Jesus, and that any such scholars are religious and not secular or using secular/critical methods and criteria. That said, I have no objection to removing the names. However, given that this is a contentious topic for many people, it may be wise to provide the names in a footnote. Alternatively, we can put them in citation form (Cohen 19XX, Vermes 19YY). In short, I pretty much agree with CTSWyneken, Slrubenstein | Talk 16:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Taking the authors to a footnote would look tidier and make the passage read more smoothly. As it stands names that don't mean an awful lot to most people stick out too much. When you click on the Jesus page you are expecting a brief synopsis of his life and background with all the details further down. To mention the controversy deals with NPOV whilst showing that this is a minority view. So hopefully everyone is happy (!). SOPHIA 19:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
It is done. Everybody duck! 8-) --CTSWyneken 20:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Scholars and the Dating of the Gospels

To help to get at whether a substantial number of scholars consider the gospels to contain eyewitness testimony, I have gathered the following data. Please feel free to add to it. Please do not interject commentary here. Take it to another section on this talk page so that all can see the evidence.

Date of Mark

From John S. Kloppenbirg, "Evocatio Deorum and the Date of Mark." Journal of Biblical Literature 124/3 (2005) 419–450.

Scholars of Mark favoring early dates and the dates they propose:

Günther Zuntz, Charles Cutler Torrey before 41 J. A. T. Robinson, Willoughby C. Allen ca 45 Adolf von Harnack ca 50 E. Earle Ellis between 50-60 Bo I. Reicke, Robert H. Gundry, N. H. Taylor, before 62


Brown, Raymond E., An Introduction to the New Testament, Bantam Doubleday Dell, 1997. ISBN 0-385-24767-2 - 68 CE

Discussion of Above Data

Mark

NOT earlier - what date do were all the other "scholars" writing? 41CE - there is NOTHING to support that. Most other scholars (do take a look at a wider field) date the "gospels" from mid-60s to 120 CE.

Here is a summary www.carm.org/questions/gospels_written.htm, Mark is 55 to 70.

I've moved the commentary that you have made to a new section. It is important in a debate with high emotions to keep things organized. Also, please sign your posts.--CTSWyneken 10:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
First, you are welcome, of course, to cite other scholars and their dating.
Second, the point here is to establish that there is at least a significant minority of scholars that do favor dates at which eyewitnesses could have written the whole of one or more gospels. When they wrote (between the early 20th century and today, BTW) is not relevant to whether their views ought to be considered. By WP:NPOV rules, a significant minority is all that is necessary.
Third, most, if not all of these, are not fundementalists, as you have charged.
Fourth, the dates used by these scholars are earlier than 68 AD/CE.
Fifth, I have not gone into the reasons why they cite these dates, because we are not here to decide the issue. We are here to represent scholarship. See WP:OR
Sixth, do not attack scholars. You do not know their qualifications, background or the respect in which they are held by their peers. Ad hominem is a sign of weak argument and against the rules of wikipedia.
Seventh, do have any physical evidence that tips the date of Mark to 68 AD/CE or later? So far, all I've seen is a weighing of internal evidence. This being the case, the arguments of the scholars are opinion, not fact. All of their opinions begin with equal weight and depend upon the subjective judgements of their readers as to which to believe. Thus, you and I can come to different conclusions as to which is right or wrong. So, for wiki purposes, all must have their opinions considered. --CTSWyneken 11:08, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
I've been taught that Mark - certainly the earliest of the Gospels - dates from the years just prior to the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD/CE. In fact, one scholar (Robert Gagnon...and perhaps others) has suggested that Mark may hev been written during the period when the Temple was occupied and eventually destroyed. I thought this was pretty much a consensus among scholars (other than a few who undoubtedly propose radically earlier or later dates). 68 AD/CE - 70 AD/CE is pretty much the norm, as I've understood it. KHM03 11:25, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Consensus is too strong a term. There is a significant minority at least that place the date earlier, in the 40s or 50s. That's what I'd like to document above. Let's all check scholarly dates and list them. As far as whether Mark is the first gospel, most agree, but some place Matthew first.. --CTSWyneken 12:09, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Francesco Carotta

Someone should add information on Francesco Carotta's increasingly popular view that Jesus was Julius Caesar into this article.--Josh 04:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Is that a joke? archola 04:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Intro, Background and sections in between

Light Current moved much of the data that had been in the intro to three seperate sections before the Background section. (Although Light didn't need to create a seperate section for each paragraph, IMHO). I reorganized Light's categories under the Background section and merged two paragraphs that were identical except for the final sentence of each. The merged paragraph is under the "historicity" subsection.

I was confused about the distinction between the intro and background until I read through the edit history. Apparently the background section was created when some felt that the intro was getting too long. Ever since, there has been vigorous debate as to what data belongs in the intro, and what belongs in the background. I feel it works in either section (the distinction still seems artificial to me); but if we are going to use subheadings for the data, they really should be under the background section.

Oh, and this talk page is already 273 Kb long. Time for another archive? archola 04:23, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I really don't like the new organization as I think it is comprised almost entirely of general info that belongs in an introduction. Why have a section for "Religious beliefs" and "Historicity" in the Background section when there are whole sections entirely devoted to such topics? —Aiden 04:57, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough, I was just working off of Light Current's edit. However, there are still two redundant paragraphs in the intro and background section:

It is generally accepted that there are references to Jesus and Christians by first and second century writers which describe Jesus as a Jewish Galilean preacher and healer who was at odds with the Jewish religious authorities, and who was crucified outside of Jerusalem during the rule of the Roman governor Pontius Pilate. However, as extant contemporaneous documents that make a reference to him have not been discovered, a minority of Biblical scholars, and others, question the historicity of Jesus.

Most of these Biblical scholars hold that Jesus was a Jewish Galilean preacher and healer who was at odds with the Jewish religious authorities, and who was crucified outside of Jerusalem during the rule of the Roman governor Pontius Pilate. After his death, a group of Jesus's followers interpreted and spread his teachings in Israel and other nearby areas, gradually distinguishing themselves from Judaism.

The words in bold are practically identical. The citations are a bit different, but apparently "Biblical Scholars" are just agreeing with "first and second century writers." It's only the last sentences of each paragraph that are significantly different. archola 05:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that this is a problem. I think that its origins lay in an attempt to provide both a secular and religious view of the Gospels in the introduction. The result was to separate that part of the introduction into a new section, "background." I do not think that "background" was an apt description for the material it contained, and I don't think there is need for both an "introduction" and "background." So this is what I did: I deleted the material in "background" that was redundant with the introduction, and I moved what was left - a long paragraph summing up Gospel claims about Jesus - into the next section, on the Gospel account of Jesus. I believe the result is more economical and also more logical. 'No content was deleted. We now have an introduction that provides very concise accounts of three major views of Jesus - that of critical scholars, of Christians, and of Muslims. Then we go right into the main body of the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:47, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the introduction should be mentioning the names of specific historians; that's detail that belongs in the body of the text. Jayjg (talk) 17:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree, but this matter is being discussed above: [2] Slrubenstein | Talk 18:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
The introduction is getting a bit long for what is after all a summary of a summary (the Jesus article itself being a summary of all the Jesus articles). Other than that, it looks good to me. archola 22:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)