From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 1 Clarity 2 Requests for Comment / Arbitration 3 Hold on a second... (Islam and Oneness?) 4 Misc. links, references, citations, bibliographies, endnotes, and so on 4.1 Added a Pakistani Muslim 4.2 Grant Quote Added to Cited Authors Bios Page 4.3 Old Jesus Myth citations 5 First Paragraph 5.1 Jesus born 2 BCE 6 Second Paragraph 6.1 Consensus 2nd Paragraph posted 6.1.1 My intent re: this paragraph 6.1.2 Post consensus 6.2 Suggested consensus for second paragraph 6.2.1 Delete "Pharisees and Sadducees", too easily misunderstood 6.3 Summarize disputes 6.4 POV tag 6.5 Category: Good Article 6.6 Dates 6.7 Motions on the floor 7 Further Clarity 8 Who is competent? 9 How Often Should We Take a Vote? 9.1 Proposed Moratorium 9.2 Capsule Bio of Jack Finegan Begun 9.3 More Pics 9.4 Finegan on the Birthdate of Jesus 9.5 Refusal of one person to remove the neutrality flag 9.6 Removing POV from the below cited sentence 10 Request for Arbitration 10.1 Revisionist Jesus-Myth advocates in denial 11 Robsteadman version of the article 11.1 Not again -___- 11.2 Don't want to nitpick... 11.3 New Motion 11.4 Scholars and the dates of Jesus' Birth and Death 11.4.1 Jack Finegan, Handbook of Biblical Chronology, rev. ed. (1998) 11.4.2 John P. Meier 11.4.2.1 Chronos, Kairos, Christos: Nativity and Chronological Studies Presented to Jack Finegan. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1989 11.4.2.2 Jerry Vardaman 11.4.2.3 Ernest L. Martin 11.4.2.4 Paul L. Maier 11.4.2.5 Nikos Kokkinos 11.4.3 William F. Dankenbring 11.5 Tsaddik citation? 11.6 Scholars on Jesus and the Pharisees, Scribes and Saducees 11.6.1 Michael Grant 11.6.2 Maccoby 11.6.3 John P. Meier 12 In search of Clarity 12.1 Judaism's view 12.2 Jesus Seminar 12.3 Scribes, Pharisees and Saducees Subpage Created 12.4 Dates of Birth and Death Subpage Created 12.5 Cited Authors Bios Subpage Reorganized 12.6 remove "also" 13 Biographical Article... lacking Biography? 13.1 Change to 2nd Paragraph was according to Consenus 14 Again with John 3:16 15 Unprotect 16 "What they consider" 16.1 A different suggestion 16.2 Dates 16.3 Motions on the floor

Clarity

In the interest of clarity, Rob has identified himself as a Bright as well as an athiest. Thus both his distrust of supernatural faith and his demand for proof beyond what we may consider to be reasonable. I will not be able to communicate in any meaningful way with Rob until I learn more of the Bright movement. That said, Wikipedia should not be a battleground. Arch O. La 12:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree - all I am asking for is balance, NPOV and verifiability. This article seriously lacks all 3. Robsteadman 12:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Robsteadman on these points, from what I have read so far. I also do not believe that faith is an appropriate methodology to employ for discussions here unless it's refering to the phenomenon of faith of others from a 3rd person pov, stating it as a fact of such belief, with a clarification of what faith is, and that its rejected among most of academia (which is secular). Also, besides not assuming faith as an acceptable mode of operation, we should avoid misuing it as a label to pin on others beliefs systems which are clearly oppposed to it, i.e. those who make it clear that they do not reject logical proof or material evidence for their beleif. To call someones beliefs faith is thus derogatory (unless you are refering to religious belief since its defined that way).Giovanni33 22:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

You have a point, and I can see how the term "faith" can be offensive in terms of the Bright meme. The comment below seems rather political. Arch O. La 01:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

It's just a rather narcissistic term popularised by Richard Dawkins to mean someone who adopts a pro-science, anti dogma brelief system. Paul B 12:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Not really: http://www.the-brights.net/ Robsteadman 12:47, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, we should respect Rob's faith as much as anyone else's faith. I trust that he'll keep his faith out of his editing, as he encourages us to do. KHM03 13:05, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

AAARRGGH!!!! I have no "faith" - what a very silly and offensive thing to say. Robsteadman 13:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, no faith in the supernatural, but that's neither here nor there. Per:KHM03, we should respect Rob's unfaith. Arch O. La 13:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I've known about it for years, Rob. Perhaps you should read a bit more carefully the very website you cite. You might recognise that science and history are not dogmatic. Paul B 13:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I have read it carefully thanks. I know what it is about. Robsteadman 13:10, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I respect Rob's faith, even though he doesn't respect mine, but I will not concede him the name he and his fellow believers has chosen for their faith, as it implies that all others are "dumb" (and Rob's discourse here indicates that that is what he considers us) and as it will, if succcessful, lead the destruction of another word of the English language. It has happened before. Str1977 14:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I repeat - I don;t have a ":faith" - please don;t try to muddy the rational and logical by lowering it to the level of the irrationa; and nonsensical. Robsteadman 16:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it (Rob will correct me if I'm wrong), Brights see themselves as continuing the Enlightenment but going further. Hence they are not just "enlightened," they are "bright." This means more than a "scientific viewpoint" as most people use the term, and may be futurist. Arch O. La 15:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Hrm, I don't know how much generalizing Rob into these "bright" people will help our discussion, I mean, Rob does seem like his own person. I've never met a guy like him before anyway. Homestarmy 16:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

This is how Rob categorized himself on a user talkpage. (The comment has since been deleted, but oh well). I thought it would help clarity if we viewed his comments in light of this. Arch O. La 16:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I have attempted to perform a critical analysis of recent behavior and statements in light of Rob's recent assertion that he is a Bright. I have posted an editorial in the "comments" subpage and of course invite comment. Please keep in mind that my editorial is largely subjective and is thus opinion, not fact. I make no claim towards the accuracy of the analysis and all assertions are provisional. It is, however, my POV. Arch O. La 01:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd just like to congratulate the writer of the article. As a Christian who believes in the supernatural elements of the bible, the work of the holy spirit to heal etc, the nicene creed etc, I feel that most of the things I believe about Jesus have been represented respectfully. I also appreciate the way the author has distinguished different ideas within what the world perceives as Christianity and has attributed them to the appropriate faiths or groups. Nice work, people. -Louka 25th Feb 2006

Requests for Comment / Arbitration

I have created a subpage to begin the process of requesting comment or arbitration in this matter. Since January 25, we have had to deal with someone who is trying to make a point and I, for one, see no better solution. I welcome everyone on both sides to go there and help figure out what next recourse to take. (unsigned comment).

I have posted an editiorial there, and I am open to comments and suggestions. Arch O. La 00:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Hold on a second... (Islam and Oneness?)

Aiden, when you made that edit on the Islamic part, im pretty sure Muslims believe that Jesus was not God at all, but merely one of His most loved prophets or something? I don't think there's a oneness thing about it, I was under the impression they didn't think Jesus was God at all. Homestarmy 22:56, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

When he was layed on(sooli)and was crucified yeah but this was not Hazrat Isa(Jesus) he was another person with the same face and meanwhile, Allah(muslim's God) took him up and he will send him in this world to finish the evilness. Rida Ilyas 22:feb

anyway, it looks like the line got removed somewhere. Homestarmy 17:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Misc. links, references, citations, bibliographies, endnotes, and so on

Added a Pakistani Muslim

When he was layed on(sooli)and was crucified yeah but this was not Hazrat Isa(Jesus) he was another person with the same face and meanwhile, Allah(muslim's God) took him up and he will send him in this world to finish the evilness. Rida 22:feb

Added Solomon Grayzel, see [1] Slrubenstein | Talk 14:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Grant Quote Added to Cited Authors Bios Page

I have added a quote by Michael Grant to this subpage. --CTSWyneken 17:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Old Jesus Myth citations

I found some references in Archive 3 (28 Oct 2004) and copied them to our cited authors subpage. Arch O. La 06:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

First Paragraph

Jesus born 2 BCE

The date of Jesus's birth is probably 2 BCE.

Based on Josephus, the end of Herod's reign appears slightly later than commonly assumed. Herod died in 1 BCE, not 4 BCE. It depends on when Herod starts counting the years of his reign: from when the Romans (Antony and Octavian) appointed him to be the king of Judea (including Galilee etc.) in year 40 BCE, or from when he actually conquered Jerusalem and sat on the throne to begin reigning over Judea in year 36 BCE. Herod spent over 3 years between the appointment and the conquest. Likely Herod counts his reign from when he actually starts ruling Judea. However, Herod seized the throne on the Day of Atonement, but Judean kings only count their regnal years from the Jewish New Year, which did not take place until later in 35 BCE. He reigned for 34 years, and thus died in year 1 BCE.

Because year 1 BCE proves possible for Herod's death, a wide variety of dating methods can converge to confirm it. According to Josephus, Herod dies after a lunar eclipse (the only lunar eclipse Josephus ever mentions). In year 1 BCE, there is a stunning full lunar eclipse (as opposed to a feeble partial eclipse that year 4 BCE would end up with).

Jesus was born before Herod's death. The most rigorous ancient historians mention differing reference points and calculations, but all of them converge to date of birth in year 3/2 BCE (with the overlap because of different calendars). Irenaeus, Clement, Tertllian, Julius Africanus, Origin, Eusebius, Epiphanius, ALL converge with the date of Jesus's birth as 3/2 BCE. Even Denny the Dwarf (Dionysius Exiguus) dates the birth of Jesus to exactly 2 BCE (after his famous error is accounted for). Since the dates from these ancient historians are not impossible, they must considered.

(By the way, in the Gospel of Matthew, the story of the massacre of the infants says, Herod kills all the babies in Beth Lehem two years old and younger, and with Jesus intended to be among them, he again happens to be born in 3/2 BCE.)

Finegan, an archeologist and currently one of the most authoritative chronologists, lays out the arguments for Jesus's birth in his reference work, Handbook of Biblical Chronology (1998). He covers more data to narrow the 3/2 date to 2 BCE.

(More whimsical is the story of the "star" of the Magi, which may be inspired by the spectacular astrological behavior of the planets Jupiter and Venus across 3/2 BCE, including a true conjunction 2 BCE. The story of the massacre of the infants mentions children two years old or younger, suggesting an astrological range of time exceeding a year, in which the auspicious child could have been born. Whether the astrology inspired Magi or inspired stories about Magi, astrology is important in the ancient world and can be relevant in dating.)

Anyway, I've always been a 4 BCE'er myself, but Fingan's arguments are comprehensive. I'd bet my assets Jesus is born in 2 BCE! It all depends on when Herod considers himself the king of Judea: when the Romans say so or when he actually is.

Perhaps, 2 BCE simply is the date of Jesus's birth. At the very least, in the Jesus article, the range of dates for Jesus's birth should extend to 2 BCE.

Haldrik 05:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

PS, I added Finegan to the Bibliography of the article as a reference for the 2 BCE date. Haldrik 22:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way, Jesus died in year 32 CE, exactly, and of that there is no debate! :D

Haldrik 05:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

April 06, 0006 BCE is the date of birth according to some Biblical scholars; November 17, 0003 BCE, according to Clement of Alexandria. And, I found April 07, 0030, according to the estimates of some scholars, for when Jesus would have been crucified by Roman troops in Jerusalem.Giovanni33 07:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I thought that the 4 BCE date was based on an eclipse and a calculation by Kepler--am I missing something? Dunno about an eclipse in 1 BCE, but I suspect that since Kepler knew of one eclipse he would have known of the other. Also, what do you base 32 CE on? Finally, you make some interesting points--ever consider registering as a member? It's free ;) Arch O. La 05:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Visible from Israel, there was a total eclipse of the moon on Jan 9/10, year 1 BCE. Haldrik 06:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

For the date of Jesus's death in 32 CE, I'll try to post some work I did on it later. Haldrik 06:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Whatever date we decide to use, we should be consistent with Herod (disambig) and Herod the Great and other pages which mention this Herod. Arch O. La 06:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Herod died in 4 BCE - Josephus is NOT a reliable source because of he vandalism done by "christians" in later centuries to prove their point. WP consistency would be good. Robsteadman 07:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Rob, scholars conclude Herod died in 4 BCE BECAUSE of information given by Josephus. Including his mention of a lunar eclipse. Josephus is the source for extrapolating the 4 BCE date. The argument for a 1 BCE date for Herod's death points out there is a distinction between when the Romans appointed Herod king of Judea (which works out to be 40 BCE based on information from Josephus) and when Herod conquered Judea (which works out to be 36 BCE based on information from Josephus).

On a personal note, I feel your objections are irrational. I feel you are making yourself fundamentalistic. When you simply refuse to acknowledge Jesus as a person existed regardless of the indirect evidence, it reminds me of a friend of mine who is a Creationist who simply refuses to acknowledge evolution exists regardless of the indirect evidence. You accuse others of not being objective, and now me indirectly. I feel you may have lost sight of objectivity. If "Jesus never existed" is nothing more than an infallible dogma that must be accepted on faith, then it has little place in an encyclopedia entry.

Science has NO absolutes. All we have is tentative evidence, and we rely on it because it is useful and productive. (Even the philosopher Hume points out that any empirical phenomena can never be certain. All we have are probabilities.) When it comes to the historicity of Jesus, all we have is indirect evidence and probability. I know fundamentalists hate indirect evidence, but that's what science is.

Virtually all secular scholars believe Jesus existed as a person. The only scholars I have ever heard of who deny he existed are invariably pious members of the "church" of Secular Humanism, who are simply imposing their dogma on others.

Haldrik 22:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

You have amassed the evidence for 2 BC. There is also a lot of evidence for other dates that you have conveniently ignored. Also, there is much debate regarding the date Jesus died. Hint - he died on Wednesday or Thursday. ^rossnixon 07:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't ignore the other dates. My intention is to increase the range for Jesus's birth from 4 BCE to 2 BCE (which would then include 3 BCE also). While I personally prefer the 2 BCE date, there isn't a scholarly consensus yet, and there should be a range of possible dates. Haldrik 22:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

There is no evidence for Wednesday or Thursday - as there is no reliable and verifiable evidence he was crucified or lived! Robsteadman 07:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Rob, stop trolling.

Haldrick, to declare that there's no debate on something is certainly not helpful if yout want to be taken seriously.

Josephus is a major and quite reliable source (where do you get 4 BC from, Rob?), but a different interpretation leading to a different chronology should be discussed elsewhere. Again, this is no place to gather evidence for original research. As long as the consenus on Herod's death is 4BC we have to use that consensus as the end point.

As for Jesus' death, it is beyond reasonable doubt (and without any conflicting evidence), that he was crucified on a Friday, before the Passover, either in 30 or 33 AD.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

There is quite a bit of variety of scholarly opinion on the date of Jesus' birth. Most of what I've seen goes out as early as 8 BC/BCE and as late as 4 BC/BCE. I've been documenting this in the footnote to the date on the first paragraph. The same thing can be said for the crucifixion, which I've seen dates from 30 AD/CE to 36 AD/CE.

All of this is beside the point. Since we're here to reflect scholarship, not decide the issue ourselves, may I ask for citations, please. Which scholar is arguing 2 BC/BCE and in what publication?

In my view, we do not need or want a full discussion of the issues in the first paragraph. If a verifiable scholar says 2 BCE/BC, then let's change the latest range to 2 BC/BCE and quote the literature. We can then set a wiki link to a section of this article or another to lay out the views of every school of thought on the issue. --CTSWyneken 11:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree, Slrubenstein | Talk 11:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

So, does anyone have a reference to a scholar arguing 2 BC/BCE? --CTSWyneken 20:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

We'd also need a scholar who says that Herod didn;t die in 4BCE - which is such an established date. Robsteadman 20:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

This mysterious scholar could just as well argue that the sources putting Jesus' birth before Herod's death are mistaken. That would be something, but conceivable. --Dystopos 21:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd suspect that someone that dates Jesus to 2 BC/BCE will also date Herod later. So, Rob, since you've looked into it, can you summarize the data that proves Herod died in 4 BC/BCE? --CTSWyneken 21:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Look into just about any book about Herod/"jesus" - 4BCE - including teh WP article about H. Look at some of the books referenced on this article. Robsteadman 21:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems we are relying on Josephus. But, maybe we shouldn't. After all, he wrote 100 years later, wasn't even born until 30 years after Herod's death and his work is colored by later Christian editors. Maybe Herod didn't exist... --CTSWyneken 21:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree we shouldn;t rely on Joesphus - doctyored and vandalised as his works were by "christians". Robsteadman 22:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, then, I guess Herod the Great didn't exist, or at least we know nothing about when he died. --CTSWyneken 02:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

"Herod the Great," The Revell Bible Dictionary, 1990 ed.: 482-3.

Flavius Josephus, "Antiquities of the Jews," The Works of Josephus, trans. William Whiston (Hendrickson Publishers, 1987) 17:9.1.

Fergus Millar, The Roman Near East: 31 BC - AD 337 (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1993) 41.

Looks like 4BCE. Robsteadman 17:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the references! But I thought Josephus was out... after all, he wasn't a contemporary of Herod the Great... The other two depend on Josephus, I guess we can't trust them either... So, is there another source for Herod? --CTSWyneken 00:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

LOL! Stop teasing the fundamentalist.Haldrik 01:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'm seriously trying to understand Rob's view here. If we can't trust Josephus, well, I'm a dunce. I just don't get how we figure the death date of someone we do not know existed. --CTSWyneken 01:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Second Paragraph

It looks to me (aftr ALL the discussion() that we have consensus ont he second paragraph and I will happily declare it and ask everyone to enforce it if reverted. Thanks.Gator (talk) 13:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Consensus is of the moment - we must allow new edits and new editors to contribute and not merely protect the page - particularly when it is stil POV. Robsteadman 13:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm confident that all of us...even Rob...will respect this process. We can always discuss further changes here before making them, and keep the consensus going. Good work to all...thanks for all you've done. KHM03 13:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I still don;t see it as a final version. Robsteadman 13:33, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

You can see it however you like, but do not revert it anymore without attempting to convince others on the talkpage to alter the clearly established consensus. That's all.Gator (talk) 13:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

More protectionism - shameful. Robsteadman 16:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's assume good faith on Rob's part that he'll respect WP:CON. KHM03 13:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I know you're capable of respecting this Rob. Deskana (talk) 13:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I will change what I think is needed - that is the point of WP - a consensus is a momentary thing - and the protectionism going on detracts from encouraging new editors taking part. It is deplorable that it is being tolerated by anyone. Robsteadman 16:29, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Damn it Rob, that attitude will get you blocked! It's Wikipedia not Steadmanpedia. An encyclopedia based on the policies that we have, not what you think. Please respect concensus. Changing whatever you want gets it reverted and you blocked. Discussing it can actually get it changed permentantly. Deskana (talk) 21:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I dunno Deskana, Steadmanpedia has a nice ring to it.... :D Homestarmy 22:53, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

But a consensus IS only of a moment. This is simple protectionism and is contrary to WP policies. Shameful. Robsteadman 07:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Contrary to what policy exactly? Deskana (talk) 10:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I didn't think you'd answer that. Deskana (talk) 20:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

In the long view, concensus is momentary. I've been looking through the archives and I have seen where issues have been settled and brought up again. Rob, we're trying to develop a paragraph we all can agree on and protect it from vandals, most from anonymous IPs, who insert patent nonsense. I'm not referring to you or anyone else who writes on this talk page. But some find it amusing to come by randomly and add stuff like "sjdhlkjhgfsg" to the page. Hence, semi-protect. Arch O. La 09:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree we need to protect against outright vandals - is there no way of having all registered users being able to edit rather than just established users? Robsteadman 09:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

No, there isn't. If the page is repeatedly vandalised by new users and anonymous IPs then the page can be temporarily semi-protected but it's only a temporary measure. It was agreed (by concensus funnily enough) that it should only ever be temporary. At the minute there isn't really enough vandalism to have it semi-protected. Go to WP:RfPP and request it if you want but I doubt it'll really get anywhere. Deskana (talk) 10:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Consensus 2nd Paragraph posted

Dear fellow editors:

I have posted our version of the paragraph on the article page. Thank you one and all for helping to fashion it. I have placed an HTML comment in the source of the article, just above the paragraph, requesting editors talk before editing, save when it comes to the footnotes. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CTSWyneken (talk • contribs) .

Sorry about that; sig got separated from this paragraph by the section below. --CTSWyneken 15:44, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

My intent re: this paragraph

I intend to revert any changes to the paragraph made without talk page discussion and consensus, be it by Christian apologists or nonexistence hypothesis supporters -- two times a day if necessary. This does not include adding to the footnotes or setting wiki links.

I will not revisit any old arguments longer than to refer to the subject archive, when set up.

I will not support any changes made that rely on arguments already made, nor repeat myself by engaging them. New arguments I will reply to.

Should a consensus to change the paragraph emerge here, I will respect it, in fact, post it myself, even if I disagree with it.

Anyone else share my intentions? --CTSWyneken 14:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Agree

1. Second.Gator (talk) 14:24, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
2. I'm with you on this one. Concensus must be respected, and it's been made clear in the article that editing = revert. Deskana (talk) 15:32, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
3. I agree in principle, yet I do have an edit to suggest, see below Slrubenstein | Talk 15:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
4. Agree, although we vote too much. Also, someone made an edit last night re: Jesus "at odds" with other Jewish groups. I left a note on that user's talk page referring them to the discussion here (well, in the archives now). Arch O. La 16:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC) Addendum: this is like my third edit conflict. Can I get a word in edgewise here?
5. Agree ^rossnixon 00:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Disagree

1. More or less I disagree. A conspiracy to censor the article is just too inflexible. It lets the laziness of exhausted debators freeze out new contributions. It seems to defeat the purpose of Wikipedia. Haldrik 01:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
2. Disagree - Protectionist censorship - totally against principles of WP. And why another vote? Robsteadman 07:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Neutral

1. Eh, I understand how much effort went into this as the next guy because, well, I was right there, but Wikipedia really is useful for getting someone's third opinion that nobody could of seen before, if we just revert everything, we might revert something useful that nobody here could of seen before. And yes, we vote too much. Homestarmy 16:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
   1. Of course, we would want to be careful not to get an edit in other places of the article in the crossfire.
   2. Also, if someone wants to make a useful change to the paragraph, they are welcome to make their case here first. It's just good Netiquette to do so. --CTSWyneken 17:17, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Post consensus

1. Why was my opposing vote deleted?
2. I feel we need to clarify that "lack" in reference to "extant contemporaneous documents" is a relative term. We should qualify it with the addition of "what they consider", so that the last sentence of the 2nd paragraph would look like:

However, citing what they consider a lack of extant contemporaneous documents making reference to him, a small minority of others question the historicity of Jesus.

Anyone agree? —Aiden 22:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Suggested consensus for second paragraph

A large majority of critical Bible scholars and historians hold that Jesus was a Jewish Galilean teacher of Torah and healer, who was crucified outside of Jerusalem during the rule of the Roman governor Pontius Pilate.[2] However, citing a lack of extant contemporaneous documents making references to him, a small minority of others question the historicity of Jesus.[3]

Haldrik 19:40, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll let others comment on the paragraph. I would just like to say that our attempts at consencus are attempts to call a truce an ongoing Wikiwar, it wasn't meant to be censorship and we are open to new data. (Hence my invitation for you to join this discussion). That said, four rounds of voting may have been a little extreme. Arch O. La 02:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Delete "Pharisees and Sadducees", too easily misunderstood

I believe that the words (Saducees and Pharisees) should be removed from the second paragraph. It is common for people to understand the power structure at the time in terms of Pharisees and Saducees, in part because Josephus emphasizes this. However, the political relations between Pharisees, Saducees, and others is pretty complicated at this time. Some scholars have suggested that Jesus' debates with Pharisees were added later, after the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE, when the Pharisees were the only movement among Jews competing with Christianity. Moreover, since Rabbinic Judiams emerged out of the Pharisees, the Talmud presents a whiggish view of Jewish history that emphasizes the importance of the Pharisees. In fact, it is more likely that - as a movement - they had little or no political power at that time. Moreover, I am not sure it matters, for understanding what happened (or may have happened) to Jesus towards the end of his life in terms of "Saducees and Pharisees." In short, I think it is better to leave it at "Jewish authorities." This is certainly accurate, and leaves the topic of who these authorities were, and the nature and source of their authority, for a later section or a linked article. The only value I see in adding these words is to provide the links, but I think this article provides the links later. I think they are at the very least unnecessary, and posibly oversimplifying. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:59, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

This may well be sensible, but can we wait a week or two to take it up? I'd like to see the dust settle a bit -- and observe what the scholars we're documenting have to say on the subject. --CTSWyneken 16:07, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

See my vote above re:the edit. It was by an editor (User_talk:Haldrik) who doesn't comment here often. Also, Haldrik's contrib history included quite a few contribs to Kaballah, so Haldrik may know a fair bit of Judaism. Arch O. La 16:13, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, we can wait a week if you want. I understand your motives. But the Jewish authorities were the High Priest and the Sanhedrin. To say "Pharisees and Saducees" is really, really misleading. it would be like saying " ... the US authorities (Republicans and Democrats) ..." Do you see what I mean? The US authorities are the President, Supreme Court, and Congress. Yes, virtually all of them are registered either "Republican" or "Democrat." But there are independents, and for a long time people felt that Supreme Court Justices are and ought to be non-partisan. But most important, the Republican and Democratic parties are not the authorities, they are coalitions of interests that compete to become "the authorities." But they become authorities through national elections for constitutional office and, arguably, these are the actual sources of authorities, not the two parties. I think this is a fair analogy for Saducees and Pharisees. They were not the authorities; they were two schools of thought, consisting of coalitions of different interests, that at certain times in Jewish history competed for authority. it is not the same thing. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I appreciate it! My inclination is to agree with you from what I know. Right now, I want some peace to finish the citation work. In the end, I'm sure we'll end up with you. Besides, I'm looking for a good excuse to read Cohen. It looks like a fascinating book... --CTSWyneken 16:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

If it's wrong, and I think it is, then the sentence could easily be adjusted to:

A large majority of critical Bible scholars and historians hold that Jesus was a Jewish Galilean preacher and healer who was at odds with the Jewish religious authorities, as well as the Sadducees and Pharisees, and who was crucified outside of Jerusalem during the rule of the Roman governor Pontius Pilate.^[2]

Robsteadman 16:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think you are right. I think just "Jewish authorities" would be better, but it mightr be better to put Romano-Jewish, as that includes both the Sanhedrin and the Roman-supported government of the Herodians. The NT does use the term "Herodians" separately from Saducees and Pharisees. Sure, the NT tries to stress that Jesus fell foul of religious rather than secular/political authority, but that is disputed by some historians, who see an attempt in the Gospels to absolve the Romans. Paul B 16:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

And it all comes down to translations..... Robsteadman 16:42, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Yup...because that's all we have. Arch O. La 19:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I want to go on record thanking Rob for helping with the wiki links and for the very minor grammatical adjustments on the paragraph on the main page. I, for one, have no problem with them and consider it really in keeping with our consensus.

That being said, I personally do not want to start a new discussion quite yet. I want to get the documentation done before opening new discussions -- even ones like this one, where there should be little dissent. If others want to take it up, that's fine. I'll watch for consensus and change the page if its reached. It's just that, without further reading, I'm not certain enough to sign off either way. The best I can say is the same scholars we have been citing assert Jesus was at odds with the Saducees, Pharisees and the leaders of the people of Israel in the Sanhedrin and the High Priesthood, both inclusive and exclusive of each other. --CTSWyneken 16:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the parsimoneous thing is simply to delete Saducees and Pharisees. It is misleading to say "religious authorities" because neither Jews nor Romans thought of them as specifically "religious" authorities; they certainly were religious by modern lights but to use our own categories to describe institutions from 2000 years ago is anachronistic. We can leave it at "Jewish authorities" since all the linked articles go into the details. Romano-Jewish authorities sounds awful although of course Paul's larger point is correct that the political authorities were Roman-supported. But Vermes, Sanders, Fredricksen agree that he debated with other kinds of authorities (including, probably, Pharisees). I still think just plain "Jewish authorities" is enough for a paragraph in the introduction. Linked articles can go into the heterogeneous nature of jewish authority at that time as well as its relationship to the Romans; indeed, the linked articles do just this. It is not that I disagree with CTSWyneken about what the historians say; I just think in an introductory section we should avoid this much detail. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: "Jewish authorities". More accurately "Judean authorities". Often the Greek word ιουδαιοι means the "Judeans" (not the "Jews"), to distinguish the citizens of the region of Judea from the citizens of the region of Galilee and elsewhere. Compare John 19:38, "Joseph of Arimathaea [who is a Jew!] was a student of Jesus but secretly for fear of the 'Jews' [that is, for fear of the Judean authorities!]". Also John 20:19, "When the doors were shut, where the students [who are Jews!] were assembled for fear of the 'Jews' [the Judean authorities!], Jesus came and stood in the midst". And so on. Generally, the "Judean authorities" means the government administration of Caiaphas the High Priest.

Haldrik 02:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Haldrik is right that there was a time when what we usually translate as "Jew" should be translated as "Judean." however, as Shaye Cohen has documented, this usage was in flux starting around the time of the Macabees and by the first century was increasingly used to mean "Jew" or "Jewish." I think, for the same reasons I gave above, we should just say "Jewish authorities" - it is vague, but that is alright in an introductory section; it is inclusive, and that is more important right now. Linked articles can go into the nuances. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Though I don't agree with what has been said about Pharisees and Saducees not being "at odds" with Jesus (though that is a vague, broad term), I agree with the wording "Jewish authorities", as these could be seen as including "intellectual" or "social" authorities as well and not just administrative bodies.

Haldrick is right with his reading of "the Jews", but the High Priest's (and possibly the Sanhedrin's) authority extended over Galillee as well and even beyond as long as the Temple stood (it was the Temple of all Jews around the world) - see also Paul's reaction towards the High Priest (Acts 23).

It is not feasible to distinguish between religious and secular authorities at that time.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 10:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, is there anyone who would object to my removing Saducees and Pharisees? Please note that I do believe that the more nuanced points various people have raised should be developed in linked articles. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd have no objections to removing it, although the scholarly consensus is that Jesus was at odds with the scribes, the Pharisees, the Saducees, the High Priests and the Sanhedrin. It seems to me that the issue is whether they were authorities in the proper sense of the term, to which I happily defer to SL. --CTSWyneken 11:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - I would say that all of the groups you mention were "authorities" in some sense, and at least to some Jews, and to some degree - and that some of these groups intersect (i.e. a High Priest could be a Saducee or a Pharisee) whereas others are mutually exclusive - all points that ought to be elaborated on, just not - in my opinion - in this paragraph. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree the reference to Sadducees and Pharisees should be removed. Especially because, they seem to have nothing to do with Jesus's death. The only person who is indisputably involved in the public execution of Jesus is Pontius Pilate who killed him for being "King of the Judeans". A political explanation of Jesus's death. The High Priest seems to have been involved in Jesus's arrest but the nature of this involvement is highly disputed among scholars, ranging from suggestions the High Priest singlehandedly maneuvered Jesus's death to suggestions he was trying to save Jesus from the Romans but ultimately failed because Jesus refused to relinquish his claim to be the new king. In any case, the Sadducees and Pharisees seem irrelevant in Jesus's death. Haldrik 23:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I also agree that the reference to Sadducees and Pharisees should not be in the beginning paragraph. Any disputes as to whether Jesus was in conflict can be discussed later. Everything I have ever read supports what CTS stated above. Although I have heard of individuals proposing that Jesus as just an ordinary Pharisee, which seems to fly in the face of everything in the four gospels, I would have to say that is a small minority. Storm Rider 18:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Summarize disputes

Could someone summarize the disputes?

From what I can tell its about the the existence of Jesus? Ofcourse its debatable. My own POv is that there are only two pieces of extra-biblical evidence of Jesus which have any reliability, and only one of those has any decent reliability, but that is a very short passage by Josephus. There is, thus, not enough evidence to regard his existence as a given, but there is enough to consider it reasonably possible.

If Jesus existed, what did he do? That is difficult to say, because the biblical accounts cannot be assumed to be all that reliable. However, it seems likely that he would have been some sort of teacher, prophet, and miracle worker - just like many other people around the same time.

Ofcourse, in Christian mythology it is generally believed that Jesus was an incarnation of God who came to earth to redeem the sins of humanity. He was executed by crucifixion, but arose from the dead after three days. Anyone who believes this is saved from eternal torment in hell. We can state this as long as its is described as part of Christian mythology, not facts.

I have not had time to study the article myself but would like to help iron out the disputes, here. Giovanni33 07:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Josephus is NOT reliable - it is widely accepted, even by many "christians" that is was vandalised and doctored by "christians" in the 2nd and 3rd centuries. The article is stating things as FACT when they are not. The article uses "faith" scholars to support these non-facts - they are unreliable, out to support their "faith" and we should only be reporting their OPINION as OPINION not as FACT. The article needs a POV tag on it. Robsteadman 07:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

This has been going on for quite a while and I'm not sure how best to summarize. Best way to put it is that there has been considerable debate on this page over how much weight to give the Jesus existed hypothesis and how much to give to the nonexistence hypothesis, or whether to even mention the nonexistence hypothesis here as some consider it to be a fringe view. This is specifically about the second paragraph; the nonexistence hypothesis is given more weight later in the article, and in related articles such as Jesus-Myth and Historicity of Jesus. Rob has also pointed out that since there is no inconvertible proof for the existence of Jesus, it cannot be stated as fact. Technically, this is correct, and stating it as a proven fact is something of a reification. However, it is presented as the informed opinion of critical Bible scholars and historians. "Critical" in this context refers to textual criticism, higher criticism and other ways of interpreting the text formally (ie, not accepting everything on "faith.") The counterpoint is that there is no more or less uncertaintly among historians over whether Jesus existed than there is for many other ancient historical figures. There has been considerable debate over the reliability of credentials and on which side has the burden of proof; sources have been found and are being cited in the article. There has also been considerable debate over minor points of wording, re "citing" vs "suggesting" vs "asserting." I believe four straw polls have been conducted to help develop a concensus on the paragraph, but unfortunately the debates continue.

The rest comes down to a breakdown of dialogue and disputes over civility, 3RR, NPOV, NOR and other Wikipedia policies. This has gone on over the course of several archived discussions, and until recently has drowned out any discussion over other parts of the article. Regretably, we have made little progress in the past month. Arch O. La 08:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that's a fair summary - I disagree with one or two points, I maintain that the term "critical" will be misleading to teh average user (even if it is the correct word) and I think that the page still says he did exist contrary to the evidence - it does not just say these people say that.... the use of definite dates is a huge problem. But overall a fair summary. The main problem is the abuse and uncivil (and un WP) behaviour of some who do seem to be attempting to protect the page - stating they will revert all edits to certain paragraphs, wanting the page protected and outright insults such as troll and "robsteadman, please go away". There is a solution - verifiability and NPOV sentences which do not imply more than is factual. Robsteadman 08:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Seems similar to some conflicts I'm having over at the Christianity page. When I find some time I'll read through this article to see if I can help with the NPOV language, and other points of contention. In the meantimes lets all try to be extra civil with each other just as if we were in any other work place, at the office. :) Giovanni33 08:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying, and I apologize if I have ever been uncivil. I haven't looked at Christianity much, because I've been focusing attention on articles specifically about Jesus, and not the religion He founded. But maybe I'll take a look when I need a break. Arch O. La 09:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Im guessing most historians have written books arguing for Christ's existance using more than 2 pieces of evidence? :/ Homestarmy 13:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

POV tag

There are still many disputes on this article and, follwing Giovanni33's post I think it right we have a POV tag whilst these are ironed out. Robsteadman 07:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm actually going to agree in the spirit of developing NPOV. This does need to be ironed out. Arch O. La 08:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Robsteadman 08:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I find it biazarre that the POV tag has been removed without discussion - or, at least,m the only two discussing it agreed it should be there!!! I am restoring it. The page's neutrality is in dispute it should have the tag. Yes it migt be ugly but then so is POV. Robsteadman 19:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

There will always be disputes on this article. I submit that a POV flag is only required when there is a major dispute in progress. There is no major dispute at the moment, just a discussion on what paragraph the dates should be in! I hope someone else will also remove the POV flag. ^rossnixon 19:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

It is much more than the dates - there is a general dispute about the POV of this article - I have restored the tag because it is appropriate. I hope noone else removes it without discussion. . Robsteadman 19:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

You keep repeating that the article is "heavily POV" - please list out the points you think are honestly POV - and that does not mean not "rob's" POV. There will not be any progress if you keep alluding to how terrible the POV all the time with nothing to back it up. If it's just a few minor points, then it's not "heavily POV". --Oscillate 19:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

it's the bulk of the article with the slants given as fact which are, in fact, only opinion. Virtually every paragraph is heavily POV. Robsteadman 20:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there has been major dispute over minor points, which has even been carried off of here into shouting matches on user's talk pages. Arch O. La 19:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

And all sorts of nastiness and namecalling. At least the trolls seem to be quieter today. Robsteadman 19:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it's time the POV tag went. I fear it will be used by some for leverage to get their edits and I fear that if they do not get there way, they will never support removing the tag. I for one feel that there is really only one person who has a dispute and we will never be able to convince him, unfortunately. I vote for removal. All those in favor?

How many times do we need votes. THe page's POV is disputed. It is VERY unblanced and needs to be sorted. UNtil it is sorted and NPOV achieved the tag should remian. Robsteadman 20:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

No surprises there and I dont notice anyone else other than you disputing POV unless they're disputing your edits. I for one think it is NPOV enough to remove the tag and I think it's a good article and I'm not the only one. Anyone else want to remove the tag?Gator (talk) 20:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Well SOPHIA aregued it was POV until she was hounde from here by certain editors. Robsteadman 20:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I thought of her but she wouldn't support the tag. The only peson disputing is you and you've demonstrated over and over again that you'll never be satisfied without making this article your POV. I don't think that's a good enough reason to have a tag. Just my opinion.Gator (talk) 20:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong. And clearly trying to pick a fight. If you look at my edits, rather than comments on talk pages, you will see that I have consistently beentrying to achieve NPOV. I suspect the only reason you;re concerned is that you fear NPOV will remove the POV slant which you currently support. I genuinely want, and am trying to achieve, NPOV. I maintain the current article is POV and, consequently, the tag should stay. Robsteadman 20:29, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

No one is tying to pick a fight with you, Rob. No one ever has to. You fly of the handle way to easily. I am very aware of what kind of edits you've been making and trying to make and I stand by what I said. Assume good faith, Rob. I am not the POV pusher.Gator (talk) 20:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not it is currently NPOV or not, it is disputed. If the recent breakdown in communication is not a "dispute," than the term has no meaning, This goes far beyond the kind of disagreement that Rossnixon is talking about. I will neither be a troll nor accuse others of being a troll. That said, we do need to work it out, and I hope we can do so without again breaking into war. Arch O. La 20:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Re:Gator1: Again it's disagreement vs. dispute. The page is far more disputed than when SOPHIA was here. I miss her because she was able to foster communication and help keep the page from falling into dispute. Arch O. La 20:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Me too.Gator (talk) 20:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I thought we were going to stop arguing with Rob? -___- Homestarmy 01:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Category: Good Article

Surely this should be removed from that category? It fulfills so few of the requirements in any meaningful way. Robsteadman 09:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Well I happen to think it is a good article, meeting the criteria set. Can you explain why you think its not? Deskana (talk) 10:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

It's far from stable, it's highly contersted and I, and others, maintain it is POV. The writing is poor because much of the article is misleading. Not good at all. Robsteadman 13:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

It's featured article that I'm most concerned about. I've been watching this page since SciFiIntel nominated it for FA (a nomination that failed), have been able to work some compromise but lately have seen this article fall into contention. It's regretable. I'd really like to get this article back to the point where it can be nominated for FA again. Arch O. La 10:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. There is a lot of work left here before I'd like to see it nominated. --CTSWyneken 11:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that if the topic is Jesus, in addition to improving this particular article we also have to look at all the linked articles as part of a package. Remember, many of those linked articles used to be part of this article and were spun off only because of practical size limitations. This means that it is inevitable that no one article can give equal weight to all aspects of "Jesus" and all points of view. If POV is an issue, one way to handle it is to (1) make sure that the linked articles that give more weight to other POVs are appropriately highlighted here, and (2) make sure those linked articles are good too. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely, which is why I have created the outline that's linked to this talk page as "related articles." Arch O. La 19:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of the inability for us to quickly change this article, the standards for good articles are not as high as FA standards. It only has to fulfill the requirements, not excel in fulfilling the requirements. Homestarmy 13:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Maintaining "Good Article" is an immediate and short-term goal. Developing "Featured Article" is my long-term goal. Arch O. La 19:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm amazed it is considered a "good" article! Robsteadman 19:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Well then let's take a look at the criteria so we can make sure this article doesn't slip below "good":

What makes a good article?

A good article will share many characteristics with featured articles, and like featured content it must:

be well written

Seems well written to me

be factually accurate

We've cited sources too long to be wrong about this stuff.

use a neutral point of view

If it ain't NPOV after all this time going over 2 simple paragraphs, it won't be NPOV ever, equal time given to anti-christ-esqe arguments or not.

be stable

Well, it is now that it's semi-protected.

be referenced, and

If it ain't referenced after all the work CTSW did, then no article on Wikipedia deserves to qualify as good.

wherever possible, contain images to illustrate it. The images should all be appropriately tagged.

We have images alright

Good articles may not be as thorough and detailed as our featured articles, but should not omit any major facets of the topic.

We have major facets, we have minor facets, we even had facets that were so minor we struck them out (Bah'ai)

Homestarmy 19:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Well I would say:

be well written

Is improving but much is still rather poor

be factually accurate

This, again, is improving but things are being reported as fact when they are merely someone's opinion

use a neutral point of view

It is still heavily POV - the date sissue is a prime example

be stable

It is not stable - and it should be opened up so new editors can join - the current stability is only because of protectionism which is wrong and conreary to WP principles

be referenced, and

Referneces are improving

wherever possible, contain images to illustrate it. The images should all be appropriately tagged.

Yes we have images - surely we can get better ones!

Good articles may not be as thorough and detailed as our featured articles, but should not omit any major facets of the topic.

Agreed - but because of all the above I would argue it is NOT good overall

-)

Robsteadman 19:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem is, quite frankly, the Good Article system isn't really designed yet to be extremely competitive or with a high degree of oversight, if someone comes in and thinks something is a good article they can just put it up unless they've worked on it personally, and if someone thinks the quality has slipped they can technically just drop it at the tip of a hat, there's no moderation so to speak, I think it's fairly new. We're trying to make a project on it though with more standards, basically, the main systems we got that make it more standardized and useful is self nomination so people who have personally worked on the article can't put it up as good immedietly, and there's the good article dispute section so people can review things together if there's an argument. I'd venture to say there would be a good bit of distress over dropping Jesus with no warning because good article rules really are more bendable that featured article rules, a review would be more in order. Besides, we need more perspectives here probably anyway, especially if an RfC or ArbCom request thing starts. Homestarmy 20:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Dates

I think slrubinstein's moving of the adtes into the 2nd paragraph is a good move and I am disappointed that it has been reverted. the move makes more sense, makes it much less POV (almost NPOV) and makes the intro para read much better. Please could we put it back in the 2nd para? Robsteadman 13:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I had a liking for the move too (for stylistic reasons), but now that you declare it a matter of POV I must say that that it is standard for WP to include living dates in the first line of an article. Jesus should be no exception. However, I suggest giving approximate dates, so instead or 8/4 - 29/36 I'd suggest sth like "before 4 - approximately 30" Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

It's POV because of the debate as to whether "jesus" existed or not. It makes more sense in the second para where it is put into context - ie. SOME scholars say this but it cannot be proven beyond all doubt. If it is retained in the 1st para it should have a "possibly" attached. Robsteadman 14:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The second paragraph has been argued to death Rob and there is clear consensus regarding that pargraph. Please respect that. The dates are fine as they are. Perfectly NPOV. Maybe not your POV, but NPOV nonetheless.Gator (talk) 14:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Just because the 2nd para was agreed over the weekend doesn;t mean it cannot be changed. slrubinstein made a good edit and it was reverted for no good reason. The dates are POV because they imply, in their current format, that "jesus" definitely existed - we cannot, and should not, say that - we can say that x and y scholar says he did but we must NOT be stating that he DID exist. That is NOT verifiable. Robsteadman 14:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I think Rob's request seems fair; what does everyone else think? We can certainly say something like, "Scholars believe..." or "most scholars believe" or whatever. KHM03 14:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm opposed. the second paragraph is perfectly fine the way it is and is the product of a great deal of discussion and consensus. No changes just yet.Gator (talk) 14:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

And that is protectionism which is contrary to WP policies. Shameful.Robsteadman 14:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Please quote said policy. --CTSWyneken 14:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I meant principles! "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." Robsteadman 14:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Please note I am one of the said "anyone." --CTSWyneken 14:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Dates, by their very nature, are informative. I see no need to supress information because a few select people are apparently offended by the evidence. Homestarmy 14:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting suppressing the dates, and I suspect slrubinstein wasn't either, just putting them in a better and more appropriate place. Similarly, we shouldn;t be saying he categorically lived just because some academics think he did - we should only say that these scholars believe he did. It is not factual to state he did - the dates in their current place with no qualifiers, state he did. Robsteadman 14:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Leaving out the dates in the beginning is a tacit approval of Rob's extreme "non-existence" POV. Since all articles include living dates in the first line this one should do so too in order to remain NPOV. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

No it's not. It's fulfilling the policy of verifiability. If you have absolute proof provide it. If not we only have that some scholars believe.... Verifiable. Encyclopedic. Robsteadman 14:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I can't think of any absolute proof that scholarly work is relegated to your definition of belief as inferior. Homestarmy 14:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I repeat - we cannot and should not state as fact he existed. That is not verifiable. And we cannot state as fact those dates. Not verifiable. However, we can say that certain scholars believe/state/hold/argue that he existed and that they propose these dates. Verifiable and factual. Robsteadman 14:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The revert was made because the change was not discussed here first. I am acting as I said I would, even though the person who made the change is someone I get along with.

As to Rob’s arguments, we’ve been over this territory several times before. Since we know what each other is going to say, why not just skip the debate and go to the matter at hand?

The fact is that, according to wp:npov, we need not mention the nonexistence hypothesis at all. Indeed, most encyclopedias do not. We do it out of respect for the opinion of the few non-historians in the scholarly community that assert this view. We are under no obligation in wikipedia to extend this courtesy to every statement in the article.

That being said, I have no problem moving the dates to the 2nd paragraph. It is not only Rob who supports this, but also slrubenstein and I. I just think it fits better there stylistically. I only ask that, if it moves, it be carefully done, so as not to destroy hours of my time documenting the views of the scholarly community. --CTSWyneken 14:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Shall we remove all the wikilinks I aded without discussion? ;-) Robsteadman 14:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

It's a shame the people at Evolution don't have your attitude Rob, I wrote like a manifesto of the history of evolutionary theory in a nutshell there just to get a mere tiny line of even slightly NPOV recognition that other opinions do exist and are held by scientists, no dice. I see no reason why not to turn the tables to assert that Jesus existed due to scholarly consensus, as consensus appears to be the king of all standards in the academic community. Plus, we're not supposed to do original reaserch anyway, so we can't just throw in what a few Atheistic websites say with all their big words and stuff. Homestarmy 14:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not ORIGINAL research. It's reporting the verifiable facts of the subject. Unfortunately some seem to want to deny the facts and not report in a verifiable manner. Just because some scholars suggest/argue/etc. doesn;t mean it is fact. Particularly when many come from such biased POV backgrounds as being priests. Robsteadman 15:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I will again say that Robsteadman has professed not only a scientific worldview, but a strong scientific worldview by definition as a Bright, and his quizfarm scores maintain his worldview is strong even for a bright. He is adhering to a strict definition of fact while the rest of us are judging what is reasonable—which is, by a strict definition, informed opinion. I see the value of both the naturalistic and the metaphysical (for example, theistic evolution). There are also those who deny science based on faith. I am disturbed both by those who deny science based on faith, and those who deny faith based on science (to me, both are extreme POVs). That said, informed opinion is reasonable, but it is still informed opinion, and is distinct from "fact" by a strict definition of "fact." The previous sentence is, I believe, the point that Robsteadman has been making. In the social sciences, the term used is "reification." Arch O. La 19:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

People, I am getting the impression that individuals are resistant to anything Rob says regardless of the content. Two wrongs does not make it right. I can't believe that anyone really cares if the dates are in the second paragraph or not. Let's quit choking on gnats and be more cooperative. Storm Rider 19:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Amen. Arch O. La 19:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Motions on the floor

We have four motions on the floor:

• Delete Saducess and Pharisees from second paragraph.

• Oppose. Gator (talk) 21:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. KHM03 22:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Without mention of those guys, you lose some very specific background information from the main source the article admits is used, the gospels. Homestarmy 22:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. But find a way to refer to Judean. Robsteadman 22:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support. It is a factual error to say "a large majority of scholars agree" Jesus is at odds with the Pharisees. (Even Vermes and Sanders who are in the bibliography disagree. Also Charlesworth and Flusser.) Moreover many important scholars disagree Pharisees are "authorities". The clause is simply too problematic for it to be connected with the phrase "a large majority of scholars agree". Haldrik 23:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

For crying out loud. Even the body of the article says this: "Recent Christian and Jewish scholarship has moderated the perception of opposition between Jesus and the Jewish teachers of his day by showing his substantial agreement with trends in the Jewish religious thinking of his day." So get rid of the "at odds" with the Pharisees already! Haldrik 06:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose (Steve 23:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC))
• Support. The factions are mentioned several times elsewhere. They are not the "authorities" for the reasons S gave. Paul B 23:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose drboisclair 23:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose ^rossnixon 00:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Move dates from first paragraph to the second

• Oppose. Gator (talk) 21:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support. KHM03 22:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Homestarmy 22:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support. A good edit by slrubinstein earlier. Robsteadman 22:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Garglebutt / (talk) 22:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. (Move the full version alright, but retain a reduced version at the beginning) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose (Steve 23:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC))
• Support Paul B 23:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. An historical person's dates follow his name. Jesus is an historical person. drboisclair 23:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

And that is the crux of it - IS he an historical person? There is NO extant contemporary evidence only opinion.Robsteadman 07:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose ^rossnixon 00:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Extend birth range to 2 BC/BCE

• Support. Gator (talk) 21:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support. KHM03 22:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Homestarmy 22:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. - There is no evidence for this. A nonsense. Robsteadman 22:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Rob is right on this. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Haldrik 23:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support (Steve 23:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC))
• Support. drboisclair 23:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose ^rossnixon 00:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support I just understood this vote now! Would even support to 1 BC. ^rossnixon 00:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

So we're saying that Herod did things AFTER his death? Robsteadman 07:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah - decomposed. But seriously, he could have died in 1 BC. ^rossnixon 07:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

But there is overwhelming evidence toi say he died in 4 BCE. This suggestion is maverick. Robsteadman 08:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

But Rob, by your rules, there's no evidence that can tell us the date of Herod's death or anything about him at all -- assuming that is -- we have a coin with Herod's name on it or his name carved in stone. Everything used to establish this date is in Josephus. ;-) --CTSWyneken 12:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Rob - born before 4 BC means born before Herod's death. Herod's death might have occured in 1 BC, but as long as 4 BC is the accepted date we should use this date. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The point here is to avoid having to say in the intro: "so and so advocates 8 BC/BCE, so and so 7, so and so 4 or 5, so and so 2 and so and so 1 BC/BCE." By constructing a range that includes every proposal by a historian, we can avoid that detail. In a later section or in a separate article, we can spell out who believes what or why and even throw in the philosopher or two that thinks he didn't exist at all, if we wish.

We need to remember, it is not our opinion that counts, but those of scholarship in the field. --CTSWyneken 12:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

And, above scholarhsship/opinion, there is always irrefutable fact and evidence.Robsteadman 17:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Remove POV tag

• Support. Gator (talk) 22:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. KHM03 22:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Homestarmy 22:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. While the POV is disputed the tag should remain. Robsteadman 22:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Only really opposed by someone who is unlikely to agree with this article until it is moved to WP:FICTION. Garglebutt / (talk) 22:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Now maybe you've hit on something there. ;-) Robsteadman 22:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Rob, here is the fictional Jesus. Arch O. La 09:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I could suggest that teh fictional "jesus" is found here: http://www.bible.org/netbible/ and in all other translations. ;-) Robsteadman 17:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Support. What dispute is there left (except for a lone voice saying "he didn't exist". Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't think scholars have reached a point where they can discuss neutrally the historicity of Jesus who is a Jew (!) (not a Christian) without having to wrestle with the religious implications of their own or others. Haldrik 23:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be saying there should be a permanent POV tag. Do you really mean that? Paul B 23:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Any historian can make an historical judgment about whether or not something or someone is historical without reference to religious implications. We could question whether Buddha was an historical person with that train of logic.drboisclair 00:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The POV Notice doesn't just apply to whether he existed, it applies to anything including what he himself taught. For example, one of concerns I have is many scholars who investigate Jesus have less than desirable knowledge about Judaism, and thus can't interpret him in his own Jewish context. Jesus has a religion, is even an expert in that religion, and it isn't Christianity.

And that is POV in itself: "desirable knowledge". One should just have expertise in the particular topic of Jesus, although an understanding of Judaism and Judaica is helpful. drboisclair 00:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

A scholar must have a clue what they are talking about. It is absurd for a scholar to claim to be an expert on Chairman Mao, if that scholar doesn't speak Chinese or even understand Chinese culture. Likewise it's ridiculous for scholars to claim to be an expert on Jesus if they don't speak Dead Sea Scroll Hebrew (and Aramaic) and understand ancient Jewish culture.

• Support. There is only dispute from one individual Paul B 23:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support. It appears as if Jesus himself were being singled out for criticism. Why not put POV flags on all religious figures in history? drboisclair 23:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

This article is about "jesus" not other historical figures for whom there tends to be at least SOME evidence.

• Support ^rossnixon 00:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

WHat a shame that one editor saw fit to remove the POV less than 24 hours after this mockery of a vote began and only 36 hours after the tag had been applied. I have restored it. Things are still disputed. More than one editor agrees. There is not consensus /. Robsteadman 17:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not a vote but a summary of opinions. If the vast majority agree with what is fair and reasonable then I would hope that the minority would continue working on reducing perceived POV without trying to grand stand. At this point I don't see a majority but I can see where it is headed. I have no particular bias in this article as there is no doubt that Jesus was one of the most important figures in history regardless of whether he actually existed or not. I am not an SME so won't be making critical assessments of discrete facts but I will be keeping an eye on this talk page to ensure we are working on the article rather than pontificating on our own view of the world. For those who consistently disagree with how the article is being revised you may wish to consider WP:COOLing your heels and walking away from it for a while. Remember that you are supposed to WP:ENJOY your editing experience. Garglebutt / (talk) 22:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I was going to say something, but then I realized I'd be pontificating on my own worldview. So instead I will just strongly affirm what Garglebutt has said. Amen. From this time forward, let cooler heads prevail.Arch O. La 23:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Any more discussion?

(Says going away for the evening...) --CTSWyneken 21:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

1. Neutral on all four. This is becoming far too political, as per "Further Clarity" below. Arch O. La 22:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC) Addendum I think we all need to step back from political and ideological gridlock, and return to the collegial atmosphere of Wikipedia. Arch O. La 05:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't the date range earlier than 8-4 BC to start with anyway or am I remembering wrong? Homestarmy 22:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The date range was "later": 6 BC/BCE-4 BC/BCE. There are some scholars who believe that the Herod the Great eclipse of 4 BC/BCE was later in 1 AD/CE. drboisclair 00:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I am amazed folks! All I wanted to do is let people know what the outstanding issues were and ask for discussion. (OK, and I ran away, I admit it!) I come back and a full blown vote is underway. I'll check back in the morn, but I'd expect we need to talk a bit more.

May I ask that we not egg each other on, offer our opinions of the facts and focus on the question, which is, what do the scholars in this field say about each issue? While I want done with this paragraph and wish we could have had a week off from its discussion, I don't think we need to be in a hurry here.

I want to thank Haldrik for the Finnegan reference. I could use help with the footnotes, BTW. I need precise page references to document what we are saying. For instance, where exactly does Finnegan advocate 2 BC/BCE as the birth date of Jesus?

Finegan is technical reading, but he lays the argument out plainly enough in §549. (He uses section numbers instead of page numbers.) Haldrik 04:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

As I continue my documentation, I'll check to see what the scholars say about the historicity of Jesus. --CTSWyneken 03:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually the scholars in the bibliography are good and representative of the current scholarly consensus. (Or at least representative of the current scholarly debate. ;) ) A couple more scholars who are important are Charlesworth and Flusser. Haldrik 04:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

To follow the rules of wp:cite and wp:npov, we need to note exactly where an assertion or series of assertions is found in scholarly literature. If you look at notes 1, 2 and 3, you'll notice I've begun this. That way, if someone says, "wait a sec! It's just your opinion that..." We can say, "no it is the opinion of so-and-so on page such and such. That ends the debate as far as whether an fact or opinion is allowed in a wiki article.

On that I could use some assistance. We need references to the far ends of all four dates: earliest birth, latest birth, earliest death, latest death. The ones I've cited to date are in agreement on 4-5 BC/BCE for birth and I've not documented death dates yet.

I haven't yet finished the majority opinion cites in note 2, nor many of the nonexistence hypothesis works. (These are not at our library, and I'll need to pull them in from somewhere to establish them). As a good will gesture, may I suggest we suspend debate and have everyone work on this until we have no naked names in the notes?

As to why these specific names in the majority list, we want to show that scholars of very different views, some of them non-Christian and pehaps some of them atheistic, all agree on the basic description in paragraph 2. So far, this appears to be correct.

This morning, if time permits, I'll see what I can find out about Finnegan for our cited authors bios page, and, if the work is in my library, report here that I have a cite from him arguing the 2 BCE/BC date. If this is the case, I'll ask to add the cite and expand the date range on a "without objection" basis. I DO NOT WANT ANOTHER VOTE ... PLEASE! Is this sensible? --CTSWyneken 12:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Further Clarity

Rob, I submit that "Bright" is an attempt to lower the rational to the level of the political. I assert that your statements about "faith" are political statements. I leave it as an exercise to the reader whether politics is properly rational, irrational or nonrational. Arch O. La 22:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention that according to Wikipedia, Rob has faith...not in God (apparently...correct me if I'm wrong), but to a proposition or idea or set of ideas, including that there is no supernatural, no divine, no God. That takes a great deal of faith, in my view. But we digress. KHM03 22:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Rob will dispute the connotation. As per faith, his stance is "belief", "trust" or "confidence." Arch O. La 22:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

If it's a strong enough belief, it can still be faith! KHM03 22:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

But...this conversation probably belongs at Talk:Faith. KHM03 22:10, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and Rob adheres to Paul's definition in Hebrews 11:1, and rejects that kind of "faith". Arch O. La 22:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course, none of this has anything to do with this article, or with Rob's abilities as an editor. Let's stop. KHM03 22:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with the article itself nor with Rob's ability as an editor, but with the debates over the article. I think it tends to put it all into persepctive. Arch O. La 23:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Who is competent?

I do not wish to strain the voting in the above section on the POV flag with another comment about who is competent to speak and write about Jesus. The unsigned editor who made the statement above that only one who could speak Dead Sea Aramaic is the only one qualified to speak or write about Jesus is applying too strict a qualification IMHO. Jesus did not speak Dead Sea Aramaic. He spoke first century Aramaic.

Dead Sea Scroll Hebrew (usually DSS Hebrew) is simply the name for 1st century Hebrew (and earlier), which is a set of dialects in between Late Biblical Hebrew and Early Mishnaic Hebrew. (Dead Sea Scroll Aramaic includes 1st Century Aramaic.) Before the Dead Sea Scrolls, a number of scholars held that Jesus spoke Aramaic. However, in light of the linguistic evidence of the Dead Sea Scrolls, it's probable Jesus is speaking a dialect of Hebrew. Over 90% of the writings from before year 70 are written in Hebrew, and Jesus is probably speaking Hebrew too, since that is the language of his day.Haldrik 02:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

So you would acknowledge that the Greek New Testament Gospels are historical because you acknowledge that Jesus spoke Aramaic. Only from the Synoptic Greek New Testament do we know that Jesus spoke Aramaic. Many scholars point out that since Hellenistic times all the residents of Judea, Samaria, and Galilee in the first century were BILINGUAL. The only evidence of the existence of the existence of Jesus in Hebrew and Aramaic is in the Talmud either Babylonian or that of Jerusalem. The only historical contemporary record of him is in Greek or Latin. If one denies the validity of using sources in languages other than Aramic or Hebrew one would have to exclude the writings of Philo and Josephus. You would also have to exclude the Septuagint, which is a Greek translation of the Old Testament Scriptures. Knowledge of Hebrew and Aramaic are helpful, but they are not the primary sources for understanding the life or the teachings of Jesus.drboisclair 17:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course, an expert on Jesus must master Greek, as well as Hebrew/Aramaic. Jesus lived in one language and culture, but the records about him are only extant in another language of culture. Scholars must master both, to distinguish between the two, so as to triangulate to the historical Jesus himself.

By the way, the linguistic research from Hebrew University suggests Jesus probably spoke an archaic dialect of Hebrew (not Aramaic).

Jesus belongs to the Proto-Rabbinic stream of Jewish tradition. An expert on Jesus must be completely proficient with Mishnah. Although it is from over a century later, it preserves earlier traditions and helps triangulate to Jesus's worldview. Haldrik 12:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

He also is reputed to have spoken Koine Greek as well.

Jesus probably knows some Greek because of architectural work at nearby Sephoras, but that doesn't mean the people who he teaches speak Greek.Haldrik 02:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

This type of credential would stymie knowledge.

Demanding that scholars have a clue what they are talking about would stymie errors and fantasies.Haldrik 02:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes it does because it does not acknowledge that pertinent information, if fact primary information comes from languages other than Hebrew and Aramaic. drboisclair 17:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree a Jesus scholar must also master Greek. To a lesser degree Latin. But they must know how to "see through" the Greek to the original Hebrew Jesus. Haldrik 12:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

With this type of logic, the only one who could speak or write about Shakespeare would be one who could speak Elizabethan English as his or her primary language.drboisclair 17:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Obviously, a person can know more than one language. A scholar who can't speak English, can't claim to be an expert on Shakespeare. A person who doesn't understand archaic English can't claim to be an expert.

A person who doesn't understand the symbolism, ideologies, social structure, values and assumptions of the Renaissance Era, can't be an expert on Shakespeare. Haldrik 02:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

There are people who do not speak English as their primary language that are eminent scholars of Shakespeare and John Webster, eg.drboisclair 17:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if English is their first language, they must become completely proficient in Elizabethan English and culture. Haldrik 12:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Besides knowing Dead Sea Aramaic would only accomplish part of the competency for speaking and writing about Jesus. One might ask: are there any sources about Jesus written in Dead Sea Aramaic? The Dead Sea Scrolls, produced in the second century BC/BCE, were produced by a secluded sect that had their community in the Judean wilderness. The discovery of the scrolls in 1947 was one of the greatest finds of the twentieth century, but any connection of them to Jesus is just as tenuous as someone speaking about him who does not speak their language. drboisclair 01:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

It has to do with understanding the historical context.Haldrik 02:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

However, that only gives the historian a small part of such historical context. drboisclair 17:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Eh, I see the value in contextualization, and that's arguably Rob's point as well. But I tire of the debates over credentials. Arch O. La 23:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Technically speaking, as God, He could speak any language if He wanted to :D. But seriously, thanks for the added opinion, we'll need all the help we can get if we can resolve the issues with this article. Homestarmy 01:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

How Often Should We Take a Vote?

I'd like to contribute to the Jesus article, but if we're supposed to literally take a VOTE on EACH word or number, that seems insane. At some point, we have to trust each other an integrate each other's opinions. Haldrik 08:58, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I agree the voting has gotten out of hand lately (which is why I voted neutral this last round). Unfortunately, we have recently had editors who make big objections about what are IMHO minor issues. Again I assert the hope that we can be more collegial. Arch O. La 09:12, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree that voting has gotten out of hand. In some cases, where there has been a great deal of discussion involving many people, it is a useful way of getting a sense of where things stand. But it cannot be a substitute for discussion. for example, many people oppose my deletion of Pharisees and Saducees. But none of them say why, and none of them respond to my reasons. Look, you can disagree, but you need to have reasons. The discussion of that edit involved only a few people and was very brief. I am not demanding that my edit stand, and the edit history makes it clear that I am sincere. But I think it is a mockery of the talk page, which is for discussion, when people vote when they did not participate at all in the discussion. This doesn't mean that their views must be dismissed. On the contrary, I am asking them to express their views. "Oppose" or "support" does not do that. Let's have a meaningful discussion. I feel the same way about the date issue. Look, we have talked to death "critical scholars" and a poll is very reasonable at this point. I am not saying that the issue of where the put the dates or whether or not to say Pharisees and Saducees merits as much discussion, but surely there is a happy medium between excessive discussion and practically no discussion at all. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey, in my view, voting (after discussion) sure beats continual arguing, namecalling, bringing up the same points over and over and over, and a protected article. KHM03 12:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but on this particular issue (Pharisees and Saducees) it is difficult to understand the reasons for opposing. Only two editors have given reasons. Homestarmy says "Without mention of those guys, you lose some very specific background information from the main source the article admits is used, the gospels." But no-one is suggesting that all mention of "these guys" be deleted from the artcle, just that these were not the "Jewish authorities" and should not be labelled as such at this point. So this objection is misconceived. The other argument was from Rob, who gnomically asserted "but find a way to refer to Judean". I assume that's a reference to the Judeans v Galileans argument, but it's far from clear, nor indeed it it clear why this argument has any relevance to the inclusion of "Pharisees and Saducees" at this point. This does make me wonder if some of the voters are clear about what exactly is being voted on. Paul B 12:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Paul. KHM03, do you honestly believe that there has been "continual arguing, namecalling, bringing up the same points over and over and over" in the discussion on deleting the Pharisees and Saducees reference? Frankly, I just do not see how you could say this. As far as I can tell, about seven people participated in a discussion that took place over the space of about 34 hours. And it seems to me that this was a very civil and thoughtful discussion. So how you can characterize it as involving name-calling and arguing and bringing up the same points over and over is really beyond me. The result of this discussion was that four people (including me) agreed with the cut, and one person stated he has no objection; no one actively objected to the cut. It just doesn't seem right to me that a large group of people who did not participate in this discussion are voting "opposed" without even providing their reasoning. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to you. KHM03 13:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, your comment came right after mine about the lack of discussion on Pharisees and Saducees. But I am glad you weren't refering to what I wrote. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

beleive it or not I hate voting too and if you look at all of the other talk apges I frwequent, NONE, i don;t push for a vote on any of them...but things are different here and discussion seems fruitless on certain issues with certain users and a vote demonstrates consensus on issues that ahve reached the full benefit of discussion. Although I agree with the Saducee Pharissee thing (I didn;t make that motion).

Seems like a good majority are in favor of removing the tag, can I remove it?Gator (talk) 13:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

First, on the Pharisees thing, what if we made it say something along the lines of "...Pharisees, Sadducees, and the leading Jewish authorities"? Nextly, I think the vote seems pretty done on pretty much everything, is this even enough for consensus on the tag? Homestarmy 13:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

It just seems to me like too much detail to put in a first paragraph. What is wrong with "Jewish authorities?" It is accurate - the only thing "wrong" with it is that it is very general. But introductions always provide general information, using the body of the article to go into the details. What purpose is served by listing various kinds of authority, and various groops of people vying for authority, in the introduction? Slrubenstein | Talk 14:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

It just seems to me it's not that big an addition is all :/. Besides, if it gets too general people might lose interest in the article and just stop reading. Homestarmy 14:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, it opens u-p a big can of worms as to what kind of authority and authority over whom. That said, I am sure you can't seriously believe that using the phrase "Jewish authorities" without going into any greater detail will cause anyone to lose interest in the article and stop reading, can you? Slrubenstein | Talk 14:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

It just reads really vauge and disinterested to me if all we say are "Jewish authorities". Many people are already familiar with Jesus since Christianity is such an expansive religion, they'll probably be looking for mention of the Pharisees and Saducees up front, I don't see it getting too slow of a read if we mention them. Homestarmy 14:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough - except for one thing. This is the paragraph on what most critical Bible scholars and historians believe, and many of them question whether Jesus was really at odds with the Pharisees. Moreover, I do not think that the Gospels provide any account of him being at odds with the Saducees. If we are going to expand on "Jewish authorities" in this paragraph, it isn't enough to put what you or even I think was a Jewish authority back then. We would have to see if historians agree on which Jewish authorities Jesus was at odds with. And here, I think most scholars are divided. We can safely say most critical historians believe Jesus existed. But if we go on to specify "Saducees and Pharisees," we would have to delete the "most." Slrubenstein | Talk 15:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. If there is genuine scholarly disagreement (not true for Jesus' existence) then in order to remain accurate I think we need to add "jewish authorities" or something along those lines. i don;t think we're dealing with the same kind of fringe minority viewpoint here. Are we? Gator (talk) 15:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

What about "Most historians believe He was in conflict with the local Jewish authorities, but not necessarily the Pharisees and Saducees mentioned in the gospels."? Homestarmy 15:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I propose "Most historians believe He was in conflict with the local Jewish authorities" and leave it at that (IF there is a real scholarly dispute here).Gator (talk) 15:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm aware of several scholars who would disagree that Jesus was at odds with any Jewish authority at all, in fact the evidence points more to that he was instead at odds with or a threat to Roman authority. Hyam Maccoby for example, makes a good case for Jesus being an average Pharisee, with all the constant questioning of him being typical among members. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 16:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Since I am trying to document all this, would you provide a citation for me, so that I can check on it. Also, do you have a little bio on this author, so we can know who he is? Thanks! --CTSWyneken 16:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I'll look up a citation. I only have a moment now, so for now, to help with his bio, there is a Wikipedia article on him: Hyam Maccoby and there is his obit in the Guardian. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 20:55, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! The help is very much appreciated! --CTSWyneken 21:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, got this one now too.... From Maccoby, The Mythmaker, chapter="Why Was Jesus Crucified?", p.46-47: "Jesus was a man who was born into Jewish society in Galilee; he was not a divine being who descended from outer space in order to suffer death on behalf of mankind. If we want to know why Jesus was killed, we have to ask why a Jew from Galilee in those times might meet his end on a Roman cross. Many Jews from Galilee died in the same way during this period. Judas of Galilee was a Jewish patriot who led an armed rebellion against the Romans. At one time, while Jesus was a boy, four thousand Jews were crucified by the Romans for an insurrection against Roman taxes. Crucifixion was the cruel form of execution which the Romans used for rebels against their rule. Galilee was always a centre of rebellion, partly because it was not under direct Roman rule and, therefore, like Vichy France during the last World War, gave some scope for the organization of resistance. The presumption is, therefore, that Jesus the Galilean who died on the cross did so for the same reason as others: because he was a threat to the Roman occupation." and it goes on... --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 21:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Moratorium

Dear fellow editors:

I do think it is possible for us to come to a consensus (which we have in the past) and to do it without name-calling, analyzing each other's motives, disparaging scholars, repeating the same arguments over and over, etc. (which we have not)

I'd propose (as I did earlier implicitly when I posted the current paragraph 2) a moratorium on changes in paragraphs 1 and 2. This will allow us to take a break from this discussion, come back with fresh minds and clearer views, do the reading and citation we really should be doing, and allow us to practice civil discourse on the issues.

Does anyone object? If so, don't vote;' discuss. 8-) --CTSWyneken 13:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Well we're still going over the Pharisee/Saducee thing for the moment it seems. Homestarmy 14:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

So, let's talk. Or rather, you all talk. I'll research. --CTSWyneken 14:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

While there are still things that need editing what is the point? WHen it's perfect that's fine, until then we shou ld be striving to make this better. Robsteadman 16:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Striving for improvement is good, but is perfection humanly possible? As for analyzing motives, I am attempting to understand and to seperate that understanding from value judgements. But, that's just me.Arch O. La 17:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

(Arch O. La -- Perfection is possible!  ;) KHM03 18:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

That is divine perfection. Arch O. La 22:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The point is so that we stop abusing each other. Witness below. --CTSWyneken 20:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

It would be nice to have more debate about the article and the facts being used and less ad hominem attacks and personal smears. Robsteadman 20:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Capsule Bio of Jack Finegan Begun

I have begun a bio of Finegan at talk:Jesus/Cited Authors Bios--CTSWyneken 15:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

More Pics

Whew, tough subject. Anyway, here is a masterpiece by Blake if the page ever gets unlocked again.Dave 14:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Finegan on the Birthdate of Jesus

Hey, Haldrik! Thanks for the reference. Finegan's book is very nicely done. I have here an earlier edition from Princeton University Press, and it doesn't contain the sections in your edition that you cited. In mine, section 392, page 248 says: "Perhaps a date for the birth of Jesus sometime in the winter of 5/4 BC (Finegan's dating scheme) best satisfied all the available evidence." Does your edition have that sentence? Either way, does he make a similar statement in the paragraph you cited in favor of 2 BC/BCE? --CTSWyneken 16:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Finegan's 1998 revised edition still covers in great detail the arguments for the earlier possible dates for Jesus's birth (c. 5 BCE) assuming Herod's 4 BCE death. But I think he shocked the scholarly community when his revision finally concluded the scholars who argued for a later birth date based on Herod's 1 BCE death were probably right. I think for Finegan, what changed his mind was the possibility of a precise, reliable date for Herod's conquest of Judea. It was in a Sabbatical Year on the day of Atonement. This information allows an exact date: 36 BCE. Once you count off 34 regnal years (starting with the first Jewish New Year), you simply do end up with Herod's death in 1 BCE, and thus the plausibility of Jesus's birth in 3/2 BCE. Today there are many scholars who acknowledge the possibility of the later date, whether they prefer it or not. Haldrik 22:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I assumed this was the case. Is there a page number at all in the revised edition? If not, I'll cite it by section number, providing folk here are OK with expanding the date range to include 2 BC. Personally. I buy Paul Maier's argument for 5 BC/BCE and 33 AD/CE for birth and death dates, but it is scholarship in the field that matters on this topic. The most practical way, IMHO, is to set the range of dates proposed by historians and Biblical scholars. --CTSWyneken 22:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Refusal of one person to remove the neutrality flag

The vote on this matter has been taken. Those who are working on this article are working on it in good faith and are committed to NPOV. The refusal of one person to allow it to be removed betrays the presence of POV in that person. This matter should be appealed to editors for their decision. I ask that since the vote has been taken, and the vote has gone to those who want it to be removed. It should be removed. drboisclair 17:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The vote had been for less than 24 hours. ONly 10 votes and 3 voted to retain it. The vopte should be for longer and, perhpas, some debate to see if consensus could be achieved. It currently is NOT a consensus. Robsteadman 17:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

That is your POV on what consensus is. Consensus on this matter, since it concerns one action, involves the majority that vote on the matter. Majority rules at least in democracies.drboisclair 17:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The vote wasn't given long enough. The discussion wasn't given long enough. Stop reverting. Robsteadman 17:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess that both of us can't do it again, right WP:3RR, right? drboisclair 17:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

SO you;re admitting no consensus and only about 18 hours to vote and only 10 votes and yet still acting upon that? Appalling. The POV is still disputed. There is no consensus. Mor time and discussion is needed not just silly votes. How can we make this less POV because I still think the bulk of the article is heavily POV. Robsteadman 17:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that's because you want the intro to be "Jesus did not exist" Deskana (talk) 17:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

not at all - I want things to be accurate and verifiable. We cannot verify those dates - only that some scholars have an opinion that they might be rioght. What is presented is that he did live between those dates. Unverifiable and POV.Robsteadman 19:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

That apparently is the person's POV. drboisclair 17:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The biggest problem I have with Rob is that he frequently states "This is against Wikipedia policy!" and is unable to state which policy it is against, or says "This is against NPOV!" where it clearly isn't. NPOV policy dictates that all POVs are represented, not that the article has a singular POV that is neutral. In order for an article to be NPOV it should represent all major viewpoints/POVs. That's NPOV... Deskana (talk) 18:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Just so I practice what I preach. I removed the tag per the consensus. There was a consensus and you just need to accept it and stop the wikilawyering. If you want it restored, please attempt to persuade a consensus to restore it in the talk page. But, at this point, the burden is on you and one person with a POV dispute is simply not enough, especially if the consensus has shown that you'll never be satisfied unles you get your way. The POV tag will remain on the page forever and that's not what its meant for. I hate going through this again, but you really need to learn how to respect consensus. We're all slaves to it. Sometimes it works in our favor and someitmes (most of the time) it doesn't. Your on the losing side this time, but probably won't be the next time.Gator (talk) 17:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

There was NOT a consensus and the vote was not given long enough. This is steam,rollering a decision by a handful of POV pushers. Outrageous. But useful extra evidence at the abuse this page is suffering at the hands of those who do not want to present the factual accurtate and verifiable. Robsteadman 19:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Rob, by the way, how goes the evidence gathering, im looking forward to defending myself and your keeping us all in suspense! Homestarmy 22:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Removing POV from the below cited sentence

"However, citing what they consider a lack of extant contemporaneous documents making reference to him, a small minority of others question the historicity of Jesus."

Unless this sentence has this phrase that KHMO3 put in it is POV. That is as plain as the nose on one's face, but I agree: let's vote on it. drboisclair 18:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

That's why I keep reinserting it. It is one's opinion as to whether or not there is a lack. —Aiden 18:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I hated to remove it, but we did reach a consensus here after a lot of hard work adn no changes should be amde to that paragraph unless discussed (which is why I'm abit surprised why this wasn;t brought up when we were goign through all of this for 2 days straight but oh well) I'm sick of voting though. Let's just discuss whether what they consider should be inserted into that paragraph. I think it should. Anyone else?Gator (talk) 18:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Eh, I'm not sure what "what they consider" is supposed to refer to. Perception of lack? Perhaps that is their POV. The conclusion that there is not enough empirical support for the historical Jesus? That is definitely their POV and has been challenged as an argument from silence fallacy. The definition of extant contemporaneous documents? That has been discussed. Here's where it's gets confusing: Is the definition their POV or ours? And what is the fact of the matter?

So while there is some POV I'm not sure how much of it is the POV of the "small minority." Frankly, I've confused myself out of any position on this matter. I will forward to further comment. Arch O. La 18:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

"What they consider" is POV - they cite a lack, they cite the lack - the point is they say there is no evidence - it is both verifiable that that is what they cite and it is verifiable that there are no extant documents. Robsteadman 19:15, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Then take it up with the academy. Because they don't see it your way, Rob. KHM03 19:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. As far as I can tell it is only a small minority of fundamentalists that believe any of the NT was written within "jesus" supposed life. Hardly anyone in fact. And the accepted dates of the gospels (see the Brown book) are 68 onwards. Academia does not say there are documents from within his life htat mention him. Maybe it is you who needs to chat with them? ;-)Robsteadman 20:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, Rob, I agree with contemporary Biblical critics, Mark being the earliest Gospel, dating from around 70 (of course, Paul's letters are probably 15 years older...but I digress). My point is that critics can't prove their theories, they can't absolutely verify them, which is why we have fundamentalists who have different presumed dates. I see you're perfectly willing to accept academia's dates for the dating of the Gospels, even though there's no real verification beyond informed, educated guesswork. Why not accept that academia might also maintain that ancient figures (like Jesus) actually lived? It seems a bit of a double standard to me. KHM03 22:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The opposite. It is only a small minority of Secular Humanist fundamentalists that believe it's ok to conclude Socrates existed based on indirect evidence but not ok to conclude Jesus existed based on indirect evidence. Haldrik 22:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

If someone alters the version on the article page, I will also revert it, just as gator1 did. We come to a consensus about a change here first. If you agreed to my intent above, I expect the same.

At this point, I think my call for a moritorium is well-justified. Everyone: just chill! --CTSWyneken 20:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Unless the change is an improvement.... Robsteadman 20:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration

This conflict pitting one user, Robsteadman, against the vast majority of balanced fair editors of this article is never going end at this rate. Rob completely ignores consensus, advocates only his POV, and relentlessly edit-wars until his objectives are acheived. I feel we should request arbitration of the article and seek an injunction against Rob's ability to edit the article. He's violated WP:3RR, WP:NPOV, and countless other policies during his 'reign of terror'. —Aiden 18:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I find the term "reign of terror" particularly offensive. But thanks for more evidence. Robsteadman 20:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll second that emotion, although it will mean war. But this has got to end. I feel that we're all being held hostage here.Gator (talk) 18:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Rob, I actually like having you around for no other reason than you have a different POV from those with a Christian perspective. However, I also find you to be overly disruptive. Yes, I understand, as well as everyone else, your position that factual evidence does not exist. Yes, we understand that there are scholars that support that position. No, they are not the majority. They are not even a significant minority. They are a very small group that contends Jesus did not exist. You have registered your POV and we are aware of it. I ask that you now move on and address the article as a whole and accept that your position has already been accounted for in the article. When you fight so hard and become so obstinate, you lose the respect of your fellow editors and your POV is shut out almost completely. You have become a source of conflict and contention. Please recognize that your current methods are not working. Find another way to interact with your fellow editors so that your POV is at least a chance of being heard. Storm Rider 18:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you read the following: Talk:Jesus/Comment_or_arbitration -- Deskana (talk) 18:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Storm Rider. Rob had established himself as someone who will challenge concensus, which on the one hand is valuable to help avoid groupthink, but on the other hand can be taken too far. Rob, there are points that you make that are technically valid, but you place more weight on them than many of the rest of us. Also, I think many of us take issue not with your rational data but with the value judgements you place on such data. I know that perception of political and social repression is part of the Bright meme, but consider that that might be a self-fulfilling prophecy (in the sociological sense, not in the religious sense). Consider other ways of getting your point across. Aiden, there has been some discussion on this. Rob has in the past violated 3RR and been sanctioned for it. If he continues to violate policy than further sanctions would certainly appropriate, although I suspect he would simply take it as further evidence of what he calls "protectionism." I will say again that I take exception not with his worldview, but with his behavior, some of which has been sanctioned in the past. Again, Rob, try other ways of getting your point across that may be less polarizing. Arch O. La 18:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Let me say that I favor retention of the POV notice for now. I think we need to give Rob (or anyone else, for that matter) an opportunity to list what issues need to be addressed in order to satisfy NPOV. Now, the consensus here may not agree with Rob as to what consititutes POV/NPOV, but we ought to give him a formal opportunity to list these concerns, see what we can do, and then talk about removing the notice. I think we can still take this step at reconciliation. KHM03 18:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem is we have to have like, what, 2 people who can say they've privately tried to resolve the conflict, and the best example we have is from a person who won't get involved anymore because the evidence we were getting supposedly favored Rob's worldview as an excuse. Homestarmy 18:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Instead of asking for Arbitration why not just make the article NPOV? Much easier. Provie facts. Make it all verifiable and accurate.REmove the bias and POV slant that still exists. Robsteadman 19:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

". . . the bias and POV slant . . . still exists" in your POV. drboisclair 20:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Sp you're happy with the article? You think it reads totally factually? Unbiased? The average uniformed reader woul get an accuarate view of the subject from reading this? Robsteadman 20:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I am happy with it as a work in progress. I am glad that Revisionist Jesus-Myth advocates are given a say in it even when in hard copy encyclopedias they are not given notice. drboisclair 20:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Rob is claiming to plan on filing an RFC against "POV pushers" in the article when his 3d 3RR block expires. We may not ahve a choice but to take action if he does that. Unfortunate.Gator (talk) 17:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to Rob filing an RfC. In fact, maybe we can work with him to file one for the entire article...his allegations of POV pushing, the allegations about him re: violations of WP:NPOV, WP:CIV, WP:POINT, etc. Let's clean up the whole ship. KHM03 17:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Im looking forward to defending myself in a court of arbitration! Mostly cus i've never been in one before and I know my position isn't really attackable....Homestarmy 23:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Revisionist Jesus-Myth advocates in denial

As a scholar and an historian I would like to draw a few parallels and make a few observations. I think that it is safe to make a comparison of those who maintain that Jesus never existed as an historical person with "Flat Earth Society" advocates and "Holocaust Revisionists". I am appalled at the lack of objectivity in such so-called scholars. The upshot is that they get their way by having their POV represented in this article, and they are not satisfied. They offend the basic philosophical principle to be seekers after the truth. Instead they supress the proof and ignore the facts. I guess it is hard for them. They are in denial as one might say in Pschology. They should not feel as threatened about the historical fact of Jesus' existence, which the vast majority of scholars accept as factual as the existence of the emperor Caesar Augustus. My counsel to them is not to be threatened by people who think differently than they do. I don't feel threatened by them. drboisclair 18:56, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree; at Jesus-Myth, one editor on the talk page likened the theory to Atlantis and creationism as pseudoscience...an observation I found pretty astute. Most importantly for our purposes, however, academia views the theory in the same way, so it's irrelevant what drboisclair and KHM03 think of it. We need simply to state the views of academia, which overwhelmingly believes Jesus to have existed (though they obviously cannot affirm any theological claims). KHM03 19:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, and I like having them around and having their views aired. I have a problem, though, when they insist on their own POV to the exclusion of others. They are driven by a passion that belies feeling threatened by others thinking differently than they do. I know what I am talking about. Years ago when I was in High School and college I was the same way about my thinking. That is why I think that Wikipedia's principles of NPOV are admirable: it is the quest to be as objective as you can be while seeking the truth--philosophical or factual. Let's be factual, objective, serene, collegial, and respectful. drboisclair 19:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

If you are, indeed, an historian (and not just a "christian" apologist) you will agree that there is no extant contemporaneous proof that "{jesus" existed - not one document from within his lifetime and, at best, you can say that it is your OPINION that he existed based on documents written decades either by those attempting to spread his story or by people doctoring articles. If you wish to claim it as FACT that he existed show me the evidence - until then stick to being honest and encyclopedic. Scholarship without evidence is merely opinion. Robsteadman 19:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Rob...there are few historical records of any first century Palestinian peasant. The evidence for Jesus' life, by comparison, is overwhelming. More importantly, though, for Wikipedia...we're not here to discuss the veracity of the Jesus-Myth folks or their research; we're here to reiterate what academia has said. And that's pretty clear. KHM03 19:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Robsteadman, I am sorry that you feel threatened by those who think differently than you do. Your historical criteria are more strigent than any others. One should point to the sociological factors. You are most likely an atheistic apologist yourself. Prove that he did not exist, and that will be as stringent a proof as you demand. Where did you get your education? drboisclair 19:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

As long as the artiucle states that largely "christian" scholars have a particular opinion I have no problems - that is factual and veriufiable.

Robsteadman 19:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Robsteadman, I am sorry that you feel threatened by those who think differently than you do. Your historical criteria are more strigent than any others. One should point to the sociological factors. You are most likely an atheistic apologist yourself. Prove that he did not exist, and that will be as stringent a proof as you demand. Where did you get your education? drboisclair 19:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Any intelligent person knows it is not possible to prove a negative as you suggest. However, if there is one scrap of proof please provide it. What has my education or anything to do with me got to do with it? Do stay on subject. Robsteadman 19:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Rob, I understand the distinction that you are making between fact and informed opinion. I also understand from your Quizfarm scores that you are unconfortable with a minor reification that most of us accept, perhaps uncritically. I did ask you earlier, what is truth? Even under the correspondence theory of truth, their is a distinction between fact and truth, based on uncertainty. The historians have followed Sherlock Holmes in eliminating the impossible and affirming the possible (however improbable) as truth. There is fact, their is opinion and then there is truth. The historical existence of Jesus has been accepted as a truth (not fact) that is amenable to further evidence should such further evidence be found. Arch O. La 19:25, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I just want NPOV verifiable. The article does not do that at present. Robsteadman 19:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Most of the New Testament dates to the first century. That's pretty good. KHM03 19:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Much of it 2 generations after "jesus" supposedly died! Robsteadman 19:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Prove it. KHM03 19:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

do we really need to go through the dates of these things again?!!! Gospels between 68-120 CE. Paul's letters perhaps a little earlier - but his info came in "dreams" so hardly evidence. Robsteadman 19:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

You have hard evidence for these dates? Photos, video, something definite? Or is this just the best "guesswork" of informed scholars? KHM03 19:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Touché! However, there is a huge difference in dating documents and saying that the contents (unverified elsewhere) are accurate. Robsteadman 19:49, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

With respect, Arch O. La, the existence of Jesus is held to be a fact too. To Steadman, you must be an advocate of A.J. Ayer, who held to his verifiability principle, which itself was unverifiable. I submit that Mr. Robert Steadman is pushing a burden of proof that far exceeds the requirements of Wikipedia. Standard encyclopedias present Jesus Christ as an historical personage. Mr. Steadman would make Wikipedia different from all others. He is asking too much here. I think that we can object to the historicity of the Jesus-Myth people just as much. drboisclair 19:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

One does not need to ascribe to A.J. Ayer's logical positivisim to hold this view. It's a reasonable debate. The Flat-Earth analogy is completely inappropriate as it suggest that there is an equal amount of evidence for a real Jesus as there is for the Earth being round. That is absurd and only an attempt to belittle a valid viewpoint. The are only two pieces of extra-biblical evidence of Jesus which have any reliability, and only one of those has any decent reliability, but that is a very short passage by Josephus. Even that is debatable. There is, thus, not enough evidence to regard his existence as a given, but there is enough to consider it reasonably possible. Many assume that Jesus existed, I think that is a reasonable assumption, but I also think that those who choose to assume Jesus did not exist is just as reasonable. Its not an established fact. As you well know the Bible is not a reliable historical document--its basically a propaganda tool by adherents. There were many other myths identical to the Jesus-myth (if we take that POV), so it would not be strange to suppose it as a continuation of that same religious super-hero archetype. Even among the scholars of the Jesus Seminar, they believe that 80% of what the NT acribes as the word of Jesus is can not be thought to be credible. As Prof. Price says, "There may have been a historical Jesus of Nazareth, too, but, unlike most of my colleagues in the Jesus Seminar, I don't think we can simply assume there was." [3] You keep asking for your opponents education, but his views are shared by the likes of very educated scholars who are authorities in their field, like Prof. Price whose degrees include:

• Doctor of Philosophy, New Testament; Drew University, Madison NJ; May 1993
• Master of Philosophy, New Testament; Drew University, Madison NJ; October 1992
• Doctor of Philosophy, Systematic Theology; Drew University, Madison NJ; May, 1981
• Master of Theological Studies, New Testament; Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, South Hamilton MA; May 1978
• Bachelor of Arts, Philosophy and Religion; History; Montclair State College, Upper Montclair *NJ; May 1976 [4] I think we should give both sides of this debate more respect. Giovanni33 09:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, by one definition of "fact"; but the point is that we are arguing with Rob over the definition of "fact," and beyond that to standards of evidence. We have been arguing this for some time, and it's not getting us anywhere. (This quite aside from my religious convictions, which Rob has professed that he is not open to). Arch O. La 19:53, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Giovanni is right. A.J. Ayer's "verifiability principle" has nothing to do with this issue. We are talking about historical method. The Jesus-Myth is a legitimate one, but a very fringe view. However, it's not remotely comparable to Flat Earth theory. Paul B 09:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, Paul, though the analogy should rather be creationism than the FES, but both reject the methodological standards of a branch of scholarship to deny one of its findings. This starts with unfounded restrictions of what is admitted as source: Gio demands extra-biblical sources and he gets what he wants (but appearently these aren't enough), Rob rejects all sources (by redefining contemporary or by creating unreasonable criteria of exclusion) and then complains about there being no sources (but somehow does care about this only in regard to Jesus). Gio is right that many assume that Jesus existed without checking evidence - however, for historians it is only reasonable to assume the existence of a person reported in sources unless there are valid reasons for that person to not have existed. Rob (and those who agree with him) disagrees with the historical craft, but that cannot be our standard here (He may form a non-existence society or dine with Mr Fomenko). This article already gives more to a unscholarly fringe POV than it actually should. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not talking about the reasonableness of Rob or Giovanni, but of the theory. I certainly don't think it's plausible myself, but the myth theory has had a long history of over a century. It arose from speculations about a human need for mythic archetypes and supposed correspondences between the Jesus-stories and pre-existing myths. Essentially it holds that "Jesus" could have come into being like Hercules or Orpheus - a mythic figure who may have been based on one or more real individuals but whose connection to that reality is so tenuous that the figure in the stories is best described as a mythical. I don't think such a figure could have been created in so short a time with so much circumstantial detail about his life, but it's just about possible, and when you consider that the gospels contain stories about large numbers of dead people wandering through Jesrusalem plus other miracle-stories one can understand why some sceptics think it's possible. Paul B 10:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

No. I am merely asking that when opinion is used it is stated as opinion. When something is veriufiable as fact it can be used as fact. Robsteadman 19:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

That is your opinion, and I think it is fair to say that your stingent criteria that you prejudicially and selectively apply exceed the standards of this encyclopedia by far. drboisclair 19:39, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe this encyclopedia needs to be tighter with its use of information and more verifiable in its content. Maybe this encyclopedia is not sufficienbtly encyclopedic? Robsteadman 19:43, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps Rob, you could start a new encyclopedia - WikiProvedPedia? ^rossnixon 19:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Or perhaps we could just get this one right! NPOV and verifiable. That';s all it takes. Robsteadman 19:46, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

We can verify this stuff based on what academia says. That is our standard. KHM03 19:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

AS longa s we say x scholars have this opinion and, if they come from a particular POV that is stated, I have no problem. Robsteadman 19:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Mr. Steadman advocates Logical Positivism ala A.J. Ayer and Skepticism to govern Wikipedia. May I suggest, Mr. Steadman, that you put up a POV flag over Alexander the Great because all of the evidence of his existence comes generations after he existed. At least written evidence. You do not apply your principles consistently. drboisclair 19:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

To answer your comparison with Alexander the Great, I'll quote Prof. Price, who I liste above: "What can we say of a supposed historical figure whose life story conforms virtually in every detail to the Mythic Hero Archetype, with nothing, no "secular" or mundane information, left over? As Dundes is careful to point out, it doesn't prove there was no historical Jesus, for it is not implausible that a genuine, historical individual might become so lionized, even so deified, that his life and career would be completely assimilated to the Mythic Hero Archetype. But if that happened, we could no longer be sure there had ever been a real person at the root of the whole thing. The stained glass would have become just too thick to peer through.

Alexander the Great, Caesar Augustus, Cyrus, King Arthur, and others have nearly suffered this fate. What keeps historians from dismissing them as mere myths, like Paul Bunyan, is that there is some residue. We know at least a bit of mundane information about them, perhaps quite a bit, that does not form part of any legend cycle. Or they are so intricately woven into the history of the time that it is impossible to make sense of that history without them. But is this the case with Jesus? I fear it is not. The apparent links with Roman and Herodian figures is too loose, too doubtful for reasons I have already tried to explain. Thus it seems to me that Jesus must be categorized with other legendary founder figures including the Buddha, Krishna, and Lao-tzu. There may have been a real figure there, but there is simply no longer any way of being sure." Giovanni33 10:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

But, Gio, when you look at it without prejudice (try for a while) Alexander fits that archetype much better than Jesus ever would. In fact Jesus doesn't fit at all: lowly births, uneventful youth, three years of preching, ignoble death - does sound like a hero's story to me. Alexander on the other hand: a prince, conflict with his father, avenges father's death, quickyl subdues internal enemies and subsequently runs over the superpower of that time, climbs mountains and chases into the jungle, gets wounded but survives etc. - a real hero. Looking at it, Alexander's story seems much more unbelievable than Jesus'. And the evidence is not that different: we have writings of his followers, historians that are quite some time past the events (Arrian writes 400 years after Alexander and still is a credible source, even the main source) and the evidence of his influence, destroying the Persian Empire, creating Hellenism - in Jesus' case we have the appearance of Christianity for which Christ is and remains the best explanation by far. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

STOP MAKING THIS PERSONAL! STOP BEING INSULTING! I do apply principles consiostently - have I ever edite ALexander teh Great? NO. We are talking about THIS article. Please don;t change the suybject. I am not asking WPO to be skeptical - I am asking for it to be NPOV and verifiable. Something it claism to be. Something ALL encyclopedias should be. Robsteadman 20:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Relax.Gator (talk) 20:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I wish the worst people told me was that I do not apply my principles consistently, i've gotten a whole lot more nasty comments than that on this big old world of the internet :/. Homestarmy 20:22, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Well I find it a rather personal attack and really not very civil. Robsteadman 20:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Homestarmy 22:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not find Robsteadman's points very constructive at all, especially when he persistently refuses to provide any verifiable sources. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Robsteadman version of the article

Rob, I've asked this before, but I really do think it would be helpful. Why don't you edit the article just the way you want and the way that will make it NPOV and then post it somewhere so we can all look at it. I think that might give us all a better idea of what you want and where you're coming from. Kind of like your dream version of the article. What do you think?Gator (talk) 19:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

If I have time it might be fun. It would also be interesting to see the version some of the reactionary fundamentalists would want. All Iw ant is NPOV and verifiable. THat is what is sadly lacking from this article at the moment. Robsteadman 19:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

How about just the first three paragraphs? That should only take a moment right? You seem to have a firm idea of what it should look like. I'll make you a deal. You do your version and I'll do mine.Gator (talk) 19:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

OK - but it won;t be in the next couple of days - pieces to finish! Robsteadman 19:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see this myself, what exactly do Rob's suggestions translate to in plain text form anyway heh. Homestarmy 20:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Not again -___-

These edit wars need to stop, leave the paragraph alone already, and stop trying to say that beliefs came from Jesus merely being born. Rob's edit was pretty good except for that unclear point. Did Charles Darwin's mere existance cause the theory of evolution to be founded? No, it was Darwin's book that did the trick, and he wrote the thing. Yes, there was a minor scientist Darwin had to compete with who said the same things. However, he was in such low standing, nobody really listened to him (Or was going to listen, I can't remember exactly how it went). If the teachings of the gospels didn't come from Jesus, then they don't exist at all, and this book in front of me which says "The Holy Bible: International Version" doesn't exist either. Furthermore, I would also be a pink daffodil with purple polka-dots and a leaf which can roll up and shoot out gumballs, how delicious. Now, seriously, we've gone over the whole "Majority POV dominates, minority POV gets mentioned" thing before, what if the sentence says "....the moral lessons/guidlines/whatever which are attributed to Jesus's teachings, however, some members of this group deny this relation due to disbelief in Christ's existance."? Homestarmy 22:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Not sure which paragraph you mean but I changed a phrase from that Jesus preached to attributed to Jesus' teachings to remove the indirect assumption that Jesus existed for non-believers, as the point of the sentence is that regardless of whether Jesus exists, some of the teachings attributed to him communicate good moral values. Garglebutt / (talk) 22:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph I meant was the second one that we keep getting in a revert war over now that consensus is over, and yes, I meant that edit down there. The way that sentence reads it makes it sound compleatly NPOV, as if most people mrely attribute the teachings to Jesus, which could mean anything. The view in that paragraph is of humanists, atheists, and secular whatevers, and the reason that they might merely attribute the gospels to Christ is apparently because some of them have a great degree of disbelief of Christ's existance, this almost has to be noted sort of or it seems more like the article is just switching POV's around all over the place with no relations to the article as a whole. "Attribute to" just sounds so sterile, so lifeless, so...un-Jesus-like. Homestarmy 22:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I guess I'm trying to take a neutral stance so that those who don't believe in Jesus don't think the sentence is POV, without disagreeing that Jesus' teachings had moral lessons for those that do believe in Jesus. I don't think the article can be warm and fuzzy for everyone. Garglebutt / (talk) 23:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

True neutrality is good, as long as we remain civil. Homestarmy, I agree that academic scholarship can get a little dry—but you may enjoy Theopedia ;) Arch O. La 23:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

But their Jesus article is small, ours is big and people see it alot, and besides, how do they "attribute" the beliefs to Jesus if they don't even believe in His existance? That at least needs some explanation, I could attribute creationism to Charles Darwin, but without hypothetical background information such as "Homestarmy, however, never graduated from kindergarten", it doesn't make much sense. Homestarmy 00:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Don't want to nitpick...

Don't want to nitpick, but can people please use Edit Summaries where possible when editing this talk page? Browsing the page history (as I need to sometimes) it's difficult to see who added what and where. I'd appreciate it. Thanks. Deskana (talk) 23:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

New Motion

We need yet a fifth vote on whether to restore User:KHM03's addition to the sentence in the introduction: "However, citing a lack of extant contemporaneous documents making reference to him, a small minority of others question the historicity of Jesus": "what they consider" between "citing" and "a"

• Add "what they consider" to the second sentence in the second paragraph of the article that presently reads: "However, citing a lack of extant contemporaneous documents making reference to him, a small minority of others question the historicity of Jesus" between "citing" and "a".

• Support. The addition makes the sentence NPOV. drboisclair 23:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support all along. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 00:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Neutral because I promised not to clobber anybody. I also need to step back a bit and clear my head ;) Arch O. La 00:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Support much better.Gator (talk) 00:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support ^rossnixon 00:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support...I also don't mind Homestarmy's grammatical suggestion below. KHM03 01:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Lukewarm Oppose I don't mind the change, but since you asked, I find it unnecessary. These folks actually do say this. It is also true, by the definition of most editors here (I being an exception), that there are a lack of extant contemporaneous sources. If you think of this term to mean "in Jesus' lifetime" it is correct. No such sources exist. If you think of it as meaning texts by people who lived in Jesus' time, it is incorrect. I also wish we wouldn't edit this paragraph for a few days. We need to all take a deep breath, work on citations and other parts of the article. I think we would do better if we all came at it refreshed.--CTSWyneken 01:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

So you oppose something that would allieviate a statement you know to be false? Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 01:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Not exactly. I don't believe the statement to be false. My quibble is with the definition of contemporary, not "extant" nor that the nonexistence hypothesis school says this. technically the statement is correct. The nonexistence hypothesis by and large depends on there being no data. The cite it as the reason they conclude that Jesus did not exist. So it is true to say they state this. Moreover, by the definition for contemporaneaous I was given when I first brought it up, that no documents go back to the lifetime of Jesus, the statement itself is correct. That sources written at least a decade or more later cannot be trusted is not correct, but without a big long statement about majority of scholars believing you can trust Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius and the Mishnah, we can't easily correct that misimpression. This is an intro, after all. Would I loose sleep over the paragraph being longer than needed, no. So whatever folks decide is fine by me. --CTSWyneken 01:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I wonder, though, that this statement implies a total ignoring of the Greek New Testament, which despite its religious character is a collection of historical documents. Admittedly written after Jesus's ascension into heaven. There is an implication on the part of these Jesus-Myth advocates that the New Testament is unreliable and irrelevant. drboisclair 01:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I tried to argue that portions of the New Testaments contain earlier material (from my POV, the very words of Jesus) but had others argue that the texts themselves were not contemporary. By those definitions, there are no contemporaneous texts. In any case, it is what the nonexistence hypothesis states, so what we say is correct in the letter if not in the spirit. --CTSWyneken 01:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

• Support especially with "to be", as suggested by Homestarmy. AnnH ♫ 01:10, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support --David Schroder 02:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support the "to be" part wouldn't be half bad too i'd reckon. Homestarmy 02:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose, [sigh] we already covered this in an earlier "vote", and this has nothing to do with the Jesus-Myth people, there simply and empirically are no contemporaneous documents, it's not just "what they consider". What scholar of any kind claims any such documents exist? --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 07:09, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

---

What about a "to be" after the "what they consider"? It seems to flow better to me that way :/. Homestarmy 01:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

How about something like this?

However, citing a lack of extant contemporaneous documents referring to him, a small minority selectively use the positivist philosophical criterion of verifiability and demand direct evidence only in order to question the historicity of Jesus. Haldrik 01:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I definitely don't want to go there. We'll lose general readers with philosophical catagories. Please, let's keep the whole thing as short and sweet as possible. --CTSWyneken 01:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's a friendlier version,

However, a small minority question the historicity of Jesus, citing a lack of extant contemporaneous documents that refer to him and insisting on direct evidence only. Haldrik 01:15, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

That works for me, but how does it strike the rest of the folk?--CTSWyneken 02:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

No because it is nonsense. Leave it out completely. You would not expect such documents to have been written during the 1-3 years of Jesus's ministry. ^rossnixon

It is, however, what these folk say. That is the point of it being in the article. --CTSWyneken 11:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I oppose that because "direct evidence" is rather vague. Let's stick with "what they consider to be a lack" or "suggest a lack". Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Scholars and the dates of Jesus' Birth and Death

This section is for data gathering on scholarly views. Please debate with the scholars and each other elsewhere to protect my poor, librarian's sense of order. 8-) --CTSWyneken 02:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Jack Finegan, Handbook of Biblical Chronology, rev. ed. (1998)

"If we remember the prevailing tradition represented by the majority of the early Christian scholars dated the birth of Jesus in 3/2 B.C., and if we accept the time of Herod's death as between the [lunar] eclipse of Jan 9/10 and the Passover of April 8 in the year 1 B.C., then we will probably date the nativity of Jesus in 3/2 B.C., perhaps in mid-January in 2 B.C." p. 319, §549. Haldrik 13:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! That's very helpful. --CTSWyneken 14:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

John P. Meier

A Marginal Jew (full citation in article notes)

"a time somewhere between 28 and 33 seems the most likely date for Jesus' death." 1:375.

"Jesus was born not long before the death of Herod the Great (4 B.C.)" 1:375

Chronos, Kairos, Christos: Nativity and Chronological Studies Presented to Jack Finegan. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1989

This work is a set of essays in honor of Jack Finegan on the chronology of the life of Jesus. --CTSWyneken 02:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Jerry Vardaman

Professor of Religion, Mississippi State University.

"Prevailing view is that Jesus was born between 8 and 2 BC and that he died around AD 30-33." p. 56.

"my judgment that Jesus was born in late 12 BC and that he was crucified around AD 21." p. 56.--CTSWyneken 11:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Ernest L. Martin

Director of the Academy for Scriptural Knowledge, Alahambra, California

"I believe that there are seven historical and biblical factors that show the reasonableness of a 3 or 2 BC birth for Jesus." p. 86.--CTSWyneken 11:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Paul L. Maier

Professor of History at Western Michigan University.

"...yields 5 BC, the most likely date for the Nativity." p. 119

"On many bases, then, 3 April AD 33 makes a strong claim as the date of the Crucifixion." p. 126.--CTSWyneken 11:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Nikos Kokkinos

Senior Scholar, St. Hugh's College, Oxford University.

"Places the Crucifixion of Jesus in 36." p. 162.

"It follows that Jesus was born in 12 BC." p. 163.--CTSWyneken 11:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Why does he think Jesus lived 48 years? Or did you mean 2 BCE? Slrubenstein | Talk 11:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll have to double check, but I believe he's arguing the dates for the reign of Herod are off by 10 years. --CTSWyneken 12:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

William F. Dankenbring

Long article here http://www.triumphpro.com/when_was_jesus_christ_born.htm "February, or late winter, just before spring, in 4 B.C." ^rossnixon 00:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, can you give a quick idea who this fellow is? --CTSWyneken 11:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The article had lots of good content. A quick search afterward shows that he is a Herbert W. Armstrong follower. No evidence of his credentials found - perhaps it is just plagiarism. ^rossnixon 00:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah. I suspect, then, he doesn't have scholarly credentials. Good news: anyone can put material on the internet. Bad news: anyone can put material on the internet. --CTSWyneken 01:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Tsaddik citation?

"Some Jewish views see Jesus as a compassionate observant Jew, even a righteous person, a tzaddik." I do not doubt the veracity of this statement. However, since it is a minority view at odds with the classic Rabbinic view, I think it is important to have a citation or two to a verifiable source. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Most of the Rabbis I know consider Jesus to be "a good Jew". A few consider him a tzaddik. Among scholars, IIRC, Buber, Flusser and perhaps Vermes identify Jesus as a tsaddik. I found two quotes of interest.

"I am more certain than ever that a great place belongs to [Jesus] in Israel's history of faith" – Martin Buber, Two Types of Faith (1961), p. 13.

"I am motivated by scholarly interest to learn as much as I can about Jesus, but at the same time being a practicing Jew. I readily admit, however, that I personally identify myself with Jesus' Jewish Weltanschauung [worldview], both moral and political, and I believe that the content of his teachings and the approach he embraced have always had the potential to change our world and prevent the greatest part of evil and suffering". – David Flusser, Jesus, augmented ed. (1998), p. 15.

These Jewish scholars carefully distinguish between Christianity which is not Judaic and Jesus's actual teachings which are surprisingly Judaic. (They sometimes compare his "high selfawareness" to that of Hillel). Haldrik 14:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's another relevant quote by Vermes, Jesus the Jew (1981), p. 225. "The positive and constant testimony of the Gospel tradition leads to, within the framework of Judaism as by the standard of his own words and intentions: Jesus the just man, the zaddik, Jesus the helper and healer, Jesus the teacher and leader"

Thank you Haldrik. Alas, what most rabbis we know think is not relevant because they are not verifiable sources. Would you mind adding these to the references? Can you find a specific reference that compares his self-awareness to that of Hillel? Also, do you think it is worth quoting Buber in this article/section? Slrubenstein | Talk 14:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Referring to Hillel as a prophet, Vermes (p. 91) mentions the Talmud: "When the elders came to the house of Gadia in Jericho, a heavenly voice proclaimed to them: There is a man among you worthy of the holy spirit, but this generation is unfit for it. They fixed their eyes on Hillel the Elder". (tSot 13:3, bSot 48b.) [Interestingly, Hillel was also believed to be a descendent of David.] Haldrik 15:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Fascinating material. I think you should add, or at least citations for it, it as you see fit. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

It really is amazing stuff! It should also be in the main article Jewish view of Jesus.

David Flusser, "Hillel's Self-Awareness" in Judaism and the Origins of Christianity (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, The Hebrew University, 1988), p. 509f.

"A high self-esteem, both with regard to one's personal and one's religious standing, did exist in Judaism of the Second Temple period. We have not only learned about the Essene Teacher of Righteousness, but we can now also study the author of the Thanksgiving Scroll, a man who considered himself the mediator of divine mysteries. Additional evidence for the occurrence of an exalted self-awareness in the Second Temple period is to be found in some sayings of Hillel, who died before Jesus was born. Hillel is known as an unequalled humble and meek teacher and man. But as we will see, Hillel's self-esteem was very high, so exceptionally high that in later rabbinical tradition it was often denied that he really spoke about himself in those exalted sayings, but it was assumed he was referring to God. [Both are true: the human sees the world from the divine perspective.]

Hillel says [while identifying himself with God], 'To the place that my heart loves, there my feet lead me. If you will come in my house, I will come in your house, but if you will not come in my house, I will not come in your house. As it is said: (Ex. 20.24): "In every place where I [God/Hillel] cause my name to be remembered, I will come to you and bless you"'. [tSukkah 4,3, bSukkah 53a.]

[Whoever receives Hillel receives God, and reciprocally Hillel and God receive them.] The second saying is even more paradoxical.

[Hillel], 'If I am here, all is here. If I am not here, what is here?' [bSukkah 53a.]

It expresses a far-reaching idea: the individual, represented by Hillel himself, is so to say, the whole universe. It is even probable that Hillel, as in the other saying, has himself quoted biblical words of God [paraphrastically to refer to himself]. This does not mean, however, that in both of these sayings not Hillel but God is speakng. On the contrary, Hillel's self-awareness is so exalted that he could quote as biblical proof [about himself] God's utterances!

[Similarly, both Jesus and Hillel do the laws of God even if others don't.]

Jesus said (Luke 11.23), "He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me, scatters".

Hillel (Sifre Zutta), "(Ps. 119.126) 'It is time to act for the Lord; they have broken thy law'. And so says Hillel: 'In the time when men scatter [= 'break thy law'], gather [= 'act for the Lord']! In the place where there are no men, there be a man!"

[By doing God's law, they are one with the will of God.] Haldrik 16:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Should we just go straight to working on the Judaism section, Haldrik seems to know a good bit about the general Jewish consensus. Homestarmy 19:20, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Scholars on Jesus and the Pharisees, Scribes and Saducees

To help us with deciding what to do with this issue, I's like to assemble scholarship here on the question, "Was Jesus 'at odds' with these groups?

Michael Grant

Premier historian of classical antiquity.

In Jesus (full cite in article footnotes), p. 111:

"[Jesus'] overwhelming conviction of his own unique, divinely inspired role...profoundly shocked and offended the leading groups of his fellow-Jews... Jesus' assumption that he had been entrusted with this mission by God himself had seriously alienated the most determined, serious and progressive element in the Jewish religious leadership. This group was knowm as the Pharisees."

"Signs of the extreme gravity of Jesus' conflict with these Saducees have survived in the Gospels." p. 146.

Maccoby

(Moved from below by CTSWyneken for organization's sake) I'll quote a passage from Maccoby here (there was probably somewhere else you asked me to do this but this seems appropriate in this discussion too. There's a whole chapter called "Was Jesus a Pharisee?" in his book "The Mythmaker" (p. 43-44). It's hard to reduce Maccoby's detailed argument to something quotable, but I'll at least put forth this general paragraph:

"It should be remembered that Jesus would have been a most unusual Pharisee if he had never disagreed with other Pharisees. As explained earlier, amicable disagreement was an essential ingredient in Pharisaism, and the Pharisee literature is full of disagreements between the various sages of the movement. In some cases, the New Testament has created conflict between Jesus and the Pharisees, not by altering 'Sadducees' to 'Pharisees' or by removing some essential element from the story [examples Maccoby gave earlier], but simply by turning what was originally a friendly argument into a hostile confrontation. Thus in various ways, Jesus has been isolated in the Gospels from the movement to which he belonged, the Pharisees. Yet, despite every effort to turn him into an isolated figure, his identity as a Pharisee remains indelibly stamped on him by his style of preaching. His use of parables (often thought by people unfamiliar with Pharisee literature to be a mark of his uniqueness) was typical of Pharisee preaching; and even his quaint expressions such as 'a camel going through the eye of a needle', or 'take the beam out of your own eye' are Pharisee locutions found in the Talmud." --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 21:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

John P. Meier

A Marginal Jew (full info in notes to the article)

"It is probably ont just a coincidence that, while the Synoptic Gospels present Jesus in frequent conflice with the scribes, Pharisees and local "rulers of synagogues," at least he speaks to these groups on a regular basis. The lines of communication are open, even if they are often red hot...In contrast, the Synoptic Jesus enages in debate with the Saducees...the encounter is marked by hostility on both sides." 1:346. --CTSWyneken 14:19, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

This raises an interpretive issue. Rabbinic discourse is characterized by argumentation. Thus, for a 1st century person of learning to debate other men of learning (e.g. Pharisees) does not necessarily mean that he is antagonistic to them as a group - indeed, arguing among them could just as well mean (as some have suggested) that he was a Pharisee. I know it is not our place to provide out own interpretations. I only mean to say that we need to use these sources carefully. If a source claims Jesus rejected the authority of the Pharisees, that is worth putting in. But if a source merely says he debated the Pharisees, and goes no further, we cannot use that source to suggest that Jesus was at odds with the authority of the Pharisees. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Yours is a point well taken, and I expect to find it in a source somewhere. Certainly not "all" Pharisees were out to get Jesus. (Nicodemus and others spring to mind) Right now, I'm just opinion collecting to see if there's a trend. In the end, we'll craft something that fairly represents the consensus (if there's one). Personally, I think "many Palestinian Jewish authorities" is sufficiently general to cover all bases. But I don't want to discuss it right now. I'm tired of talking and do what Librarians and Scholars do at such times -- melt into some good books. (I hear Shaye Cohen calling....) --CTSWyneken 16:17, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

When Rabbis and rabbinic students get together in a yeshiva, they debate Torah. That's just what Rabbis and rabbinic students do. When Jesus and the Pharisees get together (often while eating!) they debate Torah. That's just what Jesus and Pharisees do! It is their JOB to debate halakhah, just like it is the JOB of legal experts to debate law. Haldrik 19:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Jesus is "Pharisaic" (which may or may not be the same thing as being "a Pharisee"). He commands all Jews, including his own students, to obey the Pharisees because only the Pharisees have the divine right to interpret Jewish law. (Mt 23.1f) "Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his students: 'The teachers of the Torah and the Pharisees sit in Moses' [judgment] seat. So you must obey them and do everything they tell you'. Jesus debates with the Pharisees and indeed critiques the legal status quo, but he acknowledges their authority. Again, Rabbis debate the correct interpretation of Torah. That's just what Rabbis do. Haldrik 20:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

That may well be, but we're here to reflect what scholars say, not our own views. Do you have a source that makes this point relative to Jesus and the Pharisees? --CTSWyneken 20:07, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll quote a passage from Maccoby here...--MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 21:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC) (moved to its own section, since it's so good. --CTSWyneken 21:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC))

Yes, I vaguely remember it in the swirl of talk these past few days. I've taken the liberty of giving it its own section above. I hope you don't mind. Could you also affix the page number of the quote? (there goes that librarian again!) You don't have to worry about reproducing the argument here. All I want to accomplish for us as editors is put a good summary of the issue in a wide range of scholars for us, so we can intelligently craft good text. --CTSWyneken 21:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

In search of Clarity

There is an inherent conflict of subjective values between Robsteadman and those of us with faith. Although Rob's position cannot properly be called "faith," he does have very strong convictions that cannot be challenged directly. I point my fellow Christians to Matthew 10: preach to those who will listen, but for those who are hostile, simply shake the dust off your feet and move on. Some may call this cowardly, but I see the wisdom in not escalating conflict; besides, Rob will take it as further evidence of incivility. As CTSWynekan has said (quoting Martin Luther), howl fierce as Rob will, he cannot harm us. Undoubtedly Rob will howl fierce again after the block is over. Don't let him provoke you. I also point to a couple of Popes, who have said that Truth cannot contradict truth. We Christians can be sure of the first kind of Truth, and let others debate the second kind of truth.

The second kind of truth comes down to a debate over the standards of evidence. As far as I am concerned, this is open for review, although Rob is working against concensus. Debate, but again, don't let him provoke you.

The third source of conflict is over the social mores and formal rules of Wikipedia. This is what has gotten Rob into trouble, and should be kept separate from all other issues.

I for one welcome Giovanni33 to these pages. I know that some are uncomfortable with Giovanni after discussions on the Christianity page. I have reviewed these discussions; although I don't always agree with Giovanni, I find Giovanni to be fair and reasonable. At the very least, I find Giovanni to be more civil than Rob. I believe that Giovanni will be a voice of moderation, as SOPHIA was earlier.

As for myself, I have been caught in the middle too often, and have seen the need to retreat from my radical centrism to a more neutral position. I will not be able to contribute to this page meaningfully until I have had a chance to clear my head; besides, there are other areas of my life that deserve more attention. I thank you all for the oppurtunity to participate in this discussion. Arch O. La 19:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Eh, people bark all the time when you try to say Christian type things, I just kinda go through it all as it comes :/. And I don't know who Giovanni is, but hello, hope we can be friends. Homestarmy 19:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit uncomfortable talking about Rob on this talk page; let's try and stick to the article subject. KHM03 19:43, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

True that. It'll only lead to more unpleasantness. Good call.Gator (talk) 19:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Why don't we start over, especially when Rob comes back. Here are some basic rules that will help.

# Do not ever attack another editor. Ever. Do not even talk about an editor on talk pages. Ad hominem is not only uncivil, it is also weak argument.

# On controversial pages, always talk first, edit later. If you don't think something will cause a fuss, just put in an "I intend to make such-and-such change in the page. Any objections?"

# If there is a debate, address only new arguments. Do not repeat yourself or respond at all to an argument made before.

# When a paragraph reaches consensus, take turns reverting it with the polite note to talk about the change. If an new editor comes on board, point them to prior discussion. If they address something we haven't covered, discuss with them. If no one then objects, let the edits be made.

# Debate on the talk page, not in edit summaries. Then you don't have to worry about 3RR.

# Keep the debate focused on the wikitask: to reflect published scholarship, not settle the issues. If there is more than one view on a topic, reflect both. For example, whether I believe secondary sources from the turn of the 2nd Century are reliable sources does not matter (although I do) What matters is what scholars have said, especially those in the field of study.

# Gather data. I invite you all to help me with this. We say such-and-such a person believes x. Help me with the evidence.

Please note this pot knows that not only kettles are black.

Trying on my old listserv moderator's hat.--CTSWyneken 20:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

For me it's not so much about Rob as it recognizing the inherent conflict and trying not to escalate it. Rob actually sent me an e-mail asking me to advocate the removal of his 3RR block. I cannot go that far; I can only say not to let him provoke you. Rob, too, has felt provoked, and I recognize this. Who is more at fault is a matter for arbitration should it come to that. In the meantime, I think the wisest course is neither to cause offense nor to be offended, that goes for Rob, me and everyone else. Or as Giovanni has put it, let's all try to be more civil. Arch O. La 20:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

This is an encyclopedia article and should neither be an apologetic for Jesus nor a smear. The personal beliefs (or non-beliefs) of all the editors are irrelevant. In fact everyone needs to be careful that the article tone does not reveal any editor's POV. It's all a matter of objectively reporting others' views, not our own personal views (i.e., the reader should not be able to tell whether the writing is coming from a Christian or a non-Christian). --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 20:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I recognize this, hence my attempt to retreat to a more neutral position. I think we all need to recognize this. Arch O. La 20:28, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Judaism's view

The first sentence shouldn't say "most Jews" as not all Jews even follow Judaism and the section is about what *Judaism* teaches about Jesus. The *traditional* Jewish messianic qualifications are very specific, and there are none from a Jewish religious perspective who would say he met these very specific requirements, which btw differ from Christianity's interpretation of what the messianic requirements are. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 20:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Hold on a minute here, just what are the traditional messianic views anyway? It sounds like they'd have to be some pretty out-of-context rip off's of the OT to not match up to Jesus. Are these like extra-Biblical things or what? I mean, I know about the thing where they ripped out a prophecy in the book of Isaiah or something which predicted Christ's coming so that people wouldn't be inspired to think He was Christ, but surely there must be something more to this than that? Most apologetics sites your going to see are going to have very simple answers to the claim that Jesus didn't fulfill prophecy, and the NT itself is almost like an apologetics book in that way because it cites fulfilled prophecies throughout it, and if the section is left like it is, people who know a little bit about history will think "Wait, Christians were absolutly lying the whole time?" Because the verification we have that Jesus is Lord comes mostly from OT predictions, if it stands the way it is, anybody who reads this is going to think that the Jews are 100 percent right to not think Christ is God or even fulfilled any prophecy. At the very least, if we let this claim stand like it is with the way it asserts itself, some 1 or 2 liner counter-argument needs to be inserted, or even just a link or 2 from Christian or Christian-based websites which try to resolve the issues that many Jews seem to have with Christianity. Otherwise, I see no reason why a person reading this article won't go "Well, it must be absolutly true that Christianity is a lie because Judaism says so, time to leave!". Homestarmy 21:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it's safe to leave the discussion of Jesus being God out of this section as it is and stick with Messiah or not. --Oscillate 22:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. This all seems very confusing to me, i've never really heard of any halfway serious Jewish arguments against Jesus being the Messiah before that made any sense, and for the article to just blatantly assert that basically, "Christianity is against Judaism in all ways, it fails the Bible's claims in the OT miserably." well, im sorry, it just seems downright POV. There needs to be either something to balance it in the way of counter-claims, or it be made more clear that it is the popular Jewish view rather than the absolute and only Jewish viewpoint allowed, or you know, there could be another solution to this problem, I don't know. Homestarmy 22:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the point is to balance Judaism's views with Christian views. I am a Christian, but I have heard Rabbi Toviah Singer's counterarguments and I think both sides need to be presented. Just as long as we remain NPOV.Arch O. La 22:18, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

That's what im thinking, we should indeed present the fact that apparently most Jews do not feel that Jesus was the Messiah (and/or God), but if it's left like this, it reads like a fact of Judaism, when Christianity is based on the compleate works of Judaism, so it reads somewhat like a 100 percent contradiction of Jesus as the Messiah is being presented as fact, when it's most definently not. We could even expand it to cite some particular Jewish arguments, maybe that Toviah person, but if we do, we should at least note there is considerable debate over this, and present the opposing view with some citations there. Not overshadowing it necessarily, but simply to show that the debate exists and cite a couple examples of it. By the way, why do I get the weird feeling that im turning into Robsteadman? Homestarmy 22:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Look, the article is not about the merits or nonmerits of Christianity. It's an encylopedic biography of Jesus. The section "Judaism's views" should include a brief presentation of Judaism's views of Jesus, period. The bulk of the article as a whole presents largely Christians views of Jesus. The other religions' views are already a counterpoint to the Christian perspective. It's not necessary to create some counter-counterpoint debate within the tiny section on Judaism's views. The place for that, if necessary, would be in the main article Jewish view of Jesus. But again, I think several people miss the point of this article, it's not an evangelistic or apologetic tool for Christians (Homestarmy) nor a soapbox for defaming or dismissing Jesus (Robsteadman). And I'm only mentioning handy names, you're certainly not alone as there is always a steady parade of editors with personal strong feelings on this topic. My only admonition to all is to please, please try to not let personal feelings and beliefs get in the way of editing objectively. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 23:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. Rabbi Singer is basically responding to the Messianiac Jew movement by presenting an argument that Jesus doesn't meet Judaism's definition of "Messiah." He bases his argument both on the Tanakh and on the New Testament. That said, I leave it to others whether that datum should be used here or in another article. Arch O. La 23:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes I think the specific details of the traditional Jewish messianic requirements should be left to the main article Jewish view of Jesus. For this article, it suffices to briefly explain that the traditional Jewish view of Jesus is that he does not meet Jewish criteria for either messiah or prophet. The topic of messianic requirements is an article all by itself, and I would like to see this article stay on its own topic...it tends to want to grow and divert off into all sorts of tangents : ) --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 23:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I agree. I actually found Rabbi Singer by doing a random-walk web search from an off-site link in Jewish views of Jesus. I've just been waiting to bring him up when we moved on to a discussion of Judaism's views. Arch O. La 23:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

But the problem is, the way it reads with the edits, it reads as though Judaism definently and absolutly condemns Jesus as a false prophet. Is this Judaism literally based on the OT, or Judaism based on the main consensus of people? If it's the former, there is considerable debate on this extremely crucial point, as if such a POV is correct, than Christianity would have to be a total fraud, Jesus would have to be a fake, and a bit of mention of a counter-argument would be in order, otherwise it reads as though it is fact that the OT condemns Jesus. If it is the latter as the section protrayed before indicated, (if I remember correctly) it needs to indicate that it is the vast majority of the followers of Judaism, or that Judaism is not necessarily referenced directly with the Bible, (You could probably argue for this, as I understand it, modern-day Torah production has sometimes removed very crucial Jesus-predicting passages that the OT does contain.) or something to that effect, to say that Judaism absolutly condemns Jesus without defining what we're really talking about essentially is like the article is saying "And by the way, Jesus was compleatly faking all the standards that He himself claimed He was meeting.". Yes, this really is pushing my strong feelings button. But the way it reads now, knowing what I know about Christianity, (And therefore giving me some inside information the section doesn't present) it reads as though it is trying to convey the absolute notion that Christianity, and Christ's claims about Himself, were all lies. This seems a clear violation of WP:NPOV, plus even if it isn't, I still don't know exactly what this section is trying to advocate. Homestarmy 23:33, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I've heard arguments that Jesus was a false messiah and also arguments that Paul was a false apostle (I think that was part of Singer's argument). I leave it to the experts to explain more (unless it'll take us off-topic). Arch O. La 23:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that the section isn't talking about the arguments, it's making an assertion with the new edits it has, and someone with a little inside knowladge would know it now means "Jesus was not God, the Messiah, or anything, and Christianity is totally fake.". It's not making the assertion that the Jewish people say it, it's making the assertion in general, as absolute fact no matter where your coming from. And that's what I see is the problem, I know it's not overtly obvious to somebody without inside knowladge of the relationship between the OT and NT, but the implication is abundantly clear. Homestarmy 23:48, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Homes, here's the Jewish response and even a catholic counter-response: [5] The site includes Rabbi Singer, BTW. However, since the section is on Jewish views, it states Jewish beliefs, not "fact" in either your or Rodsteadman's definition (although Jews take it as religous fact). Arch O. La 23:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Homestarmy, that's a bit of an inaccurate projection. That most see Jesus as a better fit for the false prophets warned about in Deut. 13 is not exactly "Judaism definently and absolutly" condemning Jesus as a false prophet. Also, I think again, you're missing the point that it's not Wikipedia's place to debate Christianity's merits in light of Judaism's view, we just need to accurately present what Judaism's view on Jesus is in the section on Judaism's view. I think you're blowing things way out of proportion and making this too personal about *your* beliefs..."if this is Judaism's view then all of Christianity is a lie" may be your personal conclusion, but honestly, it's irrelevant as far as this article goes, and shouldn't keep us from our task of objectively presenting what Judaism's view actually is. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 00:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I suggest that Homestarmy do what I did: examine the other side before you rush to judgement. (Judge not, lest ye be judged and all that). The section does not question my Christian faith, because I know that its a summary of Judiac beliefs. If homestarmy wished to evangelize, he can take it up with the operators of the website I mentioned above. Arch O. La 00:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

But what im trying to say is what your suggesting the article says isn't what it says anymore. It said something along those lines before and that was ok because it was showing a viewpoint of people, but now it doesn't because of the editing today, and that's why it's a problem to me now.

• According to Judaism, Jesus did not meet the traditional qualifications of the Messiah, nor was he a prophet, as Judaism maintains that there were no prophets after the prophet Malachi.

It's no longer about the people of Judaism, it's about Judaism the religion, which as far as I know, begins and ends literally with the OT. It no longer addreses in this sentence what most Jews believe on the subject, which is what it should somewhat be saying at least. Judaism the religion comes from the Torah and the prophets, I.E. the Old Testiment. Christianity is built on that and the New Testiment. If the Old Testiment, I.E. the essence of the religion of Judaism, contradicts the New Testiment to the point that it says Jesus couldn't save anyone because He wasn't the messiah, then that would mean Jesus was fake, Christianity is a lie, and everyone dies. If the Jewish people believe this, then that's what should go into the article. But now, with the article clearly asserting that Judaism says that Jesus did not meet those specifications, it is essentialy giving the message of "Jesus was fake by the standard that mattered, AKA the Bible, and Christians are hopeless fools because their own book says so", without saying that this is coming from a group of people, but rather from a common sense argument. It's true the article doesn't explain the relationship between the OT and the NT, that probably wouldn't fit in this article, but when you know that background information, the start of this Judaism section sends a clear message when you understand it, and that message asserts that Jesus was fake, not because Judaism says so, but because both Christianity and Judaism literally say so. Do you see what im trying to say? Homestarmy 00:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Homestarmy, remember Ecclesiastes 3: everything in its season. The subject of why Judaism doesn't believe in Jesus the way we do is quite complex, and we're not going to settle it today. Patience, my friend. Arch O. La 00:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Thank you Arch O. La. Homestarmy, your Christian colleague speaks wise words ; ) --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 01:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The season is now, im getting the feeling im not getting my point across here, the reason it shouldn't say "Judaism" rather than "most Jewish views" is becauseJ udaism doesn't disbelieve or believe in Jesus, because Judaism is essentialy the Old Testiment, not the consensus of Jews. Judaism is the Torah plus the prophets, not all that unless the people decide it isn't. A book does not have faith in anything because it is a book, but in this case, the book is telling people about their faith, and that same book tells Christians about their faith the way it began as the Old Testiment describes it, before Jesus came to fulfill it, not to delete it so we can just ignore it. The Old Testiment applies literally to Christianity just as much as it applies to Judaism, it's just the New Testiment fulfills it so it comes out as a different result now, but not a result which says that the Old Testiment was just kidding about all those prophecies of the Messiah. Judaism isn't the people, it's the religious concept which fundamentally relies on the Old Testiment, that's a very different meaning than what was in the section before. The original meaning said that most of the people of the Jewish religion did not believe Christ to be God or the Messiah. The new meaning says that Christianity had no basis not just because people thought so, but because the Bible literally says so. Therefore, this section is really saying that the Old Testiment says that Jesus was not the Messiah. Which it does not, but for the sake of Wikipedia and reporting the controversy, it is a hotly debated issue, therefore, if the meaning of the section now stays the same, the controversy should be reported, not just snuffed out so the only viewpoint left says that Jesus was a liar and that Christians are just plain fools by Christianity and Jesus's own standards. Why can't we just say it is the majority of Jewish people rather than Judaism? It said that before, you both seem to agree it should say that, I agree it should say that, but as I think i've showed, it does not say simply that anymore. Homestarmy 01:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

It is not for you to say what Judaism is. It's Jews who decide that. Please stop telling them what their beliefs should be. The section describes the view of Jews who profess Judaism. If they interpreted the OT as you do, they'd be Chrisians. But they aren't, are they? Paul B 01:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

But it doesn't specify that it is the Jews who decide what Judaism is, it simply says "Judaism says", it doesn't define it beyond that. All I want is a little clarity here, I mean I read this thing from an outside perspective and alarm bells start ringing, or as my English teacher would say, it is a drastic error that brings the reader to a compleate stop....at least for me. It simply doesn't define what definition of Judaism we're talking here, it's not a mere theological difference, it's a matter of I have no idea what it really means here and I naturally assume the worst meaning possible in this context. If it's a definition of Judaism which doesn't even use the Torah and the prophets the same way Christians do, then that is something I would never guess simply by looking at the word "Judaism", when I think of "Judaism" my mind immedietly says "Old Testiment....and people we need to evangelize to." But for the sake of Wikipedia of course, "Old Testiment" is the definition that matters. Why is it so important that it must say "Judaism" as opposed to "Jewish people?" Technically speaking, isn't Wikipedia not supposed to define people's beliefs for them anyway? As far as this sentence goes, it looks like Wikipedia is making up the definition in general, not simply giving the definition of Judaism that most Jews hold as the truth. Homestarmy 01:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm a bit concerned that your English teacher encourages the use of such hackneyed expressions. Everyone understands "Judaism" to mean the Jewish faith. It most definitely does not mean the "Old Testament", an expression, btw, that Jews, for obvious reasons, would never use. Paul B 01:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Well of course it means the Jewish Faith, but if Judaism isn't using the Old Testament, what is it using anyway? Random inspiration? Free collaboration of ideas? Consensus? If It's not the Torah and the books of the Prophets, I have no idea what their doing today. "Members of the Jewish faith", then, would mean the same thing by this logic, why not use that instead of "Judaism"? Homestarmy 01:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

You've not heard of the Talmud then? Paul B 01:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

And the oral law, halakah, which is broader than the Talmud, if my understanding is correct. But this is getting far afield. Let's stick with how contemporary Jews of all perspectives view Jesus. Does anyone have a work by Jacob Neusner on the subject? --CTSWyneken 01:37, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

From what I see in the Talmud article, the sum total of all of it's "orders" deal with prayer, blessings, tithes, agriculture laws, the Sabbath, Festivals, marriage and divorce, oaths, laws of the nazirite, civil and criminal law, functioning of courts and oaths, sacrifical rites, the temple, dietary laws, and ritual purity. How could this have anything to do with the Judaic view of Jesus, it all sounds like it's straight out of the Old Testiment. I've looked at the Judaism article just to see if Judaism made some radical, fundamental shift in thought away from the Torah and more towared something else a couple centuries ago or something, the closest I saw was the responsa, in which the responses of rabbi's or someone I think are followed concerning important questions, and from that, I can totally see somebody answering a question about Christ. But I think I can safely say I have never heard the word "responsa" before in relation to Judaism, why should we assume that the reader knows a great deal about Judaism in the modern day to the point they know all these facets? Why would it be likely that a reader would think that "Judaism" in this sense means maybe one of perhaps many responses to questions in the responsa using every-day knowladge? I'm not asking to remove the word "Judaism" necessarily, i'm at the very least asking for clarification on what this word means in the article to be there, nothing big and fancy, just a couple words will do, right now, all I can see in it is "The Bible says Christ could not be God, end of story." Besides, the Judaism article I think said halakah was still based on the Talmud, the Talmud doesn't ever have the name "Jesus Christ" in it, nor the name "Jesus", and "Christ" comes from a Greek word anyway, how could it directly refer to Jesus, whom this article is focusing on? Homestarmy 01:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Homes, I left a message on your talk page trying to sort it out. Basically, if you don't believe the New Testament, then it leaves room for doubt about Jesus being the Messiah. Part of it is that the Second Coming hasn't happened yet. If you're a Christian, and thus believe the New Testament, Jesus as Messiah is beyond doubt.Arch O. La 02:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

It may leave plenty of room for doubt, but it doesn't give concrete, absolute grounds for denial. If the Old Testiment specifically stated something along the lines of "And lo! beware of the man called Jesus of Nazarath, for although He will fulfill every last prophecy of this book concerning the Messiah, thou shalt not trust in Him." then this paragraph's intro would make plenty of sense. Yet it does not name Jesus by name, nor is it the accepted consensus that the Old Testiment compleatly deny's Jesus as the messiah, Christianity depends on that book too, it's not a Jewish-only work. If Judaism seriously is known by everyone in the world to of radically changed positions to write in their manifesto's or whatever that Jesus was definently not the Messiah, then can't at least we say "Judaism by how it is commonly known today..." or "Judaism as represented by the Jewish people of today..." or something along those lines? Homestarmy 02:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

George Bush clearly doesn't meet the Jewish messianic criteria either, though his name isn't specifically mentioned in Tanach. Quite frankly, I doubt there will be any accommodations to Judaism to appease any religions usurping Jewish texts to create novel spinoff interpretations who insist that George's name must be specifically mentioned and emphatically denied in order to cast doubt on his messiahship. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 03:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't need to be "concrete, absolute grounds for denial." Just enough that Jews are Jews, and Christians are Christians. Arch O. La 03:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

But the point is that Jews do not equal Judaism and Christians do not equal Christianity this isn't just a theological debate, it's reality, a group of people cannot embody a concept, they may share a common concept which unites them, but the people themselves are not literally the concept. Why can't we just spare a few more words to clarify this, such as "Judaism, as commonly followed/interpreted by the Jewish people, says that...." or "Almost all Jews, following modern-day interpretations of Judaism using the Talmud/responsa/whatever, deny....."? We have to do almost the same thing for any religion, Christianity included, as we have to define what the most popular view is because other denominations keep inserting crazy ideas that throw off consensus, why not spare a couple words and do the same for Judaism here? Homestarmy 03:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

How about one word: change the link from Messiah to Jewish Messiah. Arch O. La 03:21, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

As the Jewish Messiah article points out, things only get more complicated, as apparently there is some debate among Jews as to what the qualities of the Jewish messiah actually are. What about something real simple and short, such as "Judaism as it is known today...." That fits in with what Paul B was saying, if it's known to consist of the Jewish consensus in modern times, then I see no problem, according to the Judaism article it changed every time people added to the responsa or other things as time went on anyway, it seems good to me. Homestarmy 03:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

No, the current wording is correct as there is no current or past definition of Jewish messiah by which Jesus (or George Bush) meets the criteria. There may be more modern views which diverge from traditional views such as Reform and Reconstructionist who dismiss the concept of an actual person being messiah altogether, but in no case has Judaism of any affiliation espoused any view by which Jesus would fit the criteria. And the Christian messiah is (and always has been) quite alien to Jewish messianic views. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 04:01, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

How could Jesus be alien to Judaism before He was born onto the earth? If Judaism immedietly somehow embodied the idea that Christ was not the Messiah, that doesn't mean they knew about Jesus being born beforehand, you don't see anything in the Old Testiment about "And beware all who come out of the town of Bethelham and call themself a Nazarene, even though I, your Lord, declared that this is where the savior would come from, just forget what I said earlier.", if we're basing the idea of Judaism based on consensus of the Jews rather than the OT, then how could the Jews of known before Christ even existed that He was not the Messiah? What about "Judaism, after Jesus was born, says that...." or something like that? Homestarmy 04:10, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

No, Homestarmy, Jewish messianic views didn't suddenly change upon Jesus' birth to somehow exclude him, so such a qualified statement would be pointless and ridiculous. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 04:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Homes, we're just reenacting Matthew 16. Jesus asked, "Who do men say that I am?" Peter affirmed that Jesus is the Messiah and Son of God, but there were other answers given: "Some say John the Baptist, others say Elijah, and still others say Jeremiah or one of the prophets." (verse 14). Judaism simply says that Jesus was not the Messiah, and everthing else flows from that.

You and I are with Peter, but others have other responses. Like MPerel says, Jewish messianic views did not suddenly change, and even in the New Testament Jews debated the nature of Jesus. That is all the section under discussion asserts. Arch O. La 04:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

But apparently, Judaism can now mean the religion, or the consensus of people inside that religion, or the religion as determined by a new consensus of the people. If it's the people, then by all means, say the people believe it. If it's the religion as now determined by the consensus of the people, by all means, say that the religion says it by the new consensus of the people. But the religion alone contains the building block for Christianity, it's not merely a matter of people interpreting it differently, we use the exact same book (Except when people delete things, but im not sure if that's widespread), and since the source is pretty much exactly the same, how can the controversy be ignored? Honestly, I can see why this section shouldn't turn into a debate comparing both religions views of the OT, because that's not really what it's necessarily meant for. But if your just saying "Judaism says that the OT puts Jesus in the same class as false prophets", where's the response? Both Judaism and Christianity use the OT, it might have different names, but it is the same book, and if the interpretations are so radically different that Judaism now "says" that the OT claims Jesus was not the Messiah, without Christianity's view, it reads as though the OT (Or "Talmud" or whatever includes everything) only says the Jewish interpretation, and therefore because of this supposedly common sense observation, Jews do not believe Jesus was the messiah. Is there even a Wikipedia article on, say, Christian views of the Old Testiment or something? Homestarmy 04:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Homes, Christianity agreed with Peter and the rest of Judaism did not. Then Paul evangelized to the Gentiles, and pretty soon Christianity was no longer Jewish. Then there were nearly 2000 years for both religions to change. But at heart, the difference between Judaism and Christianity goes back to Peter's affirmation, and that is why the section references the Jewish messiah. After that, we're no longer talking about Jesus. Arch O. La 04:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC) PS: Not an article, but there is a section

Homestarmy, I think you expect Judaism's views of Jesus to merely be a validation of your Christian views, but it just doesn't work that way. Are mainstream Christians obligated to validate Mormon views? Try this on for size using your logic: Christianity "contains the building block for" Mormonism. "It's not merely a matter of people interpreting it differently, (you) use the exact same book," Mormons merely added a new book to the existing Christian scripture along with a few extra views about Jesus visiting the Americas etc. So do you want to go make sure all of Christianity's views lay out a clear evangelistic arrow pointing to Mormonism (Mormons self-define as Christians)? This appears your intention with this article regarding Judaism's view of Jesus... --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 05:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Listen to MPerel; there is wisdom in his words. As I said elsewhere, I get the feeling that you're fighting against 2000 years of history. Well, good luck. Arch O. La 05:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Homestarmy, havin reviewed the wording you are concerned about, I can say that it is sufficently NPOV and accurate. "According to Judaism, Jesus ..." introduces it as Judaism's view. Judaism is correct because the religion called Judaism (today split in various denominations) has been defined as excluding Jesus in the 1st and 2nd century - Judaism is based on the reorganisation of the non-Christian Jewish communtiy post 70 AD under the leadership of the Pharisees and Rabbis, resulting in the Talmud. This can lead to problems when using the term "Judaism" pre 70, as the historical reality was that the Jewish religion did encompass Pharisees, Saducees, Essenes, Zealots, Christians and other groups, of which only two survived the year 70 - Pharisees (who came to form Judaism) and Christians. In the context of this article "Judaism" is completely fitting. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Then why can it not simply spare the trouble to say "According to Judaism after 70 AD/CE..."? 3 more words is all, then everything looks fine to me, "Judaism after 70 AD/CE..." works too. I think what the problem is that I simply look at the word "Judaism", and question marks pop up for me. I don't know how their not popping up for everyone else, but when I see the word "Judaism" I think "This probably means the belief in the Old Testiment as a religious idea.", not "The mass majority of Jewish people who do not believe in Jesus". If the development of this idea along a timeline is suggested, then it's much more clear that it is the result of change of common thinking. I know that the way the word is used here is supposedly to only reference the vast beliefs of the Jews, but only because that's what everyone has told me it is "supposed" to mean, how can we be certain somebody just looking at this article to reaserch Jesus will have the knowladge of this talk page discussion? Homestarmy 13:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

And by the way, on the Mormon thing, as I understand it, Mormon's do not believe either the Bible, the Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, or whatever that 4th thing is to be 100 percent trustworthy, it's very confusing, but it is not based on literally interpreted building blocks in Christianity. I mean Mormon's apparently say nowadays that there can be god's over all the planets, not a clue where that comes from, but the point is, it's not built literally on Christianity or come to think of it, anything else. And to tell you the truth, I can't think of a single pair of religions in the world that are built on top of each other like Judaism and Christianity are..... Homestarmy 13:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Zoroastrianism and Vedic hinduism are "built on top of" earlier Aryan beliefs, and then Buddhism branched off from aspects of Hinduism, as did Jainism. Islam is "built on top of" both Judaism and Christianity; and Sikhism is built out of a branch of Hinduism sympathetic to aspects of Islam; and Bahai is a branching out from Shia Islam.

Now you may say that Christianity emerges logically from the prophesies in the OT, but these other faiths are not "built on top of" their predecessors in the same way. Fine, that's the traditional Christian POV. But that's all it is. Talk to a Muslim and they will say that Judaism and Christianity both corrupted God's message, which why a new scripture was required. That's their POV. Talk to a Jew and they will argue that you have to distort "OT" prophesies to make them fit Jesus, and that the NT even includes "prophesies" that are nowhere to be found in Jewish scripture. That's their POV, and that's what we understand by Judaism. Paul B 14:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Aw now that's all semantics about what constitutes a building block, but that's not what this discussion is about, can't we just say "Judaism as of about 70 AD/CE says/claims/believes/whatever...." and be done with it for now? You might understand Judaism to be "Jewish people's POV." But when I see "Judaism" I think "The religion of Judaism" not "The POV of the people of Judaism", the reason for that is, quite frankly, in Christianity, with all the different POVs, I am not inclined to think that it is what people think that matters, but what the Bible says that matters. Therefore, im not so inclined to think that religions are broken down compleatly into what people personally believe. Of course, I don't represent most people, but this article shouldn't be written so that any person who just comes here ever needs a considerable amount of inside knowladge of the meaning of Judaism here and where it's even coming from. Homestarmy 14:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course it's "semantics". That's the point. There are different interpretations, but when we use well established terms like "Judaism" we use the standard meaning, that's WP policy. "Judaism" is a relgion. Rather uniquely, it's also an ethnicity, so there can, in a sense, be non-Jewish Jews, if they have rejected the Jewish religion. That certainly leads to confusion, but there's not much we can do about it. The word "Judaism" refers to the relgion that identifies itself in terms of an ethno-religious continuity with the traditions of the Torah and does not see Jesus as having affected that tradition, any more than they see Mohammad, who also claimed to be a prophet in the OT tradition, as having affected it. Paul B 14:57, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

So wait a minute, your saying that Judaism represents the ethnicity as well and that changes the definition? It seems to me there's a simple way to resolve this, just put "Judaism as of 70 AD/CE says..." or "Judaism as defined by ethnic and religious definition says...." I've never heard of Judaism's standard definition as including most everyone who is ethnically a Jew, why should the article depend on the reader to know this to understand how the word Judaism is being used here? Im only asking for a few little words of clarification, not a whole re-write in which I single-handedly condemn Judaism in every way possible. Homestarmy 15:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Judaism doesn't evolve into a new religion just to deny every messianic claimant (and there have been many). "Judaism as of 70 AD/CE says..." is as unneccessary as saying "Judaism as of 1666 claims Sabbatai Zevi didn't meet messianic qualifications". The latter candidate, btw, came a heck of a lot closer to meeting traditional qualifications, but still no cigar, according to Judaism. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 15:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The section in question is about Judaism's view of Jesus, not about what "some Jews", or "many Jews" or "most Jews" purportedly think. Those kinds of phrases are, in fact, unsourced weasel words, and not even relevant, since there are millions of Jews in the world, who have millions of viewpoints about Jesus. Although Judaism does not speak very much about Jesus, Jewish movements, and seminal Jewish thinkers (such as Maimonides), have made authoritative statements regarding him. This is what the section is about, not about some theoretical poll that was taken of all Jews. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't really have anything to add to the debate after Matthew 16. But as I Lutheran, I know how Martin Luther tried to reach out to the Jewish people and share the gospel (challenging Catholic dogma by the way). I also know how frustrated and bitter Luther grew when he wasn't able to win too many converts, and how it poisoned his soul. I pray that Homestarmy is not headed down the same path. Arch O. La 17:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Well if he's here to win Christian converts, he's violating Wikipedia's purpose. If he keeps in mind this is an encylopedia project, not a christian/heathen battleground, and that we're not here to debate personal theologies, just objectively and accurately reflect (in this section) Judaism's view of Jesus, then he should be fine. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 17:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. The religious discussion/debate on this Talk: page was interesting and all, but we have to remember that Wikipedia is not a discussion forum or a soapbox, that this is a summary article about Jesus, and that the section on the views of Judaism is itself just a summary of another article. As such, it should briefly state Judaism's view citing reliable sources, which I've done, quoting authoritative Jewish sources, and bringing sourced statements from Orthodox Judaism to Reform Judaism, which pretty much covers the spectrum. This small section is certainly not the place for vague POV paragraphs filled with weasel words claims about what "some Jews" believe, nor is it the place for another Christian-Jewish debate about whether or not Jesus really was the Messiah; I don't imagine we'll be having little "Christian rebuttal" sections under the views of other religions (e.g. Muslim) as well. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Jayjg for your recent edits to the section which give sourced clear statements about Judaism's view of Jesus. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 17:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

My pleasure; if you can find more authoritative sources from Judaism which discuss this topic, please feel free to add them. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Aha, I thought it might of been the responsa that did it! I get the feeling I just didn't plain project in this conversation exactly where I was trying to come from, it looks fairly good to me now, good citations and whatnot, seems to explain pretty much everything clearly. It's just before, it didn't specify who or what was saying things, that's what made me assume the worst. Homestarmy 18:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, if all you wanted was clearer sources that's fine. I just thought your approach was opening up a can of worms. Arch O. La 19:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Well clearer sources was apparently one way of solving the issue, what I really wanted was the section to be clear on what it meant by Judaism or balance it if it was the definition I thought it was, I guess it's relatively fine now since it doesn't read much like the definition I thought it could mean. Homestarmy 19:45, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Jesus Seminar

Since this article is about Jesus, why is there no mention of the scholarly findings of the Jesus Seminar? I think they should be included, stating what their puprose was, and their findings. Their scholarly consensus about the words of Jesus as reported in the NT have been very influencial. Giovanni33 00:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I think there was some mention of this on the talk page, but we are still working on citing sources. I leave it to one of the people doing that to explain further. Arch O. La 00:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I think what happened was we were really mentioning it just to answer Rob's objections and it got bogged down while we were using it, we do still need to gather those sources though. Homestarmy 01:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The difficulty is that we have only been able to work through one, almost two intro paragraphs. Jesus Seminar scholars are a part of the group that we are documenting in the second paragraph. When we finally make it far enough into the article to take up the differing perspectives among Biblical scholars, we will certainly want to make their viewpoint explicit, along with scholars who have a more traditional view of things. The real challenge will be in keeping this article general, leaving the specifics to the topic articles that spin off from it. Please be patient.

If you'd like to help, with the documentation, it would be greatly appreciated. Take a look at the list of scholars in note 2 and the folk in note 3. If you have access to books by them, I'd appreciate bibliographic information on the book at the page numbers where they agree to the various assertions we make in paragraph 2 (if they so agree) --CTSWyneken 01:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

This should not be hard and should be brief. State their mission was to perserve Christianity in light of modern understandings, critiscism, (and is thus part of the reform movement) by finding out what saying attributed to Jesus could be regarded as credible, stated it was composed of a group (state number) of hightly regarded scholars, and that their results. To wit:

The Jesus Seminar is a group of New Testament scholars who have been meeting 1985, initial totatlly up to two hundred, focusing on the sayings of Jesus within Gospels to determine the probability of his actually having said the things attributed to him. Their conclusions was that over 80% of the statements attributed to Jesus were rejected non-credible. This means that only 20% of Jesus' statements are likely to have been true. Their conclusions were published in 1993 in a book entitled, The Five Gospels: The Search for the Authentic Words of Jesus. The primary author of the book, Robert W. Funk, also the Founder and Chair of the Jesus Seminar, crafted the results of their deliberations in a color-coded format with charts, graphics, appendices, and copious footnotes.

Might also mention some intersting things such as that the Jesus Seminar determined early in 1995, by a nearly unanimous vote, that the resurrection of Christ did not happen. "It's more likely, the Seminar fellows decided, that Jesus' crucified corpse 'rotted in some unknown grave,' as a press release by the Santa Rosa, California-based group put it. Consumption by scavenger dogs, a pet theory of Seminar co-chair John Dominic Crossan, was another possible fate for Jesus' body, the fellows agreed." [6] Giovanni33 03:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Uhhh, I don't remember an "80 percent of everything was fake" idea when we discussed this....? Homestarmy 03:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

The 80% fake is refers to the statements attributed to Jesus. Ofcourse, if Jesus was fake, then its 100% fake. But, for sure, at least according to a consensus of NT scholars at least 80% is fake. Giovanni33 05:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

What makes it complex is that a substantial number of scholars reject part or most of their conclusions. I our context, when we talk about them, we also need to talk about other's views as well. In the light of the fact that we have yet to finish just one footnote and expand another two, it's just not practical to move on to Jesus Seminar.

If you do decide to go there, expect at least as vigorous a response as you've gotten on the Jewish views of Jesus from those that support the traditional school of scholars, or even some moderate critical scholars such as Luke Timothy Johnson. I, for one, will not be wading into that one until the current documentation is done and until I wade into the third paragraph. Do not take this as non-interest, just that I do have a day job and only so much personal research is able to be done at the end of one the beginning of another academic term. (we are on a quarter system here) --CTSWyneken 11:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we should accurately represent all major views, including the Jewish view. I think they should all be included. I don't see the need for people to argue about this. If this view is included, and the Jewish view is included then they should include the conservative view, as well. I find that we sometimes argue too much amongst ourself attack views we dont agree with instead of just representing all views in the article. Giovanni33 11:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

But they will, hopefully civilly. We say "two Lutherans, three opinions." What would you say the statistic is for wikipedians? ;-) Part of the problem is they will want to debate this issue, rather than summarize scholarship. We will have to patiently explain that, I'm afraid, and document in detail. Hence, I can't join that discussion for awhile. I'm saying this so you don't misinterpret my (at least planned) silence on the issue. --CTSWyneken 11:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Since someone said, I should note that it is not "consensus of NT scholars at least 80% is fake" - the 80% is the result of the activities (I hesitate to call it research) of the Jesus Seminar, which itself constitutes only a certain spectrum of scholars, to put it mildly. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

True, the seminar is composed of scholars from the left, and is not "fair and balanced", but they are the most significant aspect of the "quest for the historical Jesus" in the past 50 years. Heck, I think we ought to have a Jesus Seminar section, maybe near the end of the article (after we've explained the dominant traditional understandings of Jesus). Several paragraphs explaining their rationale and methodology, as well as explaining their critics. KHM03 11:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure, KHM, I only wanted to forestall any impression that the JS are anywhere near a "consensus" of all, or a "general authority". Also, it is methodological incorrect to equate "findings about the historical Jesus" with the only reality and discounting anything else as "fake" (assuming for the moment that what the JS did was research. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:51, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Right...we don't have to agree with their conclusions (some of which I find fascinating, some of which I reject), but most "Jesus research" in the past at least decade and a half has been either directly associated with the seminar or a reaction to the seminar, and we should recognize and address it (but, again, not at the expense of the dominant, more traditional understanding). KHM03 13:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

So the builk of scholarship says.... but we'll go with the older more trsdityional view!!! Brilliant!!! How selective can you get? Robsteadman 18:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Scribes, Pharisees and Saducees Subpage Created

I've created a subpage to keep track of our research on this subject. See Talk:Jesus/Scribes Pharisees and Saducees --CTSWyneken 14:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Dates of Birth and Death Subpage Created

Ditto for scholarship on the dates of birth and death. Talk:Jesus/Dates of Birth and Death --CTSWyneken 14:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Cited Authors Bios Subpage Reorganized

I've reorganized the page for ease of reference and added N. T. Wright. --CTSWyneken 15:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

remove "also"

Last sentence in the third paragraph reads "Most Christians also believe that Jesus fulfilled Bible prophecy." The word ASLO should be removed since the previous sentence applies to SOME Christians but not ALL or MOST.

Stuartyeates 17:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

That's not how I read it. Sorry.Gator (talk) 18:15, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Biographical Article... lacking Biography?

It seems to me that this article, a biographical article, lacks much of a biography. Most of the content that references events in Jesus' life seems to assume a basic to intermediate knowledge on the part of the reader. I think the sections based on the NT should be more focused on explaining the life of Jesus according to the Gospels, with a more critical intepretation or controversies of in a following section. Think about it. Assume you knew nothing about Jesus and read this article. I think you would be more confused than informed. —Aiden 23:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

We're almost down there anyway, right? the problem is the information seems to come from the Jesus in the New Testament article I think, and that and several other related articles, including Historicity of Jesus and Historical Jesus are all bogged down either in controversy or their just not exceptionally good. We could update the Jesus in the New Testament article as we update this perhaps? Homestarmy 23:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

It might be helpful to step through something like the Harmony of the Gospels which would at least place the events in Jesus' life in chronological order. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 23:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Something like maybe:

• Was born to the virgin mary, named Immanuel (Matthew 1:22) which/to fulfille/d Isaiah 7:14 (I think there's some literal meaning of hebrew dispute on "virgin", it might be important to note)
• King herod sends out Magi to Bethleham to find baby Jesus, because of the teachers of the law quoting Micah 5:2 to find the location of the Messiah, Magi trace the star over Bethleham to give baby Jesus gifts and worship Him (Matthew 2:1-12)
• After this, an angel warns Joseph to take the child to Egypt to avoid Herod, fulfills Hosea 11:1 and Jeremiah 31:15 until Herod dies and they go back to Israel and Nazarath, fulfilling something else... (Matthew 2:13-23)

etc. etc. etc.

Yes, I know you told me not to "argue" over fulfilled prophecy or not, but im getting my information straight out of the NT chronologically and it quotes those verses from the OT inside it, I wasn't kidding when I said it was almost like an apologetics book heh. Is this the sort of format we want? Homestarmy 23:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm talking more in a general sense. I think the NT section needs to be entirely rewritten with an actual biography. —Aiden 17:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

so basically, turn those bullet points into paragraph form? Homestarmy 18:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Change to 2nd Paragraph was according to Consenus

The recent change did reflect the consesnus we reached, but I wish that, in the future, we put an "intent to post" message here to be absolutely sure. --CTSWyneken 00:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh ok, it's just I looked and saw a mess of votes "support" and one vote for no support, so I thought we might accidently forget it :/. Homestarmy 00:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not a big problem, really. It just gives folk who may not have caught the discussion a chance to weigh in, or, as happened with the last one I did, lobby for additional changes. I find it good form, though not necessary. --CTSWyneken 01:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Where exactly is there any sort of consensus on "what they consider"? Looking on this page, all I see is back and forth, not agreement. Perhaps someone could point out the specific place where the issue was settled.

See Talk:Jesus#New Motion note my lukewarm opposition. Reverting. You are welcome to argue for it, and, if we can agree, I'll support taking it out again. --CTSWyneken 11:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

For that matter, how exactly do we quantify "large" and "small" with regard to the majority and minority views? Did someone poll qualified scholars and get hard numbers or is this just a wild guess? Alienus 07:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

In a way, yes. Take a look at the footnote to the paragraph. To this date, I am waiting for the name of even one historian who maintains the nonexistence hypothesis. So far, we have a handful of philosophers, a scholar of German language and culture and a journalist. We have also noted there that Bertrand Russell and Voltaire asserted the existence of Jesus. See also the quotes near the beginning of the talk:Jesus/Cited Authors Bios page. You can help by providing citations, both to the majority and minority viewpoint. --CTSWyneken 11:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The small minority is actually a "fringe" group of about 3 historians, so need not really be mentioned. The reason we have included it is to pacify two groups - the ignorant, and the Christophobe. ^rossnixon 08:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Ross, please avoid terms such as "fringe" and ad hominems directed at the minority Also, do you have the name of a historian from the nonexistence hypothesis school? I have yet to see one. --CTSWyneken 11:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

However it doesn;t fit with the concensus of the week before on the enture paragaph. The additions of "what tehy consider" is POV pushing because it is suggesting taht their viewpoint is incorrect. Do look up the meanings of extant and contemporaneous. It is verifiable, factual and widely believed that there are NO extent contemporaneous documents from with "jesus"' supposed lifetime that make reference to him. You are clearly adopting other, incorrect, meanings to these words.

Have a look here: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=extant

And here" http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=contemporaneous

As I've said before, I can see it both ways. The other side argues that by mentioning the minority argument, we give it credence, when most scholars do not. For historians, a document does not have to be contemporaneous is the strictest sense of the term to be evidence of events. I don't view it that way, but the majority above does. Perhaps we should strike both this clause and the mention of the reason why the minority holds their position. It would nake for a smaller and easier to read paragraph. --CTSWyneken 11:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

If you can cite documents which are widely believed to have been written during the period 8BCE to about 36 CE which make reference to "jesus" that we currently have please name them. Otherwise the sentence should remove "What the consider" as it is unverifiable, inaccurate and POV. Robsteadman 10:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I've just had a look, it's was only 5 days ago that the para was put up with "consensus" not to include "what they consider". Some who voted FOR then are now voting AGAINST. What sort of consensus is that?! Stop the nonsense POV pushing and start actually editing in favour of NPOV. Robsteadman 10:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

See Talk:Jesus#New Motion. If you dispute this amounts to a consensus, we could perhaps invite a neutral party to weigh in. Or we can try to work out a wider consensus. See my proposal immediately above. The only way this article is going to be stable is if we respect votes. So, in the mean time, I revert an edit, doing so contrary to my opinion. --CTSWyneken 11:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I see it as opportunism and, as there is now clear evidence of a cabal, team work going against a consensus set up a couple of days before - if this is to be allowed (ie a POV unverifiable slant) we nend to get rid of the info banner on the edit option as THAT consensus has been broken. Robsteadman 12:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

If you wish people not to insult you, Rob, you should stop insulting others yourself. --CTSWyneken 12:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not insulting anyone, mere;y stating the facts as have been obserbed by myself AND others. So you have documents, extant contemporaneous ones from 8BCE - 36CE that refer to "jesus"? Please provide the list below so we can work out whether this "consensus" is correct or not. Robsteadman 12:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way, if "what they consider" is to be kept could someone please name the documents written between 8BCE and 36 CE that mention "jesus" please. If there are none (as I believe the case to be) "What they consider" MUST be removed regardless of consensus - the important thing is that we present the verifiable facts. s, Robsteadman 12:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

A consensus that flies in the face of the facts is worthless. The fact is that there are no extant contemporaneous documents that support the existence of a historical Jesus. This doesn't mean that Jesus did or didn't exist; that's a matter of interpretation. What's not a matter of interpretation is whether anyone at all can show a single document of this sort. Nobody can.

Any attempt to insert "what they consider" is desperately misleading because it implies there's any question at all about whether that consideration is true. There is no question. There is no controversy. There's just this desperate attempt to make people look bad by distorting the facts.

I am very unhappy with the behavior of the editors here. It is not at all consistent with Wikipedia policies or simple intellectual honesty. One of you claimed that "Truth cannot contradict truth". Well, if so, then why are you trying so hard to hide the truth? One thing I can't hide is my disgust. Alienus 17:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Some may consider some of the Roman documents of the period believed to make references to Jesus as "extant contemporaneous" documents. Thus, including "what they consider" is not in any way "POV-pushing" as it simply qualifies this belief as belonging to the group mentioned. Universalizing this belief as fact is, however, POV. —Aiden 18:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Of which period? There were none during the life of Jesus. There's considerable debate over what the earliest mention, with "traditional" sources consistently leaning towards early dates than modern scholarly sources. It's not even clear if any document mentioning Jesus could have been written by someone who was alive when Jesus was. Alienus 18:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the problem here is varying degrees of definition on "extant". When I learned the meaning of this word, the meaning was clear, "It exists". Some people apparently feel extant only means "it exists" when we can see it or we have it in our possesion, similar to the "if a tree falls in the woods and nobody is around, does it make a sound?" argument, which is not a resolved argument by any means since you can change what perspective you look at it from. What if we just find a better word than "extant"? Then this whole argument would be moot, as we could find a word which only means one thing from all perspectives. Homestarmy 18:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

To say something is extant, you are claiming to know it exists. Things that may possibly exist and could potentially be found if they actually do are hypothetical, not extant. For example, Q is hypothetical. Alienus 18:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The phrase "Truth cannot contradict truth" depends on Platonic Idealism, because it describes the ideal form of "truth." (Dig deep enough into Western Christian theology and you find Neoplatonism, which is why I prefer to approach this article philosophically). Of course the phrase makes no sense if you do not subscribe to Idealism. I myself am not trying to hide the truth, but to find the proper balance. I cannot answer for anyone else. Arch O. La 18:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm familiar with Platonic idealism. As it happens, I reject it.

The quote you used is often taken to mean that religious truth, as obtained by faith, revelation and tradition, will never be contradicted by mundane truths. obtained by a rational evaluation of the available evidence. Alienus 18:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I recognize this. I was merely trying to clarify my own POV, as well as take my own advice to examine my convictions. Arch O. La 18:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, what I'm seeing here is people putting "Truth" above truth. Alienus 19:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I have used the quote to admonish my fellow religious people (Christians and Jews and I don't know who else) not to feel threatened by mundane truths; I have also used the phrase to show the nonreligious that I can be reasonable, even if we subscribe to different philosophies. Again, I can only speak for myself. Arch O. La 20:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I would simply say that we should start with the available evidence and follow it to the conclusions it supports, rather than starting with desired conclusions and selecting evidence to support it. Alienus 20:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

That is certainly a vaid approach, although difficult because many if not all of us already have developed desired conclusions long before we came to this article. Everyone, examine your convictions, including your desired conclusions. Arch O. La 20:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Alienus, it really does not matter what you, I or others here think is good evidence or what is not. We are here, according to wp:cite, No Original Research and wp:NPOV to reflect what scholars in the field say. Do you contest that the majority of historians and Bible scholars accept the existence of Jesus? Do you contest that the minority opinion is that Jesus does not exist and that they cite the lack of extant, contemporaneous documents as the reason for doing so? If so, can you provide citations to works that contradict these assertions? If not, then the paragraph is accurate and NPOV according to wiki standards, as it exists. --CTSWyneken 20:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

It would be more productive if you addressed the issue in dispute, which is whether the lack of extant, contemporaneous documents is actual or not. Since it's actual, the "what they consider" is a lie. Alienus 21:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I wish you would stop insulting people by saying they're lying. This is now the third time I have asked you to be civil. Second, I'm confused. Does not the minority consider there to be no contemporaneous, exant documents... and isn't that what the paragraph says? If it is true that these people say that, the statement is both true and NPOV.

Next, please reread this discussion on this before you came (back?) to this discussion. I argued the phrase is not necessary. I can take it or leave it, bacuse the words do not add any meaning to the paragraph. --CTSWyneken 22:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

No the minority might say he didn't exist - the VAST majority say there are no extant contempoiraneous documents - it's only a handful of nuytty fundamnetalists who deny this. It is not just what they consider but what is factual.ALienus has a point about lies - but POV pushing their fantasy might be more accurate. Robsteadman 22:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Again with John 3:16

The following paragraph has been repeatedly restored - usually with only the comment "restore compromise"

Most Christians affirm the Nicene Creed and believe Jesus is both the Son of God and God made incarnate, sent to provide reconciliation with God by atoning for humanity's sins, and acceptance of Jesus as Saviour saves one from sin (John 3:16). Christians generally believe Jesus was born of a virgin, crucified and buried, resurrected on the third day of death, and ascended into Heaven where he resides with God the Father until the Second Coming. Other Christians, however, do not recognize the Nicene Creed as the correct interpretation of scripture.

I presume the first sentence of the paragraph is intended to be parsed as such

Most Christians

• affirm the Nicene Creed

and

• believe

• Jesus is both the Son of God and God made incarnate, sent to provide reconciliation with God by atoning for humanity's sins,

and

• acceptance of Jesus as Saviour saves one from sin (John 3:16).

and NOT

Most Christians

• affirm the Nicene Creed

and

• believe Jesus is both the Son of God and God made incarnate, sent to provide reconciliation with God by atoning for humanity's sins,

and

• acceptance of Jesus as Saviour saves one from sin (John 3:16).

With 2 "and"s in there and neither a comma nor a "that" to mark the parallelism, the sentence is at least syntactically awkward. But my main objection is not to syntax - I mention it only to point out how "stuck on" the last part of the sentence is.

1. The Nicene Creed does NOT say that "acceptance of Jesus as Saviour saves one from sin (John 3:16)" -- rather it says that Jesus came to save people - no condition is mentioned. (Whether the condition is understood as necessary, sufficient, or anything else, it is still a condition.) The reverter has contended it IS in the Nicene Creed, or implied, or something... -- but it is NOT there, and any revert based on such "reasoning" is POV and Original Research.

2. The paragraph repeats "Nicene Creed" and as such, forms a bracket around things in-between, and has been repeatedly restored to keep that bracketing. If things in the middle are NOT about the Nicene Creed, then such should be explicit.

3. Catholics & several other groups (Greek Orthodox too, I think) do NOT believe that acceptance of Jesus is a condition (neither necessary nor sufficient) of salvation. Catholic theologians had even "invented" Limbo for those who were neither baptized, nor had accepted Jesus. According to this view, until Jesus, all good people went to Limbo. For centuries afterwards, with most of the world never hearing of Jesus, Limbo would probably still have been FAR more populated than heaven. Even now, more conceptions end in spontaneous abortion than birth. While the RCs no longer teach Limbo, they do still teach that those who never "accepted" Jesus can be saved. The RCs seem ready to even say they are already in heaven. The RCs also teach that those adults who lead a "just life" yet never "accept Jesus", can also be saved.

• • The Second Vatican Council's Decree on Ecumenism explains: 'For it is through Christ's Catholic Church alone, which is the universal help toward salvation, that the fullness of the means of salvation can be obtained... (C.C.C. # 816)
  • Lutherans also have agreed with the "just life" view

4. Even IF the majority of Xians belonged to churches that held this John 3:16 position, it would be only a bare majority (and it is NOT clear even that such IS the case). The introduction is needlessly introducing an issue about which there is no general agreement in Xty - and gives NO indication that there is contention on this issue. This topic, not being generally agreed upon, does not belong in the introduction - John 3:16's being "stuck on" is evidence that it is there mostly either to satisfy someone's desire to profess his/her faith or to engage in some Bible-thumping. It is misleading to present only the predominantly Protestant view as the view of "most Christians" (there is also other distinctly Protestant vocabulary in the paragraph and article, btw, but that's for another day). The proportion of Xians who believe the first part of the sentence is in no way commensurate with the proportion of those who believe the last part - and it is misleading NOT to point this out.

5. The clause in NOT really about Jesus, but rather about a religious relationship to Jesus. Not even the "Religious articles" on Jesus even mention this condition for salvation. This is supposed to be primarily a biography article about Jesus - not one about what certain sects teach about how one is supposed to relate to him.

6. Only one person has repeatedly restored my removal of that part of the sentence. I take it that is because I have already persuaded people here that it does not belong. Just because 4 or 5 people agreed on a compromise one week does not mean that the text is to remain unaltered despite further discussion. Another sentence has already been added on.

7. Why does it take a non-Christian to point this out?

I think I have amply demonstrated why this clause does not belong in this sentence in the introduction. This John 3:16 view is not agreed upon in anywhere near the same proportion as the other views in the sentence - it is quite likely not even the position of the Xian churches to which the majority of Xians belong. It is time to see who is fighting against the real consensus

• See also
  • Talk:Jesus/Archive_19#Catholic_view_on_salvation
  • http://www.beliefnet.com/story/57/story_5704.html
  • http://www.religioustolerance.org/limbo1.htm
  • http://www.moraltruth.com/t03.asp
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jesus/Archive_34

--JimWae 07:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

FWIW I agree with Jim. There is too much reverting to the unverifiable and inaccurate. Robsteadman 11:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

This paragraph needs some work and, in particular, citation. I'll stay out of it, however, until the citations in the first and second paragraph are complete. There is only so much research that can be done at once. --CTSWyneken 12:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

We'll get to it again in time, yeesh :/. Besides, since the Creed says that Jesus saved us from sin, and John 3:16 says we have to accept it, it's just combining the meaning of the creed and John 3:16, what's the big deal? Homestarmy 16:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The "big deal" is accuracy - that is what an encyclopedia is meant to be about. Robsteadman 16:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The compromise was meant to include both Nicene and non-Nicene views within the broader "Christian views." I have proposed that the reference to John 3:16 be moved to under "Life and Teachings, based on the Gospels." Beyond that, the paragraph was essentially designed by commitee, and the syntax could use some work. Arch O. La 18:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

But isn't that really fro the body of the article rather than the intro? General, most "christians" believe in intro - nicene and nicene later? Robsteadman 18:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

There were people arguing that, as well as people arguing for a more detailed description in the intro paragraph. Hence the compromise. Arch O. La 18:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Unprotect

Surely it is time to unprotect this page and allow the wider WP community to have a go? Robsteadman 11:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The dust should have settled on our vandalism and we can surely go back if it reoccurs. --CTSWyneken 11:32, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure.Gator (talk) 13:04, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the semi. Hope it works out... William M. Connolley 13:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

"What they consider"

OK - so please list the extant contemporaneous documents written between 8BCE and 36 CE that mention "jesus". If they are none then "what theyu consider" should be removed as it is unneccesary and POV. If there are none those scholars "cite the lack of..." Robsteadman 12:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I propose to give it 72 hours before restoring the verifiable and factual version of the sentence and removing the POV slant so I do look forward to a long list...... Robsteadman 12:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll say this but once so we don't get into an argument. Rob, we are not trying to say that they are lying when they say there are no extemp documents, we agree there are none found by your standards. Our vote was simply to clarify that, as with all archaeological work, there is room for discovery, it is very possible that in the future some may be found, you can't prove the negative in this sense. Personally, I don't think many documents will be found if any at all, but if they are found, probably will not be increadibly useful, but it doesn't matter, the point is, they consider there to be no extemp documents, so we put in there that they consider it. Are you denying that they consider there to be no extemporaneous documents? Besides, the vote was like, what, 9:1? Homestarmy 15:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Please then, look up the meaning of the word extant [7]. It means documents we currently have, not destroyed, not lost... ones we have - they are extant. The wording currently sugegsts that tehy are lying and, therefore, is POV. I deny that they CONSIDER there to be none - they CITE that there are none because that is the verifiable situation. So, unless there are some that appear in the next 60+hours "what they consider" will go because it is not an accurate description of the current situation. Robsteadman 16:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, to be totally factually accurate, we should change it to "what they, and just about the rest of the world including most of the major "christian" denominations, consider to be , but a handful of fundamentalists ignoring the verifiable facts deny...." - what do you reckon? Because that is also the case isn't it? Robsteadman 16:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

This is a waste of time. Alienus 17:03, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Only if you consider allowing a POV to dominate WP. It is worth the time if we achieve NPOV on this article. Currently we are nowhere near. Robsteadman 17:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Rob, the suggested wording does not imply that they are lying but that there is a difference in judgement on what a "lack" (too few) is. Appearently, the meaning of "contemporary" is also challenged or rather narrowed down by some. BTW, Rob, we could also just forget about the fringe view, as other articles on WP do, and still be in line of NPOV. Mentioning it is already moving towards you and your POV. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:19, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I would challenge whether it is such a "fringe" view. Maybe amongst "faith" "scholars", maybne not in the wider world. The point of THIS particular issue is that there are no extant contemporaneous documents - simple verifiable fact. If you know of one please list it. Robsteadman 18:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be an intentional suppression of an incontroverible fact, therefore I've added the POV template. You want to resolve this, start by explaining why the article should conceal the truth. Alienus 17:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Alienus, please do not insult users. It is a personal attack. --CTSWyneken 21:11, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Us or Rob? Homestarmy 17:36, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Allow me to chime in, since I've not been involved here and can look with fresh eyes. As the sentence is currently constructed, there's no difference between including the words "what they consider" and surrounding the words "lack of evidence" in quotes; it might be correct, but many readers will construe it as sneer quotes, regardless of whether that's the intent. I'm thinking the structure of the sentence could be inverted so the issue goes away; something like "A small minority of historians consider there to be insufficient extant contemporaraneous documentation to establish the historicity of Jesus". The sneer quote effect goes away, and the sentence now asserts the existance of the opinion rather than asserting the opinion. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 17:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

This sounds logical to me. Arch O. La 18:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The point is that it;s not just insufficient - that is skirting the issue - there is none. No extant contemporaneous ocuemtns exist - we should be reporting that. Robsteadman 18:16, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I would also contest that it is a small minority of historians who say there are no extant contemporaneous ocuemtns - but an overwhelming majority - it is onlyt a tiny bunch of fundamentalist extremists who claim otherwise. Robsteadman 18:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, mainstream Biblical scholars and historians (some of whom are people of faith) feel that there is sufficent evidence to support the historicity of Jesus. There is a small group of "Jesus mythers" who feel that the evidence is insufficient. The most NPOV way we can mention their view is simply to say that they consider the evidence to be insufficient, even though most experts disagree. KHM03 18:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

No, they cite THE lack of extant contemporaneous documents. There are none. They don;t suggest there are none. there are none. That is verifiable fact. I notice in the past few hourts noone has sugegsted one.... have you one? Robsteadman 18:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Whether I have one or not is irrelevant; scholars are satisfied with the evidence...that's the point. KHM03 18:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

They may conclude that Jesus is historical, but they're not doing so on the basis of extant contemporaneous documentation, as there is none. That's the point. Perhaps they are applying a lesser standard, but that's their error, not mine. Alienus 18:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Are the Jesus Seminar not the mainstream scholars of recent years? Robsteadman 18:25, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The seminar are basically (in my POV) on the left side of mainstream, but most would still qualify (again, in my POV) as mainstream scholars. KHM03 18:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

jpgordon's suggestion is a perfect compromise. —Aiden 18:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with Jpgordon's compromise suggestion. KHM03 18:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I do. To say that they "consider there to be insufficient extant contemporaraneous documentation" is to leave the false impression that there are ANY such docs. There are none. Zero. This is like the Monty Python Cheese Shop where no cheese of any type is available. Alienus 18:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

No, we should use the version as of 20th February which was factually accurate (though I would prefer THE lack rather than A lack). jpgordon's version is still open toi interprtation. Robsteadman 18:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

jpgordon's version suggests there are SOME. If there are please lkist them here:

Robsteadman 18:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Then like I said in the previous section, since "extant" is as Rob points out so annoyingly open to interpretation, why don't we just find a different word than "extant" that either means "it exists" or "in our possesion" rather than an apparently annoying combination of the two? Homestarmy 18:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

extant is not open to interpretation - llok at the defintions I have provided above. It means the docuemtns we have - no destroyed and not lost. It is the CORRECT word. Robsteadman 18:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

It is "insuffiocient" that is open to interpretaion. Insufficient suggests that some exists or that we have some. It doesn;t suggest that we have none. It is a heavily POV phrase and we should not be using it in the sentence. Robsteadman 18:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

So... please list the extant contemporaneous documents written between 8BCE and 36 CE that mention "jesus". Otherwise it MUSt be "cite the lack" Robsteadman 18:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Rob, you're entirely correct. Neither "extant" nor "contemporanous" are ambiguous, but "insufficient" is ambiguous to the point of being misleading. If I said the Python cheese shop had insufficient cheese, you might imagine it had some, which is false. 18:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure it's open to interpretation, by "lost", I can easily see that meaning either lost from human view or lost from existance. Highly different, regardless of whether people think one view is absolutly right or absolutly wrong, the facts are dictionary.com doesn't specify "lost" in this particular definition. What is so horrible about finding another word which means either one or the other, and then forming the sentence to keep that in mind? Clarity is a good thing, I mean, I just influenced the creation of an enormous section above about clarity on the definition of "Judaism", take a look if you want to see some examples of what it can mean when a word can mean multiple things and does not have clarification on the meaning. That got resolved....though, technically, I don't think anybody understood what I was saying in the first place, but I guess it doesn't matter now. Homestarmy 18:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

You can't say something is lost unless there is good reason to believe it once existed. Is evidence of Atlantis lost? Depends on whether there was any evidence to begin with. Short of evidence of evidence, the word "lost" is a lie.

What's horrible is that so many of you are trying so very, very hard to hide a simple fact because it is embarassing to your faith. Shame on you all. 18:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

In archaeology, there is no good reason to assume something does not exist, as discovery of new things can happen anywhere, at any time, for any reason, whether we know one or not. If we needed evidence of evidence to find anything, then every time the whole world forgot something, the universe would bend to our collective conscience and erase stuff. But all this arguing over this subject isn't that important when all it takes is just a tiny, TINY little inkling of clarification of definition to fix your problem with this, I see no reason why clarity is so horrible, it's solved problems before, it can solve this one too. I don't think there's anything more I can possibly say here. Homestarmy 18:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Did you learn that from a church archeologist or a real one? The archeologist who taught the archeology class I took said quite the opposite. In specific, she said that we can't pretend something exists; we need to prove it. I guess that archeology is a whole different ball game when you replace the scientific method with blind faith. Alienus 19:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Alienus, now you have insulted a user and respected archaeologists in the same breath. Stop engaging in personal attacks. --CTSWyneken 21:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Wha? No, I used common sense and my general knowladge of how information is discovered in historical and archaeological instances, but this still doesn't matter, it seems most of the people in this debate take issue with varying definitions of "extant", and considering my own experience with being on the Robsteadman side of the fence (Me vs. world, totally comparable.)concerning the meaning of "Judaism", I can safely say that clarification of terms and/or meaning or references should easily clear up this debate once and for all. I don't see why we need to prolong this any more than we have to, we don't have to convince sides that some people are right and some people are wrong if we change the fundamental meaning of the debate to be more precise and clear, in this sense, the word "extant". I don't think your archeology teacher meant "negatives are already proven unless we disprove them" anyway. Anyway, there's nothing more for me to say, some of us have agreed not to keep arguing when people won't stop bringing up the same point over and over when we've already addressed it plenty well, so unless someone has something new to say, this is over unless we make a vote or propose a new solution for this situation or something.Homestarmy 19:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

What she meant is that the burden of proof is not equal. There is no burden to disprove the existence of documents when no proof of their existence has been offered.

I don't see any genuine ambiguity to "extant", so I reject your conclusion. Alienus 19:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Reject it if you like, the ambiguity of it is the basis of this dispute whether you disagree with the grounds of the argument or not, we have been disagreeing with Robsteadman's conclusions and rejecting many of them this entire time, yet the dispute continues. Coincidentally, this is why we should probably find a word that nobody can say is ambiguous for any reason anybody may want to make. Technically, I can turn your argument right around if I really wanted to and say that I do not find any grounds for Robsteadman or you finding the word "extant" to mean anything other than simply "exist", yet considering how interpretations of "lost" can be varied in this sense, it seems to me clearing up the matter inside the article is the best way to resolve this dispute rather than me just having to point and say "We revert Rob. We revert Alienus. Much good article, hahahahah". Homestarmy 19:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I reject it because I must. The word "extant" is defined as "in existence; still existing; not destroyed or lost: There are only three extant copies of the document."

There is no ambiguity here, only your POV. Alienus 20:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Lost here supposedly only means lost in terms of people finding it, not lost in terms of lost from existance, the definition seems to suggest both could be valid, I personally lean more towareds lost from existance, as do apparently a bunch of other people or who knows, they may be banking on something else compleatly, hence, the controversy, which quite honestly, over one tiny word, seems ridiculous. Regardless, trying to bash each other with our own POV's is apparently not going to solve this conversation, which is why it seems reasonable to simply replace the word in question with one which only means one POV, and then changing the sentence from there to conform to it in a way that says "No extemporaneous documents detailing Christ have been found/exist which are in human possession", NPOV, verifiable, and all that stuff Rob likes apparently. There's nothing more I can think of to say. Homestarmy 20:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

You are epistemologically muddled. It doesn't matter whether we lack a copy of Q because it never existed or because it once did but all copies are destroyed or even if some copies remain but have not yet been found. In all of the above cases, we lack any copies of Q. That is how the term "extant" is defined, and how it is used in an archeological and historical context. Thee is no ambiguity here, and no excuse to decrease the quality of the text just to avoid an imaginary problem. Alienus 20:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I said nothing about the Q document, I don't really even care about the Q document, it is not the only theoretical piece of work that could possibly of existed extemporaneously even when we can't very well name any works there theoretically could be since we don't have much evidence of them, but regardless of epistemologicall muddlement or not, I would hardly call a debate this long with a mini-edit war a mere "imaginary problem". Clarity, by it's definition, should not decrease quality, but rather refine it. I haven't even suggested a word/words by which to resolve this issue yet, how do you know if they'll decrease the quality? Homestarmy 20:43, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

It's an imaginary problem that has been used for the real purpose of concealing the fact that no extant contemporaneous documentation for the existence of a historical Jesus exists. Alienus 20:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

It seems some aren't looking at teh definition I supplied:

"ex·tant P Pronunciation Key (kstnt, k-stnt) adj. Still in existence; not destroyed, lost, or extinct: extant manuscripts. Archaic. Standing out; projecting.

Extant contemporaraneous is correct - so, unless you have some from the stated period the sentence should return to teh Feb 20th consensus but with one modification - THE lack. Robsteadman 19:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

PLEASE - just one'extant contemporaraneous document from between 8BCE and 36CE that mentions "jesus" - then we could use insufficient.... just oneRobsteadman 19:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Might I politely suggest that it seems that almost everyone here is seeking consensus, rather than seeking their way and only their way. Dogma is not helpful to gaining consensus. Even it happens to be factually accurate. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:33, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

If I am seeking anything I am seeking the verifiable and factual. Insufficient is not accurate - it misleads and is POV. So, name all these documents and there's no problem. Or accept thre are none and there is no problem. Robsteadman 19:37, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Consensus is meaningless if it presents the unfactual. Robsteadman 19:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

• Please don't yell. It does nothing to further building consensus, and certainly does nothing to establish your point. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 19:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

So what will persuade you andf others? Canb you cite an extant contemporaneous document from "jesus" supposed life that mentions him? If so, please name it. Otherwise the sentence must use the verifiable and factual - "cite THE lack of..." Consensus is meaningless if it presents the unfactual. Robsteadman 19:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Who said we were using the word insufficient? the article should use the word "lack", which in the sense of the word "extant" you understand, is pretty much correct. Unless im remembering incorrectly? And what will persuade me at least would be to clarify the definition of "extant" by writing inside the article, not on the talk page. as for "a" vs, "the", I don't think that's necessary, and I have no plans to be convinced otherwise, sorry. Don't see the big deal myself anyway..... Homestarmy 19:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Rob, there are thousands of historical figures which have recorded lives and histories though no "extant" documents 100% prove their existence. As has been mentioned before, there is little such evidence for Alexander the Great or Julius Caesar, but we know they exist because of references in various material. Are you asking for a 2,000 year old peice of paper signed by Pontus Pilate saying "Jesus existed"? How come there isn't a POV tag above those other articles? —Aiden 20:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm totally lost in the sheer tediousness of this dispute. Is this really a debate about the meaning of "contemporary", with some people thinking it extends to within living memory, and others that only covers his actual lifetime? If so, change it to "during the period he is supposed to have lived". There is no doubt that there are no documents from that period. Or is this really about archaeolgical evidence, as opposed to story-telling. Well, yes, there is none. If that's the case we need a form of words that refers to archaelogical/archival material rather than stories. The "what they consider" phrase is not very desirable because it compounds ambiguity rather than bringing clarity.Paul B 21:08, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The dispute is about whether there is any extant contemporaneous documents to support the idea of a historical Jesus. As you pointed out, this is uncontroversial, so all of this chatter is useless.

To deliberately hide a relevant fact is POV, and the NPOV requirement officially trumps not only majoritarianism but even consensus. Therefore, there can be no valid consensus that allows the current "what they consider" phrase to remain. Alienus 21:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

It appears the debate is over "extant" rather than "contemporary", this argument looks ridiculous to me too, lets just find a better word that everyone can agree on and get going. Homestarmy 21:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Scholars consider first century documents A-OK. Quite contemporary enough. We simply need to reiterate their opinion. Take it up with them; not here. KHM03 21:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Look, we need not mention the "Jesus myth" theory at all according to Wp:npov#Undue_weight. We're willing to do so in order to find compromises and achieve some sort of consensus. Bottom line: the academy has determined that Jesus did exist, based on the available evidence. No one on earth has to agree with them or like their conclusions or how they arrived at them, but that's where the scholars are. Now, a very small group supports the theory of "Jesus never existed". Very small, and pretty much no one in the fields of Biblical criticism or history (see the Jesus-Myth article). Their view has not found widespread support in the academy. This much we all know to be true. Now, if we want to mention this very small, fringe theory, which isn't necessary according to Wikipedia policy, then that's fine. Courteous, I think, to Rob. Great. But either "what they consider" or the "Jpgordon compromise" are not only accurate, they clearly let the reader know that the "Jesus as myth" idea has not found widespread support among scholars. No one editing on Wikipedia is required to produce for Rob's benefit a thing, and his continual insistence that we do provide something is silly (and a little sad at this point, given all that's been done to try and work with him). So, we can do a few things here...either stick to the most recent consensus (which contained "what they consider") or vote on whether to keep that consensus, strike the whole thing (a la Rob), or go with Jpgordon's compromise. There's been a lot of talk at this point; although we don't prefer voting, I don't see anyone's mind being changed, and this may be the best way to find a consensus decision. KHM03 21:12, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll say this once more, because you have not yet seen it above.

Alienus, it really does not matter what you, I or others here think is good evidence or what is not. We are here, according to wp:cite, No Original Research and wp:NPOV to reflect what scholars in the field say. Do you contest that the majority of historians and Bible scholars accept the existence of Jesus? Do you contest that the minority opinion is that Jesus does not exist and that they cite the lack of extant, contemporaneous documents as the reason for doing so? If so, can you provide citations to works that contradict these assertions? If not, then the paragraph is accurate and NPOV according to wiki standards, as it exists. --CTSWyneken 21:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I contest taht neautral scholars all support hisa existence - if the "jesus" seminar only accept a small amopunt of the gospels as fact there has to be quite a lot of doubt. It is NOT origianl research to claim that there were no extant contemporaneous documents - that is the situation. Widely accepted by all but extremist fundamentalists.Verifiable and accurate.Robsteadman 21:34, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Rob, be careful...your original research is showing. You can't proclaim some scholars neutral and other not. You don't have tha authority or the training. The academy has determined that scholars of faith can be valid scholars as much as an agnostic. So, that debate is over...once again, we cannot ignore scholars. Please stop asking us to ignore Wikipedia policy on this; we won't do it. Thanks...KHM03 21:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

So are we agreed that there are no extant contemporaneous documents? In which case "what they consider" can be removed without a vote - remember verifiable and accurate. The red herring of other historical figures is an attempt to distract - this article is about "jesus" - so let's get this one right. jpgordon's suggestion is misleading and POV so does not work. Can we speed this up and just have "what they consider the lack of extant contemporaneous documents"? Accurate and verifiable. Robsteadman 21:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

We're not authorized to ignore the expert scholars on this, Rob. Sorry. KHM03 21:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

We are if they are merely POV pushers and not really experts. Just becasue some priests have written a few books claiming that "jesus" existed doesn't mean he did. ;-) Robsteadman 21:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Or perhqaps you could cite an expert who claims that an extant contemporaneous docuemtn mentions "jesus"??? And teh docuemnt too if possible... Robsteadman 21:49, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Good thing they aren't Preists we're citing, eh? Unless of course, you would care to show the verifiable, NPOV, accurate, "PROOF" that shows every single last person in the entire world who ever claimed or will claim that Jesus exists is a preist. If only the world had that many Christians......ah well. Homestarmy 21:55, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh so now we're citing ALL "christians" not just the priest scholars? Get back on track - those extant contremporaneous documents mentioning "jesus"..... got any yet? EVen one of the priest scholars mentioning one? SO let's make the artiocle NPOV and verifiable. Robsteadman 21:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

1. - Rob, we can't take you seriously when you suggest that a person's faith (whether Christian, Jewish, atheist, or anything else) delegitimizes their scholarly work. The academy disagrees with you, and it violates Wikipedia policy. When you mention this, you diminish yourself and your arguments. Please stop.
2. Once again, Rob, it's you vs. the academy on this. Please contact them with your thoughts and see if you can change their minds. I'd love to hear what they say. Until then, there's really no need to continue this. I'm with Jpgordon or the most recent consensus ("what they consider"). Have a nice evening... KHM03 21:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

A different suggestion

Once again, I have avoided posting anything here for quite a while, but it really seems like that dead horse you guys are beating is about to turn to dust. It seems that the biggest difficulty that this debate is undertaking is the consideration of a specific set of words in a specific sentence. Why not just write an entirely new sentence?

"However, citing the view that historical research has not yet uncovered contemporaneous sources that reference him, some scholars question the historicity of Jesus."

Notes on terminology:

• View - used as opposed to "fact" or other similar terms. By stating view, it neither promotes nor condemns the veracity of Josephus as has been debated here, nor do I use the term "opinion" which could make the reader think it was automatically untrue.
• Yet - used to designate the "lack" of sources but not discount the possibility that they may eventually be found.
• Sources - several historical figures are verified by, if not only by, pieces of information other than writings, such as statues, engravings, etc.
• Reference - again, no source plainly states, "Jesus, son of Mary, born X, died X, roman crucifixion style, etc. etc. etc." Some historical sources may say something to the effect of, "This statue given by Nero in honor of..." or whatever else, providing a reference to but not a direct record of a name which might be associated with a specific historical figure.

Feel free to revise or edit the above statement, but please remember: You have now spent over one month debating the use of about three words in one paragraph on a page that has sixty more paragraphs to consider. Maybe there are bigger fish to fry. --Avery W. Krouse 21:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Not a bad suggestion. Has a good beat...I can dance to it...I give it a 9. KHM03 21:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

A bad suggestion because it implies there MIGHT be documents - we have no eviodence of that. It is implying a POV and therefore should not be used. Verifiable and accurate not POV pushing. Robsteadman 21:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I can live with it. --CTSWyneken 21:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

"Citing the view" is pretty weasely. These people point to the undisputed fact that no documents written during Jesus' lifetime mention him, and that all come "some decades" later. Some specificity might help. Try:

"However, noting that all known documents that mention Jesus were written at least one decade after his death, some scholars question the historicity of Jesus."--JimWae 21:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I like this, it leaves things open for possible future discoveries, (If there will be any, which Rob seems to be getting angry about.) however, what about "adhering to the view" instead, it seems a bit off with "citing the view", I mean, how do you make citations of a viewpoint? Someone would have to own it....Homestarmy 21:52, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

They don;t cite an opinion - they cite the FACT there are no such documents. The priest scholars state their opinions without facts. You;re getting the verifiable and the hopeful fiction muddled. Robsteadman 21:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Warning User Robsteadman: you are engaging in personal attacks on recognized scholars. Please stop. --CTSWyneken 22:22, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

You might recognise them - I do not. Priest scholars are merely POV pushers. Let's stick to the verifiable and the factual. Have you come up with any extant contemporaneous documents mentioning "jesus"? Have any of the preiest scholars? Please feel free to list them here. Robsteadman 22:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Robsteadman 19:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem is, quite frankly, the Good Article system isn't really designed yet to be extremely competitive or with a high degree of oversight, if someone comes in and thinks something is a good article they can just put it up unless they've worked on it personally, and if someone thinks the quality has slipped they can technically just drop it at the tip of a hat, there's no moderation so to speak, I think it's fairly new. We're trying to make a project on it though with more standards, basically, the main systems we got that make it more standardized and useful is self nomination so people who have personally worked on the article can't put it up as good immedietly, and there's the good article dispute section so people can review things together if there's an argument. I'd venture to say there would be a good bit of distress over dropping Jesus with no warning because good article rules really are more bendable that featured article rules, a review would be more in order. Besides, we need more perspectives here probably anyway, especially if an RfC or ArbCom request thing starts. Homestarmy 20:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Dates

I think slrubinstein's moving of the adtes into the 2nd paragraph is a good move and I am disappointed that it has been reverted. the move makes more sense, makes it much less POV (almost NPOV) and makes the intro para read much better. Please could we put it back in the 2nd para? Robsteadman 13:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I had a liking for the move too (for stylistic reasons), but now that you declare it a matter of POV I must say that that it is standard for WP to include living dates in the first line of an article. Jesus should be no exception. However, I suggest giving approximate dates, so instead or 8/4 - 29/36 I'd suggest sth like "before 4 - approximately 30" Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

It's POV because of the debate as to whether "jesus" existed or not. It makes more sense in the second para where it is put into context - ie. SOME scholars say this but it cannot be proven beyond all doubt. If it is retained in the 1st para it should have a "possibly" attached. Robsteadman 14:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The second paragraph has been argued to death Rob and there is clear consensus regarding that pargraph. Please respect that. The dates are fine as they are. Perfectly NPOV. Maybe not your POV, but NPOV nonetheless.Gator (talk) 14:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Just because the 2nd para was agreed over the weekend doesn;t mean it cannot be changed. slrubinstein made a good edit and it was reverted for no good reason. The dates are POV because they imply, in their current format, that "jesus" definitely existed - we cannot, and should not, say that - we can say that x and y scholar says he did but we must NOT be stating that he DID exist. That is NOT verifiable. Robsteadman 14:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I think Rob's request seems fair; what does everyone else think? We can certainly say something like, "Scholars believe..." or "most scholars believe" or whatever. KHM03 14:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm opposed. the second paragraph is perfectly fine the way it is and is the product of a great deal of discussion and consensus. No changes just yet.Gator (talk) 14:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

And that is protectionism which is contrary to WP policies. Shameful.Robsteadman 14:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Please quote said policy. --CTSWyneken 14:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I meant principles! "Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." Robsteadman 14:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Please note I am one of the said "anyone." --CTSWyneken 14:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Dates, by their very nature, are informative. I see no need to supress information because a few select people are apparently offended by the evidence. Homestarmy 14:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting suppressing the dates, and I suspect slrubinstein wasn't either, just putting them in a better and more appropriate place. Similarly, we shouldn;t be saying he categorically lived just because some academics think he did - we should only say that these scholars believe he did. It is not factual to state he did - the dates in their current place with no qualifiers, state he did. Robsteadman 14:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Leaving out the dates in the beginning is a tacit approval of Rob's extreme "non-existence" POV. Since all articles include living dates in the first line this one should do so too in order to remain NPOV. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

No it's not. It's fulfilling the policy of verifiability. If you have absolute proof provide it. If not we only have that some scholars believe.... Verifiable. Encyclopedic. Robsteadman 14:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I can't think of any absolute proof that scholarly work is relegated to your definition of belief as inferior. Homestarmy 14:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I repeat - we cannot and should not state as fact he existed. That is not verifiable. And we cannot state as fact those dates. Not verifiable. However, we can say that certain scholars believe/state/hold/argue that he existed and that they propose these dates. Verifiable and factual. Robsteadman 14:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The revert was made because the change was not discussed here first. I am acting as I said I would, even though the person who made the change is someone I get along with.

As to Rob’s arguments, we’ve been over this territory several times before. Since we know what each other is going to say, why not just skip the debate and go to the matter at hand?

The fact is that, according to wp:npov, we need not mention the nonexistence hypothesis at all. Indeed, most encyclopedias do not. We do it out of respect for the opinion of the few non-historians in the scholarly community that assert this view. We are under no obligation in wikipedia to extend this courtesy to every statement in the article.

That being said, I have no problem moving the dates to the 2nd paragraph. It is not only Rob who supports this, but also slrubenstein and I. I just think it fits better there stylistically. I only ask that, if it moves, it be carefully done, so as not to destroy hours of my time documenting the views of the scholarly community. --CTSWyneken 14:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Shall we remove all the wikilinks I aded without discussion? ;-) Robsteadman 14:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

It's a shame the people at Evolution don't have your attitude Rob, I wrote like a manifesto of the history of evolutionary theory in a nutshell there just to get a mere tiny line of even slightly NPOV recognition that other opinions do exist and are held by scientists, no dice. I see no reason why not to turn the tables to assert that Jesus existed due to scholarly consensus, as consensus appears to be the king of all standards in the academic community. Plus, we're not supposed to do original reaserch anyway, so we can't just throw in what a few Atheistic websites say with all their big words and stuff. Homestarmy 14:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not ORIGINAL research. It's reporting the verifiable facts of the subject. Unfortunately some seem to want to deny the facts and not report in a verifiable manner. Just because some scholars suggest/argue/etc. doesn;t mean it is fact. Particularly when many come from such biased POV backgrounds as being priests. Robsteadman 15:00, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I will again say that Robsteadman has professed not only a scientific worldview, but a strong scientific worldview by definition as a Bright, and his quizfarm scores maintain his worldview is strong even for a bright. He is adhering to a strict definition of fact while the rest of us are judging what is reasonable—which is, by a strict definition, informed opinion. I see the value of both the naturalistic and the metaphysical (for example, theistic evolution). There are also those who deny science based on faith. I am disturbed both by those who deny science based on faith, and those who deny faith based on science (to me, both are extreme POVs). That said, informed opinion is reasonable, but it is still informed opinion, and is distinct from "fact" by a strict definition of "fact." The previous sentence is, I believe, the point that Robsteadman has been making. In the social sciences, the term used is "reification." Arch O. La 19:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

People, I am getting the impression that individuals are resistant to anything Rob says regardless of the content. Two wrongs does not make it right. I can't believe that anyone really cares if the dates are in the second paragraph or not. Let's quit choking on gnats and be more cooperative. Storm Rider 19:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Amen. Arch O. La 19:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Motions on the floor

We have four motions on the floor:

• Delete Saducess and Pharisees from second paragraph.

• Oppose. Gator (talk) 21:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. KHM03 22:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Without mention of those guys, you lose some very specific background information from the main source the article admits is used, the gospels. Homestarmy 22:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. But find a way to refer to Judean. Robsteadman 22:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support. It is a factual error to say "a large majority of scholars agree" Jesus is at odds with the Pharisees. (Even Vermes and Sanders who are in the bibliography disagree. Also Charlesworth and Flusser.) Moreover many important scholars disagree Pharisees are "authorities". The clause is simply too problematic for it to be connected with the phrase "a large majority of scholars agree". Haldrik 23:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

For crying out loud. Even the body of the article says this: "Recent Christian and Jewish scholarship has moderated the perception of opposition between Jesus and the Jewish teachers of his day by showing his substantial agreement with trends in the Jewish religious thinking of his day." So get rid of the "at odds" with the Pharisees already! Haldrik 06:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose (Steve 23:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC))
• Support. The factions are mentioned several times elsewhere. They are not the "authorities" for the reasons S gave. Paul B 23:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose drboisclair 23:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose ^rossnixon 00:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Move dates from first paragraph to the second

• Oppose. Gator (talk) 21:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support. KHM03 22:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Homestarmy 22:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support. A good edit by slrubinstein earlier. Robsteadman 22:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Garglebutt / (talk) 22:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. (Move the full version alright, but retain a reduced version at the beginning) Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose (Steve 23:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC))
• Support Paul B 23:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. An historical person's dates follow his name. Jesus is an historical person. drboisclair 23:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

And that is the crux of it - IS he an historical person? There is NO extant contemporary evidence only opinion.Robsteadman 07:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose ^rossnixon 00:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Extend birth range to 2 BC/BCE

• Support. Gator (talk) 21:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support. KHM03 22:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Homestarmy 22:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. - There is no evidence for this. A nonsense. Robsteadman 22:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. Rob is right on this. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Haldrik 23:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support (Steve 23:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC))
• Support. drboisclair 23:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose ^rossnixon 00:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support I just understood this vote now! Would even support to 1 BC. ^rossnixon 00:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

So we're saying that Herod did things AFTER his death? Robsteadman 07:19, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Yeah - decomposed. But seriously, he could have died in 1 BC. ^rossnixon 07:45, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

But there is overwhelming evidence toi say he died in 4 BCE. This suggestion is maverick. Robsteadman 08:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

But Rob, by your rules, there's no evidence that can tell us the date of Herod's death or anything about him at all -- assuming that is -- we have a coin with Herod's name on it or his name carved in stone. Everything used to establish this date is in Josephus. ;-) --CTSWyneken 12:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Rob - born before 4 BC means born before Herod's death. Herod's death might have occured in 1 BC, but as long as 4 BC is the accepted date we should use this date. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 08:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The point here is to avoid having to say in the intro: "so and so advocates 8 BC/BCE, so and so 7, so and so 4 or 5, so and so 2 and so and so 1 BC/BCE." By constructing a range that includes every proposal by a historian, we can avoid that detail. In a later section or in a separate article, we can spell out who believes what or why and even throw in the philosopher or two that thinks he didn't exist at all, if we wish.

We need to remember, it is not our opinion that counts, but those of scholarship in the field. --CTSWyneken 12:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

And, above scholarhsship/opinion, there is always irrefutable fact and evidence.Robsteadman 17:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Remove POV tag

• Support. Gator (talk) 22:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. KHM03 22:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Homestarmy 22:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. While the POV is disputed the tag should remain. Robsteadman 22:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support. Only really opposed by someone who is unlikely to agree with this article until it is moved to WP:FICTION. Garglebutt / (talk) 22:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Now maybe you've hit on something there. ;-) Robsteadman 22:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Rob, here is the fictional Jesus. Arch O. La 09:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I could suggest that teh fictional "jesus" is found here: http://www.bible.org/netbible/ and in all other translations. ;-) Robsteadman 17:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

• Support. What dispute is there left (except for a lone voice saying "he didn't exist". Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't think scholars have reached a point where they can discuss neutrally the historicity of Jesus who is a Jew (!) (not a Christian) without having to wrestle with the religious implications of their own or others. Haldrik 23:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

You seem to be saying there should be a permanent POV tag. Do you really mean that? Paul B 23:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Any historian can make an historical judgment about whether or not something or someone is historical without reference to religious implications. We could question whether Buddha was an historical person with that train of logic.drboisclair 00:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The POV Notice doesn't just apply to whether he existed, it applies to anything including what he himself taught. For example, one of concerns I have is many scholars who investigate Jesus have less than desirable knowledge about Judaism, and thus can't interpret him in his own Jewish context. Jesus has a religion, is even an expert in that religion, and it isn't Christianity.

And that is POV in itself: "desirable knowledge". One should just have expertise in the particular topic of Jesus, although an understanding of Judaism and Judaica is helpful. drboisclair 00:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

A scholar must have a clue what they are talking about. It is absurd for a scholar to claim to be an expert on Chairman Mao, if that scholar doesn't speak Chinese or even understand Chinese culture. Likewise it's ridiculous for scholars to claim to be an expert on Jesus if they don't speak Dead Sea Scroll Hebrew (and Aramaic) and understand ancient Jewish culture.

• Support. There is only dispute from one individual Paul B 23:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
• Support. It appears as if Jesus himself were being singled out for criticism. Why not put POV flags on all religious figures in history? drboisclair 23:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

This article is about "jesus" not other historical figures for whom there tends to be at least SOME evidence.

• Support ^rossnixon 00:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

WHat a shame that one editor saw fit to remove the POV less than 24 hours after this mockery of a vote began and only 36 hours after the tag had been applied. I have restored it. Things are still disputed. More than one editor agrees. There is not consensus /. Robsteadman 17:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not a vote but a summary of opinions. If the vast majority agree with what is fair and reasonable then I would hope that the minority would continue working on reducing perceived POV without trying to grand stand. At this point I don't see a majority but I can see where it is headed. I have no particular bias in this article as there is no doubt that Jesus was one of the most important figures in history regardless of whether he actually existed or not. I am not an SME so won't be making critical assessments of discrete facts but I will be keeping an eye on this talk page to ensure we are working on the article rather than pontificating on our own view of the world. For those who consistently disagree with how the article is being revised you may wish to consider WP:COOLing your heels and walking away from it for a while. Remember that you are supposed to WP:ENJOY your editing experience. Garglebutt / (talk) 22:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I was going to say something, but then I realized I'd be pontificating on my own worldview. So instead I will just strongly affirm what Garglebutt has said. Amen. From this time forward, let cooler heads prevail.Arch O. La 23:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Any more discussion?

(Says going away for the evening...) --CTSWyneken 21:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

1. Neutral on all four. This is becoming far too political, as per "Further Clarity" below. Arch O. La 22:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC) Addendum I think we all need to step back from political and ideological gridlock, and return to the collegial atmosphere of Wikipedia. Arch O. La 05:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't the date range earlier than 8-4 BC to start with anyway or am I remembering wrong? Homestarmy 22:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The date range was "later": 6 BC/BCE-4 BC/BCE. There are some scholars who believe that the Herod the Great eclipse of 4 BC/BCE was later in 1 AD/CE. drboisclair 00:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

I am amazed folks! All I wanted to do is let people know what the outstanding issues were and ask for discussion. (OK, and I ran away, I admit it!) I come back and a full blown vote is underway. I'll check back in the morn, but I'd expect we need to talk a bit more.

May I ask that we not egg each other on, offer our opinions of the facts and focus on the question, which is, what do the scholars in this field say about each issue? While I want done with this paragraph and wish we could have had a week off from its discussion, I don't think we need to be in a hurry here.

I want to thank Haldrik for the Finnegan reference. I could use help with the footnotes, BTW. I need precise page references to document what we are saying. For instance, where exactly does Finnegan advocate 2 BC/BCE as the birth date of Jesus?

Finegan is technical reading, but he lays the argument out plainly enough in §549. (He uses section numbers instead of page numbers.) Haldrik 04:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

As I continue my documentation, I'll check to see what the scholars say about the historicity of Jesus. --CTSWyneken 03:05, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually the scholars in the bibliography are good and representative of the current scholarly consensus. (Or at least representative of the current scholarly debate. ;) ) A couple more scholars who are important are Charlesworth and Flusser. Haldrik 04:13, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

To follow the rules of wp:cite and wp:npov, we need to note exactly where an assertion or series of assertions is found in scholarly literature. If you look at notes 1, 2 and 3, you'll notice I've begun this. That way, if someone says, "wait a sec! It's just your opinion that..." We can say, "no it is the opinion of so-and-so on page such and such. That ends the debate as far as whether an fact or opinion is allowed in a wiki article.

On that I could use some assistance. We need references to the far ends of all four dates: earliest birth, latest birth, earliest death, latest death. The ones I've cited to date are in agreement on 4-5 BC/BCE for birth and I've not documented death dates yet.

I haven't yet finished the majority opinion cites in note 2, nor many of the nonexistence hypothesis works. (These are not at our library, and I'll need to pull them in from somewhere to establish them). As a good will gesture, may I suggest we suspend debate and have everyone work on this until we have no naked names in the notes?

As to why these specific names in the majority list, we want to show that scholars of very different views, some of them non-Christian and pehaps some of them atheistic, all agree on the basic description in paragraph 2. So far, this appears to be correct.

This morning, if time permits, I'll see what I can find out about Finnegan for our cited authors bios page, and, if the work is in my library, report here that I have a cite from him arguing the 2 BCE/BC date. If this is the case, I'll ask to add the cite and expand the date range on a "without objection" basis. I DO NOT WANT ANOTHER VOTE ... PLEASE! Is this sensible? --CTSWyneken 12:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)