Talk:Historical Jesus

Archives
December 2004 – November 2005ish November 2005ish – January 2006ish January 2006ish – April 2006 June 2006ish – December 2006 January 2007 – December 2008

Related subpage: Sources
Related talkpage: Jesus/Historical_Jesus

Problem of Gospels as Primary Source

Normal historical method requires a primary source to be contemporary of subject and unbiased.

perpetual virginity of Mary, other Christian doctrines

This good article is often marred by partisans who want to attack or defend Christianity. I prefer that we keep references to Christianity and treatment of Christian themes to a minimum. For example, I don't want to have a section on the virgin birth. In the apocalypse section, I don't much care for the quotes about how Christians wish those Bible verses would go away. And I don't want the perpetual virginity of Mary to be an issue. The only reason Jesus' siblings are an issue is because of this doctrine. That said, I see things differently from the average editor, so if there's a clamor for treatment of these topics, let's hear it. Leadwind (talk) 22:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree - these matters belong in other articles, e.g. Christology. Theology is one discipline, history is another. Historians cannot be concerned with the theological implications of their research; theologians are not trained to research history (with of course some notable exceptions). Slrubenstein | Talk 01:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Wisdom Sage section

"If you study the New Testament, you may conclude that he did prophesy the world to be ending in the lifetime of those standing around him.(Mark 13:30)." The sentence is out of context and probably placed by the kind of partisans as described above, so I assume nobody will say it is unjustified to remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomvasseur (talk • contribs) 10:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

missionaries during Jesus' life?

The gospels portray Jesus sending missionaries out to proclaim the kingdom of God, heal, etc. Crossan takes this as a key differenation between Jesus' movement and John's. But did Jesus really send out missionaries, or do those sayings reflect early Christian practice? Luke's reference to seventy or seventy-two pairs of missionaries represents that gospel's global orientation. But even if that's an invention, the more basic commission could be historical. Anyone? Leadwind (talk) 00:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I think it is a good question, and the only answer is to follow NPOV and V i.e. state Crossan's view, and add other views as we find them. I know Crossan's is not the only view - his view is notable enough that i has to be included. Beyond that, I can't help, I do not have my fave sources handy and don't remember what they say. I know that most historians agree that there were Christian missionaries by Paul's time (otherwise there wouldn't be Christians for the Jewish authorities to prosecute) but during Jesus' lifetime, I dunno Slrubenstein | Talk 01:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Jesus Seminar was sharply divided on this issue. I'll incorporate that. Leadwind (talk) 02:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

He did send some out in groups of 2. Whether you can call them missionaries or not is the answer. Arlen22 (talk) 20:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

pagan influences on Jewish Temple?

When Jesus showed up in Jerusalem and caused a stir the Temple, was there anything pagan about it? I've heard references to the Jewish high priest performing imperial sacrifices and to an imperial eagle mounted above the main entrance, but I don't remember where I saw those references or whether they even referred to the Temple of Jesus' day or whether I'm just confused again. Anyone know? Leadwind (talk) 18:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Herod added an "Eagle Gate" to his temple, but according to Josephus, the Zealots removed it. Jewish Encyclopedia: Zealots 64.149.82.228 (talk) 07:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

There was also the Antonia Fortress. See also Jewish Encyclopedia: Jesus of Nazareth: In the Temple. 64.149.82.228 (talk) 07:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Images

I know this page is noticeably lacking in the picture department. But I'm a little uncomfortable with the newly added images. None appear to be from a historical point of view (or at least a contemporary historical POV). They all appear to have strong religious connection, if not ahistorical and/or mythical elements. Is is appropriate to use off topic images covering similar subject matter? Or is it deceptive? Do we need images of the resurrected Christ in the Historical Jesus article? Images from the "pious fiction" infancy narrative? Images from a mostly 16th century European POV (with ethnic features and wardrobe anything but 1st century Judean)? -Andrew c ^[talk] 02:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

We need pictures, but not the ones you're describing. Leadwind (talk) 03:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

My rationale: I used the best artists, Caravaggio, Michelangelo, Raphael, etc. The article was just too dry and needed some life. If you have "historical images" by great artists please add them. And not all of them have religious significance, e.g. Jesus playing with John the Baptist is just a great piece of art f two children playing, by one of the top 3 masters in the world. In any case, to accomodate Andrew's concern I removed 3 images that could have been called semi-religious. The Pilate image has no religious issues, neither does the Crucifixion image. It is just Jesus on a Cross with no angles, etc. The resurrection image also has no angels, etc. If you want to add other images, please select some with high quality from great artists. However, it should be remembered that prior to the 19th-20th centuries paintings that did not have a favorable depiction of Christ would land the artist in a great deal of trouble. Hence any "historical images" with a clinical view would be hard to find. Anyway, please look for some and let us discuss it. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 04:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, we call the infancy naratives "pious fiction" in the article, so the depiction of those two infants together is not a historical occurance (not to mention their ethnicity and cultural depictions are also ahistorical). How much of the article text is devoted to pre-modern scholarship? So why are all the images pre-modern? Just some thoughts. -Andrew c ^[talk] 05:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to just be shutting down ideas, so here are a couple examples of the type of imagery that I think would fit better than western renaissance paintings: File:Pilate Inscription.JPG, File:Judea 1 by David Shankbone.jpg, just for example.-Andrew c ^[talk] 06:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have to agree with you. The ones you have are more suitable than teh Raphael. But the Pilate image is probably ok. Please feel free to replace the Raphael. Thanks History2007 (talk) 09:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone did a computer graphics reconstruction of what Jesus might have looked like, I think it might have been the BBC. I'll see if I can find it. The current images are not appropriate, as they all seem to be painted from a literal understanding of the gospels, which is not the theme of this article. Triangl (talk) 19:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Scholarly Methods

The Scholarly Methods section deserves a main page. I can't find one for it. Maybe it could go somewhere on Biblical criticism, but I couldn't figure out where. Even if it gets its own page, it still deserves a place on Biblical criticism. Anyone want to suggest a spot? Leadwind (talk) 16:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

This giant synthesis ...

is truly heroic, but I don't believe Wikipedia should present its own view of the historical Jesus. Of course, it's not quite like that, rather at every point the article argues back and forward. But instead of this grand synthesis, or maybe complementary to it, the article should present the different views in their own right. Every scholar has her interpretation and very own Historical Jesus and everything in the life of Jesus are interpreted in that light. All the books on the historical Jesus present consistent and coherent accounts of who Jesus was, so trying to reconcile these issues is hard, heavy-weight WP:OR, to say the least. One could identify main areas of contention, but the core of this article should be to present the best current theories on the historical Jesus. Unfortunately, I don't have the time and the expertise to do this myself, but I hope that someone agrees with my general idea, so that this article starts going in the right direction, and one day I can read consistent and clear accounts of the prevailing theories. Thanks, Vesal (talk) 18:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Vesal, I'm totally with you that you should be able to read a consistent and clear account of the prevailing theories. I'd like to see that information associated with the respective source. What's Sanders' vision? Vermes? The Jesus Seminar's? Tabor's? Crossan's? In fact, maybe this page should contain a section of "notable views," and we'd summarize Crossan, Sanders, whoever. Throw in historical views, like 19th century Ritschlianism. This page, however, is about (what scholarship has to say about) the historical Jesus, about which the experts agree in broad terms. He was baptized. He preached about the Kingdom of God and attracted a following as an exorcist, a healer, and a sage. He taught his followers to view God as a loving father, etc. There's a lot we know about this guy. They disagree on whether he preached an imminent apocalypse, and, if he did, whether he made himself out to be the Anointed (Messiah, Christ), as well as whether he claimed to be the apocalyptic Son of Man. They disagree in how much credit to give the Gospels. But overall we do have a historical figure of Jesus. Napoleon gets a page describing him as a historical figure, and Jesus deserves the same. This is that page. Leadwind (talk) 19:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with what you say here, but not with the article ... :) Well, it just seems to me that it tries to do it all within a single layout, that is, present consensus, areas of disagreement, differing interpretations, while building a single biography. When we have different theories about the most fundamental aspect of the person and his teaching, building a biography is harder than say for Napoleon. These "Jesus as X" are almost like different people, and I believe they are sufficiently notable scholarly constructs to each deserve their own sub-section in an article like this.

Another thing I like about about your short post, but I find lacking in the article is the main areas of scholarly contention. Currently, they get lost among the minor disputes about the details of his biography. I think a better structure would be to have a section on the consensus, then, point out the fundamental areas of disagreements, as you did above, and finally, present the different theories. Something like that ... Vesal (talk) 22:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Leadwind, this is incredible work on your part! The section looks very nice, but what do you think about the bigger picture now? I've been thinking. When reading the title "Historical Jesus", a person may primarily think about the Quest, but one may indeed simply wish for a biography of the historical person. The article now takes both approaches:

• Sections 1, 2, 6, 7 are more about the scholarly process of doing history;
• Sections 3, 4, 5 focus on the result.

I am personally more interested in the first topic. For example, I'm very interested in the social and theological implications of these findings. Most of these scholars are themselves religious, often even devout Christians, but the historical Jesus they come up with is so different, so what approaches do they take on the relationship between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith??

To come back to the point, though, maybe people like me should be directed to the article on the quest for the Historical Jesus, which is currently only about the history. These recent additions about contemporary Jesus theories (together with "scholarly methods" and the "criticism" sections) might be better suited to the article on the quest. Then, this article could follow the attempted biography approach. I have nothing against having it all here, except this article might be bit long now. What do you (and other people) think? Vesal (talk) 22:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliments. I bought two books: Theissen & Merz, which surveys the field with authority and names Sanders as an important representative of the majority view; and I got Sanders on Historical Jesus. These two sources really have helped things fall into place for me and answer lingering questions I had. I think this page should be results, about "Jesus the historical man" with a section on "Quest," and Quest should be the process, with a section summarizing this article. This page should be to Jesus roughly what the Napoleon page is to Napoleon (because the Jesus page is not that). Leadwind (talk) 00:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that a Jesus page can't be anything like the Napoleon page, because we have enormous amounts of mutually supportive data about Napoleon, he was known by thousands of people, who wrote about him at great length, we have hundreds of letters to and from him, we have his portraits by contemporary artists (really good ones, at that), we have his body, we've done neutron activation analysis of his hair, from multiple samples, etc, etc, etc. The French, the English, the Russians (especially the Russians), the Spanish, the Austrians, the Italians, the Dutch, etc, etc, all wrote contemporaneous accounts of him and his activities, his associates, his favorite recipes, his moods, his attitudes, etc, and none of these were subjected to censoring or centralized editing or emendation or redaction, and subsequent fraudulent insertions. What comparison is really possible? Nothing, not one thing, was written about Jesus until long after he was dead, and soon enough thereafter whatever was written was subjected to pretty nearly absolute control by a totalitarian authority with a party line to establish. And, the Napoleon story isn't encumbered by a popular expectation that he is going to save us for eternal life with him in paradise. Which could influence the character of the Jesus story, don'tcha think? And, although Napoleon pulled off some pretty good tactical successes in war, nobody thinks there was anything supernatural or miraculous involved. But people treat the Jesus story as if he walked on water. Trigley (talk) 05:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Trigley, if we get to the point at which historians acknowledge that they can't really assemble a meaningful account of Jesus the way they can for Napoleon, you'll be right. As long as historians believe that they actually can discern the historical figure behind the gospels, then WP ought to report on that historical figure just like it does any other. Leadwind (talk) 19:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Vermes and Burchard

Anyone feel like summarizing their views on historical Jesus for the "theories" section? Leadwind (talk) 18:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The Consensus View and the culture of California

The article states: "The latter, non-apocalyptic view is dominant in North American scholarship, though it is said to reflect the culture of California more than the culture of Jesus's Galilee." This is based on German scholars, which is kind of unfair in itself, but I'm more concerned that it might be dated. There are some nice free lectures on iTunes U by Thomas Sheehan from Stanford. I think he said that his views have slowly shifted from an apocalyptic to a non-apocalyptic interpretation, and that his change of opinion has occurred in the last ten years. He claims the consensus has shifted as well, but I'm not so sure about that... Vesal (talk) 17:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

The sentence you mention comes from a recent university textbook. Personally, I would personally lean toward the non-apocalyptic view, but I wrote what the book said. It's current and I don't have any particular reason to doubt it. If there's an RS of similar stature that says something else, please find it.. Leadwind (talk) 01:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I did a little search on google books and I did not find anything that actually disputes what you say. Most of the people claiming the consensus have changed are participants in the debate, e.g., Marcus Borg, so I'm not sure these can be used. The most neutral formulation I found was this: [1], which makes clear the lack of consensus is deep-rooted. But I think you are right that the apocalyptic view is still somewhat dominant. For example, the book description for The Apocalyptic Jesus: A Debate (published in 2001) states "Borg, Crossan, and Patterson argue that Jesus taught that God's kingdom was already here, not that it was coming in the near future. Dale Allison defends the widely-held view that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet." Vesal (talk) 21:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Historical Enoch

Enoch is an important figure in all three monotheistic faiths, but he is still rather misunderstood. Have there ever been attempts to discover the historical Enoch, much like the historical Jesus ? ADM (talk) 21:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that much of the "scholarship" referenced in this section presupposes the phenomenon it attempts to establish. We should apply the same scholarship to the subject of "Historical Leprechauns", with equal justification. For example, we can locate multiple ancient leprechaun stories that feature nearly identical elements (but also plenty of contradictory ones), and we can find evidence of concurrent belief in leprechauns by people who lived where the leprechauns lived. Or, why don't we undertake to reconstruct the "Historical Hercules"? Now there's a son of God with supernatural powers, for whose existence the evidence is as firm as that for Jesus. Or why not Huckleberry Finn? He must have existed, to think otherwise would be absurd; we have his autobiography for Christ's sake, and clearly his contemporaries believed he existed, they wrote about him extensively, and I dare you to find text from a single contemporaneous authoritative source that seriously claims he never existed. So there! And what about Paul Bunyan? Do you think somebody just made up all those stories about logging in the Old Northwest woods? We have extensive archeological evidence for it! And how about Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq? Would somebody just make that shit up? Obviously ridiculous, as much "scholarship" has established! Trigley (talk) 14:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Just find the books on historical Hercules, and you're on. It's the editors' jobs to report what the experts say, even if you disagree with the experts. I don't think there was a historical Hercules, but if there's a rack of scholarly books on the subject, then the topic deserves a page. Leadwind (talk) 02:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello Leadwind, thanks for the response, and I've appreciated your comments in the foregoing sections. I agree that the task is to report what the experts say, but I can't help chafing under their tyranny sometimes; nonetheless, I don't make any changes to articles unless I think the scholarship truly justifies doing so. So instead I explore the freedom of the discussion page! It seems that's where much of the fun really is. I'm somewhat new to Wikipedia participation, so I don't want to step on any toes by overreaching the bounds of propriety. And, thanks for the message on my talk page; it's my first; I've been noticed! I am interested in adding constructively to Wikipedia, but I'll admit that a Historical Hercules page probably won't achieve that. Trigley (talk) 02:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Caesar as Jesus

I would say the text the anon wants included is at best undue weight. It should be cut down, if not removed entirely. One scholar's very out-there theory certainly constitutes fringe. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 03:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I suppose a case could be made that Caeser's death and deification reverberated throughout the Roman world so thoroughly that the Jesus story couldn't escape their influence. If that is what is suggested, there may be evidence that should be described and referenced. But it does sound like a bit of a stretch, on the face of it. Probably lots of other ancient world events and personalities contributed to the development of the Jesus story too. Trigley (talk) 04:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Lacey, for just going ahead and getting rid of this. 09:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Jesus's look alike

Is it conceivable that a look-alike of Jesus was on the cross, e.g. one of his cousins, while Jesus himself escaped the ordeal on the cross, and lived on somewhere else, to continue with his teachings in security and away from harm of the Romans and High Priests. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.70.208 (talk) 13:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Jesus' claims on his divinity in the pre-catholic era

I miss a section about the claims of Jesus about his divinity quoted from the pre-catholic (Constantin, etc) era (early church fathers in the II and III. centuries, gospels, letters). I am not interested in pseudo and false gospels written from the V. century. Varadiattila (talk) 14:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

What pre-Catholic era?Farsight001 (talk) 05:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Latest edits

From the looks of it, I would guess that a college level class (perhaps Religion 301), is editing this article as a group as part of a class project. I would first encourage the instructor and everyone else to read WP:SUP. Next, perhaps there needs to be a little bit of coordination. I can see that one user already reverted 8 or so students all at once, which isn't a great way to welcome a group of (probably) college level students willing to improve this article. From what I've read of the most recent contributions expanding the birth section, the sourcing and content seems good. However, I personally am a little concerned that there are 15kb just on the birth narrative in an overview article. Perhaps it could be summarized and the bulk of the content moved to the Nativity of Jesus article, perhaps starting a historicity section? Anyway, I thought a talk page discussion should be started so anyone with problems or questions can ask and established users with concerns regarding new edits can raise them here. Welcome new users, and good luck.-Andrew c ^[talk] 00:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi - just wanted to jump in as the one who reverted the 8 edits - I did it because a lot of established, sourced material was deleted in the process, without consensus, and without so much as an explanation in the edit summary. I haven't undone the newest editor, because no deletions have been made. I wasn't trying to be unwelcoming. I would encourage the new editors to introduce themselves here and to make use of the edit summary, especially for major edits. Dawn Bard (talk) 00:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree this was probably the only thing to do in this situation, though I think some could be salvaged, here or elsewhere. Style & quality were very variable. Maybe explain about sandboxes? Yet more Crossan, who is arguably already over-prominent here. Johnbod (talk) 04:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, all of them, like User:BillWrede have just been banned as sockpuppets: Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of CollinsShelby. I wonder if that is right. Johnbod (talk) 15:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

As professor of the class which attempted to upload new material to the historical Jesus page, I think my students are owed an explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.190.174.230 (talk) 19:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The information posted to the page was by a college class (Religion 301) that had intended to better the page. The welcoming given was most unfriendly and the charges of sockpuppetry were absoulty rediculous and false. I also think we are owed an explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JCD10 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

What you have here is diffusion of responsibility: a simple mistake was made, but dealing with it in a volunteer project is not always going to be swift; Johnbod speculated above whether this was right or not, and I asked the admin who blocked to comment here --- I will ask more prominently for this to be dealt with, but if you want to avoid situations like this in the future, the students should have introduced themselves and discussed massive changes like this. Vesal (talk) 18:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention that if a checkuser was performed (I don't know if it was or not), multiple accounts editing from a college network would almost certainly appear to have the same IP address, and probably (given that college equipment is usually consistent) the same technical spec as well. Black Kite 18:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I just wanted to welcome the Religion 301 group (belatedly, unfortunately), and make a couple of suggestions. First of all, it is good practice to briefly explain your edits in the edit summary - it just lets everyone else who's interested in this article know what you're doing. Also, as I mentioned above, I was the one who reverted the first batch of edits, and the real red flag for me was that several of the edits removed references and well-sourced material. If you have well-sourced information that contradicts sourced information in the article, it's best to either add it in addition to the current info as an alternate view, or to discuss the change here on the talk page - in advance - to see if there is a consensus to replace the reference. I'd also suggest checking out how to format inline citations to keep the cites in the article consistent and readable. And above all, if you have any questions, please ask - that's what this talk page and our user talk pages are for. In spite of your dubious "welcome," most of us here really just want to make Wikipedia better, and we'll be happy to help. Dawn Bard (talk) 19:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Class / Professor confirmed on unblock-en-l - Unblocking

The professor emailed unblock-en-l after we told a couple of the students who mailed us there to have him verify the class. The professor's identity, email, and class schedule check out - the class exists, the email he used to send the note to us is on his faculty information page, etc. This is reasonably solidly confirmed as a class project.

I am going to be unblocking the individual accounts involved, as this was not a sockpuppetry or normal meatpuppetry exercise, but a class project which didn't know to warn us and which nobody warned adequately.

I am concerned that there were nothing like the normal amount of user talk or article talk page warnings made over this incident. Our policy against biting new users specifically requires that we assume good faith, warn people who transgress, etc. I understand that a large number of new users showing up all at once raises all sorts of red flags - I've been around enough that I know well and personally that 99% plus of these types of incidents are a single ideologically driven sockpuppeteer trying to drive an agenda on Wikipedia. However, even in those cases, we are required to give them warnings and a chance to identify themselves.

The handling here seems to have fallen far short of our best practices for abuse cases (apparent or real). I am dissapointed that there were no warnings or serious discussion attempts that I can find prior to the SPI report.

As I said - I'm going to unblock the accounts. I have requested that the newly unblocked accounts identify themselves on their user pages and on this talk page as class project affiliated, to avoid further confusion, and made sure that they understand the importance of using article talk pages.

The meatpuppetry policy still applies - if they collectively start edit warring again, the ones involved can be treated as such - but the global block on all of them was not a good step. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

There was no edit-warring as such, but a number of rather drastic, and very varied edits were made in one burst all within a few minutes, mainly adding, but also just replacing previous material on similar topics which was as good or better, and with no edit summaries. While there is plenty of room for improvement here, this was not very helpful. I still think it would be better if the class efforts were to go in a WP:SANDBOX for now, and be moved over after discussion here. Expecting users here to issue 8 sets of warnings to people who have been presumably instructed to do something by their professor, and/or to wade through and judge a mountain of edits, is also rather unreasonable. A sandbox will ensure that everyone's efforts remain untouched initially, which is presumably helpful to the class. Johnbod (talk) 19:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to those of you who worked to get my students unblocked. Although we are currently in final exams, several of them plan to participate in editing as soon as they can. I think you will find them to be articulate, intelligent, and good-natured. No socks or meat in the bunch. BTW, apropos of the sandbox, it was important to their learning experience in the seminar that they not view the Wikipedia article on the historical Jesus until they had done their research. Accordingly, we created our own wiki and wrote up our own article, and then compared it to the Wikipedia article. Engaging with Wikipedia before working through the scholarship would have short-circuited the learning process. Again, thanks to all you for welcoming them into the conversation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rel 301 (talk • contribs) 21:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought this was supposed to be about a historical figure

At least half the "information" in this article is straight from the Bible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noloop (talk • contribs) 03:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

But the Bible can be used as a historical source as long as the article doesn't present the Bible as the word of God. The section on "son of God", which you removed, is relevant to the Historical Jesus, as it explains what historian take that phrase to mean. You are welcome to improve that section, but it is certainly relevant, since I believe it is a historical fact that it was one of Jesus's titles. Vesal (talk) 07:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Information using the Bible for citations should be removed. But information in which reliable sources refer to the Bible is OK, as are Bible references in that context (only). Leadwind (talk) 01:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

The whole of the article (almost) is "that context". References to gospel episodes should be cited to the original text, but accompanied by scholarly interpretation. Johnbod (talk) 01:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

You are correct. It is a bullsht article. No roman records, etc.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.113.235 (talk) 16:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

>> This article is not on the 'historical jesus' but on a history derived from a story. There was not and could not be a 'historical jesus'. >> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.77.57 (talk) 12:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Christian Criticism

C. Stephen Evans

Hi all, I at first deleted the quotation below, but realize that such actions probably should be explained first - so I have reverted and offer the following proposal;
I am proposing a rework of C. Stephen Evans' position which is, in my opinion, potentially misrepresented in the below citation from the section Christian Criticism;

Professor C. Stephen Evans writes that "there is no story of the historical Jesus that can be isolated from faith convictions".

In my view this quotation risks misrepresenting both Evans and the book from which the quotation is taken for the following reasons;

• Evans' position is a bit more complex than a simple appeal to faith as the basis for belief in the Historical Jesus. Rather he is a consistent defender of the view that the essential historical reliability of the Gospels can be rationally defended - see, for instance, the discussion in chapter eight, of "Why Believe: Reason and Mystery as Pointers to God" (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996).
• The above quotation is taken from a book which is more than a simple appeal to faith. As Evans writes;

"My own title reflects my thesis that the story of Jesus as told by the Church-the story of Jesus as the Christ the Son of God-can be reasonably accepted as historically true...This book aims to give a convincing account as to why knowledge of the story is important, and also argues that ordinary people who claim to have knowledge of the truth of the story of Jesus of Nazareth may be quite reasonable in making such a claim. Specifically, I claim that the reasonableness of such a claim is not undermined by modern critical biblical scholarship" (p.vi, vii)

• The specific quotation is taken from a paragraph in which Evans is putting a case quite different from that which the quotation implies i.e. he is arguing that the distinction between the Jesus of History and the Christ of Faith is "a half-truth" (p.vi). The extended quote makes clear that all historical reconstructions require "faith" - even those of 'scientific, critical historians' as can be seen from the extended quotation (with the out of context quotation above in italics);

"the claim that the Church's story must be accepted by faith, as usually understood, is misleading for two reasons. For it is often thought that it means that believers hold their convictions by faith and not reason, while serious historical scholars base their views solely on reason. However, to say that the Church's story must be accepted by faith does not mean that such faith cannot be reasonable, or that it can or should be isolated from critical scrutiny. And the suggestion that it is only the Church's version of the story that it requires faith to accept is mistaken. The truth is that their is no story of the historical Jesus that can be isolated from faith convictions, and this is as true for the stories told by 'scientific, criticial historians' as it is for the story told by the Church."

In sum, Evans' position is more nuanced that the quotation implies. I intend to work up a more detailed summary of his position and add it to the article in the next couple of days.
-- Muzhogg (talk) 05:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Would it perhaps be enough to say, on the basis of the quotations given above, that he holds that the stories told by "scientific, critical historians" are based on faith convictions no less than is the account of Jesus as the Christ the Son of God, an account that can be reasonably accepted as historically true? Soidi (talk) 09:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Very much so. He does make the point that faith itself isn't the conclusion of a rational argument - but he's very clear that the Christian account of the historical Jesus is no more irrational than the "historical Jesus" of the historians, and thus a faith that affirms this historical account is not itself "irrational". Evans is a pretty competent philosopher, and the book itself is almost 400 pages, so you can imagine he says alot about the relation of faith, history, and reason. But your remark above does, I think, accurately reflect a major part of his argument. -- Muzhogg (talk) 23:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed mergers

There are many articles on Jesus, as can be seen at Jesus and History. Much of the content overlaps. Would it not be a good idea to merge these sites, with brief and focused fork articles to expand on certain points without repeating all the detail over again? Wdford (talk) 10:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

This page does not represent a historical view.

I propose that the following text be included in the first section:

Some scholars find the existence of Jesus, as described by the Church, disproved by the fact that Paul the Apostle, by many regarded as the founder of the Church, was aware of neither the existence of any of the Synoptic Gospels, nor the existence of Jesus as his contemporary. St.Trond (talk) 19:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Saying "some scholars" is a bit vague and weaselly. Did you notice we already had Historical_Jesus#Criticism_as_myth? Is there anything in that summary you think is missing or needs to be changed? -Andrew c ^[talk] 23:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Fringe hypotheses should not be described as "facts." john k (talk) 00:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Please provide a contemporary source which says that Paul knew Jesus was his contemporary.St.Trond (talk) 06:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

How about Paul's own words in Galations 1:19...This thread is getting off topic and into trolling territory. Hardyplants (talk) 07:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

KJV: "[19] But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.", Alvar Ellegard p. 215: Note that none of those mentioned here are called disciples by Paul, but 'brethren' and 'apostles'. St.Trond (talk) 07:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

"Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days. I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord's brother."

That is one of the reasons why the theory your source is promoting is not taken seriously by scholars, If Peter and the apostles and even Jesus siblings are not recognized as contemporary with Jesus, who is? Hardyplants (talk) 08:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Final line of the 'Criticism as myth' section ("This Position ... is very rare among Historians and Bible scholars") is inappropriate, likely biased, and incorrectly sourced.

The full line is... "This position, put forward works such as the 2005 documentary The God Who Wasn't There, is very rare among Historians and Bible scholars."

There is already a full page devoted to "Jesus as Myth" and so it seems appropriate to just have the link here rather than to pronounce judgment on that page on this one. Also, it might be easy to justify the validity of such a comment if it involved "Bible Scholars" only but to include "Historians" requires a considerable burdon of proof and the 4 sourced references include one broken web link (120 - link to http://home.ca.inter.net/~oblio/CritiquesRefut3.htm), a book reference with no page (117), and the opinion of 2 Biblical Scholars as the belief of all other Historians. At least a reference to a credible survey of Historians with a resulting number of those who believe in "Jesus as Myth" at under 5%?? (is 5% = "very rare"?) would be required to justify such a reference. Either way, it is inappropriate to comment on the validity of such an article especially when it is available and can be read and evaluated on its' own merits.

I suggest loosing the entire section and leave only the link.

Ericpol (talk) 18:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

You certainly don't need a survey of historians. You need a reliable source saying that historians reject the theory. To go through and count historians ourselves would be OR. john k (talk) 18:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I think he probably means an existing survey :) "reference to a credible survey of Historians" was what Ericpol called for. John, surely the only type of "reliable source" on the prevailing historian opinion would be a survey? Gorton k (talk) 12:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

A survey conducted by a third party source would be best. If that doesn't exist, however, we can rely on historiographical essays and the like to summarize mainstream scholarly opinion. john k (talk) 18:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

exorcisms in particular are well-attested

As it stands now, the article contains the line:

Jesus' exorcisms in particular are well-attested

That would seem like a rather contentious statement. Even though there are regions of the world where Christians currently are in the majority, in fact on the planet christian are a minority, so it is a minority view that he was the son of god and had some supernatural powers. The word attested means affirmed to be correct, true, or genuine. If the article is to remain neutral, then the statement must be changed. On the other hand I think it would be acceptable to have: scolar X wrote that Jesus' exorcisms in particular are well-attested. But it would be absolutely crucial to have the scolar X wrote bit. Pnelnik (talk) 17:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

This should probably be reviewed. But nearly every scholar of the historical Jesus agree that he was a "miracle" worker, which means that during his day he performed acts that some or most of the population would consider "miracles" or "magic". This doesn't mean that these historians accept the supernatural. They may have rational explanation for the acts, either intentional deception/slight of hand, or mass delusion, or write it off to well known techniques such as cold reading, etc. It is just saying that there was a common class of people who were magicians/miracle workers in Jesus' day, and that they all accept that historically, Jesus was accepted by his peers and his contemporaries as such. Meier wrote a great deal on this in his second volume. I agree that we shouldn't give the reader the impression that all scholars accept that Jesus held supernatural powers, but we shouldn't down play his accepted social role.-Andrew c ^[talk] 17:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)