Talk:Jesus

Place of birth

Is it simply ambiguity to modify the date of birth (perhaps to c. 6-4 BCE) or at least leave a note stating that if Jesus were born before 4 BCE, he would be born not in the Herodian Tetrarchy but the Herodian Kingdom (as Herod the Great died in that year), or is that worth adding?

fleshing out the historical views section

There's lots more to say than we have, so I'm hitting the books and trying to make sure that the basics are covered. I think I can find a couple good summaries to draw from. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 22:43, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Added historical information about the disciples. Can anyone find a reference for the socio-economic status of the disciples? Should we mention their connection to the Gospels, epistles, and Revelation? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 13:44, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Fleshed out his teaching. It's a lot to cover, and so right now it's just the highlights. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 19:38, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Added Transfiguration w information from two sources. Can I predict that not all editors will be happy that we tell the reader the historical opinion on the Transifguration? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 13:30, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Added more information about Jesus' fateful week in Jerusalem. More could be said. On Jesus' last supper and his messianic entry into Jerusalem, I'm more skeptical than the mainstream sources I'm citing. But our job as WP editors is to represent the opinions of experts, not our own opinions. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 22:30, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Added material about the birth narratives and was instantly reverted. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:44, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

best sources and notable sources

St Anselm says that his sources are as good as mine. He cites scholars I never heard of to make claims that I've never run across before. For my part, I cite the field's best scholars to promote the mainstream view. Is anyone else interested in comparing sources and really seeing which ones are best, which are notable, and which are forgettable? I can put my notes together if people want to see why I keep saying that Sanders, Vermes, and Theissen are better than Keener and whoever else St Anselm cites. But if St Anselm is the only one interested, it might not be worth the work. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 19:15, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Anything that makes Wikipedia a better encyclopedia is a worthwhile endeavor. Lipsquid (talk) 19:22, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

As far as citing scholars you've never heard of, I can't help your ignorance. You said you had reliable sources that cited Sanders, Vermes, and Theissen as the top scholars, but you were not able to produce them. StAnselm (talk) 19:50, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

• Could I point out that the term "best scholar" is not applicable. We can see who the most cited scholar are (notability), but that is not by definition the same as the 'best'. Any scholar that holds a position at a recognized university, publishes with respectable publishers, and is cited by others is a notable scholar. Jeppiz (talk) 20:02, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, are folks interested in the references I have marking out certain works and scholars as notable or especially notable? Lipsquid, you're in. St Anselm, it sounds like you're curious, if skeptical. Jeppiz? Interested? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 13:17, 31 July 2016 (UTC)

Here's a table where we can compare evidence of notability from one scholar to another. I could add Vermes, Crossan, Theissen, and others to the table, but first I'd like to see St Anselm's evidence that Keener is notable.

Scholar	Evidence of notability
Keener	@StAnselm:, here's where you write your evidence that Keener is on Sanders' level.
Sanders	Powell gives top billing. Britannica tapped him to write their biography of Jesus. That alone verifies him a great mainstream source. Theissen & Merz list his work among frequently cited literature, they name him as an important voice in contemporary scholarship, and they cite him by name for his formulation that Jesus' sect was a "renewal movement within Judaism". Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church lists two of his books among their list of important sources for their "Jesus Christ" entry (not their historical Jesus entry). The Jesus Seminar scholars include him on their list of suggestions for additional study even though they disagree with Sanders (and everyone else) about Jesus being apocalyptic. Sanders is possibly the world's most respected source on this topic.
Theissen	Powell gives 2nd billing. Theissen & Merz cite Theissen and his mentor Burchard as an important voice in modern scholarship (for what that's worth), and they name seven of his works as frequently cited sources. Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church lists his textbook among their list of important sources for their "Jesus Christ" entry (not their historical Jesus entry).
Vermes	Powell gives 2nd billing. Britannica gives him an entry with a named author (not by "staff"). Theissen & Merz list his work among frequently cited literature. Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church lists one of his books among their list of important sources for their "Jesus Christ" entry (not their historical Jesus entry). The Jesus Seminar scholars include him on their list of suggestions for additional study even though they disagree with him (and everyone else) about Jesus being apocalyptic.
Wright	Powell gives top billing. Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church lists one of his works among their list of important sources for their "Jesus Christ" entry (not their historical Jesus entry). Not in Britannica. Not in Theissen & Merz. Not in Jesus Seminar

I see that Theissen thinks that Theissen is an important voice... StAnselm (talk) 02:21, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

@Jonathan Tweet: you said you had multiple reliable sources that cite "Sanders, Vermes, and Theissen" as being the top scholars. I am still waiting for you to provide those. StAnselm (talk) 00:57, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

@StAnselm:, as a show of good faith, would you please just put in at least one reference for Keener so I know that you are serious about this process? Do unto others, love your enemies, etc. Alternatively, you could say that you acknowledge Sanders to be Keener's superior, and I'll do Theissen or Vermes next, your choice. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 01:05, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

OK, here is my reference: Mark Allan Powell, Jesus as a Figure in History, Second Edition: How Modern Historians View the Man from Galilee (2nd ed., Westminster John Knox, 2013). Powell has a chapter each on the Jesus Seminar (Robert Funk), John Dominic Crossan, Marcus Borg, E. P. Sanders, John Meier, and N. T. Wright. He then has a chapter dealing with Richard Horsley, Geza Vermes, Morton Smith, Ben Witherington III, F. Gerald Downing, Gerd Theissen, Dale Allison, Bruce Chilton, and Paula Fredriksen; and an appendix (in the revised edition only) dealing with Darrell Bock and Craig Keener. So based on this, I think we can classify the top scholars as follows:

• Top tier: Funk, Crossan, Borg, Sanders, Meier, Wright
• Second tier: Horsley, Vermes, Smith, Witherington, Downing, Theissen, Allison, Chilton, Fredriksen, Bock, Keener

StAnselm (talk) 01:36, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

(Of course, this is relating to "Historical Jesus" studies only - not New Testament studies, which would have a very different set of names, though with some overlap. As I've said before, in this article we shouldn't be privileging "historical Jesus" scholars over NT scholars.) StAnselm (talk) 01:43, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the show of good faith. Your source is Christian, and its "top scholars" are suspiciously heavy with Christians: Crossan, Borg, Meier, and Wright. It sounds like you concur that Keener is less notable than Sanders. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 02:13, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't use the word "notable" - that means something very different here in Wikipedia. All these scholars are notable, and it's probably something someone either is or isn't. Perhaps we're talking about who is the most "significant", but that might have only limited value here. (E.g. a scholar with very idiosyncratic ideas may be highly significant - everyone quotes him, and everyone disagrees with him.) In any case, to be frank, I think your suspicion comes from an anti-Christian bias. StAnselm (talk) 02:19, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

St Anselm, here are other scholars who you think are reliable sources when it comes to doubting the mainstream historical view on Jesus' virgin birth. Can you also provide backup for these sources? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 02:33, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

• Bromiley, Geoffrey (1995) International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Eerdmans Publishing, ISBN 978-0-8028-3784-4, p. 991.
• Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of Matthew (Eerdmans 2009 ISBN 978-0-8028-6498-7), p. 83
• Donald A. Hagner, Matthew 1-13 (Paternoster Press 1993 ISBN 978-0-8499-0232-1), pp. 14-15, cited in the preceding
• Millard Erickson, Christian Theology (Baker Academic 1998 ISBN 978-0-8010-2182-4), p. 761
• Fritz Allhoff, Scott C. Lowe, Christmas – Philosophy for Everyone: Better Than a Lump of Coal (Wiley-Blackwell 2010 ISBN 978-1-4443-3090-8), p. 28
• Frederick Dale Bruner, Matthew: The Christbook (Eerdmans 2004 ISBN 9780802811189), p. 41

That's not what I said in reponse to the list when it was posted earlier - but yes, most of these fulfil WP's criteria of reliable sources (which is very different to what you've been talking about, which is more about significance). They are mostly books published by reputable publishers, by recognised experts. Some - e.g. Erickson - are not experts in the field of "historical Jesus studies", but of related fields - in Erickson's case, Christian theology (which certainly involves study of the virgin birth, which was the particular topic under discussion.) Bruner and Hanger are authorities regarding what Matthew said and meant; Bromiley is a general expert on matters of the Christian faith, etc. StAnselm (talk) 03:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

You say I'm biased? I cited top-notch Christian and secular sources. You cited a Christian scholar I've never heard of, writing for a Christian publisher, writing mostly about other Christian scholars. Start citing some secular sources, then tell me all about how I'm biased. Maybe start by citing top-notch Christian scholars instead of second-rate ones. I'm a pro-history editor. The historical view of Jesus is the mainstream academic view, so it's the view that should take precedence on our page. Being pro-history doesn't make me anti-Christian. Personally, I have plenty of respect for Christianity. I even have a WWJD plaque on my car. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:38, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Once again, I can't help it if you've never heard of certain scholars. In this particular case, however, the particular author wasn't all that important - the book is giving a survey of the scholarship. And a book like that is far more useful and reliable than the further reading list of an encyclopedia article. StAnselm (talk) 18:52, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Could you please provide some evidence that your scholar of choice, Powell, is to be taken seriously as an authority on this topic? He seems pretty unremarkable. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:05, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

@StAnselm:, looks like you have no evidence that Powell is notable. You said that if I put effort into this exercise, you would take it seriously. Please live up to your promise and concede that my sources are better than yours. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:51, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Of course he's notable - he has a wikipedia article. Clearly passes WP:PROF #5. StAnselm (talk) 19:32, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

The sum total of your evidence is a WP article? You said you would take this exercise seriously, so please live up to your promise. Can you concede that my sources are more notable than Powell? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:34, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

please leave historical views in the historical views section

Future Trillionaire removed mainstream historical information from the historical views section. I know that we can't put historical views in the gospels section, but surely we can put them in the historical views section. Here's the diff: [1] Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:58, 3 August 2016 (UTC) @FutureTrillionaire:, please discuss here. Per NPOV, we need to include critical scholarship on the topics we include. Should we put the critical scholarship in the historical section or the gospels section? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 18:12, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Future Trillionaire that we don't need to double up on material. Everything that was added belongs more properly in the "gospels" section. (Though I'm note sure about the "following that Law was an apocalyptic necessity" bit.) It's just talking about how Jesus is portrayed in the gospels; the fact that some historians agree that he was really like this, is neither here nor there. StAnselm (talk) 20:20, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

The content in question is not historical analysis. It's just a description of Jesus' teachings in the gospels.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:55, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

I basically agree with FutureTrillionaire. The content in question is based on the gospels, though analyzed by historians. We don't need to have the material appear twice. This might be a good reason for having the gospel section appear first. A subsequent section could discuss the material as per historians. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 19:48, 4 August 2016 (UTC)

One problem is that historians do use the canonical gospels as primary sources in this topic. Not everyone believes that the texts are reliable, but there is a distinct lack of more qualified sources when the topic is Jesus. Compare to how historian Cassius Dio is actually one of the few primary sources on the life and reign of Commodus and is often quoted and analyzed, despite modern historians having noticed that he was a political opponent of the emperor with more of a little bias in his reports. Or how the Augustan History is actually one of the few primary sources for the biography of almost all 3rd-century Roman emperors and claimants, despite most modern historians believing that it mixes fact and fiction and that some of the so-called Thirty Tyrants which it describes may be fictional characters. Historians deal with the sources they have, they do not pull them out of a hat. A historical analysis which completely ignores the gospels may be impossible. Dimadick (talk) 05:45, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

The synoptics say that Jesus told parables of the kingdom. Where does the reader find out that historians consider this historical? John says that Jesus spoke at length not about the kingdom, but about himself. Where does the reader find out that historians consider this ahistorical? Historians accept one thing and not the other, and that's a notable fact, so where do we tell the reader about this? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 00:27, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I think you are presenting these issues in far too cut-and-dried a manner, it is not as simple as "historians" say the synoptics are historical but John is not, see the wiki article on [Reliability of John], for instance. The only thing historians,whether of the Bible or Christianity or Roman or ancient history agree on, 100%, is the execution of Jesus by the orders of Pontius Pilate (and therefore Jesus' existence, since if he was crucified he had to exist first), as that can be confirmed from sources other than the gospels, notably Tacitus and Josephus.Smeat75 (talk) 03:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

That's fine. The question remains, where on the page do we discuss historical opinions on what Jesus says in the Gospels? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 04:03, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

What is wrong with including historian anslysis in the Gospel section? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 04:13, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

That's a fine question. There's nothing wrong with including historical analysis in the Gospel section. In fact, other RSs combine Gospel accounts with history. And when I took this issue to the NPOV Noticeboard last November, I was told that splitting historical opinion from Gospel accounts is a POV fork (link), and that the material should be combined into one section. That's what professional encyclopedias do. But there are a lot of Gospel-friendly editors on the page who want to promote the Gospels in a way that RSs generally don't. They want the Gospels to speak for themselves, without critical commentary. Mangoe, for example, says that critical commentary has no value other than to whisper doubt into the ears of naïve readers (diff. We could solve a lot of problems by combining the Gospel and historical sections. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:32, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Well. there is a table in the "Canonical gospels" section with the discrepancies between the synoptics and John. Just underneath it says According to a broad scholarly consensus, the Synoptic Gospels, and not John, are the primary sources of historical information about Jesus. In the "Teaching, preaching and miracles" section it says In the Synoptics, Jesus teaches extensively, often in parables, about the Kingdom of God and then a bit further on it says John's Gospel presents the teachings of Jesus not merely as his own preaching, but as divine revelation so I don't really see why Jonathon is so insistent that there is no discussion of this in the article. If he wants to find scholarly opinions along the lines of "The synoptics and John are totally different and they cannot both be true,so the synoptics are historical and John is not", surely the best place for that would be in the "Historical views" section,but it is not the case that all scholars agree that the question of historicity of gospel events is that simple.Smeat75 (talk) 16:12, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Please don't remove historical information from the history section until there's consensus for where it should go. Isambard Kingdom says let's put historical analysis in the Gospels section. Anyone opposed? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:01, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

No, if it's a recent addition, it stays out until there is consensus to put it in. As it was, the proposed addition had very little actual analysis. What analysis do you suggest putting in the Gospels section. StAnselm (talk) 19:19, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

It's POV to tell the reader what the Christian Gospels say about Jesus' ministry if we don't also report the mainstream view. If we give only the Gospel account, that's one-sided. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:37, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

historical, probable, and legendary events in the Gospels

The issue of historical criticism has come up again, so here's a table that might be of interest. A while back I added this table to the historical views section, but opponents of the historical view deleted it. What do folks think? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:26, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Event in the Synoptics	Mainstream historical opinion
Birth in Bethlehem to a virgin, Luke's Christmas story, Matthew's nativity	Legendary
Baptism for repentance under John	Virtually certain
Taught in arresting parables about the Kingdom of God (e.g., likening the Kingdom of God to a mustard seed or to leaven)	Probable
Taught that an apocalyptic revelation was imminent	Probable but disputed
Taught an ethic of radical forgiveness with pithy aphorisms (e.g., "turn the other cheek")	Probable
Scandalous ministry, feasting with sinners, drinking, fraternizing with women, plucking grain on the Sabbath	Probable
Exorcist and healer	Probable
Nature miracles	Legendary
Taught that he was the Messiah who would die and rise again. Transfiguration.	Legendary
Gathered twelve disciples	Probable, a symbolic act
Triumphal entry into Jerusalem	Probable, a symbolic act
Caused an incident at the Temple	Probable, a symbolic act
Symbolic "Last Supper" with disciples	Probable
Leaders of the Temple turned him over to the Romans	Probable
Crucified under Pontius Pilate	Virtually certain
Followers have visions of Jesus after death his death	Probable.

One problem here is the label "Mainstream historical opinion". Do Funk and co. say this is "mainstream historical opinion" or do the sources just provide assessment of the events? If it's the latter, we still need to find a source that this is the mainstream opinion. StAnselm (talk) 18:49, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

My question would be, do the sources use the exact word "legendary?" But I do think that is a useful table.Smeat75 (talk) 22:37, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

@Smeat75:, Theissen & Merz refer to the birth stories and transfiguration as buried in myth and all of Matthew's birth narrative as legendary. Not every source uses the term "myth" or "legend" for all these items. Sometimes they're "pious frauds". We could use another term, such as "ahistorical". Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:41, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Also, the Jesus Seminar is not mainstream: "Thus, the Jesus Seminar, rather literally, moved out of the mainstream of American New Testament scholarship, to become, instead, more of a group of dissidents." StAnselm (talk) 22:58, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

I, too, support the addition of this table. It seems that it would effectively and completely clarify things about the mainstream historical opinions about Jesus for our readers. I agree with StAnselm though, the Jesus seminar shouldn't be cited.Gonzales John (talk) 06:15, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

The table states Followers have visions of Jesus after death his death however, should't you add about the resurrection, and add a historicity view about it? ^Ḉɱ̍ 2nd anniv. 23:42, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

My big problem with this is that its sourced to Jesus Seminar stuff. That is not mainstream in exactly the same way Intelligent Design is not mainstream. As has been explained to you numerous times, Jonathan, what you call mainstream is not and has never been the mainstream scholarly view on the subject. Your repetitive attempts to insert this stuff into the article shot past useful into abusive and problematic several months ago. IMO, you should have a topic ban for your dogged refusal to accept consensus in this article and bring up essentially the same issue over and over and over and over and over and over again. We're trying to be productive. Please stop wasting our time.Farsight001 (talk) 02:41, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I have no problems with the table in principle, but it would be pretty useless to approve it if we are going to exclude Funk and demand citations for references to "mainstream" opinion - it would look so very different to what it does now. StAnselm (talk) 03:01, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Anyway, to take a concrete example, the "Taught that he was the Messiah who would die and rise again" entry is flat wrong: "This tradition is no longer summarily dismissed as inauthentic". In other words, the "mainstream historical opinion" is not that it's legendary. StAnselm (talk) 03:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

• Personally, I would view single-sentence statements on the reliability of specific passages as verging on oversimplification and argument from authority. We do not need to know that scholar A states this, and scholar B states that. We need summaries of their arguments on the subject, the methodology they use to reach this conclusion, and some context. Some of this material should probably be covered in more detail in other articles, but overstating the significance of a "consensus" in an area disputed for a couple of centuries does not help the reliability of the article. Compare to the article on Historiography of the fall of the Western Roman Empire, where we cover several contradictory theories by historians from various eras and fields and try to summarize their views on the topic. And it concerns an open historical question, debated since at least the 18th century. Dimadick (talk) 06:51, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Well said. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 20:26, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is based almost entirely on argument from authority. We cite what the experts say. Is there any policy against argument from authority? WP is primrarily about presenting mainstream scholarship, and this page violates that policy by downplaying mainstream scholarship in favor of Christian Scripture. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:42, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

On this page, we diverge from standard practice by separating the Christian accounts from the mainstream scholarly accounts. That unprecedented structure makes it hard for readers to see what scholars think of the Gospel accounts. A table like this one addresses that problem by making it easier for a reader to see the highlights. Some editors oppose the mainstream, historical view of Jesus, and they don't want the reader to be able to easily learn the mainstream view. They opposed this table when I suggested it before, and they're not too keen on it now, either. So what do we do? We can address the issues people raised and do a table we like? But I don't want to put more effort into it is there's not enough support to overcome certain editors' entrenched resistance to the historical view. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:48, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

• I oppose inclusion in this form: the issue was brought up a few months ago and consensus was against including the table (at least in that form). I can only repeat my comment: the main problem with the table are the sources. More precisely, we can't label X as "mainstream opinion" if there isn't an authoritative source ascertaining that "X is mainstream opinion/held by most scholars/etc.". Finding a single or few sources, however reliable and authoritative, holding "opinion X" (but not affirming if it's actually held by a majority), is insufficient and won't do because it doesn't show that the opinion X is actually mainstream. In practice, it would be inaccurate and misleading to label such an opinion as mainstream using sources who don't say that. BTW, it seems that Funk Roberts and the Jesus seminar, which source many of the entries, aren't even that reliable, but rather fringe. Bardoligneo (talk) 09:52, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

All of Wikipedia is founded on identifying the mainstream view on a topic. Lots of editors don't like the mainstream view on this topic, and lots of editors want you to think that it's really hard to identify the mainstream view. Editors who oppose the mainstream view on a given topic typically try to obscure the mainstream view or to portray it as just another POV. For example, if a textbook says something an editor doesn't like, the editor might attribute the statement to the textbook authors, as though they were a secondary source. But there's no magic to identifying the mainstream view. Read the top sources, accept what you read even if you don't like it, and that is the mainstream view. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:32, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Recent additions to the lead

There been some recent proposed additions to the lead - rather than edit warring, they should stay out until there is consensus to include. Personally, I was dubious about Jesus' scandalous behavior - why these three examples? Certainly, his dining with "sinners" was scandalous, but I don't think his acceptance of women is discussed to the same degree. On the other hand, there are other things, like his attitude towards his family[2] or his claims of authority[3] that are even more scandalous. StAnselm (talk) 02:40, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

They should be included because it has to be clear that not everything in the gospels is reliable ( to avoid possible confusion), and why Jesus would get arrested by Jewish authorities.Gonzales John (talk) 03:07, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

But why these particular reasons for getting arrested? Why not, for example, his blasphemy? StAnselm (talk) 03:11, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

They just happened to be the ones mentioned in the source.Gonzales John (talk) 07:27, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

This will possibly depend on which sources are consulted. This is a loaded subject. Please be careful. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 07:31, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Why aren't we discussing whether or not the additions should be put back? That's what we should be doing here right? If we're not going to talk about it at all, we might as well resort to edit wars.Gonzales John (talk) 10:20, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, I don't think you've adequately addressed my concern. The fact that you've got one particular source with one particular list of things isn't enough for insertion in the lead, because other sources have other lists. In any case, I think the article should list the reasons (or at least the 4 or 5 most frequently discussed), but I don't think it needs to be in the lead. StAnselm (talk) 19:21, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

@ StAnselm (talk)Even if other sources have other lists, they do not contradict this list because the list merely says that Jewish authorities considered these acts of Jesus to be scandalous; no other sources say that the authorities didn't.Gonzales John (talk) 08:52, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

That doesn't mean it belongs in the lead. It looks like we're at an impasse here - perhaps you could start an RfC. StAnselm (talk) 06:52, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Historians and the Gospels agree that Jesus had a scandalous ministry, but that's not why he got arrested. What's the issue? Whether to report on his scandalous ministry, or how to explain his execution? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

St Anselm asks: "But why these particular reasons for getting arrested? Why not, for example, his blasphemy?" Are you familiar with the mainstream story of who Jesus was? He was a Jew in good standing and not a blasphemer. The idea that Jesus was executed for blasphemy is sectarian, not mainstream. Let's just follow what the RSs say. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 01:32, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Rubbish. "This clear appropriation of divine prerogatives earned Jesus the accusation of blasphemy and ultimately cost him his life" (Peter Stuhlmacher). There you go - University of Tübingen - you can't get much more "mainstream" than that. StAnselm (talk) 02:10, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

FAQ: Why do we have a Gospels section and why does it come first?

This question comes up repeatedly, so let's put it in the FAQ. I think our reasoning is as follows: "Professional encyclopedias take primarily a historical view of Jesus, but editors on this page have decided it's better instead to make the canonical Christian Gospel accounts the primary account of Jesus because that makes more sense to them." Or maybe there's a better explanation? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:56, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Once again, JT, you've crossed the line into disruptive editing. Please stop. StAnselm (talk) 19:29, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Can you provide a better explanation? How about "Editors discussed the issues and agreed that the Gospels should be allowed to speak for themselves, without critical commentary"? "The reader should be familiar with what the Gospels say before reading about modern historians' interpretations"? This issue has come up repeatedly, so let's add a FAQ item. What's our answer to why we do things differently from the professional encyclopedias? Maybe "Various proposals to restructure the information have failed to achieve consensus"? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:23, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

If you're the only one who's ever asked the question, it doesn't belong in the FAQ. "Frequently asked" does not mean the same person asking twenty times. StAnselm (talk) 19:00, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Lots of people have asked the question over the years. I'm the only one who has kept asking for an answer when none was forthcoming. Still haven't gotten an explanation. After all that debate, you still can't explain in one simple sentence why we diverge from how other encyclopedias treat this topic. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 22:26, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Maybe the question should be "Why isn't the historical analysis incorporated into the Gospel accounts? That's what Isambard Kingdom asked three weeks ago, and no one offered an answer. diff Does anyone have a short, clear answer to that question? I recall that even St Anselm said that the issue of merging the two sections was unresolved. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 23:35, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

Did I really say that? I seem to recall saying that there was no consensus to change it, but that's not the same thing. StAnselm (talk) 23:48, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

There was no consensus to change the order. The issue of whether to merge the sections never got a hearing, and near the end of the whole affair you said, as I recall, that the merging issue was not resolved. In any event, do you have a short, clear answer to Isambard Kingdom's question? Why is critical analysis excluded from the Gospels section? I think no one does. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:39, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

The historical section has plenty of critical analysis on the Gospel narrative which means that from an overall perspective the article does contain critical analysis on the Gospel narrative. Why do you think it is important to to do the changes you propose? They do not seem to address any shortcoming of the article. All I see is that you would rather prefer the article had a different structure, with your main arguments being "why not" and "that's how it's done elsewhere". This article has reached featured status for some years now. We are done experimenting. If you have serious reasons for your proposals, please name them. Nxavar (talk) 06:20, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Exactly, I have a reason for my proposal: it's the way reliable sources do it. Now that you know my reason, please tell me your reason for promoting holy scripture over mainstream history. That's the difference between me and the pro-Gospel editors. I proudly state my reasons (WP:RS), but the pro-Gospel editors talk as if they don't need a reason. When I ask them for their reasoning, they protest that they don't have to answer me. Why be secretive about your motivation? Don't you have a position you can be proud of? Don't you have a fair, neutral, reasonable reason that you want to promote holy scripture over mainstream history? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:34, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

What you consider a promotional structure is actually a good, logical order of presentation. First you present what the sources say, then the historical criticism. I think you are concerned over the amount of Gospel exposure the reader gets in this article. Because of their optimist nature, the Gospels tend to be attractive to many readers. This, however, does not mean that we should be restrictive in how much we include of them. Nxavar (talk) 11:59, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an independent encyclopeadia with its own voice and its own rules and guidelines. What is done elsewhere, even in renowned encyclopeadias, is of counseling value. Jonathan Tweet, if you believe changing the order of the two major sections is a significant improvement, you should give some serious reasons. This is a featured article and it is a good thing that users such as StAnselm do not take change proposals lightly. Nxavar (talk) 13:56, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

OK you have the power to diverge from the RSs, but you still haven't explained why editors like it this way. Are you saying, "We don't need a reason to diverge from the reliable sources"? If that's not what you're saying, then what's your reason? If an editor won't explain their motivation for diverging from the published sources, well, that's a little suspicious, wouldn't you agree? Why would an editor want to promote a holy scripture over mainstream history? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:30, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

As I have repeatedly told you, this article has to cover the religious aspect of Jesus. If you want to focus on the "mainstream history" about Jesus go to Historical Jesus. Nxavar (talk) 11:43, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

genre?

Who added the paragraph on the genre of the Gospels? It's great. It's notable, relevant, balanced, and nicely written. Thanks, whoever you are. Can we please see more of that sort of productive editing? This page is subject to a lot of POV sniping (go figure), so it's nice to see a substantial contribution to the page. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:58, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

uninformative sentences and paragraphs?

I am trying to report what RSs say, and another editor deleted some of the information as uninformative.link If an RS says it, who are we to decide to exclude it? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 23:17, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

We, of course, are WP editors. RSs say thousands of things - we have to exclude most of them. StAnselm (talk) 23:46, 29 August 2016 (UTC)

That sounds good, but it's super vague. That reasoning could be used to justify excluding any information for any reason. People without evidence like to keep it vague. Please stick to specifics. NPOV says that we should include the mainstream view on a topic. If we don't include the mainstream view on Jesus' entry in to Jerusalem on this page, that would be POV. If this information doesn't belong in the historical views section, where does it belong? The Gospel section? Jonathan Tweet (talk)

No answer. You oppose the mainstream view of Jesus, so you can't tell me where to include the mainstream view on Jesus' entry into Jerusalem. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:26, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

@Isambard Kingdom:, you have started deleting historical information that you find uninformative. Can you please point to the WP policy or guideline you're following? I'm following WP:NPOV, which says to summarize information from reliable sources in proportion to its notability. Sanders thinks it's worth mentioning that the Palm Sunday entrance is impossible to corroborate historically. You think differently. What policy or guideline tells you that we should exclude this information? Thanks. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:26, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

This is the content under question: [4], which you (Jonathan) think should be inserted into the historical part of the article. I don't think we need to mention the Palm Sunday entrance as "historical" just because an historian mentions it. Isn't it true that the only record we have of the entrance is from the gospels? If so, then shouldn't it be mentioned in the gospel section of the article? Furthermore, the content you apparently feel needs to be included, again, under the historical section, is pretty wishy-washy, don't you think? As per [5], the event is "modest" and Sanders only "leans" towards it being historical. In the historical section of this article, why not concentrate on the historical importance of Jesus and his message, rather than things that are just part of the gospel story? I don't think I need a "policy" to ask such questions. Thanks. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 16:42, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Bible links

I see that all the Bible references link to the Wikisource ASV. I can't find any discussion about it except this: Talk:Jesus/Archive 121#Bible citations where it seems the consensus was for NRSV. I agree that the NRSV should be used (definitely not the ASV; it is outdated), and I propose that the links go to http://bible.oremus.org/ due to the lack of ads (the NRSV is under copyright but Oremus has a "used by permission" disclaimer). If there is consensus, I would also remove the links from the text of the article per WP:EL and make them footnotes. --JFH (talk) 02:52, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

There is a problem with the NRSV. Visiting the FAQ of its website it is evident that there was a strong desire to give a translation that would be as straightforward to understand for today's audience as it was for its original audience. Due to the wide cultural gap though, this has lead to exegetical translations in many places, i.e. translations that make some assumption about what the phraseology of the original text was intended to mean. Since the scriptures are a natural source for Church teachings, although the NRSV has gained wide acceptance among major Protestant Denominations, the Catholic Church has only approved it for personal reading with the Orthodox Church of America having a similar stance, disapproving its use in liturgical services and biblical study. You can go to the NRSV article for more information. I believe that Wikipedia should prefer a translation that is as close to the original text as possible, and as widely acceptable among the Christians as possible, as such an acceptance is a sign of objectiveness. The NRSV isn't such a translation. Nxavar (talk) 07:58, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

The NRSV is considered a relatively literal translation. From the Oxford Handbook of Translation Studies: "The New Revised Standard Version, like its predecessor the Revised Standard Version (1946–57), follows the wording of the Authorized Version as far as is consistent with modern English usage, and modern understanding of the Hebrew text. It is therefore essentially a literal translation, along critical lines." I don't know why the liturgical usage of the Catholic Church would be relevant for an article like this. The Catholic Church did not approve the ASV for personal or liturgical use; I believe the NAB would be the version for liturgical use. I'm not terribly opposed to that one, but it's not widely used outside the Catholic Church, so using it would seem Catholic-biased. I do see the OCA disapproves of the NRSV, but I really don't think we should be dwelling on ecclesiastical acceptance rather than scholarly usage. Here is one discussion of bible translations from a scholarly perspective. You'll find that the Oxford Annotated Bible, referenced several times in this article, uses the NRSV. I think you'll find most of the sources for this article published in the last twenty years primarily use the NRSV. I searched through the Oxford Handbook of Biblical Studies and found that it extensively references the NRSV but never the ASV or NAB. I tried Google Scholar searches since 1989 and found 17,200 for NRSV Bible, 6,210 for NAB Bible, and 3,390 for ASV Bible. --JFH (talk) 14:52, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

The NRSV suffers from a wide scale and often forceful adaptation of the language of the original to gender-neutral readings. This is a deliberate choice of the translation commitee (see the FAQ of the website for NRSV) and a consistent source of criticism among reviewers. See reviews here, here, and here. This makes it problematic for use as a NPOV translation source in Wikipedia. Regarding its widespread use among academia, scholars are knowledgeable about the weaknesses of NRSV as well as of other translations. Most of them are also in the position to read the Hebrew or Greek original. The nature of this particular weakness also makes it easy to identify. All of the above make this issue very easy to deal with for scholars. The same obviously doesn't hold for most readers of Wikipedia. Nxavar (talk) 13:48, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

The first source you pointed to is not academic or reliable, see Grace Evangelical Society. Here are quotes from the other two: Roberts: "In my opinion, these accomplishments make the NRSV the English translation of choice for general usage." Harrelson: "But on the basis of my re-examination of considerable portions of the text I would judge that it is by far our most inclusive Bible, the one best suited for public reading among all the newer translations, and (as will be indicated elsewhere in this issue) our most accurate available English Bible." (emphasis mine) I really don't want to get into questions of translation philosophy. I think the idea that scholars use a defective translation because they can read the original and don't need a good one is ... not a good argument. You'll find that when scholars write for a non-specialist audience, such as many of the sources listed for this article, they still use the NRSV. --JFH (talk) 14:33, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Support. NRSV is has wide acceptance in sholarship and uses much more accesible language than the ASV. Nxavar (talk) 10:15, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposed one word change of last sentence of lead paragraph

As is, the last sentence in the lead paragraph reads: "Christians believe him to be the Son of God and the awaited Messiah (Christ, the Anointed One) prophesied in the Old Testament." I think a small, but significant improvement would be: "Christians believe him to be the Son of God and the awaited Messiah (Christ, the Anointed One) prophesied throughout the Old Testament" (emphasis added here only, just to clarify the changed word). Biblical source re: this proposal and what "Christians believe": "And beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures" (Luke 24:27 NAS). Kibbitzer 11:23, 6 September 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kibbitzer (talk • contribs)

The "things concerning himself" are not restricted to prophesies about him, according to Church teachings. Jesus is called a Saviour and Lord in Christian Churches because no one before him that lead the house of Isreal, including Moses and David, succeeded in staying out of sin and the curses it brings and completely delivering the house of Israel from all its troubles. Holiness was a prerequisite for entering the Promised Land and being victorious in all battles against its inhabitants and neighbours. Moses and the prophets all talked about God's plan for Israel's complete redemption. The scriptures however include much more than just Moses's words and the books of prophets, and most of the time and they don't point to him in a direct way. Nxavar (talk) 07:19, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

It is not necessary for every OT scripture to point to Messiah for it to be true that Messiah is pointed to "throughout" the OT. It is commonly understood that the OT covers a variety of topics and no one would reasonably expect "throughout" to mean "thoroughly" or "completely", etc. That said, I am indifferent towards this change; I see no substantive difference between "in" and "throughout", as I am not convinced the two have different meanings in this context. Jtrevor99 (talk) 13:35, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose The arrival of a Messiah is not prophesied throughout the Old Testament. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 13:47, 7 September 2016 (UTC)
• The sentence in question is a statement about what "Christians believe". Christians believe that certain scriptures "in" or "throughout" the Old Testament pertain to predictions of Jesus' coming(s). The issue is "what preposition better describes the placement and range of those scriptures". "In" seems to denote in a few places in the Old Testament (OT), whereas "throughout" seems to infer a higher percentage or range of books of the Old Testament are permeated. The New Testament reference in Luke (which "Christians believe") seems to push the meter more towards "throughout" ("Moses [5 books] and all the prophets [17 books]" which is 22 out of 39 = over 56%). Wikipedia's article Christian messianic prophecies points to 12 out of 39 OT books (over 30%). So semantically, which is the better word for the sentence in question: "in" or "throughout"? I'm leaning towards "throughout" as being more informational for the reasons stated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kibbitzer (talk • contribs) 15:17, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Let's not make a change without an RS to back us up. If we have an RS to support the change, then let's make the change. We are WP editors, not experts. It's RSs that matter, not our beliefs and experiences. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:19, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Jesus Seminar represents a notable, minority view

People who oppose the historical view of Jesus really hate the Jesus Seminar. The JS has primarily popularized the academic work that had been pretty much invisible to the lay public. If you hate the historical view of Jesus, then you'll really hate a hundred scholars who rule on the authenticity of every one of Jesus' sayings and deeds. The criticism leveled against the JS is that they're fringe or not notable. That's false. Theissen & Merz list their view as probably wrong but highly notable. Britannica finds them notable enough to refer to, labeling them revisionist. Crossan, Borg, & Funk are notable scholars in their own right. You might not like them, but authoritative tertiary sources on the topic of Jesus find the Jesus Seminar notable.

Meanwhile, St Anselm trots out a parade of also-ran, no-name scholars, such as Powell, Keener, and others that he won't even defend on the talk page. None of his scholars are as notable as the Jesus Seminar. The only thing his unremarkable scholars have in common is a pro-Christian leaning. If editors think we are using non-notable sources on this page, let's first ditch all of St Anselm's nobodies. Or if his non-notable scholars are notable enough, then folks should stop talking bad about the Jesus Seminar. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Many people who like the historical view of Jesus also dislike the Jesus Seminar. Frankly, their methodology was far too arbitrary for my tastes. This is NOT a case where "if you like the historical view of Jesus, you must like the Jesus Seminar, and vice versa." Jtrevor99 (talk) 17:38, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

And how do you personally feel about the mainstream view of who Jesus was, a Jewish faith healer and sect leader? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 01:26, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

We've been over this a thousand times before, Jonathan. The Jesus Seminar is fringe minority. It is such a small minority, it does not merit inclusion. Its basically the anti-theist version of Intelligent Design advocacy in methodology. There are much better sources out there. Try some of them.Farsight001 (talk) 22:00, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

What's your evidence that it's fringe? I have evidence that it's more notable than St Anselm's also-ran scholars? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 01:26, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Since I've been named here, I would like to point out that all the scholars I mentioned a certainly notable according to WP:PROF, as I have already pointed out. The Jesus Seminar is also notable. But of course being notable does not automatically warrant inclusion in the article. StAnselm (talk) 22:17, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

And you'd agree that the JS is more notable than your scholars, since more RSs make note of the JS than your scholars. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 01:26, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Right, there is a difference between WP:N and WP:IRS, these should not be conflated. These being said, it is possible that some scholars who have been associated with the Jesus Seminar have produced respectable scholarship, but this has to be evaluated one a case by case basis. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:20, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

The exact words "virtually all scholars" are nowhere in the article as of 2016-09-13

The FAQ on this talk page includes a lengthy commentary on the appropriateness of this phrase, but sometime since then the word "modern" was apparently inserted between "all" and "scholars" in the lead. This is a minor concern, but if we are going to defend the use of these exact words in a permanent template on the talk page, shouldn't we use these exact words in the article? Of more concern, though, is the fact that the historicity of Jesus as a person is mentioned in the lead as accepted by virtually all scholars, and this sentence is accompanied by a lengthy footnote, but I can't find this statement anywhere in the body of the article. The Historicity of Jesus article is only linked in the lead and in a "main article" link in a subsection that doesn't mention this fact. The "Sources" section includes some discussion of how non-Christian sources provide evidence that he existed (although Ehrman considers this evidence relatively weak compared to the NT documents). But was the statement that virtually all scholars accept the historicity of Jesus removed frok the article body by a mythicist POV-pusher and no one noticed?

The lead should not include claims like this unless they are also in the body, but I thought I might be stepping on some toes by copy-pasting the lead sentence into the body without posting here first.

Cheers!

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:38, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

If you have an RS that says there's any serious dispute about Jesus' existence, please cite it. All our reliable sources say that virtually all scholars acknowledge him as a historical figure. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 01:23, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

"Baptism (Mark), birth (Matthew and Luke), and pre-existence (John and Paul)"

This doesn't sit well with me, as Mark-Matthew/Luke-John is roughly chronological order and adding Paul in there screws it up, and Paul's christology was nothing like John's ("pre-existence" does not necessarily imply existing "in the beginning with God" and being the one "through [whom] all things were made"). Additionally, Paul never "wrote" a "biography" of Jesus; his view of Jesus's pre-existence is established from some vague hints he drops in his occasional letters and these hints themselves have little to no relation to Jesus's biography. The WP:COMMENT preceding the paragraph meant I couldn't edit it without discussing here first, but how about either removing "and Paul" or adding another category like that Paul, writing before all of them, muddies the waters by already having a pre-existence christology before Mark? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:52, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

The whole sentence should be removed: (a) it is an unattributed interpretation, and (b) it doesn't make sense: "written into Jesus' biography at his Transfiguration" sound like that was when the gospels were written. Perhaps it means that it was written into the account of the Transfiguration, but that is itself is dubious - the story of the Transfiguration may have led to the belief that Jesus was the Son of God. StAnselm (talk) 02:09, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

As a recent addition (last week) I have removed this sentence until there is a consensus to include it (or something like it). StAnselm (talk) 02:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Anyway, this reference, for example, shows that this is a matter of disagreement among scholars: James D. G. Dunn believes that "Son of God" was only applied to Jesus later, while I. Howard Marshall believes that "the use of the title by the early church was originally connected with Jesus' self-consciousness". StAnselm (talk) 02:28, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Wait, so people are ignoring the comment? Then what's the point of having it? If the only people who follow the restrictions are careful and consensus-respecting editors and the users who are supposed to read it are ignoring it, then isn't it doing more harm than good?

My understanding, anyway, is that most scholars consider "Son of God" to be a messianic title rather than directly implying pre-existence or some high level of divinity, as the Hebrew Bible uses this to refer to kings of the line of David, and everyone agrees that the claims that Jesus was a king (a Son of God) date back to Jesus's lifetime, as that's what the Romans crucified him for, and even Ehrman says in his historical Jesus book that Jesus probably (if implicitly) claimed kingship for himself (if I'm remembering correctly). This is unrelated to my concern expressed above, mind you. Ehrman probably addressed my concerns (the quasi-chronological nature of the development of christology and where we should fit Paul in if we are going to write like this) in How Jesus Became God, but I haven't read it...

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:34, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

You're noteven arguing against what the sentence itself. And by the way, just because the Transfkguration led to people thinkng he was the Son of God, doe not mean that the belief may not have been written into the Gospels later on. And removing stuff before consensus has been reached defies Wikedia policies.Gonzales John (talk) 21:18, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

@Gonzales John:, you have been repeatedly warned for tendentious editing. Your additions to the lead have been challenged and reverted - you should be discussing it here and gaining consensus BEFORE adding it back in. StAnselm (talk) 21:33, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

That is, just to clarify, the rules do not say that "it should be left untouched till consensus" (contra this edit summary). In fact, it is virtually the opposite - a recent addition should stay out until consensus. WP:STATUSQUO says "During a dispute, until a consensus is established, the status quo should remain". StAnselm (talk) 21:37, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

The sentence was challenged, but let's not take it out until there's a consensus to remove it. It's cited to the best source anyone could point to, a university-level textbook recommended but the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 01:15, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

The sentence is in the body of the article ("After crucifixion"), so it doesn't add any information not already in the article. Does the sentence belong in the lead? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 01:21, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Does the "Son of God" concept appear in the lead? Then should the mainstream view of that concept be in the lead? Yes to both. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 01:28, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Um, the sentence doesn't really tell us anything about the "mainstream view" of the "concept" of the "Son of God". Might be good to step back and take a view of things? Isambard Kingdom (talk) 01:34, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• @Gonzales John: I sympathize (I think) with your POV on these issues, but you must never add material to the lead that is not supported in the body. This is a very important point to keep in mind at all times, even when you are right on the substance. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:07, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Featured article

Wow, a religious article that got FA status! Congratulations to all who worked on it. I won't edit this, I just want to say, having read some of the rather heated threads above, the bias on this or any FA should be towards leaving it alone. When you're at the top, the only direction is down. PiCo (talk) 09:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

That's a pretty outrageous attitude to take toward any article, especially one that is inherently a propaganda magnet like this one. The article just barely passed on its seventh nomination because opposition was piecemeal and the suggestions of the commenters were all addressed by nominator and others. it reads. I'm not saying the article as it is now or as it was in 2013 is not FA level (I don't really have an opinion) but the above comment looks very much like an attempt to preemptively shoot down all attempts to improve the article because of a technicaliy that it passed FA several years ago. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

For one thing, even though the problem is not unfixable, this article, despite its current FA status, currently contains information in its lead (a frankly bizarre and out-of-place looking rebuttal of the so-called "Christ myth theory") that does not appear in the body. I would honestly question whether the Christ myth theory should even be mentioned in the article per WP:UNDUE. The article First Council of Nicaea was recently delisted as a GA and in my "delist" comment on the GAN I said the same thing. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:51, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

This is not a FA worthy article, it is full of garbage, but owners have beat anyone who disagrees into submission. The edits allowed are the disputes between very, very, very devout Christians and very, very, very, very devout Christians. This article is a disgrace for an encyclopedia and full of primary references from the Bible as sources, no criticism, no viewpoints of other religions, seriously it is a joke. Lipsquid (talk) 16:02, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

@Lipsquid, I take it you identify with neither of those two :).

If, and this is a big if, if I were to write this article from scratch, I'd organise it a little differently. I'd leave out the bit about the etymology of his name - it seems pretty trivial, though you could mention in passing that Jesus was a common name at the time (I believe there was a famous rebel against the Romans called Jesus, but a little earlier than the Biblical one). Then I'd deal very briefly with the sources, both biblical and non-biblical, noting that they each have a history (even Marks gospel has sources); then something about the life and teachings (especially the teachings) and his relationship to Judaism in his own time; then the eschatological part, which led to his becoming a god. Lot of work in that, though.PiCo (talk) 05:46, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Wow, an awful lot of hostility in the above. I wonder how much of it is actually pointed towards the editors, and how much merely is purported to be when it's actually towards the subject? Lipsquid's comment is disproven objectively by the talk history, so doesn't even require a response. If you don't like the current state, keep working on it. If you truly think anything happening here is violating WP policy instead of upholding it, take it to ARBCOM. Jtrevor99 (talk) 14:54, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Honest observations are not hostility. Religion brings out strong views and those views are usually not very encyclopedic and neither is this article. I have tried to add Jesus' influence and importance to Islam and to Ba'hai to the lead and adding additional religious views and material does not get a warm welcome. Life goes on. I still want a great encyclopedia. Lipsquid (talk) 03:29, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Who told you the views of religious people are not encyclopedic? That's pretty prejudiced if you ask me.Farsight001 (talk) 13:17, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I just said I tried adding material for the Muslim and Ba'Hai faith so I am prejudiced against religion or religious people? This would be a great example of what I said above. The article is locked down by people with a very narrow view and little care for encyclopedic content, and lots of care for their own religious POV. Lipsquid (talk) 15:59, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

No, you said, and I quote, "Religion brings out strong views and those views are usually not very encyclopedic". So I said "That's pretty prejudiced if you ask me." Is it so impossible for it to occur to you that it is you with the narrow view and little care for encyclopedic content?Farsight001 (talk) 23:42, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

@Lipsquid:, it's true that this page diverges far from good WP editing, and you would expect that a crowd-sourced article about Jesus would suffer from some pro-Christian bias, but it's not hopeless. Since WP policies and guidelines are on the side of those of us trying to promote a neutral view, we can make progress. It's just naturally hard and requires patience. That said, if you were to ask that this page's FA status be reconsidered, I'd back you. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 01:03, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Considering your efforts in this article over the course of the last year or so, and your constant claim that the Jesus-myth idea seems to be the scholarly consensus view, when it is so far fringe it doesn't even merit inclusion, I find your suggestion that you are fighting for neutrality absolutely preposterous. In what universe have you once fought for neutrality in this article?Farsight001 (talk) 02:26, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

• An FA should not include a section consisting of one misleading sentence and a bunch of see also links ー what happened? In July that section was much more detailed. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 09:58, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

The point is, everything below is ("Family", etc.) are subsections, so the section is quite large. StAnselm (talk) 19:03, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

How Jesus became God

Might be nice to have a section on this - it's actually the title of someone's book, I think. Anyway, it would be about Christological belief and titles, the background to Messianic and apocalyptic thinking in late 2nd temple Judaism, and the very early stages of Jesus-worship.PiCo (talk) 23:01, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Ehrman, already cited in the article: . I think PiCo's suggestion is a good one; right now this subject is not adequately discussed or organized into a section. Isambard Kingdom (talk) 23:10, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that we should have such a section, though that title is highly POV - Ehrman's book was rebutted by a companion volume, How God Became Jesus. But perhaps someone can draft what such a section might look like. StAnselm (talk) 23:46, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I see that I did suggest that for a section title, but I didn't mean to. Something like "Christology" might be better.PiCo (talk) 23:52, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

It's true that this article basically omits early Christian history, and we should cover it. I'd put it under "Christian views" and start with the earliest Christian views. It's true that evangelical Christians wrote a parallel book to Ehrman's. Ehrman describes the mainstream view and the evangelicals describe a Christian view. We should cover both, but, as with all WP article, give predominant attention to the mainstream view. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 00:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Except that Ehrman does not describe the "mainstream view", whatever that means. We had an extensive discussion at Talk:Bart D. Ehrman about this, and there is precious little hard evidence that this is the case. In fact, I don't know why we use the phrase at all. During my fun-filled visit to Wikipedia I encountered a curious phrase: "mainstream scholarship.". StAnselm (talk) 01:57, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, there was evidence for it, but you chose to delete it at [6]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:34, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, that source merely said that Ehrman stated a desire to present a consensus view. StAnselm (talk) 03:43, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

It stated that he is open about it, i.e. not lying. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:24, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

The source (Crossley) quotes Ehrman saying that the views he presents "have held sway for many, many years among the majority of serious critical scholars" (etc etc). Crossley seems to agree.PiCo (talk) 03:25, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I think the reason why Crossley wasn't included in the Ehrman article is that no-one around here has read the book, and it's really hard from just that page to work out what Crossley actually is saying. StAnselm (talk) 04:26, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I was thinking more of Ehrman's status for this article: Ehrman says the views he presents are majority ones (not his personal, eccentric innovations), and Crossley agrees.PiCo (talk) 06:12, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Right - but I'm not sure Crossley does agree. StAnselm (talk) 09:32, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Crossley names 3 scholars as "the credible 'centre' of historical Jesus studies"; he goes on that "there can be no better example of the construction of the liberal or credible centre ... than the works of Bart Ehrman." After some quotes from Ehrman he says: "Ehrman is a classic case of constructing the centre with help from constructing extremes" (which, to be frank, I don't quite understand - does he mean Ehrman is "constructing extremes" or that he's mediating between them?) I read that as an endorsement of Ehrman as a representative of the middle ground (centre) in modern Jesus scholarship.PiCo (talk) 10:07, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

It means that Ehrman is boss and gets to decide who is too extreme. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:14, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

• Comment 'Christology' and 'how Jesus became god' are categorically different, as the former encompasses a wide range of issues that, while important, are unrelated to the latter, such as the Matthew's Christology of Jesus as a new Moses or Luke's Christology of Jesus as a martyr prophet. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:15, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Religious reformer

The lead sentence names Jesus a "religious reformer". The sources given are:. The first does not say "religious reformer", using the phrase "religious leader" instead. I do not know about the second. The characterization "reformer" has requirements so that it be can made and I doubt historians (the second source is titled "The Historical Jesus : a Comprehensive Guide") actually make this bold claim. Nxavar (talk) 08:15, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we can necessarily reject the idea that Jesus was a reformer simply because the word "reformer" is not used in a source. Later in the article there is well-sourced discussion of Jesus as the founder of a '"renewal movement within Judaism." I think there are scholars who see him as a reformer of Judaism. Not everyone would agree with that point of view, but I think it is as legitimate and adequately sourced as most characterizations of Jesus. What specifically do you object to in use of the term "reformer"? Sundayclose (talk) 16:33, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

"Reform" signifies departure from contemporary accepted norms. "Renewal" does not have such connotations. Compare with Protestant Reformation and Reformed Judaism. "Reform" is a strong word in the context of religion. Nxavar (talk) 10:12, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Both of you are missing the point. What the cited sources say is irrelevant, because the lead should not be written based on external sources independently of the body. The lead should summarize the body. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:20, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

That said, 'renewal' is blatantly non-neutral and reeks of nineteenth-century antisemitism. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 10:22, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: Could you clarify both of your comments? How did my statement indicate that the lead should be "written based on external sources independently of the body"? And regarding your second comment, I don't necessarily disagree with it, but could you explain how 'renewal' "reeks of nineteenth-century antisemitism"? Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 20:24, 17 September 2016 (UTC)