Talk:Jesus

may 28,2010---The anti-christian bias in this posting on Jesus is certainly evident.Right away,in the section on Jesus' birth the author wrote,"The historical incompatibility of Luke's chronology for the birth of Jesus, as well as the silence of the Pauline Epistles and the Gospels of Mark and John with respect to the nativity, have been suggested as evidence that the birth traditions contained in Matthew and Luke are historically unverifiable or even possibly fictitious".Are you kidding me?! What a blatant OPINION!Not fact.And the truth is,there is no "incompatibility" of Luke's chronology for the birth of Jesus.Unreal you would state there is.And you assert that because Paul didnt write about Jesus' birth makes Luke's declaration suspect?Fictitious?!~Obsurd!!!=======================================================================================================================================================================================================================================Talk:Jesus/archivebox

Recent Archive log

Complete archive key

• Talk:Jesus/Archive 97 Removal of spurious representations of Jesus' appearance, trilemma, Mandaean views,scripture removed from historical Jesus section, Vanadalism, Pictures of Jesus, The Truths About Yeshua, Ehrman on harmonies
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 98 Proposal, Possible NPOV Violation in the Geneology Section, first paragraph, at least three years in Jesus' Ministry, this article is too big.
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 99 Literature to be mentioned, Timeline of birth, four gospels, lead; nontrinitarianism, historical Jesus, Jesus as myth, Manichaeism, year of jesus's birth, Edit at top of Jesus page, Colored Yeshua, Image of Jesus which currently exists, Proposal
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 100 Historical Jesus, The To-Do Section, commenting out instead of deleting, 2008 Islamic movie on Jesus, Historical section/Christian views section, Laundry list of non-history scholars and works (alternative proposal), Its latin, isnt it?, this page may display a horizontal scroll bar in some browsers, Proposal on archives, First Section, The historical Jesus
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 101 Edit war over capitalization, Historical Evidence for Jesus' Homosexuality, Carlaude's Majority view, What exactly did Jesus save us from and how?; Carlaude's Majority view part two., Title, PRJS, Dazed and Confused, Why was Jesus baptised?, Dates, Infobox vs. the historical Jesus
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 102 religion founder, Other parameters, He is not God But rather a Demigod, Heavily christian-centric article, Jesus' Birthdate, Jesus in Scientology, Jesus name - Yeshua in Hebrew, means "Salvation" in English
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 103 Writing clean-up, Jesus name in Sanskrit, Reforem Judaism, Jesus and Manichaeism, Bertrand Russell and Friedrich Nietzsche, Recent removal, NPOV, Detail about Buddhist views of Jesus that does not make sense, The Religious perspectives section
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 104 Black Jesus, "Autobiography" of Jesus, Genealogy - Via What Father?, Addition to "Genealogy & Family", Resurrection, according to whom?, Bhavishya Purana, Christian history category, Quick Comment, BC/BCE?, The Truth, Was he any good at his day job?, In Popular Culture, jesus picture, views on Jesus and Muhamma, Occupation, New Dead Sea Discovery- Gabriel's Revelation, Some comments
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 105 Genealogy "reloaded", Place of birth, Which religions?, was jesus ever bar miztvahed?, Bot report : Found duplicate references !, Jesus and the lost tomb, Some believe that Jesus was of middle eastern ethnicity, and not a caucasian, Mispelled cat at the bottom of this talk page, Harmony, Dating system, "Transliteration"
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 106 8 B.C., ref name="HC13", Cause of death, Renewed Discussion Concerning AD/CE debate

Subpage Activity Log

• Discussion on Judaism's views moved to Talk:Jewish views of Jesus/Judaism's views of Jesus.
• Buried vs. entombed," alleged "lack of sources" archived to Talk:Jesus/Christian views in intro.
• New subpage created, Talk:Jesus/Historical Jesus, with several models of the historical Jesus and a list of sources.
• Baptism, blasphemy and sedition discussions moved to Talk:Jesus/2nd Paragraph Debate.
• Sudden move of Christ: discussion moved to Talk:Christ.
• Disputed tag and "Christian Mythology": moved to [Christian Mythology Talk] for relevancy reasons
• User:Andrew c/Jesus: sorting data b/w New Testament view on Jesus' life, Christian views of Jesus#Life, and Jesus#Life and teachings based on the Gospels.

principal sources hard to understand

".. are the four canonical gospels, especially the Synoptic Gospels, though some scholars argue such texts as the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of the Hebrews are also relevant."

I would like it to read:

".. are the four canonical gospels, though some scholars argue such texts as the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of the Hebrews are also relevant."

Ideas please?

Statement in "Life and teachings, as told in the Gospels"

The end of the opening paragraph in the above mentioned section seems to contain a sentence ("Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life.") that is both out of place and lacking a source. This kind of statement seems to be a matter of opinion instead of a fact since the statement is not universally accepted by Christians. Mayofmay (talk) 19:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that to our attention. Looks like someone slipped that in on the 14th. Feel free to make bold edits yourself (I understand this article is semi-protected, so that only established users can edit. In a couple days, after you've made 10 edits, you will be "autoconfirmed" and able to edit semi-protected pages like this article). For the time being, I've gone ahread and removed the sentence. Thanks again, and welcome to Wikipedia. -Andrew c ^[talk] 22:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

As far as the first comment in this section goes. The book of John chapter 14 verse 6 states (new living translation) "Jesus told him "I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me."" So there is a source for it. It may have been out of place, but it seems like an important statement and maybe should be added to the appropriate section.

Also, in the section about his death, there is a line that reads "He asks God to forgive those who are crucifying him, possibly the Romans and possibly the Jews." I believe he was praying for all of mankind when he said "Father, forgive them, for the don't know what they are doing" (new living translation, Luke 23:34) Also translated as "Father god, forgive them, for they know not what they do" It is because of the sins of all mankind that he was crucified, so while he was dying, he was praying for all of humanity as well as his executioners. I think that point of view should be pointed out as I have heard it from many different churches and ministers. —Preceding Chris H, AZ, No Wiki Profile comment added by 24.119.230.242 (talk) 04:49, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

See WP:PRIMARY. We should not be using the bible directly as a source, as it is open to interpretation, and because of WP:NOR, we cannot present your personal interpretation in the article. We must cite sources making these interpretations. That said, since you say many churches and ministers make these claims, it shouldn't be hard to track down a source and then attribute it. If you find a source, and come up with a new phrasing, I'd be glad to help you get the content back into the article. That said, one final note. Because of WP:NPOV, we cannot say stuff like "Jesus is God" or "Jesus is the truth and the way", because we are taking disputed statements and presenting them as facts. We'd need to qualify them with something like "Christians Church X believes Jesus is...." or "Scholar J. Q. Public states that Jesus is..." Get the idea? Anyway, if you have questions about that, or have sources, I'd be glad to assist you further. -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:43, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Pontius Pilate

Pontius Pilate did not order Jesus' execution. He found Jesus innocent, but the Sanhedrin made him take a vote from the general population. The people voted for him to be crucified.

Agreed. This is a complicated topic for several reasons, not the least of which is because it sometimes has the tendency to turn into an argument over whether Christianity is, by it's very nature, antisemitic. My understanding of the issue from the scholarly perspective is that the Gospel authors and their redactors have taken pains (to lesser and greater degrees) to specifically place blame for Jesus' crucifixion squarely on the Jews, because the major evangelical push of the gospels was to demonstrate the righteousness of proto-Christian theology over that of the Jews, who in the period subsequent to the destruction of the temple were Christianity's number one opponent for the hearts and minds of potential converts. By misrepresenting Jewish theology and portraying the Jews as vile, blood-thirsty hypocrites, the gospel authors (and their redactors) were waging a kind of negative political campaign against their theological opponents. The statement in Matthew 27:25 seems the most pronounced on the subject of placing blame on the Jews: "And all the people answered, "His blood be on us and on our children!" In my experience, the relatively "modern" attempt to blame Pilate for Jesus' crucifixion is an attempt to salvage early Christianity from the garbage heap of anti-Judaism (not necessarily anti-semitism). While we may consider such an effort morally upright, it's simply Biblical revisionism. It's clear that the gospels try to portray Pilate as attempting to release Jesus, and that he was, against his better judgment, persuaded by the angry Jewish mob (whom he supposedly feared might revolt) to crucify Jesus. Obviously, the historicity of this event is extremely suspect given the Barabbas element (for numerous reasons), but this article isn't specifically designed to address the historicity of the Jesus narrative in the New Testament documents. In my opinion, any references to Jesus' crucifixion in the article should be scoured over and edited for false attribution to Pilate. It's not our job to apologize for the anti-Jewish character of the New Testament, but rather to accurately represent what the documents demonstrably say.--Kglogauer (talk) 15:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

How does recent Bible scholarship, where there is in effect a consensus that Pilate made the decision, in any way exculpate the authors of the Gospel accounts from anti-Judaism?

First off, I think you're very confused about what I wrote above, and I would suggest that you reread my post. Secondly, you really need to sign your posts so that people can more accurately track the discussion and discern just who it is they're responding to. Thirdly, your comment that "there is in effect a consensus that Pilate made the decision [to crucify Jesus]" is not, insofar as I'm aware, born out by any contemporary scholarship (I noticed that you conveniently neglected to provide any references for this claim), nor is it born out by the gospel accounts of the Sanhedrin trial and public hearing before Pilate. The gospels are unambiguous on the point that Pilate, while being legally responsible for giving the order for Jesus' crucifixion, was doing so against his will and only to mollify the Jewish mob. It was the Jewish mob that pushed for Jesus' crucifixion, not Pilate. My point was that the push to make Pilate appear to be solely responsible for the crucifixion is a modern Christian apologetic attempt to make the gospels less anti-Jewish, and that this is nothing but pure Biblical revisionism. I never suggested that the gospel authors were "exculpated" or in any way absolved of the charge of being anti-Jewish; anti-Judaism was one of their guiding principles in composing the gospel narratives. Absolving them of this charge is exactly the revisionist move I'm arguing against. Again, reread my post.--Kglogauer (talk) 18:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

This article correctly summarizes what the reliable sources by notable historians say. It has nothing to do with attacking or defending Christianity. You decide for yourself how learning history might affect your personal beliefs. But this is not the place to voice them. Your proposal would not improve the article, it would just push your POV and violate NOR. Wikipedia is not a soapbox.

On the issue of trying to lay blame for the crucifixion squarely on Pilate, this article goes against the gospel tradition. It was the gospel authors' intentions to blame the Jews -- not Pilate -- for the crucifixion. I and the original, unsigned poster who began this section are in agreement on that fact. You can claim that there's no attempt to defend the gospels -- or more accurately, to salvage them from well-deserved charges of anti-Judaism -- but the attempt in the article to blame Pilate for the crucifixion is clearly a move toward revisionism. The rest of your comments seem, as far as I can tell, to betray the fact that you don't even understand the topic, as it seems that you think I'm a Christian apologist trying to defend "the one true faith", when I can assure you I'm not. My interest is fidelity to the documents, and the documents (i.e., the gospels) clearly place the moral culpability for Jesus' crucifixion on the Jews. According to the gospels, Pilate explicitly said he could find no guilt in Jesus and tried to release him, at which time the Jewish mob demanded his crucifixion, which Pilate took as a warning that they would rebel if he didn't respect their demand. Now obviously, the whole story reeks of fiction, since it's unlikely that a Roman prefect would cave in to the demands of the very people he was charged with ruling over, much less that he would release an anti-Roman Jewish rebel (Barabbas) instead of what he believed to be an innocent man (Jesus), but what we're discussing is what the gospels say, not whether the event is historically true. In point-of-fact, anyone who claims that we can determine anything historically about the event is simply lying through his or her teeth. All we have are the gospels, and as such, we are obliged to only present what they say, not what some armchair apologist claims is a historical "probability". The gospels clearly place the blame for the crucifixion on the Jews. Blaming Pilate (which the article currently does) is nothing but pure revisionism designed to hide the anti-Jewish tone of the New Testament documents.--Kglogauer (talk) 18:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Two things. First, what content are you discussing specifically. Quote what you find problematic in our article. Second, what sources do you have to back up your view? If we are already citing 'historians 'saying one thing, who on earth is making your claims (different 'historian')? We need to be able to attribute them to a reliable source, per basic Wikipedia policy. Thanks. -Andrew c ^[talk] 19:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The sentence I object to is the following statement made in the introduction:

Most critical scholars in biblical studies believe that some parts of the New Testament are useful for reconstructing Jesus' life, agreeing that Jesus was a Jew who was regarded as a teacher and healer, that he was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman Prefect of Judaea, Pontius Pilate, on the charge of sedition against the Roman Empire.

Now, in some sense, I would defend the author of this statement because I understand that there are some historians who have personal convictions that the statement about Pilate executing Jesus for "sedition against the Roman Empire" is an undisputed fact, but this exactly demonstrates the problem with Biblical studies. In truth, no honest historian can make such a claim, as it's sheer surmise. We have absolutely no historical evidence that Jesus was executed specifically by Pilate for sedition against Rome. The historians who claim that such a thing can even be known are simply floating a hypothesis that preserves -- against all odds -- their own personal inability to consider the possibility that the event may be a wholesale gospel fiction. It might be historically true (I don't want to get into the Christ-myth theory here), but we simply have no way, as of yet, of knowing. So: 1) When the article claims that we have good historical reason to believe that Pilate was responsible for executing Jesus, it's a misrepresentation of what we can even know, since all we can say we do know is that the gospels blame the Jews for his crucifixion (regardless of whether it actually occurred), and; 2) when the article claims that Jesus was executed specifically for "sedition against the Roman Empire," that's simply sheer surmise, and we have no historical documents to back it up. Including these kinds of pet theories is akin to positing that Jesus would "most likely have been married" or "most likely have worked as a carpenter," which are similar kinds of hypotheses that historians have tried to present as historical plausibilities, or worse yet, as historical facts. Let's just stick to the facts, and in the absence of any such facts (as is the case here), the best we can do is avoid speculation and simply state what the gospels claim happened. I'm not saying that historians aren't entitled to hypothesizing on such things, it's just that with a figure like Jesus, whose character is so encrusted with myth, historians are obligated to exercise serious caution when hypothesizing anything about them. In this case, such caution is being abandoned for the sake of preserving Jesus' historicity, which, I'm sorry to say, just simply can't be taken for granted.--Kglogauer (talk) 15:40, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

OH, you are taking issue with the sentence with 12 f'n references backing it up? A few years ago, a number of editors gathered as many of the leading sources on the historical Jesus and worked on coming up with a basic sentence that all cited sources (of historians and biblical scholars from different backgrounds) could all agree with. We came up with that basic sentence. Feel free to open any one of those 12 sources to confirm that the author agrees with those basic premises. We were unable to come up with any other details that they all agreed upon (well there might be some, but they are minor). While you may know better than scholars, and think their work is all speculation, you have no right to second guess reliable sources. What you are doing is called original research and is forbidden. Therefore, I again ask you to review the second part of my reply above. Where are YOUR sources? We can't cite your own personal pet theories, unfortunately ;) I mean, the sentence begins "Most critical scholars in biblical studies", so are you saying that this actually isn't the case? That only few "critical scholars in biblical studies" accept the crucifixion by Pilate for sedition? I see you don't like their conclusions, but other than personal disagreement, are you saying our sentence isn't true? This isn't what the 12 cited scholars believe? And again, do you have sourced to back up alternative views? -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:50, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll never agree with an editor who wants to change a cited sentence without offering RSs to back it up. Unfortunately, however, I'm going to have to say that this part of the sentence has long bothered me. The sentence barely addresses Jesus' life (e.g., no mention of having disciples or being an exorcist), then it spends a disproportionate number of words on identifying the Romans as his killers without ever mentioning the Jewish authorities who arrested him and handed him over to Pilate. It reads like a sentence meant to counter the ahistorical anti-Semitic theme in the Passion story that exonerated Pilate and blamed the Jews, but it goes too far. Instead I'd say "and was arrested by Jewish authorities as a troublemaker and crucified by the Romans." That said, this is a can of worms I'm willing to leave closed. Leadwind (talk) 17:01, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, what Leadwind said. Andrew, I completely understand your point about there being Biblical scholars who arrive at this conclusion and that that's usually the litmus test for what's allowable in a Wikipedia article. But what I'm saying is that the scholars who have signed on to this conclusion are -- without a doubt -- doing so in direct contravention of the historical method. That's why I mentioned that I think there's a fundamental problem with Biblical scholarship. As it is, the desire to uphold cherished beliefs has, for far too long, allowed untenable, ahistorical hypotheses to be perpetuated as demonstrable, historical facts. I could, for example, cite a dozen "Biblical scholars" (e.g., N.T. Wright, Ben Witherington III, William Lane Craig, etc.) who all believe that the miraculous conception and virgin birth of Jesus are indisputable historical facts. Obviously, however, the mere fact that some "Biblical scholars" can be found who support such claims does not make the claims, themselves, historical facts. My quip with the Pilate remarks in the introduction is that, no matter how many scholarly references we cite for such a claim, the claim is completely bogus unless demonstrated by actual evidence. Not a single one of those scholars can back up that claim any more than an exobiologist can back up the claim that "life probably exists elsewhere in our solar system". It might, but in the absence of any evidence, we simply can't dress up sheer surmise and parade it around as historical fact. Again, I stress that the remarks about Pilate should be edited to, instead, present the crucifixion as what it is: a claim made by the gospels, in which the blame is placed on the Jewish priests and scribes and/or the Jewish mob. That's all that can be definitively said about Jesus' crucifixion.--Kglogauer (talk) 17:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I think some of the cited scholars don't find the Jewish arrest plausible, while others do. Therefore, we kept that part of it out as it wasn't part of the consensus statement. They all agreed that Pilate was a historical figure, was the Roman official in power in that time and location, and had the authority to order a crucifixion (unlike the Jewish council), and thus ordered Jesus' execution for the charge of sedition, a quite common charge and practice of the times, regardless of Jewish involvement. To make a change, such as you propose, would require rechecking all the sources. And I'd be glad to assist since I own half those books and have university library access. But I'm almost positive there are some in the bunch that don't accept the Jewish part of the story, so it doesn't have business being in a consensus statement. But that omission, and the way we phrase it, may give a false impression that they all agree Rome, not 'Jews' are to blame. -Andrew c ^[talk] 17:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I understand that there are some scholars who don't find the Jewish arrest plausible (in fact, I agree with them, provided the basic story of Jesus' arrest and crucifixion is historical). But you can see the dilemma: They don't know that the Jews weren't responsible anymore than scholars who think the Jews were. As such, any speculation is simply that -- speculation. Again, I don't have a problem with historians speculating, but the article needs to limit "consensus" statements to only those things that can be reasonably demonstrated via the documented evidence, and the only documentation we have that addresses the issue of Jesus' trial and crucifixion is the gospels (which very clearly do not agree with the "consensus" argument in the article). Again, a simple statement about what the gospels claim was the nature of Jesus' arrest, trial, and crucifixion is far better than surmise about what might have happened, especially since the surmise in this case is, at least in part (if not entirety), largely the product of a revisionist attempt to salvage the early Christian writers from their anti-Jewish polemics.--Kglogauer (talk) 17:44, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

You write "but the article needs to limit "consensus" statements to only those things that can be reasonably demonstrated via the documented evidence." No. You are asking us to violate one of our core policies, NOR. We will never do that. If you want to suggest edits I suggest you first familiarize yourself at least with our core policies, NPOV, V, and NOR. Edits that violate policy will quickly be reverted. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:53, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

scholars who have signed on to this conclusion are -- without a doubt -- doing so in direct contravention of the historical method. That's why I mentioned that I think there's a fundamental problem with Biblical scholarship so we should use you as a citation for all this? User:Kglogauer knows more than the leading biblical scholars. Yah! We can preach the gospel of Kglogauer. I kid. But I hope you get my point. Wikipedia must follow the sources. If you don't like the sources, find competing sources. If none exist, then your pet theories don't belong in an encyclopedia article, even if they are True. Wikipedia is not about The Truth, but simple re-reporting what has already been published in reliable sources. Again, no matter how much you reason and use logic against our sources, we can't bring that into the article. It is against our policies. You need to find sources to back up your claims. Pretty please find sources! :) -Andrew c ^[talk] 19:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I think we need to take a moment and consider the absurdity of your request. In the trial and crucifixion of Jesus, we have an event that, for all we know, may be entirely fictional (and in fact, that's what a number of critical scholars think). In essence, you want me to refute the "it's all Pilate's fault" hypothesis by historically demonstrating the "it's all the Jews' fault" hypothesis. But, given that we have to agree that the story, in so far as we can historically demonstrate, must be treated as legend, it's not technically possible for me to counter the "it's all Pilate's fault" argument, since arguing that "it's all the Jews' fault" is every bit as historically undemonstrated. It's a Catch-22. Your preference is that we continue to perpetuate a historically undemonstrated claim -- "Jesus was crucified by Pontius Pilate for sedition against Rome" -- in the absence of references citing the opposite (i.e., that Jesus was crucified by the Jews for theological reasons). My point is, if we can't historically demonstrate either argument with actual evidence, the best we can do is limit our pronouncement to simply what the gospels claim, which is that Jesus was crucified at the behest of the Jews for theological reasons. The French Biblical scholar Charles Guignebert summed up this point in his book Jesus (page 465):

It does not seem rash to suppose, in view of this instructive glossing of the tradition between Mark and John in the direction of incriminating the Jews, that the earliest Christian records attributed all the responsibility for the death of Jesus to the Roman procurator. However this may be, it is at any rate impossible for us to know what happened on this point, and in particular we cannot find the true facts in Mark's account.

Robert M. Price, in his book The Incredible Shrinking Son of Man: How Reliable is the Gospel Tradition?, echoes Guignebert's declaration that it's impossible to definitively state who was historically to blame for the crucifixion, since it's not currently possible to determine if the event even actually happened:

Pilate was too much a part of the story for his role to be completely expunged, but he was made at least to have declared Jesus innocent. But either way, the trial before Pilate, with the Jewish rulers standing by, filled as it is with fatal implausibilities, must be a fiction ...

Surmising that we can state with any kind of historical confidence that Pilate crucified Jesus for sedition against Rome -- which goes completely against the only documents we actually have (namely, the gospels) -- is like Muslim scholars surmising that, contrary to what the Qur'an says, the buraq (the magical, flying, white donkey ridden by Muhammad) must have most likely been blue, since a blue flying donkey would be better camouflaged against clear Arabian skies. In both instances, we have a confederacy of dunces pontificating on "what it's really like on the other side of the rainbow," when no one can honestly claim to know. And let me stress: I'm not even going so far as to suggest that we have to treat the trial as most likely fictional (even though that would be the most academically honest thing to do). I'm simply saying that we have to moderate our statements and not fill the article with silly unverifiable claims, no matter how many "scholars" sign on to them.--Kglogauer (talk) 21:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you are confused. We aren't saying "Pilate killed Jesus. It's a true historical fact. Deal with it." We are simply saying Most critical scholars ... agree ... Jesus was ... crucified ... on the orders of ... Pontius Pilate... Nothing you have written has disputed that. Price (a fringe scholar at best) says that Pilate was so integral to the story that he couldn't be expunged. Price seems to support that Pilate had something to do with the cruficixion, no? As for Charles Guignebert, I'd have to see the context, but going back to 1935 to discredit modern scholarship? tsk tsk tsk

When I ask you to cite sources, I am not asking you to prove a negative, or prove the Jews were solely responsible or anything like that. You are making wild, outlandish claims that all our cited scholars are wrong, and their conclusions are every bit as historically undemonstrated and silly unverifiable claims. We can't take your word on things like this. We need citations, if you want to make article changes based on it. We don't have to verify things based on Kglogauer's standard. You don't get to be the judge of our sources. If something is notable by our guidelines, and verifiable by our guidelines, and attributed to reliable (by our guidelines) sources, then we can put it in the article. If we have conflicting sources, we show both sides (given weight and fringe considerations). At this point, I think we should consider a rephrasing of the content to make sure we aren't saying more than what our sources agree on (such as inadvertently implying that the Jews take no blame, or that Pilate is solely responsible). But without sourced disputing the basic notion that "most critical scholars agree Jesus was crucified under the orders of Pilate for sedition", I see no reason to go further in our editing.-Andrew c ^[talk] 22:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

"Most critical scholars ... agree ... Jesus was ... crucified ... on the orders of ... Pontius Pilate..." -- Andrew, can you explain to me how it is that these scholars are able to know such a thing? That's my objection -- they can't know. They're simply surmising. And for you to claim that Price is a "fringe" scholar only betrays your POV stance on the subject. He's usually maligned as such because he has suggested -- quite correctly -- that the gospels may be pure fiction. They may not be, but in the absence of any evidence confirming the extraordinary claims they contain, we can't honestly make definitive arguments about "absolutely knowing" anything about Jesus. It's the most honest statement anyone could make about New Testament studies. We simply don't know -- not you, not me, and not any of the scholars you guys cite in your Pilate statement. And as for Guignebert, why does his book being published in 1935 discredit it? Do you honestly claim that the documented evidence we have about early Christianity has significantly changed in the last 75 years? Do you honestly think that the twelve references you guys cite in support of the idea that Pilate crucified Jesus for sedition against Rome aren't based on a far older tradition espousing the same thing? Do you really think the scholars who support this claim have just recently arrived at this conclusion because of newly discovered documents? Is the applicability of Newtonian mechanics null and void now, too, simply because it was codified in the 17th Century?

How am I making a "wild, outlandish claim", when all I'm saying is that these scholars can't possibly have any evidence backing up their claim that Pontius Pilate crucified Jesus for sedition against the Roman Empire? How could they possibly know that? Do they have hitherto unknown Roman records that record this charge? If they don't -- if their only guide in making such a claim is surmise -- then we have no business respecting their "wild, outlandish" speculation by including it in a Wikipedia article.--Kglogauer (talk) 23:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

How many scholars agree with Price? Is he in the majority or minority? Is it a big minority, or a small minority? Can you name any other scholar with advanced degrees in biblical studies or Roman/Jewish history who agrees with him? Giving due weight is not a POV. Price is simply not the norm when it comes to critical biblical studies. I really don't think I'm mistaken about this.

It's pointless to get into an argument defending someone else's scholarship, since it will turn into a volley of my sources against yours. You are right, of course -- Price is in the minority -- but regardless of whether he's right or wrong, I think it's unfair to criticize him as a "fringe" scholar, since the connotation typically is that a "fringe scholar" not only holds a minority viewpoint, but also that their arguments are loony or unjustified. They're not -- Price simply states that we can't claim to definitively know anything about a historical Jesus, since the only documents we have are the myth-encrusted gospels. And I don't think I'm wrong on this. Among the 12 references cited for the passage we're disputing are Ben Witherington III and N.T. Wright, two of the most unapologetic Christian apologists who take the gospels as undisputed historical facts (including the miracle claims). I find it difficult to see how we can include these guys as reputable scholars -- "critical scholars", even! -- while Price (or Robert Eisenman, Burton Mack, Hyam MacCoby, and others who hold similar opinions on gospel historicity) are relegated to the fringe. Obviously, Biblical studies is, as a discipline, disproportionately occupied by individuals who approach the Bible with an a priori belief in its historicity, but that's exactly the "problem" with the discipline that I was referring to earlier. Biblical studies is a historical science, and as such, the "theories" posited by individuals can't be tested in the same way that, say, a physics theory can be. As a consequence, we end up with a situation in which every Bible College-educated apologist with a typewriter can flood the market with books that contain untestable hypotheses that do nothing other than comport with cherished Biblical beliefs, thereby skewing the scholarly consensus toward the fundamentalist end of the spectrum. That said, you're right: I can't win this argument, even if I am "right".--Kglogauer (talk) 17:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

What you seem to be wanting to do is use your personal knowledge that everyone is wrong to present your truth in this article. ALL WE CAN DO is repeat what the published sources say, and give the views due weight. If the majority believe something you find absolutely ridiculous, we still are obligated, by Wikipedia policy to present it as the majority view, regardless what you think of those ideas. We don't have to justify how these scholars reached their conclusions to you. I mean, I hate to be butting heads with you, but this is basic Wikipedia policy. I like a lot what Leadwind says at the bottom here. I want to encourage your work here on Wikipedia. But please understand. We cannot remove the claim which is backed up by sources that "most critical scholars agree Jesus was crucified under the orders of Pilate for sedition" based solely on your belief that you think they are wrong, or mistaken, or lack evidence, or don't follow the historical method to your personal criteria. Wikipedia is dumb. It repeats what is in published sources, uncritically. When you apply personal views, you are doing "original research" which is forbidden. -Andrew c ^[talk] 00:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, Andrew. I do understand your point, but I find it frustrating that we have included a scholarly pronouncement that is, on its very face, not in any way historically defensible. It seems to me that we as Wikipedia editors can and often do employ our better judgment when deciding what's a reasonable opinion to include in an article under the banner of "most critical scholars think..." From my perspective, we should be able to smell a rat and not hesitate to pass over scholarly opinions that do not meet the basic criteria for scientific or historic inquiry. Again, my point is that these guys who are claiming to know such things can't actually know them. Perhaps they're pandering to Christian audiences or to their own religious beliefs -- I don't know. But I do know that they are being intellectually dishonest when they claim to know such things, or to even claim that we have good reason to believe such things. They really are doing nothing more than deciding "what it's really like on the other side of the rainbow." I see your point about including "scholarly consensus" regardless of whether we agree with it -- in fact, I never disputed that concept. But I think we do exercise some judgment when it comes to extraordinary claims made by scholars. Regardless, I'll concede the point as far as the article goes.--Kglogauer (talk) 17:47, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

You miss the point entirely. The subject of the sentence you quote is, "Most critical scholars in Biblical Studies." No one claims that this is true about Jesus. We do claim that it is an accurate account of what "most critical Bible scholars" claim. So yes, I have to tell you, it does matter "how many scholars sign on" to this claim. In fact, this is the only thing that matters. You yourself quoted the sentence, so you know very well that the sentence makes no claims about how Jesus died, it makes claims only about what critical Bible scholars believe.

You know, we also have this in our article: "Christians traditionally believe that Jesus was born of a virgin,[31]:529-532 performed miracles,[31]:358-359 founded the Church, rose from the dead, and ascended into Heaven ... " Now, Kglogauer, why have you not asked us to delete this from the article, given how silly it is to think a virgin could give birth, or that a corpse could rise from the dead. Why haven't you challenged this sentence? You mock AndrewC for asking you merely to follow our policies. In fact, we apply the same policy to all claims. You just wish us not to, when it comes to claims you do not believe in. That makes you a "POV-pusher." AndrewC is just being a ... wikipedian. I think this discussion is over. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:10, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Because that is, in fact, what Christians traditionally believe. There's no comment on whether the virgin birth, etc., are historical truths supported by scholarly study. If, however, you were to state that scholars believed that there was evidence that supported the idea that these things really happened, I would have a problem with that, since scholars clearly don't have evidence supporting such claims.

The above comment only betrays how apologetically entrenched articles like this one are. I'm merely asking that we respect the historical method and not include undemonstrated historical claims, and yet I'm the "POV-pusher"? Furthermore, the idea that the introduction is merely stating what "most critical scholars believe" without any connotation that that's the most likely historical truth is, on it's face, absurd. If you weren't trying to convince people that these opinions were the truth, why would you bother lending them the credibility of scholarly attribution? It's also interesting how you and Andrew keep talking about "our article", as if some secret council, to which you belong, should be the sole arbiter of what is allowed in the article. This is not in the best tradition of encyclopedic information, and if anyone is guilty of pushing thematic POV, it's you, not me.--Kglogauer (talk) 23:41, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Um, the introduction is simply presnting hat critical scholars believe because ... it says this is what critical scholars believe. Obviously "we" (which I use because you keep saying "we." Since you are not one person I thought you meant "editors of Wikipedia" which is what I mean. If you see some secret council, all I can say is, dude, you are hallucinating again) are not trying to convince people that these opinions ar the truth, becuase we then say this: "Christians predominantly believe that Jesus is the "Son of God" (generally meaning that he is God the Son, the second person in the Trinity) who came to provide salvation and reconciliation with God by his death for their sins." Now, it should be OBVIOUS to you that what we are trying to do is spread the Good Word and save more souls by bringing them to accept Christ as their personal savior. If you note the wording of this part of our article you see we CLEARLY refer to GOD. There is NO greater authority than GOD. Do you really think scholarly attribution has more authority than GOD? All human scholars are fallible. All human scholars admit they are fallible. Even Einstein admitted that his work could be proven wrong. Or are you saying GOD is fallible? Listen Mr. skeptic: GOD by definition is INFALLIBLE. Scholars can argue or speculate, but only GOD is omniscient and thus THE TRUTH. If it is authority you are looking for, I really urge you to accept the grace of GOD and GOD'S TRUTH. If you don't, you could go to hell. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:22, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Kg, there are plenty of religion-themed articles on WP that really need the help of a skeptic with reliable sources. This article isn't one of them because it's already been pretty well vetted by good editors with good books and good WP practice. Many of the less visible articles, however, rely heavily on the Bible or on the 100-year old Catholic Encyclopedia. If this experience is frustrating, there are plenty of articles where you could actually spend more time improving the content and less time contending with well-established editors. Leadwind (talk) 00:13, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, you had me ROFLMAO with that last comment.  :) KG doesn't realize that most of us here are "one with the body".  :) (That's a Star Trek TOS reference for those non-Trekies out there.)

Concept of salvation (citation)

"Jesus' teachings that religious works are unnecessary.[209][Need quotation on talk to verify]" Could the Bible verse Ephesians 2:8-9 be used instead of the current citation? Ephesians 2:8-9 (King James Version) 8.For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: 9.Not of works, lest any man should boast.Sydtrolls (talk) 19:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)sydtrolls

We generally don't allow primary sources to be used like that. We'd need at least to cite a secondary source (preferably a contemporary, notable, reliable scholar in the field) to back up this material. -Andrew c ^[talk] 01:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, the letter to the Ephesians is ascribed to Paul, not Jesus; thus it can't really be used as evidence of Jesus' teachings.Eulogius2 (talk) 04:15, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Jesus as God

A statement from the intro that "Scholars offer competing descriptions of Jesus as...God" was removed recently. The claim was that this applied to "Christ" not "Jesus" and that we cannot take sides on whether they were the same.

We are not taking sides by making this claim. Scholars have indeed offered descriptions of Jesus as God, and also that Jesus and Christ were the same person (hint, it's a majority view among Christians). It is something that is frequently claimed, by scholars as well as others, and we should record it. Remember we are not saying it's true, we are just saying that scholars say it. DJ Clayworth (talk) 18:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I think my real problem is this: the paragraph begins as a paragraph about what critical scholars believe. In the introduction, in general, different points of view are given different paragraphs. I think that this paragraph should be restricted to what critical scholars believe. I do not see any reason why the beliefs of Christian scholars should be in the same paragraph as the the beliefs of critical scholars, when there is another entire paragraph describing Christian beliefs. At the ver least it is redundant and it is deceptive, as some readers may think that this is one belief held by some critical scholars. I think the views of Christian scholars fall under the general category of what Christians believe. I do not know when someone slipped the views of Raymond E. Brown into this paragraph - I have no problem including his views but under Christian views. Take away his view, and the claim about God, i.e. the two Christian views, and wat is left is indeed what various critical scholars have suggested. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:46, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Our trouble here is that our intro appears to divide the world into two groups: "Christians" who believe Jesus is God and "critical scholars" who don't. Whatever the merits this creates the impression that all 'scholars' are on one side and 'Christians' on the other.

But to back up, what exactly do we mean by 'critical scholars" here? Do we mean scholars of textual criticism? Or scholars critical of Christianity? Or scholars in general (using 'critical' in the sense of theatre critics) If the first, then I don't think that scholars of textual criticism deserve their own paragraph - they are a pretty small group. If the second then we are crediting the critics of Christianity with the title 'scholars', ignoring the scholars who have come down on the side of Christianity. If the third then some 'critical scholars' clearly believe in Jesus as God. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:40, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

By critical scholars, we mean scholars of both the lower and higher criticism. It does not matter whether this is a large or a small group; their view is significant and therefore merits inclusion. As to your second point, we should not sugest that there are no Christian scholars. But what do you want to do? Have a paragraph that says "Christians, including Christian scholars ...?" Or Do we wish to have a etence on debates among Christian scholars, at the bottom of the paragfaph on Christianity? I would not oject to that. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Currently the structure of the introduction is as follows: (1) general introduction, stating Jesus' importance (2) canonical Gospels are the principal sources for his life (3) the views of critical scholars (with the exception of the last line), (4) the views of Christians and (5) the views of Muslims. It is only the last sentence of the third paragraph that does not fit easily into this structure, but this can easily be corrected. I plan on moving the views of Christian scholars from the third paragraph to the fourth. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I wish I had the time to devote to this debate right now, but I don't. I'm going to have to leave it to others. Sorry to stir things up and not follow through. I'll have to defer to others opinion. DJ Clayworth (talk) 17:01, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

competing descriptions

This sentence in the lede could be better:

"Critical scholars offer competing descriptions of Jesus as a self-described Messiah, as the leader of an apocalyptic movement, as an itinerant sage, as a charismatic healer, and as the founder of an independent religious movement."

It's true that there are scholars outside the mainstream and that within mainstream scholarship there's a split about whether Jesus' eschatology was apocalyptic, but there's more agreement than this sentence suggests. The reader deserves a clear statement of the mainstream view, something like: "Most contemporary scholars of the historical Jesus consider him to have been an autonomous, charismatic founder of a Jewish restoration movement, anticipating an imminent apocalypse." This view squares with Vermes, Sanders, and Theissen. We should expand on the divergent views in the body, and for the lede we could add something like: "Other prominent scholars, however, contend that Jesus' "Kingdom of God" meant radical personal and social transformation instead of a future apocalypse." Crossan is the most important representative of this view. The idea that Jesus claimed to be the Messiah gets little play in contemporary secular scholarship, but we could deal with this idea in the body of the text. James Tabor seems to take this view. Leadwind (talk) 17:39, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Leadwind, I think that the existing sentences in the second paragraph are good. I think what you propose is good too. So, with very minor changes, I have added both sentences to the article. However, given (1) the real research you did to support eachsentence and (2) the chance for contention here, would you mind adding citations to the new sentences? I trust that you have them handy. Thanks. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Christ Myth Theory (CMT)

Ifeito, the "Christ Myth Theory" is pseudo-history, fringe, and is flatly rejected by modern historians as such. See the wiki article Christ myth theory, where it says:

The Christ myth theory is essentially without supporters in modern academic circles,[3] biblical scholars and classical historians being highly dismissive of it,[4] viewing it as pseudo-scholarship[5] and some comparing the theory's methodological basis with that of flat-earthism,[6] Holocaust denial[7] and moon landing skepticism.[8]

Also:

As Mark Allan Powell, the chairman of the Historical Jesus Section of the Society of Biblical Literature, has stated, "A hundred and fifty years ago a fairly well respected scholar named Bruno Bauer maintained that the historical person Jesus never existed. Anyone who says that today—in the academic world at least—gets grouped with the skinheads who say there was no Holocaust and the scientific holdouts who want to believe the world is flat."[136]

Therefore, a statement saying that he is a "mythological figure" does not belong in the lead or the body of the Jesus article. Perhaps you can add it to the "See also" section, which is what is done with the Apollo moon landing hoax in the Apollo program article. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:06, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you find it amusing to discredit a theory which has been presented in serious works since the XIX Century. However there HAVE BEEN scholars presenting it and it deserves a mention in the introductory paragraph of this article. I believe you have broken the three revert rule without reaching a conclusion here. I will revert it and I request that you DO NOT revert it until you prove that NO AUTHORS have presented it seriously. Schicchi (talk) 01:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

First, I have not broken the 3RR (just check the history). Second, I don't have the authority to discredit the theory any more than you have the authority to promote it. Modern scholars have already discredited it as pseudo-history, fringe, and akin to Holocaust denial, the so-called moon landing hoax, and flat earthism (did you even bother to read the quotes I gave above???). Also, see FAQ #2 here. If you pursue your POV pushing any further, we'll both be meeting again on the Admin noticeboard. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 07:22, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

IFeito, you do not understand Wikipedia policy. Many people have published books saying that God created all the forms of life on earth. But we do not mention them in the first paragraph of the evolution article because they are fringe science or pseudoscience or simply not science. The fact that some people have claimed that Jesus never existed (the proponents of the "Jesus myth" school seem to be using myth to mean non-existent, although this is not how scholars use the term "myth") is irellevant. Their views are simply not significant among legitimate scholars. This article in fact has a section covering the view, because we do not just provide scholarly views, we also provide dogmatic views such as those of the Catholic Church, for example. But this view is fringe by any standard and should not be in the introduction. This is something people who have made serious contributions here (i.e. based on serious research) have discussed at length. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

And yet outside of the bible which has no first hand accounts of Jesus, being stories written at least decades later, we have no trustworthy accounts of Jesus at all (193.248.94.202 (talk) 19:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC))

Jesus was a Judean

In the Bible, a person who was an inhabitant of the Roman Province of Judea was known as a Jew and the religion of these people was Judaism. Jesus was born in Bethlehem which was in the territory of the Roman Province of Judea. Jesus' ethniticity is not known and Jew did not refer to ethniticity in the Bible (this is a 20th century occurence). It either refered to a citizen of Roman Judea or a believer of Judaism. --Jfrascencio (talk) 06:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Jesus was from Galilee, which was outside Judea Province. The whole situation is complex, and at the very least we'd need a majority of cited, reliable sources to state he was Judean, which I highly doubt is the case, because I believe historians are in consensus he was Galilean (I'd gladly pull out Meier and Ehrman to double check). However, that said, your comments about listing "Ethnicity" as "Jewish" may be apt. Can you back up your assertions with sources? -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

That's correct in regards to his parents being from Galilee, but Jesus being born in Bethlehem (Judea). What I was referring to was references to him being a Jew in the Gospel books and if it is correct to conclude this referred to ethnicity versus being from or an inhabitant of Judea, such as "King of the Jews" ("King of the Judeans"). Also, John 4:9 [The Samaritan woman said to Jesus, "You are a Jew and I am a Samaritan woman. How can you ask me for a drink?"]. He was also referred to as a Samaritan: John 8:48-49 [The Jews answered Jesus, "Aren't we right in saying that you are a Samaritan and demon-possessed?"] Mark 14:70 [Again Peter denied it. After a little while, those standing near said to Peter, "Surely you are one of them, for you are a Galilean."] I'm leaving the article as is and will be seeing what I could find in regards to sources. --Jfrascencio (talk) 03:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

While the Roman definition of "Jew" may have been "an inhabitant of the Roman Province of Judea", I'm afraid, with all due respect to Jfrascencio, that was not the definition used in the Bible. Firstly many parts of the Bible were written before the Roman Empire existed. But even if we restrict ourselves to the New Testament (all written after the establishment of the Roman Empire) we find the word "Jew" used in a context where it clearly doesn't mean that. Much of the Book of Acts refers to Jews who live in places a long way from Judea (19:17 , 24:19 and 28:17 are merely three examples among many). Who is a Jew will give you an idea of how Jews have regarded themselves over many centuries, and it's been based to a large extend on inheritance (i.e. ethnicity) for many centuries. It is inconceivable that a Jew in the first century would have considered themselves no longer Jewish just because they moved to a different province. DJ Clayworth (talk) 15:35, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the reference to "Jew" does not appear in the Old Testament until the book of Ezra. This is after the Kingdom of Israel is divided into 2 (a Northern Kingdom of Israel -10 tribes and a Southern Kingdom of Judah - 2 tribes Benjamin & Judah) because of conflict among the descendants of Jacob/Israel (the Israelites). Then the Northern Kingdom of Israel is conquered by the Assyrians. Then later, the Southern Kingdom of Judah is conquered by Babylonians and this is when reference to Jews begins to be first used in the book of Ezra and using context Jew appears to mean someone from the Kingdom of Judah. There were many people from Judah (the predecessor to Judea) taken into captivity in Babylon and they were referred to as Jews. It appears to be in reference to place of origin because despite being in the land of the Babylonians or the Persians they were referred to as Jews (In the case of Daniel and the Book of Daniel, he is only referred to only as being from Judah). John 11:7 [Then he said to his disciples, "Let us go back to Judea."] John 11:8 ["But Rabbi," they said, "a short while ago the Jews tried to stone you, and yet you are going back there?"] --Jfrascencio (talk) 00:19, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

No need for original research, Shaye JD Cohen (the leading historian on this time period) has a whole book on how Jewish identity took shape. During the Hasmonean period through the reain of the Herodians, "Judean" slowly but clearly changed from meaning a resident ot Judah (regardless of ancestry) to a Jew (regardless of shere s/he lives). All major historians believe Jesus was born in the Galilee; everyone agrees he grew up there and was culturally a Galilean. Everyone also agrees that he was an ethnic Jew. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Paul

While it is accepted that the gospels were written decades, even maybe a century after Jesus, for some reason, the letters of Paul are said to be mid-first century onwards (see article) but we have no evidence of this. The earliest writings we have of Paul is P46 manuscript, from about 200 AD. While we have many copies of the letters attributed to Paul, there are many variant readings to the point that there is probably not a single verse in the letters of Paul that have the same wording in all surviving manuscripts. There is also the point that christians were not persecuted till mid-third century, which casts doubt on the Saul story.(193.248.94.202 (talk) 19:32, 25 March 2010 (UTC))

You may like to read Pauline Epistles which presents a more widely accepted view of the dating of Paul's writing. You may also be confusing local jewish persecution with widespread Roman persecution. DJ Clayworth (talk) 21:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)...

Most historians accept some of Paul's epistles as authentic (written by Paul), and also use Acts, critically, as a source for that time. But Paul is a source for the history of early Christianity, not Jesus, as he never met Jesus (in the flesh). Most historians also agree that Jewish authorities were critical of any Jew preaching the restoration of the Kingdom, which was a direct threat against Roman authority. But when paul talks o persecuting Christians, he means he was persecuting another sect of Jews - not a group of non-Jews. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:37, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

How was Paul alive a century after the gospels were written? After all the Gospels were written after the Death, Burial, and Resurrection of Jesus. Paul must have been alive years (maybe a decade or two) after. He had met some of the original Apostles, as some of his books stated. Earlier Christians, such as those that were persecuted, were not quite "Christian" yet. At that time it was a new religion (albeit a from a split in Judaism). Many times in history have religions been persecuted after inception. Halofanatic333 (talk) 11:22, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

CoI

It should be noted that there is little contemporary evidence that was not from a viewpoint that is in direct conflict of interest regarding many major events of the life of Jesus. Impartial evidence should be distinguished clearly as to not mislead readers. "ex scientia vera", as they say. Slaja (talk) 04:19, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Quite Confused - Article needs clean up!

There are so many talk pages that I did not know where to make my points, hence I'm posting them here.

We are constantly told that 'Encyclopedic content must be verifiable'. So when there's discussion on any personality, it must be clear to the first time reader on the subject, if the person is real or fictional. This is not clear at all in the "Jesus" article.

If the person were real, then the start point should be.. 1. His given name, as he was called and known when he was alive, in the language of the region. 2. There should be no ambiguity regarding his existence. 3. The sources that cite his existence, should be available for verification and must not have been 'doctored'or edited in the first place. 4. Independent verification from other independent sources should be possible.

When this rigor cannot be employed to satisfaction, then the personality under discussion cannot be cited to be historical and is clearly fictional or mythological at best.

If the person is deemed to be mythological, then once again that must come out in the way the article is presented and the tone therein, instead of any allusions to the contrary. When that indeed happens and creeps in during the course of various edits, then it needs to be cleaned up and rectified.

It makes little sense in getting the sense about a person, in an encyclopedia of all things, as J - the Myth, J- the Religious figure, J- the Historical figure, etc as if these are 3 different entities. History is fact. It need not necessarily be borne out with accurate dates. Myth, however can be documented in books and can be passed on as fact, but that would not make it factual. Myths can also be set in a particular time and period, but that would not make them factual and real.

Accepting this without emotion, in an academic enterprise such as the wiki, is key to bringing about credibility.

I would like all people who are associated with this article, to employ wiki's insistence on verifiability and employ such rigor to all sources, even the so called "primary sources".

IMO, the article needs a major clean up and a presentation of truth to the reader... TheOnlyEmperor (talk) 09:02, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi. (1) Verifiable content is the opposite of what you suggested. Verifiable content is that backed up by reliable sources, your suggestion here seems to undercut it with your own personal criteria. (2) Mainstream scholarship has no doubt about the historical existence of Jesus, your personal opinion to the contrary is of little weight. (3) For a focus on historical approaches to Jesus see the Historical Jesus. --Ari (talk) 10:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Verification and reliability mean different things and I presume I don't have to explain that further. Reliable content is different from reliable source. A reliable source doesn't necessarily mean reliable content emanates from it. All content therefore will have to stand on its own merit of inspection.

When presenting information in an encyclopedia, there's nothing such as "mainstream scholarship", particularly when such scholarship, in this context, was cultivated for many centuries under the pain of death to stem out other opinion and to eradicate all evidence which may destroy the foundations of "mainstream scholarship". Little has changed in the 21st century in the way "mainstream scholarship" has conducted itself, often found to have constructed an edifice based on assumptions and premise which are extremely flimsy or even unfounded to begin with. In any case, encyclopedic content has no place for putting in place stuff under the logic "because everybody says so".

Everybody's write up is an opinion and carries as much weight as the next person, especially when the said opinion raises enough 'weighty' questions on the "mainstream scholarship", so kindly keep the personally directed barbs out of the comments.

TheOnlyEmperor (talk) 12:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so apart from the stipulation that verifiable content should not be included until it passes your arbitrary "inspection" and a rant about how we cannot trust mainstream scholarship (as it disagrees with your personal agenda?) what exactly are you trying to say? Improvements? Coherent points? Specific examples? Thanks --Ari (talk) 15:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

'When presenting information in an encyclopedia, there's nothing such as "mainstream scholarship"' Sure there is. Contemporary, prominent scholar largely agree on who Jesus was and what the remaining open issues are. Leadwind (talk) 00:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Etymology

The statement 'A "Messiah" is a king anointed' is not complete. Anointed ones (Messiahs) in the Bible include prophets, priests, and kings not just kings.

Problems with citations in first section

Citations 17 to 28 are not done properly and need work. Very little of the information from the edit page is displaying on the article page. This is likely due to an error in formatting. Eh1537 (talk) 04:19, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Jesus myth theory

No, I do not mean to bring up discussion on this article and the myth theory again. Fortunately, there is an article addressing this theory, which handles it for us. However, there is also a FAQ page which is currently a source of major contention. People who watch this page should consider looking at the FAQ here and then participating in the deletion discusion here.

As I understand it, the bone of contention is whether the "FAQ" are not really frequently asqed questions about the Christ Myth, or Jesus, or how historians work (which I guess would be okay), but a veiled editorial opposing or defending the Wikipedia article. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:14, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Too much references on Islam in a Jesus article

The 1st paragraph has a reference on Islam. The 5th paragraph is solely devoted to islam. Why are other notable abrahamic religions such as baha'i faith or judaism not offered this type of coverage? I sense undue weight. Iwanttoeditthissh (talk) 21:06, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

You sense undo weight because other groups do not have information about their beliefs; the choice is then to delete the information for Islam? What about simply entering information about the groups you mentioned? It is not undue weight to discuss the views of one of the world's biggest relgions, particularly when it consists of a few sentences. --^StormRider 23:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

All right. i will do that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iwanttoeditthissh (talk • contribs) 07:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Islam is a major religion that reveres Jesus as a prophet (and the Koran has more content regarding St. Mary than the NT; I point this out only because her relevance is directly linked to her son's). Judaism has no central authority, but while individual Jews may have an opinion about Jesus, at best "Judaism" considers him one guy among thousands who was crucified by the friggin Romans, and at worst considers him a false god mistakenly worshiped by others. So that pretty much covers the "Ambrahamic" religions. It is not that the article fails to give adequate coverage of Judaism, it is that Jesus just really is pretty unimportant in Judaism. I see no need to use this article to belabor the point. "Undue weight" does not mean that all views should receive equal weight, it means all views should be given appropriate weight. The Jewish view, such as it is, is given complete expression. You really can't ask for more than that, can you? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:28, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with what Slrubenstein says here. If there's something on the Baha'i faith you'd like to see covered there's a number of editors such as myself who would be willing to look into it provided it meets Wikipedia's criterion for inclusion. Peter Deer (talk) 18:41, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Its inclusion is valid. Though incorrect, the beliefs of Islam on Jesus are popular enough to be discussed in an article on Him. (It is "encyclopedic content") See: Wikipedia:NPOV/FAQ#Religion —ron2^(talk) 23:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Alternative theories on Jesus Christ´s life and death

There are several claims that Jesus was influenced by Buddhist thought. It is claimed that he spent his youth in India where he came into contact with Buddhist thinking which is obvious in his teachings, like peacefulness and reincarnation. Several authors (e.g. Elmar Gruber and Holger Kersten) claim that he did not die on the cross, but was in a coma and was brought back to life by good care. He was then urged to return to Persia and India where he would be safe. His frist sighting was in Damascus, on the way to the Fars East. He lived and taught there until his death in Srinagar where he was buried. His grave has been preserved until today by his descendants, now Muslims. Many of these claims can be verified by historical evidence. e.g that there were Buddhists in Palestine at that time, and Jews in India. There are many parallels between the evangelists and Vedic teachings. Modern Christianity has more similarity to Buddhism than to Judaism. Some examples: Christianity and Buddhism know monasteries, Judaism does not; note folded hands when praying in Buddhism and Christianity, not in Judaims; ancient Judaism has a vengeful God, Buddhism and Christianity preach love etc. The three Wise Men who came from the East to worship newborn Jesus, believed to be astrologers, could have been ancient colleagues of those Buddhist leaders who, with astrological methods, find the new Dalai Lama. Thus it seems possible that little Jesus was chosen as an early Dalai Lama, taken to India as a teenager, taught Buddhism and then returned to Palestine where he taught love and peace. This teaching was not welcome with the established Jewish authorities, and he was handed over to the Romans to be executed. He was not dead, however, when taken from the cross, but simply unconscious. He was not on the cross too long. This can be confirmed by the fact that he bled when the Roman soldier pierced his breast with a spear. A corpse does not bleed. All this makes more sense than the official teaching of Christianity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ontologix (talk • contribs) 06:03, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, of course. That Jesus was a Buddhist who went to India, based on no reliable historical evidence makes much more sense than those first century gospels those pesky Christians throw around. --Ari (talk) 11:51, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow. This may actually belong in the museum of the dumbest comments ever made on a talk page (I mean the one by Ontologix, which shows that people who cannot spell logics may also lack it.) Look, we do not have a section on Jesus according to Andrew Lloyd Weber, even if he did author an extremely popular account of Jesus' life. I don't oppose articles on fictionalizations of Jesus' life, but they do not belong in this article. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:56, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Bio Dates

I went ahead and updated the first note concerning the birth date. Its a minor change, that most readers wont see, that expands the note to say: "Sanders says ca. 4 BC/BCE. Vermes says ca. 5/6 BC/BCE. Finegan says ca. 3/2 BC/BCE. Sanders refers to the general consensus, Vermes a common 'early' date, Finegan defends comprehensively the date according to early Christian traditions." I feel this gives the new reader a sense of where these scholarly dates currently stand. I feel Finegan is noteworthy because he comprehensively supports the traditional date 3/2. Finegan doesnt enjoy wide consensus, but he does enjoy wide respect and is considered plausible even by those who support the 4 BCE consensus. Id like to see a similar note for the timing of the crucifixion. I along with others am strongly convinced the date is exactly year 32. So in the article the "ca. 30" is slightly annoying. Other scholars argue 33. I didnt change anything with regard to the death date however. Haldrik (talk) 21:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed, I inadvertantly continued a previous error, the Vermes date should say "6/5" not "5/6", since it is BCE. Il go ahead and update that too. Done. And I also changed the words so-and-so "says" to so-and-so "supports" the given date. This better reflects the scholarly tone. These scholars certainly didnt discover these dates, but merely continue the conclusions of earlier scholars. Haldrik (talk) 21:05, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

On the death date, Meier, in A Marginal Jew devotes a bit to this, citing a lot of scholars and discussing the various views. In his conclusion: "In brief, then, the year of Jesus' death, in the opinion of most commentators, must lie within the range of A.D. 29-34-and even then we are casting the new as widely as possible., As we shall see, the net is more often cast within the range of A.D. 30-33. In ligh of our frequent ignorance of the exact year of the death of many notables in the ancient world, we should be happy that we can be even this precise about the year of Jesus' crucifixion." Then he goes on to say that 32 and 29 can be excluded because the fourteenth of Nisan probably did not fall on a Friday in those years, gives some more information, and goes on to give his personal view "In my opinion, A.D. 30 is the more likely date."

Theissen and Merz say 27 and 34 fit the Nisan 15-Friday of the Synoptics, and 30 and 33 fit the 14 Nisan of John, and that "the year 30 CE seems most probably as the year in which Jesus died, but other years can by no means be excluded". Therefore, I think it is perfectly fine to say c. 30, because not only is it a round circa number, many notable scholars find it the most likely year as well. Both of these sources seem to completely write off 32, so I'm curious why you are so strongly convinced of it.-Andrew c ^[talk] 21:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

"Then he goes on to say that 32 and 29 can be excluded because the fourteenth of Nisan probably did not fall on a Friday in those years."

Yes, but these views depend on those who read the Synoptics to mean Jesus was crucified on the First Day of the Festival of Unleavened Bread *after* eating the Passover lamb, thus he died on the Jewish date Nisan 15, so then the Passover meal would have happened on the day before Shabat. However, the Gospel of John explicitly and unambiguously records Jesus dying on the day *before* anyone ate the Passover lamb (John 18:28), thus Jesus died on Nisan 14, therefore in that year the Passover meal occured on Shabat. Many scholars prefer the account of John because it seems more archeologically informed and closer to the local Jerusalem traditions about Jesus. Jesus died while the passover lambs were still being offered at the Temple for the Passover meal that night, before Jesus was able to eat it. Thus Jesuss last supper actually refers to the Jewish tradition of 'Checking for Leavening' (Bdikhat Khamets), which occurs on the evening before the evening of eating the Passover lamb. That evening Jews ritually remove leavening, especially by eating whatever leavened bread remains in the household. With the last supper being the checking of leavening, it explains *many* problems. One, all Synoptic Gospels have a conspicuous absence of the passover lamb itself at his last supper ... because it wasnt slain yet. Two, the chief priests can call an emergency council together to discuss the imminent danger of a Roman response to Jesuss activity ... *legally* ... because it isnt the evening of the Passover meal yet. And so on. Anyway, the account of John is the right one, the Synoptics are actually ambiguous under scrutiny, and in that year the Passover meal occurred on Shabat. Therefore, the only reasonable year possible is 32. Haldrik (talk) 22:53, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no "right one." Or at least, it does not matter what Wikipedia editors think is the "right one." We have to provide all significant viesws from notable sources. Period. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

While what Haldrik says is interesting, and I sure opened the door to that one (sorry), I agree. It isn't which argument seems most logical to us, it's which arguments are most commonly found in the literature (cited sources...) Given the sources, I feel comfortable with c. 30, and leaving it at that. c. 5 is OK with me as well. -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Really, Im talking about what should go into the endnote, similar to the endnote about birth dates. Something like: "So-and-so supports the consensus. So-and-so supports 33, a common 'late' date. So-and-so supports 32." Besides personal interest, I feel the conflict between Synoptics and John is noteworthy, a fact most scholars note. This gives the new reader a sense of where these dates currently stand. Haldrik (talk) 17:25, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I have to rescind my call for year 32 as a death date. I checked the Finegan book, and he *lists* the calculations that he refers to for the months of Nisan that are considerably different from the ones I had referred to. The ones I accessed used a complex formula that retroactively calculated the Jewish dates from the current year - which Im guessing becomes unreliable after a time. The ones Finegan refers to rely on astronomical precision for the phases of the moon, which not only corresponds to the new moon for Nisan 1, but also helps determine when Jewish 'leap years' (with an extra month) are likely or not. The calculations that he used were published in 1934, and corroborated in 1956 as having an accuracy that enjoys a 'very high degree of probability'. While I would be happier with more recent dates for corroboration, Finegan feels these calendar calculations are reliable, and on a point like this, Finegans opinion cannot be taken lightly. Anyway, Finegan strongly prefers the Gospel of John over the Synoptics for historicity concerning the timing of the crucifixion. So, Jesus died on Nisan 14 before the Passover meal took place. And with these calendar calculations, the date of Nisan 14, the day agreeing with John, actually falls on a Friday in year 30 or 33. So, there is clearly the choice of these two. Interestingly, while Sanders refers to the consensus that prefers year 30, Finegan prefers 33 the common 'late' date. Haldrik (talk) 02:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the endnote, it should say something like:

"For the death date, Sanders supports 30 AD/CE, referring to the general consensus. Finegan supports 33 AD/CE, a common 'late' date."

Maybe even add something like:

"These two dates derive from astronomical calculations for the new moons of the Jewish month Nisan. These corroborate the historicity of the Gospel of John that times the death to Nisan 14 on a Friday. On this point, the historicity of the Synoptics with their apparent date of Nisan 15 seems untenable or at best ambiguous."

Haldrik (talk) 02:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Exagerate Number References of references on certain statements

Cause of Jesus trial and later crucifixion It has a whopping 11 references !!!! that is not necessary, a simple foot note reference should suffice if in the at-the-end-of-the article-foot-note all the references are stated... Even taking into consideration that providing references is good practice (even though we all know this one) the fact of adding half a line in references for a simple sentence is not necessary... we need to explore a better way (from the editing point of view) to present this. 190.28.119.128 (talk) 00:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

11 references might be a bit much, but a lot of them are needed there because many people come by, adamantly disagreeing that he was excecuted for sedition, and want it removed. Having a large number of sources to support this statement helps to prevent said objections or article edits.Farsight001 (talk) 00:39, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Those references refer to the entire sentence, not just the end. It's the one that starts Most critical scholars in biblical studies believe...' Maybe we should just cite a single source which is already discussing what most scholars believe about Jesus, and maybe we have gone a bit overboard. But I guess citing a ton of scholars from diverse backgrounds and faiths is one way to make sure we are presenting what most scholars hold. And we used to have all the citations in a single footnote, but someone broke them up (but did a poor job of it, because some are still combined in a footnote). Maybe, to make the page read better, we should combine the footnotes again? Or maybe we could discuss a single source which conveys what we are currently conveying. But of course, if we choose a Christian source, we risk getting accused of bias, and if we choose a secular historian source, we risk get accused of bias. :) -Andrew c ^[talk] 02:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I kinda agree with Farsight. A higher-than-usual number of endnotes helps deter POV editors from 'fixing' challenging data and helps keep the article more stable and reliable. Haldrik (talk) 03:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)