Talk:Jesus/2nd Paragraph Debate/6

Jesus as Healer

Can we summarize the arguments for and against saying the most of our scholars call Jesus a healer?

1. Our cited scholars do call him a healer.
2. Any qualifer is inaccurate and redundant. --CTSWyneken 00:00, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

The objection is simply that people interpret "healer" to mean something supernatural. It's connotation rather than denotation that people object to. I think we should clarify in the historicity section (not the intro) what the word means in the historical context. As you've said, there were other healers at the time. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 00:15, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

No. Your cited scholars say that they synoptic gospels say Jesus was a healer. That is not the same as the scholars themselves saying that Jesus was a healer. Presumably, those scholars who are Christians believe he was, those who are not do not. The statement, therefore, is unsupported, and implies that most scholars are Christians.

There is no need to "interpret" the word healer. It is common word meaning "one who heals". Since Jesus, if he healed, healed by way of miracles and casting out demons, to say that Jesus was a healer implies that Jesus worked miracles.

"had a reputation as a healer" does not take sides one way or the other, and is therefore more representative of what "most scholars believe". Rick Norwood 02:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

What you said is just another way of saying what I said. By analogy, when scholars refer to Mohammad as the prophet of Islam, they say that the Koran says Mohammad was a prophet. You could also say that Mohammad had a reputation as a prophet. Prophet is a common word meaning "one who prophecized." Yet scholars use the word "prophet" without implying that Mohammad was really visited by Gabriel.

Either way, I don't have too much invested in this myself. I just don't want to confuse people. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 02:41, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind either wording, but this statement is false: "Since Jesus, if he healed, healed by way of miracles and casting out demons, to say that Jesus was a healer implies that Jesus worked miracles." Many people believe that all religious healing is psychosomatic, and therefore totally naturalistic, which would include Jesus' healings. Others believe that Jesus was a trickster (or "magician" as the Jews say), who simply had a con going where people pretended to be sick and he then "healed" them. Others believe that Jesus healed supernaturally by the power of satan or by the power of God. Others believe that Jesus was a Third Order Thetan and healed by auditing people's ingrams. And so on. The simple term "healer" covers all of these views. But like I said, I don't personally mind if we qualify it. Either way is accurate, though just saying "healer" is ambiguous (which I think is one of its good qualities). --MonkeeSage 05:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Third order Thetan? What, Jesus was a Scientologist? "Healer" is ambiguous, which is good because it is one word that covers all meanings, but which is also bad because it invites objection. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 05:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Heh, well if you believe everything you read, he was a Scientologist, an iconoclastic hippy, a Urantian, and an Akashic psychic, among other things. ;) But I was wrong -- evidently he wasnt an Operating Thetan, he was just a novice: "Neither Lord Buddha nor Jesus Christ were OTs according to evidence. They were just a shade above clear" --Hubbard, Certainty magazine, 5:10. Heh. --MonkeeSage 05:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Rick, if you will look above (or in the archive if Archie has gotten to it -- I'm beginning to think Archie is short for Archivist, a badge of honor in my profession ;-)), you will note that the scholars in our list that we have checked indeed called Jesus a healer. You are welcome to check others. By this most do not imply that Jesus actually healed people at all, least of all supernaturally. As we have said above, they see this as a common role performed by many people in the era of Jesus. I think if you will ask people around you, without preamble, what they would think I meant if I say so-and-so was a healer, you will discover efficacy is not assumed or even implied in common speech.

My objection to the phrase is that it not needed, lengthens the paragraph, reads awkwardly and thus shouldn't be there. This is an introduction, after all. We can take the nuances up later. Unless it can be shown to not be accurate, I think it should stay as is. --CTSWyneken 11:50, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for a calm and reasoned answer. However, I respectfully disagree. If I asked ten people what "healer" means, I think ten out of ten would answer "Somebody who heals" or words to that effect. And as I pointed out, most of your sources, rather than saying "Jesus was a healer" say "According to the gospels Jesus was a healer", a statement with which no reasonable person would disagree. More to the point, I think that the addition of four words to the article, "with a reputation as..." would save you a thousand words of controversy here, would satisfy both sides, and, most important, would be clearly true. Rick Norwood 13:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course a healer is someone who heals. But different people have different views of who a healer is and how a healer heals and what the patient is being healed from. No one expects Wikipedia to police who is a healer and who is not. According to the article, historians portray Jesus as a healer. This is a factual and accurate statement. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

• According to most of those historians, 'Jesus was a healer according to the NT.' How many people, now and in the future, objecting to a flat out statement by wikipedia that these scholars say he WAS a healer does it take to make this small change? Even "He travelled through Galilee & Judea as a Jewish teacher and healer" sets a context that is nowhere in the article at all. NPOV and accuracy override style preferences ---JimWae 15:27, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the point about the scholars is being missed. Anyone who has eyes understands that the NT says Jesus was a healer -- they are not simply stating the obvious. The point is that these scholars are looking at the text critically -- they are not accepting what it says at face value -- they are choosing some things as historically accurate and some as ahistorical. So when they say that the NT calls Jesus a healer, it is an implicit assertion of historicity (unless of course they are stating it in order to criticize it). That said, I think it would be good to phrase the statement so as to give it some context as Rick, Jim, et al. have suggested. --MonkeeSage 16:48, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

From the quote above, it looks like the critical conclusion that Robert Funk and the Jesus Seminar reached was that Jesus was considered a healer (there are actually qualifiers on 3 of the 4 quotes). I'm fascinated by this discussion which puts semantics under the microscope! But I accept that a lead section needs to read smoothly, and broad statements can be problematised later in the article. The sentence in question is already long with multiple clauses. Rick, here is your suggested sentence in its entirety: "Most scholars of either Biblical criticism or history agree that Jesus was a Jewish Galilean teacher with a reputation as a healer who was sentenced to death by crucifixion outside of Jerusalem on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate,[1] for being acclaimed the "King of the Judeans", a crime of rebellion against the Roman Empire.[2]" The sentence could be simpler with "...for sedition against the Roman Empire" as suggested above, and the "King of the Judeans" claims moved to the body of the article (thereby not losing all of CTSW's hard work)... just a thought :) ntennis 03:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

"Claiming" to be King of th Judeans

Seems to me we have two issues:

Claimed

Do our scholars believe Jesus claimed to be King?

we've seen a little evidence going both ways on this. --CTSWyneken 00:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Doing an informal survey of Biblical Scholars here, the consensus seems to be that Jesus never called himself, King of the Jews. I'd be comforable with finding some language that says Pilate charged Jesus with this crime. --CTSWyneken 11:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

King of the Judeans

Do they believe Pilate charged him with this crime? --CTSWyneken 00:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

On this subject, I agree with CTSWyneken. The "rule of embarassment" proposed by the Jesus Seminar makes it likely that Jesus was executed by the Romans. If not for sedition, then for what crime. And what sedition, if not claiming to be the Messiah, who was to lead the Jews in revolt against the Romans. Thus, King of the Judeans is probably, and most scholars I have read do not dispute this, though there are a few exceptions. Rick Norwood 02:21, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

My sense is, all historians agree Jesus was executed for sedition. What he actually did that constituted the crime of sedition, however, is a matter of debate. Fredriksen, for one, argues that Jesus's actions constituted sedition even if he never claimed to be king or messiah - indeed, she makes much of the fact that he often answered questions, "are you the messiah" etc. equivocally. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

New Proposasl

The main sources of information regarding Jesus' life and teachings are the four canonical Gospels of the New Testament. Most scholars in the fields of Biblical Studies and history agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher from Galilee, was regarded as a healer, and on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate was sentenced to death by crucifixion for a crime of sedition against Rome. Because the Gospels were not written immediately after his death and there is little external documentation, a small minority of scholars question the historical existence of Jesus.

Discussion

Okay here is a new proposal that may resolve the healer / King of the Judeans problems.

Ps. I didn't know what to do with the refs, so I put them both at the end...they could be placed better. --MonkeeSage 17:14, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

If this version is agreed to, the notes can be merged. Only if the titilus remains do separate notes become necessary. --CTSWyneken 21:40, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me. I've been rather distracted today; I'm just growing tired of debating Freke and Gandy's interpretation of 2nd John. I'm also waiting to hear what the Ebionite concept of "Messiah" was, and whether they believed that Jesus was the Messiah, or merely the potential Messiah born into his age. For now, though, I need to deliver newspapers. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 21:49, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me, too. It answers all of the objections without saying anything that could offend Christians. Rick Norwood 22:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

It's good but I have a minor criticism. I feel this version is a little wordy. I think healer and teacher should stay together. Perhaps say he had a reputation as a teacher and healer? --Andrew c 22:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Let me explain why I phrased it the way I did: the objection seems to be that "teacher" (in our society) is understood as a vocational title, while "healer" is thought of as a description of personal quality or power (I don't necessarily agree, but that's the objection). So, I tried to limit "teacher" to the obviously vocational and qualify "healer" within the context of the social structure at the time. There is probably a better way to do it, but I couldn't think of it. --MonkeeSage 23:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

How about? "teacher and reputed healer" --Haldrik 23:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Elsewhere: "Most scholars in the fields of Biblical Studies and Israeli Archeology agree"

The term "archeology" is more accurate. Archeology is multidisciplinary and includes history, but emphasizes environmental and social context. It is precisely the context of the ancient society, which archeology reveals, which has recently improved our understanding of the information that we have about the ancient person. Archeology needs mention. --Haldrik 23:31, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

"Teacher and reputed healer" works for me but, like all attempts to clarify the context, it can be seen as equivication. As for "Biblical Archaelogy," that phrase immediately brings to mind the James Ossuary. BAR lost some credibility when they continued to advocate that the words "brother of Jesus" were not a forgery. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 00:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Meh. The fact that archeological process could detect even an excellent fraud demonstrates that archeology works. --Haldrik 06:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Archaelogy works, but people unfamiliar with the field may think of "Biblical Archaelogy" much as they do of "Creation Science": that these are people out to prove the Bible. They'd be wrong, but look at all the fun we've had trying to explain that Biblical Scholars are not all theologians. "Israeli Archaelogy" is better, but unfortunately that's not the title of the linked article. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 06:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

We could argue for another month, and everyone put their two cents worth in, but I think it is time to move on. Maybe the MonkeeSage version is not perfect, but if it is acceptable to everyone, let's adopt it. I officially withdraw all of my suggestions in favor of the MonkeeSage version. Rick Norwood 00:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

It's acceptable to me. Not perfect, but acceptable. However, I know from experience that for many editors, "acceptable" is not good enough. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 00:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

It reads Ok to me - a bit wordy but we'll never get away with simple and all they key terms are linked so anyone confused can easily double check. Sophia^TalkTCF 01:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

• OK by me, any improvement can come afterwards --JimWae 01:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's go with it. It is likely the best we can get. --CTSWyneken 01:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

LOL. Do we actually have a unanimous consenus for once? Arch O. La^TalkTCF 02:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd invite SLRubenstein to check it out, but I wouldn't want to be accused of forming an ecumenical coven. THAT could get me in real trouble! 8-) --CTSWyneken 02:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, so I'm weak. I invited Drogo... 8-) --CTSWyneken 03:02, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok here's Drogo :-) ... I don't like the current 2nd paragraph. One thing I don't like, is the topic sentence...its not about the topic of the paragraph. Or maybe the paragraph has no main topic, in which case it is a bad paragraph.

The main sources of information regarding Jesus' life and teachings are the four canonical Gospels of the New Testament.

This sentence is true. But its also the topic sentence of the paragraph. But the paragraph then goes on and says:

Most scholars in the fields of Biblical Studies and history agree that Jesus was a Jewish Galilean teacher and healer who was sentenced to death by crucifixion outside of Jerusalem on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate,[2] for claiming to be the "King of the Judeans", which was a crime of rebellion against the Roman Empire.[3]

Woah! Wait a minute! Most scholars in the fields of Biblical Studies and history? Where did that come from? The reader thinks the paragraph is going to be about the four gospels and how they are the main sources of information about Jesus. The second sentence does not logically follow from the first one. The fault, I believe, was caused by moving sentences around when before they used to make sense. Drogo Underburrow 06:04, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Where do you think they got the idea from? The main sources are the gospels. The majority accept these details as a bare minimum. The minority thinks the whole thing is a myth. The gospels tell us that:

1. Jesus existed
2. Jesus was Jewish
3. Jesus was from Galilee
4. Jesus was a teacher
5. Jesus was a healer (method of treatment not mentioned)
6. Jesus was sentenced to death
7. The method of death was crucifixion
8. The locale was Jerusalem
9. Pontius Pilate ordered the crucifixion
10. The charge was sedition.

All these details are agreed upon by most scholars in the fields of Biblical Studies and history. All these details come mainly from the four cannonical Gospels of the New Testament. The topic is, and has always been, how scholars judge the historicity of the Gospel accounts. --Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenborings aka Arch O. La^TalkTCF 06:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The article is all the reader sees, not this talk page. To such a reader, the paragraph reads poorly for the reason I cited. Drogo Underburrow 06:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Stuff keeps being moved around, so I'm just going to post this here:

The way the introduction is currently worded, it implies that there are only two views about the historical existence of Jesus. One view, that of most historians and biblical scholars, is that the Gospels prove his historical existence and give valid information about him. The other view, that of a small minority of scholars, is that they don't. This is a false dichotomy. For example, it excludes Garry Wills, who believes that the Gospels give valid information about Jesus, but they do not prove his existence; his existence is a matter of faith. The reason the Gospels give valid information, in Will's opinion, is because faith says they do, not any secular standard of historical proof. Wills believes that apart from faith, the Gospels are not valid historical proof of anything about Jesus. Drogo Underburrow 06:52, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Stuff was getting moved around because I was archiving.

I've been bothered about this for a while myself. There's a range of opinion on historicity, and I myself wanted to limit "Biblical Scholars" to higher critics to maintain the distinction between theologians who accept the existence of Jesus on faith, and others who examine the evidence and judge its authenticity by comparing it to what else is known about that time and place. There are, of course, people who do both, but that only makes the distinction fuzzy. The minority generally reach their conclusion by comparing the Bible to ancient myths and conclude Jesus never existed by implication. We are mixing at least three categories, and that is why this paragraph has been so omnicontroversial. The paragraph was originally about historicity. Lately it's grown to be more about the consensus of scholars of all types using different methods. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 07:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I reserve judgement on what Wills says until I see it. It is out of character for what I know of him. Suffice it to say for the moment that, despite how he gets there, he agrees with the majority.

I'll take a look at the proposals below, but here's what I'm hoping for:

The minority opinion is a very small one, made up of people who have little expertise in the fields of History and Biblical Studies. The basic point behind this paragraph is to point this out in a nice way. Our "final" version should do this.

What I like, having gone through a lot of work surveying opinions on the subject, is there is a consensus in these disciplines on the basic outline of the life of Jesus. Frankly, working where this subject is discussed often, this was a complete suprise to me. I would like to have this important set of results before our readers.

IMHO, the sources statement need not remain in the paragraph. --CTSWyneken 11:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposals to clarify the paragraph

MonkeySage version

Using the four canonical Gospels of the New Testament as the main sources of information regarding Jesus' life and teachings, most scholars in the fields of Biblical Studies and history agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher from Galilee, was regarded as a healer, and on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate was sentenced to death by crucifixion for a crime of sedition against Rome.[1][2] Because the Gospels were not written immediately after his death and there is little external documentation, a small minority of scholars question the historical existence of Jesus.[3]

Comments on MonkeySage version

Hmmmmm...let's see here...it kind of masters the run-on sentence and doesn't make the scholars distinction any clearer, but it shows the logical connection of the first sentence with the rest.

The scholarship thing could always be elaborated in a subsection further down...just a thought. --MonkeeSage 07:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Archola's version

The four canonical Gospels of the New Testament are the main sources scholars use when judging the historicity of Jesus. Most scholars in the fields of Biblical Studies and history accept at least some of the details from the Gospel accounts. They agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher from Galilee who was regarded as a healer. They agree that Roman Governor Pontius Pilate ordered Jesus to be sentenced to death by crucifixion for commiting the crime of sedition against Rome.[1][2] However, because the Gospels were not written immediately after Jesus' death and there is little external documentation, a small minority of scholars question the historical existence of Jesus.[3]

Comments on Archola version

My composition teacher told me that a sentence is not a paragraph. We need to split this up. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 07:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

PS: Do "a small minority of scholars question the historical existence of Jesus" because "the Gospels were not written immediately after Jesus' death and there is little external documentation," or is it because they judge the Gospel accounts to be similar to ancient myths? Osirus and Dionysus come up a lot in the mythological school, and this has nothing to do with the lack of extant contemporaneous documents. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 07:30, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

-and not just a week after his death - but decades later. Btw, do scholars really feel they need to agree he was from Galilee? - they have only the NT to base that on. Besides, someone can be from many places --JimWae 07:34, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, the Gospels have him going all over Galilee, Perea, Iudea and Samaria. As I understand it, it was quite a scandal for a Jew to be passing through Samaria. He was indeed from many places. However, if they accept that he was from Nazareth, then they accept that he is from Galilee. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 07:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

The statement about the minority position is also intended to summarize a wide variety of views of those committed to the nonexistence hypothesis. It is not just the Jesus myth folk. Just as the majority includes those who judge the gospels to be from basically reliable to completely reliable, so there are nonexistence folk who do not buy into the myth angle. We need to keep the statement down to what almost all of them agree upon. --CTSWyneken 11:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it doesn't matter whether or not the majority has to agree he was from Galilee; they do. In fact, they are much more agreed on this than his birth in Bethlehem. --CTSWyneken 11:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

CTS, you didn't tell me what you think of my proposal ;) I do think we need to add the approximate date of the gospels to the paragraph (after c. 65 AD/CE is what we had before), as well as a reference to archaeology as Haldrik suggested. I believe that my "judging the historicity of Jesus" to be more accurate than Drogo's "reconstructing the life of Jesus," because both sides refer to the Gospels, they just come to different conclusions. Come to think of it, this might also make the reference to external documentation superflous. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 20:21, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Drogo version

The four canonical Gospels of the New Testament are the main sources scholars use when reconstructing the life of Jesus. Scholars argue from them that Jesus was a Jewish teacher from Galilee who was regarded as a healer. They surmise that Roman Governor Pontius Pilate ordered Jesus to be sentenced to death by crucifixion for commiting the crime of sedition against Rome.[1][2] A small minority of scholars believe that Jesus never existed, while others believe that apart from faith we know nothing about him. Drogo Underburrow 07:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments on Drogo version

I think the second paragraph should state that some people doubt whether Jesus existed at all; but I do not think it should go into detail why they believe that; not unless you want the entire paragraph to be about that subject. The paragraph can state that some doubt, and still be about another topic. But when you start getting into reasons, it starts muddying things up.

I still don't like the above version because it is still limiting the views to two sides, when there are many sides. Drogo Underburrow 08:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

A while ago an editor was insisting on "lack of extant contemporaneous documents." We tried to come up with a better phrase, but the idea was still there. An idea that I wasn't too sure of to begin with. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 08:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

"Others believe that apart from faith" certainly sounds familiar. We just need to be sure that we are representing the views of the authors we cite (or find new ones). Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 08:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I like Drogo's version the best. I think that the delineation between the different kinds of scholars and their various views can go in a subsection further on (perhaps wherever the Jesus Seminar stuff ends up?), but that looks good for a summary, imo. --Olo Cotton AKA MonkeeSage 08:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

That's what Jesus#Historicity is for. The majority view is in Jesus#Forensic reconstructions of Jesus's life. There also seems to be an oblique mention of the minority view in History#External influences on gospel development. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 09:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm still not satisfied, myself. The paragraph is still POV. Its pushing the "Historical Jesus" POV. -- Drogo Underburrow 09:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

There have, of course, been long discussions on much weight to give each POV. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 09:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

This version makes the "historical Jesus" as the article's POV. That's not right. I think that a radical change is needed. Drogo Underburrow 09:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I think we need to figure out what the general scope and purpose of the article is going to be, then summarize that in the opening. I know Archie has been trying to do that in various ways, but it seems we keep coming back to specifics in the existing summary and never get to the bigger picture. Maybe we should try it the other direction -- construct an outline / plot of how the article should be, then work getting the sections in line with that? --MonkeeSage 10:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

That makes sense. And if people can't agree, better that they fight about big things than this non-productive fighting over a few words. Drogo Underburrow 10:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

See Talk:Jesus/Related articles for my outline. However, this is an outline of all the Jesus articles, which I believe the main Jesus article should be a summary of. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 20:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

It is our task to represent the views of scholarship on Jesus. This version suggest that there is some doubt in the minds of the scholars on these points there is not. There is plenty of disagreement on the other details, to be sure, but not on these. As far as the nonexistence hypothesis is concerned, all versions give it more weight than it is due. Consider that six of seven encyclopedias do not consider it significant enough to even mention. I have some stuff to do today, but, if time permits, I'll let you know which of the other two new proposals I prefer. Let me be on record, however, that the one we had agreed upon last evening was about the best I think we'll get, barring what I just wrote above. --CTSWyneken 11:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

What do you think of my version? It's just MonkeeSage's version with shorter sentences. You responded to my comments, but not my proposal itself. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 20:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I still like the MonkeeSage version best, and it was a version that most found at least acceptable. Let's put it in place and move on. Rick Norwood 13:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I just did, although I restored the date reference. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 20:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Drogo: Yes, the second paragraph pushes the Historical Jesus POV, just as the third paragraph pushes the Christian POV and the fourth paragraph pushes the Muslim POV. The entire introduction, not just the 2nd paragraph, is meant to summarize the article. However, we need to be sure that the introduction really does that ;) Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 20:05, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

You people fight too much of semantics and sacrifice the readability of the article. The previous version was better and I honestly think Sophia's or my suggestions should be implemented over these versions with so many abritrary and unnecessary qualifiers. We dont need "they agree" at the beginning of ever sentence when the first sentence states these beliefs are those of scholars. The previous version acheived through real consensus was fine in terms of readability and neutrality. —Aiden 21:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

My version has "they agree" because I was breaking up a long sentence for the sake of readability, "they" of course referring back to most scholars of Biblical Studies and history. Also, when have we not fought over semantics? This paragraph has been challenged over semantics from day 1. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 22:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I like Archie's version too. I'm just not very good at grammar. I can make a sentence go on for ever, if you just give me enough commas and enough space. :) --Olo Cotton AKA MonkeeSage 22:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

My version is just your version with shorter sentences. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 23:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Aiden's Version

The main sources of information regarding Jesus' life and teachings are the four canonical Gospels of the New Testament, generally dated after 65 AD/CE. Critical Bible scholars and historians generally agree that Jesus was a Jewish Galilean teacher and healer, known for his debates with the Pharisees and other authorities. At the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate, Jesus was sentenced to death by crucifixion for the alleged or implied crime of sedition against Rome. However, citing a lack of extant non-Biblical documents making reference to him, a small minority question the historical existence of Jesus.

Comment on Aiden's version

1. Second sentence (Critical...Rome) is a run-on sentence.
2. Again with the "lack of extant" phrasing?
3. Looks good otherwise.

Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 23:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Comments on all versions

Yes, MokeeSage's first version should be put in place, but we can continue to talk. Two points:

1. As JimWae points out, we lost the dating of the gospels (after c.65 CE is what I believe we had)
2. Halrik has a point about including archaelogy as well as history. Since this is ancient history, both are important.

Also, please notice Jesus/2nd Paragraph Debate. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 19:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

You may continue to talk. I'm going to go home and take a nap. Congratulations on a job well done. Rick Norwood 22:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Not to nit pick but the current version is very "was" "was" "was". Pansy Brandybuck AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 23:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, sorry, sorry. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 23:58, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks good.

I don't think this is the place to bring in archaeology. It certainly should be a part of the later sections, though. Archaeology can be of some help, but it is a bit of a blunt instrument. So, for example, we have Pilate's name on a dedicatory plaque for a theatre in Caesarea, with archaeological evidence pointing to the first half of the 1st century. We have bones in an ossuary inscribed with the name Joseph ben Caiapha. We have a general field survey that shows Hebrew material culture in Galilee up to ca. 750 BC/BCE, hardly any material culture at all until ca. 100 BC/BCE, then Judean material culture. We have a boat from the Sea of Galilee that was in use in the first century CE/AD. None of this directly establishes any of our propositions, but it does increase confidence in the historical details of the New Testament.

So not here, I think. --CTSWyneken 00:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

CSTW, you're thinking like a historian! That's exactly what archeology isn't. Archeology doesn't equal, "We found the bonebox of Yehosef Bar Qayafa", but "Roman Period Jews used boneboxes as as part of a secondary burial ritual because of a cultural belief that the dead would resurrect from these bones in the future". Archeology isn't, "Pilate's name is on a plaque", but "Hellenistic institutions influenced Roman Period Jewish culture, and Roman administrators used Hellenistic institutions to entertain the populations in the name of Rome to consolidate Roman power in the region". It's pleasing when we find remains from familiar famous people. Nevertheless. Archeology is context, context, context, systems, structures, meaning. Without archeology the biblical texts lose context, lose meaning, and evaporate into dreamlike theological fantasies. Jesus is a real human in real place in a real time. Archeology is the foundation of every scientific investigation of the biblical texts about him. --Haldrik 10:06, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you! Since I'm a published historian (19th century Lutheranism, by the way), guilty as charged! 8-) Actually, I'm trying to speak diplomatically! I'll not quibble with you, but will disagree a bit. Archaeology involves the discovery and description of data. Most archaeologists go on to interpret data, which is actually a form of the discipline of history. 8-) When you read site reports, most of the material is data description for this reason. Said another way: a crime scene investigator finds and describes evidence and what that evidence says about the time of death, timeline issues, etc. The detective interprets that data to find and arrest the person who committed the crime. You can't have one without the other.

The difference is this: there is no doubt that Pilate's name is on that plaque. There is little doubt due to carbon 14 dating and pottery distribution that it is early 1st century. The purpose behind it we know of from texts that talk about the period. These are, for the most part, are found on objects not made until well after the period when the texts themselves were written. Without those texts, the plaque is just one of many like it.

Regardless of this, none of it establishes any of the propositions we've made, so it does not belong in a short introduction, intended to be a summary of a summary of the life of Jesus and what people think of him. --CTSWyneken 11:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

You describe archeology but seem to suggest archeology isn't about interpreting the remains, which you feel is what historians do. (LOL! As if archeology is just grave robbing plus good bookkeeping!) Obviously, archeology is nothing except the interpretation of artifacts, installations, bones, clothes, symbols, texts, languages, ancient weather patterns, and so on ... all to piece together the ancient cultural context. Context = meaning. Describing unearthed artifacts is a means of archeology (just one of many disciplines that archeologists do), but reconstructing the ancient culture to understand the ancient reality is the goal of archeology. --Haldrik 12:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

You suggest, "none of [archeology] establishes any of the propositions we've made". To the contrary, it is precisely because archeologists have reconstructed the ancient environment, that we have any reasonable idea of what Jesus is like. Every proposition in the 2nd paragraph is because of archeology. Archeology established that Israel's Roman Period has Torah "teachers". Therefore, if the Gospels call Jesus a "teacher", it's plausible. Likewise, "healers". Anyway, it's ok if historians belittle archeologists. Archeologists belittle historians too, thinking they don't do anything else except fawn over the lives of the ancient rich and famous! --Haldrik 12:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Anyway, for the last century, with regard to scientific inquiry about Jesus (and the Bible), archeology has absolutely dominated over history in terms of revealing new information. --Haldrik 13:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand you both. Haldrik is using "archaelogy" as a superset of history, which is often true especially of ancient history. CTSWyneken is using "archaelogy" in more limited way. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 15:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Not grave robbing, treasure hunting. Sorry bad joke! 8-) Seriously, I'm not pitting one against the other. Archaeology provides a great deal of background information that gives us greater confidence in the reliability of ancient documents such as the Gospels and helps us to fill in the blanks a bit. Rather than pitting one against the other, they fit together. Without history, the artifacts are silent. Without the archaeology, history is like black and white TV; you also have more guess work than solid backing. I'd submit that archaeologists become historians when they interpret their artifacts. I see the field as material culture history. 8-)

Now, as far as our paragraph goes, there is no room for archaeology, because that discpline does not speak to the birth of Jesus, that He was a healer or a teacher or crucified by Pilate. Unless you buy the James Ossuary as authentic, we do not even have Jesus' name on papyrus or stone. By archaeology, all we know about Pilate is his name and that he was a true Roman patron, building a theatre in honor of his emperor. Just that. Pilate's name does not appear in any other inscription. We are left with the New Testament and Josephus. In this case, the only thing archaeology does for the account of the passion in the gospels is althenticate the existence of the Roman governor as he is chronicled in the gosepel and histories of the period.

We need to keep the paragraph small, so these details should await a later place in the article.--CTSWyneken 01:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's not get distracted by the archeology issue. Haldrik's view of archeology is correct, but that is not the question. The question is, to what extent do scholars writing about Jesus rely on archeological evidence and the answer is, not much. I am not saying whether this is a good or bad thing, I am just observing that the most widely cited scholarly works on Jesus draw alomost entirely on historical documents. Yes - they do draw on archeology as well, but just not very much. We have said "Biblical scholars" which certainly includes Biblical archeologists. And no matter how archeology is used it doesn't change the fact that the gospels (and also Paul's epistles, which were not written by someone who personally knew Jesus, but may have been written before the gospels) are the primary source.

I can accept the current version, though I would ditch the Durant reference and combine the two notes that are next to one another. I would, however, add that Jesus was baptized by John. All of the historians I have read consider this to be on the most probable claims of the gospels, as likely to be true as Jesus' crucifiction. It also provides a basis for many alternate accounts of Jesus's vocation and life than the that privileged by the NT i.e. is a significant fact that could be developed in any article on the "historical" Jesus, given that historians do have a lot to say about it.

I also object to "regarded as a healer." The passive voice is poor style, and sloppy. And we don't say that Jesus was regarded as a teacher - so why say regarded as a healer? I can make the same argument against teacher as against healer: many people find his teachings absurd, and many people who admire his teachings have criticized his followers for not, well, following his teachinge - in other words, he was a bad teacher. But it doesn't matter whether he was a bad teacher, or the kind of teacher I like. One can be an awful teacher and still be a teacher. On can be a teacher even if one is utterly ineffective - i.e. no one ever learned anything from that teacher, but we still say, he's a teacher. In short, people are treating the word "healer" in a way that is inconsistent with normal usage, especially at Wikipedia. It amounts to editorializing and I think is a way of disguising a point of view as NPOV. When Wikipedia says that Danielle steel is "considered an author" or "allegedly a novelist," and Britney Spears is "considered a pop singer" and "allegedly an actress," I will accept our saying Jesus was "considered a healer." Slrubenstein | Talk 11:26, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

/* MonkeeSage becomes disillusioned and starts a survivalist cult in East Texas where the "real, true, actually true truth" about Jesus is taught. */ --MonkeeSage 19:52, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Please tell me you don't mean Waco, TX. As for "healer" I dunno what we can say that will satisfy everybody. BTW Britney Spears is not "considered a pop singer" by me, but then I prefer Sheryl Crow ;) Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. La^TalkTCF 20:33, 24 March 2006 (UTC)