This is an archive of past discussions about Jesus. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Fellow editors:

Before the article was blocked, I finished documentation for all but two of the listed historians and Bible scholars who support the majority position. I was only able to verify one of the persons supporting the minority position. Left to do are: Geza Vermes; D. A. Carson; Bruno Bauer; Michael Martin; John Mackinnon Robertson.

From the vague discussions we've had during our ... vigorous ... debate, I recall one or two more we might want to add. Please help me by listing them here. If they are not in the talk:Jesus/Cited Authors Bios subpage, please add them. No matter how the vote comes out, please list only historians and Bible scholars for the majority (the way we have the position described, Voltaire and Bertrand Russell don't count). I'll check Will Durant to see if he has formal historian's credentials. For the second, anyone with scholarly credentials will do, as long as they support the nonexistence hypothesis.

In the spirit of collaboration I hope can prevail here, I am, of course, open to modification of the above, providing it takes into account that these notes are for providing evidence of the majority and minority views.

Also unfinished on the documentary front, are the subpages on Jesus and the Jewish Authorities and the date range for the life of Jesus. This is the hard work, folks. Help us establish what scholarship says. --CTSWyneken 12:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Run-Off for Final Vote

Okay. Our primary vote has left us with two candidates. Once again, we will take votes for 48 hours. At the end of that time, the item with majority will be placed on the main page and a moratorium will be called on editing that line for thirty days. During that time, further discussion can take place on its archive page and perhaps our editors can come up with a better solution. Please, however, let us wait the full time to post suggestion or discussion on the primary page, and let us not change it based on that discussion until it is opened back up to the main talk page. This is for simplicity's sake and to keep us from having to vote again on that stupid line! =P

Once again, I ask that you select only one option this time. If you have no major preference, please indicate it below the vote table in a comment but select one of the options (flip a coin if you have to). At this point, voting twice mathematically nullifies your own vote and renders it useless. And once again, although this wasn't paid hardly any attention to last time, please restrict your comments to outside the voting table so that it does not get cluttered. If you want to tell us why you voted the way you did, comment off the table. (Sorry, it's my OCD kicking in. I like a clean table.)

Agreement to Consensus and Honesty: By placing your signature on a suggested text line on this voting board, you agree to abide by the consensus of a selected line for the proposed thirty day term. There is no point in placing a vote which you later choose to disavow, or voting in a decision which you later choose to ignore. Our first round of voting provided an opportunity for those who believed more discussion was needed or those who rejected the concept of voting and no one marked there. Please do not move your vote after you have placed it (unless you placed it by mistake, at which point we would expect you to immediately move it. Ten hours later is unacceptable). Any editor caught moving or removing another editor's vote will be immediately referred to an admin and have his or her vote nullified.

Once again, please only place #~~~~ on the voting table. --Avery W. Krouse 04:16, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Averykrouse is being more than reasonable in saying to put comments elsewhere and maintain a clean table. If I were the mediator, I would state that comments that mess up the table are bad faith edits. Robert McClenon 12:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Voting will end at 04:00 3 March, 2006 (UTC).

Final Candidates

Please read above instructions before voting.

However, citing a lack of extant contemporaneous documents making reference to him, a small minority question the historicity of Jesus.^[1] (current form AND February 20th consensus agreed by vote)

Without objection, can the above read more simply as: A small minority question the historicity of Jesus, citing a lack of extant contemporary references to him. Haldrik 12:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Haldrik 05:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Robsteadman 07:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Paul B 11:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Alienus 17:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Mrcolj 18:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Jayjg ^(talk) 18:27, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
ems 18:45, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
--Victim of signature fascism | There is no cabal 20:38, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
--PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 21:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
--MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 21:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
--Rick Norwood 22:12, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
Jon513 22:21, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
youngamerican (talk) 01:04, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Drogo Underburrow 07:16, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Jim62sch 01:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
JimWae 03:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC) this one was agreed to less than 10 days ago & unless it has problems, should not be revoted on 3 times in one week.
1. ~~Robeaston99 10:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC) agree with JimWae~~ Disqualified; Robsteadman sockpuppet. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
2. ~~Vhjh 11:05, 2 March 2006 (UTC)~~ Disqualified; Robsteadman sockpuppet. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Is it really just a small minority? Agree with Haldrik's simplification, too. Babajobu 15:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
haldrik version David D. (Talk) 21:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

A small minority of others question the historicity of Jesus.^[2] (Version proposed by User:CTSWyneken)

Seriously sticking my neck out

I've been thinking a lot about the introduction, and if I'm honest I think ot tries to go beyond being an introduction. I'm not going to make any edits to the main page, I never would without dicussing them, but I've tried to look at it from the perspective of a reader and I believe there are a lot of lines that lend themselves better to being discussed later on, in more depth.

You can all totally ignore this and I won't be offended, I realise I'm a little late to the party anyway, but I've edited the text to streamline it. I'm not doing this to upset anyone, just doing it because I thought it might help.

Anyway, here it is...

"Jesus, Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus the Nazarene (8-4 BC/BCE – 29-36 AD/CE)[1], is the central figure of Christianity, in which context he is known as Jesus Christ (from Greek ??s??? ???st??) with "Christ" being a title meaning "Anointed One" or "Messiah".

The main sources regarding Jesus' life and teachings are the four canonical Gospels of the New Testament. These suggest Jesus was a Jewish Galilean preacher and healer who was at odds with the Jewish religious authorities (Sadducees and Pharisees), and who was crucified outside of Jerusalem during the rule of the Roman governor Pontius Pilate.[2]

Within Christianity, it is believed that Jesus is both the Son of God and God made incarnate, sent to provide reconciliation with God by atoning for the sins of humanity, that Jesus was born of a virgin, crucified and buried, resurrected on the third day of death, and ascended into Heaven where he resides with God the Father until the Second Coming.

There are many other religious and non-religious perspectives of Jesus."

That's it anyhow, genuinely sorry if this usets anyone. Dane Jude 13:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

We've been fighting over how much should go into the intro since I've been watching this page. There have been debates over "at odds," the non-existence hypothesis, and your characterization of Christianity is limited to Nicene Christianity and it's decendants (for historical reasons it's imprecise to just say "Trinitarian Christianity," which BTW is what the Spanish article does). Other than that, I like your intro. However, what we have here is a case of too many factions pulling in too many directions and spoiling the pot, so to speak. Arch O. La 13:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey, Dane, I appreciate the boldness, but I think we're stuck with the versions we have. There have been quite a few fights over every word in these three paragraphs. If you have no objection, may I move yours (and Archie's) to appropriate subpages to be considered? If we can gain agreement there, we can incorporate it. I'm a bit nervous, as I was above, with even hinting at the subject before we have some sense of direction. Let's clear the deck and move along. --CTSWyneken 14:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

No objection here :) Dane Jude 14:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Revised Dane Jude suggestion

"Jesus, Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus the Nazarene (8-4 BC/BCE – 29-36 AD/CE)[1], is the central figure of Christianity, in which context he is known as Jesus Christ (from Greek ??s??? ???st??) with "Christ" being a title meaning "Anointed One" or "Messiah".
The main sources regarding Jesus' life and teachings are the four canonical Gospels of the New Testament. These suggest that Jesus was a Jewish Galilean preacher and healer who was at odds with the Jewish authorities, and who was crucified outside of Jerusalem during the rule of the Roman governor Pontius Pilate.[2] Proponents of the non-existence hypothesis disagree (see Jesus-Myth)[3].
Modern Trinitarian Christianity, based on the historic Nicene Creed, affirms that Jesus is both the Son of God and God made incarnate, sent to provide reconciliation with God by atoning for the sins of humanity; that Jesus was born of a virgin; and that Jesus was crucified and buried, resurrected on the third day of death, and ascended into Heaven where He resides with God the Father until the Second Coming. Other Christians affirm various forms of nontrinitarianism. Most Christians also believe that Jesus fulfilled Bible Prophecy. Most Christians further affirm that acceptance of Jesus as Saviour saves one from the penalties of sin, based on (John 3:16).
There are many other perspectives of Jesus."

How's that? Oh, and what about extraBiblical sources? Arch O. La 13:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

While I like the suggested new intro, considering how long we have spent haggling over a single sentence I oppose any change in the intro at this time. Let's move on. Rick Norwood 13:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

If everyone agrees, we can table this proposed revision...but I'd like to hear from more people first. Arch O. La 13:59, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

See encouraging note to Dane above. Can we please wait and take these up on subpages? --CTSWyneken 14:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

If everyone agrees, this can be tabled. Notice, though, that this approach deals with the intro as a whole, rather than pick at the nits of individual sentences, clauses, phrases and words. It may thus be more progressive than our previous ongoing debate. Arch O. La 14:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but, in paraphrasing Martin Luther on the way to Worms, it gores a lot of oxen! It also opens a can of... No, I won't type it! 8-) --CTSWyneken 14:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Latest aphorism: those who butt heads are named for that action. Something to keep in mind when going head-to-head. Arch O. La 15:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone object if I post just the "Within Christianity" revision? It addresses several of the issues that JimWae has raised (several times) while we've been stuck in paragraph 2. Arch O. La 17:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Moving On

Fellow Editors:

It is time to move on. Here are my proposals. This list will grow as the day goes on. Please comment, but do not vote. I do not want to scream! 8-)

But first, the good news. Nearly forty editors have dropped by to vote. That's about as good as any indication of interest in the topic. Perhaps they will stay around to help us with the hard work aheard. --CTSWyneken 11:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposal One

Archive the whole sorry lot Move all of this to the archive and clear the subpage on the 2nd paragraph. --CTSWyneken 11:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Works for me. pookster11 11:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I third this motion. Arch O. La 11:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Yup Slrubenstein | Talk 11:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I cannot believe this has gone on so long. Imagine, if we argue like this over every sentence in the article. Rick Norwood 13:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposal Two

Immediately move all discussion to the subpage Let's get this conversation off the main talk page so that others can work on the rest of the article. If anyone drops by to talk about the paragraph, move their discussion to the subpage with a kind note and link to the page. Perhaps a note on the user's talk page to give a head's up.--CTSWyneken 11:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

What's the purpose of the talk-page then? pookster11 11:15, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The purpose of talk pages is to work with other editors to develop the page. All development here, however, has ground to a halt over handfuls of words and constant voting. A subpage serves the same function, but it keeps high volume discussions out of the way of developing other parts of the article. The only weakness with this approach is that the discussions can become somewhat hidden. A brief note here helps with that by noting the subpage has new material. --CTSWyneken 11:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

We do need to move on. Arch O. La 11:44, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Then nobody will read the subpage, and we can move on. Rick Norwood 13:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposal Three

Leave the text as is for now I'm with Archie and Avery on this one. We do not have more than a small majority on this issue, and, seeing my comment above, I don't expect one, even with an RfC. For the same reason why we give the nonexistence hypothesis any space at all, let's just leave it here. --CTSWyneken 11:01, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes Slrubenstein | Talk 11:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes. Rick Norwood 13:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposal Four

Apply to Remove the Block Let's get back to work. --CTSWyneken 11:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Second. Arch O. La 11:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

yes Slrubenstein | Talk 11:48, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, provided Proposal Five passes. Rick Norwood 13:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Yup. —Aiden 19:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The block has been removed. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 09:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposal Five

Everyone Revert Unilateral Changes We must have stability. Be polite in edit summaries and point to the subpage. If we can come to an agreement there with most parties, then we change the paragraph to match it. --CTSWyneken 11:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes Slrubenstein | Talk 11:49, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes. And revert any change that is not documented in the literature. No original research.

Please sign. --CTSWyneken 14:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

When reverting, be polite in edit summaries and point to talk. Like: See WP:NOR and talk:Jesus/whateverthetopic --CTSWyneken 14:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. —Aiden 19:31, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposal Six

Discuss other issues with the Paragraph We have the Saducees/Pharisee thing still out there. Lets research and discuss. We should also find language to explain why the majority rejects the nonexistence hypothesis and find a way to characterize fairly the nonexistence hypothesis folk. --CTSWyneken 11:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

As far as the Pharisee/Saducee thing, Grant is the current "High ranking" historian on Rome. I'd defer to him on just about anything (even though I've written works where I disagree with him...). Maccoby is somewhat dated and considered highly biased, though he would be the next authority on the topic on the basis of the research and work he presented, though it disagrees with most oher works in the field. Explaining the Jesus- myth is unecessary here; there's at least two other pages dedicated to the topic. If you want to summarize the arguments, most of them base themselves around the idea of the Jesus-mythos emerging from the general mythos of the Levant and Egypt, Hellenistic and pre-Hellenistic. As far as why they aren't widely accepted, there are problems and criticisms for each work but the biggest problem is, as I have said, the originator of the hypothesis, Drews. As all later research, up to about Wells really, bases itself off of Drews' research, which is admitedly flawed and overtly biased, the field really has almost no credibility whatsoever. pookster11 11:26, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the thoughts. May I move them to the appropriate subpage? I really don't want to actually discuss these issues yet, just see if it works as an agenda item. --CTSWyneken 11:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Michael Grant may be an important historian on Rome, but that doesn't mean he is in any way an authority on Jewish leadership in the first century. I'd say Shaye Cohen is the top-ranked scholar today in this regard. Saul Lieberman is dated, but still important, as well as Morton Smith. For Jesus' relationship with Jewish authorities, Sanders and Fredricksen are probably the top two scholars. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Um, SL, may I move your comment, too! 8-) I don't want to start the discussion here. See points above. --CTSWyneken 11:39, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

yes of course Slrubenstein | Talk 11:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposal Seven

Discuss the third paragraph, which we're doing. Now, if only we can figure out what to do with John 3:16! Arch O. La^TalkTCF 09:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Execution of Proposals

I archived a bunch, but still have to copy archie and Dana's proposals to talk:Jesus/2nd Paragraph Debate and archive it. I archived that subpage, so it should be ready for conversation. An editor requested the unblock and it has been accomplished. Have to get a life, so I'll check in later or tomorrow eve. --CTSWyneken 23:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, we've come to a surprisingly quick consensus on the third paragraph. Since the overall intro revisions have been tabled, go ahead and archive them. Arch O. La 02:39, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Except, of course, for John 3:16. Arch O. La ^Talk TCF 03:37, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I just archived Dana's proposal (and my revision) as per CTSWyneken's motion above. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 08:30, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Extant Contemporaneous Documents

Isn't there a better way to phrase the nonexistence hypothesis? All critical thinkers judge the historicity of the New Testament and accepted (by some) Apocrapha against other extant documents (contemporaneous or not) and what is known about the history of the region. The nonexistence hypothesis is just one hypothesis among many that is based on this technique. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 15:02, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd rather not reopen it, to be honest. Also, can we please talk about it on the subpage for paragraph two: talk:Jesus/2nd Paragraph Debate? --CTSWyneken 18:49, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I guess so. The phrase just bothers me is all. Perhaps people can be thinking of this while waiting to reopen further discussion. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 18:53, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Can we talk on the subpage. Please? 8-) --CTSWyneken 18:56, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Plan of Action

Trying to help us practice good collaborative skills, I'd like to suggest the following strategy for finishing the paragraph.

I'd suggest:

First, without discussing them, can we make sure this is a complete listing of the issues?

My thoughts are we are better off solving them in order of difficulty achieving general agreement. To do this, let's make sure we have all the issues on the table first.

To me, the outstanding issue are:

Add balancing phrase to indicate why the majority concludes Jesus existed.
To remove or not remove "Saducees and Pharisees"
To move or not move the date range from 1st paragraph to here.
Finishing the footnotes.

Next would be, again without discussing, see if we can agree on which is easiest.

THEN, we discuss just that one, moving on when we've solved it.

Thoughts? --CTSWyneken 19:05, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, although I'm busier with paragraph 3 at the moment. I can't help with the citations because I don't have the documents ;( Arch O. La^TalkTCF 19:19, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, the blessing and the curse of not living in a library! 8-) --CTSWyneken 19:32, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

"Saducees and Pharisees". The current wording reads: "who debated with the Pharisees and other Jewish religious authorities." This wording resolves a number of concerns, and the matter may be settled. --Haldrik 20:55, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

No longer. I reverted it. It has potential, but we must talk it out first. Among other things, I'm not sure if the footnote supports the text, if we add to it. Second, the objection is to listing either Saducees and Pharisees. We haven't finished the research to know if we can support its inclusion. So, can we just list the issues and discuss them, please? --CTSWyneken 22:45, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I refuse to vote on each word.

Please don't revert the text. We need to accommodate each other's edits AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. If you see a problem with someone's text, just improve it. As Wiki policy makes clear. --Haldrik 07:55, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, we do need to get around voting and simple reverting. Perhaps if anyone has a problem with Haldrik's edits, they can be discussed here. Now if we Christians can only settle the debate on the virgin birth, salvation and John 3:16, everything would come up roses. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 08:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

PS: Haldrik, if you haven't already done so, perhaps you could add your sources here. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 08:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I've added some info on the Pharisees, from some scholars. Time permitting, I'll add more. --Haldrik 13:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

No, we do not have to vote for each word. But to avoid another nuclear war, we need to talk things through first. I will continue to revert the text until we discuss things here first, if I have to do it two times a day.

If you'd rather not follow the proposed plan above, that is fine. I think we're better off listing what we think needs changing, propose text, Haldrik is certainly welcome, and go from there. So, follow the plan or talk about Haldrik's edits? --CTSWyneken 11:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I would rather not follow the proposed plan above. If you have a problem with the text please discuss it here, or improve it, but please DO NOT REVERT IT. --Haldrik 13:22, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's discuss it here then. I'm not eager to have another blow up if there are several folk who are opposed to some change you've made. I'll do what I can to prevent it.

So, please, talk first, wait a few hours to see if anyone has any criticism. If no one here objects, I'll happily guard your version as I'm doing this one. We must work together. --CTSWyneken 14:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, you're saying paste the update here. If no one has any serious objections then go ahead and update the article a little later? In other words, I don't need approval, just a reasonable lack of objection. If so, I can live with that. I'd even be comfortable with placing an article update here for a day, and then updating the article the next day.

With regard to the new wording about the "Pharisees", it's been viewed by many people. A few people have already altered it slightly to meet their own concerns. I'm satisfied with their tweaking, and others have even protected the new wording against other edits. I think it's safe to leave the new wording as is for now.

By the way, Wyneken, I realize you are reasonable and neutral about article's text. I also appreciate your efforts to stabilize the text. I feel your skills are important for encouraging a common understading among a group with diverse opinions. In part because of you, the storminess of the "small minority question" sentence seems to have calmed down. For now, I would like to experiment with more flexibility to develope the text as much as possible (with an efficient use of time).

That said, waiting a day to check for responses doesn't really waste any time, since it just takes a minute to copy and paste it on the next day. (Of course, waiting to take votes, or even waiting for approval, does waste time and must only be in case of serious dispute as a last resort!) --Haldrik 14:33, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for understanding, Haldrik. I'd much prefer to be less rigid on this, like we are with the 1st paragraph and others, but I'm afraid we'll back into warfare if we don't discuss a change here before we make it.

So, if no one objects, post it tomorrow. This gives us a chance to talk, so that, if an ox is gored, it will squeal.--CTSWyneken 21:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

2nd Paragraph to be updated on 3/7/2006

A large majority of critical Bible scholars and historians hold that Jesus was a Jewish Galilean teacher and healer who debated with the Pharisees and other Jewish religious authorities. The Roman Governor, Pontius Pilate ordered that Jesus be executed outside of Jerusalem by crucifixion for claiming to be the "King of the Judeans", a crime of rebellion against Rome. ^[3] However, citing a lack of extant contemporaneous documents making reference to him, a small minority question the historicity of Jesus.^[4]

The only difficulty I have here is that we do not know if all the authors I've cited agreee with the "The High Priest, Caiaphas, had Jesus brought before the Roman Governor, Pontius Pilate, who ordered that Jesus be executed outside of Jerusalem by crucifixion for claiming to be the "King of the Judeans", a crime of rebellion against Rome." At a minimum, we need to find one scholar who says that and cite him/her.

I think I vaguely remember some taking issue with the idea that the the High Priest sent Jesus to Pilate, but do not know this for sure. We can fix that by moving footnote 3 up to the end of the first sentence. We then, however, lose the support that all of our sources provide for the crucifixion itself.

What do you all think? --CTSWyneken 15:54, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't like it. I prefer the simpler previous version. Too much and it just seems disjointed. nah.Gator (talk) 15:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The previous version is not simpler. Also the entire paragraph is about what the "majority of scholars" agree on. Nothing more. If a significan number of scholars dispute something, it cannot be included in the paragraph. --Haldrik 17:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

The (large?) majority of scholars accept Jesus went before Caiaphas. However, there is a problem that a trial during Pesah and a handing over of any Jew to a Nonjewish tyrant are both illegal according to Jewish law. However, Jesus was killed on the day before Pesah (as the Gospel of John necessitates) so a trial is possible and it is probably just a "committee" and not the entire Sanhedrin. With regard to handing Jesus over, it was simply duress.

There is a vigorous debate about why Caiaphas handed Jesus over to Pontius Pilate. What were the motives of Caiaphas and Pilate? Haim Cohn first layed out the argument in The Trial and Death of Jesus (New York: KTAV, 1977), and it is now an important view in the debate among scholars. Josephus describes Pilate as a violent and cunning tyrant who hated Jews with a passion and crushed bloodily any threat to his power. It seems unlikely that Pilate would indulge Jesus who claimed to be the new "King" because other Jews would believe Jesus was the Messiah who would thus be inspired to overthrow Pilate by force. Thus, the Roman Pilate forced Caiaphas to hand Jesus over under duress, similar to the way the Nazis forced Rabbis to hand over certain Jews or else the Nazis would destroy the entire Jewish Ghetto. Caiaphas was faced with a dilemma between the destruction of the entire Jewish people or else violate Jewish law by handing Jesus over to Pilate. (See John 11.50, "Do you not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish?" It suggests Pilate has already threatened to destroy the "whole nation" of Judea, if they don't hand over "one man" Jesus.) It was in fact a Roman "cohort" (σπείρα) of soldiers who arrested Jesus in the Garden (John 18.3). When Caiaphas got involved it was in order to prevent the Romans from killing Jesus. However, when Jesus refused to renounce that he was a "king", Caiaphas knew Pilate would certainly put him to death. Thus, he tore is priestly garments in genuine grief, knowing Jesus was a dead man. (There is no custom for tearing clothes because of blasphemy. Only mourning. Moreover, nothing Jesus said in the Gospels during the trial is blasphemous according to Jewish law, and scholars are mystified at what the word is referring to, which can also just mean "disrespect".) Unfortunately, the Gospels were written decades later, when the Romans destroyed the Jewish Temple, massacred Jews, and began persecuting Christians. In an effort to avoid provoking the Roman authorities, the Gospel writers politically "spun" the account of the trial of Jesus to make the Roman Pilate seem less guilty and thus the High Priest more guilty, even though the way it can now read seems bizarre.

The reason for the interesting elaboration above, is to point out that even scholars who find the Medieval understaning of Jesus's trial unlikely, they still admit that Jesus probably went before Caiaphas. --Haldrik 17:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Haldrik, I disagree and still prefer the current version. Good luck though.Gator (talk) 21:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not have a problem with the sentence its self, but it does provide us a logistical problem, since I haven't varified that all the folk in the footnote affirm this. Do you have a suggestion for how we should suffle the notes around? --CTSWyneken 17:31, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, Vermes doubts the trial before Caiaphas ever happened. Geza Vermes, Jesus the Jew (Philadelphia: Fortress Press 1973). "If such a trial did take place, and if it were possible to reconstruct its proceedings from the discrepant, and often contradictory reports of the Gospels, the only justifiable conclusion would be that in a single session the Sandhedrin managed to break every rule in the book: it would, in other words, have been an illegal trial. Yet even those who are able to believe that a real trial occurred are compelled to admit that when the chief priests transferred the case from their court to Pontius Pilate's tribunal, they did not ask for their findings to be confirmed but laid a fresh charge before the prefect of Judea, namely that Jesus was a political agitator with pretensions to being the king of the Jews. It was not on a Jewish religious indictment, but on a secular accusation that he was condemned by the emperoro's delegate to die shamefully on the Roman cross." (p. 36f) Vermes is a fairly representative scholar, if he doubted Caiaphas's trial, probably a "large" minority of scholars doubts it happened.

Still, scholars from the following decades seem increasingly confident the Caiaphas trial did happen.

Shaye Cohen, From the Maccabbees to the Mishnah(Philadelphia: West Minster Press 1987). Cohen seems to assume Jesus did have a trial before Caiaphas, however he holds that the exact nature of the trial is hopelessly uncertain. "The Jews of the country were citizens of two parallel political systems. The first was the 'civil' adminaistration of the state, whihc was implemented on the local levels by cities and villages, and on the provincial level by governors or vassal kings. The second was the 'national' or 'religious' groups, which was implemented by the high priest. In some matters the two systems overlapped, creating a degree of confusion and uncertainty (see, for example, the Gospel accounts of the trial and execution of Jesus)." (p. 105) Again, the nature of Jesus's trial, especially if it involves the Sanhedrin relies on conflicting evidence that seems impossible to sort out. "Scholars have been trying for centuries to sort out these conflicting testimonies about [the Sanhedrin] the body which is said to have played such an important role in the life and death of Jesus." (p. 108.) My take on Cohen is, the trial with Caiaphas probably happened but what such a trial might look like is impossible to historically reconstruct.

John P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus (New York: Doubleday Press 1991), p. 347f. Meier assumes the trial before Caiaphas happened. "While Jesus can at times engage in civilized debate or even friendly dialogue with Pharisees, scribes, or "rulers", the priests are never presented in such a positive light. Their hostility is unrelieved; and both the Synoptics and John present the priests, specifically the high priest Caiaphas, as instigating the plot to have Jesus put to death. No dobut many aspects of Jesus' background converged to put him on a collision course with Caiaphas and the Jerusalem priesthood. We should think of Jesus as belonging to a pious Jewish laity that regularly went up to Jeruslaem to worship even as it bewailed the failings of at least the upper level priests who officiated there. The fact that his ministry made Jesus stand out from the run of the mill laity made his criticism much more dangerous - for the priests and for himself."

E. P. Sanders, Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah (London: SCM Press 1990), p. 66. Sanders also assumes a trial before a hostile Caiaphas. "In a historical reconstruction, I would move from the demonstration against the Temple [by overturing the money tables], to the charge that Jesus threatened it, to some sort of condemnation by the high priest and his advisers, and finally to an accusation laid before Pilate. Apparently, Jesus was crucified for claiming to be 'king of the Jews'. In any case, what got him hauled before the high priest in the first place was almost certainly his action in the temple." Here Sanders sees the High Priest as personally prosecuting Jesus because of Jesus's rioting in the Temple (which Sanders wonders if this could be construed as "blasphemous" (in the sense of disrespectful) behavior or "gesture"). In any case, Sanders holds that there was a pretrial with the High Priest before the trial with Pilate.

In sum, I think it's safe to say a "large majority" believe the Caiaphas trial happened. Can someone doublecheck what Fredrickson said in her From Jesus to Christ. She's a representative scholar and also cautiously skeptical about historicity. If she assumes the Caiaphas trial happened, then probably a "large majority" do too.

By the way, a large majority scholars believe Pontius Pilate had Jesus crucified as "King of the Jews". Even skeptical historians consider having one's Messiah get crucified by the enemy is so surprising and humiliating, it is meets the criterion of embaressment. In the quotes above, Vermes and Sanders accept that Pilate killed Jesus for a 'secular' crime of rebelling against Rome. --Haldrik 19:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the leg work, Haldrik. So, we have several alternatives:

Include the "Caiphas sentence," which not all of the scholars cited to illustrate the "large majority" do not agree with. We would have to shift around the citations a bit and give this one its own.

Exclude it here and pick it up in another section of the article.

Include it in a new second paragraph with a new majority/minority in it. (Please stop holding your ears, running away screaming, everybody! 8-) )

Do you have some thoughts, Haldrik? --CTSWyneken 21:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's exclude it here and dedicate a separate section about Jesus's hearing before Caiaphas. Despite the fact that the role of Caiaphas is so important, exactly what he did remains so unclear. The four Gospel accounts of Jesus's trial agree that the chief priests (who are headed by Caiaphas) are the ones who handed Jesus over to Pilate, but the exact details are disparate (and perhaps conflicting and distorted). Evidence from Josephus and the Talmud just adds to the confusion! The large majority of scholars agree that the exact nature of this hearing cannot be reconstructed with confidence. --Haldrik 23:38, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. So, would you go to a paragraph 2a or a whole section later?

Also, would you suggest a revised paragraph two? --CTSWyneken 00:07, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah. I updated paragraph-2 without mentioning Caiaphas at this time. Caiaphas should have a whole section later. If the text of the Caiaphas section works out to be stable and simple enough to summarize, maybe we can reinclude a sentence or clause about him in paragraph-2 later. --Haldrik 10:25, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. I moved the footnote up and put a citation needed flag in to establish the details of the new sentence. --CTSWyneken 10:36, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Haldrik that "Pharisees and other authorities" is an improvement. I would delete "religious" because civil and religious authority ovten overlapped and the distinction between civil and religious is anachronistic as Jews did not distinguish between civil and religious at that time. By the way, I copied all the relevant information from Shaye Cohen's book here: User:Slrubenstein/Jewish authorities. The last sentence of the first paragraph is germaine to my point about "religious." Slrubenstein | Talk 16:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

That sounds ok with me, since at least some Pharisees were prominent community leaders, and thus "authorities" in a more secular context. However Jesus only debated about religious issues (halakhah). --Haldrik 17:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

OK by me. One of you guys want to do the honor? I'll guard it. --CTSWyneken 02:39, 9 March 2006 (UTC)