Talk:Historical Jesus/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Recent unsourced repeated edits

The following text has recently been altered by Trencacloscas to include the text in italics: "The historical Jesus is Jesus of Nazareth as reconstructed by historians using historical methods, even when they have no evidence at all of his existence."

This is clearly a POV edit, and it has been reverted twice. The mainstream academic opinion among scholars, Christian or not, is that Jesus did exist. It is POV (not to mention irrelevant to that part of the article) to state that that is true there. If it were relevant, a more appropriate comment might be "although a small miority of scholars think..." or "although Dr. such-and-such FringeScholar argues that..."

I would like to ask Trencacloscas to explain his edits, if he still feels that there is good reason for these changes.TheologyJohn 00:10, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Opinion of scholars in this case is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT without the support of proofs, and the remark of the unexistence of Christ is totally pertinent since there is not a single conclusive proof of the existence of such historical character. The absence of mention of this point makes the article totally partial in my opinion and I also think it goes against the politics of neutrality in Wikipedia. Trencacloscas 20:39, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

You are only correct that there is no 'conclusive' proof if you make 'conclusive' mean a very strong sense, but one cannot find any proof in that sense of pretty much any figure in the ancient world - we have much more evidence for Jesus than for many other figures whose evidence we never doubt. In any case, the text which you keep adding does not refer to 'conclusive' proof, but simply 'evidence' - there is substantially more evidence for Jesus' existence than for many other figures in the ancient world.

Furthermore, this text is not relevant for this article. As it says in the italics at the top of the article, the article is about reconstructing his history - it links to an article about the historicity of Jesus, and that is not a part of this article.

And lastly, and most importantly and relevantly, the NPOV policy of wikipedia, as explained in WP:NPOV, is to represent all published viewpoints (where appropriate, and giving appropriate larger weight to a larger proportion of scholars, etc) and not state that any is correct. We are not allowed to do what you are proposing, which is stating your own opinions based upon original research - forbidden in WP:NOR We are not supposed to say what we think, but represent already existing knowledge.TheologyJohn 21:51, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Trencacloscas, it's an interesting piece of original research, but against undue weight provisions of NPOV. Only a small minority of NT scholars support the legendary status of Jesus. Even the Jesus Seminar conclude and say there is plenty of textual evidence that Jesus of Nazareth existed. JPotter 05:17, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Not original research at all. Just proofs. No other reliable source ever mentions Christ outside the NT. Absence of proofs is massive in this case, and makes irrelevant any scholar opinion. This should be reflected. Trencacloscas 04:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

How exactly do you define reliable? If a text is unreliable because it mentions Christ, then you've kind of stacked the deck against rational though.128.211.254.142 10:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

What historical method are you using to exclude/ignore NT texts? But of course, more importantly, what are your sources. Information cannot be added to wikipedia articles if it is not verifiable, by citing reliable sources. And we must also keep in mind NPOV, by not giving undue weight to minority views. Help us out and give us some citations. Thanks.--Andrew c 05:08, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

NT are not historical texts, just literary inventions, you cannot take fables as history. Should we believe that miracles occurred or that the dead have awaken? Do we actually say that Achilles or Orpheus are historic characters? Of course, not. Then, we are not supposed to take those scripts of the NT as an account of actual deeds. From the supposed Jesus, we don't have any reliable, contemporary or independently written sources, no archaeological proofs of his existence, no text written by himself, no objects that belonged to him, nothing, a ghost. Sorry, but no matter the historical method, no proofs exist about this person. That makes any opinion by scholars an unfounded assumption, and that should be expressed in an article dealing with a "historical Jesus". Trencacloscas 19:12, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Without a priori denying those miracles, can you empirically deny them? Merely excluding something that does not conform to your worldview does not constitute disproving it.128.211.254.142 10:17, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you have any scholarly references that make your case, i.e., that state that the opinions by scholars of the existence of an historical Jesus are merely unfounded assumptions. If not, then this is just your own original research, which has no place on Wikipedia. If so, could you cite them so that we can see what weight they should be given in the overall article? Thanks, Cat Whisperer 19:54, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Certainly it is difficult to speak to the deaf: SCHOLAR OPINIONS ARE IRRELEVANT IN THE ABSENCE OF PROOFS. Proofs go first, scholar opinions go afterwards. Since there is no proofs, no scholar claims are valid to assert the existence of a historic character. But just for the sake of answering the ridiculous allegation of "original research", you can check this for starters: http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/scholars.html Trencacloscas 06:52, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

The web page you give cites Albert Schweitzer's opinion that "Jesus died a disappointed man." How can someone who you say never existed have died a disappointed man? Most of that page discusses problems with the New Testament and Christianity, but that is completely different than saying that Jesus never existed. -- Cat Whisperer 07:16, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Cat, I see you don't get the point and refuse to even try to understand, neither even tried to READ. You just cling to a small piece of information and do not consider the problem in its entirety. Those who support the idea of the existence of such "Jesus" have the burden of proof, it is up to them to prove consistently that such "historic" character existed. But unfortunately, these people didn't produce any valuable proof at all. So they go to scholars, which are mainly faith people, and ask opinions, that are completely irrelevant in this case. It is the same case as Atlantis. Do you have proof of the existence of Atlantis? No. Then you go to "experts" and ask them if Atlantis existed or not; their answer is IRRELEVANT, because there are no proofs to support the opinion, just guesses, hipothesis or dubious impressions. I think the NPOV is not respected in this article, since it is conceived without any scientific base. The "proofs" should be pointed extensively before asserting any "historic Jesus". Trencacloscas 20:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

I understand that you consider the opinions of experts to be irrelevant to this article. That being the case, Wikipedia is probably not the place where you should be, because here we consider the opinions of experts to be extremely relevant in determining the content of articles; hence the Wikipedia policy of verifiability, not truth. Had Wikipedia existed when a geocentric worldview was held by the experts, it would have been inappropriate to edit articles according to a heliocentric viewpoint. Thus, if you truly consider yourself to be smarter than the experts on this matter, then you need to find some other venue to showcase your brilliance to the world. I was hoping to help you get your viewpoint into this article by working on finding some experts who espouse the same views as yourself, but you do not seem motivated to continue in this direction, which is the only direction that would justify the inclusion of those views in this Wikipedia article. Good luck with your research in this area, Cat Whisperer 21:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a neutrality thing. There are no objective proofs, and that should be pointed out. I don't consider myself "smarter than the experts", such "experts" just didn't produce any proofs. Since the NPOV is not respected here, the article fails to remain neutral.Trencacloscas 03:30, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

No offense, but I do not believe you understand what the NPOV policy is. We must present all relevent points of view, without giving undue weight to minority views. You have yet to establish why your personal opinion is notable. I asked for verifiable, reliable sources (all wikipedia policies equally as important as NPOV), and the best you did was cite a questionably notable, questionably neutral, and questionably verifiable polemic website. The fact of the matter is wikipedia DOES care what scholars think more than what you think. I hate to say it like that, but it's an encyclopedia, not a soapbox. Please, find sources for your beliefs, and convince us that they are notable. We can't simply put a disclaimer on this article simply because you are a very skeptical individual.--Andrew c 04:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The standard one uses to constitute "proof" is itself a personal and subjective mark. You don't think there is "proof" — all that constitutes is another opinion. Lostcaesar 09:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

The ways of Wikipedia don't always make sense at first. But suppose Wikipedia had a policy of OBJECTIVE PROOF which stated that the presense or absense of "objective" proof (which would need to be defined somehow) was always a key part of articles, whether or not the experts in the field think so. Then we'd have nuts coming in trying to push their theory that the moon landings never happened, and the so-called moon rocks aren't really objective proof because you can't just look at a rock and tell what planet it came from. The problem is that there is really no objective definition of objective proof; there are only degrees of evidence, which we must rely on experts to evaluate. You don't consider the New Testament to be objective proof, but it has been examined by experts using historical-critical methods that don't presuppose it to be an inerrant, religious document. And so Wikipedia gives the most weight to the opinions of those experts. -- Cat Whisperer 18:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Since you offer the example of moon landings, the difference between that and this is clear: from the moon landings we have the rocks to analyze, which indeed can be considered "objective proofs". But we don't have anything of the sort from Jesus, just a fairytale and the repetition and reinventing of the fairytale (NT). The flaw in the supposed "historical-critical methods" is that Bible scholars assume the existence of a Jesus, and begin from there on. The "historical-critical methods" are not directed towards that particular fact. I insist that such objection should be made in an article named "Historical Jesus". You also can check other Wikipedia articles, like "Jesus As Myth" and "Historicity of Jesus" to confirm that such objection is in context. I don't see why the objection should be excluded in the present one. Trencacloscas 10:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

But this doesn't change the fact that experts in the field disagree with you. An encyclopedia cannot quote you as an authority. I am sure you can understand. Lostcaesar 10:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Trencacloscas, you're making your case based upon an assertion about what kind of texts the NT are. There is close to unanimity among scholars of the NT, of all religious affiliations, that the NT texts are not of that order. Therefore, even if your argument as it now stands was suitable for wikipedia (which it is not), it would be flawed.

You are correct that there probably is place in this article to briefly mention that there are a fringe minority of scholars who deny Jesus, and outline their views. That shouldn't be done, though, as random commentary stating some dubious minority assertions as fact. If it is not there already, and a suitable thing isn't inserted in the near future, I'll try and insert something. TheologyJohn 12:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

You have ignored our requests to follow wikipedia policy and supply citations of reliable, verifiable sources. I hate to say this, but I am going to have to start ignoring you. I do not want to debate. This is not a debate forum, so our personal opinions on the topic are irrelevent. Calling something a fairytale doesn't make it so. All 5 surviving ancient biographies of Alexander the Great include the supernatural, do we ignore those documents as 'fairytales'. You cannot say the whole NT is fiction, when there are verifiably historical characters, places, and events throughout. Scholars have methods to help determine what in Plutarch's Lives or the Gospel of Mark is most likely historical and what is not. I'm sorry you are so personally skeptical of those methods, but please stop repeating your personal beliefs. This isn't a soap box, nor a debate. We have rules to guide what sort of content should be included and how, and up until know, you seem oblivious to that. Please consider what we all have been saying. Thanks.-Andrew c 15:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Since you refuse to reason or debate, Andrew, I take it as a sign of dogmatism and intolerance. No proof, no history. The example of Alexander is weak enough to prove you wrong. Alexandrian sources may include the supernatural (as part of a frame of mind of a peculiar culture) but not rely completely upon it. Can Quintus Curtius Rufus or Plutarch be compared to the anonimous "Gospel of Mark", a document of unknown origin merely attributed by Irenaeus of Lyon to a helper of Paul and Barnabas???? The case is completely different for many reasons. But the main question here remains: Why the criteria of wikipedia policy for the Historicity of Jesus should be different from the criteria of the present article???????????????????????????????????????????????? Why you can actually point the lack of proof there and not here????????????????????? Check this single paragraph about the inerrancy of Bible scholars, for instance: "Scholarly views on the historicity of the New Testament accounts are diverse, from the view that they are historically accurate descriptions of the life of Jesus to the view that they are of virtually no historical value in reconstructing his life. Questions relevant to the matter include: to what extent did the authors' motivations shape the texts, what sources were available to them, how soon after the events described did they write, and whether or not these factors lead to inaccuracies such as exaggerations or inventions". So, the only personal beliefs held here are probably Christian and very dogmatic indeed. Trencacloscas 04:03, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Trencacloscas, you're assuming is contrary to wikipedia policy - see WP:Assume good faith. I think it's entirely fair for Andrew C not to wish to discuss the truth of the matter when it is, a) irrelevant to the reason he comes on wikipedia (to edit articles), and b) therefore off-topic for the board.

That comment that you mention in the article is different in that it does not state as a fact that there is no evidence, it rather makes statements about the breadth of scholarly opinion. I think it does that slightly badly, and I think I'll reword it, but it's trying to do something very different than what you're suggesting - which is to edit the article to support your own opinions, contrary to the weight of appropriate published literature.TheologyJohn 23:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

While I doubt that it will suffice for our new partner in editing, Trencacloscas, I've added reference to both the skeptical and Christian criticisms of "historical Jesus." We now have criticism in the lead section and as a last word. I understand it to be Wiki practice to give undue weight to minority views because no one has the authority to exclude them (as one might when writing a paper encyclopedia). the official policy is "abundance and redundance." Jonathan Tweet 18:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPOV#Undue_weight says differently. That said, I think mentioning this in the article is a valid contribution, particularly as it (as it now stands) states that these opinions are minority - which is verifiable useful additional information that wasn't in the article before.TheologyJohn 23:10, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

(removed indent)Having been a long time a bulldog (and some of my fellow editors my say bullhead as well) on the Jesus myth hypothesis the only thing I found that fits the most stringent citations of reliable, verifiable requirements on the even when they have no evidence at all of his existence comment is Fischer, Roland (1994) "On The Story-Telling Imperative That We Have In Mind" Anthropology of Consciousness. Dec 1994, Vol. 5, No. 4: 16

"There is not a shred of evidence that a historical character Jesus lived, to give an example, and Christianity is based on narrative fiction of high literary and cathartic quality. On the other hand Christianity is concerned with the narration of things that actually take place in human life." (abstract) "It is not possible to compare the above with what we have, namely, that there is not a shred of evidence that a historical character Jesus lived."(body text)

There was a debate on Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_25 if the source was relevant and no real conclusion was really reached. This is as good as it gets.--BruceGrubb (talk) 13:51, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I have heard people in this thread claim that people who disbelieve the existence of Christ to be in the minority, especially in academic circles. In particular I have seem references to "the majority of historians". I have worked in the history department of several major universities, and NONE that is NOT A SINGLE historian whom I have worked with has ever considered the bible a historical document. Not a single one believed that Christ actually existed based on current historical findings. I would sincerely like to know who this "majority" is. Outside of biblical historians, that is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.72.61.154 (talk) 23:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Since this subject is so fraught with emotion, it may be impossible to ascertain reliably what "scholars" think. But, it seems clear upon reflection that there is much less evidence that Jesus was a real historical person than that he grew by 'syncretion' from a metaphysical/theological hypothesis to the figure we are taught to believe in today. So, it seems only fair to include at least a respectful mention of the "Jesus myth" contention. Not to do so would be like disdaining/ignoring Darwin in 1860, or heliocentrism in 1616. Is it really our charter to weigh blindly on the basis of popularity alone? (I have to ask, because I'm new enough to Wikipedia to wonder about the appropriate resolution of conflicting views of cotroversial subjects.)Trigley (talk) 03:45, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Ironic

Nazereth was not even a town before the 2nd century CE as shown by archeology. And where are these scholars digging up these imaginary historical facts?

Earl Doherty: “The Jesus Puzzle In the first half century of Christian correspondence, including letters attributed to Paul and other epistles under names like Peter, James and John, the Gospel story cannot be found. When these writers speak of their divine Christ, echoes of Jesus of Nazareth are virtually inaudible, including details of a life and ministry, the circumstances of his death, the attribution of any teachings to him. God himself is often identified as the source of Christian ethics. No one speaks of miracles performed by Jesus, his apocalyptic predictions, his views on any of the great issues of the time. The very fact that he preached in person is never mentioned, his appointment of apostles or his directive to carry the message to the nations of the world is never appealed to. No one looks back to Jesus' life and ministry as the genesis of the Christian movement, or as the pivot point of salvation history.”

Let's see some honest editing in the article or admit it is a sham. - Sparky 00:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Archaeology has shown that Nazareth is unlikely to have been a significantly sized settlement, but that doesn't negate it being a small town/village. The Doherty quote is absurd - only the letters attributed to Paul appeared in the first half century according to the vast majority of scholars, therefore the they can only show that even after the gospel story was allegedly invented or whatever, they still didn't use it in letters - making the Paul 'evidence' entirely unconvincing.

In any case, this is irrelevant to the policies of wikipedia, as we have stated again and again. TheologyJohn 01:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

The non existence of Nazareth in the 1st century is held my a very small minority of scholars, including archaeologists. JPotter 20:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

That's interesting - I'd heard the opposite a couple of times (well non-existence as anything larger than a small town). Is there any scholarly reading you could direct me to on the subject? TheologyJohn 20:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

The problem is as some people have pointed out if Nazareth was nothing more than a small town there would have been a lot of 'Jesus of where?' reactions The canonal Gospels and Acts present Nazareth as if everybody reading them knows where it is. It is on par with saying you come from Nutt, NM, a town so small it doesn't even show up on many maps.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:23, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

What about the contention that "Nazareth" as a place was secondarily (and conveniently) derived from the association of the "Christ" with the "Nazarenes", as a Jewish mystical/spiritual movement of the early 1st century (and earlier)? (From Hebrew Nazara, "truth") So the progression was more or less "Christ the Nazarene" to "Jesus the Nazarene" to "Jesus of Nazareth"; but it's completely bogus, stemming from a bad translation. See the truly impressive website maintained by Kenneth Humphreys, www.jesusneverexisted.com, for very extensive, detailed, and calm review of evidence for and against a historical Jesus. Trigley (talk) 04:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

ministry

I added headers. As one can plainly see from the headers, this vital section is a mish-mash of distinct elements. I'd like to break "Ministry" out into a higher-level section, as it's the material that "historical Jesus" is really about. And it needs serious expansion. Jonathan Tweet 18:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Problem of the Jesus Seminar

I am not sure if this article should quote from "the Jesus Seminar". Here is why. The Jesus Seminar is, like all seminars &c, a collection of scholars. Now I think we can fairly cite Crossan, Borg, Funk, &c. But there are problems quoting "the seminar". The collection of scholars do not always agree, indeed their peculiar method of "scholarship", which has draw much ire, is based on calculating different levels of scholarly agreement. For example, (its been a while, but I think that) Crossan and Borg differ on the matter of the empty tomb. Thus, I don't see the point in citing the group, as if it speaks with one unanimous voice. It would be like citing "the third colloquium on Gregory the Great", rather than citing Mitchell, Wood, &c. Besides this, other than the three scholars I mentioned, the members are mostly unpublished &c. Lostcaesar 17:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm genuiniely curious about dissent by major scholars within the Jesus Seminar. I'd love to see a "not so fast!" section on the JS page that talked about major differences between the individual opinions of noteable fellows and the seminar as a whole. For all I know, the JS was scam, with Funk inviting prominent scholars he disagreed with for prestige and then stuffing the seminar with nobodies that would follow his lead. But I don't have any reason to suspect that's the case, and one might think that the notable figures would have caught on. In any event, contrasting individual scholars' conclusions with the seminar's would be informative. As far as this page is concerned, however, it would be inaccurate to cite the conclusions of the JS as Funk's. In some cases, Funk himself disagrees with the conclusions. While most of the fellows are unknowns, over a dozen are or were leading figures in the field. These scholars got together with the express purpose of reaching and publicizing shared conclusions, and if Borg and Crossan disagreed with some of the conclusions, they were nevertheless OK with participating. If there's another source of better information about what modern scholars think the historical Jesus said and did, I haven't heard of it. To take the work of all these scholars for all those years and to present the conclusions as simply Funk's would be a misrepresentation. If Funk had wanted to write a book about what he thought Jesus said and did, he could have done so with a lot less fuss. Jonathan Tweet 21:34, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying we should quote the JS as Funk's conclusions. I'm saying we should not employ material "of the JS", and only use the works published by the scholars individually. Citing the JS on the whole is too problematic, as per above. "If there's another source of better information about what modern scholars think the historical Jesus said and did, I haven't heard of it." - few agree with you on that point. Lostcaesar 23:05, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Not quote the JS at all? I guess I'm not really ready to give that suggestion any serious consideration. As to the other topic, If you have a better source of information about what modern scholars think the historical Jesus said and did, I'm dying to find out, because it would be dynamite. Don't tease me. Tell me what it is. Jonathan Tweet 04:40, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

If the JS is Borg, Crossan, Funk, and a bunch of nobodies, why quote "it" (as if it had a concensus), why not just quote the former three? How many other scholars actually quote "the JS" in their works? Plently quote those three (even if just to disagree with them), but "the JS" - I haven't seen it. Lostcaesar 09:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

LC, everyone hating on the JS, I guess that's the way it's got to be. Christians hate the JS, and they find numerious reasons to keep it off one page or another. Congratulations on coming up with a new reason. "If the JS is Borg, Crossan, Funk, and a bunch of nobodies, why quote "it" (as if it had a concensus), why not just quote the former three?" If that's the JS, then document that that's an accurate description of the JS. And put it on the JS page. "How many other scholars actually quote "the JS" in their works? Plently quote those three (even if just to disagree with them), but "the JS" - I haven't seen it." So what? In WP, we cite plenty of books and encyclopedias that are cited by high school students writing term papers but not by scholars. Jonathan Tweet 14:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I am going to be a little rude here, and I will apologize up front. I am not going to let you characterize me as "hating on the JS because I am Christian". I disagree with the positions of Borg, Funk, and Crossan just as much as that of "the JS" - so why I am saying we are ok to cite them? Where did my hate go? Perhaps, instead, I have a rational argument here that might just worth listening to. You asked me to document the claim that the JS is Borg, Funk, Crossan bunch of nobodies and put it on the JS page - its already there, look at the list of fellows and check at what they have (or have not) published and their credentials. Like I said, the JS does not have a position, it is a collection of various oponions, most of which are irrelevant because they are not the opinions of significant scholars. Lostcaesar 14:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

LC, a little rudeness between friends is no big deal. If you look at this list (Jesus_Seminar#Fellows_of_the_Jesus_Seminar) and see no one of merit other than Borg, Funk, and Crossan, then you and I have the same problem that we have when you and I both read a account of hades that contradicts purgatory: we read the same thing and think it means opposite things. If you think that it's not proper to cite a source that's the product of lots of scholars instead of one or a few, just cite me the WP policy to that effect. And if we could return to a previous point, could you please suggest a better source than the JS to let me know what modern critical scholars think the historical Jesus said and did? If you could actually point me to a better source, I'd be genuinely grateful. Jonathan Tweet 15:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Scholarly debate on historicity of the Resurection

An interesting scholarly debate: http://www.holycross.edu/departments/crec/website/resurrection-debate-transcript.pdf

Cheers, --Aminz 09:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I can see that this article quotes Bart D. Ehrman (the scholar on one side of the above debate) a lot. I think the above source can be very useful. For example William Lane Craig says:

Argument provided by William Lane Craig for historicity of resurrection

Quoting William Lane Craig:

(I) There are four historical facts which must be explained by any adequate historical hypothesis: o Jesus’ burial o the discovery of his empty tomb o his post-mortem appearances o the origin of the disciples’ belief in his resurrection.

Now, let’s look at that first contention more closely. I want to share four facts which are widely accepted by historians today.

Fact #1: After his crucifixion Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea in a tomb. Historians have established this fact on the basis of evidence such as the following:

1. Jesus’ burial is multiply attested in early, independent sources. We have four biographies of Jesus, by Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, which have been collected into the New Testament, along with various letters of the apostle Paul. Now the burial account is part of Mark’s source material for the story of Jesus’ suffering and death. This is a very early source which is probably based on eyewitness testimony and which the commentator Rudolf Pesch dates to within seven years of the crucifixion. Moreover, Paul also cites an extremely early source for Jesus’ burial which most scholars date to within five years of Jesus’ crucifixion. Independent testimony to Jesus’ burial by Joseph is also found in the sources behind Matthew and Luke and the Gospel of John, not to mention the extra-biblical Gospel of Peter. Thus, we have the remarkable number of at least five independent sources for Jesus’ burial, some of which are extraordinarily early.

2. As a member of the Jewish Sanhedrin that condemned Jesus, Joseph of Arimathea is unlikely to be a Christian invention. There was an understandable hostility in the early church toward the Jewish leaders. In Christian eyes, they had engineered a judicial murder of Jesus. Thus, according to the late New Testament scholar Raymond Brown, Jesus’ burial by Joseph is “very probable,” since it is “almost inexplicable” why Christians would make up a story about a Jewish Sanhedrist who does what is right by Jesus.

For these and other reasons, most New Testament critics concur that Jesus was buried by Joseph of Arimathea in a tomb. According to the late John A. T. Robinson of Cambridge University, the burial of Jesus in the tomb is “one of the earliest and best-attested facts about Jesus.”2

Fact #2: On the Sunday after the crucifixion, Jesus’ tomb was found empty by a group of his women followers. Among the reasons which have led most scholars to this conclusion are the following: 1. The empty tomb is also multiply attested by independent, early sources. Mark’s source didn’t end with the burial, but with the story of the empty tomb, which is tied to the burial story verbally and grammatically. Moreover, Matthew and John have independent sources about the empty tomb; it’s also mentioned in the sermons in the Acts of the Apostles (2.29; 13.36); and it’s implied by Paul in his first letter to the Corinthian church (I Cor. 15.4). Thus, we have again multiple, early, independent attestation of the fact of the empty tomb. 2. The tomb was discovered empty by women. In patriarchal Jewish society the testimony of women was not highly regarded. In fact, the Jewish historian Josephus says that women weren’t even permitted to serve as witnesses in a Jewish court of law. Now in light of this fact, how remarkable it is that it is women who are the discoverers of Jesus’ empty tomb. Any later legendary account would certainly have made male disciples like Peter and John discover the empty tomb. The fact that it is women, rather than men, who are the discoverers of the empty tomb is best explained by the fact that they were the chief witnesses to the fact of the empty tomb, and the Gospel writers faithfully record what, for them, was an awkward and embarrassing fact. I could go on, but I think enough has been said to indicate why, in the words of Jacob Kremer, an Austrian specialist on the resurrection, “By far most exegetes hold firmly to the reliability of the biblical statements concerning the empty tomb.”3

Fact #3: On different occasions and under various circumstances different individuals and groups of people experienced appearances of Jesus alive from the dead. This is a fact which is virtually universally acknowledged by scholars, for the following reasons: 1. Paul’s list of eyewitnesses to Jesus’ resurrection appearances guarantees that such appearances occurred.

Paul tells us that Jesus appeared to his chief disciple Peter, then to the inner circle of disciples known as the Twelve; then he appeared to a group of 500 disciples at once, then to his younger brother James, who up to that time was apparently not a believer, then to all the apostles. Finally, Paul adds, “he appeared also to me,” at the time when Paul was still a persecutor of the early Jesus movement (I Cor. 15.5-8). Given the early date of Paul’s information as well as his personal acquaintance with the people involved, these appearances cannot be dismissed as mere legends. 2. The appearance narratives in the Gospels provide multiple, independent attestation of the appearances. For example, the appearance to Peter is attested by Luke and Paul; the appearance to the Twelve is attested by Luke, John, and Paul; and the appearance to the women is attested by Matthew and John. The appearance narratives span such a breadth of independent sources that it cannot be reasonably denied that the earliest disciples did have such experiences. Thus, even the skeptical German New Testament critic Gerd Lüdemann concludes, “It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’ death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ.”4 Finally,

Fact #4: The original disciples suddenly and sincerely came to believe that Jesus was risen from the dead despite their having every predisposition to the contrary. Think of the situation the disciples faced following Jesus’ crucifixion: 1. Their leader was dead. And Jewish Messianic expectations had no idea of a Messiah who, instead of triumphing over Israel’s enemies, would be shamefully executed by them as a criminal. 2. Jewish beliefs about the afterlife precluded anyone’s rising from the dead to glory and immortality before the general resurrection of the dead at the end of the world. Nevertheless, the original disciples suddenly came to believe so strongly that God had raised Jesus from the dead that they were willing to die for the truth of that belief. But then the obvious question arises: What in the world caused them to believe such an un-Jewish and outlandish thing? Luke Johnson, a New Testament scholar at Emory University, muses, “Some sort of powerful, transformative experience is required to generate the sort of movement earliest Christianity was.”5 And N. T. Wright, an eminent British scholar, concludes, “That is why, as an historian, I cannot explain the rise of early Christianity unless Jesus rose again, leaving an empty tomb behind him.”6 In summary, there are four facts agreed upon by the majority of scholars: Jesus’ burial, the discovery of his empty tomb, his post-mortem appearances, and the origin of the disciples’ belief in his resurrection.

Cheers, --Aminz 09:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Craig is not a scholar of historical Jesus, and he does even claim that most scholars of the historical Jesus agree with the four facts that you cite. We don't really care what the majority of scholars say. As Ehrman points out in the debate you cited, the majority of historians don't agree. This is the historical Jesus page. On the Jehovah's Witness page, it's not appropriate to put what most Christians believe into the lead as if it represented the JWs. On the historical Jesus page, it's not appropriate to put what most scholars (mostly Christians) believe into the lead. The debate you cite is not a historical debate, it's a religious debate. This material, since it's a counterpoint from outside the scope of this article, belongs in the criticism section. Jonathan Tweet 14:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Craig's style was quite scholarly (my impression at least). --Aminz 18:45, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Two points: (1) Craig cites certain scholars for his points and even if we determine that the debate ought not be used, we could trace down the sources he used and consider them, and (2) I thought we were using historians and biblical scholars - look at what you (JT) said above about the JS - not exactly a pannel of distinguished historians! Consistency is important. Lostcaesar 19:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry but I don't understand the difference between historians and biblical scholars. The above arguments honestly sound scholarly to me. --Aminz 08:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason why in principle we should not to use Craig, but I do not know his work especially well. This article certainly uses historians and biblical scholars. Lostcaesar 09:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The William Lane Craig argument is completely based on assumptions, starting with the "four independent sources" which are neither independent nor traceable to "eyewitness testimony". History is supposed to be based on facts, not just Christian propaganda. Once again, scholars or historians cannot be trusted in this case, for they are not able to certify the existence of a character like Jesus without any direct proof. Trencacloscas 11:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand. Can someone explain please what is the difference between biblical scholars, historians, etc etc. Trencacloscas, please explain how can one think that Jesus didn't even exist? Where did those great teaching came from then? --Aminz 13:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

This is the historical Jesus page, or, "Jesus (considered historically)." Craig might be scholarly, but he's not a scholar of historical Jesus. He says most scholars agree with his four facts, but not most historians. Ths issue isn't whether one's a scholar but whether one approaches the description of Jesus historically. The JS fellows approach the issue historically (what's genuine in these texts? what's invention? what's invented that's in line with the genuine and what's contrary? etc.). I don't think that the JW's are reliable sources for describing Jesus, but on the "Jesus according to JWs" page they get their say. Y'all might not think that historians are reliable sources for describing Jesus, but that's this page. Craig's comments and such are a counterpoint to the historical Jesus view, not part of it. Jonathan Tweet 14:17, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

The only thing that I can add is that, by the existing Judaic laws at the time, no dead bodies were to be allowed to be exposed overnight. Sorry, I don't have the sources available right now, but the members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Judaism should be able to find sources. On that basis, I think that the point regarding Joseph of Arimathea, a well-to-do member of the Sanhedrin, following Judaic law regarding disposal of corpses, can reasonably be considered verifiable. I wish I had copies of Biblical Archaeology Review available, as I am certain that this subject is discussed in depth in at least a few issues of it, but I regret they're unavailable right now. I do think that that source would probably be counted as being among the most accurate and universally acceptable by all sides, given its sensitivity to religious issues, however. Badbilltucker 01:45, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

These aren't 'facts', except in the sense that Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny are factual. Good grief. Trigley (talk) 01:20, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Addition to the end of "Controversial Details"

I've added some information and I'm new to all this so I wasn't quite sure if I did it right, or if I followed the rules.

The following is what I posted and has an outside reference as well as one on wikipedia (can wikipedia sources be used?)

HERE IS MY ADDITION:

There is a non-Christian source that mentions Jesus' crucifixion. Emperor Vespasian had a court historian named Flavius Josephus who wrote about these events around 37-97 AD:

"At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus. And his conduct was good and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly, he was perhaps the messiah concerning whom the prophets have recounted wonders." (Arabic translation)

(NOTE: my first edit - not sure how to do it correctly - please help. user name FinalNemesis)

I'm guessing someone will make edits to that to make it 'legit'??

FinalNemesis 15:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Please do not take this the wrong way, but I have removed your contribution. This article is about what scholars think about the historical Jesus. There is an article called Historicity of Jesus which details the ancient sources on Jesus. There is a large section there already about Josephus. Becuase your contribution was a large quote from a ancient primary source, instead of a scholarly synthesis, I felt that it was off topic for this particular article. I hope you understand. Thanks for contributing to wikipedia. Technically speaking, the coding in your edit was pretty good. You got your wikilinks and references down. In the future, you may want to consider further formatting your references using Wikipedia:Citation templates. You copy and past the code which matches the type of source you are citing (i.e. book, or webpage, or journal). Then you fill in as much information as you know, and delete the fields you leave blank (if any). If that is too confusing, you can use Magnus' tool where you enter the information you have and it will generate the code for you. Anyway, good luck!-Andrew c 17:57, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually that's not exactly in the HoJ article. He is using a quote from an arabic copy of Josephus that varries significantly from the Greek in a few places and which certain scholars have hypothesized is wholly genuine, i.e. that its textual history is independant of the Josephus text that cointains disputed passages. I didn't add this little bit to the HoJ article because I only know of it from one secondary source, and didn't know how much scholarly currency it had. Lostcaesar 19:46, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

With this new news from Lostcaesar could we reconsider including that quote? If it was reworded a bit to point out that some scholars believe that quote to be textual history. Could we work on finding a few solid sources for that quote to have it added?

P.S. Thanks for the tips, when I have more time I will look into your suggestions. Also, just because I'm new doesn't mean I don't understand the idea of peer review! I'm glad someone voices up - we will all learn together as editors and hopefully create the most accurate information. Also, Why does this whole article not really have any sources? FinalNemesis 15:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Jesus as head of the House of David?

I know that the book Holy Blood, Holy Grail alleges this possibility, and that some aspects of Jesus' life and career can be seen to make more sense on that basis. Would anyone think that inclusion of this allegation would be appropriate? Badbilltucker 02:42, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

"Of no historical interest"

Why is this phrase repeated in this article? Who decides what "is of historical interest"? It seems like blatant POV to me. Grover cleveland 06:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Problematic

I got two problems with this article, two main ones. First, if this deals with the historical Jesus, why is this part of the christianity portal? It should, if anything, be part of a historical portal. Very minor though, seeing as being part of the christianity portal is rather logical. Still though.

But the real problem here is this:

"The historical Jesus is Jesus of Nazareth as reconstructed by historians using historical methods. These methods do not include theological or religious axioms, such as biblical infallibility. Though the reconstruction" (these are the first sentences btw.)

But all over the article it clearly states that schoolars of the historical Jesus only use the bible. Really. The birthplaces is based on the bible, the year of birth, status, family, and as far as I see, every nook and cranny of his life. There is little to none other-than-the-bible-sources. Which kind of renders the line I quoted obsolete.

And I think that is big problem. Discuss. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PutBoy (talk • contribs) 04:33, 23 February.

There is little/no use of extra-Biblical sources referring directly to the historical Jesus because few/none (independent of the Biblical texts) are currently known - the authenticity of the very few that might is variously disputed.

However, rejecting the religious axiom of Biblical infallibility (i.e. assuming that everything in the Bible is accurate) does not imply the complete opposite of assuming that nothing at all in it has a factual basis: after all, we do have independent corroborations of the existence of The Sanhedrin, John the Baptist, Pontius Pilate, etc. The point of the exercise is to winnow the available (mostly Biblical) assertions about Jesus using the sieve of historical method in order to judge which are probable, possible, unlikely, or impossible.

Obviously, different scholars will make different judgements and come to different conclusions (including that of a small minority of scholars that no historical Jesus existed at all). I don't therefore agree that there is a problem as you suggest. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 11:18, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

material from CaHBoJ

This material is from the historical Jesus section of Cultural and historical background of Jesus. It's too detailed for one section on another page and belongs here if anywhere.Jonathan Tweet 16:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

According to Fredriksen, two events in the Gospels probably happened: John's baptism, and Pilate's crucifixion, of Jesus. These events are mentioned in all four gospels. Moreover, they do not conform to Jewish tradition, in which there are no baptized and crucified messiahs. They are also embarrassing to the early Church. John the Baptist's prominence in both the gospels and Josephus suggests that he may have been more popular than Jesus in his lifetime; also, Jesus's mission does not begin until after his baptism by John. Fredriksen suggests that it was only after Jesus's death that Jesus emerged as more influential than John. Accordingly, the gospels project Jesus's posthumous importance back to his lifetime. One way this was accomplished was by minimizing John's importance by having John resist baptizing Jesus (Matthew), by referring to the baptism in passing (Luke), or by asserting Jesus's superiority (John).

All four gospels agree that Jesus was crucified by Pontious Pilate, and this fact is consistent with Jewish accounts of Roman cruelty in general and Pilates cruelty in particular. However, it was problematic for the early Church for two reasons. First, crucifixion was the penalty for political insurrection, but the Church claims that Jesus died for theological reasons. Second, crucifixion was a Roman punishment, but as the early Church turned from the Jewish community to Gentiles for converts, it needed to distance itself from rebellious Jews and criticisms of Roman rule. Thus, while Fredricksen calls into question the divergent gospel accounts of the Jewish role in Jesus's death, she accepts the basic claim that Jesus was crucified.

Aside from the fact that the gospels provide different accounts of the Jewish role in Jesus's death (for example, Mark and Matthew report two separate trials, Luke one, and John none), Fredricksen, like other scholars (see Catchpole 1971) argues that many elements of the gospel accounts could not possibly have happened: according to Jewish law, the court could not meet at night; it could not meet on a major holiday; Jesus's statements to the Sanhedrin or the High Priest (e.g. that he was the messiah) did not constitute blasphemy; the charges that the gospels purport the Jews to have made against Jesus were not capital crimes against Jewish law; even if Jesus had been accused and found guilty of a capital offense by the Sanhedrin, the punishment would have been death by stoning and not crucifixion.

Both the gospel accounts and [the] Pauline interpolation were composed in the period immediately following the terrible war of 66-73. The Church had every reason to assure prospective Gentile audiences that the Christian movement neither threatened nor challenged imperial sovereignty had, despite the fact that their founder had himself been crucified, that is, executed as a rebel.

Given the historical context in which the Gospels took their final form and during which Christianity first emerged, historians have struggled to understand Jesus' ministry in terms of what is known about first century Judaism. According to scholars such as Geza Vermes and E.P. Sanders, Jesus seems not to have belonged to any particular party or movement; Jesus was eclectic (and perhaps unique) in combining elements of many of these different – and for most Jews, opposing – positions. Most critical scholars see Jesus as healing people and performing miracles in the prophetic tradition of the Galilee, and preaching God's desire for justice and righteousness in the prophetic tradition of Judea. (According to Geza Vermes, that Jesus' followers addressed him as "lord" indicates that they likened him to notable miracle workers and scribes. see Names and titles of Jesus)

However, many of Jesus's teachings echoed the beliefs of the Qumran community (which was probably a branch of the Essenes) and of some of the Pharisees. In Jesus' day, the two main schools of thought among the Pharisees were the House of Hillel and the House of Shammai. Jesus' assertion of hypocrisy may have been directed against the stricter members of the House of Shammai, although he also agreed with their teachings on divorce (Mark 10:1–12). In general, Jesus' Sermon on the Mount is stricter than the teachings of the House of Hillel.

Finally, Jesus's declarations that the kingdom was at hand echoed popular apocalyptic views and the political views of the Zealots.

Many scholars argue that it is likely that, like most Jews, Jesus believed that the restoration of the monarchy would be accomplished by God, not by any movement of Jews. However, he did believe that this restoration was imminent. Jesus was enigmatic at best about his claim to actually be the presumptive monarch. That he speaks of twelve disciples is probably symbolic of the twelve tribes of Israel, and thus a metaphor for "all Israel". According to Geza Vermes and other historians, that his follwers referred to Jesus as "messiah" and "son of God" indicate that they believed he would assume the monarchy upon the restoration of the kingdom (see Names and titles of Jesus).

Talk of a restoration of the monarchy was seditious under Roman occupation, and Jesus would have entered Jerusalem at an especially risky time, when popular and mob emotions were already running high. Although most Jews did not have the means to travel to Jerusalem for every holiday, virtually all tried to comply with these laws as best they could. Thus, during these festivals, such as the Passover, when Jesus came to Jerusalem, the population swelled – and outbreaks of violence and riots were common. Critical scholars suggest that the high priest feared his talk of an imminent restoration of an independent Jewish state would likely spark a riot. Maintaining the peace was one of the primary jobs of the Roman-appointed High Priest, who was personally responsible to them for any major outbreak of violence. Critical scholars therefore argue that he would have arrested Jesus for promoting sedition and rebellion, and turned him over to the Romans for punishment.

for this cut material

Jonathan, are you saying this material has been removed from the original article? If so, it certainly looks appropriate to put it here. If not, there seems no reason to have articles duplicating each other word for word. PiCo 10:39, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed this material from CaHBoJ and want to incorporate it here. I'd sure appreciate some help! Jonathan Tweet 20:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I've started doing some edits to the article to include this material and am making notes as I go:

• Tightened the lead, including: (1) moved the intro from the section "Overview of scholarly methods" up into the dab (and slightly enlarged the dab); changed "Jesus the person" to "Jesus the man" (I'm unashamedly non-PC about calling a male person a man); and took out the para about the opposition of those who don't like the application of historical scholarship to Jesus (this article is about the historical scholarship, not about the opponents).
  • Comment: The lead is still not complete. For example, I think the area of minimal scholarly agreement extends to Jesus' baptism, and it looks odd to start and end a survey of scholars with Reimarus.
• Removed the first two paragraphs of the "Cultural and historical background" section, as they amount to statements of the obvious. Replaced with a para about the nature of the historical evidence and what secular historian can and cannot hope to achieve.
• Started a new section, "Jesus' Jewish background", and put some of Jonathan's material from CaHBoJ into it. Made the last para of the existing "Cultural background" section the first para in this new section.
• Put the rest of the CaHBoJ material into the Biographical Details section.
  • Comment: This still needs a lot of work - references are needed for many statements, and it relies far too heavily on Fredriksen...and there's a quote at the end that's unattributed, tho I guess it must be from the same Fredriksen.

Anyway, I hope this can serve as a starting point. PiCo 07:36, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed the following text. At first I tried to fix it, but it is just too problematic.

All our information on the life of Jesus comes from the four Gospels and some of the letters of the apostle Paul. None of these are contemporary, eye-witness accounts; all date from decades after the events they describe. Nor are they unbiased: all are from the small band of early followers who believed passionately that they and their teachers were privy to the most momentous event in Jewish and human history, the coming of the messiah who would restore the house of David and usher in the kingdom of God. Secular historians can therefore do little to add to the picture of Jesus presented in these sources. What they can do, rather, is to place that picture in the context of the cultural and historical background to which Jesus belonged.

Problems are as follows. It is not necessarily true that all information on Jesus comes from the canonical Gospels and Paul. Its perhaps to lengthy here to address but the situation is at least slightly more complicated than that. Also, it may well be that Matthew or John are at least in part eyewitness accounts and at the very least eyewitness sources may stand behind (at least parts of) the texts. Indeed, this is an important topic in the field. Besides the possibility that Matthew is early, Paul certainly is early and again the passion narratives, creedal statements, and hymns may well be quite early, all of which is not represented in the text. Lastly, the bias of the sources is perhaps not properly explained, as they (and at least certainly John) held a more radical position on just who Jesus was. Lostcaesar 08:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with your removing that para. It was my attempt to write an introduction to the section: perhaps it needs to be refined, or perhaps no introduction is needed at all. But let's continue to look at the overall structure and content of the article.PiCo 09:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, it seems to me that the article Quest for the historical Jesus could usefully be merged with this one. Any comments?PiCo 09:28, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the page history, that article used to be a stub for a book of the same title. And then, without discussion (or maybe little discussion) and editor decided to create that. I had a proposal a while back for what I envisioned this article to be, and I wanted to have a section on the historical study of Jesus, mentioning the "quests". So I wouldn't oppose a merge, but we have to consider article length, and whether we could write a detailed article on the history of the "quests".-Andrew c 15:02, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Jewish reclamation of Jesus

I have been trying to post information about the reclamation of Jesus for Judaism by Jewish scholars. I have been trying to find a suitable article to append this to. I posted here on the recommendation of someone who deleted it in the "Judaism's view of Jesus" article. Jayjg has been deleting these submissions. Here is the content of my submission:

There had been also a number of pre-war works emphasizing the Jewishness of Jesus written by Jewish scholars such as Joseph Klausner (Jesus of Nazareth), Leo Baeck (The Gospel as a Document of Jewish Religious History) and Constantin Brunner (Our Christ).

I feel that this is a significant dimension of scholarly understanding of Jesus that is grossly neglected. Suggestions? Barrett Pashak 04:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

These are three works written over a period of two decades, the earliest almost 90 years ago, the most recent almost 70 years ago. Only one of the authors had any influence on Jewish religious thought, and even then only over a minority (Reform Judaism), and there is no indication that his views of Jesus ever became part of any doctrine. According to whom are these works related? According to whom are they significant in Jewish thought? From what I can see, you happen to have found 3 old works about Jesus which happen to have been written by Jews, written in a specific milieu of pre-war WWII Germany, and tried to generalize that to indicate that Judaism has somehow "reclaimed" Jesus. This, of course, is original research and WP:NPOV#Undue weight. Jayjg ^(talk) 19:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. I provided these three authorities as a kind of probe. There are many others. And I chose older writers because they really initiated this process of normalizing Jesus within Judaism. There are other more recent Jewish writers liked Jacob Neusner and Geza Vermes who are covering the same ground.

Now, you state that all this constitutes original research. Yet there is definitely an existing body of knowledge that can be called "the Jewish reclamation of Jesus." In fact there is a recent monograph with that very title: The Jewish reclamation of Jesus / Donald Hagner (1997). Additional resources on this topic include a study by the Vatican and a comprehensive German survey. And these are just writings by Jews. There is of course a wealth of new research written by non-Jews about Jesus as a figure within Judaism. There does not seem to be a comfortable place in Wikipedia to place this work. This is remarkable when the wealth of pages devoted to Jesus are examined. Even fringe outlooks like Jesus-as-myth are accorded multiple pages. Yet the single most important development in recent NT scholarship, the normalization of Jesus within Judaism, is given no attention. Why is that? Barrett Pashak 20:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Donald Hagner's book, which you cite, is written by a professor of New Testament Studies, so presumably offers a Christian viewpoint. The Amazon link that you provided does not show any reviews of Hagner's book. Are you aware of any reviews have been written in academic journals? Per WP:FRINGE it is not reasonable to include every single viewpoint in Wikipedia, unless it has some currency in the outside world. It is possible that people who want to follow this work have to be able to read German. EdJohnston 22:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any reviews of Hagner's book, although there are blurbs by Yechiel Ecksteinand Alan F. Johnson. There are also quite a few citations that can be found in Google Books. These and his academic status puts him miles ahead of, for example, Earl Doherty, whose theories are given ample room here on Wikipedia. Hagner's book is basically a literature review. The important thing is that there is a substantial body of work by Jews claiming Jesus as an important figure within Judaism. This includes Jewish American writers like Scholem Asch and John Cournos. Barrett Pashak 23:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It's not clear to me that Jewish denominations have "reclaimed" Jesus in any way. Authors who happen to be Jews can write what they will, that doesn't make their works a "Jewish reclamation". I don't know what Neusner had to say on the topic, but Vermes certainly wasn't writing as a representative of Judaism or Jewish thought. Asch was a novelist and Yiddish writer, not a theologian, and Cournos was similarly a poet and novelist. You seem to be mostly focussed on a small number of early 20th century ethnic Jews who felt some sort of need to personally re-evaluate their own feelings about Jesus; I'm still not seeing any impact on Judaism. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

So you do not think it important that a number of recent Jewish thinkers assert that Jesus is a pivotal figure in the history and self-understanding of Judaism? You do not believe that this historical fact is worthy of any attention whatsoever? In fact, do you see it as the responsibility of Wikipedia to explicitly suppress any discussion of this matter in its pages? Barrett Pashak 05:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

You have phrased this as though there were a movement within Judaism, to reclaim Jesus. The above commenters appear skeptical about your claim there is a substantial body of work by Jews claiming Jesus as an important figure within Judaism. I didn't notice any proposal in the above to suppress discussion. This is Wikipedia, our discussions are endless... EdJohnston 06:03, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

My own sense of the matter is this: there has been little to no effort by Jews to "reclaim" Jesu. I would not be surprised if, in versy specific ecumenical settings, Jewish leaders appeal to Jesus's Jewishness as a way to build inter-faith bridges - my point is that such efforts are isolated and contingent and not to my knowledge reflections of any larger sustained movement. If you really want to find out my advice is: contact the major Jewish organizations in the US and Uk - I don't know the UK very well but in the US, the AJC, United Synagogue, Rabbinical Assembly, and their counterpart organizations for Reform and Orthodox movements, and ask if they have published anything on this. My guess is you will either get a couple of press releases or resolutions at best, I doubt anything published - and you may get nothing. I think we need to distinguish all this very carefully by attempts by scholars - some oe whom happen to be Jewish, some of whom may be Christian, many of whom are likely secular - who have more forcefully argued that to understand the historical Jesus must involve seeing him in his Jewish context. This is not a "Jewish endeavor" and it has no effect on contemporary Jewish theology or religious practices - it is an exercise in historical research. I have done enough research on this to feel fairly confident, but admit I have not done sustained and exhaustive research and may be at least partially mistaken. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, the literature surveys that I linked to certainly do point to an "effort by Jews to reclaim Jesu." And this includes people like Martin Buber, who certainly cannot be considered "secular". In any event, my interest in this is strictly as "an exercise in historical research." Do you not feel that there is a place in Wikipedia for discussion of this exercise? Remember that I originally posted this as an article entitled Jesus as Jew, so it was to have included non-Jewish writers as well. The article was rejected on the basis that "no one denies that Jesus was a Jew." But this consensus, if it in fact exists, is recent and of considerable importance. Why is there no article about it when there are several on Jesus as myth? Why, in fact, is no mention of it permitted in Historical Jesus? Barrett Pashak 16:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally the entire enterprise sounds patronizing to both Christians and Jews alike, and sounds like the kind of blunder a secularist would make in a misguided attempt to say something ammicable to religions which he cannot understand. Lostcaesar 14:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me more like cultural reappropriation by Jewish thinkers of one of their own key figures who had been misappropriated by Gentiles. Barrett Pashak 16:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Are we talking about members of the Jewish race or followers of the Jewish religion? There are Jewish people (race) who are Christian, and they certainly would not wish to "reclaim" Jesus "for the Jews" (religion) - whatever that would mean. Lostcaesar 17:02, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest you look at the Vatican document that I linked to. It's an easy read and gives a good summary of the people and viewpoints that are involved here. Barrett Pashak 17:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

That's not a "Vatican document", its a document from a journal that happens to be hosted on the vatican website. Lostcaesar 19:14, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Er, the journal, Tertium Millennium, is an official Vatican publication. Follow the links. Barrett Pashak 19:24, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't think that the Vatican would be considered the most reliable source on the relationship between Judaism and Jesus, though I'm sure it's very pleasing for them to think that Jews are "finally coming to their senses" regarding Jesus. Most of the writers listed are not writing as theologians, but as (at best) historians; they do not come representing Jewish thought, but rather representing the thoughts of individual Jews, which is something quite different. Indeed, as pointed out earlier, most of the writers you mentioned earlier were neither theologians nor historians. And while Vermes might well be a respected historian of Jesus, and (today) identifies as a Jew, one could hardly avoid the thought that his being raised as a Catholic, and becoming a Catholic priest, might have had an affect on his views. It is clear that a small number of authors who are Jews have attempted to posit some sort of new understanding of Jesus; ecumenism, assimilation, and various other factors no doubt have contributed to that. However, this minor sociological phenomenon does not really indicate any sort of change in the relationship between Judaism and Jesus. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

The question is whether or not "this minor sociological phenomenon" merits any mention in Wikipedia. Barrett Pashak 02:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, and in weighing your opinion, you may want to consider the following quotation:

Jesus was respected and even revered by many modern Jews….

Jewish enlightenment brought about a new tolerant attitude toward Christianity, especially with regard to Jesus. The famous Jewish historian of the nineteenth century, Heinrich Graetz, describes Jesus as a true Jew who led the simple people back to an authentic and unostentatious Judaism. Jewish theologians of the twentieth century, such as Constantin Brunner and Martin Buber have taken a particularly positive attitude towards Jesus.--“The Non-Jewish Jew”: The History of a Radical Typology / Shmuel Almog

Barrett Pashak 03:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not know of many modern Jews who revere Jesus. I have read a fair amount of theology (though I admit it trickled down by the 1980s) and much of what Buber wrote and I don't remember any evidence that any of them revered Jesus, that Jesus had any significant impact on their thinking, or that Jesus occupied a major place in their theology. Rosenzweig probably comes closest to giving importance to Jesus via Christianity (i.e. not the historical Jesus) but this does not a major philosophical trend make. I made a number of points above and Barrett Pashak has not responded to any of them, so I conclude he has no response. I'd say this is a dead issue. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I concur. The material above is representative of a handful of scholars who hold the hypothesis that a proper reconstruction of the "historical" Jesus depends on associating him with this or that Jewish movement. It does not represent the Jewish faith or people, for whom I see little reason that they would desire such a "reclamation", nor is it relevant to Christianity, which of course holds that the historical Jesus is the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity. Lostcaesar 10:09, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Looking back at this discussion, I am now unclear about Barrett Pashak's main point. Is it simply that Jews believe Jesus was Jewish? If so, this is a noncontroversial claim; not only do we not need three quotes from or references to Baeck et. al, it even seems strange to single them out - virtually all Jews think Jesus was jewish. Is it to claim that the historical Jesus must be understood in his Jewish context? If so, we would do better to cite actual historians who have written authoritatively about Jesus in this way, such as Vermez, Crossan, Sanders (eachof whom have contributed more to the scholarship on Jesus than Baeck, Klausner, or Brunner). Or is it to claim that an appreciation of the Jewish Jesus is important for an enriched understanding of Judaism? If so, I think this is at best a marginal claim made by a tiny number of people ... I am not even sure that Jesus is that important to Baeck's theology (I have read work by him, not the others). Slrubenstein | Talk 12:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is what Buber has to say about Jesus (from Two types of Faith):

From my youth onwards I have found in Jesus my great brother … My own fraternally open relationship to him has grown ever stronger and clearer.

Here is what Baeck has to say about the Gospels (from "The Gospel as a document of history". In Judaism and Christianity / Leo Baeck. Philadelphia : Jewish Publication Society of America, 1958. p. 101-102):

Judaism may not pass it by, nor mistake it, nor wish to give up all claims here. Here, too, Judaism should comprehend and take note of what is its own.

For further information, see "Our Brother Jesus," a review of Brother Jesus: The Nazarene Through Jewish Eyes by Sohalom Ben-Chorin and Jesus Through Jewish Eyes edited by Beatrice Bruteau.

See also "The Quest for the Jewish Jesus" by David Novak. In 'Modern Judaism', Vol. 8, No. 2 (May, 1988), pp. 119-138.

If Jesus's Jewishness is so "uncontroversial", why will you permit no elaboration of the subject in Wikipedia? Besides, it is not uncontroversial for those who deny Jesus's historicity.

The Jewish reclamation of Jesus is just one dimension of the assertion of Jesus's Jewishness. As you point out, Gentile scholars make the same assertions. The question is, why is this assertion, the most important development in recent NT scholarship, not given any more attention in Wikipedia than bare acknowledgement, whereas the fringe "Jesus-as-myth" theories are accorded ample space?

If I fail to address an argument that you regard as important, please repeat it with emphasis. Chances are that I took it is as trivial. Barrett Pashak 16:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I asked you what your main point is and proposed three. Do I need to emphasize the question again for you to consider it non-trivial? I just asked it and you have just ignored it. As to your most recent comments: "If Jesus's Jewishness is so "uncontroversial", why will you permit no elaboration of the subject in Wikipedia?" is a non-sequitor. The main article on Jesus clearly identifies Jesus as a Jew, and the article on the historical and cultural context of Jesus goes into great detail about his Jewish heritage. This uncontroversial topic has been covered, fully. And I know of no important study of Second Temple Jewish history that claims that Jesus had a major influence on Jewish history. As to the Buber quote: belongs in an article on Buber, but I would ask for context. Is he merely making an ecumenical gesture, or is he explaining a profound influence on his thought? Please, do not provide your own opinion which cannot be included in Wikipedia articles. Do you know of any secondary source on Buber that has explained the influence of Jesus on Buber's thought (see WP:ATT)? As for the Baeck quote, again, belongs in an article on Baeck. Baeck can say anything he wants (wanted to) - but his saying what Judaism "should" do does not mean Judaism has done it, and Baeck had no authority to speak for all Jews. Let's take the proposition seriously, Judaism "should" make claims on the Gospels. Okay, I already asked you to provide statements from United Synagogue, the Rabbinic Assembly, the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations and the Rabbinic Council of America, Union of American Hebrew Congregations, and Central Conference of American Rabbis about the extent to which they have been influenced by Jesus and the Gospels. You have proven that a handful of individuals have addressed the "Jewish Jesus" but none of this is evidence that major jewish communities are reconsidering their beliefs and practices via a re-claiming of a Jewish Jesus. You have provided no evidence of that. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:42, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Your claims that the question of Jesus as Jew is "uncontroversial" but that it has still been "covered, fully" is a non-sequitur. The fact is that the assertion of Jesus's Jewishness is neither fully covered nor uncontroversial. As I said, Jesus mythers regard it as untenable, and so do many antisemites. Traditionalist Christians also find it impossible to see Jesus as wholly and exclusively Jewish. For that matter, it is also true that some Jews find the assertion of Jesus's Jewishness problematic.

Both the links for further study that I provided above offer commentary on Buber's views on Jesus. You can also try a GoogleBooks search of Buber+Jesus.

You yourself distinguished this as a scholarly matter, so I see no reason for you to demand that I contact religious organizations.

To summarize my main points:

• Recent NT scholarship is concerned primarily with the normalization of Jesus as a Jew.

• Many recent leading Jewish thinkers perceive Jesus as a pivotal figure within Judaism.

Barrett Pashak 17:08, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I have been reading this for the first time today and I find myself wondering if there is a consensus among you people as to what "Jewish reclamation of Jesus" actually means. To me, it means that Jesus was very much a Jew, a Jewish Rabbi who worshiped a Jewish G-d, who taught from the Torah, who celebrated Jewish holidays, and in fact identified with his "people," the Jews. It is not to reclaim Jesus as "Messiach" but merely to historically bring him back into the Jewish family. No? Juanita 03:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. We need to indicate, though, that there is some disagreement about exactly where Jesus fits into Judaism. Some like Abraham Geiger cast him as a Pharisee, whereas Constantin Brunner casts him in the prophetic stream of Judaism in opposition to the priestly/Pharisaic/rabbinic stream. Barrett Pashak 17:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Ancient Primary Sources for Jesus

I'm uncomfortable with the recently added "Ancient Primary Sources for Jesus" section. This article is supposed to be about what historians think about the historical figure "Jesus of Nazareth". While sourced, this new section relies only on primary sources. This article should not present primary sources, but instead filter these sources through notable, reliable historians. Maybe this content would fit better in the historicity article, because that article is basically a summary of the sources. What do other think? Does this section have a place here? Is it ok to have so many primary sources in an article about what scholars think?-Andrew c 22:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The section is OR, taking a personal reading of several ancient texts, extracting data, making a synthesis, and presenting it. It is a forgivable mistake, one I myself made in my first few edits, and is probably good faith - but it is not apt for an encyclopedia. Lostcaesar 07:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

The section seems to present a very one-sided view of certain primary sources. Using secondary sources would help to make the section more balanced. For example, the possibility that the Panthera name is a corruption of parthenos, the Greek word for virgin (see F. F. Bruce, Jesus and Christian Origins Outside the New Testament, ISBN 0802815758, pp. 57-58) is not mentioned. -- Cat Whisperer 14:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

There are lots of mistakes. For example, the text says that the father was "a Roman soldier called Panthera, nicknamed the 'Panther'", seemlingly misunderanding that panthera is the nickname. Lostcaesar 14:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I see I'm not the only one rudely surprised by this material. It should all go away, but it's referenced material of some interest to other topics. I particularly like the image of the aerial battle! Where should it go? It's not OR, though. This is good, solid material on a separate topic. It should go on Criticism of Jesus. That's what it is, not texts that historians consult to figure out who Jesus was but Greek and Jewish propaganda. Jonathan Tweet 14:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Jonathan Tweet, I was going to let your edits go until I read what was written here. I disagree that ancient texts ALWAYS need to be filtered. There are a couple of mistakes in the section, but lets try to fix those rather than wholesale deletion. I think we need to discuss it more before we get rid of whole sections. Orangemarlin 15:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Orangemarlin, please find one serious contemporary scholar who regards any of this ancient material as germane to a historical biography of Jesus. If none, then the material doesn't belong here. Jonathan Tweet 15:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

<arbitrarily removed indents>I'm not getting into a revert war with you guys. But, I think you are all pushing a POV that would be better served with rewriting rather than mass deletion. Of course, I'm absolutely certain that Jesus did not exist (except Jesus is my gardener, so I know he exists). I think this article more or less makes me feel comfortable with my certainty. Orangemarlin 16:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see it as a pov issue, rather its a matter of OR. The section has no secondary sources, and unmediated interpretation of primary sources is against wikipedia policy. Lostcaesar 16:28, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with those who classify this section as original research. Wikipedia policy WP:OR states that original research includes:

• [the introduction of] an argument without citing a reliable source who has made that argument in relation to the topic of the article; or
• [the introduction of] an analysis, synthesis, or interpretation of published facts, opinions, or arguments without attributing that analysis, synthesis, or interpretation to a reliable source who has published the material in relation to the topic of the article.

Additionally, if this original research leaves the reader with the impression that the non-existence of Jesus historically is a viable opinion of scholars, then it is poor quality original research. -- Cat Whisperer 22:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

LC, "unmediated interpretation of primary sources is against wikipedia policy." Exactly, that's why we need to take the OR elements out of this section and just leave the primary sources. This work is a good addition to WP. The question is Where should it go? The answer is Criticism of Jesus. This work cites primary sources without analyzing them or presenting a novel interpretation. Here, in your lap, are these primary sources. The only bits that verge on OR (OK, might be OR now that I think about it) are the parts where the author says, "So and so writer considered the story significant enough to rebut it. . ." We don't know that so-and-so wrote that because he thought the story was significant enough to rebut or whether he made it up in order to have something to write about. Descriptions of primary sources are a great addition to a page on this topic (not this one). Jonathan Tweet 00:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I said: " That's what it is, not historical information for the open-minded but propaganda." I can now see that it sounds as though I'm calling the paragraphs "propaganda on the part of the bad editor who put it there." I mean, the swell editor found cool propaganda from two "enemy camps," the Greeks and the Jews. It's great material, but it doesn't relate to Jesus of history. It relates to ideological battles in the first century. Let's mention both depictions on this page but leave the details on the Criticism of Jesus page. Jonathan Tweet 00:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Lewis's trilemma & Craig

An editor cut out my reference to the trilemma and someone else's reference to William Lane Craig. The trilemma reference I think is valid as Lewis was specifically targeting the academically popular idea of Jesus as a man (historical Jesus). But it's not spot on, so OK. The quote from Screwtape is nice. Let's not allow the reader to mistake this for one of Lewis's literal books; it's fiction, narrated by a demon. The Craig thing seems worth including. Craig is definitely attacking historical Jesus head on. He deserves some mention here. If the previous text is weak, then it should be improved. Craig does criticize the current image of historical Jesus as contradicting what most Jesus scholars believe. Is it a stupid thing to say? Maybe, but if it's the best Craig can do, it's right to mention it. Jonathan Tweet 01:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Craig is not a critic of the historical Jesus, in that he does not object to the use of historical methods to discern facts about Jesus. His position is that a historical analysis of the Gospels will show them to be historically accurate and the resurrection to be the most probable historical reconstruction of what happened. His arguments would belong in the body of the text, then. Lostcaesar 07:56, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, once someone can show that he, like other historically-oriented Christians, applies the historical method to the gospels, treating them as fallible human documents shaped by historical trends and human agendas. If he's another Spong and Crossan, he belongs in. If he's another Brown (historical analysis, but only to a point), then no. I've gotten the impression that he's more of a "gospel truth is history so my Jesus is historical" sort of guy. Jonathan Tweet 15:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Why is brown excluded? Lostcaesar 18:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Brown uses doctrine as well as historical methods to analyze the gospels. He regards them as infallible as they pertain to salvation. So, yes, he uses the historical method, but he bases his conclusions on faith as well as on historical analysis. An interesting case, with some interesting conclusions, but not playing by the rules. A rule of historical analysis is, don't use doctrine in place of historical methods. Jonathan Tweet 13:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Where does Brown, or Craig for that matter, say that they "use doctrine in place of historical methods"? Lostcaesar 15:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Intro

The intro gives the following:

"...Though the reconstructions vary, they generally agree on these basic points: Jesus was a Jewish teacher who attracted a small following of Galileans and, after a period of ministry, was crucified by the Romans in (Palestine) during the governorship of Pontius Pilate...."

I think we miss something here critical to our topic. The various reconstructions, so numerous, stretching through various "quests" and whatnot, don't agree at all. The fact that only three or four paltry "undisputed" facts can be shaken out of them is evidence to this. I am not arguing against the sentence in question, but I feel that our intro needs to mention, at much greater emphasis, the discord, disagreement, and inability, if not futility, in arriving at a set reconstruction, with every supposed reconstruction having more critics than supporters. I am interested in what others think, but I see this as a key fact about the historical phenomenon of the Jesus quest(s). Lostcaesar 13:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Halley's comet

I removed the following:

Gospel of St Matthew 2:1-2 has mentioned that a Star was seen in the east at the time of Jesus’ birth. There is a probability that the Star of Bethlehem wise men saw was Halley’s comet. They perhaps knew about its regular reappearance as it was first seen in 240 BC. Before we assume this let us, check whether the recorded date of its first sighting is correct? The periods between Halley’s comet’s approach to the earth usually vary from 75 to 79 years because the gravitational forces of other planets changes the comet’s orbit slightly. Last, it had appeared in the year 1986, so it will appear next between 2061 - 2067. Since Halley’s comet appears at this interval; thus the year of its sighting around Jesus’s birth ought to be 33-39 BC.

Gregorian Christian calendar had placed the year of birth of Christ around 1 BC. Modern scholars, however, do not agree; they say Christ was born around 4 BC. Christian monk Dionysius Exiguus had fixed the birth of Christ in the year 753 after the founding of Rome. In Roman chronology the era of the founding of the city ‘ab urbe condita’, or AUC) dates from April 22, 753 ¼; and the Julian era date from the reform of the calendar by Julius Caesar in 45 BC.

If Halley’s comet was the proverbial Star of Bethlehem then the assumed date of birth of Christ will have to be fixed around 33-39 BC.

There is not a single source given for this view, and from my studies and experience, this view is not notable. Please, make an argument for why we should include this information, and then find reliable sources to cite and consider trimming down considerably so we are not giving undue weight to such a fringe view. Thanks.-Andrew c 15:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

This appears to be (rather poor) OR. First of all, we don't need to make back-of-the-envelope estimates of when Halley's comet appeared; most apparitions back to before 0CE are well recorded (with those that weren't being therefore accurately calculable), and the Halley's Comet article dates the nearest perihelion to 12BCE - actually a closer match! (I'm using 'Common Era' dating to avoid absurdities like "Christ was born x years before the birth of Christ.")

Secondly, given the ambiguous description of the "Star of Bethlehem" (both in translations and in the original text) there are quite a few other possible or actual astronomical phenomena that are as or more likely to be its basis. These include:

1. one or more different, non-periodic comets;
2. one or more bright meteors;
3. a naked-eye nova or (less likely) supernova otherwise unrecorded;
4. a naked-eye gamma-ray burst (an OR suggestion on my part, since the first known such was recorded only on 19 March 2008 and, OK, a GRB requires a supernova, but you read it here first!);
5. one of several planetary conjunctions that occurred in the relevant period - these would not necessarily have been very conspicuous to 'laypersons', but would have had great astrological significance for the Magi (who were Chaldean astrologers).

Thirdly, the whole nativity narration appears to be a later accretion: it has internal contradictions (e.g. the Census that allegedly took Joseph & Mary to Bethlehem was held in 6CE, but Herod who allegedly flourished before and after the birth actually died in 4BCE) and the "Star" may simply be pious invention.

Given the absence of independent corroboration for the birth date, and the plethora of possible astronomical candidates, it isn't possible to ascribe the "Star" to any one event, or conversely to obtain a date from such an event. This topic has been discussed many times in reputable astronomical magazines (e.g. Sky & Telescope), and I belatedly note (Doh!) that Wikipedia has a Star of Bethlehem article where its discussion would be better placed. 87.81.230.195 (talk) 12:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Pervasive problem with sources?

It seems like the only sources for Jesus's historicity is from Christians. Isn't this a bit... unreliable? It seems like the entire article makes it seem like he is definitely a historical figure, but without any external evidence for it, isn't that rather questionable? 129.59.52.135 17:23, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this comment, and others that question the reliance on Christian sources. A suggestion: to merge this article with "Historicity of Jesus", and clearly delineate Christian from non-Christian sources. This might help resolve the dispute, and maintain neutrality.Ltgbone 22:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Married?

I know that Da Vinci Code is bunk, but I was under the impression that there was legitimate question as to whether Jesus was married - the "companion" thing in one gnostic gospel and the fact that in various places he was called some title equivalent of "Mr." which would tend to imply marriage. Even if this is not considered by mainstream scholars, it should be clarified in this article because of the Da Vinci stuff.--72.252.71.56 19:42, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Do you know of any scholars that present this argument? DO you feel comfortable enough to make the edits yourself? I do not recall ever coming across a scholar that seriously entertained this idea. But that doesn't mean they don't exist. DOes anyone have any source suggestions?-Andrew c 20:15, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with the unsigned guy above. Who cares if I've never seen a scholar's side of the truth about Jesus' marital status? This is an encyclopedia, and it should be utilized for clarity over rumors and folklore. I am no expert, so I would implore someone of greater knowledge to help elucidate the truth, or at least the known truth. Even if the "Da Vinci Code" is not mentioned, other things (the alleged marriage) could be, along with scholarly opinions. DeftHand (talk) 08:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Until the second century AD many christian sects believe Jesus was married. I believe Clement of Alexandria was the first to state Jesus could not have been married, not because of the reasons the church states today, but because Clement believed he did not have the time or opportunity to get married. The Doctrine of Recapitulation supports the existence of a married Savior. Other evidence for Jesus being married is that the Jewish laws of the day required Rabbis to be married. Being single would have been so out of place it is almost impossible for it not to have been mentioned. The Bible also states that Joseph and Mary strictly obeyed Jewish law (it was their responsibility to marry Jesus off) and also that Jesus was subject to the law. The Greek word for "woman" and "wife" is the same so there is no inconsistancy in the word being translated as wife in the bible instead, especially as the Bible has Mary several times performing actions that can only be done by a wife in that time period. That Jesus was married has to be a given considering the evidence and it is up to those who do not believe it to prove he was not. Wayne (talk) 14:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

POV in biographical details

Certainly not neutral, and it has the appearance of one long strand of opinion from Paul Fredrikson. If it's not then it's just badly phrased but it should be changed anyway. There's alot of points that are very open to a different interpretation. For example the point that the Sanhedirain would not meeting at night or on a holiday. This is sort of the point in the Gospel, it was an illegimate trail staged at this time to avoid violent rection from Jesus supporters and the reasons were more political (Jesus challanged their authority) than relegious. I don't think it's much of a stech of logic to accpet this. The section in genreal has more of the tone of a criticism section than a baleneced apprisal of the historical Jesus. Signed by Clomb (forgot to log-in, will edit a bit later)

I personally found that section the most interesting to read of them all, and by far. It states clearly who the originators of the reconstructions are. The views are represented in a very nice and self-contained way. The content is exceptionally interesting. I am very surprised about this warning. If other biographical reconstructions exist by other scholars, equally coherent and well constructed, I think they should be added next, rather than chopped in at the expense of the present content. Re: the Sanhedirain, The article makes it clear that the view proposed is that of Fredriksen. I don't think the personal view on this particular issue presented above by Clomb is of any interest to WP, nor should it be used to express the view of Fredriksen (the content). If such view is sourced, which I think it is, then it would be a good idea to find a place for it in the section (only if a reasonable coherence is preserved in the section). But please please please please please, just for once, do not transform also this wonderful section into the usual WP aseptic, useless, uninformative, unaesthetic, boring quarrel of "X says A Y says non-A"s! --209.150.240.231 05:42, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Jewish Background

Towards the end of the section on Jesus' Jewish Background, there is a line regarding a "failure of the Maccabean insurrection against the Seleucids". What failure exactly is referenced here? I was under the impression that the Hasmoneans achieved political and religious independence from the Seleucids, and am not sure what that line is doing there. --Alf the Frisbee Kid

Literacy

The passage mentioned is NOT the only suggestion that Jesus was literate. When he defends the adultress (wrongly identified by some as Mary Magdeline), the Gospels note that Jesus wrote in the sand while the accusers walked away. RTexasUSA 16:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Jesus also reads from the Book of Isaiah in the Synagogue (Luke 4:16-20) -plajsnip06 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.74.247.138 (talk) 23:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Gospels are NOT historical sources

The gospels are not historical sources. They are religious documents.

That depends on a definition of "historical". By modern standards, no pre-enlightenment document is historical. You're implying a religious document cannot also be religious at the same time. As regards Gospel of Luke, ~all scholars would say it is historical. I think MOST scholars would say all four gospels are at least trying to be historical biographies (in the sense that all historical documents TRY to be historical). Where they suffer from the bias of the authors, they succeed in the scrutiny by which they were scrutinized by their religious community (in a way secular histories are not) and they were copied and memorized so excessively that a possible evolution over time of even one sentence was virtually impossible. The rest of the NT are letters which are not written with the goal of showing history, but whose historicity is up to debate, more based on a person's religious leanings rather than scholarship. --Ephilei 03:13, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, then they are not useful as prime historical sources. Just literary pieces. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trencacloscas (talk • contribs) 16:46, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The accuracy of the copies of the NT has been brought into debate, and there are many instances of changes (most minor) in the NT as it stands today. The book "Misquoting Jesus" by Bart D Ehrman shows some examples and works with the authenticity of the NT in its own terms. (Sorry I'm not up on my linking skills) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.167.4.174 (talk) 03:05, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

This (historical jesus) is just watered down Christianity. There is no reliable historical evidence that Jesus is anything more than a myth. 121.209.148.207 (talk) 09:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Is he a genetic son of Josef?

In today's historical view,is he a son of unknown man who had sexes with Mary or a son of Josef?222.225.225.78 09:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a good question. I think scholars are reluctant to give an answer because there simply isn't any evidence to go on. Some scholars are comfortable enough to say that Jesus was conceived by natural means, while others are completely agnostic in this regard, saying historical methods can neither confirm nor deny supernatural claims. In that since, the virgin birth was not a "historical" event, i.e. an event that can be examined by historical methods. The fellows of the Jesus Seminar wrote: Jesus was not born of a virgin; the Fellows doubt that Mary conceived Jesus without sexual intercourse. Jesus' father was either Joseph or some unknown male who either seduced or raped the young Mary. On the other hand we have John P. Meier stating The truth of the claim [virgin birth], which was hardly verifiable even when Jesus appeared on the public stage as an adult, is a fortiori not open to verification today. Decisions on this tradition, limited within the NT to the Infancy Narratives, will largely be made on the basis of one's philosophical views about the miraculous and the weight one gives to later Church teaching. In any case, the precise origins of the virginal conception tradition remain obscure from a historical point of view. A countertradition that Jesus was illegitimate is not clearly attested until close to the middle of the 2d century A.D.; it is most likely a mocking, polemical reaction to the claims of the Infancy Narratives, perhaps a filtered through popular dispute. Hope this helps.-Andrew c ^[talk] 13:52, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, the first question: was he a biological sun of this or that man, or some aberrant biological case? If the question was important, I would prefer the answer biological son of a man, whoever. But the current day christianity tend more and more toward an interpretationist pattern, that would rather treat the "immaculate conception" as an image symbolizing something, not exactly clear what ...me being "Lutheran"... Said: Rursus ☻ 18:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Science or pseudoscience?

There may be no question about the historicity of a man named Jesus -- as a real man, who was born, lived and died. However, am I possibly mistaken by some misunderstandings resulting from the fact that I'm NOT a native speaker of English, or some people speaking and/or quoted here REALLY CLAIM THAT RESURRECTION WAS FACTUAL, claiming that it is the only valid resolution of some questions? As such a claim would amount to stating that some supernatural events have really happened and the laws of nature were broken, is it still a science or already a pseudoscience? If it is science, then IS IT VALID to explain ANY events happening as results of supernatural events? For example, could we explain the disappearaing of objects in someone's house as the tricks of the domestic faeries, if no other plausible, scientifically acceptable explanation would exist? After all, existence of domestic faeries, as well as of ghosts, vampires etc. has been reported by many people in the past, who generally were simple folks without need to lie (especially that there were no mass-media which could made them famous); not to mention the cases of UFO. Could we then explain someone's disappearance as abduction by UFO (which is more scientifically sound that any God; if life exists anywhere in the universe, it could evolve into a high-tech civilization that we happened to meet)?? Critto 10:14, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

SCREAMING! Not necessary. We can read. Edit and have fun, enjoy! (But don't let in false prophets over your doorstep). Said: Rursus ☻ 18:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Historical Jesus

I have no doubt that Jesus was a myth based on the prevaling mythology other than Judaism. The Jesus myth has roots in Budism, Hinduism and Mythras etc. The links to Judaism are all overstated. The so called 'proof texts' are all easily discredited. The clue to the politisation of the Gospels is clear when you look at the names of the main players. Joseph and Judas are the only Hebrew names in the story, the rest including Jesus are Greek. Joseph was required to provide lineage to King David even though he was not the father of Jesus! Judas was the bad guy, the betrayer, he had to have a Jewish name! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fivish of Windsor, UK.89.243.105.28 (talk) 23:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Thats because the Gospels were written in Greek. However, Jesus' name was originally Yeshua, a hebrew-aramaic name. A lot of the names were translated into Greek. That does not disprove the story.

 ~plajsnip06  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.74.247.138 (talk) 23:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC) 

No. Only Joseph and Judas have their Jewish names retained in the Greek. This is deliberate and politically motivated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.109.236 (talk) 22:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Read the introduction. The Jesus of the (canonical) gospels is not the same entity as the Yeshua of the research discussed here. Especially as regards the point you mention this is important - it is as if arguing that the common use of "Zoroaster" constitutes proof that Zaraθuštra is fictional. Putting a hypothetical historical Yeshua into the proper context of time and place, it is easy to see why there are hardly any third-party sources - compared to the Zealots or John the Baptist, an itinerant new-age hippie preacher/sage with two handfuls of followers and lacking a strong and violent anti-authoritarian message was really nothing to write home about (strong outside testimony would actually contradict the historicity of Jesus - until after the Jewish Revolt, the guy was a very small fry). Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 14:48, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The four Gospels are just partial copies of an earlier source document and so cannot be said to give four independent accounts! They are also bad copies as contradictions entered the stories. There is also a glaring issue with the resurection. If Jesus was to rise in three days how come he 'died' on Friday afternoon and 'rose' on Sunday morning? Thats no more than a day and a half! Clearly the writers were none to bright and were not guided by the Divine. Fallible men wrote an appealing story, just a story however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.66.184 (talk) 16:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Doherty and Wells - Scholars or figures?

My edit which changed Doherty and Wells from being referred to as "scholars" to "figures" was reverted, although I reverted it back. The edit summary of the revert stated:

Theologyjohn, why disqualify scholars as Doherty by calling them figures? Why the disqualifier added every time the Jesus Myth is presented?

I'm not sure what the second sentence means exactly, but the first one is quite simple. Referring to both Doherty and Wells as scholars, without qualification, implies that they are scholars in early Christian History, Ancient History, New Testament, the history of second judaism, or some other relevant field or fields.

The word scholar can be defined in any number of ways. If it is defined in a precise term - i.e. someone who has clearly been accepted into the academic guild in that particular field by being awarded a genuine accredited Doctorate in the subject, and/or by being given a university research post in the subject, then both clearly fail. Wells is, by this definition, a scholar in modern German, but not in any historical discipline relevant. Doherty, on the other hand, is not a scholar of anything - indeed, I have a greater degree of accredited education than he does.

One could also define scholar in a less easily qualifiable term - someone who is very knowledgeable and has great understanding of the subject. By this definition, though, there are numerous viewpoints on whether or not either of these figures qualify as scholars. There are those who regard them as "non-professional scholars" (such as Doherty), and those who think they don't really know what they are talking about (such as Michael Grant). According to WP:NPOV, we can't claim that either side in a dispute, we can only present the dispute. We could, therefore, say "Doherty and Wells, who some regard as scholars in the field, and some to not" - we cannot say "Scholars like Doherty and Wells". The former is ugly and needless verbage - by saying "figures" we don't have to take either side, but don't have to waste words on explaining what both sides are. TJ (talk) 18:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Jesus-myth section

The details concerning the Jesus-myth have been edited recently. In particular, the couple of sentences after "authors like Doherty and Wells have criticised it ... " (or however it is phrased) have been removed, and been replaced with beginning the section by "A small minority of authors...".

I'm not sure that that is a good phraseology, simply because I'm not sure that they are a small minority among authors - they would be a small minority among scholars (were either of them scholars), but my understanding is that the view is more common among popular writers and scholar in other disciplines - such that with the qualifier "small" at least is not valid.

I agree that this section would needs a qualifier about the extent of the position, but I suggest that the longer one is more accurate. I would restore it, but the last comment suggested taking it to the talk.

By the way, why don't we merge this section with the little section directly above it? Neither of them are very long, so I don't think either really deserve a section of their own. TJ (talk) 16:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

For over a year, we had the one sentence that was prefaced "A small minority of scholars..." it seems like the use of the word "scholar" is disputed in this context. Also, it seems like one side of the dispute wants to completely remove any qualifier which states the position is only a minority view, while the other side wants to go into more detail about it. I think both of those issues can and should be worked out here in talk, and that while there is disagreement, there is little sense in edit warring. TJ's changes which made the section longer were completely unsourced. How can I verify that the view used to be more popular? How can I verify that academics rarely consider it, while it is more common among popular writers? Similarly, I'd ask those who want to remove both "A small minority" and TJ's extra sentences to explain why it's a good idea to remove the POV weight qualifying information.-Andrew c ^[talk] 16:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

How's about just adding a sentence "This position is very rare among scholars in the relevant disciplines", or some other words to that effect - we could very easily find 3 or 4 sources that say that. TJ (talk) 17:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I just don't agree with the "relevant disciplines" because there are no relevant disciplines offering conclusive proofs of some historical Jesus. Small minority or not, it's the point of view of many independent researchers and people who actually don't buy the "historical Jesus" constructo and it deserves to be part of this article that is now way too much religious biased with assumptions, in my humble opinion. I just included a sentence to reflect the other side of the story: scholars, and specially Bible scholars are being challenged consistently in the internet era and there are plenty of websites to reflect the phenomenon.Trencacloscas (talk) 08:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The relevant disciplines here are biblical studies (or New Testament studies) and ancient history, I would say. We ought perhaps to find a way of acknowledging that this view is actually quite popular among the public - something like 20 percent of the British public in a recent opinion poll responded that "Jesus never existed" as I recall. We also ought to give a clearer acknowledgement of the view that Jesus existed but we can know very little about him - there is not even a reference to Bultmann's famous observation that "We can know almost nothing concerning the life and personality of Jesus." But Wikipedia has a very definite policy of giving preponderant weight to academic views, and the article properly reflects that. --Rbreen (talk) 10:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

All positions should be reflected, that's also a policy in Wikipedia. No expert in biblical studies or ancient history was capable of producing conclusive evidence about the existence of Jesus, thus both disciplines were irrelevant so far. That's what the quoted passage reflects. It should stay to show the diversity on the subject. Unless you want to go against the POV policy. The provided link even includes a list of personalities that contributed debunking the "historical Jesus" theory as mere myth and that's totally related to the subtopic, isn't it? Trencacloscas (talk) 15:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but positions should be reflected to such extent that they are supported by mainstream scholarship, not giving undue weight to fringe opinions, which this is (supported by several citations which back up this point). The provided list is of scholars who doubted the total reliability of the Gospels, very few of whom doubted that Jesus existed at all.--Rbreen (talk) 16:42, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

That's no problem at all. More quotes can be produced. And the reliability of scholars is still seriously under suspicion. Dr. Hector Avalos, a renowned scholar, mentions this in his new book "The End Of Biblical Studies". Trencacloscas (talk) 17:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

In that case, please provide some quotes, with citations. If you have a relevant citation from Dr. Avalos, please provide it. We are really not opposed to representing this point of view - we just need support for the view that it has widespread scholarly support. But please don't use phrases like, "so called scholars" and make accusations of intellectual dishonesty unless you can firmly back them up. --Rbreen (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Good. Find enclosed a page with direct speech from Dr. Avalos questioning religious orientation in biblical studies and a quote from Karlheinz Deschner whose book mentions the problem largely. Kenneth Humphreys article is also valid, since he is a historian and critic. You don't need to be a professor in biblical studies to denounce intellectual dishonesty in the field, since biblical scholars just strive to protect their jobs and most of these jobs are given by religious universities. By the way why biblical scholars should be included into the "relevant disciplines" tag. They are completely irrelevant (and most of them ignorant) to the myth phenomenon. Mythologists are probably the most relevant ones, and they consider Christ as a myth from Frazer to Campbell and forth. Trencacloscas (talk) 04:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Atheist christian apologists?

A recent edit changed "some" to "apologists" when discussing those that argue that the tomb was empty. One of the references cited to support this was a quote by Michael Grant, who was an atheist (although I only know this through OR and do not now if any RS's state it). As a result, I felt that this could not be limited to apologists, and reverted back to "some". Physealis reverted, stating that the fact that Grant is an atheist is irrelevent. I have to acknowledge that I'm not quite clear what "apologist" could mean in that context rather than an (often perjorative) term for a christian defending Christianity. Even if that is not the only possible meaning, it is the natural one that people will interpret, and I really think it should be changed back to "some".

However, I have no desire to get into an edit war, so I figured I'd take it to talk rather than just revert. TJ (talk) 22:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Jesus' message and the resurrection

Jesus' original message, did it include the resurrection? Jesus talked about people being like angels after the resurrection, but that was in reference to a resurrection in some indefinite future. The Book of Revelation puts the general resurrection as occurring only after Christ has reigned on earth 1000 years. In this chronology, Jesus comes back, the saints are raised (see Paul), and they rule the earth for a Millennium with Jesus. After Paul, the gospels include reference to the resurrection, but are these latter additions to the oral tradition? For that matter, the divine judgment that John the Baptist was announcing, did that include the resurrection? Or was that the restoration of Israel and the overthrow of the sinful? Leadwind (talk) 14:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Sigh! How could we know actually? We christians are actually not worshipping according to the exact words of the man Jesus, we are worshipping according to a pattern that developed during a period of 4-500 years after the death of Jesus, plus some reformation here, and some catholic revival there. Besides that, what has that to do with the factual accuracy of the article as regards to what the Historical-Jesus-researchers say, and what their critics say? We can speculate forever about the factual backgrounds behind christianity, but the article is about a branch of liberal christians and what they and their opponents say. Said: Rursus ☻ 19:10, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It really shouldn't be that hard to figure out if Jesus' original message had anything to do with Judgment Day. As near as I can tell, neither John the Baptist nor Jesus talked about Judgment Day, just about a coming apocalypse. We habitually think if the apocalypse as Judgment Day, but that interpretation doesn't exist in the text itself. Are there any Gospel verses in which Jesus is quoted as talking about Judgment Day (resurrection, end of history, living forever in a perfected body, etc.). Leadwind (talk) 18:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Date of death?

Funny that this is missing. Crucifixion eclipse gives a brief but not very substantial discussion. But should it not be calculable down to about 4 possible dtaes at most, with only a single one being really likely?

• The date of the crucifixion is given as "Friday" (Yom Shishi?), Nisan 14 (John) or 15 (synoptics).
• At that time, the observational calendar was used, adding a bit of uncertainty, but even that can be largely eliminated: as Nisan was such an important month, it is unlikely that the date of Nisan 1 would be miscalculated. And not alone would the preceding days allow little leeway allowing Nisan 1 to be calculated in advance, it could (theoretically) be calculated in which of the candidate years there would be a weak or ambiguous crescent moon visible from Jerusalem on Nisan 1 (allowing for a shift of 1 day) - if that is even plausible and happened.
• The gospels seem fairly reliable sources as to the day - Nisan 14/15 are certainly easy-to-remember days; when the gospels were written, every educated person could probably backtrack the year with ease from the information given. It may be that an entirely unrelated date was shifted to the start of Passover for added significance, but if that is correct there is simply no way to make a calculation at all.
• All that being said, the year was between 26 and 36 AD (possibly 27 to 34?), and probably not in one of the earliest years as Pilate was apparently established in his job and had not just arrived one or two years before.

This would seem to (day-cycling in the Jewish calendar of that time is a bit tricky methinks) leave 4 years at most where Nisan 14 OR Nisan 15 fell on a Friday, and even in that case probably only 2 dates would really square with the circumstantial data. And considering that the synoptics are more likely to get it right than John who cared less about such details than Mark, a single most likely (and highly likely) day and year could be advanced.

I find it wellnigh impossible to believe that such an attempt at calculation has not been undertaken. It is certainly much more in the scientific tradition than guesstimating an eclipse that as far as anyone can say could simply not have happened (a fact already known to the commentators of antiquity - simply put, there an eclipse in mid-Nisan is impossible due to Earth's position relative to sun and moon). (There may be another explanation, like a dust cloud from a storm or a volcanic eruption or whatnot, but the "darkness" may just as well be a later addition, so it's not proper to conjecture about it too much) Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 14:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

>>> A myth can have any date you like! Eg. When did Robin Hood die? But there is more: He was crucified on Friday and rose on Sunday....in fulfilment of the prophesy of rising after 3 days and 3 nights. But do the maths....its only one and a half days!!! >>> Fivish Windsor UK 14.3.2008

You say "do the maths" as if it were that easy! It requires one major calendar shift, and one calendar type transition. You'll need a religions/history scholar familiar with Judaism for that, and I am none. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 13:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Birth of Jesus?

since when did most historian agree that jesus was born 6-4 bc, this is an unjustifiably narrow period of time, i added a citation need tag to it but i think it should just be deleted a replaced with a broader more accurate timeframe —Preceding unsigned comment added by 1NosferatuZodd1 (talk • contribs) 05:54, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I've change the birth section of this page because i thought it was misleading, historians have not reached a consensus on the matter of jesus's birth and therefore it should not be worded as such. therefore i have added other scholars opinions. (1NosferatuZodd1 (talk) 04:34, 28 April 2008 (UTC))

Some flaws that bug me

First flaw:

The historical Jesus is Jesus of Nazareth as reconstructed by historians using historical methods.

I can perceive what is meant by this, but literally, the historicians didn't reconstruct Jesus, that would be up to some very advanced surgeons and medical doctors, which didn't exist at that time. The historians draw some vivid images that are believed to be of some sociological accuracy and generality, so we can believe that they are not too far from truth.

Second flaw: It's not quite clear everywere in the article that this article is not about the truth (a fairly unknowable truth) but about how the events would look like if the historians methods work as expected. The topic of this article is strictly bound to statements that certain historicians following a certain method do about the matter, not f.ex. about Saint Brigides statements about the birth of Jesus, since she didn't follow the "historical-Jesus"-method. The erroneous use of {{Unbalanced}} for complaints about the article's too factual tone seems to reflect such a confusion. This article is not about truth, it's about a historical picture that a certain historical method draws and must draw if applied "correctly". Said: Rursus ☻ 19:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

there is an article called Quest for the historical Jesus, which deals with the, um, quest for the historical Jesus. (Exactly why that article and this article both exist is a bit of a mystery, but Wikipedia is nothing if not multiverse). So the HJ is, one assumes, that which is quested for in the Q. Or that is to say, one is the process and the other the result. Or perhaps one (the Q) takes a longue duree approach and the other (HJ) is all about the latest words from the coalface. Oh bugger, my head's starting to hurt again!PiCo (talk) 20:58, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

PiCo, this article is about what contemporary expert historians think about Jesus. Quest for Historical Jesus is about two centuries of developing scholarship about Jesus. This article is about Jesus. That article is about scholarship. Leadwind (talk) 00:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Criticism as myth

"But in late years, especially with the arrival of the internet, Bible scholars were put to doubt and accused of intellectual dishonesty by critics and peers." Since when does this matter? The citations given are by Humphreys and Doherty, neither of which are even relevant scholars (nor are they scholars at all). They think because most of the experts disagree with them, they're intellectually dishonest? Maybe Doherty is intellectually incompetent, but I haven't seen much to justify such absurdities. This sentence doesn't belong. Scorpionman (talk) 22:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Jesus Siblings

This section should also reference verses referring to Jesus as the "firstborn son" of Mary. The word "firstborn" implies that there were later siblings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.62.23.202 (talk) 22:45, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

A minorrr point, but not correct in this context. Firstborrn here implies only that there were no earlier sons. Jewish law required that the firstborn male animal be sacrificed. This was done with beasts, but sons could be redeemed for eight (?) silver pieces as the Temple. This is why jesus was presented at the Temple. Kjaer 14:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Common Sense

Firstly in the introduction I would like that in no uncertain terms that we articulate that there is no historical sources which can be deemed as academically reliable and that the entire story of Jesus within a historical context can be attributed to the Bible and the Gospels. I can understand us not being as aggressive on this point in the 'Jesus' Page but here on this page 'Historical Jesus' we must be very clear of the facts. How can we possibly claim that Jesus even existed if we have no historical backing for such a claim. None of the events in the Bible are historically reliable. The Bible itself and the Quran are both documents of faith and is based on no evidence what so ever. I urge you to be academically accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trek mambo (talk • contribs) 14:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure about the intor. The gospels are at face value not markedly less reliable than any Ancient era hagiography. And such are regularly used as historical sources.

Yet of course, a general discussion of the source material and its caveats is important in such an article. Probably a section of its own rather than a paragraph in "Background" or such. Dysmorodrepanis (talk) 19:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the issue is that, given there was a religous group (Christians) in the first century that created the four Gospels, what is the likelyhood that there was some man (Jesus) with a ministry that at least vaguely resembled the stories in the Gospels (baptized by John, crucified by Pilate, etc). I think the majority of historians have judged that it is more likely than not that there was such a man whose ministry became the seed of the early Christian movement. There are enough oddities in the Gospels (e.g. the birth story) that it would seem strange to make up such a story from whole cloth. If Jesus were completely made up, why not have his whole ministry in Jerusalem, rather than the convoluted story of going to Bethlehem for a census? The after-attempt to change Jesus' ancestry from Nazarean to Davidian is a little too obvious. --Westwind273 (talk) 07:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Two early, nonchristian sources, Josephus and Tacitus, mention Jesus and his execution under Pilate. The gospels aside, historians take him to be a historical figure. The idea that he didn't exist at all reached the peak of its acceptance a hundred years ago, but it was basically undone once scholars came to recognize the relatively early date of the gospels (c 60-100). Leadwind (talk) 00:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it clear the passages in Josephus and Tacitus are fraudulent insertions by later Christians? There is no evidence for the historical Jesus outside of the claims of parties with huge conflicts of interest. No? Trigley (talk) 23:11, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the Josephus and Tacitus references are likely to be fraudulent insertions by later Christians. I think it is more to the point to say that it is unlikely that the first century Christian gospel stories would be completely made up. It is much more likely that there was some man, Jesus, with a ministry in Judea in the early first century. As to the details of that ministry, the accuracy of the gospels can be debated, but his existence is quite probable. --Westwind273 (talk) 06:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Clarification

Under Jesus and John the Baptist it says, "Luke's gospel records that Jesus' mother, Mary, was related to John's mother, Elizabeth (Luke 1:36), although many scholars doubt this.[24]" A source is provided, but would someone be able to clarify this claim? It says it black-and-white that Mary and Elizabeth were related, so I would like to know what Vermes' reasons are for saying otherwise. Thanks. Kristamaranatha (talk) 04:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Most scholars of the historical Jesus don't give much credit to the contradictory genealogies of Matthew and Luke. Leadwind (talk) 00:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Drawing Conclusions and the Scope of this Article

The scope of this article is the "historical" Jesus, i.e., the potential knowledge about Jesus that can be derived using the historical method as opposed to revelation (Christian, or otherwise) theology, philosophy or other ideological means. We are faced with the following rough hierarchy of types of less and more derived hypotheses:

Hypotheses about Jesus' Existence

Hypotheses about the circumstances of his existence - Where, When, Origin, Family, Events in Jesus' life - Baptism, Crucifixion

Hypotheses about Jesus' actions - Did he act as a healer, preacher, did he enter Jerusalem, preach on the mount

Hypotheses about the authenticity of specific sayings - Render unto Caesar, Cast the first stone, Turn the other cheek

Hypothese about the intended meaning of those sayings - the Kingdom as political, as eschatological, as internal

Hypotheses about the validity of the meaning of those sayings

Now, for the purpose of thius article, Jesus' existence is taken as given. Tacitus, Josephus, the Gospels, the Rabbinical reaction and the lack of early claims of hoax inform this position. The Historical method equips us well to deal with Jesus' circumstances and events. His actions can likewise be examined from the outside viewpoint of the Judaic context - Pharisees, essenes, Sadducees, Zealots, Messianism, etc., and from the internal textual evidence of the Gospels. The authenticity of his sayings is widely addressed by writers such as Crossan and Vermes using textual criticism and comparative Judaic scholarship. When we reach the question of what Jesus meant by what he said, we are building theological and philosophical hypotheses upon hypotheses of textual criticism built on historical and archaeologic al hypotheses - at about the limit of historical discussion. As to the validity of those meanings? Well, we can certainly come to our own conclusions as to their validity. For example, we can safely conclude that if Jesus believed that the world would end and that all men would be assumed into the sky or cast into hell during the lifetime of his audience that he was mistaken. But our purpose here is to present evidence and not to draw conclusions. Presenting conclusions, no matter how plausible and obvious, is original research. We can count on readers to draw the obvious conlcusions themselves. We do not need to add the editorial comment that Jesus believed, incorrectly, that the rapture was less than a century away. Surely Jesus had many true beliefs. We do not comment on their truth. We are not uniquely empowered as editors, not researchers, to draw conclusions that readeers cannot draw for themselves. Drawing conclusions using their minds from the facts and theories presented is the readers' job, we should not try to do that for them.

Hence statements such as the first sentence of this paragrraph are, no matter how plausible, cases of asking the witness (editor) to draw a conclusion (Original Reasearch) which is simply not permissable:

The view that Jesus preached an imminent apocalypse has unsettling implications for the conservative Christian doctrines of Biblical inerrancy and the divinity of Jesus. According to Geza Vermes, Jesus's announcement of the imminent arrival of the Kingdom of God "was patently not fulfilled" and "created a serious embarrassment for the primitive church." [28] According to E.P. Sanders, these eschatological sayings of Jesus are "passages that many Christian scholars would like to see vanish," as "the events they predict did not come to pass, which means that Jesus was wrong."[29] Noted Christian apologist C.S. Lewis also conceded that Jesus's eschatological predictions were an "exhibition of error" on Jesus's part.[30] [emphasis added]

Removing such a sentence in no way weakens the following cited sentences. Readers can draw their own conclusions as to their import to such ideology-laden labels as "conservative" Christian doctrine, based upon what Vermes, Sanders and Lewis did notably say, and not upon our interpretation of what they said implied. I am removing that one sentence.

As an aside, since I am new on this page, let me disclose my context as an atheist of several decades who was raised Catholic, and someone who is interested in Jesus as an interesting moral teacher and as profoundly important historical and inspirational figure, who is generally interested in comparative biology, linguistics and religion, and who is generally impressed by the level of discourse on this article. Kjaer 05:43, 19 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjaer (talk • contribs)

Fair enough. Thank you Kjaer Hellenic9 (talk) 13:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

As I said, Impressed by the level of discourse, so my thanks as well.Kjaer(talk) 14:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

missionaries, disciples, and apostles

This whole section was unverifiable, using primary sources (gospel) as its only source. I've substituted material from a book by a prominent scholar about the historical Jesus. There may be more to say, but it has to be scholarly, verifiable material, not Bible quotes. This is the historical Jesus page, not the "what the gospels say about Jesus" page. Leadwind (talk) 00:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see the logic of this complaint. What's wrong with saying: "The Gospel of Matthew says that X occurred"? This is not the same as saying: "X occurred." The complainant, it seems, allows "X occurred" to be included in the article only if the source that says that X occurred is a 20th/21st century writer as controversial as Curran. In contrast, he allows no mention of a statement by a first-century writer about a first-century event to be included even in the form: "Writer So-and-so says that X occurred." Defteri (talk) 07:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Leadwind is correct here. I am sympathetic to the points that were being made by quoting scripture. But what if we quote scripture as saying that Jesus rose from the dead. Is that historical? I would suggest looking at Vermes, he talks about Jesus' ministery and can be quoted as a verifiable scholar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjaer (talk • contribs) 13:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think I said that, on the basis of Scripture, we can put in a Wikipedia article statements like "Jesus rose from the dead"? What I said is that I see no reason for excluding statements like "The Gospels say that Jesus rose from the dead." That the Gospels make this claim is a directly verifiable fact not dependent on personal interpretation. It is not the same as saying: "X occurred." Defteri (talk) 14:14, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Defteri, you're making exactly the case that I used to make about two years ago, that editors should be free to cite primary sources to support the text. But I've come to understand the verifiability guidelines for WP, which state that one can't simply refer to primary texts to build a paragraph. Doing so is taking on the role of a scholar, looking at primary texts and deciding which ones are worth including and in what context. That is not our role as editors. If these Bible references are relevant to the topic, it is our job to find reputable scholars who say so and to cite those scholars. The gold standard for verifiability is a university-level textbook. Check out the definition of primary, secondary, and tertiary sources as a starting point. You'll also want to follow hyperlinks to related topics, such as original research and verifiability. If you're surprised that quoting scripture as you suggest is against policy, you're certainly not alone. Leadwind (talk) 15:51, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

If I may quote Slrubenstein's response to you elsewhere on the same matter, "Sorry, dude, the burden is on you. ... What policy says this is not allowed? Quote, please", whatever policy it is that you imagine forbids saying: "A first-century writer says that X occurred." I trust you realize that such a statement is not the same as saying: "X occurred, since a first-century writer says it did." Defteri (talk) 09:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Defteri, are you asking for a quote because you haven't read WP's verifiability policy yet? Would you please do so? It says, "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." Leadwind (talk) 16:09, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Nothing could be easier than to indicate a reliable published source for a true statement that "Writer A said that X occurred" - I am, of course, not talking about falsely attributing to him something he didn't say or arguing that "what his words really meant was that Y occurred". Just give a link to a reliable website that carries the text of what Writer A actually said, and hey presto, anyone who clicks on the link finds directly and immediately, without need of interpretation by anybody, that Writer A did say that X occurred. (That does not prove that X occurred; but I hope that by now you have grasped the distinction between "Writer A said that X occurred" and "X occurred".) Defteri (talk) 18:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, then, no problem. As long as you find it easy to cite reliable sources for the material you want to be on the page, we're in business. Just follow WP policy, and it is easy as pie. But if you think a web site with Bible quotes on it is a reliable source, you have some more reading to do. Have you read the WP pages on reliable sources, verifiability, etc? And, yes, I understand that you think it's OK to use primary sources as long as you call them out as such in text, as in "Matthew says X." That's what I used to think, too. It took me a while to see WP policy straight. Look, I feel for you. You're in exactly the same position I was in two years ago when I thought it was enough just to say "Writer A said X" and prove it with a reference to a primary text. It's not enough. The question isn't whether Writer A said X or not. The question is what scholars think of the topic (possibly including their read on Writer A's account). Just because a statement is true doesn't mean that it belongs in the article. You might think it's relevant what Writer A said, but you're a WP editor, not a reliable source. I quoted policy in support of my position. Can you do the same? Leadwind (talk) 22:30, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems you still see no distinction between "Writer A said that X occurred" and "X occurred". If I write: "Matthew said that Herod had all the children in Bethlehem and its surroundings who were under two years of age killed", giving as reference Matthew 2:16, that is not the same as saying Herod had them killed.

The next sentence could even be: "Modern scholars hold that what Matthew said is without foundation." But the statement that Matthew said what he said is still true and verifiable.

Not only is it true and verifiable: as a statement by a well-known near-contemporary writer (even if he was not a historian) about an alleged event, Matthew's statement merits mention even if modern scholarship disagrees with what Matthew said - while of course not denying that Matthew said it. Deleting mention of it, on the grounds of some Wikipedia policy that seems to be known only to you, would not be acceptable.

I have read, not for the first time, the Wikipedia policy you mentioned. I don't see why you say you used to think that you could make that statement. In fact, I think you are still confusing that statement with the quite different statement: "X happened, as shown by the fact that Writer A says it did." Defteri (talk) 08:53, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Defteri, 'I still do not see anything in it that could be interpreted as a prohibition, in cases where Writer A lived more than a century or so ago, of saying: "Writer A said that X happened."' It would be absurd for me to maintain that the policy prohibits us from saying "Writer A said X happened." Please read the section on the use of primary sources. Leadwind (talk) 16:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Defteri, if an appeal to policy doesn't work with you, allow me to appeal to your reason. Can I write on this page that the Quran says Jesus talked as a newborn infant? You want to cite Matthew, etc. If you can cite scripture (primary source), can I? What about the Christian infancy gospels that circulated in the first 200 years? Can I cite them? They're primary sources about Jesus, too. Can we cite anything we want, as long as we label it? No, of course not. Who is to say which sources we can use here? Who decides? Scholars do. Not WP editors, scholars. So we lowly WP editors humbly go to the scholars and they tell us how long the historical Jesus' ministry was. You can't say "Matthew says Jesus did X" for the same reason that I can't say, "The Quran says Jesus did X." Leadwind (talk) 16:23, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Leadwind, for agreeing that it would be absurd to hold that the Wikipedia policy prohibits saying "Writer A said X happened". It would indeed be possible to quote what the Quran says (pointing out how far the Quran is from being a contemporary source, and perhaps, if considered necessary, adding that, as Scholar Z says, the story is not generally regarded, outside of Islam, as historically based). You yourself do say "Gospel Writers A-D say X happened" when you write: "The Gospels present Jesus engaging in frequent 'question and answer' religious debates with Pharisees and Sadducees."

As edited by you, the article is turning into an account of the views of some of the most adventurous and controversial present-day writers. I raise no objection to that: some day the article should be of a certain historical interest. Defteri (talk) 18:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Defteri is right on this. NOR does not prohibit us from stating what source X, Y or Z are saying if the case is clear that they are truly saying it. As for Leadwind's examples I see absolutely no problem with writing "The Quran says this" or "The infancy gospel says that" if it is on topic. Whether it is, editors must decide. Str1977 ^(talk) 20:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Citing religious scripture on a page devoted to a historical figure implies that the scripture is relevant to an historical understanding. That implication is for scholars to make, not us humble WP editors'. Leadwind (talk) 22:51, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Taking into account what a contempory or near-contemporary, even if not a recognized historian, writes of a first-century or a twenty-first-century event marks a scientific attitude. Declaring a priori that everything in such writings must be completely ignored shows nothing but prejudice. Defteri (talk) 17:14, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)Defteri, of course we need to cite scriptures here. Whenever a scholar cites a verse as relevant to historical Jesus, we should cite the verse. Who declared a priori that everything in such writings must be completely ignored? Not me. I think that the material in such writings are our very topic. We shouldn't ignore it. We should ask the scholars what they say about it and summarize their findings here. Leadwind (talk) 20:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

May I remind you that you have repeatedly denied that we can write: "A first-century writer says that X occurred." To claim that, according to some obscure interpretation of a Wikipedia policy, we are not allowed to write: "Matthew says that Herod had infants killed", and can only say: "Modern writer X says that Matthew says that Herod had infants killed", is nonsense. It is easily verifiable that Matthew says it: we do not need to quote anyone to prove that Matthew says it. We quote scholars on the attendibility of what Matthew says, not on the fact that he says it. The scholars do not and cannot tell us whether what Matthew says is relevant to a particular Wikipedia article. As Str1977 rightly said, it is the editors of the article who decide whether the mention of what Matthew says is on topic. Defteri (talk) 09:36, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I think what is at issue is the topic of this article, the Historical Jesus. We can't say "Matthew says that Herod had infants killed" in a manner in which to imply or demonstrate that the massacre of the infants was a historical event. We must cite scholars who presumably use historical methodology. They are trained in their field to apply criteria to ancient texts to try to reconstruct a plausible historical account of the past. If we editors here at wikipedia are the only filter (as you seem to be suggesting Str1977 was saying), then we are performing original research. We simply can't take ancient religious texts and say that they are 100% historically accurate. It violates NPOV and NOR. We can't publish things for the first time. I think the example of the massacre of the infants is especially pertinent because a good number (if not majority) of historians consider that story spurious (which demonstrates why we can't use Matthew as a source without the filter of actually published scholars who place the text in a historical context). So the only context I could think of it being appropriate to cite these primary sources directly are to give a specific example (Matthew says X), and then immediately follow it by citing commentary from historians (Historian Y finds the story plausible, Historian Z finds the story pious fiction/later interpolation, etc). The thing that I am most concerned about (and forgive me if this isn't what was being said) is the idea of using primary sources for novel historical analysis, published here for the first time (aka original research). I'm not really sure where in this article it would be appropriate otherwise to directly cite the primary sources. -Andrew c ^[talk] 21:10, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Andrew. I fully agree. We can't say "Matthew says that Herod had infants killed" in a manner that implies that he actually did have them killed; we can say it and follow it up by citing scholars on the attendibility of what Matthew says (in this case the prevailing judgement is negative). This I have said above. What I disagree with is the claim that no citation of a book of the Bible is ever allowed. If Leadwind would only introduce some distinctions into his claims, we might find that we both agree. Defteri (talk) 17:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

deleted length of ministry

Someone asked for an explanation of why I deleted the length-of-ministry section. It's because the whole section had not a single scholarly source for how long Jesus' ministry was. Primary sources (e.g. religious scripture) without scholarly context is not suitable here. Can we find a historical scholar who suggests how long his ministry was? If not, we don't have anything to say. Please don't replace this paragraph, which is original research. Leadwind (talk) 15:55, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I would characterize that paragraph as poorly sourced rather than original research. I won't restore it on my own without getting a reference for it, my funk's five gospels is in storage. But the topic deserves attention in its own section. I would prefer restoring this with a tag that it needs better references rather than deleting it entirely. I'd like to hear some other opinions.Kjaer (talk) 16:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

The topic of Jesus on WP is burdened by massive amounts of primary-source material from the Gospels, so I think outright deletion is fine, especially on this page. I seem to recall the opinion that Jesus' ministry probably lasted more than a single year, but I don't know how I'd find that reference among my books. Leadwind (talk) 16:23, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest discriminating between actual topics of historical interest, such as the length of Jesus' ministry (is in five gospels or Vermes, but like I said my copies in storage, is mentioned in A N Wilson, but is poor source) and other matters that are just quotes of gospels. I would rather questionable topics be tagged and discussed first, one at a time, rather than dleted outright. Many topics may be of interest but may not have yet been sourced. Just deleting them rather than calling for better documentation is too strict. (Most of wikipedia would vanish instantly.) One of the nice things about WP is INCREMENTAL improvement. If something needs improvement it is better that it remain with its flaws pointed out as a basis for future improvement, rather than it be removed as if immediate perfection were our goal. Kjaer (talk) 16:48, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree that heavy-handing deleting on the basis of - well, whatever basis Leadwind thinks he has - is unhelpful. Defteri (talk) 09:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm a reasonable guy. I restored the section and added a reference tag to it. I'll be back to delete it some day if no one can find references for it. Interested partied can read wp:v if they want a clearer idea of what this conflict is about. Leadwind (talk) 16:06, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey, someone added a citation. Thanks. There's not a lot of information here, so I'm going to trim the writing down. Leadwind (talk) 15:52, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

External Links

I recently deleted an External Link as anhistorical, suggesting that it opens up the page to POV additions. In a messave to my talk page RBreen suggested that the extant links are POV. I tend to agree that the NTWright and William Lane Craig links, if not POV, amount to undue weight. Also, the Apollos website requires a premium membership to access almost all articles. It amounts to free advertising, and I am removing it now. I would welcome comment on all the external links. Kjaer (talk) 23:05, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy to have religiously motivated, anti-historical-Jesus links on this page, if they're labeled as such. Do they really belong here? I don't know, but I'd rather err on the side of adding information. We could also do links to prominent historical opponents of historical Jesus: Chesterton, Lewis, the current Pope. Technically, these links should be on the Quest for Historical Jesus page because they are about the controversy that HJ has caused. But the links can be here, too, on the main HJ page. And we could treat these guys as prominent opponents and put them in the text. But I don't know the policy on this one. Can anyone cite a policy or guideline here? Leadwind (talk) 16:06, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any objections to religiously motivated or otherwise partisan sites as such; the question is, are the links useful and of a sufficient scholarly quality? I don't oppose the N T Wright link, for example, he's a fine and notable scholar who represents a fairly traditional view. Craig however is basically an apologist, not a NT Scholar, and the same is true of most of the Apollos links. I believe the criterion should be - does this add useful, high quality information that people can follow up to find out more about the subject? --Rbreen (talk) 16:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

We should probably distinguish Christian experts on historical Jesus (e.g., Crossan, Borg) and Christian experts in opposing historical Jesus (e.g., Craig). Crossan and Borg champion the historical Jesus within the Christian community, while Craig seems more like an opponent of historical Jesus scholarship, like Chesterton and Lewis. Where does N T Wright fall? I think with Crossan and Borg. Leadwind (talk) 16:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

After EastTN restored the Apollos Link I redirected it to the free articles only. I did not have enough patience to read them at length, and doubt they are particularly valuable, but unless others object will be happy to leave them in the spirit of inclusion. While I think it might be helpful to segregate apologists and more objective scholars, I don't see how this can be done without being OR or POV on the editor's part. Perhaps a criterion of citation would be useful? Is Craig cited as much as Wright, for example? At this point, it's not like we're drowning in advertisements for POV websites. But I think RBreen's original objection was valid, and we should continue the discussion. Kjaer (talk) 16:43, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

My criterion would be around the academic position held and articles published in relevant journals; Craig is a professor of Philosophy and I do not see him cited in any of the scholarly works on N T history. There are certainly other and better scholarly representatives of the various views of the historical Jesus out there. Anyone willing to find and link to them? --Rbreen (talk) 20:11, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Would there be any objection to replacing the Apollos link with one to the New Testament Gateway's Historical Jesus page? This is academically edited and lacks the exclusive "historical reliability" focus of Apollos. N. T. Wright is an important scholar and I can't see a reason for ruling out a link to his site. However, if we're only linking to two scholars, the bar for inclusion needs to be high – adding another link or two might reduce the "undue weight" given to individuals. (Paula Fredriksen's site is one possibility.) EALacey (talk) 20:29, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

More is better. James Tabor has an impressive site on (his take on) historical Jesus. Leadwind (talk) 20:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, following the more is better philosophy, I would prefer to retain the Apollos link, so long as it goes ditrectly to the free articles. The only reason I would see to remove the link would be if the articles are objectionable on scholarly grounds. I will restore that link in a while if no one has a reason for me not to. Here it is:

• Links to external articles on Historical Reliability at Apollos.ws

Please comment. Kjaer (talk) 23:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I restored apollos. Leadwind (talk) 04:08, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Recent Revisions

Leadwind, I fail to see the reason for your drastic revisions such as: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Historical_Jesus&diff=prev&oldid=249124722 You chracterize the revision as " delete material that is about scripture instead of about HJ, add HJ references)" but you delete referenced historical conclusions:

Both Mark and Matthew describe Jesus as having "brothers", who are named as James (Jacob), Joses (or Joseph), Jude (Judas), and Simon. In the Hebrew Bible, the word "brother" (אח) is often used to mean "kinsman" or "cousin".(For example in Leviticus the word אחיכם is rendered as "cousins" in some translations (Leviticus 10:4).) However, some historians maintain that these biblical passages suggest Jesus had actual brothers. Mark also mentions his sisters (Mark 6:3), but here the term "sisters" might refer to other female relatives. (Painter, John. Just James: the Brother of Jesus in History and Tradition.. University of South Carolina Press, 2004. pp. 2, 12, 156) Many of the gnostic gospels, including the Protevangelium of James, claim these were children of Joseph from an earlier marriage, making them the stepbrothers and stepsisters (or half-brothers and half-sisters) of Jesus.(Hartin, Patrick J. James of Jerusalem: Heir to Jesus of Nazareth. Liturgical Press, 2004. p. 25)

I fail to see how this is inappropriate, or how your bare-bones substitution is an improvement. Maybe you couldf add your referenced material and flag what you want removed? There should be some time between all these many edits you are making for people to evaluate them. Kjaer (talk) 03:52, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

This is all gospel commentary. None of it pertains to historical issues. There's no historical information in the deleted material. Why is there an issue as to whether Jesus had brothers, step-brothers, sisters, or other female relatives? What historian is treating this as a live issue? The gnostic gospels are irrelevant to HJ. Painter's citation is intriguing. Does Painter have any reason to suspect Jesus wouldn't have sisters?

I'll take a break from editing now. Leadwind (talk) 04:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Leadwind, please explain why you're moving the verses showing the basis for a widely held scholarly view from the Eschatology section into footnotes. I'm restoring those verses into the main text pending your explanation and a discussion. Hellenic9 (talk) 06:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I moved reference to primary sources into footnotes because they're largely beside the point. We have solid, scholarly references about Jesus being apocalyptic. This is an encyclopedia article, not an essay designed to prove a point. Furthermore, all these Bible quotes are unreferenced. We shouldn't use primary sources to advance a point of view without scholarly references. Leadwind (talk) 00:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't quite grasp your position. Can you explan your rationale more clearly? Take this section of another Wikipedia article to illustrate: Substitutionary_atonement#Key_Bible_texts. This section provides a list of verses to illustrate some of the textual basis for the Christian doctrine of substitutionary atonement. How is this different from pointing out some verses that are the basis for a scholarly interpretation of Jesus's Eschatology? Would you delete this section of the Substitutionary Atonement article as well? Would you be satisfied if someone provided references to places where these verses pertaining to Jesus's eschatology are cited by Historical Jesus scholars like Ehrman to advance the thesis in question? Hellenic9 (talk) 02:48, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Hellenic9, if you look at professional encyclopedias, you don't see sections that quote scripture this way, and WP shouldn't either. The section on substitutionary atonement that you offer as an example is low-grade writing. It should have expert opinion summarizing what these verses say. Furthermore, we don't really need Bible quotes because a hyperlinked verse notation can do the job for those who want the verbatim text. Bible verses are popular on religious articles because editors have easy access to them, but the primary-source policy is that editors can't use primary sources to make a secondary point. In the case of the apocalypse/no-apocalypse debate, we have reliable sources on either side that can carry the weight of the debate. On WP pages, Bible verses crop up where editors try to bolster one side or another. See contentious articles like Nontrinitarianism for egregioius examples. But advancing opinions is not what we're here to do. I have a personal opinion on the apocalypse/no-apocalypse debate, but it's worthless. If the big shots can't agree, of what value is my opinion? Let's cite the experts, show the reader that the experts disagree, and leave it at that. I tried relegating these verses to a footnote and you reverted me, so now I've gone and added verses for the other side. The subsection is now more balanced, but is is better? No. Both the pro- and anti-apocalypse verses belong in footnotes or as hyperlinks, not as main text. Leadwind (talk) 18:19, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Leadwind, OK you've convinced me. Go ahead with restoring your original edit, and thank you for taking the time to explain your position. Thanks for your patience. Hellenic9 (talk) 04:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Hellenic. Thanks for being open-minded. I try to show extra patience, so I'm glad you appreciate it. Please see my comment on your talk page. Leadwind (talk) 05:03, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

miscellaneous trimming and reorg

I've done a good bit of trimming and a lot of replacing uncited or scripture-cited material with historical citations. Lots of sections were appeals to primary sources and commentary on the gospels. This page attracts commentary on the gospels because one camp wants to use historical Jesus to show that the gospels were wrong and another wants to show that historical Jesus doesn't necessarily disprove the gospels. The result has been a lot of gospel commentary that just doesn't have a place here. For example, were Jesus' brothers full brothers or half-brothers? This issue is only relevant to doctrinal questions. It's not a historical issue. Leadwind (talk) 03:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Historical Jesus

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Historical Jesus's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "ODCC self":

• From Quest for the historical Jesus: "Historical Jesus, Quest of the." Cross, F. L., ed. The Oxford dictionary of the Christian church. New York: Oxford University Press. 2005
• From Sermon on the Mount: "Sermon on the Mount." Cross, F. L., ed. The Oxford dictionary of the Christian church. New York: Oxford University Press. 2005
• From Jesus: "Matthew, Gospel acc. to St." Cross, F. L., ed. The Oxford dictionary of the Christian church. New York: Oxford University Press. 2005

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 23:57, 5 November 2008 (UTC)