Talk:Historical Jesus/Archive 8

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

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Where are the refs in recent Q source analysis for this

(1)

He preached the salvation, everlasting life, cleansing from sins, Kingdom of God, using parables with startling imagery and was said to be a teacher and a faith healer who raised the dead.

A good many scholars who study the historical Christ would disagree with parts or all of this.Nishidani (talk) 19:35, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

What scholars? I believe we are citing Crossan for that sentence, so we should check what Crossan is saying. I'm almost positive, from the books in my possession, the scholars would agree the HJ used parables, "kingdom of God" imagery, and was believed to be a miracle worker and teacher. I'm not sure "faith healer who raised the dead" is the best phrasing for that. I'm not sure about the first 3 points of the sentence though. Nothing sounds particularly incredulous to me, so I'm curious who the good many scholars who disagree are. And the phrase "historical Christ" is quite odd. In that "Christ" is a religious affirming title, and scholars often make a distinction between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith (often pointing to post-Easter Jesus as "Christ"). -Andrew c ^[talk] 21:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

That reads like a believer's summary of late doctrines retrojected back into the 'historical Christ' (the Christ or Jesus scholarship has disinterred from the incrustations of sectarian theology and late recensions of Palestinian traditions) If Crossan is behind it, we need exact page sourcing. He is one scholar. I have in mind those who are working on the Q-earliest strata sayings. One should not generalize a position of one authority, as the position of all, unless that source explicitly introduces his basic profile writing that this is the accepted mainstream view.Nishidani (talk) 21:30, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

As for a source, I have a varied reading, but a quick check in Geza Vermes yields this as a summary of 'Jesus the Jew' as he understands it: ('Here in a nutshells is the religion of Jesus the Jew')

'A powerful healer of the physically and mentally sick, a friend of sinners, he was a magnetic preacher of what lies at the heart of the Law, unconditionally given over to the rescue, not of communities, but of persons in need. He was always aware of the approach of the end of time and, at the moment known only to God, of the imminent intervention of our Father who is in heaven, who is to be revealed soon, the awesome and just Judge, Lord of all the worlds'. (The Religion of Jesus the Jew 1993 pp.206-7

This as you can see at a glance, is both very recent, and totally different from the remark apparently taken from Crossan. So Crossan cannot be used for a generalization about the consensual result of modern scholarship.Nishidani (talk) 21:50, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

(2)

Over the past 150 years, historians and biblical scholars have made particular progress[6] in the quest for the Historical Jesus; from Albert Schweitzer’s[7] work in 1906, to the controversial Jesus Seminar,[8] much has been learned.

In my view this is POV, as is shown by the two key phrases particular progress and much has been learned. A neutral historical survey would show that much has been unlearnt (regarding the traditional bimillenial biographies of Jesus) by the critical instauration undertaken in the wake of David Strauss's work. 'Progress' here suggests greater details about the 'historical Jesus' have come to light, whereas for a century or more much of the writers cited (from Strauss to Schweitzer onwards were paring down to an extremely small core what they thought could be known). 'Much has been learnt' insinuates that our knowledge of Christ has grown substantially, which is again a mischaracterization of what has occurred.Nishidani (talk) 20:42, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

OK. How would you rephrase it. "Countless journal articles, monographs, and scholarly books have been published" something like that. Something to illustrate that a lot of work and publications and scholars have focused on a diverse number of issues over the last century+, but without making an unsourced value statement regarding "progress". -Andrew c ^[talk] 21:07, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

If what was meant was this

Over the past 150 years, an impressively voluminous scholarly literature, dedicated to improving the sophistication of our methods of reading sources on Jesus, and fitting them into the social, political and cultural contexts of Ist century Palestine has developed. Considerable progress has been made in sifting out early and late traditions embedded in the various Gospel narratives themselves.

then I would agree. Only I wrote it off the top of my head, and have no sources for it. The progress has been in method, what we have learnt is to be wary of uncritical assumptions, negative lessons, mostly. I haven't touched these passages in my copyediting, and hope other editors can simply improve them.Nishidani (talk) 21:23, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

In my view this is POV, as is shown by the two key phrases particular progress and much has been learned.

A quick heads up in case anyone missed it in the page history: I deleted these words the other day because 1) I thought they were peacock words and 2) they were not supported by the source given for it, which addressed the issue of whether HJ scholars should talk about Jesus as a prophet and made a parenthetical remark about related progress in recent years. The rest of the summary has since been merged with the Quest section. Martijn Meijering (talk) 23:15, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

evidence

I must object to the usage of the words 'evidence' 12 times in the article. the word 'evidence' is ambiguous, as most people expect evidence to be factual, which the bible has been proven time and time again not to be. At best the bible is a distortion of actual historical events. Furthermore, a clause should be included in the thesis specifically stating that this so-called 'evidence' is not actually based on historical fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.250.81.218 (talk) 03:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

'Son of God'

I have an issue with Historical_Jesus#Theories_of_the_historical_Jesus. Can Jesus being the 'son of god' really be said to be a "theory of the historical Jesus"? Is this a question history can address? If so, given that almost everyone who has an opinion on the matter (including, presumably, most scholars) would agree with the 'son of god' option over the sage/apocalyptic preacher options, should 'son of god' be relegated to a minor place on the list with only two scholars agreeing with it? I can assure you many more scholars hold this view, and many probably hold multiple views. I tried to take the 'son of god' option out, mention its uniqueness in the intro to the section, and focus the section on the more historical options but my change was reverted.RomanHistorian (talk) 16:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a category that is used here: http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html as "Jesus the Savior". I think it is important distinction to make clear there is a class of scholar who basically accepts the traditions at face value, and I don't think this is a distinction that Wikipedia editors have created. But I'm not entirely opposed to your proposal to relegate such a view to a brief mention in the intro, and not give it it's own section. My revert was mostly concerning the "lengthy list" you added.-Andrew c ^[talk] 17:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I changed it back, without most of that list. It thought it would be a good idea to retain at least a couple citations. How about that?RomanHistorian (talk) 18:34, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I strongly object to The list of modern scholars maintaining the historical and contextual validity of the gospel accounts is lengthy, and represents scholars from a wide range of theological opinion. I'm sorry if that wasn't clear. This is a summary or synthesis of data that is full of weaselly innuendo, but really isn't saying much. From a quick read, it seems to be saying "There are a lot (perhaps a majority? who knows) of modern scholars, whether liberal, conservative, moderate, Jewish, Muslim, agnostic who think the gospels are accurate and valid historical accounts". This idea is unsourced (or rather, it can be sourced to the opinion of one Wikipedia editor based on a synthesis of sources). This is also important to me because the implication, I feel, is not in line with modern scholars who think there is a lot of unhistorical aspects to the gospels, and that only critical analysis can help figure out what probably is and isn't historical. Citing JP Holding in an article on the Historical Jesus raises huge red flags with me also (along the lines of Lee Strobel). I am glad to see sources from the 1950s no longer being called "modern" to imply contemporary with today, but references 142 and 143 seem to deal with authorship, not historical accuracy, no?

I'm re-reading your comment above, and I am going to now disagree with your proposal to remove the "son of god" section. It appears you believe that almost everyone who has an opinion on the matter (including, presumably, most scholars) would agree with the 'son of god' option over the sage/apocalyptic preacher options, or that biblical literalism/inerrancy is the predominate view among historical Jesus scholars, which simply is nonsense. The idea that all the claims in the gospels can be verified using historical methods is NOT accepted by most scholars, even good Christian scholars like John Meier. I'd propose a complete revert while we discuss this further.-Andrew c ^[talk] 19:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I deleted that line. I didn't realize that was part of your objection. As for your other objections, I have never claimed that all the claims in the gospels can be verified. I personally think there are at least a couple good candidates for outright historical mistakes in them. My point above is that, by definition, if someone is a Christian they hold Jesus to be the Son of God and the gospels to be, even if not perfectly historical, at least somewhat accurate. Scholars who would not agree that Jesus is the Son of God would, by definition, be atheist/agnostic/Jewish/Muslim ect. By this, if you wanted to figure out the "majority" view, you would have to find out if most biblical scholars are Christians or not. My guess is that not many biblical scholars are Jews (though maybe some of the OT), Muslims, Hindus, ect. My guess is that the large majority are Christians. Focusing on the 'Son of God' piece, however, would defeat the entire person of the sub-section.RomanHistorian (talk) 19:38, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I see what you are saying. I think perhaps the subtitle is the issue. I think the class of scholars grouped together do represent a similar trend in HJ research. Perhaps calling them the "Son of God" group may be misleading, as you say, it implies the other Christian scholars aren't personally Christian, such as Meier who personally believes the Son of God part, but doesn't come to that judgment using historical methods (and let's not get into whether Jesus actually knew and/or claimed to be the Son of God, even if he actually was, but didn't realize it or something along those lines). The other title suggested, "Jesus the Savior" would seem to suffer the same problems. Would you be OK with keeping the structure similar, if we changed the title of the classification to something more clear? Any suggestions? -Andrew c ^[talk] 20:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes and I agree with what you said. I am good with what you mentioned. There are the strictly historical (non-theological) views, such as him being a sage, and then there are the theological views (Son of God). We just need to make sure that this section makes this clear. As I read it before, it seemed to suggest that, if he was a sage or preacher, then scholars would say he couldn't be the Son of God. Or if he was the Son of God he couldn't have been a sage or preacher. Obviously, HJ studies don't delve into the theological question.RomanHistorian (talk) 20:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

lead should summarize the topic, see WP:LEAD.

On controversial pages such as this one, minority-view editors love to push good, solid information out of a lead and fill up the lead with boring, abstract definition. That way a reader who just reads the lead doesn't get to learn what the experts say about historical Jesus. Now I don't blame certain editors for hating the whole historical Jesus project, but we know that a good lead should summarize the topic, not just define it.

So I put some information back in. Please join me in improving the lead. Leadwind (talk) 03:49, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I found a description of historical Jesus in an older version of the lead and put it back in. Leadwind (talk) 15:04, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Scratch that. I found where the lead summary had been moved to in the body of the article, and I moved it back. Leadwind (talk) 15:13, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Scholarly methods

I have a concern with the sentence in the Scholarly Methods section which reads: "The historical Jesus is not the real Jesus of history, but a modern reconstruction using the scientific methods of historical research." Perhaps we should better explain what the difference is? Should we perhaps not also define what is the "real Jesus of history", or otherwise be more clear that the "real Jesus" is unknown and undocumented, other than in the NT, the reliability of which is disputed? Wdford (talk) 09:55, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Can we see the quote from Meier? This sentence sounds like wishful thinking on the behalf of those who don't like the historical Jesus project. I've never read a historical Jesus scholar who makes a distinction between the historical Jesus and the real Jesus of history. Does the Julius Caesar article say that the historical Caesar is not the real Caesar of history? Leadwind (talk) 15:03, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

The phrase "historical Jesus" tends to refer to reconstructions, of which there are many. There are some who accept the historicity of Jesus, but are skeptical of all the historical Jesuses. Pagels and Arnal, for instance. See, for example, the sources in Historicity of Jesus for this: "As a result, some critics argue that Biblical scholars have created the historical Jesus in their own image.[13][14]" Noloop (talk) 15:28, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, can we see the quote from Meier now? Leadwind (talk) 02:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

POV tag

I removed it. There is no discussion about it here. The article does give too much credit to detractors, but that's to be expected on an article whose topic is so deeply distrusted and roundly reviled by so many. Leadwind (talk) 15:14, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

There's no discussion, merely because it has been discussed to death and nobody has anything to add. That's doesn't mean the dispute is resolved. Noloop (talk) 15:23, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I suppose it's easier just to live with the POV tag than to fight about it. Leadwind (talk) 15:04, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

It's doubtful everyone will be happy, given the subject. We can't just leave the tag here, there need to be stated objectives. 24.180.173.157 (talk) 20:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

re-org

I've been putting similar material in the "reconstruction" section together so that the article isn't just a series of top-level heads. My next task: delete the feckless "Reconstruction" header and increase the subhead value of each subhead under it. Leadwind (talk) 15:06, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Unsound historical practice

Would it be possible to have a little more context for, or examples of, Prof Akenson's criticisms, alluded to in this addition? Thanks. --Old Moonraker (talk) 11:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Sure, the ref contains a direct gbooks link, and much of the relevant material can be viewed immediately through that link.-Civilizededucation^talk 15:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC) Never mind, here's the link [1]-Civilizededucation^talk 15:34, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Did I misunderstand your request? Are you saying that some more context is needed in the article?-Civilizededucation^talk 15:48, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes: more context in the article. I could import something from the link you suggest, but if you do it yourself we can be sure of reflecting your intention properly. --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, we should be concerned with proper reflection of the sources only. So, I suggest that you may take a shot at it yourself too. I too might add something if I think it is relevant.-Civilizededucation^talk 01:02, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, I have taken a jab myself. What do you think?-Civilizededucation^talk 06:05, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks: just what it needed.--Old Moonraker (talk) 06:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Good work. I'd also suggest this as a source: Burton Mack, The Chrisitan Myth, Continuum, New York, 2003, pp 34-40. Should be findable on Google books. --FormerIP (talk) 16:42, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

This link contains a quotation of some more biting commentary by Akenson. http://lorenrosson.blogspot.com/2005/11/q-skeptical-brits-credulous-americans.html Martijn Meijering (talk) 00:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

More good stuff from Hoffmann: http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/hoffman.shtml Martijn Meijering (talk) 10:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. Which point, do you think, could be needed for the article? I have read several articles from Hoffman, and others, from this site. But could not locate any substantial new point to add from there. Secondly, I appreciate indicating the expertise of the scholars mentioned. However, would it be better to stick to identifying them as "Professor of X$", to be consistent, if not anything else. There seems to be no substantial reason to identify Meier as an "NT scholar" while Allison being a "theologian"? For Albrektson, we could do with the current description since that is how he describes his field in the source used.-Civilizededucation^talk 16:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

off-topic material

I deleted this material:

More recently the short-lived [[Journal of Higher Criticism]] argued that modern biblical scholarship was "a toothless tiger or worse yet, covert apologetics wearing the Esau-mask of criticism" and advocated a return to the "golden era of bold hypotheses and daring reconstructions associated with the great names of [[Ferdinand Christian Baur|Baur]] and Tübingen".<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://depts.drew.edu/jhc/pricejhc.html|title=Introducing the Journal of Higher Criticism}}</ref><ref>{{cite web | url = http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/know357930.shtml | title = Knowledge and Power in Biblical Scholarship | accessdate = 2011-01-06 | last = Hendel | first = Ronald | date = June 2010 | quote = ...The problem at hand is how to preserve the critical study of the Bible in a professional society that has lowered its standards to the degree that apologetics passes as scholarship...}}</ref>

It's about biblical scholarship and not about historical Jesus. Editor M restored it. It is incumbent on the editor who restores questioned material to demonstrate that it's notable, verifiable, and relevant. Leadwind (talk) 19:52, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

It's notable and relevant because Price is notable (assuming that the Jesus seminar is) and the section is on criticism. It's verifiable because of the references that were given. There are only a small number of scholars who are critical of the HJ project, and most of them come from other fields than religious studies. Price is a scholar of religion. The JHC concerned itself with the dating of NT texts, the possibility of interpolations etc as well as historical accuracy. That seems relevant. Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Similarly, in the case of Nicholas Perrin I wanted to add a perspective from the other side and judging by his WP page he is notable enough to mention his view. Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The material you restored isn't about historical Jesus, so why is it on this page? Leadwind (talk) 23:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I added both sections to counter the perceived apologetic bias of the page. We've had discussion on it too. Martijn Meijering (talk) 23:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean it isn't about historical Jesus? --FormerIP (talk) 23:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I mean it's about Bible scholarship, which isn't the same as historical Jesus research. It doesn't even mention Jesus. Leadwind (talk) 23:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

HJ research is (or can be) part of NT scholarship. As I understand it HJ research and Christian origins were at the heart of the work of Baur and the Tübingen school as well as the Dutch Radicals, whose traditions JHC wanted to continue. Martijn Meijering (talk) 23:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Please don't tell me you want to keep this material because you think Jesus never existed. Anyway, if the material doesn't mention Jesus, it doesn't belong on this page. Leadwind (talk) 00:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I fail to see what my personal convictions about the existence of Jesus have to do with it. FYI I do believe Jesus existed and that he was the basis for the NT stories about him. The criticism addresses the historical soundness of HJ criticism (and yes, biblical scholarship in general). I say that is on topic. Martijn Meijering (talk) 10:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

You say it's on topic even though it never mentions Jesus or historical Jesus scholars. Anyone else want to chime in here? Leadwind (talk) 14:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Since the material doesn't refer to historical Jesus, I've removed it again. The burden of proof lies on the editor who wants to restore questioned material, so MM, please don't restore it unless you can get other editors to agree that it's germane. Leadwind (talk) 15:01, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

While I don't accept that the burden is on me to prove it should remain (remember, it had been part of the article for a while before you deleted it), I'll hold off for now. Have a look at the sections "The Higher Critical Review" and "Index of JHC Articles" at http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/. I think you'll agree this is closely related to HJ research. The mere fact that it doesn't single out HJ research from its criticism of biblical criticism in general doesn't mean it exempts it either. Also, I accepted your compromise proposal to move most of the text to a footnote. Unless other editors convince me otherwise I'm inclined to restore the text in the coming days. Martijn Meijering (talk) 15:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Please see WP:BURDEN, where it says "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." Leadwind (talk) 14:48, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see why this should be so much of an issue. The material does appear to have a bearing on the issues under discussion. If you don't like it much, you should try to balance it, rather than remove it.-Civilizededucation^talk 15:28, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

I see I was mistaken about the footnote, that was the Perrin quote. It might be best to summarise and put the JHC quote in a footnote too. Condensing the whole paragraph might be a good idea. Martijn Meijering (talk) 00:59, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Let's have you take a dig at it. And I am trying to find refs for things attributed to Schweitzer and Bultmann. There does not seem to be much need to reference it though.-Civilizededucation^talk 15:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not that I don't like what it says. It's that it doesn't mention historical Jesus. But I'll concede defeat on this one. Can I ask at least that we trim this coverage? Encyclopedias rarely quote people verbatim unless the quote is really monumental or central. This one isn't. If we include this material, can we at least cover it more modestly, with the weight it deserves? Leadwind (talk) 17:13, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

You also restored this material, which pertains to biblical scholars, not to scholars of the historical Jesus.

[[Nicholas Perrin]] has argued that since most biblical scholars are Christians, a certain bias is inevitable, but he does not see this as a major problem: "My point in the book is to disabuse readers of the notion that Jesus scholars are scientists wearing white lab coats. Like everyone else, they want certain things to be true about Jesus and equally want certain others not to be true of him. I’m included in this (I really hope that I am right in believing that Jesus is both Messiah and Lord.) Will this shape my scholarship? Absolutely. How can it not? We should be okay with that."<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://trevinwax.com/2009/04/01/jesus-lost-in-transmission-an-interview-with-nick-perrin|title=Jesus is His Own Ideology: An Interview with Nick Perrin}}</ref>

The quote was made in an interview on his book titled "Lost In Transmission?: What We Can Know About the Words of Jesus". Martijn Meijering (talk) 23:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, but what makes us think he's notable? And notable enough for a quote? As far as I'm concerned, every paragraph we include about second-rate scholarship is a burden on the article and a disservice to the reader. I don't see why we shouldn't cut it. How about this compromise: Put the verbatim quote in the footnote. My main problem is just the amount of space devoted to this guy I've never heard of. Deal? Leadwind (talk) 00:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to putting stuff in footnotes, but not because it is supposedly second-rate. If it is bad, we don't need it in the article at all. What makes you say it is second rate? The mere fact that you've never heard of it? Martijn Meijering (talk) 10:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Most authors are second-rate compared to the top scholars in their field. If I've never heard of Nick Perrin, it must be because he's not a first-rate source. Do you have evidence that he is? I can find tertiary sources that name Crossan, Sanders, and Vermes as first-rate sources. Does anyone name Norris a first-rate source? Leadwind (talk) 15:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

That stuff could usefully go in the Jesus myth theory article. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

How is this more applicable to the Jesus Myth page? The guy was being interviewed about his HJ book. Martijn Meijering (talk) 10:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, wasn't implying it was more or less applicable, just that it was applicable there, as they are always looking for good mainstream sources that express an opinion on the orthodox view of bible scholars. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

criterion of embarrassment

"Jesus' betrayal by Judas, one of his own disciples, is multiply attested in early documents, by the criterion of embarrassment it is unlikely that early Christians would fabricate such a story and as such is assumed to be historically accurate."

I've seen criticism of the principle that argues that embarrassing material about people who were later universally revered as saints sometimes goes back to factional polemic in earlier periods. I've seen the depiction of the disciples in Mark and Peter's denial of Jesus explained as such. I believe Eisenman argues that the story of the betrayal by Judas goes back to older attempts to diminish the authority of the relatives of Jesus who for a while had great influence in the Jerusalem church. Under this hypothesis the character of Judas the disciple was invented to eliminate the authority of Judas the brother of Jesus, whose name could not be erased completely. By turning him into an evil character and removing him from the role as a brother of Jesus most of the desired result could still be achieved. Similar speculation has been offered (by Baur among others) about earlier criticism of Paul being masked as criticism of Simon Magus. I'll try to find a RS (Eisenman is not the only person to offer such explanations). Martijn Meijering (talk) 22:44, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi there. The criterion of embarrassment is standard historical criteria for the gospel tradition and like all historical criteria, it is not perfect. That said, Robert Eisenman's theories regarding Jesus and the early Christian movement are fringe. --Ari (talk) 02:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

The criterion is certainly well known, but it is not without its critics. And while Eisenman's views about Judas are not widely shared (at least not among Christian scholars), I believe the comments about the "embarrassing" depiction of the disciples in Mark are well-known too. Martijn Meijering (talk) 02:21, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I've got my doubts, too, about the historicity of Judas, but my sources all take him as historical, so I have no choice but to support our reporting Judas as historical. Leadwind (talk) 14:55, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it’s fair to accept that Judas was an historical person. However, we need to be more cautious in accepting exactly what the scriptures say about him. The scriptures are fairly consistent about the betrayal, but they also contain serious contradictions. For example Matthew 27 says Judas gave back the blood money to the priests, and the priests used the money to buy a field for use as a paupers' graveyard (in accordance with prophesy, as with most things in Matthew). However Acts 1 says Judas used the money to buy himself a field. Matthew 27 says Judas died by hanging himself, while Acts says he fell in his own field and burst open and died. These two versions are not reconcilable, and thus at least one of them is wrong. Perhaps both are wrong. Since the scriptures are clearly unreliable on the subject of Judas, how much can we know about him with confidence? Wdford (talk) 18:29, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, unless we find a reliable source that discusses this, we can't mention it because that would be OR. But if we look for it, we may find a source. I wasn't suggesting we should state Judas did not exist or remove the statement he did. My concern was more that the issue is stated with more confidence than seems warranted by the evidence offered. Martijn Meijering (talk) 19:03, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

This is an apparently reliable source: Judas and the choice of Matthias: a study on context and concern of Acts 1:15-26, Arie Zwiep, http://books.google.nl/books?id=yUmI4US6rOUC&pg=PA7&lpg=PA7&dq=historicity+judas+zwiep&source=bl&ots=NKRwf5qCXi&sig=R-J8f6oFGC4vJojDgRoYNSctKYw&hl=nl&ei=v3g3TbrNBMaeOrS1kY8E&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBoQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false. "Whereas the historical existence of Judas Iscariot has been denied occasionally by scholars of earlier generations, most contemporary scholars take the historical existence of Judas for granted". He refers to review articles by Luethi and Haugg, discussion by Schweitzer and names Spong as a modern exception to the general scholarly consensus. Crossan is quoted for the majority view. The issue of the portrayal of Judas and its causal relationship to anti-Semitism through the ages is apparently discussed by a number of authors and seems worth mentioning. For Eisenman too (not mentioned by Zwiep), anti-Semitism is a major issue in his book on Judas and since he approaches the issue from a (secular?) Jewish perspective that might give us another reason for mentioning his views separately. Always taking care not to confuse majority and minority views of course. Martijn Meijering (talk) 00:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The article on Judas Iscariot also contains some material and references we might use. Martijn Meijering (talk) 00:05, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Duplication?

Material on this page seems to be duplicated in part by two new pages by same editor Oral tradition and the historical Jesus and Jesus outside the New Testament, (both articles incidentally promoting the "Hebrew Gospel" theory of James R. Edwards). In ictu oculi (talk) 00:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Erasing original research

The Bible is a primary source. Theological/historical points made according to Sola Scriptura are original research, therefore unworthy of an encyclopedia. Find a reliable source if you want to add something to the article. E.g. the majority opinion is that Paul did not write the pastoral letters, so one cannot say that according to Paul it so and so because he says it in the pastoral letters. Such claims are bad scholarship. Wikipedia renders the opinion of the scholars, as made known in print-published, peer-reviewed scientific journals. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:45, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

"Find reliable source if you want to add something...". How is the Bible a reliable source? According to this logic, the Ilias of Homer is reliable, and mermaids and cyclopes are living in the Mediterranean. Shouldn't the article make very clear that there's barely any mentioning of Jesus in any real historic texts, and therefore Jesus is merely a person who is beliefed to exist by christians, only mentioned by christians and no other writer of that time. Believing that the new testament, contains actual information about Jesus, who's existence has to be proven yet, and therefore the validity of the bible, is a typical case of circular reasoning, and a logical fallacy. Like Paul apparently said: "The bible is true, because it is written in the bible, that it is so." (Jsswssclst) 17:45, 03 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JesuswasaSocialist (talk • contribs)

I think this is elementary knowledge for editing Wikipedia: the Bible is a primary source, in an encyclopedia we don't use primary sources (except for abstracts or quotations), we use secondary sources instead, we do not pass our own judgment/interpretation in respect to primary sources, but we let secondary sources judge them, since secondary sources are written by scholars/theologians/journalists/critics/etc. See WP:OR for details. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:44, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Bart Ehrman

The article relies heavily on Ehrman's works, but inline comments (such as "Ehrman's apocalyptic vision" or "Bart Ehrman's personal opinion", etc.) seem to detract from his reliability. Either he's a WP:RS or he isn't. Either cite him without the dismissive comments, or find someone else. --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:55, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

If only it were that simple! There is hardly a statement by an RS on the subject that is not contradicted by other RSs. Personally I think it is Crossan who is currently over-used here. Johnbod (talk) 02:59, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The compromise is: state his opinions as fact when he indicates that he represents mainstream (consensual) views, and mention them as his own ideas when he puts them forth in his own name. In general, in his popularized science books he does not publish original views (except his idea of what Judas has snitched about Jesus, which he admits it is his own idea), since popularized science books are not the sort of books wherein one would publish original research. As a scholar, Ehrman would use peer-reviewed publications for making known his original research. In a foreword to one of his books he claims that he does not state new, controversial ideas, but he talks about what is generally accepted by his peers. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Removed undocumented, original research regarding the primary source of the NT

I removed undocumented, original research regarding the primary source of the NT.

The statement "For example, Mark, the first of the canonical gospels, is the primary source for information about Jesus" is in debate. And certain ancient writers state that it was Matthew that was the first.

One or more writers state that Mark was a compilation of things that Peter taught, collected as Mark followed him around, and finally organized somewhat.

The idea that Mark was "the primary source" is due not only to speculation regarding its early appearance, but to its shortness. The assumption that no one would make a later but shorter account is simply an assumption. And that assumption is not terribly logical in the face of the early writers' witness that it was a compilation of Peter's sayings (Peter being an eyewitness to many events), or that Matthew came first.

There are also events in Mark that other, longer gospel accounts do not include. If Mark were the primary source, and fully trusted, and one were to make a much longer account (which all the others are), we might think that all or practically all of Mark would be included, even verbatim; but this is not really the case.

That Mark is thought by many to have been A primary source for some of the other accounts is true (though not all agree). (And this would be a salient point to the article, one which would need documenting.)

But to state such as if it were a known fact is not appropriate to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Misty MH (talk • contribs) 04:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Misty MH (talk) 22:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Ehrman, Bart D. (2011). "7. False Attributions, Fabrications, and Falsifications: Phenomena Related to Forgery. Fabrications Within the Canon. Plagiarism.". Forged: Writing in the Name of God—Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are (First Edition. EPub Edition. ed.). New York: HarperCollins e-books. p. 275. ISBN 978-0-06-207863-6. In fact, it is everywhere recognized today that one of them was a source for the other two. Almost all scholars think that Mark was used by Matthew and Luke. Some scholars continue to hold to the view that Matthew was the source for Mark and Luke, but that is very much a minority position. In either case, we have one document that is taken over by others, frequently verbatim. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); |format= requires |url= (help); External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Therefore, the scientific consensus is: Mark was the first gospel. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Essay article recreated

here ..this was removed by the author after discussion with other editors about its "stand alone" and duplication and WP:POVFORK problems. Now it's back. Merge into here? In ictu oculi (talk) 21:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Dawkins?

Why is Richard Dawkins' opinion included in the article? It seems to me that his opinion doesn't have any special weight, as he is well outside his area of expertise when commenting on this subject. Carinae986 (talk) 11:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Dawkins views are relevant because he is an important figure in the New Atheism movement and as a counterweight to the apologetical bias of the article. Martijn Meijering (talk) 12:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Surely there's an atheist historian or two out there who can counterbalance the apologetic bias of the article? I realize Dawkins has a certain amount of star-power, as a sort of evangelist for atheism, but his opinions are really just beside the point. It's an article about what historians think about jesus, not about what evolutionary biologists think about jesus. Carinae986 (talk) 14:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

We wouldn't, for instance, quote Dr. Dobson on this page, just because he's important to certain people, and has expressed a view about Jesus.... right? Carinae986 (talk) 14:03, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Hardly any of the authorities quoted are actual historians, they are biblical scholars engaging in historical (or pseudo-historical) research. They like to claim the mantle of science of course, but I've seen no convincing evidence they are taken seriously by the wider scientific community. Dawkins on the other hand is an undisputed scientists and he casts doubts on some of the claims made. In any case the reception of HJ research should be on topic for this page. I wouldn't be against renaming the page to Historical Jesus research, because it would then describe a community of researchers with a common purpose and common assumptions. Martijn Meijering (talk) 14:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

hmmmm... I looked into some of the names that appear in the footnotes section, and I'm afraid you're right. I found about 1 historian to every 3 theologians. This is really too bad. I suppose Richard Dawkins has just as much a right to express an opinion about the historicity of Jesus as any divinity student. Really the ideal thing is for the discussion to be grounded with references to historians, but I don't see how that could be done without deleting 90% of these footnotes.... which seems drastic. Well, thanks for pointing that out. Question answered. Carinae986 (talk) 14:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's probably inevitable since most people who study the subject were trained at a department of theology or of religious studies and most are Christians. There still needs to be a Wikipedia page on the subject. Martijn Meijering (talk) 15:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

If I remember well, Dawkins stated he had no objections to the existence of a flesh and blood Jesus, he only attacked the Jesus-as-God view. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The God Delusion, pp. 92-93: "Ever since the nineteenth century, scholarly theologians have made an overwhelming case that the gospels are not reliable accounts of what happened in the history of the real world." Here Dawkins implies that such theologians are reliable: they can be trusted to write reliable history, although they're Christians and theologians. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Dawkins's stance (p. 97): "Although Jesus probably existed, reputable biblical scholars do not in general regard the New Testament (and obviously not the Old Testament) as a reliable record of what actually happened in history, and I shall not consider the Bible further as evidence for any kind of deity." So, he thinks that Jesus probably existed. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Well I was just pointing out that Dawkins isn't any kind of expert on this subject. He's a scientist and a popular author, with no formal training in historical research. Worse, it's well known that he has an axe to grind against religion, so it seems to me he isn't really a trustworthy guide to this subject. But as Meijeri pointed out, the page references alot of equally uninformed people on the other side, so it seems like it would be unfair to take Dawkins out while leaving all of them in. I think the page does a real disservice to its purported topic. I just don't see any way to fix it without committing to some really extensive edits, which I can't really participate in. Carinae986 (talk) 22:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Biased statements of opinion can only be presented with attribution. For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" expresses an opinion and cannot be asserted in Wikipedia as if it were a fact. It can be included as a factual statement about the opinion: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre."
— WP:NPOV

Well, he has an axe to grind against religion, so he is even more reliable when he testifies that scholarly theologians are reliable. The same applies to his view that the case that Jesus did not exist is a minority view. Kind of criterion of embarrassment applied to atheists. Surely, Dawkins is not a historian and has no scientific works on the historical Jesus. But he is notable enough in respect to the views of atheists. When speaking of religion, atheism is one of the possibilities (options), it is notable enough so it is not a violation of NPOV to include Dawkins's view as Dawkins's view, i.e. instead of Dawkins's view as a fact. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. Maybe there would be a section on "atheist perspectives" or "christian perspectives," with those sections clearly differentiated from the perspective of academic historians. I'm not really proposing any edits to the page based on Dawkins... since I'm not willing to undertake the major project that would, in my opinion, be necessary to really fix the issue I brought up earlier, I'm content to let it go. Carinae986 (talk) 00:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm an agnostic who detests Richard Dawkins' idiotic casting of oil on the flames of world strife, but I find the quote in the article acceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.73.196 (talk) 09:25, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

That's quite amusing because I am an atheist and anti-theist who thinks most agnostics just haven't bothered to follow the reasoning through one way or the other, and are more than happy to sit back and enjoy not being stoned thanks to those who have actually made the effort to stand up to religion since the Enlightenment... And yet even as a big fan of Dawkins, when I did read this article I did wonder of what relevance his view is to what should have been an article about historical certainty. I don't think this is the right place for Dawkins to be honest. It certainly does not counter balance the rest of the article which is a giant load of mumbo jumbo nonsense and should be scrapped and started again. The whole article is Christian propaganda. Gospels are not evidence. Even the Jewish and Roman texts mentioned are at best second hand accounts of the claims of Christians from a long time after Jesus supposedly lived. Even then most of these sources aren't extant original pieces. None of the evidence is reliable in relation to even the existence of Jesus and yet this article gives an account of his life? What utter garbage. No wonder Wikipedia isn't a serious encyclopaedia, and it is certainly a good thing indeed that Wikipedia isn't allowed to be used in academic papers. 86.140.218.176 (talk) 17:09, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

This obviously doesn't have anything to do with the Dawkins article, but your "review" of the historical texts involving the life of Jesus - independent of whether He was a real person or not - is laughably ignorant of the actual age of the original documents and by comparison the general shakiness of 100's of other ancient manuscripts (Herodotus Histories, Julius Caesar's Gaul, Livy's Ab Urbe Condita, etc, etc, etc) for which we only have partial manuscripts from 500 - 1000 years after they were written. To quote Wikipedia (no friend to Christians despite your obviously highly biased opinion) "Parts of the New Testament have been preserved in more manuscripts than any other ancient work, having over 5,800 complete or fragmented Greek manuscripts, 10,000 Latin manuscripts and 9,300 manuscripts in various other ancient languages including Syriac, Slavic, Gothic, Ethiopic, Coptic and Armenian." The textual veracity of the Bible as a literary document that has been largely unchanged for several millenia is beyond reproach. Keep your argument to things you know... Ckruschke (talk) 18:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

Faky Jesus

"[...]the obvious case that Jesus faked the remaining miracles." Although the context of that passage might let you believe that Jesus performed all the miracle tricks that other preachers of his time applied, it is yet a strong and courageous assumption that needs at least one proof. If we use "obvious", we owe the reader, where and why it is obvious. Please explain in more detail.
Inawe 10:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

lots of work deleted in a single edit

I have recently added a lot of new information and valuable tables with many references, all of which has been deleted by a single edit. Since I have now completed all my editing of this page, I suggest that my contributions be restored as there are too many to lose. Anyone can then delete specific sentences as required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spread knowledge not ignorance (talk • contribs) 20:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

No, that's not how it works. The process is Bold, Revert, Discuss. You made a bold edit, someone reverted it and now we have to discuss it before it can be added back, probably in modified form. It doesn't matter how much time you spent entering the new text. If anything this should be a lesson not to add too much information in one go. Martijn Meijering (talk) 22:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Spread, your edits are not gone; they're still there in the history. Take a look here and here. The full history is here. The current article represents consensus of editors frequenting this page. To add new information which is contentious, the first step is to gain consensus for the change, and then we can update the article. It would be helpful if you could explain what problems you were trying to address in the article, and how your edits serve that end. Thanks for coming to the talk page, btw! If we can talk this out a bit, we might be able to isolate some of the good parts of your contributions and integrate those in the article. Thanks. — Jess· Δ ♥ 23:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. The edits were not made all at one session. They were done over a period of time but deleted in a single edit.

Some of the problems on the page before I edited are:

1) the miracle section has only a few random comments unquoted and has no proper structure.

2) the resurrection section is in the same situation and also suffers from having an anti historical statement on a page which is supposed to be historical. One of the quotes given to support it actually contradicts it. On a historical page there is no mention of the purely historical explanation of the resurrection. No pro and cons of the different theories are given. For examples the vision theory needs two explanations one that all appearances were visions and two that it does not explain the empty tomb.

3) the divinity section lacks a proper time dimension. There is no framework of historical development nor of the variation of attitudes to the event which made Jesus divine, or remain human. This is an essential framework for the reader. As it stands the text appears to be discussing the divinity of Jesus a factual statement rather than as an analysis of a created text in an historical environment.

I have given a range of quotes to back up all my information and other interested people will be able to find more. The charts I have given are standard in courses on the historical Jesus so anyone can add more references as they please. The resurrection stuff I gave is fairly new because until recently it was such a red herring that scholars towed the line. Kersten is good until the India section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spread knowledge not ignorance (talk • contribs) 23:58, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Historical Jesus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Czarkoff (talk · contribs) 09:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Status

This section is supposed to be edited only by reviewer. Please place your comments in Discussion section, addressing the reviewer's notes by their numbers (eg. 1a1).

Rate	Attribute	Review Comment
1. Well-written:
	1a. the prose is clear, concise, and understandable to an appropriately broad audience; spelling and grammar are correct.	The Ethnicity section seems to be largely incomplete. Many sentences feel disconnected from the surrounding text. The article requires copy editing before GA assessment. Some parts of the article require wikification, with Disciples being most evident example.
	1b. it complies with the Manual of Style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.	The Eschatology section would benefit from converting lists to prose. The article would benefit from using {{sfn}} or another mean of creating multiple references to bibliography in order to make references more accessible.
2. Verifiable with no original research:
	2a. it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline.
	2b. reliable sources are cited inline. All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph (or line if the content is not in prose).	Several longstanding {{citation needed}} tags require attention. The material is challenged, and some statements that are currently tag require a proper discussion. Some may be removed.
	2c. it contains no original research.	See note 2b1.
3. Broad in its coverage:
	3a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic.
	3b. it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).
	4. Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without editorial bias, giving due weight to each.
	5. Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.	Talk:Historical Jesus lists several discussions that must be settled before the article could be listed as GA.
6. Illustrated, if possible, by media such as images, video, or audio:
	6a. media are tagged with their copyright statuses, and valid non-free use rationales are provided for non-free content.
	6b. media are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.	The images don't actually illustrate the article or the captions fail to show the relevance. Making right picture choice for this article is actually a tricky task. A good example of an appropriate illustration would be a painting on a controversial matter that conforms with either only some of historians' viewpoints or is rejected be historians at all.
	7. Overall assessment.

The review isn't complete yet. More issues could be added by reviewer later.

Discussion

Feel free to discuss the review here. As I believe this article currently can't be listed and the normal 7-days-long hold won't be enough, I fail this nomination. Feel free to ask any questions regarding the points discussed above. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I happened on here by chance now. I do not even watch this article because I see it as such a low quality item and I did not want to work on it. A "good article"? Please, please... If there is a "bad article" review, I would nominate it as such. There are so many errors of commission and omission here that I do not even know where to begin... And why does this article diverge inti theology and discuss Son of man? Why is there a long section on eschatology on a page about history? That is a theological discussion and is beside the point here. Yet many historical issues are missing here. It will take serious, and major effort to clean this article up. But "good article"?... it misses that mark by miles and miles. History2007 (talk) 20:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Whom did you address this comment to? Me or the nominator? — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Resurrection and Historical Method

Do you consider that this sentence here is correct : "Since supernatural events cannot be reconstructed using empirical methods, the resurrection of Jesus qualifies as a point of Christian dogma unamenable to the historical method" The references are from John P. Meier and Bart Ehrman.

I ask you this because some major philosophers and biblical scholars clearly disagree with Meier and Ehrman. See for example Stephen T. Davis, Daniel Kendall, Gerald O'Collins (ed.), The Resurrection: An Interdisciplinary Symposium on the Resurrection of Jesus, Oxford University Press, 1998 ; William Lane Craig :'"Noli Me Tangere, Why John Meier Won't Touch the Risen Lord", The Heythrop Journal, 50, 2009, 91-97 article; Aviezer Tucker, “Miracles, Historical Testimonies, and Probabilities,” History and Theory, 44: 373–390, 2005; N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, 2003 ; Michael Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach, 2010 ; Craig S. Keener, Miracles:The Credibility of New Testamaent Accounts, Baker Academic, 2011. Thucyd (talk) 10:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

A side comment Thucyd. While sources like N. T. Wright are fine to use, in Wikipedia using Lane Craig type sources will not go far because he will be called a "way off" non-mainstream item. So it is best to use the most established people like Wright and not even mention Craig. And from what has been seen elsewhere on many talk pages, Ehrman, Sanders, etc. seem to be the mainstream scholarship on historicity. And although some scholars disagree, WP:RS/AC determines what the majority view may be. History2007 (talk) 21:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe.... but notice that William Lane Craig published an article on John Dominic Crossan's view on the Resurrection in Oxford University Press on the topic (Stephen T. Davis, Daniel Kendall, Gerald O'Collins (ed.), The Resurrection: An Interdisciplinary Symposium on the Resurrection of Jesus, O.U.P., 1998). And the article I mentioned was published in an peer-reviewed journal : The Heythrop Journal. Craig wrote a book with Crossan and an other with Gerd Lüdemann (The Resurrection: Fact or Figment?). So Craig is a well known figure in the debate on the historicity of the resurrection.

But I don't think that we should keep as it is the section "Resurrection Appearances", imho a section "Historicity of the Resurrection" is necessary. Unforunately I'm afraid I don't have enough time to do itThucyd (talk) 11:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I find the subjective and emotional content of the talk about this review and about the article itself quite disturbing. Qualitative assessments are made of the article and of the assessment without substantiation in a derogatory and subjective tone. One should not refer to scientific standards but then be completely the opposite thereof in one's choice of words.

However I feel that the assertion that the article "covers all aspects relevant to the subject matter" is not completely correct, and I hereby suggest that the following should be addressed for the renomination of this important article, which in my humble view deserves another nomination for its quality and objectivity on a highly sensitive and abused subject:

The article is incomplete in the sense that it does not point out the fact that Jesus's existence as historical fact is further confirmed by the sheer magnitude of the effect this man has had on history, language, ethics, philosophy, art etc since virtually right after the seemingly routine and unimportant event of the travels and crucifixion of an (at the time) unimportant man. In an article about the historicity of Jesus this should also have been mentioned/explored - the completely disproportionately large effect these events have had on the world since antiquity right through to the development of the English language (just browse through English expressions in the Oxford dictionary to see how many of them have New Testament roots)*. It is a significant fact directly related to the subject on hand, and much more relevant than the objection that "weasel words" (a meaningless slang phrase) have been used. It is improbable that someone who never existed could have had an effect of this magnitude.

I thoroughly enjoyed this episode on wikipedia, reading substantive quality work written in neutral and responsible register about the most important aspect of the day (25 December). I commend wikipedia for placing it, and the reviewer for managing to do an objective unemotional review on such sensitive material and in the face of such irresponsible abuse from isolated readers. This article deserves another look and another nomination, and the article is strengthened by the subjective and insubstantial nature of the most of the criticisms of it.

Oxford dictionary of modern English.

196.2.126.173 (talk) 04:16, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Gospels as History

Comparing the historical evidence of Julius Caesar to Jesus is ridiculous. In the New Testament gospels it is claimed Jesus was discovered by wise men following a moving star, was born of a virgin, cast out demons that spoke and entered swine, calmed a storm, could see into the future, read minds, walked on water, raised the dead, told Peter where to cast his net in order to catch a fish with money in its belly, [Matt 17:27] and levitated. These examples and many others do not sound like historical evidences. How much of the Jesus Gospel stories is and is not history? Many elements (Supernatural) of these stories are to say in the least suspicious. They sound like ancient miracle and mythology stories. The ancient world was very different. It can only be imagined. In the ancient world predestination, Gods, divine heroes, demons, raised dead, miracles and magic were real. They were the commonly held beliefs of the majority of people. There was little curious inquiry and skepticism and little doubt about one's own experiences. Believing one can emotionally "feel the truth" is difficult to doubt. Even today. Even if Jesus was a living person it is impossible to separate the words he spoke from those the early church placed in his mouth. It is guess work. The historical Jesus is lost until time travel. Kazuba (talk)

Is there a point somewhere in here? This page isn't a forum for your opinion... Ckruschke (talk) 17:43, 3 April 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

What I have brought forth here are known FACTS about the Jesus stories, the ancient past, and human psychology. There is very little opinion. User:KazubaKazuba (talk)

Facts or opinions, do you have a comment that is applicable to the page? Ckruschke (talk) 16:21, 6 April 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

Psychiatrist Fredric N. Busch

I've restored the deletion of Busch's material. When the full reference is available in the article the point can be re-assessed for WP:UNDUE, or whatever. I'm not intending this to be the last word. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't know why you bothered to restore it—isn't it obvious that this is a wacky, non-mainstream idea? Then, of course, there's the problem that no source was provided and Google searches turn up no publications by Busch on this subject. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:35, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Only for procedure: it was removed as "unsourced", yet it had a source. "Wacky" Busch may turn out to be but, from his WP article, he's on the faculty at Columbia. If I felt as confident as User:Akhilleus I would have been happy to let the deletion pass, but at the moment I'm still hoping for some considered guidance, one way or the other. --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Afterthought: Busch has four or five mainstream publications on psychiatry to his name, but I don't have access. Anybody help? --Old Moonraker (talk) 15:57, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Try this, this, and this. Nothing about Jesus in any of them. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:36, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the research. It must be your first example (Mentalization (2008)) that is meant, because one of the sections is titled "The New Quest for the Historical Jesus". This seems relevant and I don't think we can dismiss it out of hand, but Busch does seem to be writing outwith his field of expertise just there. If the result turns out to be "not in the citation given", after a proper check in the book (to which I don't have access), then I would be completely satisfied with the deletion. —Old Moonraker (talk) 17:18, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused, because I don't see anything in Mentalization called "The New Quest for the Historical Jesus". Can you give me a pointer? --Akhilleus (talk) 17:51, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

(Cross post) There may be a SNAFU at Google: this search result has 100 mentions of "Jesus" in the book, and the section title I mentioned, but preview is also available on Amazon.com. Here, the content is entirely different, and consistent with a mainstream academic editing a work within his field, and with no "wacky" ideas whatsoever. What seems to have happened is that our original poster has relied only on the Google results, which are faulty, rather than the work itself. I withdraw my objection to deletion; in fact, I'll do it myself. --Old Moonraker (talk) 18:00, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I've seen that glitch happen with other books, but it occurs so rarely I didn't even realize it might be happening for you. I'm glad this got sorted out. By the way, the editor who added the Busch material to this article, User:J341933, also added Jesus to List of people with bipolar disorder and created the article on Fredric N. Busch, so something strange is going on here. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC) ‎

Nothing about who his father was?

I seem to recall in years ago there was information about who his father may have been, I don't see that anywhere anymore. Why was it removed? It seems POV to exclude information about that, pushes a "virgin mother" christian view over a historically accurate one. ScienceApe (talk) 15:54, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Docetism

The docetism stuff seems misplaced in this article, it is mentioned in the section on the history of HJ research but it's not in fact related. There may be some good stuff in there that may be worth rescuing, but this does not appear to be the right article for it. Martijn Meijering (talk) 11:13, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Docetism is mostly a theological issue with no historical element. Just zap most of it. And is the ROO BOOKAROO account not a puppet for someone we used to know....? History2007 (talk) 09:04, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Title of the article

We've argued over the title of the article before, and I don't remember all the particulars, but I'd like to reopen the discussion. Specifically, I would propose we rename the article to "Historical Jesus research". Martijn Meijering (talk) 11:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't work for me. This article is about what scholars think the actual Jesus was like (instead of the divine being of Christian faith). I would expect an article called "Historical Jesus research" to be a kind of meta-analysis—how scholars who try to reconstruct the historical Jesus go about their work. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:32, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is the ideal thought... But the reality is that, as is, this article is an alphabet soup of inconsistent and low quality items. I just noticed the gem of the item on travels to India... This article is so bad, I would not even want to touch it, but you guys should add:

Robert Van Voorst states that modern scholarship has "almost unanimously agreed" that claims of the travels of Jesus to Tibet, Kashmir or India contain "nothing of value".^[1] Marcus Borg states that the suggestions that an adult Jesus traveled to Egypt or India and came into contact with Buddhism are "without historical foundation".^[2] Although modern parallels between the teachings of Jesus and Buddha have been drawn, these comparisons emerged after missionary contacts in the 19th century, and there is no historically reliable evidence of contacts between Buddhism and Jesus during his life.^[3]

Anyway, as is the article is hopeless. History2007 (talk) 09:01, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

By the way, the Cult Handsome Seriously Silly is unlikely to be a puppet, but the edits by User:ROO BOOKAROO make me ready to bet that it may be a sock puppet. History2007 (talk) 09:24, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Use of Historians vs Scholars

I've noticed the poorly warranted use of 'professional historians' in the section 'Denial of a Historical Jesus' The citations in said sections make use of the broad term scholar, instead. Michael Grant is described as a 'historian' himself, even though he holds no credentials in the area, should that be changed to 'popular historical author' to better describe his work. Dntmgm (talk) 12:12, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

What makes you say he held no credentials in that area? 'Classicist and ancient historian' sounds like a pretty accurate description of Grant. And ancient history at universities is often a joint effort by the classics and history departments. Martijn Meijering (talk) 12:17, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, in fact his obituary in The Times said he was "one of the few classical historians to win respect from [both] academics and a lay readership" according to his Wikipage. So he probably did not know the history of 19th century Brazil, but for ancient sources etc. was qualified. But in that quote he is not making a deep comment anyway, he is counting/reporting who is for/against, so no big deal probably. History2007 (talk) 12:31, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

I wonder what a professional historian is? Is there a College of Historians that you pay dues to and can get drummed out of if you breach their Code of Conduct? PiCo (talk) 06:33, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

No, but the problem is that some people keep quoting biblical scholars making pronouncements about the beliefs of "historians", who on closer inspection appear to be no more than other biblical scholars dabbling in history. Martijn Meijering (talk) 16:49, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Lack of a theory about Jesus having Bipolar

There is a lack of any contributions about the theory by non-Christian psychiatrists that Jesus had Bipolar Disorcer Type 1. I realize that proponents by this theory get attacked by Christians who think he was perfect. However, many Jewish psychiatrists believe this to be true. Since the English langauge is a Christian-based language it meets much opposition but surely there is some publications that can be referenced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wariswronggodisfaith (talk • contribs) 13:34, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

If you have seen sources making such a case and want them attributed, it's on you to bring them here for consideration. Your perception that "English is a Christian-based language" is curious, since it was first structured around Germanic beliefs before Christian-based Latin terms began to be adopted into it in the 500s, but it was never a language spoken or promoted by Jesus Christ. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 15:16, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Such diagnosis could be WP:FRINGE, since it is very hard to diagnose someone whose life has been embellished by legend. Anthony Storr with his Feet of Clay is I think more reasonable: he says that Jesus was a typical guru. He notes that according to the Gospel of Mark, Jesus's family wanted to put him away as a lunatic and that, as many other gurus, Jesus was no champion of family life (Bart Ehrman agrees that Jesus did not think an ethic for the long haul, but an ethic for the short period before the end of the world). Storr notes the fragmentary character and legendary embellishment of the Gospels, claiming to be Messiah could have been a non-insane claim in ancient Israel (otherwise than in 20th century England), so he thinks it is futile to diagnose Jesus. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:09, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Lacking Neutrality

Too much of this article cites John Dominic Crossan and other "scholars" of the Jesus Seminar. Given their methods are widely criticised by historians, scholars and theologians of many flavours - they very much represent the fringe of biblical scholarship - this does represent a lack of balance.--Galerita (talk) 08:14, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The opinions of the Jesus Seminar are notable. They are neither mainstream nor fringe, we may say they are a minority view among historians. When there is no consensus, we render all notable views. Of course, you are free to add to the article more views of mainstream historians, this way the share of the Jesus Seminar would get reduced in a way which is compliant with Wikipedia policies. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:55, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Ammendments made

Some of the statements made are POV of believing Christians, for example the "Great Commission" by Jesus to the Apostles is believed to have occurred after his death in a resurrection experience. Similarly he was believed or took the role of an eschatological prophet, to state that he was is a POV that may not be shared by non Christians. John D. Croft (talk) 13:58, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

All contributions to this article must necessarily be from some POV. If your prejudice is that miracles, magic or demons are impossible then you will ipso facto reject any historical account of such. Is your point of view is that the Jesus is God and God creates sustains and intervenes in that creation, then the resurrection is not a problem.

I suggest that the article should begin with what are widely seen as the most reliable historical records of Jesus life: the New Testament, Josephus, Tacitus and a few others (see Historicity_of_Jesus) and work from there. The test for inclusion should be plausibility, not probability. Clearly a resurrected Christ was a plausible belief for 1st century Christians, including some who knew him personally - it remains plausible today if theological scholarship is any guide. Many biblical scholars are Christians. Equally a history of Jesus as a non-miraculous peripatetic preacher of the Kingdom of God who was crucified by the Romans is plausible.

Fringe arguments drawn from non-canonical Gospels, trips to India or Tibet, Jesus as an alien, etc. struggle to be plausible, and should be referred to pages dedicated to such discussions if not to other web-sites. Galerita (talk) 08:09, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

The problem with miracles is that historians cannot say that a miracle has happened in the past, this has to do with the methodology of history. Otherwise we would have historical studies seeking to confirm that Vespasian was indeed divine or that Attila the Hun was possessed by evil spirits. Bart Ehrman makes this point: a miracle is by definition the most improbable event. Historians, even if they believe in miracles, cannot claim that miracles have happened in a certain circumstance, since historians say what probably happened in the past. That would mean to claim that the most improbable event is the most probable. There was a study of an adventist historian seeking to explain away Ellen White's plagiarism by claiming that both she and the authors of the text which she copied were inspired almost the same words through supernatural inspiration. While theologically one could claim that, it is not history in any meaningful sense (all meaningful senses are described by historians who live by publish or perish). So, the claim that miracles have happened is a theological claim, it is not a historical claim. When speaking of the historical Jesus, all miracles are eliminated by default, since historians cannot prove miracles (since history is an empirical science and has no access to the supernatural). Otherwise I could write a gospel of Jack the Ripper and claim that he was divine; would historians reading this gospel later conclude that Jack the Ripper was a god? Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:08, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

How many errors does this article have? Far, far too many

There are so many errors in this article, I do not even know where to begin. It is so full or errors, it is even painful to read it. Let me start with the lede/introduction. The opening paragraph does not say much, and is relatively harmless. But then the problems start from the second paragraph onwards:

The historical Jesus is believed to be a Galilean Jew who undertook at least one pilgrimage to Jerusalem ... He traveled to Jerusalem where he caused a disturbance at the Temple: Not so. Not so at all. Those statements support the theories of just some scholars such as E.P. Sanders and Craig Evans. Other scholars do not agree on those at all.

He was apparently baptized by John the Baptist: No, that is not an "apparently" item, but an item that almost all scholars agree on, unlike the Temple disturbance which is subject to debate.

He took the role of an eschatological prophet and an autonomous ethical teacher: No, no general scholarly agreement on that.

The Gospels say that the temple guards (believed to be Sadducees) arrested him and turned him over to the Roman governor Pontius Pilate for execution. No general agreement on that as a historical element beyond the gospels, and that is the only mention of temple guards in the article, and no source.

The Historical Jesus is thus based on the ancient evidence ... and as preserved independently in the writings of neutral or hostile witnesses of the period, such as in the writings of Jewish historian Flavius Josephus and various Roman documents, such as the Lives of the Twelve Caesars by imperial biographer Suetonius, and the correspondence of Pliny to Emperor Trajan. No, not at all on the last two. The Suetonius reference is about events in Rome around AD 49, and Pliny is about early Christians, not Jesus. What was missed was the reference by Tacitus which scholars consider far more important than Suetonius or Pliny, both of which are even less important than Mara - which is not even mentioned. The fact that that these key issues are so "utterly confused" in the lede shows the lack of attention to the article as a whole.

And these are just the tip of the iceberg. What has happened in this article is this:

Some editor picks up a couple of books (say Sanders or Crossan).
Takes a few sentences from there, and flatly states it as if it were the scholarly consensus.
These "partially sampled" scholarly views often contradict each other, yet persist in this article as a form of historical alphabet soup.

And the haphazard sentence Jambalaya continues, e.g. the article states:

The title Logos, identifying Jesus as the divine word, first appears in the Gospel of John

Now, what does that have to do with the historical Jesus? Nothing. Then we have flatly incorrect statements such as:

the parables represent the earliest Christian traditions about Jesus

This is not agreed to by scholars at large, given that Pauline Epistles' references to the earliest creeds do not include them, etc. And the list goes on, the 300,000 pilgrims at Passover number (just a Sanders estimate) is just stated as fact, while is not that widely agreed to, etc.

But these examples are just a manifestation of a larger problem. That this article draws on too few sources, as also manifested by the fact that Crossan's name appears 15 times within the article. Contrast this with what a review of the state of research by Amy-Jill Levine (with Crossan as the book's co-auther!) stated: "no single picture of Jesus has convinced all, or even most scholars" . So while there is no general agreement on the "historical portrait" of Jesus this article often provides snapshots as generally accepted satements.

And many parts of the article have other problems. A lot of it seems to have been copied long, long ago from error ridden old articles that have since been fixed. E.g. after a related Afd on Son of man that article was fixed, but this has material from that old, pre-improvement version. The section on Disciples is specially woeful. It relies on some older versions of the disciple article, which have since been touched up or deleted, and is mostly unsourced, and again presents very specific views as the general consensus.

A lot of the alphabet soup here (often obtained from older articles that have since been improved) needs t be just zapped, and replaced with consistent and to the point material with references to more than a few scholars.

What is important is that the few historical elements accepted by large groups of scholars should be distinguished from the multiple, often conflicting multi-portraits constructed by small camps. And the article just presents a random samplings of the multi-portraits.

Now, as a start, there is a somewhat long section called "History of historical Jesus research" for which a separate article Quest for the historical Jesus exists. This material (some of it even correct!) should move there with a Main link, because that is the main article for it. And the section at the top called "scholarly methods" has directly related material. I think I will start by moving most of the history of research to the Quest for the historical Jesus article which needs help and better material anyway, then add sources to a summary of it here, to clean that up, then see what can be done to help the rest of the page. History2007 (talk) 19:56, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

I have fixed the first 3 sections now, and looking at the rest I think it is really strange (in fact illogical) to have four sections called:

4. Early Life

5. Ministry

6. Temple incident and execution

7. Theories of the historical Jesus

because it elevates the Temple incident to total prominence. And by the way a simple search shows that terms such as "Last Supper" or Lazarus do not even appear in the article. And the content is pretty confused too, e.g. the Ministry section has content about theories, etc. And the content has been totally ignored, e.g. the comment "(((Yes it does, Ezekiel... and more...)))" still exists in that section.

The main problem is in fact that instead of discussing the overall issue of "Historical Jesus" there is a lot of discussion about the reliability of specific Gospel episodes, e.g. the Triumphal entry into Jerusalem which is not even linked to from here.

There is in fact a shorter article called Historical reliability of the Gospels which should be addressing those issues, but a the moment has just a "book by book" approach that looks at Matthew/Mark/etc. one by one. The "how reliable is each episode" material should really move to that article, and this article (which is getting to be too long to read as i gets cleaned up) should deal with the overall approaches to the Historical Jesus, the theories/portraits, etc. So I think the structure here should be:

1 Quests for the historical Jesus

2 Cultural background

3 Historical elements

4 Theories of the historical Jesus

5 Criticism of historical Jesus research

6 Denial of a historical Jesus

The episode by episode material (which is in fact pretty low quality) should move to the Historical reliability of the Gospels article, and get cleaned up as it moves there. Some of that material (e.g. on disciples) will be useable in the Theories/Portraits section, but it will need to be given context within each major theory/profile. There are also a number of really fringe and way out views in the article now that need to be separated from other mainstream views, e.g. the theory that Jesus was a Pharisee (really!) is supported by very few scholars, etc.

The Theories/portraits section does need work, however, in that it does not include some key theories, etc. I will try to fix that section, but the episode by episode material should probably move out first so that the forest can be seen but for the trees. History2007 (talk) 17:51, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Agreed Wdford (talk) 17:55, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, given that you have done a lot of the Historical reliability of the Gospels article that can then be done more easily now and you can merge most of it in smoothly if you want as it arrives there. And you can leave out the unsourced and inconsistent parts like a lot of the Disciples section here. History2007 (talk) 18:03, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Based on the above, I have now started a sub-direcotry here and left a message on the talk page of Historical reliability of the Gospels that the episode by episode material is arriving there from here. I will move the episode based material there, so it can be placed within that article as it gets cleaned up.

I have cleaned up the profiles section with RS sources and will add that here. That section can get more material as we go along, but it is well sourced now, and mostly free of the errors mentioned above, etc. History2007 (talk) 13:54, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Just a note that I have now cleaned up most of the errors mentioned in the initial comment above, checked sources, added RS sources etc. so the issues mentioned above have been remedied. History2007 (talk) 11:44, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Unexplained revision

this is a photo of an exhibit in the Israel museum. while the museum does not state it is the actual ossuary of Jesus (and it does not say it in the caption of the photo), it is an ossuary of a Jesus son of Joseph who lived and died in the first century. It is not a forgery nor a fake, but a proven original ossuary displayed at the museum anthequities department, and as such - a good pic for this article. Deror (talk) 13:31, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually my edit did have a summary: Please help me remember now, was that by Oded Golan or by Clifford Irving? But perhaps too subtle a joke, if you don't remember Irving.

Now it is not even claimed to be the ossuary of a Jesus son of Joseph. It is claimed to be and is called the James Ossuary. So it is about some James and not clear which James. And the LA times states that most scholars hold that the last part about Jesus was added later. The Israel Antiquities Authority does not support it to be of any relevance to "Jesus of Nazareth" but just an ancient ossuary. For all we know it some James who had no relation to the subject of this article, and may have died decades before Jesus as you have already implied yourself. It is pure innuendo to say is relates to Jesus of Nazareth. History2007 (talk) 14:09, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

not the same ossuary. This is a defferent one. The name "James" is not on it.Deror (talk) 14:18, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, at first I thought it was the James ossuary, hence that comment, but it is the one from Talpiot. But in any case, no one has any claim (as you stated) that it has anything to do with Jesus of Nazareth. History2007 (talk) 14:21, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

yes. but it is the image is of the "Jesus son of joseph" ossuary find in the Talpiyot tomb. so it is a reference for a historical existance of a name in use. and while there is no exact proof, it still may be the ossuary - it is a matter of statistics - hence the relevace in this article and not the religious one. Deror (talk) 14:24, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

In fact there is no proof that Talpiot Tomb is that of the family of Jesus of Nazareth. This is a very controversial item and scholars at large do not support it at all, as its own article states. A really fringe item. History2007 (talk) 14:29, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

One thing I agree with you on is that it is evidence of "a name in use" in antiquity. So the generic page Jesus (name) would fit, but not this page. Of course ancient first century sources also have many references to the name Jesus (not necessarily of Nazareth), but this is hard matter and one more indication that "the name" existed - perhaps for some Jesus who never visited Galillee. But still a name, so that page may fit. History2007 (talk) 14:42, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

It is my understanding that it is the only archeologcal evidence for the use of the name from his lifetime (not a document which is a later copy). Personaly - I do not believe that he existed. But my view is not important. the fact is - there is this object, with the name on it, and from the time period so it could be his (or not). Now - the real question before us - is this picture a good ilustration for an article on the historical figure. I think it does - being an image of the only object from the timeperiod with the name on it (the name is visable in the image). Do you agree it is a good illustration picture and just diagree on the caption of the image? not sayin its his coffin but a coffin from the timeperiod which may or may not be his. Deror (talk) 15:45, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

As I said, it is the tomb of "some Jesus". Is it Jesus of Nazareth? No evidence whatsoever. None, zero. And many scholars say that the family tomb of Jesus of Nazareth would have been way up north in Gal, not in Jerusalem. So no relevance at all to the topic of this article, but to the name article. It is some Jesus but zero evidence that it is this Jesus. No relevance to the person who is the subject of this article. History2007 (talk) 16:25, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Just to throw my two cents in here. I do not believe that this is an appropriate image to be using, because it, by the very fact that it would be on this page, implies that it is the ossuary of Jesus Christ. History2007 has it correct that it does not have widespread acceptance in the historical community, and also that there is no EVIDENCE that it is THAT Jesus's ossuary, just that it is A Jesus's ossurary, and as Yeshua, where we get the modern "Jesus", was a common name, it proves nothing. I have read the statistical arguments in favor of it being Christ's (how it is unlikely to have been found with two Mary's and a Joseph etc...), but when push comes to shove no one can say it is. Vyselink (talk) 20:20, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and not for nothing, but I loved the "Oded Golan, Clifford Irving" joke. Vyselink (talk) 20:22, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I had always thought that the statement about Golan that "when the police searched his apartment they discovered a workshop with a range of tools, materials, and half finished antiquities" to be reminiscent of how Irving had the absolute audacity to sell McGraw-Hill on the Hughes biography. The least Golan could have done was to leave the tools somewhere else... You may also be interested in this one as well... History2007 (talk) 20:53, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I reverted the same image at Historicity of Jesus and agree with History2007's reasoning: The claim that it's Jesus of Nazareth's ossuary is disputed, to put it mildly, and the ossuary of some Jesus is either misleading or off-topic, depending on whether we insinuate that it's Jesus of Nazareth's ossuary or not. Huon (talk) 22:47, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Edited Introduction

We are a college seminar class studying the Historical Jesus and we have undertaken the task of improving this wiki page. We plan to submit no biased, scholarly work to be considered for inclusion in this page. First we have edited the introduction paragraph as we felt it lacked cohesiveness as well as emphasis on several main topics of the study of the historical Jesus.

The term historical Jesus refers to scholarly reconstructions of the 1st-century figure Jesus of Nazareth.[1] These reconstructions are based upon convergence of archaeological, textual, and theoretical evidence. The Historical Jesus is thus based on the ancient evidence for his life as found in fragments of early Gospels, as preserved independently in the writings of neutral or hostile witnesses of the period; consideration of the historical and cultural context in which he lived, as articulated in the archeological remains; and applications of theories from sociology, anthropology, and historical analysis among others.[2] The historical Jesus was a Galilean Jew who undertook at least one pilgrimage to Jerusalem, then part of Roman Judaea, during a time of messianic and apocalyptic expectations in late Second Temple Judaism.[3][4] He was baptized by John the Baptist, whose example he followed, and after John was executed, began his own preaching in Galilee for a time of one to three years prior to his death. He took the role of an eschatological prophet and an autonomous ethical teacher.[5] He taught by using surprising and original parables, many of them about the coming Kingdom of God.[6] Some scholars credit the apocalyptic declarations of the Gospels to him, while others portray his Kingdom of God as a moral one, and not apocalyptic in nature.[7] Later, he traveled to Jerusalem where he caused a disturbance at the Temple.[3] It was the time of Passover, when political and religious tensions were high in Jerusalem.[3] The Gospels say that the temple guards (believed to be Sadducees) arrested him and turned him over to the Roman governor Pontius Pilate for execution. After his death his followers believed that they were sent as apostles out to heal and to preach coming of the Kingdom of God.[8] The movement he had started, after splitting with Rabbinic Judaism, developed into Early Christianity. The quest for the historical Jesus operates under the premise that the New Testament does not necessarily give an accurate historical picture of the life of Jesus. The purpose of research into the Historical Jesus is to examine the evidence from diverse sources and critically bring it together in order to create a composite picture of Jesus.[12][13] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.115.139.114 (talk) 15:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, per the comment just above here, this whole article (except the first 3 sections that have been sourced now) was/is a complete disaster. I will be cleaning it up by the end of next week and as we go along comments/suggestions/sourced-edits will be appreciated. By the way, note that the intro/lede needs to be a summary of the body of the article, and so it is best done after the body has been cleaned up in the next few days. I hope that in 7 days it will be better. History2007 (talk) 14:06, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

We appreciate your attempt to clean up the page on the Historical Jesus. You may be very much qualified to work on this page; we would so appreciate if you would further identify those credentials. As a class, however, we feel that we have put in significant work to study scholarship on the Historical Jesus, and feel that we could contribute greatly to clarify and make more informative this wikipedia page. We would certainly appreciate your experience and expertise in that area, but do feel that our knowledge on this subject is more than sufficient and equally valid.

We think that you have made some positive changes to the site, but it still needs a lot of work, and it is a great undertaking that we can all share.

The format of the page has changed, but is not necessarily clearer than the previous version. Furthermore, we feel that the focus of the page is off, not focusing enough on what we DO know about the Historical Jesus and HOW we know it.

Specifically, the page needs a section on research methodology, broken down into literary, archaeology and theory. The convergence of these three vectors is crucial in the study of the Historical Jesus. Literary- should include list of gospels, including the Q text; and other ancient, non-Christian texts.

The page needs a historiography section, which covers the idea of “quests.” However, we do not feel that it’s necessary to go into such detail of these distinct quests, particularly since the 2nd quest is, essentially, irrelevant to the Historical Jesus.

Organize “context” section that includes Judean background, race, language, etc...but focusing specifically on the socio-cultural aspects of the Historical Jesus rather than sections that are more speculative, like his race, language and literacy.

The Chronology section is incorrect. Scholarship done by Karl Ludwig Schmidt and his contemporaries argues that there is no way to determine a timeline of Jesus’s works from the New Testament. The only “facts”, which you recognize, are Jesus’s baptism and the Temple conflict.

The portraits of Jesus are irrelevant and say more about the scholar than what is actually historical. They also rely heavily on John and Acts, which have been determined by Biblical scholars to be too theological to be of historical value.

We believe that our introduction is valuable and establishes what is important to say about the Historical Jesus; it also provides a good framework for the rest of the site to follow.

Please let us know your thoughts on this; we look forward to hearing back from you and working with you, but we do plan on starting to make these changes.

Thank you,

Religion 301, Wofford College Levinrh (talk) 02:16, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I will start a new section below about your class project so the overall issues can be sketched there. I will just mention a few items here, related to the specific points.

The first point is that it is generally a good idea to be familiar with Wikipedia policies and guidelines that relate to content, and how content is sourced and how statements are made.

Read WP:RS regarding source selection and field overviews. In particular, it is a good idea to carefully read WP:RS/AC about "academic consensus" and how it needs to have a RS source that supports it and can not be stated based on the personal surveys of editors. For instance the statements in the article that "the third Quest for the historical Jesus witnessed a fragmentation of the scholarly portraits of Jesus after which no unified picture of Jesus could be attained at all" is included based on WP:RS/AC statements in RS sources. That issue can thus not be reassessed via discussion among editors and can only be addressed by presenting other RS sources that counterbalance it, provided said sources also follow WP:RS/AC.

Read the discussion of majority and minority views in WP:DUE. Note that the general statements need to be made based on the majority view, as identified via WP:RS/AC and the minority views of note need to be also mentioned using WP:DUE guidelines. If there is no majority opinion among scholars, that needs to be identified as such. For instance, the statement in the article "no single picture of Jesus has convinced all, or even most scholars" is used based on those policies and cannot be argued about, and all that can be done is to provide other WP:RS sources (if any) to counterbalance it.

Read the discussion of outdated scholarship and the need for reliance on modern scholars. An example would be the use of material by Karl Ludwig Schmidt (who has no article, and perhaps you can start by writing one for him). Schmidt did most of his work in the 1920-1940s and most of his ideas predate WWII. Those types of research are generally not used in Wikipedia articles except in a historical context, given that they are almost always superseded by modern scholarship. Schmidt's views are by and large yesterday's news now, e.g. he never heard of any of later discoveries such as Dead Sea Scrolls, Nag Hammadi library, etc. (that provide a historical context) or even later scholarly debates about Q source, etc.

Read WP:V regarding "correctness vs verifiability". In general statements sourced to WP:RS sources are accepted in Wikipedia, regardless of any Wiki-editor's personal assessment of the truth/correctness of those. So if scholars such as Paul L. Maier, Craig A. Evans, Rainer Riesner etc. make statements about the chronology of New Testament events, those are considered verifiable and can be used in Wikipedia. On the issue of Chronology, note that the section is very well referenced with a number of WP:RS sources that reinforce each other. The only way to discuss that would be to provide sources that say otherwise. Regarding the general statement that the Book of Acts is of little value, let us ask the simple question: what is the single most certain date that relates to the New Testament? It is the trail of Paul by Galio, whose reign is pegged by the Delphi Inscription, e.g. see The Greco-Roman World of the New Testament Era by James S. Jeffers (Oct 7, 1999), etc. For a good overview of the approaches of modern scholars to chronology, reading the several scholars who have contributed to the book Chronos, kairos, Christos (ISBN 0-931464-50-1 for Volume I and ISBN 0865545820 for Volume II) would help. Note that Karl Schmidt was totally unaware of these modern studies, etc. and can not be used as a source related to those.

I will address the general class project issues in the section below. History2007 (talk) 13:58, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Besides, Levinrh should take care that other Wikipedia articles tackle the information he sought to add in this article. So, he should not load this article with information which properly belongs in other Wikipedia articles. About credentials: no credentials are required for editing Wikipedia, as long as your cite verifiable, reliable sources (mostly peer-reviewed scientific articles or books written by the recognized authorities in the discussed field). Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:01, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

^ Van Voorst, Robert E (2000). Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence. Eerdmans Publishing. ISBN 0-8028-4368-9 page 17
^ The Historical Jesus in Recent Research edited by James D. G. Dunn and Scot McKnight 2006 ISBN 1-57506-100-7 page 303
^ Jesus: The Complete Guide 2006 by Leslie Houlden ISBN 082648011X page 140

[1] Van Voorst, Robert E (2000). Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence. Eerdmans Publishing. ISBN 0-8028-4368-9 page 17

[2] The Historical Jesus in Recent Research edited by James D. G. Dunn and Scot McKnight 2006 ISBN 1-57506-100-7 page 303

[3] Jesus: The Complete Guide 2006 by Leslie Houlden ISBN 082648011X page 140

[1]

[2]

[3]