Talk:Jesus/2nd Paragraph Debate/3

2nd Paragraph to be updated on 3/9/2006

A large majority of critical Bible scholars and historians hold that Jesus was a Jewish Galilean teacher and healer who debated with the Pharisees and other authorities.^[1] The Roman Governor, Pontius Pilate ordered that Jesus be executed outside of Jerusalem by crucifixion for claiming to be the "King of the Judeans", a crime of rebellion against Rome.^[2] However, citing a lack of extant contemporaneous documents making reference to him, a small minority question the historicity of Jesus.^[3]

---

Aiden's revision

The majority of critical Bible scholars and historians generally agree that Jesus was a Jewish Galilean teacher and healer who debated with the Pharisees and other authorities. ^[4] The Roman Governor, Pontius Pilate ordered that Jesus be executed outside of Jerusalem by crucifixion for claiming to be the "King of the Judeans", a crime of rebellion against Rome.^[5] However, citing a lack of extant contemporaneous documents making reference to him, a small minority question the historicity of Jesus.^[6]

I like Aiden's recent rewording, which CTSWyneken reverted. It made the paragraph flow better, and also got rid of one of those annoying ordinal measurements. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 19:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm thinking more aesthetically here with my changes, but I do see CTSWyneken's point about the removal of the word large. Perhaps an alternative that avoids all of these quantifiers would be to simply state, "Critical Bible scholars and historians generally agree that...." As the last sentence of the paragraph mentions the views of a "small minority," it can be inferred that the first party is in the vast majority. I just think it reads easier. —Aiden 19:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I reverted more because of previous wars and my statement I would do so. If we come to an agreement here, we can make the changes.

The reason for the "large" is that:

1-- Our footnotes demostrate its accuracy.

2-- We say this to underline that the position is likely untrue and not maintained by any historian we know of.

3-- We need to counterbalance the explanation of the reason given for the nonexistence hypothesis.

I'm opposed to the word "generally" which seems to suggest that some disagree on these points. I have found no disagreement on these facts whatsoever in scholarly sources. And I've looked. --CTSWyneken 19:29, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Healer

Don't want to derail the FA drive but the term "healer" is a religious POV. Any non religious scholars would describe him as "regarded as a healer" or some variant. I appreciate that the listed scholars all say this but the comment in the intro paragraph implies more general accetance than just those who subscribe to supernatural intervention of one type or another. Sophia^TalkTCF 19:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I see where SOPHIA is coming from, but one might also say that there are true healers and false healers, and the judgement relies at least in part on one's own POV. I can turn on the TV and see any number of faith healers, but how many of them are real? I've also heard non-Christians explain this as some form of psychosomatic healing and/or the placebo effect (nothing divine or infernal at all).

That said, is there a better way to phrase this so it doesn't imply a religious POV? Arch O. La^TalkTCF 19:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

How about "was known as a teacher and healer...." etc. This shows that it is a critical examination of the evidence refering to the historical view of jesus (does that make any sense?). What anyone chooses to believe based on this is up to them but the scholars can say from the sources how he was regarded at the time. Sophia^TalkTCF 19:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the intent, but some may see this as equivocation. BTW this is exactly the sort of dillema that would arise in my journalism classes, and such dillemas were always hard to resolve. As it stands, I agree with CTSWyneken on denotation and SOPHIA on connotation. So it seems we're back to arguing semantics. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 19:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

It already says the majority of "Bible scholars and historians hold..." so there is no need to place qualifiers at the beginning of ever sentence like this. It is redundant and unnecessary. —Aiden 20:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

On the other hand, I do not see it as POV at all. I kind of like it! 8-) --CTSWyneken 20:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

This sounds familiar.

"The King of the Jews (INRI)"

"No, write that he called himself the king of the Jews"

"I have written what I have written."

Arch O. La^TalkTCF 20:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll try putting it another way. The biblical scholars can't actually decide JC was anything. All they can say is their experience in this field of documentation leads them to conclude JC was known as ...etc. That is an NPOV statement. Remember this is refering to the historical construct of JC so phrasing their conclusions in the past tense is proper and valid - not equivocation. Sophia^TalkTCF 21:05, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Another thought. The way it's put currently confirms Rob's view that to be a biblical scholar you must be a Christian (ie accept that miracles are possible and that JC performed them). Sophia^TalkTCF 21:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand that you are trying to clarify that critical scholars are citing the sources which refer to Jesus as a healer. I also understand those who see this as equivocation or, as Aiden said, redundancy.

This reminds me of our earlier debate over the definition of "extant." Homestarmy and I had to accept a broader definition of "extant" than we had encountered before. The broad definition of "healer" is "one who heals or claims to heal." In a religious context, as CTSWyneken noted, this means one who engages in healing rituals. In a naturalistic context, a medical doctor is a healer. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 21:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Another point: click on the link to "healer," which explains the term without reference to miracles. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 21:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough - anyone linking to the term "healer" will be given a definition that does not imply miracles - that should stop any claims of a Christian POV. Sophia^TalkTCF 21:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Onelook.com says healer primarily means: "a person skilled in a particular type of therapy", if that helps at all. I would think that all parties to the discussion can agree to such a definition. --MonkeeSage 21:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me - NPOV and all that. Sophia^TalkTCF 21:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Ems 2 objects

Lets work on NPOVing

This article doesn't clear when its talking about Christian POV. Can I please ask people make this a lot more clear while working on making this a featured article? Take this edit as an example. ems 16:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

The problem EMS is that it is not a good example. The cite sentence is speaking of critical scholars, many of which may not be Christian. Your counsel is good, but the example is bad. Storm Rider 16:38, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Storm Rider is correct. The second paragraph is about the historical reconstruction of a first-century Galilean Jew. The third paragraph is about the Christian POV. I admit it may be confusing to those who don't realize that protoChristian writings are our main sources. Outside of that we only have (AFAIK) disputed references in Josephus, Tacticus and vague mentions in the Talmud that could just as easily be about another Yeshua. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 18:46, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but the second paragraph IS a Christian POV. The bit that makes it so is the term "healer" - implying a worker of miracles which in turn implies an acceptance of JC as a a divine/divinely inspired god/person. That's the reason I was always against using the term "healer" in that paragraph. Sophia^TalkTCF 18:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, to be NPOV, Jesus was perceived as a healer by his contemporaries, according to the sources. Christians say this power came from God, while others speculated his power came from Satan. This point has been raised before. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 18:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, Archie, there is no REAL evience - thank you fro agreeing! Robsteadman 18:56, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Briefly, the Jewish and non-Christian scholars in the set we've cited also see Jesus as a "healer" in the sense of someone who goes around from place to place engaging in healing rituals to invoke their deity to heal people. Think shaman. (spelling?) They observe that many people in the first century ran around claiming to do this and often seemed to be effective. The passage in the Mishnah, whether you believe it refers to Jesus or not, accuse Yeshu of socery, supernatural acts invoked from powers below. In this context, they feel, it is proper to speak of Jesus as a healer. I don't want to debate it here, but would be happy to take it up on talk:Jesus/2nd Paragraph Debate --CTSWyneken 19:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, CTSWyneken. Thank you for clarifying. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 19:04, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Have posted a comment on the talk:Jesus/2nd Paragraph Debate page as any non religious readers may pick this up. Hi Rob - welcome back. Sophia^TalkTCF 19:18, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

What passage in the Mishnah? Anyone who knows the first thing about the Mishnah would know such a thing would be impossible - because of the very reason what the Mishnah is. ems 03:31, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The references can be found in the Yeshu article. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 04:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Not to stir the dung, but it just goes to show that there is really no such thing as NPOV in any strict sense...as demonatrated by the later Wittgenstein, Thomas Kuhn, et alii: every belief is based on a whole "woldview" (or "language game" or "paradigm"). The most one can hope for here, in an "ideal" situation, is to present all sides and to try not to favor any one in particular -- though at the same time the fact that the primary source documents regarding the life of Jesus come from the Christian tradition (with all its pursuant baggage) should not be intentionally suppressed. My two Euros. --MonkeeSage 19:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Good points, but check the subpage. The immediate issue is that some object to the connotation of "healer." BTW one of the reasons the FA failed last December is that many felt the article leaned too far towards a Christian POV. Myself, as a Christian, I just want to be fair: I neither want to be fed to the lions, nor do I want to reenact the Crusades. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 20:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's end the discussion here and move to the subpage. --CTSWyneken 20:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, Archola! I might not have been very clear there. All I meant to say was that "healer" means one thing to one person (i.e., religious teacher) and quite another thing to a different person (i.e., supernatural miracle worker). I was just saying that its hard to phrase the matter since deifferent people with different worldviews use the same terms very differently sometimes. --MonkeeSage 20:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's please move to the subpage. --CTSWyneken 20:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry CST! If I feel the urge to make more semi-irrelevant comments, I'll to it on the subpage. ;) This page is is lomg enough without my rambling anyhow! --MonkeeSage 20:37, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Just to wrap up the "healer" debate - the conclusion on the sub page was that as the term healer is defined without reference to miracles or the supernatural it does not constitute a religious POV. Thanks to Archola for putting me right on that. Sophia^TalkTCF 21:42, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I might suggest clarifying by changing "healer" to "ritualistic healer." I might, but I won't because this is similiar to my "known extant" suggestion, and would likely be shot down for the same reason. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 21:48, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's leave it be - we have a NPOV definition so that should be OK. "Ritualistic" sounds a bit dodgy - rather Pagan actually! Sophia^TalkTCF 21:53, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

LOL! I know there are people who say that about Christianity in general, but then we're back to the Jesus-Myth. I do thank SOPHIA for raising the point, though, because we do have to consider such objections. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 21:57, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey, even Benny Hinn is called a "faith healer"...if waiving 'holy static' at the crowd is enough for consideration as a healer, Jesus should definitely be called a "healer" :) --MonkeeSage 22:08, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I just can't take you all ANYWHERE! *rolling eyes* *storming off in suitable mock huff* --CTSWyneken 23:09, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, many of us have been writing on both pages. Of course, you could always archive this discussion to the subpage. That's the approach I've been taking to the discussion of the third paragraph. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 23:24, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Reverting Ems's edit

I totally dispute this part to being accurate A large majority of critical Bible scholars and historians hold that Jesus was a Jewish Galilean teacher and healer who debated with the Pharisees and other authorities. It totally does not take in account the POV of people who only believe in the Torah. ems 03:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, some who only believe in the Torah do believe that Jesus taught and healed, but consider this to be a test as per Deuteronomy 13:1-5. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 03:51, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Wrong. They believe he is [false] prophet, and its not just 13:1-5 its the whole chapter. Personally I don't like the term "false prophet" to refer to such a prophet, as he is a prophet (as in his prophetcies were as true as Balaam's but he ways should be followed and should be put to death as per the chapter), but that is the accepted usage... ems 04:24, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, a [false] prophet is one kind of test, To quote Rabbi Simmons (section 4): "In fact, the Bible says that God sometimes grants the power of "miracles" to charlatans, in order to test Jewish loyalty to the Torah (Deut. 13:4)." Arch O. La^TalkTCF 04:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph is about what critical scholars believe. It's better to include alternative views in separate paragraphs. --Haldrik 05:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Jesus/Cited Authors Bios, Talk:Jesus/2nd Paragraph Debate and all the archives associated with them. We have cited a number of scholars that are Jewish, agnostic, atheist, Christian, secular in orientation, etc. This paragraph summarizes all that they agree upon, as Halrik said. If you wish to supply a Jewish historian or Biblical scholar that holds otherwise, please supply a cited quotation on Talk:Jesus/2nd Paragraph Debate. We have agreed to discuss the paragraph here and I will begin archiving any discussion that appears here on the page from this moment on. Also, be aware that a number of us will revert any changes to this paragraph not disussed and agree on upon that page. --CTSWyneken 11:03, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The point, of course, is that some of the critical scholars are Jewish. Some argue that Jesus was exactly the kind of prophet who leads astray that Deuteronomy 13 warns against; others that he was the kind of sorcerer the Talmud warns against (some of whom share Jesus' name); still others that any violation of the Torah was done not by Jesus, but by later writers who altered Jesus' teachings. There may be other arguments as well.

That said, if Ems2 has a better way to phrase the first sentence of the second paragraph, we should be courteous and listen. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 20:00, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

It's always good to get a new view on an old problem. Sophia^TalkTCF 23:40, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The point is, of course, it would be good to have folk new to this article go through prior arguments and then discuss with us objections. It would save endless repeating of the same old discussion. ...and I want to keep such discussions on the subpage ... and I'd like to just finish citations some day. ;-) --CTSWyneken 23:58, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Since we still don't have a FAQ, I tried to summarize the arguments I've seen on this page. I know from experience that it takes a while to slog through the archives. Ems raises the question of whether or not any or all of the Torah-observant Jews among the critical Bible scholars and historians are being misrepresented. (I pause to allow the reader to parse that last sentence.) Obviously, it is not my place to answer this question; but someone more knowledgable than I probably should give an answer. Also, feel free to archive when ready. I still prefer to leave live discussions on this page (not everyone reads subpages) and to file them to the appropriate subpage after a few days. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 18:01, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Scholars

The second paragraph starts with: Most scholars and historians agree that Jesus was a Jewish Galilean teacher and healer who was sentenced to death by crucifixion outside of Jerusalem on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate, for claiming to be the "King of the Judeans," a crime of rebellion against Rome.

I object to "scholars and historians" and want to simplify this sentence by using just "scholars". The phrase is bad English; all historians referenced by this article, though un-named, are all scholars. Scholars is the correct term for this sentence. While editors to this article are probably used to the phrase because they have read it a thousand times, to a fresh reader the redundancy is clear and makes the article illiterate. At worst, it suggests to some readers that the article thinks that historians are not scholars. Since all historians are scholars, eliminating the word makes no change at all to the logical meaning of the sentence. Drogo Underburrow 02:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I go with "Bible scholars" as CTSWyneken suggests and the removal of the redundant "historians" as Drogo suggests. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 02:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd go for just "Historians", all historians may be scholars, but not all scholars may be historians, and this is supposed to be about historian consensus :/. Homestarmy 02:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

It was originally "critical Bible scholars and historians." Included within "critical Bible scholars" are higher scholars who use the historical-critical method. Thus, historicity is important to them as well. Of course, there are also historians of first century Israel that are not Bible scholars. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 02:59, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

It is important to say both Biblical scholars and historians because these are two separate disciplines and both have representatives in the footnotes. I suggested dropping just "critical," because there is a wider universe of scholars that support the propositions we list. It is a statement of what little consensus there is in this field.

The reason for this language is to contrast them with the voices of the minority position, which is advocated by few, if any, from these disciplines. (we are still trying to find a single historian who supports the nonexistence hypothesis. If we go with a generic "scholars", we are allowing that, say, a mathematics professor, is qualified to weigh historical evidence and draw conclusions about them. Leave the description alone. (Told you all that we shouldda gone to the subpage... 8-) --CTSWyneken 03:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Name a historian that this article is claiming to represent the views of, that is not a bible scholar, not a member of a department of religious studies or other religion-oriented department, and is instead a Ph.D in History working in the department of History at a major university. Drogo Underburrow 03:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Check Talk:Jesus/Cited Authors Bios. Several of them are listed as professors of history with PhDs. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 03:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Slight problem, Droga's criterion says they aren't allowed to reaserch religious studies or anything to do with religion even if they have a Ph.d -___- don't see how that even matters, so what if they know more about the situation? Homestarmy 03:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

He's just drawing a distinction between the History and Religious Studies departments within large universities. There's no reason that the History department can't study the history of religion; they're just in a different field than the Religious Studies folk. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 03:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I checked the list. Not a single one is not a bible scholar, not a member of a department of religious studies or other religion-oriented department, and is instead a Ph.D in History working in the department of History at a major university. If this list represents the views the article is citing, then my objection stands. Drogo Underburrow 03:43, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I can't imagine the pain of trying to reaserch anything about Jesus without understanding the religious background behind the subject, it would be like trying to reaserch light bulbs while being a glassmaker without knowing anything about electricity. Homestarmy 03:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

So what? My point is that "scholars" is accurate. I accept qualifying it and using "Bible scholars". Adding "historians" is misleading and either redundant, or outright false, depending on who you mean. Drogo Underburrow 03:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I guess, Homes. From here I have to direct Drogo to the keepers of the list: CTSWyneken and Slrubenstein. I just looked at the list and I could have sworn that some were listed as professors of history. Of course, others were professors of religious studies or theologians.

Here's another way to go about it: Drogo, who would you recommend? We could always use more sources ;) Arch O. La^TalkTCF 03:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I recommend that the sentence reflect the list of authorities being cited: "Most bible scholars agree that Jesus was a ..." This is supported by the list. Drogo Underburrow 04:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

So then, you don't have the name of someone who is "a historian... that is not a bible scholar, not a member of a department of religious studies or other religion-oriented department, and is instead a Ph.D in History working in the department of History at a major university" that we can cite? That's what I meant when I asked "who would you recommend?" Arch O. La^TalkTCF 04:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Is anyone else getting a sense of deja vu here? Take cover! Homestarmy 04:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Somewhat. Of course, since the Bible is one of the major pieces of literature to arise from the region in question, the historians who study this time and place must consider the Bible. As was said quite some time ago, you don't have to be religious (or in religious studies) to consider the Bible. That's not the same thing as being a Bible scholar. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 04:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm being asked to find a historian to support what the article is saying? I thought editors were supposed to write an article giving the views of the different sides of an issue, not look for people whose views match what they want the article to say. Drogo Underburrow 04:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Or a historian who disagrees; either way. Yes, we're supposed to give the different sides, but the people we have listed among the "small minority" tend not to be historians. To be honest, I was curious as to who would meet your criteria. I'm beginning to suspect that we might be using the phrase "Biblical scholars" differently. To me, this refers to people who study the Bible as a religious document (regardless of whether or not they believe in that religion). This includes theologians and people in religious studies. Among the methods they use is the historical-critical method, but this doesn't make them historians. OTOH there are historians who study the Bible as a cultural artifact, much as they might study The Illiad or The Epic of Gilgamesh. This doesn't make them Bible scholars.

By my criteria, some of the people on the list are Bible scholars, and some others are historians, but these are two different sets of people. I agree with you about being part of the History Department and having the proper accreditation (usually a PhD, although sometimes a master's degree is sufficient). I'm not sure how you're applying the phrase "Bible scholar," though. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 05:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps we are using it differently. I am using as in this sentence: "Evaluation of the Scriptures to uncover evidence about historical matters was formerly called “higher criticism,” a term first used with reference to writings of the German biblical scholar J.G. Eichhorn, who applied the method to his study of the Pentateuch." Drogo Underburrow 05:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I am of course open to changing the wording, but I am adamantly opposed to changing it to "Most Bible scholars" for two reasons: first, there is in fact a tremendous rift between people whose scholarship operates within an explicitly Christian context, and those whose scholarship employs critical methods; the views in this paragraph are those of specifically critical historians. Second, I think that it is very important for the lead article on Jesus to summarize the view of critical historians in the introduction - this being an NPOV encyclopedia. As to whether these people are historians or Bible scholars - this is a meaningless distinction because all historians writing about Jesus and early Christianity are Biblical "scholars." But it is precisely the fact that they employ the critical tools of modern historians that distinguishes them from other (including religious) Bible scholars.

Drogo Underburrow is correct as far as I know that the list presented is of people with PhD.s and/or who teachin Biblical studies or religion departments. But to infer from this that they are not historians reflects a misunderstanding of academia and the organization of universities. Traditionally, history departments (at least in the English speaking world) focus on the history of modern Europe, although many departments may have a few historians who research ancient Western societies and non-Western socieites. Many historians researching non-Western socieites receive their training and teach in interdisciplinary programs (e.g. African Studies, East Asian Studies). And, for the most part, historians working with texts not written in a modern language receive their training in specialized programs e.g. Classics (Greek and Roman history), or Ancient Near Eastern or Biblical Studies (ancient Israel, Egypt, Babylon, Assyria, Sumeria). The main justification for this division of labor is that a critical historian who is writing about Greek history must be fluent in koine Greek and in many cases other non-modern languages; a critical historian writing about the NT must be fluent in koine Greek and Aramaic, and perhaps other non-modern languages; a critical historian writing abou the Hebrew Bible needs to know not only Biblical Hebrew but usually another ancient Near Eastern language like Akkadian or Ugaritic. Most history departments, even large ones at top universities, do not have enough adequately trained faculty to be able to train graduate students in these areas - thus, graduate students are more likely to study in Classics or Biblical studies deparmtnes, and, for similar reasons, look for jobs in these departments when they graduate.

All one has to do is actually read the books cited, and it will be clear that the authors are historians and the books are studies of history. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't really care what phrase is used in the article, but I think that it is incorrect to say that Christian scholars (or even conservative Christian scholars) don't used the critical methods/tools of secular critical scholars. F. F. Bruce, Alister Mcgrath, Douglass Moo, Gleason Archer, and N. T. Wright, just to name a few prominent Christian scholars, do in fact employ the critical-historical methods/tools and present arguments using the accepted criteria for their conclusions. They may not agree with the conclusions of secular critical scholarship, but to say they don't use the same methods/tools would be equivalent to saying that string theorists like Brian Greene don't use the "scientific method" just because they don't come to the same conclusions as Newtonian physics, or because they question the viability Bohr model of the atom. --MonkeeSage 10:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

MonkeeSage, you misread me. I wrote "people whose scholarship operates within an explicitly Christian context, and those whose scholarship employs critical methods." This sentence makes no claims at all about who is a Christian and who is not. When Sanders writes his history books, he is not writing within a Christian context. This does not mean he is not a Christian, only that his religious beliefs are distinct from his work as a historian. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Gotcha. I'm sorry if I knee-jerked there, I'm probably a bit sensetive on the issue. I've been told several times that Christians just can't be objective and handle the evidence rightly, according to the accepted academic standards, because of their religious bias. I just assumed that you were saying something along those lines. I think the distinction you were drawing between critical and non-critical scholars is valid one. --MonkeeSage 13:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

SL, you are right that higher critical scholars see things quite differently than traditional scholars of the Bible, Jewish or Christian. Our list is broader than just critical scholars. All use the tools of modern historical study but approach the Bible with radically different assumptions, as you have said. My point is that for all their diversity, they all agree on the list of propositions we've made about the life of Jesus. The only phrase I know of that covers them all is Biblical scholars and Historians. Any broader than that and we might as weel add Voltaire and Bertrand Russell to the majority view.

But, then, what expertise do philosophers have in historical study?

Which is the point of the discussion. I'm still waiting for someone to find a historian or Bible Scholar who advocates the nonexistence hypothesis. Seeing none, we need a way to show people who read the article the difference in qualifications between the majority and minority positions. --CTSWyneken 11:17, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, such as G.A. Wells being a German (not biblical) historian, and Timothy Freke being a new age philosopher, and Earl Doherty being a classical, not biblical scholar, right? So what is wrong with Robert Price's credentials? (and discounting Earl Doherty as a scholar is similar to discounting Michael Grant, is it not? They both studied non-Christian ancient civiliation/language, and later turned their attention to Jesus and the NT). I'm not saying that the nonexistence hypothesis is any more valid or anything more than a fringe, minority view. I just think it's false to say that it isn't held by a single scholar. That would be like me saying there are no scholars who honestly believe the resurrection was a historical event, and when you show me one, me finding some excuse to discredit them ('oh, well they were writing as a theologian, not a historian when they made that claim').--Andrew c 17:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with MonkeeSage that it is incorrect to say (or imply) that a Christian scholar by definition doesn't use critical tools. In fact, I know that Slrubenstein didn't really mean to say this, as he accepts E.P. Sanders, who is a Christian scholar, as one who uses critical methods, or at least I think Slrubenstein accepts Sanders. Now, Slrubenstein says, and I quote, that "all historians writing about Jesus and early Christianity are Biblical "scholars." That is EXACTLY why the sentence should read, "Most Biblical scholars agree that Jesus was..."

Saying "scholars and historians" is redundant and bad English. Drogo Underburrow 11:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Drogan, would you please read my comments below? It is not bad English because the list includes both Biblical scholars and historians who are not Biblical scholars. Frankly, I'm getting so frustrated I could...

Well, let's not go there. 8-) --CTSWyneken 11:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Slrubenstein claims that "all historians writing about Jesus and early Christianity are Biblical "scholars." and I agree. Drogo Underburrow 11:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

But I never claimed that all Bible scholars are historians. And this is an important distinction that the article must convey. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

They would disagree. --CTSWyneken 11:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Who would disagree? Drogo Underburrow 12:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Michael Grant and Will Durant. The Biblical scholars would also class them as historians and not Biblical scholars. I can ask a few of the latter today, if you'd like.

--CTSWyneken 12:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Durant and Grant are usually refered to as "historians" and not "Biblical scholars". Drogo Underburrow 12:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposal: Most scholars agree that Jesus was a Jewish Galilean teacher and healer who was sentenced to death by crucifixion outside of Jerusalem on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate, for claiming to be the "King of the Judeans," a crime of rebellion against Rome. Drogo Underburrow 13:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Just curious, it is agreed by 'most scholars' that the reason for Jesus' crucifixion was 'for claiming to be the "King of the Judeans"'? I didn't know that the specifics were known. I mean, if this is the actual scholarly consensus, it's news to me. I would propose rewording it to be more broad such as 'Jesus... was sentenced to death by crucifixion outside of Jerusalem on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate, for sedition against Rome.'--Andrew c 17:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

All of the critical scholars I have read (admitedly, not the same as all critical scholars) say that if anything in the Gospels actually happened, the crucifixion is one of them, and from this they conclude that Jesus was executed for sedition. That is, based on everything historians know about 1st century Roman occupied Judea, if Jesus was executed, it could only have been for sedition. NB: this does not mean that Jesus preached violent rebellion. fredreksen emphasizes that at the time, especially among the Jews, there was no clear boundary between the religious and the political. For Jesus to insist that God's kingdom was at hand consititued insurrection, especially if he did this publically and had a significant following. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, and you summed up what I had read as well. However, it seems like an extrapolation to go from saying "we know he was executed because he somehow disturbed the peace against rome" to saying "he claimed to be the king of the judeans" or saying "the romans thought he was claiming to be the king of the judeans."--Andrew c 18:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Please Look at the footnotes

Would you please all stop for a moment! No one seems to be looking at the footnotes I've spent countless hours assembling. On this list are historians, Michael Grant who is one of the most respected historians of the ancient world, Will Durant, a historian who is known for a wide range of work across periods, Shaye Cohen who is a historian of ancient Judaism, who writes a fair bit on the intersection betweem Judaism and infant Christianity. Only Cohen is close to being described as a Biblical scholar. Paul Maier is also a historian of ancient Rome, translator of Josephus and Eusebius, but has done enough work on Biblical issues to be classed a Biblical scholar as well.

Beyond these are critical scholars, Crossan and Fredrikson, for example, and non-critical, traditional scholars, such as Wright and D. A. Carson.

This list can grow if we find it useful...

Here's the point: the paragraph lists what nearly every scholar in Biblical studies and every historian who has studied the life of Jesus agrees upon. In a field that is marked by so many different interpretations of evidence, it is important that we make this clear and that we are describing the near unianimous opinion of scholars is the disciplines of History and Biblical studies.

I'm at a loss as to how else we can describe it. Suggestions? --CTSWyneken 11:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I've been reading them CTS, and I'm sure many others have been also, don't fret -- we appreciate your work! I think "Biblical scholars and historians" is just fine. Scholars covers a wide range of fields, including historical studies, but it also covers humanities, theology, psychology, and so on. But I think most people take the term "Biblical scholar", primarily, as having something to do with theology, homeletics, church history or linguistics, while "Biblical historian" brings archeology, anthropology and other develepmental studies to mind. I think "Biblical scholars and historians" is probably the best phrasing to show the consensus across those specific fields. --MonkeeSage 12:11, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, how about "Biblical historians"? Why do we need the "scholars" part? Is there somebody on the list who is a Biblical scholar but not a historian? Drogo Underburrow 12:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

The point has been made that "scholars" is too broad and "historians" is too narrow. How about something like, "historians and other critical Bible scholars"? Arch O. La^TalkTCF 15:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC) I am sorry for any misunderstanding I caused. I certainly understand that many Christians use the same tools as non-Christian historians. My point is that when someone like Sanders does so, he is bracketing his religious beliefs and his religious beliefs do not enter into his critical scholarship. With all due respect, MonkeeSage's string theory/science argument misses my point entirely. It would be better to say that some string theorists may be Christians, but their Christianity does not enter into the models of the universe they are developing. I would not quibble over "scholar" versus "historian." Drogo is right that I claimed that all historians relevant to this discussion are in one way or another "Bible scholars." But the converse is not true: "Bible scholars" to me is more inclusive - it would include non-historians and people not taking a critical approach. Let me try to be crystal clear about what is at stake here. While CTSWyneken may be correct that all scholars agree that Jesus existed, I do not think this is the crucial point. To my mind, the crucial point is that this is what critical scholars say. My point is not that critical scholars are not Christians, my point is that a critical scholar is not writing as a Christian - s/he writes for an audience that includes non-Christians and not because they wish to convert non-Christians to a "Christian" point of view. When Sanders accepts the existence of Jesus he does not justify this through his faith. Cohen and Sanders both believe that Jesus existed as historians. That Sanders may have other reasons for believing Jesus existed does not enter into his work as a historian, just as Cohen's being Jewish does not enter into it. It is essential that we distinguish between critical scholars and non-critical scholars. I do not care whether we use "scholar" of "historian," although historian is more precise and applies to the sources in the footnote. The crucial distinction is critical versus non-critical. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm OK with any phrasing of scholars/historians that makes people happy that mentioning the "historicity is disputed" view is not over represented. Sophia^TalkTCF 12:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

SL, Please name a "non-critical" scholar who has made a historical statement about Jesus that you think its important that he not be confused with critical scholars. Furthermore, I propose that the sentence read Most biblical historians agree that Jesus was a Jewish Galilean teacher and healer who was sentenced to death by crucifixion outside of Jerusalem on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate, for claiming to be the "King of the Judeans," a crime of rebellion against Rome Drogo Underburrow 12:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Your question is inappropriate because it does not matter whom I believe to be "important." I find most scholars of the NT to be unimportant, but this is my personal opinion and irrelevant to this article. What is important is that I acknowledge that there are Bible scholars whom others - in this case, believing Christians - consider important. It doesn't matter whether I can name them or not. What matters is that some scholars are critical and others are not. Maybe Hal Taussig's Jesus Before God? CTSWyneken, can you suggest some books about Jesus that reflect a profound knowledge of the New Testament and considerable thought, but that come from an explicitly Christian point of view? I cannot believe that none exist. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, you went out of your way to emphasize that there are these non-critical "scholars" and its very important that they be distinguished from the critical ones; so I asked who they were. Drogo Underburrow 13:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Three jump to mind immediately: D. A. Carson, Paul L. Maier and Ben Witherington III. All three maintain that the New Testament is basically historically accurate. They argue that, even if you set aside the theological interpretations of the events chronicled there and put aside items not verifiable, that enough can be established using the cannons of historical research and the findings of archaeology to give these works the benefit of a doubt. This is a bad time for me to make specific recommendations (beyond Maier's In the Fullness of Time, that is, although that is a popular level presentation of his work.)

Notice this school of thought is much different than the higher critical school of Crossan, Sanders, et al. My point is the set of scholars we've accumulated represent a very wide range of thought. They have only two things in common: they are either expert in the history of the ancient world or in the Bible and its background, and they all agree that: Jesus existed, was a Jewish teacher and preacher (read Rabbi), came into conflict with the Pharisees and with the leaders of the Jewish people, was crucified sub Pontio Pilato outside Jerusalem as one who claimed to be King of the Jews. It is a remarkable thing that even this much is held in common, for from that point on, they diverge. This is what I want to preserve.

I have no objection to the Biblical Historians phrase rather than the Biblical Scholars phrase. I think we either have to say "and historians" or take Michael Grant and Will Durant out of the mix, however. --CTSWyneken 13:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, since the desire is to include everybody, then lets just use "historian"...though actually I prefer using just the word "scholar" all by itself. What I won't go for is using both as that is redundant. Drogo Underburrow 13:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

If you just say "Biblical historians", it could sound like your saying historians who were biblical, or at least it does to me :/. Isn't there a better way of saying that? Homestarmy 13:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I still don't see what is wrong with using the word "scholar" all by itself. It applies to everyone on the list. Drogo Underburrow 13:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

How about "Biblical scholars, historians, ranchers, artists, carpenters, inmates, fire-eaters, carnies and tapestry-weavers" ;D ;D ...Sorry...but it is fun! ;) --MonkeeSage 13:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

:-) Drogo Underburrow 13:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

You missed prophets, apostles, evangelists, teachers and students of "many blood suck creatures" (politics, when pronounced poly-ticks) ;-) --CTSWyneken 14:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Scholars does describe everyone on the list, but it does not make the point that this scholars are expert in ancient history and the background and text of the Bible, while the minority view, while scholars, are philosophers by training. --CTSWyneken 14:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Drogo wrote: "Well, you went out of your way to emphasize that there are these non-critical "scholars" and its very important that they be distinguished from the critical ones" - thanks Drogo, I now understand what you were getting at. My point is not that there are important Christian (meaning, writing as Christians) historians, although I don't doubt it. My point is that the difference between people writing as Christians versus people who, whatever their personal views, bracket them and write from a critical point of view, is an important difference. All you need to do is look to the discussion from last week or the last several weeks and you will see some people arguing that if a historian is Christian, he or she is necessarily biased towards presenting a Christian point of view. This is a claim that most secular and non-Christian critical scholars would reject - critical scholars bracket their personal feelings, views, and commitments all the time. Many people reading this article are going to suppose that Bible scholars or historians are Christians and, more than that, writing from an explicitly Christian point of view or in one way or another betraying their Christian agenda. Whatever else you may think about Sanders, for example, I think that is attitude is untrue and unfair. Not only is it unfair to Sanders, it is unfair to secular and non-Christian historians too, because it reflects an ignorance and lack of respect for critical scholarship.

One way an article is NPOV compliant is by including multiple views. Obviously most contributors here acknowledge that the article should not present the Christian point of view as the truthful or only important point of view. But it is not enough to identify points of view as "Muslim," "Jewish," or "atheist." There is a view held by critical scholars and to say that their religion or whether they believe in God or not trumps their disciplinary training is simply to reject that point of view. I insist that this point of view be included.

It is for this reason that I think it is important to distinguish between critical and non-critical historians.

By the way, I urge people to consider removing Durant. Perhaps there is a place for his views, and those of thoughtful and knowledgable authors in general. But I continue to believe that what is important is not how many people believe Jesus existed, but rather which groups have different views on Jesus. I think scholars who have advanced training in Biblical history, who know Koine Greek and Aramaic and publish for academic journals, represent a particular group that prepresents a particular perspective. Durant is not part of this group. When he voices his own view of Jesus, he is speaking as a popular and thoughtful author, but not as anyone who claims to have special knowledge of 1st century Roman Palestine history. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your thoughts, SL, but it is not only "critical" scholars who attempt to set aside their beliefs and background to consider historical evidence. This is why speak of academic disciplines. The problem I have with saying "critical" scholars is that Koine, Aramaic and Hebrew reading scholars, who are on the Dead Sea Scrolls team, who reject this methodology, are still Biblical Scholars and/or Historians. --CTSWyneken 14:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

There seems to be an issue of what "critical" means. Some seem to use it in a negative way, as in "he is quite critical of ..." - however, the proper usage here should be "critical sholars" - those you use the methods of critical historiography, e.g. Mommsen as opposed to Herodotus. All academic historians are critical historians - a different usage would again be pigeon-holing scholars. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 14:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate them too, SL, but I have a problem with filling the article with finely debated phrases that have meanings only to the editors after long discussion, which are logically suspect and of awkward construction. So, how's this for an easy to read, clear, yet accurate statement: Most scholars agree that Jesus was a Jewish Galilean teacher and healer who was sentenced to death by crucifixion outside of Jerusalem on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate, for claiming to be the "King of the Judeans," a crime of rebellion against Rome. E.P. Sanders would write such a sentence. I checked his article on Jesus, and he uses the word "scholar" almost exclusively. Drogo Underburrow 14:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate you point but having "scholars and historians" gives that paragraph the feel that there is almost unanimous agreement on this from both general scholars and also those with historical specialities. If we start watering down this statement further from the "vast majority...." days I fear the "nonexistence" sentence will then take on too much prominence and I know there are more than a few editors who would be very glad to see it gone completely. Try reading the paragraph as a whole and see if it feels a better balance with the "scholars and historians" than without the "historians". Sophia^TalkTCF 14:31, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think at all that "scholars and historians" makes it sound the way you say. I think that it makes the paragraph sound stupid. It implies that historians are not scholars. Its like saying "Good people and Republicans" Drogo Underburrow 14:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I do take your point and it could be read like that I agree. We've had all this fun with whether they are "biblical scholars" or just "scholars". I have no expertise in this area and can understand the frustrations when you do. At the end of the day we have to get to a situation that is the best we can manage at the time with the competing demands of completeness and conciseness. All I am trying to say is that if we under balance the majority side (even if it's only how they feel about it - not necessarily correct usage of terms) all sorts of fun begins with regard to the minority view being represented at all. All I'm trying to do is suggest a working compromise that stabilizes the paragraph and doesn't start up the over-represented/being-supressed edit war again. Sophia^TalkTCF 14:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Unless you know of a historian who is not a scholar, eliminating "historian" does not change the meaning of the sentence. It does remove a useless word, and makes for a much better sentence. Strunk and White: "Omit needless words." Drogo Underburrow 15:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

All absolutely and undisputedly true - however life on the "Jesus" page does tend to mirror the real world in all it's inexact glories : ) Sophia^TalkTCF 15:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Can I get a word in edgewise here? The point has been made that "scholars" is too broad and "historians" is too narrow. "Scholars" includes philosophers, professors of German, and the other people we list under a "small minority." How about something like, "historians and other critical Bible scholars"? Oh, and there are critical Bible scholars that don't use the historical method. Textual ("low") critics just analyze the text. You could make the case that higher Bible critics are also historians, but there are also some historians who are not, strictly speaking, Bible critics. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 15:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

My objection to 'critical Bible scholars' is that its a code phrase - jargon that you have to be part of an "in" group to know the meaning of. In our case, its probably the editors, who debate at length and distinguish what words like "critical" mean in this context. But to the general reading public, its gobbledygook. The average reader simply isn't going to understand the distinctions and reason for the phrase. All the average reader will see is a more complex sentence. Drogo Underburrow 15:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I like Drogo's "Most scholars." Ps. Arch, even lower critics use the historical method to decide between variant readings, date the texts and so forth. They also practice tapestry-weaving on a semi-regular basis, so there! ;) --MonkeeSage 15:28, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction. Well, I provided the link to Biblical criticism to define what we mean by the term. It is a well-defined field of study (defined not by Wikipedia editors, but by those working in the field). Another solution is to further define what we mean by "historians": besides Bible critics, we also have historians of Roman-occupied Judea and Galilee. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 15:33, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

PS:I strongly disagree with Drogo that the general reading public is that ignorant. We average readers already have a general idea of what "Biblical criticism" means, even if we miss the finer points (such as the one that MonkeeSage pointed out). Arch O. La^TalkTCF 15:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I hate to break this to you, but the average reader reads at about the 8th grade level. 'Biblical Criticism' means saying something bad about the Bible. Drogo Underburrow 15:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

My deep down preference would always be to use the correct terminology since - as Archola pointed out - we can wiki link it anyone who would wonder what the difference was (as I would I confess) can do what I always do and click on the link to be illuminated. Sophia^TalkTCF 15:55, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I might get in trouble for saying this, but to me, Drogo's last sentence sounds more like a 5th grade reader than an 8th grade reader. I have seen articles on Wikipedia that are too technical, but I don't think the use of "Biblical criticism" is too technical. If we said "divine parthenogenesis" rather than "virgin birth" (as I have on this talk page), then that would be too technical. Jesus is already on a general reading level. If one needs simpler english, one can always go to the [Simple English article. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 16:01, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I exaggerated for the sake of humor. But not much. The average reading level may be around the 10th grade. If you are writing above that, you are writing for yourself, not making an encyclopedia. Drogo Underburrow 16:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, "8th grade level" is what we strive for in journalism. To understand the word "criticism" in "Biblical criticism," all you need is to know is the broader definition of "criticism." Siskel and Ebert were movie critics, but they didn't always say bad things about movies—sometimes they gave thumbs up! I first learned of the broader definition of "criticism" way back when they hosted Sneak Previews; I was probably in first grade at the time!

IMHO, the average reader will see "Biblical criticism" in much the same way as "movie criticism." Arch O. La^TalkTCF 16:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

If "Critical Bible scholars" is the problem here, I propose "Really smart Bible scholars" That seems fair :D Homestarmy 16:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Since we have the Simple English wiki, why not the Smart Asses wiki where all the articles are filled with sarcasm? Drogo Underburrow 16:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

That's what talk pages are for! Arch O. La^TalkTCF 16:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

-______- I think somebody got up on the wrong side of the bed. Homestarmy 16:30, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I still like Drogo's "Most scholars..." Simple, to the point, accurate. And people who think to themselves "Nuh-uh! Not historians (or fill in the blank)..." will see the footnotes and go "Oh, Bork, they did cover historians (or whatever)...guess I'll go weave some tapestries..." --MonkeeSage 16:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I still think "scholars" is too general. We're trying to draw a distinction between the scholars in the majority position and the scholars in the minority position. BTW, what's with the tapestries? Arch O. La^TalkTCF 16:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

You are trying to do too much with one sentence. Its already a long sentence, without adding code words to it. You have the body of the article to make all the distinctions you want. Drogo Underburrow 16:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's too much to say, "Historians and (other) critical Bible scholars say one thing, while philosophers et al say another." The intro just expands that simple sentence I just wrote into a full paragraph. However you wish to phrase it. If the word 'scholars" bothers you, we could just say "Bible critics" (which I still maintain that the average reader will understand in much the same way as they understand movie critics, book critics, restaurant critics, et al). Arch O. La^TalkTCF 17:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Archie: Sorry about the "tapestries" thing, I tried to make a joke earlier in this section...I'm just making it a running gag...it's probably only funny to me, since I've been awake far too long and caffiene is no longer working to keep me sane. I guess I should just go weave some tapestries or something, heh. 8)

Ps. As I understand Drago, he's not averse to "scholars" or "historians" per se, he's just trying to simplify while still including the relevant info. --MonkeeSage 17:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

What I meant is that he seems adverse to attaching "scholars" only to the Bible critics. He's got a point: they're all scholars. I'm just afraid that Drogo is trying to oversimplify. As we originally had it, the majority consists of Bible critics and historians, while the minority consists of other scholars. If we lose this distinction, than our attribution will be imprecise and perhaps misleading. I don't want to return to the war over each author's academic credentials, but I think that it's important to attribute those credentials in an NPOV way and let the readers decide for themselves who is more credible. IMHO the most credible person listed among the minority is Peter Gandy, an expert in ancient pagan mystery religions, including Gnosticism (he's not just a philosopher, although his coauthor is). However, Gandy is not an expert in Judaism, as CNN and other book reviewers have pointed out.

That's the rub right there: the majority has been criticized for downplaying Hellenic culture, while the minority has been criticized for downplaying Jewish culture. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 17:15, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

MonkeeSage is correct. I'm fine with "scholars", (which I think best) or "historians", or even "bible scholars", and also "biblical" scholars"; I really don't care what term is used..as long as only one is chosen. Its when people want to say two things at once that I object...cause it makes for all kinds of problems in meaning, clarity, and sentence structure. Also, I have to say, that I read E.P. Sanders article on Jesus in the Encyclopedia Britannica...and he uses "scholars" exclusively throughout the article when refering to the work of academics. He doesn't call anybody a "historian", except once I believe. He never goes into stuff like 'critical bible scholars' or other such terms beloved here. If I'm trying to "oversimplify" then what is Sanders doing? Over-over simplifing? You can write complex ideas using straightforward sentences, which is what I am advocating. Drogo Underburrow 17:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

"Bible critics" is better - I wondered if I was stunningly ignorant on the use of "critical" (which I am) but talking to educated (physics ph.ds etc) people in the "real" world who are not experts in this field they do think a "critical biblical scholar" is one who "says bad things about the bible". The term "Biblical critics" is better as I can relate it immediately to "movie critics" etc. I think I got past 8th grade (I'm British so not quite sure what that means) as I have a University degree : ) Sophia^TalkTCF 17:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Besides Bible critics, we are also talking about historians who specialize in first-century Palestine and historians who specialize in Jewish history; this is broader than just "Bible critics." 8th grade is either the last grade of primary school or the first grade of secondary school, depending on where you attended.

The point is to clarify which kind of scholar is saying what. Both camps have their detractors. We're just being more specific than Drogo or, I guess, Sanders, but I don't think this has yet taken us to the point of unneccesary complication. As CTSWYneken and others have said, there are two kinds of scholars in the majority position, and other kinds of scholars in the minority position.

More technically: A, B and C are all subsets of D. We have "A and B, but not a small minority of D." We might further clarify, "A and B, but not C." Drogo's proposal is "The majority of D vs. the minority of D." The complication is that C is not just one particular kind of scholar, but several. Another problem is that A and B might intersect, but they are not the same subset. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 17:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah-ha. Good points Archie. I'm going to opt out here, cause I don't know what phrasing is best, and I'm OK with any that have been proposed. Everyone seems to have good points and I can't decide. *MonkeeSage goes and weaves tapestry in the corner with his GED* --MonkeeSage 17:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I suggest just saying "scholars" and leave it at that. Some are Bible critics, others are historians, others might be something else. "Scholars" can encompass all of them. KHM03 ^(talk) 17:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

There should be no discussion as to whether we use accurate terms or not - it doesn't matter whether our audience is people with an 8th grade education or actual 8th graders (and many of our readers may well be in the 8th grade). An encyclopedia is educational, it is meant to teach people things they do not know.

As to "critical scholar" I honestly am not picking an argument. I agree that not all scholars are followers of higher criticism. Nevertheless, I do maintain it is true that some scholars bracket there religious beliefs, and others do not. I also maintain that this distinction is important when talking about events or characters in the Bible. Perhaps "critical" is not the right word. I welcome suggestions for other ways to frame it. But the views of scholars who braket their religious convictions (if they have any) must be represented in this article, and it must be clear that they are among the groups being represented. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

There once was a man named Venn.

KHM03 is correct, but just using the word "scholars" doesn't distingish the majority of scholars from the minority of scholars. I also agree with Slrubenstein. Would a Venn diagram help?

A: Bible critics B:Historians C: Other scholars. The majority is in color and the minority is in white. Note that this isn't to scale. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 17:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

What can I say after that? I'm happy to accept whatever those in the "know" feel is best. I'm off to tapestry too. Sophia^TalkTCF 18:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Wait, so the reason why this topic is so touchy to everyone is because they believe the minorty view (jesus myth or nonexistence hypothesis) is not held by a single biblical scholar or historical scholar (only other acedemics like philosophers...)? --Andrew c 18:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

My diagram is a set of cited scholars, which is not the same thing as all scholars (it's a survey, not a census). To be fair, we haven't yet found a Bible scholar or historical scholar that supports the nonexistance hypothesis, and we've looked. That's not to say they're not out there, but for sure we don't know of them. The supporters we have of the minority position include philosophers, scholars of the German language, experts on Gnosticism, and perhaps some other types of scholars. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 18:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

PS: We drew a distinction between the Jesus-Myth and the nonexistance hypothesis some time ago. Certainly there are historians and Bible critics who argue that pagan religions influenced the development of Christianity, but the ones we have still accept the existance of a historical Jesus from Nazareth as described in the second paragraph. In other words, they argue that Jesus has been mythologized, but isn't completely mythical. To draw analogies from American history, George Washington did not chop down a cherry tree and Davy Crockett did not kill a bear when he was only three, but both Washington and Crockett are real historical people. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 18:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

PPS: I don't mean to filibuster, but I thought of another point. If the orange people (higher critics) are the only Bible critics we cite, than Drogo is correct. However, I think we should also cite some of the yellow people (Bible critics who use methods other than the historical) as long as they "bracket their religious conviction," as Slrubenstein said. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 19:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I have one (only one!) objection to the current phrasing. I do not think that we should privilege the views of historians who are not experts on this particular period in history. What is important is not what "lots of people" think, what is important is what scholars who have extensive training and have written recognized scholarly works on the period. I think we should delete the Will Durant footnote, for example - who cares what Will Durant thought? I would grant him some authority as a philosopher, but his historical work was all popular and based on secondary sources - why should we care about what he thought of 1st century Judea, any more than what anyone else thought? We should stick to recognized scholars of this period. By the way, as far as I know all or most of the people in footnote 2 believe Jesus was executed for sedition. Why not just delete footnote three, and move footnote two to the end of the sentence? Slrubenstein | Talk 11:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Sentence order in second paragraph

Perhaps people missed my comment above. The second paragraph currently states:

Most scholars and historians agree that Jesus was a Jewish Galilean teacher and healer who was sentenced to death by crucifixion outside of Jerusalem on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate, for claiming to be the "King of the Judeans," a crime of rebellion against Rome. The main sources of information regarding Jesus' life and teachings are the four canonical Gospels of the New Testament, which are generally agreed to have been written in the decades after his death. A small minority question the historicity of Jesus, citing a lack of extant contemporaneous documents making reference to him.

The problem with the current order of sentences is that we now do not know what the "small minority" is referring to; is it "scholars and historians", or is it "four canonical gospels"? In order for the paragraph to read comprehensibly, we first need to state what the source documents are, then give the majority and minority opinions about what their import is. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe "small minority" refers to those scholars who support the nonexistance hypothesis. I agree that the sources should come first. BTW "scholars" was originally referring to Bible critics; the revision is misleading because everyone cited is a scholar of one form or another. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 18:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

You're right, "small minority" is in contradistinction to the "Most scholars etc.", but the current order of sentences makes that unclear. I'm not concerned about the specific wording here, but rather about the sentence order, which is not particularly comprehensible. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:39, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

So, we're saying... The main sources... Most scholars... A small minority...? If so, I can go with that. It flows better. --CTSWyneken

Exactly. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 20:48, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

That was my original proposal, but some thought that it might be confusing. I agree with Jayjg that placing the sources between the two camps of scholarly opinion is more confusing. Frankly, I'd like to see the main sources listed at the end of the first paragraph. The sources are data, as are the name and dates that are already in the first paragraph. The second paragraph is historical analysis, and the rest of the intro is theological analysis.

Another thing we may need to reword is "question the historicity of Jesus." The nonexistance hypothesis questions the historicity of all data on Jesus, but for example the Jesus Seminar questions the historicity of 80% and accepts the historicity of 20%. For that matter, devout Christians question the historicity of the data in the Gnostic gospels. For the nonexistnace hypothesis, "question the existance of Jesus" might be better. Existance is binary, but historicity is not. If you include nonBiblical sources, then just about everybody questions the historicity of some of the data pertaining to Jesus.

Example: Anne Rice's recent novel, Christ the Lord: Out of Egypt, is based on the Child Jesus stories, but I seriously question the historicity of the Child Jesus stories. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 19:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Is it true Rice claimed Jesus murdered some bully and then ressurected him? Homestarmy 19:29, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and this comes straight out of the medieval "Child Jesus" legends. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 19:40, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, contradiction by supposed hypocracy, suuuuspiiiiciiiouuuuss....Homestarmy 19:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, the "Child Jesus" stuff came from people who speculated on the gap in the Gospel story between the flight to Egypt and the finding in the temple. It started with some of the NT apocrypha and grew from there. Check the Child Jesus article to see what that's all about. Frankly, it reminds me of an episode of The Twlight Zone. The point is that just about everyone believes there is some Jesus-Myth, but only a small minority maintain that it is all myth. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 19:53, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Jesus-Myth, nonexistence hypothesis, and apocrypha

I think part of the controversy is that we're not making a clear distinction between the Jesus-Myth and the nonexistence hypothesis. I asked some time ago if they are one and the same; CTSWyneken and Paul B. explained the difference.

I've tried to point out that we Christians have our own version of the Jesus-Myth; we just call it apocrypha. Among academics, the Jesus-Myth refers to those who argue that some or all of the NT is also apocryphal. The non-existence hypothesis argues that the NT is entirely apocryphal, but there are others who accept some details of the Gospel account more readily than others. Obviously the miracles, virgin birth, and ressurection are considered mythical by non-Christians. Even liberal Christians will ask, for example, why Luke dates Jesus birth to a Quinirian census that took place long after Herod the Great was dead.

This is why I think we should rephrase " A small minority question the historicity of Jesus" to something like "A small minority question the historical existence of Jesus." Strictly speaking, historicity is broader than existence. There are many who accept the historical existence of Jesus, but question the historicity of other details. The majority agree that "Jesus was a Jewish Galilean teacher and healer who was sentenced to death by crucifixion outside of Jerusalem on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate,[1] for claiming to be the "King of the Judeans," a crime of rebellion against Rome," but many among the majority question the historicity of other details. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 21:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree completely with you. Historicity should be clarified to say historical existence. Here is one proposal of mine.

Most scholars agree that Jesus was a Jewish Galilean teacher and healer who was sentenced to death by crucifixion outside of Jerusalem on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate,[2] for alleged rebellion against Rome.[3] A small minority of scholars question the historical existence of Jesus.[4] The main sources of information regarding Jesus' life and teachings are the four canonical Gospels of the New Testament, which are generally agreed to have been written in the decades after his death.

This proposal features the following: reordered sentences to make more sense; use of "scholars" across the board to simplify the critical bible scholars vs. historians vs. wahtever; historicity changed to historical existence; cut the reason clause behind the minority; generalized "claiming to be 'King of Judeans'" to "alleged rebellion". How does that work?--Andrew c 21:52, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it seems that in some places, non-Christians might think the virgin birth happened :/. Remember that poll I found about what Americans seem to believe? Homestarmy 21:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

More 2nd paragraph stuff about King of the Judeans

I raised this issue further up and in my proposal above. Slrubenstein seemed to agree with me. Do all scholars claim the exact reason for Jesus' crucifixion is the claim to be "King of the Judeans" or can we generalize some and say he was executed for 'for alleged rebellion against Rome.?--Andrew c 03:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)'

You're entering a thorny patch. There is, of course, a two-millenia-long dispute over the political causes for Jesus' death, starting with the question of whether (some of) the Jews or the Romans were more to blame. I'm not sure where modern scholarship comes down on this issue. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 03:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Well if we aren't even sure where modern scholarship comes down, why are we saying they all unanimously agree on the specific claim? I was trying to present the wording in a more general sense to avoid this dispute.--Andrew c 05:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Don't confuse "me" with "we." I personally have read enough to be confused with about modern scholarship on the complicated Jewish politics of the time, which is even more complicated by the Roman occupation. However, there are several editors who have a greater understanding of this than I do. Slrubenstein and Haldrik are excellent examples; there may be others. Arch O. La^TalkTCF 06:51, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I meant 'we' as in you (singular) + I, but I understand your point that neither you nor me are the sole arbitrator of consensus.--Andrew c 16:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Um, I don't think the issue is really how well I or anyone else understands the field of factions in Roman Judea or Galilee at that time. I think the issue is our knowledge of the scholarly literature on this matter. Personally, I have no reason to doubt the claim that Jesus presented himself or was believed by others to be the "King of the Jews" and as far as I know, most historians would say it is likely — it is in all four gospels, it is entirely consistent with what historians know about first century Judea, and with the handful of other things about Jesus they feel confident about, and this claim is in conflict with Christian theology/would have been embarrasing to early Church leaders in the late first/second century. So I am afraid I do not agree with Andrew C. To be clear: I am not saying that jesus was the King of the Jews or even that some people believed he was king of the Jews. I am saying that most critical scholars I have read accept this element of the gospel account.

By the way, one thing that all these historians feel very certain about is that jesus was baptized by John the baptist. Would anyone object to adding it? Slrubenstein | Talk 11:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I honestly do not know of a case where a historian doesn't make this claim. But then again I don't know a case where one does either. My ignorance of this topic made me stop and consider if the wording was accurate of the vast majority of scholars. I am well aware that there are countless conflicting historical reconstructions on the life of Jesus. Some say he preached the apocalypse, some say he was a social revolutionary, some say this, and some say that. I figured (I guess incorrectly) that they all couldn't agree on the exact reasoning behind the crucifixion. Sorry for dragging out this non-issue.--Andrew c 16:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd really like to finish documenting the claims we have in the paragraph before we add more. The problem is that, to cite it, someone has to see these points on some page of one of the author's works and add the information to the footnote. That's why we have two footnotes there now; I was well into documenting the original set of claims and then we added another. In short, if we say an author says something, we had better prove it. --CTSWyneken 16:38, 17 March 2006 (UTC)