Talk:Jesus/2nd Paragraph Debate/9

Current proposals

Grigory's revised standard version

The main sources of information regarding Jesus' life and teachings are the four canonical Gospels of the New Testament. Most scholars in the fields of biblical studies and history accept those details of the Gospel narrative which are consistent with known history. At a minimum, they agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher from Galilee who was regarded as a healer, and who was sentenced to death by crucifixion on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate. However, a few scholars and popular authors, based on the relative lack of external documentation, question the historical existence of Jesus.

---

Now, how's that? I'm posting this here so we can get comments from people who do not read subpages. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 22:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Now, how's that? Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 22:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think there are scholars (e.g. the Jesus Seminar) who think that "the Gospels have little historical basis", but do not reject the existence to Jesus. That part could be ironed out. And the "Many details" part might run into trouble. But it mostly looks good to me. john k 23:10, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Revised. I changed the wording back to "question the historical existence of Jesus," and revised "many details" to "those details." Obviously scholars diagree about what the additional details are, or there wouldn't be so many models! Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 23:15, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks five by five to me. But since I don't really have a problem with any of the proposed versions. :) --MonkeeSage 23:34, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The only person I've ever heard use the expression "five by five" is Faith the Vampire Slayer. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 23:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I got it from From a Buick 8 (good book!)...I sometimes think my trunk (and my clothes dryer!) has a portal to a nether world which sucks everything into it. ;) --MonkeeSage 03:35, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I am strongly opposed to this. I think that the version we reached after a long process was good, very good, and shouldn't be screwed with so quickly. first, "healer in the cultural anthropological sense" is both wrong and horrid. It is wrong because the major scholars, Vermes, Sanders, etc., do not write "in the cultural anthropology sense." It is horrid because there is no "cultural anthropology" sense. Cltural anthropologists are primarily interested in how people at a particular time and place consider healing. In other words, the anthropologists do not have their own understanding of "healer," they are trying to grasp other people's understanding of healer. In context, then, an anthropologist would say "Jesus was a healer in the sense that Jews in the Galilee believed about healers" and this is a grotesquely clumsy way to write. That he was regarded by many people at the time to be a healer is more to the point, and this is exactly what the agreed version says. Second problem: the comparison to pagan myths is not a primary reason for doubting Jesus' existence. All it suggests (and this is pretty much what well-regarded scholars say) is that popular beliefs about gods and religion shaped how Christianity developed. It can lead some people to claim tha the Christian view of Jesus is not an accurate view of the Jesus who lived, but rather a phenomena that re-wrote Jesus' life and teachings to fit in with more popular beliefs. This line of argument is entirely neutral as to whether Jesus existed or not. Finally, the scholars cited in the first note, the ones who all accept Jesus existed, use these comparisons to pagan myths themselves, so it is misleading to suggest that it is people who reject Jesus who look at pagan myths. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I tried. The other three proposed revisions at /2nd Paragraph Debate are still open. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 23:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC) PS: I also listed them below, just to be fair. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 00:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I've revised the two points Slrubenstein objected to above. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 00:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Slr - I agree with you that the comparisons to pagan myths issue is a silly plank to base Jesus' non-existence on, but that's because the idea that Jesus did not exist is a silly one. Of those who do claim that Jesus didn't exist, the "Jesus' story is similar to pagan myths, so he must not have ever existed" argument is one of the principal ones. But I agree that the phrasing might be misleading. john k 03:33, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Heh. I bought that book, but never had a chance to read it. Maybe soon.... Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 03:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Slrubenstein strongly objects (see main talk page). I've revised my proposal in an attempt to deal with his objections. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 23:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I think the phrase "known history" sounds strange. I really don't see why we can't leave things as they are. I'd rather leave well enough alone. --CTSWyneken 01:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Known history=all we know about first century Israel. We could maybe phrase it better, but I provided a reason (since we have one for the minority opinion) and also a link to the cultural and historical background article. It just goes to show that this really could have happened ;) We've been reacting to objections by Drogo and John K; we have four suggestions on the table, but I wouldn't change the article itself unless we can reach a consensus. If there is no consensus, we should "leave well enough alone." Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 01:23, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

1.Why do you feel it an improvement to add "popular authors"? 2.Which authors are you refering to? 3.The second and third sentences are much better than the current version. Drogo Underburrow 07:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I still think it is misleading to say that "Most scholars in the field of history" because most scholars in the field of history do not study the question of the historical existence of Jesus. Drogo Underburrow 07:50, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• 1 & 2) Because of the ongoing debate about "who is a scholar?" Some of the writers in the last footnote, most recently Freke and Gandy, have been challenged in other articles for not being scholars. However, they are at the least popular (or populist) authors. This led to a RfC at Talk:Jesus-Myth and Talk:Historicity of Jesus. To quote WP:RFC/REL: "There are disputes on how minority issues dealing with the non existence of Jesus as a real historical figure should be represented and the levels of competence required to be classed a scholar. 18:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)" I thought we'd nip this in the bud before the same challege was brought here.
• 3) Thank you.
• 4) It has been suggested that we should be more specific. Obviously a historian of the Chinese Ming Dynasty would have little to say about the historicity of Jesus ;) We're talking about historians of the New Testament and/or Roman-Era Israel/Palestine. Yes, the first group are also biblical scholars, but not everyone in the second group are biblical scholars. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 08:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I've been meaning to ask...does YACE=Yet Another Copy Edit? --MonkeeSage 09:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 10:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Isn't Freke and Gandy the ones who think Jesus didn't exist because of the mythological thesis that SLR doesn't want put into the statement? Drogo Underburrow 10:26, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

We have qualified and comprimised more than enough on this paragraph. I have yet to see evidence that more than one, and that one is still a question, historian or Biblical Scholar thinks there's any doubt on the existence of Jesus or any of the other points. I do not want to keep loading all kinds of qualifiers into this paragraph so that it sounds like a Major League sports contract! We are well justified in this language. It is an intro, for crying our loud! --CTSWyneken 10:42, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so take out the mention of popular authors. I think it a cheap shot, by the way, to say that people holding academic degrees and writing in the area of their field, are not scholars. Drogo Underburrow 10:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! To me, this is all like a Chinese water torture! I am perfectly fine with calling the minority "scholars," "academics," "philosophers," for that is what they are. I think it ought to be clear, however, that they are not expert in the Biblical and historical disciplines. That is why the "in the fields of..." qualiifier. BTW, I think we're being quite reasoable, since most encyclopedias do not even bother with the minority opinion. We would even be NPOV to say "almost everyone thinks the minority is crazy," but I'm too nice for that. 8-) I think. 8-) --CTSWyneken 11:29, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

You may be fine with calling the minority scholars, but if you'll check the linked talk pages, you'll find that other editors disagree. I agree with Drogo, it's a cheap shot. There's no need to add the phrase "popular authors" if you think it will cause trouble. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 14:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

This (similarity to pagan myths)is apparently the thesis of some in the minority footnote such as Freke and Gandy, not to mention a couple of Wikipedia editors I prefer not to name. Some of this is spillover from the controversy on the Talk:Jesus-Myth page. BTW, that page has been put up for an RfC on the question, "who was a scholar?" I didn't want to return to the same debate here, hence the phrase "and popular authors."

It looks like we are stuck with the "regarded as a healer" phrase. I tried something different because, not long ago, someone remarked that saying Jesus was regrarded as a healer is the same as saying that Britney Spears is regarded as a healer. Well, I don't regard Ms. Spears as a singer because, frankly, she can't sing. To say that Jesus was a healer as that term (in Greek or Aramaic) was used in the early first century is the same as saying that Britney Spears is a singer as that term is used in the early twenty-first century. It's technically correct and yet is neutral on the question of actual ability. I also read recently (in a book on early Christianity) that anthropologists make a distinction between curing disease and healing illness. For example, the illness of demon possession is not recognized by the AMA. ;)I wonder what anthropologists have to say about Britney Spears? Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 14:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Archola, I think you are mistaking the word "healer" for "medical doctor" or "physician." MD and Physician refer to very specific statuses tht bring with them a whole set of beliefs and practices (not all of which have to do with healing, by the way, and not all of which successfully heal people of anything). "Healer" is a much more general word. (Likewise, words like disease and illness are social categories and have different meanings in different contexts. You are mistaken about anthropologists; they are interested in how people use words like disease and illness, and there is no single meaning to either word, and therefore no fixed distinction. Many people talk about diseases that are not recognized by the AMA and that do not have what we would call a biological etiology). I am not sure about your bringing in the term "21st century." Although people at Jesus' time did not have the germ theory of disease there certaily were many physicians who understood illnesses (or disease, this is just an arbitrary word choice in this context) as purely biological phenomena. Likewise, there are many people today, even in industrialized societies, who believe that there are maladies that are caused by spirits, and that there are specialists who can heal people of these maladies. In Spanish throughout Latin America (which yes, is modern and Western and 21st century) these people are called curanderos or curanderas, literaly "healers" (curar=to heal). The word "healer" simply does not mean someone who successfully treats diseases caused by germs or congenital defects using scientific means based on scientific knowledge. At best, this is what many people in a particuler culture (ours) believe. It is no more a cultural belief than any other. Whatever you think of science - I mean, even if you believe it is the truth - this is easily demonstrated by a few facts: until relatively recently and in many cases even now doctors do not understand why (how, exactly) a specific drug succesfully treats a specific illness; many successful treatments are discovered through non-scientific procedures (e.g. penicillin); medical doctors/physicians often "treat" things that are definitely not diseases e.g. childbirth. I do not want to get into an argument over the scientific soundness of allopathic medicine. My point is only that it is a mistake to identify "healer" with one specific approach to healing - let alone to say that people's approaches to illness are radically and 100% different today compared to 2,000 years ago. At best, it is more complicated than that. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

"21st century" is in relation to Britney Spears. It has nothing to do with healing. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 16:48, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I am sory I misunderstood - thank you for explaining, Slrubenstein | Talk 16:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

At the risk of sounding didactic, perhaps I can better explain my BS point. There are many people who sing, and sing quite well, who are not "singers." And there are singers who do not sing very well (at least, according to me, and Archola). My point is that "singer," like "healer" is the name of a social status. It obviously bears some relationship to the activity of singing (or healing) but the two terms are not isomorphic. A doctor who has never cured anyone is still officially a "doctor." A doctor can even have harmed people without having their licences being removed, and they remain doctors. We might hope that anyone called "Doctor" would only cure, and cure well. People who go to healers, whether they are exorcists like Jesus or homeopathic healers or shamans or whatever, certainly want to believe that the person they go to only heals and heals well. The fact remains that titles like "healer" and "doctor" are social statuses that reflect social

convention. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:57, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course, we have room to explain the scholarly opinion in the body of the article without loading the paragraph with qualifiers. In journalism, this is called "burying the lead." If people actually read the article itself, rather than stopping at the second paragraph, we might not have so many disputations. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 18:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

List of common objections

Right. I ran out of time at the library and I didn't have a chance to finish my comment until now.

I was fine with the word "healer," which simply means one who treats illness, independent of theory or method or effectiveness. Jesus was, in fact, a healer in the context of first-century Galilee, and he was not the only one. Either that, or I've been seriously misled. However, at least three people objected to the word "healer," so we came up with "regarded as a healer." Then someone objected to that. Perhaps "cultural anthropology" was the wrong phrase, but something I read recently reminded me of CTSWyneken's remark about shamanism. It was just meant to clarify that the word "healer" is used to denote a social status, independent of how one views or "regards" that status.

Rather than coming up with another bad idea, I'll simply ask you how you would respond to the objections that have been raised over the past few weeks. Please don't shoot the messenger. I'm not saying that any of these are or are not valid. I am simply repeating them: Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 18:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

No sweat (and if you ever think I am being rude, to the messenger or to anyone else, tell me. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• 'Healer" implies supernatural healing.

Let us leave it to the body of the article to work through the implications.Slrubenstein | Talk 18:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Now I will give my own opinion ;) We should, but we currently don't. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 18:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• "Regarded as a healer" implies that Jesus was not a healer.

Which is why I am fine with "healer." That said, historians are not really concerned with whether Jesus was "really" a healer any more than whether Jesus was "really" a messiah - only, did anyone (him or others) claim he was messiah and what did they mean. What he and his followers believed by "healer" is definitely something that must be explored later in this article or a linked a article. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

We could perhaps cover this better, Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 18:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• The currrent phrasing, which gives the minimal points of agreement, falsely implies that the majority are minimalists.

No, it simply provides those points on which a manority of scholars agree. Anyone who thinks that this means that this is all any one particular scholar thinks is a sloppy reader. Now, I am sure Wikipedia has sloppy readers. But you know what? no matter how well-written the articles on Evolution or on Special Relativey are, some people will misread them. Be that as it may, the introduction is only an introduction. Again, the body of the article, or linked articles, should explain what specific historians have argued more fully, and how different historians differ. I believe that what I am saying is not unique to this article but the way all articles with have introductions and bodies are organized. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Good point. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 18:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• Giving a reason for the minority opinion, but not the majority opinion, gives undue weight to the minority.

Well, I think the words "majority" and "minority" speak for themselves. But if you asked me to parse the sentence, this is what I would say it "implies:" that people who reject Jesus' existence have one reason, and people who believe he was a seditious healer have many reasons. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your reasoning, but the paragraph still looks unbalanced. Perhaps we could add the phrase "for a variety of reasons." Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 18:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• Some of the scholars in the minority footnote are not scholars according to some editors. The dispute over whether Freke and Gandy in particular are scholars recently led to an RfC at Talk:Jesus-Myth and Talk:Historicity of Jesus.

I strongoy believe these non-scholas must be emoved. The paragraph is concerned with what scholars believe. There is absolutely no reason to believe that pious Christians and academic scholars are the only people with views on Jesus. The article should present the views of others including people like Freke and Gandy. Just put it in another paragraph. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem is, who defines what a scholar is? Dispute over the word "scholar" goes all the way back to the very first draft of the paragraph.Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 18:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• Saying that Pilate convicted Jesus for sedition contradicts the Gospel accounts

So what? This paragraph claims to be what the majority of scholars think, not what the Gospels say. NPOV requires that we present multiple points of view. We should provide an account of what the Gospels say. We should also provide an account of wha people other than the authors of the Gospels say. Delete their views because they differ from the view of the Gospels? That is a clear and simple violation of one of our core policies, NPOV. Anyone who questions this should simply be directed to the policy page. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, one is the scholars' POV, and the other is the Gospel's POV. However, this is what Drogo recently called a "contradiction or NPOV violation," despite the attribution to scholars on the one hand and the gospels on the other. I don't agree with Drogo, though. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 18:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• Saying that the charge was sedition implies that Jesus was convicted for sedition, again contradictinf the Gospel accounts

See above comment. This paragraph is not claiming to represent th Gospel account. The article must comply with NPOV meaning it must provide views other than those in the Gospels. Period. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, I agree. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 18:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• "Historians" is too broad and should be limited to relevant fields, such as NT historians and historians of first-century Israel

Personally I think this goes without saying. Does the article on Special Relativity say "physicists who focus on gravity?" In an article on orchids, would we say "botanists who study orchids?" That said, I don't object to being more specific, except we would then have to add, "using modern critical academic methods" or something. Again, why not spell all this out in the body of the article or in linked articles? It is poor style for th introduction to be too detailed. We must remember that it is only an introduction and as such is part of a larger whole. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

We should clarify in the article, but I'm not sure that we do. I also agree that we shouldn't bury the lead in this paragraph. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 18:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

And those are just some of the objections that have been raised since Avery supervised the last vote. These I can remember off the top of my head, but I'm sure there were others. It seems that no matter what phrasing we come up with, someone will object, often based on implication. Hence my use of the word "omnicontroversial." Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 17:51, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I really appreciate your efforts. However, we will never satisfy all objections - few articles do. What we need is some reasonable principles for deciding which objections merit attention and which do not. I would in general dismiss all objections that do not reflect our NPOV policy, and that in focusing on the introduction ignore tht it is part of a larger article (or that in focussing on one paragraph ignores the fact that it is part of a larger section.) I sincerely elieve all objections should be considered and I hope that my responses reflect an understaning of the objection. But understanding an objection does not require agreeing withit. Moreover, we should not just ty to accept and accommodate all objections - to do so is lazy, as it means it does not matter whether we actually understand the objection. In other words, i think trying to understand an objection even when it leads one to dismiss it, takes the objection more seriously than one who tries to accomodate all objections blindly. Some people here are so conflict-aversee they think that continued objction is a bad thing. It is not - not necessarily. It depends on what the objection is. Some objections reflect a commitment to our policies and to a desire to produce excellent encyclopedia articles and these are worth accommodating. Some are clearly motivated by these commitments, but are nevertheless misplaced, but these objections merit serious discussion. Others are just silly and we have to accept the fact that given the open quasi-anarchic nature of Wikipedia, there will always be silly objections. So, Archola (and anyone else) - I suggest that instead of attempting to list all the objections we can to the best of our memoy, we should stick to dealing with those objection that we believe really have merit. Which of the above objections do you think really have merit? If your response is different from mine, can you explain why? I don't object to continued discussion. I do object to trying to come up with a paragraph that treats all objections as having equal merit, that accommodates all objections without considering their merit, that onstitutes an attempt to deflect all conceivabl objections. I just don't think it is a good strategy for writing a good encyclopedia article. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:25, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm beginning to suspect that we've been chasing our tails, but I'm not sure what to do. Rather than dismiss such objections, perhaps we could take CTSWyneken's idea from a while back and create a FAQ? Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 18:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

PS: Is there any way to clarify and respond to these objections in one paragraph without burying the lead in a bunch of qualifiers? Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 18:14, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not object to an FAQ. However, I think the fundamental point is this: articles on controversial topics will always - always - periodically provoke the exact same objections. It does not matter how carefully the article is written because some objections are really reflexive and owe to deep-seated prejudices. Look at the evolution article. It has for some time had a section that responds to all the main criticisms made by creationists (those criticisms that pose as being "scientific"). Nevertheless, every month or so someone write extensive comments on the talk paes rehashing these criticisms. I honestly do not know what exactly is going on - either they do not read the article at all, or read it but not carefully, or read it and just do not understand it, or are so deeply motivated by their faith that they are blind to any response. My point is, after a while you just have to say "read the article" and stop responding to objections. I want to reitterate; I do not believe that all objections are silly and should be dismissed out of hand. only that some are, yet these are objections people will continue to raise. Any editor working on an article on a controversial topic just has to get used to it. We have to be prepared to get some criticisms over and over that will not disappear no matter how many people respond to them reasonably, and no matter how much time people take to explain why the objection is misplaced. I hope you do not think of it as chasing your tail, Archola. Just understand that thoughtfulness, good intentions, and patience do not solve all problems. I do appreciate your efforts. Some issues are worth it. But some aren't. Don't feel bad about giving up dealing with some claims in order to focus constructively on others. I know we agree in principle, you have said as much already. I jut want to encourage you to trust your judgement in deciding what issues to focus on and where to let go. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:08, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

MonkeeSage's Omnipotent revision

The main sources used by scholars in the fields of biblical studies and history for information on Jesus' life and teachings are the four canonical Gospels of the New Testament. Most scholars in these fields have agreed that Jesus was a Jewish teacher from Galilee who was regarded as a healer, and was sentenced to death by crucifixion on the orders of Pontius Pilate. As the Gospels were not written down immediately after his death and there is little external documentation, a small minority of scholars question the historical existence of Jesus.

---

John K proposal

While modern scholars differ on the extent to which the details of the Gospel narratives of Jesus' life can be trusted, most agree that they preserve memory of an actual Jesus of Nazareth who was crucified in Jerusalem at the orders of the Roman governor Pontius Pilate around the beginning of the fourth decade of the Common Era.[2] As the Gospels were not written immediately after his death and there is little external documentation, a small minority of scholars question the historical existence of Jesus.[3]

---

CTSWyneken proposal

The main sources of information regarding Jesus' life and teachings are the four canonical Gospels of the New Testament. Most scholars in the fields of biblical studies and history agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher from Galilee who was regarded as a healer and on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate was sentenced to death by crucifixion.[2]] As the Gospels were not written immediately after his death and there is little external documentation, a small minority of scholars question the historical existence of Jesus.[3]

---

Sophia has a go as well

Details of Jesus' life and ministry are contained in the four canonical Gospels of the New Testament which were written in the decades after his death, possibly from oral tradition [there must be some quotes for this]. Most experts studying these documents agree that Jesus was a Jew from Galilee, and was known as a teacher and healer who died by crucifixion on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate[2]. As the Gospels were not written immediately after his death and there is little external documentation, a small minority of scholars question the historical existence of Jesus.[3]

No change proposal

If none of these proposals are acceptable, we could simply leave the paragraph as it is.

---

John the Baptist proposal

Add "Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist" to the list of details the majority agrees upon.

---

A different solution

Instead of loading the paragraph with qualifiers, why not create a FAQ? Then if someone raises the same old tired questions or objections, we can just tell them to RTFM. If anyone comes up with something we haven't considered, we should of course be courteous and consider what they have to say. However, the FAQ can cover the meaning of "healer" as a social role, while scholarly opinion may differ from the gospel accounts, and other things that we have talked to death. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 19:03, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

That is a great idea! --MonkeeSage 22:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

It was originally CTSWyneken's idea, but I just think now that it would be so much easier. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 06:48, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Other comments

Just to be fair, I posted the other current proposals back on the main page. At this time, I don't really care which version we go with. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 00:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Also, the four proposals above are attempts to address two objections. 1) Drogo Underwood was concerned about the charge of sedition. Hence the removal of this clause in the proposals. 2) John K pointed out that we should make clear that, while most scholars agree to the details listed, only the minimalists agree with only those details. Many scholars accept additional details. Hence, "at a minimum" in my version.

In addtion, I think we should also give a reason for the majority opinion (consistent with known history) if we are going to give a reason for the minority opinion (that whole horrid "lack of extant contemporaneous documents" thing). Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 01:05, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer John's version. However, I will not argue if more people prefer Monkeysage's or CTSWynekin's versions. But I must also add that the wod sedition is appropriate and accuragte. Most modern scholars (although I am not thrilled by the word modern) do agree Jesus was executed because he was charged with sedition. It doesn't matter whether we agree with this or not, it is what most scholars I know of say. Most scholars I know of also think that Jesus' baptism by John is one of the few elements of the narrative most likely to be historically accurate, so if the point is to represent what most scholars believe, we should add this. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:40, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

CTS's proposal is the most conservative (next to no change, that is); it simply removes the charge of sedition, but is otherwise identical to the existing paragraph. The conflict over "sedition" is largely semantic (but then, so is everything else surrounding this paragraph). Interesting point about the baptism. I wouldn't be opposed to adding it, although CTS will have to look through the sources again. :-| Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 16:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

My sense is that "sedition" (not that Jesus actually committed sedition, just that he was executed by the Romans because they believed him guilty of sedition) captures what Fredricksen, Sanders, and others claim better than any other word (e.g. rebel or revolutionary). Slrubenstein | Talk 16:58, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. This is, however, somewhat different from what the Gospels state. Hence Drogo posting "contradiction or NPOV violation" the other day. CTSWyneken agrees with you, I think, but simply believes that it might be easier to explain the distinction in the body of the article. The problem with the second paragraph is that we don't have room to explain such things.

Actually, I think if people actually read the rest of the article, we might avoid such complaints. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 18:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Feel free to ignore my suggestion but I tried to start from scratch and try something from a slightly different angle that says all the important stuff. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 00:04, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

In terms of what the Gospels state, that should be irrelevant. This paragraph is about what the scholarly consensus is. If the scholarly consensus is that Jesus was executed for sedition, then that is the scholarly consensus, whether or not one reads the Gospels to be saying something different. For instance, the scholarly consensus, as far as I can tell, is that Jesus was probably not born in Bethlehem, despite the testimony of two of the gospels that he was. If we wanted to discuss the scholarly consensus, I think it would be fair to say that it is that he wasn't born in Bethlehem, no matter what the Gospels say. So there's no contradiction in saying "Scholars believe" one thing and that the "Gospels say" a different thing. That said, it's not terribly important whether it's in that paragraph or not. Also, while Sanders, Fredriksen, and so forth probably represent the middle of the scholarly road (committed to neither a maximalist nor a minimalist reading of the Gospels), that doesn't really make it accurate to describe that position as the consensus position if there is considerable debate on a subject. john k 00:34, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I do agree that his baptism by John should probably be added to this paragraph. Along with his execution by Pilate, the tie to John seems to be one of the pillars of placing Jesus in the historical milieu of first century Judaea. john k 00:37, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

John, are you going to check all our cited sources to be sure that John the Baptist is in them? I have no enthusiam to do this yet again! --CTSWyneken 22:35, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Sigh. The article shouldn't be a slave to your work on citations (which has, admittedly, been excellent). If something should be in the article that's not currently there, someone (not necessarily you) should look up references. You can't hold the article hostage to the work you've put into it. Nobody is asking you to do extra work, but you can't expect that something like the second paragraph of the article on Jesus is going to remain static simply because you've done a lot of work. john k 00:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I requested the Article Improvement Drive primarily so that we could get help with the citations. If improvement is needed, it should be made, but obviously the onus on documenting scholarly opinion should not rely on CTSWyneken alone. I would help, except that my access to sources is limited. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 03:31, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I obviously wasn't saying that CTSWyneken is responsible for finding citations, just that article content needs to drive citations, and not the other way around. I'll try to look it up today after I do my taxes. john k 16:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)