Talk:Jesus/2nd Paragraph Debate/8

Contradiction, or NPOV violation?

The article currently contradicts itself. In the intro, it says in the controversial second paragraph

Most scholars in the fields of biblical studies and history agree that ... on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate {Jesus] was sentenced to death by crucifixion for the crime of sedition against the Roman Empire.

Then in the body of the article it says

According to the Gospels...the Roman governor Pontius Pilate did not find Jesus to be guilty of any crime

and goes on to make clear that Jesus was handed over to soldiers simply cause the crowd demanded it, not because he was being punished for crime. Now the article does not say whose viewpoint the Gospels are being interpreted under; it simply says, "according to the Gospels". So the reader can only assume its that of the same scholars spoken of in the intro...or its the editors viewpoint, in which case this is a gross violation of NPOV. My own personal opinion is that it is both. A POV is being pushed without attribution, and this POV contradicts the "historical Jesus" POV of the second paragraph. However, simply attributing the body to a "Christian" viewpoint claim won't fix this problem, as there is no one Christian view on anything. Nor is saying "according to the Gospels" clearly identifying a POV; the Gospels as interpreted by who? Its clear that different people tell different stories "according to the Gospels". Finally, if we leave the second paragraph giving the "historical Jesus" POV, it makes the reader assume that this is the default POV for the whole article. This is not going to be easy to fix, in my opinion. I hope editors do try, though, and not simply deny that there is a problem here. Drogo Underburrow 06:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

It's an example of the intro being out of sync with the body of the article. Yes, this needs to be rectified, but there are probably other issues that need to be rectified as well.

As for POV: I think that scholars argue that the writers of the Gospels intended to deflect blame from Pilate and the Romans as much as possible. The view that Pilate did not find Jesus guilty is the view of Biblical literalists (which is not all Christians). Both POVs use the Gospels as a source, but have different interpretations. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 06:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The gospels are clear that Pilate did not find Jesus guilty of any crime. Their is no room for saying this is a Christian pov. Therefore the error is in the wording of the other comment. Pilate allowed a breach of justice in order to appease the mob. ^rossnixon 07:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The Gospels themselves are clear. The POV is whether or not to take them at their word. A lot of scholars don't take them at their word, arguing instead that some statements are more likely to be true than others. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 07:58, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

It comes down to semantics on the particular expression "found guilty": according to the Gospels, Pilate "found" (="came to the conclusion after investigating the facts of the case") Jesus "not guilty" of sedition, but also, capitulating the to Sanhedran and Jewish crowd, "found" (="made a formal legal ruling") Jesus "guilty" of the crime. Ambiguity is avoided by using the language of "charged with sedition" or like, which clearly denotes the legal context (and is not easily confused with Pilate's personal findings), saves the paragraph from dieing the death of a thousand qualifications, and fits what the scholars are intending to affirm. --MonkeeSage 08:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly support MonkeeSage's proposal. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 09:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Even if the Gospels where beyond all doubt perfectly clear, it would be a POV violation for the article to report what they say. The article should only report what a source says in anything that is at all disputed, and the meaning of the gospels is disputed, even if in fact they have a clear meaning. Drogo Underburrow 09:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with MonkeySage's proposal too, but it doesn't fix the problem that the article currently tells the reader what the Gospels say, giving the definitive Wikipedia version of what they say. Drogo Underburrow 09:15, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Upon closer inspection, I change my mind. The problem is still not fixed, as a casual reader would assume that Jesus was excuted because he was found guilty, so the sentence is in effect still saying that he was convicted of sedition and executed for it. Drogo Underburrow 09:19, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

See also The Bible and history. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 12:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Yhis discussion is ongoing at talk:Jesus/2nd Paragraph Debate. Let's take it there.

As far as NPOV, let's remember we're reflecting what scholars think. In this kind of environment, we must stick to what they say and represent all viewpoints. In the intro, this issue should not be laid out in its detail. If we think scholars are seriously divided on the issue, drop the why he was executed clause altogether.

In the body, briefly mention the viewpoints.

In some subarticle, spell out the reasoning.

As far as NPOV goes, since the flags are a way of trying to indicate an impasse, I do not think they're warranted. We are talking, after all. --CTSWyneken 10:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

What flags? Nobody put up any flags. Drogo Underburrow 13:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that. I thought you were headed that direction. Glad I was wrong. --CTSWyneken 02:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems clear to me, reading the Bible, that Pilate did not think Jesus was guilty, but sentenced him to death anyway. No contradiction -- it happens all the time, even today. Rick Norwood 14:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The intro as it currently stands, makes it sound like Pilate thought Jesus was a seditionist, and therefore executed him. That is the contradiction. It was worse, but they changed it to a tricky wording that cleverly omits saying that Jesus was executed for sedition. However, such cleverness is lost on the average reader, who quickly reads the intro and concludes that Jesus was at least technically a criminal, if not actually one. Drogo Underburrow 15:06, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

No trick is intended in the wording. At least I don't think so. What we're trying to do is find a summary of what the scholars say for the intro. As Archie pointed out (I think it was him, anyway), some scholars dount what the Bible says quite often. What I'm going for is a way of listing what almost every scholar in the fields listed can agree with. There is precious few things that go in this list. May I suggest that, if we conclude there is no general consensue (or even just a colonel consesns. Sorry, I just had to try that line!), we just omit it. We can add that to the list in paragraph 3 if we can't shoehorn it into 2. --CTSWyneken 02:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

From the intro: [Jesus]was charged with sedition against the Roman Empire, and on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate was sentenced to death by crucifixion. - Opinion of most scholars in the fields of biblical studies and history.

From the body: "Jesus was charged with sedition....[but] the Roman governor Pontius Pilate did not find Jesus to be guilty of any crime" -- From the gospels. Who says this? Opinion of who? Since none is cited, we can only surmise it is that of the editors. This is POV, we cannot have editors telling the public the meaning of the Gospels.

Are we to assume that the intro is the opinion of most scholars in the fields of biblical studies and history, while the second one is not? Whose opinion is the statement in the body of the article? That of the editors.

The two sections still contradict each other. Reading the intro, it states Jesus was charged of a crime, then executed. This clearly leads to an inference that he was found guilty and executed for the crime of sedition. That is why I call it "tricky wording" that is lost upon the average reader, as intended. Lets not do this, not word things to satisfy internal disputes among editors, while making the average reader believe something different. I mean no disparagement here to the editors who put this in, it was a good faith edit, an attempt to solve a difficult problem, which I initially agreed with myself. It was only on closer inspection that I decided it was incorrect. Drogo Underburrow 04:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

In terms of the body part, I think it would be better to state that "the Roman governor Pontius Pilate did not believe Jesus to be guilty of any crime." If this is sourced as being a summary of what the Gospels say, it is clearly true - the Gospels do say that Pilate did not believe Jesus was guilty of any crime. The question of whether Pilate believed Jesus is guilty is clearly ultimately unresolvable - we have no insights into Pilate's mind beyond the brief discussion in Josephus (which, I think, speak against the Gospels' depiction of him) and the Gospel accounts, which are not universally accepted as providing truthful historical content, especially on the subject of Pilate's motivations. The Gospels say that Pilate believed Jesus was innocent of any crime. There is reason to believe the evangelical descriptions of Pilate are not accurate, but there is no real way to refute them, since there's no other sources. That being said, there's another question, which is "what formal actions did Pilate take with respect to Jesus." This is a lot easier to discern, and I think there's general scholarly agreement that Pilate formally found Jesus guilty of sedition, and had him crucified. Let's also note: the Gospels make clear that the crime Jesus was being accused of was sedition - calling himself the King of the Jews, specifically. The fact that "INRI" was written on the cross that Jesus was crucified on suggests that this was, in fact, the crime for which he was being executed. He wasn't murdered by a lynch mob of Jews, or stoned to death for blasphemy (although, according to some of the Gospel accounts, the Sanhedrin did believe him to be guilty of blasphemy). He was crucified by the Romans for sedition. To say this is not to make any claim for whether or not Pontius Pilate personally believed him to be guilty of sedition - that question is beyond the scope of reasonable historical inquiry, because there simply aren't any sources that can shed any further light on it. john k 05:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with CTS and John K: if there is contention about whether or not Pilate believed Jesus was guilty, we can remove the charge of sedition from the second paragraph and work in a more detailed explanation later. Christians generally believe that Pilate personally believed Jesus was innocent, but sentenced him anyway. Eastern Christianity goes as far as to refer to both Pilate and his wife as saints. We in the West aren't quite so forgiving ;) A lot of scholars believe that the Gospel accounts are partially apologetics to the Gentiles, so they present Pilate in the best light possible that is consistent with the fact known to their original audience: Jesus was crucified on the orders of Pontius Pilate. Remember that the Gospels were written around the time of the Great Jewish Revolt, and shortly after Christians had been persecuted under Nero. All of which could be explained under the historicity section. Anyway, I slightly revised the trial section (why did we not mention Herod Antipas until now?) Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 07:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no logical conflict (=contradiction): "on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate [Jesus] was sentenced to death by crucifixion for the crime of sedition" and "Pilate did not find Jesus to be guilty". There may be a moral conflict, for legally sentencing a man who was not actually guilty, but there is no logical conflict. To sentence a person to death for X, doesn't mean they are actually guilty of X (though in a perfectly just goverment those two facts would be correlated). A judge declares a person legally guilty or innocent, but doesn't make them so. There may be a perceived conflict between the statements, but it is not a logical conflict (said: contradiction). The scholarly consensus, from what I can discern, is that Jesus was officially charged with sedition. To say that Jesus was sentenced to death reflects this view. And, by the Gospel accounts, it is also valid to say that Jesus was actually innocent by Pilate's reckoning. There is nothing against WP:NPOV in either of these statements. --MonkeeSage 09:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

1. While there may be no logical conflict, the ordinary reader comparing the two passages will perceive a conflict. :-) 2. The NPOV violation is in assuming that reporting what the Gospels say involves no interpretation, that the Gospels speak for themselves and are in themselves a POV. They are not, and that is why we should only quote sources, identifying those sources. Drogo Underburrow 09:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

As I've said, many scholars feel the Gospels are themselves POV. The scholarly interpretation attempts to read between the lines of the Gospel accounts. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 10:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View should not be confused with "Non Point of View" — NPOV is about presenting all relevant points of view, with due weight given — nothing more or less. --MonkeeSage 10:14, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

CTSWyneken proposal

How about, in paragraph 2:

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]

We can find a way to pick up the charge in paragraph 3.--CTSWyneken 10:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Or in the life and teachings (trial) section, or the historicity section, or the Christian views section. Eastern Christianity and Western Christianity view Pilate's role somewhat differently. There's a tradition in Eastern Christianity about Pilate's wife having a dream warning her not to let Pilate execute Jesus. I'm not sure how we'd incorporate the distinction between Eastern and Western Christianity's views of Pilate into paragraph 3.

I do, however, agree with your revision of paragraph 2. We've talked this sedition thing to death; it's something that needs to be brought up and explained later in the article. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 10:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't particularly like that at all. I think that "a Jewish teacher from Galilee who was regarded as a healer" implies the Jesus Seminar view of Jesus. Most scholars believe that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet from Galilee who was sentenced to death by crucifixion on the order of Pontius Pilate for the crime of sedition (i.e. claiming to be King of the Jews). A smaller number of scholars (Jesus Seminar types) believe that Jesus was not an apocalyptic prophet, but rather a wise cynic philosopher type, who may have been viewed as a healer, and who was crucified on the orders of Pontius Pilate for some other crime, since he would never have claimed to be King of the Jews. The "teacher who was viewed as a healer" bit is already basically the Jesus Seminar view; not mentioning sedition means that we are essentially implying that the Jesus Seminar/Ethicist view is the scholarly consensus. If we're going to have a summary of scholarly opinion in the second paragraph, we should not try to find some kind of minimum position that would be agreed to by all scholars. We should describe both of the main scholarly views, giving each their appropriate weight. Any attempt to find a minimum common ground is marred by the fact that the minimum consensus between Ethicist Jesus and Apocalypse Jesus is not very different from Ethicist Jesus on its own, at least when brought down to the level of a one sentence summary. john k 14:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Another solution would be describe both views. Instead of a Historical Jesus vs. Mythical Jesus binary, you could have an Apocalyptic Jesus vs. Ethicist Jesus vs. Mythical Jesus trinary, with the most prominent view listed first. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 14:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Just what is wrong with using the 'minimum ground' in the intro? The intro isn't the place to go into nuances or arguments between scholars. Drogo Underburrow 14:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Like John K says, it leaves a false impression. It's like group one has apples and oranges, group two has apples, and group three has nothing. If you use the "minimum ground" of a majority with apples and a minority with nothing, you're ignoring the oranges. Our problem with the sedition clause is that it's all oranges.

From what John K says, apparently the majority view Jesus as both ethical teacher and apocalyptic prophet, a minority view Jesus as merely an ethical teacher, and a smaller minority view Jesus as nonexistent. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 15:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd like a quote from an authoritative source for this fact. Drogo Underburrow 16:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The point behind this paragraph was to satisify the folks that do not believe Jesus existed. By listing the scholars we do that range from the Jesus Seminar to the most conservative, we show how little credance is given to the nonexistance hypothesis.

I'm against any additions to this paragraph that are agreed by all of these scholars because it dilutes this impact, it requires pulling every one of the books in the notes off the shelf (remember, I was the one who did this and know the sort of work involved) to check it and involves more "some, not others" argumentation.

This is an intro, after all. It should be short, sweet and to the point. The rest of the article leaves plenty of room for more detail.

Re the "apocalyptic prophet" idea: there is NO agreement on that. Major factions exist on these kinds of labels. Conservative Christians reject such labels completely. All the rest want to make there own image of Jesus. There is no room to take this up in the intro.

Finally, this paragraph in no way implies this is all there is to Jesus. We move on to what Christians think.

If none of this is convincing, then demonstate that the majority of scholars believe this. Barring that, that a whole bunch do. --CTSWyneken 16:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Whatever factions there are, I am unaware of any polls on the relative size of each faction, although I'm sure somebody could provide one if they looked hard enough. Something that has come up lately is Thomas Thompson and the Copenhagen School of minimalist Biblical studies that he represents (possibly even more minimalist than the Jesus Seminar, although someone else will have to check that out). It's still an unanswered question as to whether he goes as far as to support the nonexistence hypothesis. John K brought up the Apocalyptic model, which apparently started with Albert Schweitzer.

As John K pointed out, the danger in giving only the minimal details is that lends more weight to the minimalists. To give little creedence to the nonexistence hypothesis is simply to say that there was indeed a historical Jesus. Several other points—teacher vs. preacher, whether or not Jesus was "at odds" with the Pharisees, the term "healer," the charges of "King of the Jews" vs. "King of the Judeans" vs. "sedition"—all of these and more have been hotly contested for weeks. Either way, we seem to be getting nowhere with the charge of sedition. The Jesus Seminar article states that the Seminar believes that Jesus got in trouble for driving the money changers out of the Temple. Does this count as sedition?

Jesus was crucified under Pontius Pilate. Why? Ask two scholars, get three answers. Out long debate on the sedition charge amounts to us as Wikipedia editors serving as a court of appeal reviewing Pilate's decision. We've probably taken this too far. It may be time for a fresh approach. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 17:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

We might have a good source on the trial thursday and friday, scroll to the bottom of www.truthsthattransform.com for this week :D. Homestarmy 17:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Good timing: Maunday Thursday and Good Friday. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 17:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't demand that we get into a detailed discussion of historiography in the intro, but it seems wrong to me to give a false picture of the scholarship in order to make a silly point in an argument over whether or not Jesus existed, which is barely a blip on the face of mainstream scholarship. If the point of the thing is to indicate that scholars mostly agree that Jesus existed, I think we should have a completely different sentence would be in order. What about "While modern scholars differ on the extent to which the details of the Gospel narrative 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." This would seem to satisfy the goal of explaining that most scholars think Jesus existed, without getting us into unrelated historiographical issues of what exactly scholars believe Jesus did. Everyone (just about) agrees that he was a real historical figure, and that he was crucified in Jerusalem at Pilate's orders. Beyond that, there is considerable disagreement. Expressing it this way would mean that our description of Jesus does not simply restate the Jesus Seminar view, but also doesn't get into other viewpoints, merely acknowledging considerable differences after this very basic agreement. john k 17:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Two edit conflicts while I was trying to revise my statement. Just goes to show how hotly contested this is. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 17:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC) PS: Now that I've read John's post, I think his suggestion is a good start at a fresh approach. It avoids both the problem of implying false agreement and the problem of diluting the majority down to the minimalist interpretation, plus it acknowledges the debates between the different models. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 17:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

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]

This is John K's proposed sentence combined with the existing sentence on the nonexistence hypothesis. We can keep our existing citations, and work in the healer and INRI references into the third paragraph. Indeed we can state that most Christians believe Jesus was a supernatural healer! The "teacher" reference is already implied in the section header "life and teachings, based on the Gospels."

This is just a draft, of course, but I believe it is a good starting point for a fresh approach that may finally lay our omnicontroversial paragraph to rest. Any comments? Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 17:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I would question what "immedietly" means here, does it mean once he died all the apostles didn't sprint down to the local scribe guild or whatever and ordered them to start writing what they dictate? And there is external documentation, just alot that some people don't like :/. Homestarmy 18:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

It means that they were written a few decades later. Scholarly dating of the Gospels and Acts converges around the 60s or 70s AD/CE, with some arguing later or earlier. As has been pointed out endless times, a gap of only a few decades is actually quite short compared to many other ancient documents! But the nonexistence folk interpret the gap differently. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 18:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me it would be less ambiguous if the proposed dates of the gospels creation were, say, included in parenthesis or something next to "immedietly". Homestarmy 18:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I think we did have something like c. 65 AD/CE or c. 68 AD/CE. I'm not sure why the date was removed. This sounds reasonable to me. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 19:15, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

It does invalidate the footnotes. We have to go back and find which pages mention the healer, the teacher and other elements. Since I have hours, if not days, in this, please forgive me if I receive it coldly. I think its significant that such scholars can agree on these points at all, so I think we should point that out.

The next problem we have is that we reopen ourselves to "who says this is the position of most?" Are you all going to get a bunch of books to check all of that?

I think we should go back to what we have now and carve out the "sedition" thing. If we wish, we can add a new paragraph, 2b, to pick up the details, but I would submit that just drags out the intro.

Also, if this is going to go on, we need to be back on the subpage.--CTSWyneken 20:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

It's great that John has given us a new take on this but it does read very as though scholars grudgingly admit to there being a consistent story in them there Gospels. The word "trusted" will not be liked at all and I can understand why as it is too emotive. I think it will bring up more issues than it solves and CTS would hex it for throwing out his "babies"! Seriously though the footnotes are very good and would stand us in good stead for the FA drive. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 21:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

"Trusted" is problematic but I'm sure we could find a Thesaurus. "Differ on the details," perhaps?

As for the rest, I do understand all the time that has been invested in this. It seems, though, that we caught between two dillemas: either implying more agreement than is there, or ignoring the views of some scholars. Carve out sedition and you may be implying a minimalist view that does not include sedition. Leave it in, and you run into conflict over how the term applies and whether or not Pilate's judgement was just, either under Roman law or under Pilate's own conscience. Any other ideas? Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 21:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, what do we have in the majority?

• 1. Jesus as Apocalyptic Prophet
• 2. Jesus as Moral Teacher (including the Jesus Seminar)
• 3. Jesus as Messiah/Savior (including Christian views)

Some other stuff I've found:

• 4. Jesus as Pharisee
• 5. Jesus as Essene

One that we're not sure if it is in the majority or the minority:

• 6. The Copenhagen School of Biblical studies (includes Thomas Thompson; see /Cited Authors Bios for others).

And the minority:

• 7. The nonexistence hypothesis

That's seven schools of thought; there may be others that we haven't discussed. There are commonalities and differences; how to express all this in one paragraph without giving any one view undue weight?

That is the challenge we face. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 21:45, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Sophia, why the passive voice? In terms of word choice, if people don't like that, I'm quite open to other options. I'm not sure how my comments mean that "scholars grudgingly admit to there beng a consistent story" in the Gospels. Scholars do generally agree that the Gospels are evidence that someone named Jesus lived, and that he was executed by the Romans in the time when Pilate was Governor of Judaea. Many scholars seem to feel that they're not evidence for very much beyond that, because the later agendas of the Evangelists have overwhelmed almost all of the actual teachings of Jesus, whatever those were. Other scholars feel that, while the gospels are very problematic sources, considerably more historical information can be gleaned from careful readings of them. Those who feel that the Gospels are not evidence even of the existence of Jesus are few and far between. As we've been through before.

In terms of CTS's comments, I'm not sure I fully understand. On the one hand, he wants the article to say more specifically that scholars agree that Jesus was a teacher and a healer. On the other hand, he thinks we need more references for the idea that it is generally accepted by scholars that Jesus existed and was executed by Pontius Pilate. In terms of references, I don't see how we need to throw anything out. Any source which says Jesus was a teacher, or a healer, will also by necessity say that he existed, and the bits in the references that point to the crucifixion are obviously still relevant.. My point is basically this - what is the purpose of the sentence in question. Is it to explore the nature of scholarly views on Jesus? If so, CTS's preferred version is unacceptable, for reasons I've said before (it basically implies the Jesus Seminar/Ethical Jesus view as a consensus minimum, when in fact it is a fairly radical position that many scholars, whether orthodox Christians or not, reject). Or is the purpose of the sentence to simply stake out the fact that most scholars agree on the existence of Jesus, in order to show the marginality of the ahistorical Jesus position? In that case, I think my version does a better job of this. The healer/teacher material can better be discussed elsewhere. I would add that, if others think it better, I think describing Jesus as a "teacher," in this section would be acceptable, since that's kind of a basic minimum description. I'd prefer to leave out "healer," because it's a secondary designation, and there are all kinds of other secondary designations we could introduce, most notably "apocalyptic prophet." john k 22:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I've said all I can say. I'll let you, CTSWyneken, and Drogo work it out. BTW, where is Drogo? Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 22:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

It's a good point - what is this paragraph about? I always assumed it was a mix of the two options John mentions ie - the opinion of the majority of critical scholars that Jesus was a real historical person and "highlights" of the events of his life. From that view the most important thing about Jesus is not only that he died by crucifixion but that he rose again which currently isn't mentioned at all. Since this is the foundation of Christianity and the only reason there is a Jesus article at all is because he founded Christianity maybe it should (now there's a new can of worms). Really - since the ahistorical view is such a small one the paragraph should be about the edited highlights as to do otherwise would give that view undue weight. I take the point on the footnotes and hopefully CTS will be reassured too. Just some thoughts. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 23:22, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

"that he rose again which currently isn't mentioned at all." Um, yes it is. The next paragraph says that, according to Christian views, Jesus was "resurrected on the third day of death." Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 23:28, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

My excuse is it's late here! What I meant was in paragraph 2 as an important event in Jesus' life. Maybe this is the problem with dealing with this stuff as isolated paragraphs. Gilraen of Dorthonion AKA Sophia^TalkTCF 23:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I thought we were saying what scholars (both Christian and non-Christian) agree on, not what Christians believe. Scholars most certainly do not agree on the Resurrection. john k 01:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Different paragraph -- the one I've barely gotten to because we keep revisiting the 2nd paragraph. The third is about Christian views. --CTSWyneken 01:26, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem we have if we generalize is that the footnotes are then too specific. I've cite three, four sometimes five places in one work to cover the items we've put into the paragraph. I have one page that Jesus existed, another that the nonexistance hypothesis is completely wrong, another that he was from Galilee, another that he was a healer, another a teacher, yet one more that he was at odds with leaders and another that he died under Pontius Pilate. Every time we change the substance of the paragraph, which we do almost daily, it makes those half dozen references wrong. Because I am a scholar, I cannot leave it that way. This is why I get touchy. You add to it or take it away and hours more work are ahead to fix it. Then you'll change it again. Can't we leave well enough alone. Huh? --CTSWyneken 01:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The main sources of information regarding Jesus' life and teachings are the four canonical Gospels of the New Testament. While modern scholars differ as to the historical accuracy of the Gospel narratives of Jesus' life, most agree that they document the life of an actual Jesus of Nazareth, a controversial religious figure who was crucified in Jerusalem at the orders of the Roman governor Pontius Pilate. As the Gospels were not written during Jesus' lifetime and there is little external documentation, a small minority of scholars question the historical existence of Jesus. —Aiden 02:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I think this version superior to the current text. CTSWyneken's version is better still. Drogo Underburrow 03:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Isn't CTS's version the same as the current text? At any rate, I like Aidan's version better than my version. For CTS's sake, I'd suggest that we add in at least the detail that he's from Galilee. But I think fetishizing the footnotes is a very bad idea. Not to denigrate the work CTS put into sourcing the claims, which is quite impressive, but we shouldn't keep text that many of us agree isn't the best way of phrasing things simply because someone put a lot of time into footnoting it. That's getting things ass-backwards, isn't it? (Of course, ideally, we could work out something good to say that would also not invalidate CTS's considerable work in footnoting the sentence. But if that's not possible, the article text must dictate the appropriate footnotes, and not vice versa. I'd also suggest that, given the wiki system, it is probably wise not to spend so much time to put in such specific references, as they are pretty much bound to get fucked up.) john k 03:52, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

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 - CTS's version, I believe. It eliminates the "Main sources" line. Tell you what, for the record I'll add my own version which I believe is the most accurate, but that I know nobody else will like:

Most scholars speculate 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. As the Gospels were not written immediately after his death and there is little external documentation, a small minority of scholars completely question the historical existence of Jesus. Drogo Underburrow 04:15, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Just reading the history of this issue hurts the head; much less the recent comments. John, I appreciate your passion, but I would request that you use language befitting your own intelligence (not to be insulting, but just a request for decency in this age of crudeness). I have a few proposals: 1) instead of introducing the written word (as we know them today) of the gospels and their tardiness of appearing on the scence, how about first stating that the gospels were oral history handed down by the inital apostles until writtn in approximately whenever. I prefer a positive tone. This proposal is not POV and meets NOPOV standards. 2) You are right Drogo, speculate would be an acceptable term; however, it would be appropriate latter in the article. If I had my d'ruthers, I would prefer referenced material in an introduction to having something well written, but not referenced. References minimize contention and disagreement; heavens knows it would help us on this article. Storm Rider ^(talk) 04:51, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

When have I been impolite in this discussion? Is it that I used the word "fuck"? If so, I would request that in future you not patronize me. (If it was something else that I missed, my apologies, but I think I've been a model of politeness and civil discussion on this page, at least. Not that I'm always such - I often get rahter hot under the collar in talk page disputes, including, I think, recent ones in the Jesus family, but I really have been on pretty good behavior on this page.)

In terms of your suggestions, I think the first part would be definitely problematic. Various scholars seem to believe that the Gospels don't really represent a very accurate memory of Jesus' actual ministry - the Jesus Seminar types, in particular, seem to believe that Mark basically made up most of the details of his Gospel, and, of course, the other synoptics basically copy Mark's structure. Saying that the Gospels are based on oral traditions would seem to be begging the question - the very issue in dispute is the extent to which the Gospels represent an actual oral tradition of Jesus' ministry. So I think this would definitely be POV, even though I think it's likely you are correct that the Gospels basically put in writing already existing oral history.

In terms of the second point, I don't like the word "speculate." "Speculation" implies that there is no evidentiary basis for the arguments of scholars. I'd prefer "agree" or "argue" or "accept" or even "believe" to "speculate."

In terms of references vs. good writing, "good writing" wasn't my point at all. I agree that good sourcing is more important than good writing. But what is most important is good content. The content of what we say should not be misleading or inaccurate. That said, I'm willing to accept CTS's version as mostly acceptable. What I really would like is some kind of statement like the first clause of my proposed version. Otherwise, readers might infer that scholars have agreed on a minimalist interpretation. How about this?

The main sources of information regarding Jesus' life and teachings are the four canonical Gospels of the New Testament. While modern scholars in the fields of biblical studies and ancient history differ as to the historical reliability of the Gospel narratives of Jesus' life, as a minimum most agree 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 Roman Governor Pontius Pilate.

Would this be generally acceptable? john k 05:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Speculate: To engage in a course of reasoning often based on inconclusive evidence.I think historians treat the Gospels as inconclusive, as material to take into account, and then reason from, comparing them to what else is known, and weighing and judging them according to reason. If historians treated the Gospels as conclusive historical evidence, they would simply recite their story. Drogo Underburrow 06:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Historians do not generally treat the Gospels as conclusive evidence of everything they purport to describe, but I think most historians do view them (as well as the existence of Christianity more broadly) as conclusive evidence of the mere existence of Jesus, and of the kind of very basic claims about his life that make up the paragraph under discussion. john k 07:04, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Thats fine, but its your opinion. Before we treat it as a fact, I'd at least like it to come from an authoritative source, some scholar reviewing the literature who says that most historians consider the Gospels and Christianity as conclusive evidence in the historical existence of Jesus. I know E.P. Sanders has no doubt Jesus existed, though I haven't read any statement as to why he believes this. Do the scholars on CTS's list all consider the Gospels as conclusive (as oppose to historically probable) evidence? Are we overstating the case here a bit? Drogo Underburrow 07:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The meaning of "conclusive" would have to be defined by context, as its primary denotation is a relative one: "forming an end or termination; especially putting an end to doubt or question". Mathematical conclusiveness is different from historical conclusiveness. Even mathematical conclusiveness has an element of tentativeness, as one could have miscalculated or missed a step in the proof and so forth. In the historical context, a "high degree of probability" translates, for the Jesus Seminar, to give one example, to "unequivocal/undoubted".[1] --MonkeeSage ☺ 08:29, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

The omnipotent solution to omnicontroversial para

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.

---

Alrighty, here goes another shot at the goal. --MonkeeSage ☺ 08:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Change "have agreed" to "speculate" and you have my vote :-) Drogo Underburrow 08:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Are we agreeing to speculate? Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 08:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

If you don't like "agree" or "speculate," here are a few more word choices: contend, state, assert, affirm, expound, attest, declare, profess, explain, acknowledge, interpret, conclude, observe, deduce, .... Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 08:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Its not as accurate, but since most of these scholars are professors, I guess we could use "profess" :-) Drogo Underburrow 09:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Drogo: Would say really argue for changing Plato#By_tetralogy "if scholars generally agree that Plato" to "if scholars generally speculate that Plato" or "if scholars generally conjecture that Plato"? What about all the rest of the articles that use the standard formula (280k Google hits) "scholars agree"? "Speculate" and "conjecture" have the negative connotation that one is just making something up, guessing or drawing a conclusion without any supporting reasons and the like. --MonkeeSage ☺ 09:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Come on, don't play the exaggerate game. Speculate means what the dictionary says. No one said anything about using "conjecture"; I said "profess", though "speculate" is exactly correct. Drogo Underburrow 10:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I could go with agree, assert, contend. I think "state" amd "conclude" are the best. None of these writers would say they are speculating, however. They save that for when they are going on a limb. On the very few items that are in the paragraph, they do not wiggle at all. We need have a firm word to be fair to them. --CTSWyneken 10:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't exaggerating! Google found 280-thousand instances of the phrase "scholars agree" (400-some-odd here on WP). If we need to change it here, then we should change it everywhere. I had looked up "speculate" on wiktionary and onelook, and Encarta — all had possible negative connotations (conjecture, guess, conclude without sufficient reason). --MonkeeSage ☺ 10:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

It looks like I am in the minority here, so I am going to shut up and wait for reinforcements. Drogo Underburrow 11:33, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Just to note my agreement with others that we shouldn't use "speculate" or "conjecture." I would add that I considerably prefer my latest version (which nobody has yet commented on) to Monkeesage's, for two reasons. 1) The Gospels are the main source on Jesus for everyone, not just for scholars in the fields of biblical studies and history. 2) I think the sentence that historians disagree on the extent to which the Gospels can be trusted is really important - for me, at least, it's kind of a sine qua non, because it acknowledges scholarly disagreement, rather than implying agreement on what is apparently a minimalist position. john k 15:12, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm also wondering what everyone thinks of my version, the "speculate" matter aside for now? John: 1) The first sentence in my version is an attempt to minimize the scope of the statement to show the conncetion between the Gospels as sources and the conclusions of scholars. The Gospels are the sources for everyone, but my thought was that we only need to explain how they relate to scholars here. Mabye I'm wrong. 2.) Regarding historians disagreeing about the veracity of the Gospels, I thought disagreement (not agreement) was naturally implied in saying that they agree on X in the Gospels (read: don't necessarily agree on Y or Z). It wouldn't hurt to make it explicit, I was just trying to be minimal. I'd like to get some reviews from others as well, so chime in ya'll! --MonkeeSage ☺ 21:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Heh. Ever since the last vote and the whole Robsteadman sockpuppet conviction I've been looking more at the article as a whole. I do check in on this conversation, sometimes I comment but I feel we've been hung up on this one paragraph for too long. I understand what John is saying about how emphasizing commonalities can imply minimalism; that is similar to the criticism some Lutherans have to the ELCA! On the other hand, since this is only the second paragraph, we give the bare essentials here and the details in the rest of this and other articles. The debates on this paragraph have long been semantic. We know what we mean; why can't we say it? It's been suggested that this one paragraph is trying to say too much, and also that it doesn't say enough. Inherent paradox. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 21:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Why can't we leave it as is, minus the sedition thing. There are more citations for me to do here and in other paragraphs. It would be kind of nice if I could get to paragraph four. --CTSWyneken 01:12, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with the current version, I was just trying to capitulate to the "unwashed masses." ;) I think Mr. Deepdelver is exactly right that the "problems" are semantic. BTW, a funny thought here is that the the earlier Wittgenstein would tell us that when we "can't we say what we mean", we should just shut up (TLP, 7), lol. --MonkeeSage 10:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

BTW the details are discussed at Jesus#Questions of reliability and Jesus#External influences on gospel development. The paragraph should be a summary of these two sections. Essentially, "Most scholars accept many details of the Gospel narrative. (Sentence on what the details are). However, some scholars believe that the gospel accounts of Jesus have little or no historical basis. (Sentence on myth and the lack of external documentation). These sentences come directly from the body of the article itself.

By looking at the body of the article, which this paragraph is meant to summarize, I believe we can come to an acceptable wording for this paragraph. Grigory Deepdelver of Brockenboring^TalkTCF 22:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)