Talk:Jesus/Archive 125

Archive 120

←

Archive 123

Archive 124

Archive 125

Archive 126

Archive 127

→

Archive 130

The "crucifixion of Jesus" is a Christian POV. It's approved mainly by scholars from Christian background, and it is rejected firmly by scholars from Muslim background.

There is an obvious "selection bias" in the sources of the article. One example is the so-called "crucifixion of Jesus". While the majority of scholars within the Christian world have approved this Christian religious story, the majority of scholars in the Islamosphere have argued against the historical reliability of this Christian religious belief.

One would say: "Virtually all modern scholars from the Muslim world have argued against the historical reliability of this Christian religious belief."

The authors of the Global Arabic Encyclopedia which was edited by 3000 scholars from the Arab world have argued against the historical reliability of this Christian belief and considered it unauthentic. According to them, the "crucifixion of Jesus" is not mentioned in the "religious Jewish tradition [i.e Talmud]". According to them, the Jews have only heard about the "crucifixion of Jesus" from the Christian religious books.

• Note: You can download the Global Arabic Encyclopedia by clicking on this link: https://ia701500.us.archive.org/12/items/GlobalArabicEncyclopedia-2011/GlobalArabicEncyclopedia.zip

I know that it is impossible for a Muslim like me to reach consensus with anyone of you, since most of you are Christians or from Christian background and aren't inclined to be neutral or objective in any discussion about Jesus, Muhammad, Christianity or Islam, but I leave this comment here since my edit was reverted.--Human Chlorophyll (talk) 16:23, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

And be advised that future edits of that kind of talk pages will be also be reverted as per WP:NOTHERE and WP:SOAP. Claiming that all users who belong to a different race or religion "aren't inclined to be neutral" is downright ridiculous. At Wikipedia, there are good and helpful users from every religion and there are trolling disruptive users from any religion. Disqualifying anyone just for their background passes WP:NPA with flying colours and is entirely unsuitable.Jeppiz (talk) 16:33, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

There is a whole series of articles about Jesus in Islam and they are linked in this article. People expect this article on Jesus to be about the Jesus in Christianity, not any other religion. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 19:09, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Really? I just expect it to be about Jesus. Britmax (talk) 19:44, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Britmax has it. I do note that the content about the crucifixion is properly attributed to the gospels, but it is worthy of mention that the crucifixion is contested by Muslims.—Kww(talk) 19:58, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I would disagree to a certain extent. Every scholar I've ever read, most of them non-Christians, hold the crucifixion as one of the very few undisputed facts of Jesus' life. If the Muslim opposition to it is religious, it definitely has a place in Jesus in Islam but I don't think we should qualify a sourceable fact with a religious opinion.Jeppiz (talk) 20:07, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

The article briefly notes, with attribution, purely religious perspectives, such as the blood and water pouring from Jesus's side and the crucifixion causing earthquakes. I would think a similar note that "Islamic texts hold that Jesus himself had been spirited away prior to the execution and that the figure crucified was either an illusion or a substitute placed there by God" would be warranted. One sentence with an appropriate link to Jesus in Islam would suffice.—Kww(talk) 20:32, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Sure, didn't mean to suggest it could be mentioned anywhere in the article. But the OP seems to want to challenge that the crucifixation took place, or making it out as only a Christian view. That is not the case. However, given that there already is a section on Islamic views of Jesus where we do mention that Muslims don't believe he was crucified, I'm not sure what we should add.Jeppiz (talk) 20:38, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, my next argument was going to be then there should be a Jesus in Christianity article, but there is. Sooooo, yea this should be about Jesus and other viewpoints should be mentioned. The Islamic belief that he didn't die on the cross should be mentioned in the Islam section. Jesus's death is considered important by many and other viewpoints then biblical are also important. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 03:34, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

The only people who deny that Jesus was crucified are:

1) Advocates of the Christ myth theory - who deny that Jesus existed at all

2) Muslims - who still admit that someone "mistakenly" believed to be Jesus was still crucified in Jesus's place

That's it. Belief that Jesus was not crucified is comparable to the belief that Jesus came back from the dead: a religious belief.

It is a historical fact that, if Jesus of Nazareth existed at all, Roman soldiers crucified someone that everyone at the time believed to be that individual. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:16, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

It would make an interesting conversation over at that historicity of Jesus thing. Surely, if Christian scholars are able to unswervingly discard their religious notions, view the evidence and find that Jesus existed, Muslim scholars are just as capable of discarding their own religious beliefs and it's just a coincidence that Muslim scholars find that the evidence shows that Jesus wasn't crucified and Christian scholars find that the evidence shows that he was. Couldn't be a result of bias, just not possible.—Kww(talk) 02:45, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Outside of Muslims, who affirms that a physical Jesus existed (so no Docetists or CMTers) but claims that the person crucified as Jesus of Nazareth was actually someone else? That bar's on par with "outside of Christians, does anyone think Jesus existed and was crucified?" Ian.thomson (talk) 13:21, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Is it a fact that Muslim scholars actually hold this view? The claim in the first post here seems unsupported. --Pete (talk) 07:16, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Like Pete, I would also question this. In any science, it's possible to find the odd academic who believe in creationism, or in the resurrection, or whatever aspect most mainstream scholars discard. That's why we have WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. The question is not if there is any Muslim scholar who disputes the crucifixion, as there no doubt is, but is that view beyond WP:FRINGE among Muslim scholars? And let's be clear here that an WP:RS scholar holds a PhD and publishes peer-reviewed research in their field, a scholar is not a "person with an opinion".Jeppiz (talk) 09:36, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

It depends what you mean by a "Muslim scholar". Obviously a Muslim theologian would say that the crucifixion of Jesus did not happen, but would not deny that a crucifixion took place. The Quran is clear that there was the appearance of a crucifixion, just that it was some sort of miraculous conjouring trick. In effect that's no different from saying that the bread really turns into Jesus' body in transubstantiation. It's a theological concept, but the appearence is de facto the same as reality outside of that. Paul B (talk) 15:45, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't arguing in my first post here that the Islamic beliefs should be mentioned in the article as historical facts. I wasn't presenting what the Islamic beliefs are in my first post. I was actually presenting what the majority of scholars and historians from the Muslim world agree about. I cited the Global Arabic Encyclopedia's article about Jesus in order to backup my argument, and it is indeed a most academic source on the topic. It argues against the historical reliability of the crucifixion and says that the Jews have only heard about the crucifixion of Jesus from Christians.

The issue here is that the article is selecting the opinions of several scholars (mainly from Christian or ex-Christian background) and presenting them as undisputable facts. The opinion of [[James Dunn], for example, which is cited in the infobox as absolute truth: "the baptism and crucifixion of Jesus command almost universal assent" is nothing but a personal opinion [a claim] of James Dunn, and I have cited the Global Arabic Encyclopedia's article in order to prove that it isn't true that the story of the crucifixion is universally approved.

It's not a disputable issue that the majority of scholars from the Muslim world would argue against the historical reliability of the crucifixion, and it is also not a disputable issue that the majority of scholars from the Christian world would argue in the favor of the historical reliability of the crucifixion. That is why the "crucifixion of Jesus" is a disputable issue, and that is the thing that can't be disputed.

Please pay attention to the following question in particular:

1. How many reliable historical sources from the first half of the first century state that a man named Jesus, son of a woman named Mary, was crucified somewhere in the Levant?
2. If you know such a source, then please mention it. Otherwise, the "crucifixion of Jesus" is not a historical fact, but a matter of dispute among variable scholars.--Human Chlorophyll (talk) 18:06, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

If we said in Wikipedia's voice that things were "universally accepted" there would be a problem. Crossan's quote may involve a certain assumption of context - ie he is speaking of specialist biblical scholarship (a field where I don't think there is Muslim participation) - but I think that is ok. I haven't notices that articles on Islam are very scrupulous about putting non-Islamic points of view at every step. Johnbod (talk) 19:51, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

1. The question is utterly irrelevant, as it implies that you make yourself the judge of the entire field of historical research to disqualify the methods historians use. There are almost no historical facts from Antiquity for which we have sources dating to less than 20 years of when they took place.

2. Sorry, but this utterly ridiculous. There is a large scholarly consensus about this, and whether you think that the scholars use the right methods or not is irrelevant. There are creationists who dismiss the methods of scholars as well, and we don't give any space for that either.

3. Could I encourage you to use less personal arguments and more sources if this discussion is to advance? As for Global Arabic Encyclopedia, I have never heard about it and there's no Wikipedia article for it, contrary to most serious Encyclopaedias. That does not mean it could not be WP:RS, but it's reliability has not yet been established in this discussion.Jeppiz (talk) 18:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

The Global Arabic Encyclopedia has an official website for it: click here. It says in it that: "About 3000 scholars and specialists from the East and the West have contributed the basis for the work in addition to 1,000 institutions, researchers, writers, university staff members, scientific editors, technicians, proofreaders and consultants from different parts of the Arab and Islamic world." There is also an online version of it that is still under the construction: click here.

Here you can read a general description of the Global Arabic Encyclopedia given by a natural party: Encyclopedias about Muslim Civilisations, Aptin Khanbaghi, 2009, ISBN 978 0 7486 3970 0 p 16.

Now, all what you can do is to click on the link I offered in the first post, download the encyclopedia, and then ask an authoritative translator to translate the article of Jesus for you. You will find it saying what I told you in the pervious posts.

Now I understand that citing sources from other languages could cause irritation for some of you, but this is the only way to present the consensus of scholars from the Arabic world, since those scholars from the Arab world publish their works in Arabic only.

Here is an online checkable source, not published by Muslim scholars, but it acknowledges the issue that "Muslim scholars have overwhelmingly rejected the crucifixion of Jesus" Jesus Research: New Methodologies and Perceptions -- The Second Princeton ... By James H. Charlesworth, Brian Rhea, Petr Pokorny

I think this is quite enough to disqualify the claim of James Dunn who is by the way a Christian preacher [i.e. a theologian], not an independent scholar. In addition, he didn't explain in his book on what basis he reached to his conclusion that the "crucifixion of Jesus command almost universal assent". He didn't cite any statistics of any kind to support his claim. All what he did is that he pushed a personal uncited POV and then moved on.

Virtually, not all scholars agree that Jesus died on the cross.

The Jewish religious tradition doesn't maintain that Jesus was "crucified", but that he was "stoned", so can we say that the cause of death is "stoning" instead of "crucifixion"?! here is a source for this: Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence, By Robert Van Voorst, 2000, ISBN 0-8028-4368-9, p 116

I would suggest to say that the cause of death is "stoning according to the Jewish religious tradition" per the source given above, "crucifixion according to the Christian religious beliefs".

Here is another source for "stoning of Jesus": Fifty Synagogue Seminars, By Jeremy Hugh Baron, ISBN 978-0-7618-5107-3, 2010, p 64

Here is another source which says that "Jesus was stoned": A Manual of Christian Evidence: Containing as an Antidote to Current ...By John Relly Beard..

Another source here also: Jesus was stoned to death by Robert Sheaffer.

Finally, the Global Arabic Encyclopedia' article says that the "crucifixion of Jesus" is not mentioned in the Jewish religious tradition, and it seems that the previous sources have supported this claim.

You can find a lot of other sources as well: click here--Human Chlorophyll (talk) 14:54, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

That Jesus was not crucified is a traditional belief in Islam, and will be referenced in many works. Like Jewish traditions on the point, this originates from several centuries after the relevant time, far later than Christian traditions and scripture. The matter is purely peripheral to Jewish religious beliefs, and modern Jewish scholarship generally does not endorse these late antique and medieval polemical positions. The issue is well-covered in other articles (such as Yeshu and Crucifixion_of_Jesus#Islam), and does not belong here. See also Crucifixion_of_Jesus#Other_accounts_and_references for early non-Christian references to the crucifixion.Johnbod (talk) 15:16, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Johnbod and note in passing that some of the sources given above are not close to being WP:RS.Jeppiz (talk) 15:22, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2)The Telegraph article is about one guy - which does not counter "virtually all," and his mention of the Stauros only brings up Jehovah's Witnesses arguments that Jesus was crucified by being nailed to a pole instead of .

The Voorst ref says that Yeshu Ben Stada (who was a different individual) was stoned, and was only later identified with Jesus. The other ref you bring up does not end on the stoning, and still deals with the individual that your own references say was not Jesus.

Robert Sheaffer is not an authority on the ancient near east, and is about as appropriate to quote on the origins of Christianity as Christopher Hitchens is on Islam.

Human Chlorophyll, that you completely distort those claims brings up questions of incompetence or outright dishonesty on your part. It's obvious that you are only looking for sources that you can misuse to push your agenda, instead of just looking at as many sources available and checking as many tertiary sources as possible to discover the academic consensus.

The stoning of Jesus search is flawed -- you're just as likely to find reference to this verse and to Ben Stada as you are to supposed methods of execution of Jesus of Nazareth. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Johnbod, I didn't refer to any Islamic belief in any post here. The Islamic beliefs are not my topic in this thread, and I am not trying to represent my Islamic beliefs as historical facts. The issue here is that the Christians are the ones who are trying to represent their religious beliefs as historical facts. The claim made in the article that "the crucifixion of Jesus is considered universally to be a historical fact". That is the problem. The article is selecting the opinions of 3 Christian preachers (James Dunn, John Dominic Crossan and Gregory A. Boyd) and one ex-Christian preacher (Bart D. Ehrman) while it ignores the opinions of the overwhelming majority of Muslim scholars: click here. There is no such a universal consensus as the Christian preachers claimed unless you exclude the scholars from the Muslim world.

Ian thomson, all the sources I cited make the specific statement that "the Talmud says that Jesus was stoned". That is what I wanted to cite: "what the Talmud itself says", not how Christian apologists try to disqualify this "Talmudic statement".

All the sources I cited state that this what "the Talmud itself says". Voorst states:"the earlier traditions given above from the Jerusalem Talmud say that jesus was stoned". Jeremy Hugh Baron states: "the talmud assumed that Jesus was stoned to death". John Relly Beard states that this what the Talmud itself says.

That the Christian apologists try to disqualify the Talmudic statement is not my issue. My issue is what the Talmud itself says.

• Here is another academic, reliable and neutral source, by Dr. Robert Travers Herford, which specifically asserts that the Talmudic Jesus is himself the Christian one: #"the two names Ben Stada and Ben Pandira evidently refer to the same person, and that that person is Jesus is shown clearly by the fact" #"it is impossible to doubt that the reference is to Jesus of Nazareth" #"there can be no reasonable doubt that the Jeshu who is variously called Ben Stada and Ben Pandira is the historical Jesus the founder of Christianity"

I will be busy in these 3 days, so don't expect me to respond to you during them. You can research the topic yourself instead of resorting to ad hominem against me. The Crucifixion is a Christian belief, not a historical fact. It is not described in the Jewish religious tradition. It is not mentioned in any non-Christian historical reliable source from the first century. It's even contradicted by specific passages from within the New Testament itself such as Acts 5:30 which says that Jesus was killed by the Jews and hanged on a tree (not on a cross). You can search the topic yourself, but please don't call the Christian preachers in the infobox "historians". They are not historians, but theologians.--Human Chlorophyll (talk) 10:47, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid this is getting disruptive, and if somebody wants to go to ANI to argue WP:COMPETENCE, I understand it. Human Chlorophyll, I believe you have good intentions and that you really think you are doing the right thing. Unfortunately (or fortunately), just good intentions are not enough. If you're not willing to listed to advice from more experienced users, it's possibly you cannot edit Wikipedia. That has nothing to do with your views, but with the inability to argue them in accordance with the policies. You have wasted an enormous amount of your own time, and quite a bit of space and a bit of out time, proving absolutely nothing. The article does not say 'every single academic', it says 'virtually all' Finding the occasional dissident voice (and I'm not convinced even of that) does not change that.Jeppiz (talk) 11:21, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Ian.thomson, this page is to discuss what edits should be done for the article and my discussion in this thread is within this category. Don't close it under the pretension of false accusations made by you. If you can't participate in a discussion like a civil person, then this is your problem not mine.

Jebbiz, I believe that you are a sockpuppet of Ian.thomson or that you are trying to look like one. I also believe that you are incompetent to bring forth a counter-argument for the points I mentioned instead of resorting to ad hominem.

• The "crucifixion of Jesus" is a Christian religious belief based on Christian religious tradition.
• There is no mention of it at all in any source from the first century outside the Christian religious tradition.
• The Jewish religious tradition contain a claim that Jesus was stoned rather than crucified.
• All of James Dunn, John Dominic Crossan, Greg Boyd and Bart D. Ehrman are biblical scholars not historians.
• In contrast to the biblical scholars mentioned above, Muslim scholars have overwhelmingly rejected the crucifixion of Jesus. Reliable source for this statement in particular has been offered before.
• Thus, it is wrong to say that the "crucifixion of Jesus" is a historical fact, or that it commands universal assent per the points I mentioned above.--Human Chlorophyll (talk) 17:18, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Human Chlorophyll, it's not helpful to throw around accusations of sockpuppetry just because two editors are telling you the same thing. Ian.thomson and Jeepiz are both very established editors. The reason why stoning is mentioned in the Talmud is simple. Stoning was the punishment for blasphemy and the Talmud wants to emphasise that the named figure (Stada) was a blasphemer. It is not disputed that the figure of Ben Stada draws on Jewish responses to Jesus, but he cannot be identified with Jesus in any straightforward way, and it would be WP:SYN to deduce from this that Judaism somehow denies the reality of the crucifixion, which we know is not the case. The source you have linked refers to "Muslim schiol;ars" it means theologians - as is clear from the examples given (he actually says "scholars concerned with religious dialogue or polemics"). Ironically, the actual modern scholar you quote, Suleiman Mourad, argues that the Quran does not deny the crucifixion: "the references in the Quran indicate death by crucifixion; that is, not only the act itself but its consequence" (pp.757-8). So the only actual modern scholar you have quoted says the opposite of what you are trying to prove. Paul B (talk) 17:54, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The idea that Jesus was not crucified is a Muslim religious belief based on Islamic traditions derived from Gnostic beliefs. Jesus's execution was affirmed by Tacitus back then, and by persons who are neither Christians nor Muslims now, and even by individuals who are opposed to Christianity. Only Muslim historians and historians from Muslim-majority backgrounds argue that the person executed as Jesus was really someone else. The resurrection is the Christian religious belief, not the execution. It is entirely possible to affirm the crucifixion as a historical belief without affirming the resurrection as a religious belief -- almost everyone who is not a Muslim does so, and the individuals you can find who do not are only exceptions.

Your claims regarding Crossan and Ehrman show that you have no comprehension of WP:RS relating to this field.

What you are advocating is a religious POV, plain and simple. What you are fighting against is not a religious belief, it is a historical fact. If you want to deny it, that's your problem. If you want to change the article, you need to provide sources that explicitly state demonstrate that a significant portion of mainstream secular academia denies the historicity of Jesus's crucifixion. Not "this one scholar, if taken completely out of context, could be interpreted as being unsure," by a religious (or anti-religious) propagandist, but a secular history professor saying "many mainstream secular scholars do not think Jesus was crucified." If you cannot do that, you are not entitled to use this page to preach the Islamic belief about Jesus letting someone else be executed in his place.

Notice that you have had to misrepresent and cherry pick sources, as was previously shown. Notice that you have shown favoritism to any Muslim scholar, but deny any scholar affirms the crucifixion. Notice that no one supports anything beyond mentioning that Muslims believe someone was crucified in Jesus's place. You are not going to get your way here. Further posts will be reported to ANI as soapboxing.

Your accusation of sockpuppetry appears to be in bad-faith. The only overlaps in our edit activities I can find are at Historicity of Jesus, Muhammad, Christ Myth Theory, and Ahura Mazda and those are only small portions of our respective activities. Furthermore, his native language is Swedish, while mine is American English. I point this out because making such empty claims without good evidence only further make you look like you're here in bad faith. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:07, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Paul Barlow, I didn't cite a person named "Suleiman Mourad" anywhere in the whole thread, so please next time mind your comments before posting them.

The source I cited says plainly: "Muslim scholars have overwhelmingly rejected the crucifixion" and it is authored by James H. Charlesworth, Brian Rhea, Petr Pokorny (no person named "Suleiman Mourad" among them)

As for the accusations, my accusations were from the same nature of their accusations.. nothing more, nothing less. In addition, being users of the wiki for a long time doesn't give them the right to resort to ad hominem against the newer user as they did repeatedly like a cabal.

All the ones your infobox cites are Christian theologians. None of them is historian. So what is the point of saying that "Muslim scholars mean Muslim theologians"?! your infobox offers theologians, not historians. Mind this next time.

Ian.thomson, nice to see that you are finally trying to write a counter-argument. Unfortunately, you failed while trying to do so. here is why:

1. The source of Tacitus is from 116 CE (not from the first century), so you failed to bring a source from the first century (I expected that). In addition, this source is actually derived from the Christian religious tradition.. nothing more - nothing less.
2. Just as the idea that Jesus wasn't crucified is a Muslim religious belief (based on the fact that no evidence of such an event exists), the idea that Jesus was crucified is a Christian religious belief (based on no more than delusions).

I didn't ever preach any Islamic belief in my whole thread here, so your accusation that I am preaching is nothing but a blatant lie.

Finally, go to ANI as soon as you can. I don't care at all.--Human Chlorophyll (talk) 19:08, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

"Paul Barlow, I didn't cite a person named "Suleiman Mourad" anywhere in the whole thread, so please next time mind your comments before posting them. The source I cited says plainly: "Muslim scholars have overwhelmingly rejected the crucifixion" and it is authored by James H. Charlesworth, Brian Rhea, Petr Pokorny (no person named "Suleiman Mourad" among them)" Oh dear. You are just demonstrating your lack of competence. "James H. Charlesworth, Brian Rhea, Petr Pokorny" are the EDITORS of the book, which is a collection of essays. The article which you cited is entitled "Jesus in the Qur'an and other Islamic Texts" and is written by Suleiman A. Mourad. See the contents list on p.x. You obviously haven't even read it, just done a keyword search for a phrase. Read the actual article. So please next time mind your comments before posting them, or as someone or other said, perhaps you should take care of the beam in your eye before citicising the mote in mine. Especially as there is no mote. Paul B (talk) 19:16, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

It seems that you couldn't understand my dear, the source I cited is for James H. Charlesworth, Brian Rhea, Petr Pokorny. That is the one I cited. I didn't cite the book of "Suleiman Mourad" himself, because he is not a notable person. His work itself doesn't count as a reliable source for me, but the work of James H. Charlesworth, Brian Rhea, Petr Pokorny counts as such.

So, next time mind it twice instead of once.--Human Chlorophyll (talk) 19:23, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

And when you want to say that I cited a specific work, then you should mention this specific work in particular. has the work of Suleiman Mourad not been mentioned in the work of James H. Charlesworth, Brian Rhea, Petr Pokorny, I wasn't going to cite it.--Human Chlorophyll (talk) 19:27, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

It is impossible to discuss meaningfully with someone who shows this level of incompetence. Do you understand what an edited collection of essays is? Just look at the contents page. The article you cited is entitled "Jesus in the Qur'an and other Islamic Texts" and is written by Suleiman A. Mourad click here. It's not "mentioned". It is written by him. As is usual, Mourad's arguments are also summarised by Charlesworth in the introduction. I have no idea why you somehow wish to deny this. It just makes you look wilfully intransigent and incapable of useful debate. Paul B (talk) 19:29, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Why are you trying to distract the conversion away from its point?! I told you already. I didn't cite the article of "Mourad" because it would not count as reliable source itself because "Mourad" is not a notable person. but the edited collection of essays of James H. Charlesworth, Brian Rhea, Petr Pokorny is notable. That is not the issue of the thread. The issue is: I gave you an online checkable source to read, and it says plainly: "Muslim scholars have overwhelmingly rejected the crucifixion". that is the issue.. okay?--Human Chlorophyll (talk) 19:45, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

You did cite the Mourad article. His notability is irrelevant to his reliability AS A SCHOLAR. He is a professor of Religion at Smith College and an expert on history of Islam [1]. Paul B (talk) 10:32, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

What exactly is your problem?! why are you still roaming away from the points of this thread! I said it before. I didn't cite "Mourad Suleiman" in person or his article in particular. I cited the work of James H. Charlesworth, Brian Rhea, Petr Pokorny which is an online checkable source in English for you to read. That is what I cited. Now, you checked the source online and read it in English and found it saying that "Muslim scholars have overwhelmingly rejected the crucifixion"? What is your next step now? are you going to admit that there is not universal assent that Jesus was crucified? or are you going to keep roaming away from this key point of the thread or resorting to ad hominem against me; which only shows how weak and shallow your position in this argument is.--Human Chlorophyll (talk) 13:14, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

I have already explained repeatedly that the very line you cite is from an essay article by Mourad. I have also explained that he is using the word "Muslim scholars" to refer to the tradition of Islamic exegesis of the Quran, not to modern historians. The people he names in the next sentence are mostly from the medieval period. It is not disputed that Muslims have traditionally asserted that Jesus did not die on the cross, a fact that is already in the article. What is in dispute is what modern academic historians, Muslim or otherwise, say. Mourad is arguing against this tradition of Quranic exegesis. BTW, please look up the definition of ad hominem. Paul B (talk) 13:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

And I have already responded to this point before. Your infobox doesn't offer "historians". It only cites Christian theologians or biblical scholars. All of James Dunn, John Dominic Crossan, Greg Boyd and Bart D. Ehrman are biblical scholars not historians.

If you are going to say that the rejection of the crucifixion of Jesus is based on Islamic theology, then I will do the same and say that the claim that Jesus was crucified is based on Christian theology.. nothing more, nothing less. It is not based on any historical evidence as I showed before.

The online checkable source (in English) which I gave to you says it plainly: "Muslim scholars have overwhelmingly rejected the crucifixion". It doesn't say that it is only Muslim theologians or Imams who have rejected the Crucifixion. It says "Muslim scholars", so keep this in your mind.

I cited the Global Arabic Encyclopedia in the very beginning of this thread, because it is a most academic source to represent the modern Muslim scholars, and it utterly denies the crucifixion of Jesus. but since it is in Arabic, I needed to search an English online checkable source for you to read.. got it?

Just as there are very little so-called Muslims who accept the crucifixion (like the Ahmadiyya and this Mourad), there are very little so-called Christians who reject the Crucifixion (like the ones I mentioned above). The issue is still: just as the vast majority of Christian theologians accept the crucifixion, the vast majority of Muslim theologians rejected it. Thus, there is no universal assent.

And next time, instead of repeating your words again and again, please go and find reliable sources which say that the vast majority of modern Muslim scholars have changed their minds and started to accept the crucifixion as you are trying to claim. You will never find such a thing. All of the Muslim scholars (including the historians) whom I knew in my own Muslim world have not considered the crucifixion of Jesus to be anything but a myth. Muslim scholars don't only reject the crucifixion, they actually reject the entire corpse of the New Testament.--Human Chlorophyll (talk) 14:09, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

And what does that have to do with this article? Nobody is saying we should base in on the New Testament and we don't. We go by academic consensus, period.Jeppiz (talk) 14:20, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Jesus' crucifixion is not based on Christian theology. It became incorporated into theology - which is completely different. Crucifixion was the normal method of Roman punishment for rebels. There is huge historical evidence for this. That Jesus was executed is accepted by non-Christian as well as Christian writers in ancient Rome (anti-Christians loved to point it out as proof that he was a neer-do-well). Virtually all biographical information about Jesus comes from the Gospels, of course. Unless you think they are total fiction, it makes sense to distinguish what seems likely from what does not. It makes complete historical sense to accept the crucifixion, without which there could be no expl;anation of how the Christian community developed as it did. Historians do not accept as fact such 'supernatural' events as the Transfiguration or Resurrection, but see them as theological views. The same applies to the Islamic substituted-on-the-cross view. As for Mourad, we always have to look at the context of what a scholar is saying to understand it. Researching by simply looking for phrases in google books, does not give an accurate understanding of what is being said. Paul B (talk) 15:21, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Try to stick to the main point instead of going to the right and the left as Jebbiz and Ian did before.--Human Chlorophyll (talk) 19:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay now.. since the thread has become too long, I will stop from adding anything to it. You can go and speak with ANI about me. I don't care at all. Good bye.--Human Chlorophyll (talk) 19:59, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Where we go from here

In the aftermath of this thread, I would suggest we find and cite non-Christian scholars who concede the crucifixion, like Reza Aslan in Zealot and some atheist scholars. Discuss-Dubious (t/c) 16:15, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Ehrman is an agnostic, but a full blown atheist would be useful. Amy-Jill Levine is Jewish, and is cited here for "Most scholars agree that Jesus... and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman prefect, Pontius Pilate." Paul Verhoeven (who, granted, isn't the most academic source) is cited at Crucifixion of Jesus for the line "In modern scholarship, the baptism of Jesus and his crucifixion are considered to be two historically certain facts about Jesus." Ian.thomson (talk) 16:33, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

historical Jesus in the lead

Here is our current lead paragraph about the historical Jesus. It's pretty good, but I can imagine a more informative treatment. Before I jump in, I'd like to survey you other editors on how you see this paragraph. One question is whether it should really be second, or whether the Christian View paragraph should be second and this one third. The other question is open: how could we handle this material better? Thoughts?

Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed historically,[f] although the quest for the historical Jesus has produced little agreement on the historical reliability of the Gospels and on how closely the biblical Jesus reflects the historical Jesus.[18] Most scholars agree that Jesus was a Jewish rabbi[19] from Galilee who preached his message orally,[20] was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman prefect, Pontius Pilate.[21] Scholars have constructed various portraits of the historical Jesus, which often depict him as having one or more of the following roles: the leader of an apocalyptic movement, Messiah, a charismatic healer, a sage and philosopher, or an egalitarian social reformer.[22] Scholars have correlated the New Testament accounts with non-Christian historical records to arrive at an estimated chronology of Jesus' life. The widely accepted calendar era (abbreviated as "AD", sometimes alternatively referred to as "CE" in politically correct environments), counts from a medieval estimate of the birth year of Jesus.

And here it is with sources included.

Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that [[Historicity of Jesus|Jesus existed historically]],{{efn|In a 2011 review of the state of modern scholarship, [[Bart Ehrman]] wrote, "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees".<ref>{{cite book|first=Bart|last=Ehrman|year=2011|title=Forged: writing in the name of God – Why the Bible's Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are|isbn=978-0-06-207863-6 |url=http://books.google.com/?id=MtOMO8i4GLoC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false |publisher=HarperCollins |page=285}}</ref> [[Richard A. Burridge]] states: "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church's imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more".<ref>{{cite book|title=Jesus Now and Then|first1= Richard A.|last1= Burridge |first2= Graham |last2= Gould|year=2004| isbn= 978-0-8028-0977-3 |page=34 |publisher=Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing}}</ref> [[Robert M. Price]] does not believe that Jesus existed, but agrees that this perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars.<ref>{{cite encyclopedia|first=Robert M. |last=Price |title=Jesus at the Vanishing Point|encyclopedia= The Historical Jesus: Five Views|editor-last1= Beilby|editor-last2= Eddy|year= 2009 |publisher= InterVarsity| isbn= 978-0-8308-7853-6 | editor-first= James K.|pages=55, 61 |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=O33P7xrFnLQC&pg=PA55#v=onepage&q&f=false |editor2-first= Paul R.}}</ref> [[James Dunn (theologian)|James D.G. Dunn]] calls the theories of Jesus' non-existence "a thoroughly dead thesis".<ref>{{cite encyclopedia|title=Paul's understanding of the death of Jesus|encyclopedia=Sacrifice and Redemption|first= Stephen W.|last= Sykes |year=2007| publisher= Cambridge University Press| isbn= 978-0-521-04460-8|pages=35–36}}</ref> [[Michael Grant (author)|Michael Grant]] (a [[classicist]]) wrote in 1977, "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary".<ref name=Grant1977>{{cite book|first=Michael|last=Grant|title=Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels|publisher=Scribner's|year=1977|isbn=978-0-684-14889-2|page=200}}</ref> [[Robert E. Van Voorst]] states that biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of non-existence of Jesus as effectively refuted.{{sfn|Van Voorst|2000|p=16}}<!--Note that this is a different statement with a different qualifier from the existence statement-->}} although the [[quest for the historical Jesus]] has produced little agreement on the [[historical reliability of the Gospels]] and on how closely the biblical Jesus reflects the [[historical Jesus]].{{sfn|Powell|1998|pp=168–173}} Most scholars agree that Jesus was a [[Galilee|Galilean]],<ref>[[Jonathan L. Reed|L. Reed, Jonathan]]. ''Archaeology and the Galilean Jesus: A Re-examination of the Evidence'', 2000.</ref> non-[[Pharisees|Pharisaical]] [[Jews|Jewish]]{{efn|Although raised in a [[Hellenistic Jewish]] culture, Jesus' teachings and religious origin differ significantly from modern [[Rabbinical Judaism]] which originate from the dogmas of the [[Pharisee]]s.}} [[rabbi]]<ref>Catherine Hezser ''The social structure of the rabbinic movement in Roman Palestine'' 1997 -Page 59 "'''b – Rabbi as an Honorary Address''' ... Since Jesus was called "Rabbi" but did not conform to the traditional image of post-70 Jewish rabbis, and since pre-70 sages do not bear the title "Rabbi" in the Mishnah, most scholars assume that the meaning and usage of the term "Rabbi" at the time of Jesus differed from the meaning which it acquired after the destruction of the Temple: in pre-70 times, "Rabbi" was used as an unofficial honorary address for any person held in high esteem; after 70 it was almost exclusively applied to ordained teachers of the Law."</ref> who preached his message [[Oral gospel traditions|orally]],<ref>James D. G. Dunn, ''The Oral Gospel Tradition'', Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing, 2013. pp 290-291</ref> [[Baptism of Jesus|was baptized]] by [[John the Baptist]], and [[Crucifixion of Jesus|was crucified]] in [[Jerusalem]] on the orders of the [[Roman governor|Roman prefect]], [[Pontius Pilate]].{{sfn|Levine|2006|p=4}} Scholars have constructed various [[Portrait (literature)|portraits]] of the historical Jesus, which often depict him as having one or more of the following roles: the leader of an [[apocalypticism|apocalyptic]] movement, Messiah, a charismatic healer, a sage and philosopher, or an [[egalitarianism|egalitarian]] [[social reform]]er.{{sfn|Köstenberger| Kellum | Quarles |2009 |pp= 124–125}} Scholars have correlated the [[New Testament]] accounts with non-Christian historical records to arrive at an estimated [[Chronology of Jesus|chronology of Jesus' life]]. The widely accepted [[calendar era]] (abbreviated as "[[Anno Domini|AD]]", sometimes alternatively referred to as "[[Common Era|CE]]") counts from [[Anno Domini#History|a medieval estimate]] of the birth year of Jesus.

Leads are important and worthy of extra effort, and this lead of ours shows that it's already gotten a lot of good editing effort. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 13:38, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Here's the Encyclopedia Britannica article on historical Jesus. It represents the mainstream historical view, so it might help us in judging due weight while describing that view. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 01:45, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

My first issue is that the first clause is too weak. They not only agree that he existed but that he was baptized by John and crucified under Pontius Pilate. I would drop that first clause and just never bring up that he existed. Obviously he existed, and the Jesus-myth hypothesis is too fringe to warrant inclusion here, even in the negative (that it's wrong). Anyone mind if I cut that first line and start with "The quest for the historical Jesus..." Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:36, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Did you read the FAQ? (Talk:Jesus/FAQ#Q 3e: Why even mention the existence of Jesus in the article lead?). --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 22:15, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Obviously not, so thanks for the link. I'd still like the clause to pull more weight. Maybe we move it to the end and say "Various attempts to show that Jesus was mythical have been discredited." Jonathan Tweet (talk) 13:26, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

These two Christian sources have the same message, that the historical Jesus project hasn't produced any general agreement about who Jesus was.

the [[quest for the historical Jesus]] has produced little agreement on the [[historical reliability of the Gospels]] and on how closely the biblical Jesus reflects the [[historical Jesus]].{{sfn|Powell|1998|pp=168–173}}

Scholars have constructed various [[Portrait (literature)|portraits]] of the historical Jesus, which often depict him as having one or more of the following roles: the leader of an [[apocalypticism|apocalyptic]] movement, Messiah, a charismatic healer, a sage and philosopher, or an [[egalitarianism|egalitarian]] [[social reform]]er.{{sfn|Köstenberger| Kellum | Quarles |2009 |pp= 124–125}}

Since this paragraph is the historical Jesus paragraph, how about we see what some secular sources say on these two topics? Maybe it's just the same as the Christian sources, but let's at least check. What do people think? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 17:44, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Anyone want to stand up for either of these lines and say that they are balanced summaries of each topic, representing due weight? If not, I'll substitute better lines. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 13:26, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Not surprised that no one stood up for these lines. I changed to first one to say that historians value the Synoptic Gospels. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 04:02, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

And now I've changed the second line to summarize the contemporary, mainstream view of who Jesus was. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 02:15, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Portraits of Jesus in the Gospels

As it turns out, I've done a fair bit of editing on the Portraits of Jesus section. It's fun work for the most part, and I have lots of good sources for this material. If other editors have feedback on my work, positive or negative, I'm listening. Basically I'm trying to describe all the portraits of Jesus rather than inventing a single, new, composite portrait. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 18:09, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

I've removed redundant John's prologue about the beginning of the Word, it merely reiterates gospel text with no encyclopedic information and inflates the already big article. Brandmeister^talk 23:26, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Brandmeister. Thanks for giving me the feedback I requested. I'd sure like to reach a compromise with you on this material, and I assume that that's what you want, too. If the treatment that I gave it doesn't suit you, what treatment would suit you? How should we include John's prolog, if not the way I included it? It seems like some people don't want to include the prolog at all, but I'm not sure why, and it's notable. Here's my observation from writing that section: it's jarring for John's prolog to come first, even though the beginning of the universe comes chronologically before Jesus' virgin birth in Bethlehem. How about we change the birth-narrative section into a "prologs" section. Then we can put the prologs in order of their composition: Mark (no prolog), Matthew (Jesus as newborn king), Luke (Jesus' lowly birth), and John (Jesus as Logos). And we can put in some encyclopedic information, too. How does that strike you? PS: When you delete work, it helps other editors if you can name a policy or guideline that the material violates. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 13:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi Brandmeister, you deleted the section about Jesus as the eternal Logos. Would you please discuss what sort of compromise we can make? What treatment would you like to see that material get? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 03:59, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Personally I'm generally fine with the article as it is. More opinions from atheist or otherwise unaffiliated, particularly Soviet scholars (such as Iosif Kryvelev, Alexander Kazhdan, Mikhail Kublanov) could be added, but in a concise form due to article's size. Brandmeister^talk 11:40, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Brandmeister, for sharing your personal opinion. I asked how we could reach a compromise on including John's prolog. Your answer seems to be that you oppose including the material in any form, and you're not open to discussing a compromise. You'd prefer that I just honor your opinion and not try to add the material. Or how would you describe the situation? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 23:30, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Brandmeister. Deleting another editor's work and then not discussing the issue can be seen as contentious editing. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 01:56, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

I gave my rationale for that above. If you insist on John's prologue, how do you want it to be presented, aside from the previous version? Brandmeister^talk 07:38, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

You criticized the previous version for simply rehashing the prolog without encyclopedic content. So I'd like to add the section back in and add a couple well-sourced lines about what it means for Jesus to be the Logos. If that's not acceptable to you, could you please tell me under what conditions you would allow the material to be added? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 00:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Could you give a specific example of that proposed addition? It would be easier to evaluate. Brandmeister^talk 08:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Of course. First, I cut some other lines that seemed a little extraneous. I know you're concerned about the length of the article, and I appreciate that. Then I cut the lines about Jesus' incarnation because that's what the rest of this section is about, and for space. Then I added a powerful comment from a solid source. Please see my edits to the page. If you delete this section again, I beg of you please tell me something about the circumstances under which you will accept this topic on the page. Thanks in advance. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 04:22, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I've made cosmetic tweaks for smoother flow there and now don't object such an inclusion. Brandmeister^talk 09:02, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for working with me to arrive at this compromise. Let's agree to leave it as you have it. That said, I'm not happy with John's prolog being buried in the introduction while the rest of the Gospel material gets the standard treatment in the Gospel summary sections. It's not clear to my why you want to de-emphasize John's prolog. To me that prolog seems like some of the most important information that the Gospels share about Jesus. But like I said I am happy to have reached some sort of compromise, and in the spirit of good faith I'm not going to debate your edit. It's important that we editors learn to work together despite differences in our beliefs. Thanks again. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:25, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Title

"Jesus" is wrong. The name "Jesus Christ" is given to Jesus in all encylcopedias apart from wikipedia. Therefore the correct name of this article should be Jesus Christ.--InterPersonalAutomaton (talk) 20:08, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

See Talk:Jesus/FAQ#Q 1: What should this article be named?.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:49, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

With all respects, that doesn't answer the question about why wikipedia doesn't follow the same style every source on Jesus in the world does.--InterPersonalAutomaton (talk) 23:41, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I'd love to see the evidence that every source on Jesus in the world has complete agreement on anything.—Kww(talk) 01:15, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

The 1916 Jewish Encyclopedia has him as "Jesus of Nazareth". (Singer, Isidore; Adler, Cyrus (1916). The Jewish Encyclopedia: A Descriptive Record of the History, Religion, Literature, and Customs of the Jewish People from the Earliest Times to the Present Day. Funk and Wagnalls. pp. 160–178. Retrieved 12 June 2015.) and the 2008 Britannica Concise Encyclopedia doesn't mention "Christ" anywhere in the entry. (Britannica Concise Encyclopedia. Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. 1 May 2008. p. 986. ISBN 978-1-59339-492-9. Retrieved 12 June 2015.) Richard-of-Earth (talk) 09:11, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

"Christ", since it is a title, probably is not appropriate for this article since only Christians ascribe that title to him. It's the same reason why we don't title the Muhammad article "Prophet Muhammad" - Christians and other religions deny that he was a prophet. All that said, the Jesus FAQ linked to above covers this quite well. (And to be absolutely clear, I am not discriminating against Christians here. I myself am a Baptist.) Jtrevor99 (talk) 17:46, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Jesus as a mushroom

Why is there no mention on this page of the Dead Sea scrolls and their translation by John Marco Allegro? His book - The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross - is one of the more scientific works concerning this figure and most of his conclusions are generally accepted as being correct. Modanung (talk) 22:42, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

New stuff goes at the bottom. We don't have that for the same reason we don't discuss the Da Vinci Code or Jesus showing up on toast. The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross destroyed John M. Allegro's credibility in academia. "His conclusions are generally accepted as being correct" by you and some stoner -- not mainstream academia. His work receives no support from mainstream historians, which is the standard Wikipedia goes by. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:03, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Like Ian said, it's not up to us whether to include the Jesus-mushroom theory. All we can do as WP editors is look at the best sources and describe Jesus the way he's described there. Since the Jesus-mushroom theory gets no play in the best sources, we don't give it any play here. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 23:26, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Makes a good song, though [2]. Paul B (talk) 08:55, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

I've just checked the works of "John M. Allegro" on scholar.google. His book "The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross" seems reputable enough to be mentioned in the article.--5.107.40.244 (talk) 19:06, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

No it does not, per WP:FRINGE. Sundayclose (talk) 20:01, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Is this some kind of a joke? What is the mushroom? Alexis Ivanov (talk) 21:22, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

It's not a joke. The idea is that Christianity is based on hallucinogenic mushrooms. It was the 70s, so maybe that explains it. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:45, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

chronology in the lead

Currently the lead says this...

'Scholars have correlated the New Testament accounts with non-Christian historical records to arrive at an estimated chronology of Jesus' life. The widely accepted calendar era (abbreviated as "AD", sometimes alternatively referred to as "CE") counts from a medieval estimate of the birth year of Jesus.'

The first sentence has little content and apparently serves as a way to provide a wikilink to the chronology of Jesus' life. Also, the sentence is wrong. It's only the Synoptics that historians use, not the NT in general. And the only points on his life that we have a handle on are his birth and death. The second sentence is true, but it's undue weight to put this much text into the lead on this topic. What other tertiary source puts this information so prominently? I like the sentiment, but honestly it should read something like: "Jesus is so foundational to Western civilization that even our secular calendar system counts years roughly from the year of his birth." Or, "Jesus was so foundational to Western civilization that the practice of enumerating years since his birth replaced the older practice of enumerating years according to local royal lines." Unfortunately, I've never run into a statement like that in my reading, so I can't offer a good source. I'd like to delete those lines to make more room in the lead for good information about Jesus. For instance, we still haven't mentioned that he preached forgiveness and the coming Kingdom of God. Those items each deserve more weight than lines about chronology. What do my fellow editors think? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 02:34, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

As a biographical article dealing with the difficulty of determining Jesus' birth and death dates, and the importance of said dates to our very way of reckoning time in the West, I find the lede appropriate. I think deletion could cause questions and attempts to reintegrate the two sentences (or something similar to them) back into the lede. Comparison to the ledes of other biographical articles may not be appropriate in this case simply because of the exceptional impact of Jesus' birth and death dates on time reckoning. All that said, it certainly could be modified. Perhaps altering "New Testament" to "Synoptic", or to "New Testament biographical entries", would resolve that issue. The second sentence, meanwhile, probably better belongs in an article on AD/CE, and could be deleted or replaced with something like "Medieval estimates of Jesus' birth in 1 AD have proven somewhat inaccurate." Jtrevor99 (talk) 17:43, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, Jtrevor. I agree that looking at a biographical article of someone else wouldn't necessarily give us the guidance we need. That's why I recommend looking at how other tertiary sources treat Jesus. It looks to me as though the first sentence lacks content and the second one is undue weight. You say that these sentences are appropriate, but do you have any evidence to back that up? How about a good source? This paragraph doesn't even talk about why Jesus was killed or what message he preached. It doesn't mention the Kingdom of God. Surely these two lines are not more important to an understanding of Jesus than his parables about the Kingdom of God. Are there other tertiary sources that give this content prominent placement? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 02:58, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't have any evidence that they're appropriate; that was my opinion based on reading the ledes of other biographical articles of major figures. While those sentences do not deal with the topics you mentioned, which of course are critical to any discussion of Jesus and belong somewhere in the lede, they do tackle problems with precisely dating his life on Earth, and discussion of important biographical facts are appropriate for a lede. I furthermore would posit, though of course cannot prove, that many people come to the Jesus article looking for information on birth and death dates, due to the impact of those dates on the AD/CE era. In short, I think they belong in the lede, and think they quickly address questions many who come to this article have, but simultaneously recognize the importance of other topics that are perhaps overly deprioritized due to the inclusion of these sentences. All that said, now I need to read the "long discussion" linked below. Jtrevor99 (talk) 15:33, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

You make some good points about the second sentence, about AD, and it has some support in the archives. What about the first one? I would put a [[cn]] on the sentence to ask for a citation, but I don't want to make the lede on this good article look sketchy. Can someone supply a citation for the Jesus chronology sentence? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:55, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

The second sentence was added to the lede in December 2013 after a long disucssion. See Talk:Jesus/Archive 122#No mention of Anno Domini/Common Era? and Talk:Jesus/Archive 122#RfC: Sentence about A.D. or C.E.. Since the result of the RfC was in support of inlcuding the sentence, I'm not sure if we can remove it.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:12, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

dead?

If The Bible says that Jesus resurrected, how can he be dead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.21.50.175 (talk) 17:04, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

It doesn't say anywhere that he's dead, only that he died, which the Bible agrees with. --Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:09, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The death date listed is for the Crucifixion. The Bible also follows that Jesus ascended to heaven a little bit after the resurrection, and so is no longer living here. From a practical perspective, Jesus isn't in a position to sue us, and so this article doesn't fall under WP:BLP. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:10, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The article says Jesus "died" by crucifixion, as described in the Gospels and other sources, then describes the resurrection and ascension as recounted in the Bible. Nowhere does the article say Jesus is dead. —  Cliftonian (talk)  17:12, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

fix wordiness or not?

Editor2020 prefers the long-winded version of the first sentences about John the Baptist. I prefer a concise way of saying the same thing. Editor2020 doesn't say what's better about the long version. Try reading these sentences aloud as a check for which version reads better.

Compare versions

Opinions? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:58, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Concise is always good, and in this case I prefer your version but only if you use the past tense. Perhaps that was his issue with it. Cutelyaware (talk) 23:20, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I trimmed it down. Is this OK? Editor2020, Talk 04:05, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for working with us. This is a tricky topic because there's so much misinformation out there, so I like the writing to be concise, as Cutelyaware says. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 18:06, 25 June 2015 (UTC)

"counts from a medieval estimate of the birth year of Jesus."

This isn't true. 1 AD, while paying homage to Jesus, is the first regular year of the Julian calender. Years earlier than this, even though on the Julian calender, had leap days every three years. See Julian_calendar#Leap_year_error. The Christians that got rid of the AUC system certainly knew that the birth of Jesus in the Bible is internally contradicted as well. I propose "counts from the mythical birth year of Jesus." with a note that reads "Also the first regular year of the Julian calender. See Julian_calendar#Leap_year_error." Scientes (talk) 18:53, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Nothing in the Julian calendar article seems to support what you are saying, and the use of "the mythical birth year of Jesus" would just be a none-too-subtle way of promoting the validity of Christ myth theory. BTW, how did User:Scientus mutate into Scientes? Paul B (talk) 20:02, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Good point about the christ myth theory. (which I don't agree with) scientus is a misspelling of the latin and sometimes i log into the wrong account.Scientus (talk) 20:05, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Look at the "first date aligned" column. While the calender aligned Jan 24 1 BC (5 days before the start of March), the first fully aligned year was 1 AD.Scientus (talk) 20:09, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Also look how Anno_Domini#History "However, nowhere in his exposition of his table does Dionysius relate his epoch to any other dating system, whether consulate, Olympiad, year of the world, or regnal year of Augustus; much less does he explain or justify the underlying date." That sentence contradicts the lead to this Jesus article. Scientus (talk) 21:04, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Can we at least get a reference for this sentence? I challenge its notability, so I'd like to see a reference that demonstrates its notability. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:48, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

What sentence is not notable? Paul B (talk) 10:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

My bad, Paul. In a thread above, I'm discussing the "medieval count" sentence and the sentence "Scholars have correlated the Synoptic accounts with non-Christian historical records to arrive at an estimated chronology of Jesus' life." It's vaguely true, but I don't think it's what our best sources say. They would say something more informative or skip it. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:44, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The sentence you quote does not in any way contradict the lede section of this article. Indeed the Anno Domini article clearly states that Dionysius most likely calcultated by combining Gospel references to Jesus's age with known dates in Roman history. As for the Julian calendar article, there is nothing in it that says that there is any connection to the dating of Jseus' birth. You added an uncited assertion, sweepingly claiming that "many scholars" believe this, without providing a scintilla of evidence. Paul B (talk) 10:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Related section on Wikisource

Why is s:Author:Jesus of Nazareth not the appropriate Wikisource item for this article? It is clearly the correct item. This article is not Christianity, and source texts regarding Jesus are not necessarily Christian. Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:57, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

s:Author:Jesus of Nazareth seems right for source texts. The Christianity portal is mostly about the Church. I'd revert to BT's version, but I don't want to be aggressive, and I'd love to hear the other side. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:43, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

I changed it to BT's version. Happy to change it back if we have a discussion and that's where we end up. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:20, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Messianic Jews

So the sentence "A group known as Messianic Jews considers Jesus to be the Messiah, but whether this body is a sect of Judaism has been disputed since New Testament times." probably ought to be reworked. While the relationship between Christianity and Judaism has been of dispute since New Testament times, Messianic Judaism as such only came about in the 20th century, and conflating it with New Testament-era Jewish Christianity seems a bit disingenuous.

CountGrasshopper (talk) 23:18, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Should we replace Messianic Jews with Jewish Christian? Richard-of-Earth (talk) 03:41, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

These are two different things, as CountGrasshopper says. Jewish Christians were the first Christians. Messianic Jews are modern adherents (since about 1970) of a version of Judaism adapted to include acceptance of Jesus ("Yeshua") as the Messiah. —  Cliftonian (talk)  03:47, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

CountGrasshopper is right and apparently the two sources for this sentence are wrong (or wrongly cited). How about we just drop the sentence? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:35, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Why are you lying about Islam in the lede of this article?

OP admits to having no interest in assuming good faith, no point in their participation
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
We Muslims don't consider Jesus to be the awaited Messiah or the fulfillment of the Messianic prophecies as the lede of this article is saying. It is true that we address Jesus with the name "messiah". However, this doesn't make Jesus any different from David, Saul, Solomon, Cyrus the Great or others who are also addressed in the same manner with the same name "messiah".--5.107.131.139 (talk) 23:36, 1 July 2015 (UTC) Why are you presenting original research instead of citing non-primary professionally published mainstream academic sources? Also, assume good faith instead of accusing everyone of lying. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:53, 1 July 2015 (UTC) Neither the central religious holy Scripture in Islam (i.e. the Qur'an) nor the collections of the Muslim tradition (i.e. the hadiths) claim anywhere that Jesus fulfilled any kind of prophecies. The messiahship of Jesus in Islam is by no means different from the messiahship of the other messiahs mentioned above. They have all been considered by Muslims to be of less importance than Muhammad.--5.107.131.139 (talk) 00:08, 2 July 2015 (UTC) As I said earlier, you need to present "non-primary professionally published mainstream academic sources," not original research. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC) The burden of proof is on you in the first place. You are the ones who pushed this claim in the lede without evidence or reference to reliable secondary sources.--5.107.131.139 (talk) 00:28, 2 July 2015 (UTC) Did you not read the article? There's a blue number next to the text you have a problem with, which links you to the citation. The material is supported by a non-primary source. And also, you made a claim, and the burden is on you to support your claim. You have provided no secondary sources. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC) No, there is no blue number next to the problematic text in the last line of the lede which falsely says "that Jesus is hold in Islam as the awaited Messiah and the fulfillment of the messianic prophecies". You need to check the lede again.--5.107.131.139 (talk) 00:43, 2 July 2015 (UTC) Also, I am not the one who is making a claim, but the one who is negating the claim you made. I am negating the presence of such an Islamic belief that Jesus fulfilled any kind of prophecies. You need to present references to reliable secondary sources which specifically state that Islam holds Jesus to be the fulfillment of the Messianic prophecies. (with references to specific verses in the Islamic Scripture)--5.107.131.139 (talk) 00:48, 2 July 2015 (UTC) That portion is stating that Judaism rejects Jesus as the messiah because they do not think Jesus fulfilled their prophecies. It does not say that Islam had messianic prophecies. In other words, Judaism rejects all Christian and Islamic beliefs about Jesus because they feel Jesus does not meet their standards. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:24, 2 July 2015 (UTC) Which statement exactly in the article is causing this debate? Alexis Ivanov (talk) 04:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC) Hello, anonymous editor 5.107.131.139! Welcome to the Jesus page, where people from very different religious backgrounds all get along nicely in an effort to make this page even better than it already is. Thanks for your input. Can you tell us what you would like the lede to say about Jesus in Islam? If we have a specific suggestion, that will help us work together better. Thanks. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:42, 2 July 2015 (UTC) Looks like this is the passage in the lede, "To Muslims, Jesus was a bringer of scripture and was born of a virgin, but was neither the son of God nor the victim of crucifixion. According to the Quran, Jesus was not crucified but was physically raised into Heaven by God." I'm no expert on the Quran, but it seems well cited. 004.157, Guessing we're dealing with [three translations] YUSUFALI - "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah", PICKTHAL - "We slew the Messiah, Jesus son of Mary, Allah's messenger" SHAKIR - "Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa son of Marium, the messenger of Allah". Jesus in Islam contains lots of secondary sources to affirm this. Not sure if swapping a secondary source with the primary would be an improvement. It probably is fine as it. 70.36.233.104 (talk) 18:17, 2 July 2015 (UTC) I was very clear in the previous posts here (such as this one) that the problematic text I am talking about currently is the last line of the lede. Have you failed to understand what the last line of the lede is?! that's funny! that line which claims "that there is such an Islamic belief that Jesus is the awaited Messiah and the fulfillment of the Messianic prophecies" is a blatant lie that has probably been injected in the article by some of the Christian propagandists who work actively on websites like this one in order to spread lies about Islam and Muslims. The claim is a blatant lie based on no evidence or reliable reference. There is no such a belief in Islam. Islam doesn't hold that Jesus fulfilled any kind of messianic prophecies or that is he is the long awaited Messiah of the Tanakh. The Qur'an doesn't say anywhere that Jesus was prophesied by anyone or that he fulfilled any kind of prophecies. The collections of hadiths also don't contain any tradition about Jesus being the fulfillment of any kind of prophecies. The comment by 70.36.233.104 seems dumb to me. I don't see any relation between his/her/its points and mine. He/she/it talked about things that have no relation with what I talked about in the previous posts. In addition, citing wiki's articles by him/her/it was even dumber. wiki's articles are not reliable secondary references. Learn what a reliable secondary reference is then come and talk with me.--5.107.131.139 (talk) 23:31, 2 July 2015 (UTC) Assume good faith is a foundational site policy and if you aren't willing to follow it you should bother some other site. Your claims of Christian propagandists are paranoid. You did not initially specify which line at first. And again, the line is about Jewish rejecting of Jesus, the messianic prophecies are Judaism's standards. Ian.thomson (talk) 00:16, 3 July 2015 (UTC) I don't assume good faith on the part of those who don't have good faith. When you stop lying about Islam everywhere in the media, I will assume good faith on your part. Till then, I will remain conscious and aware of what you are doing and will keep bothering you everywhere I find you in the real life or on the internet. My claims of Christian propagandists reflect my consciousness and awareness of what is indeed happening everywhere on the internet: Christian missionaries are being paid like mercenaries to spread lies about Islam. You are probably ones of them. Your dumb answers are a pathognomonic sign of the "Christian wickedness" that I have been experienced in.--5.107.131.139 (talk) 20:17, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

resurrection appearances

Historically speaking, the resurrection appearances of Jesus' followers are major event in the history of Christianity, and probably of the world. RSs cover the topic, so I added a paragraph in the Historicity of Events section. While I'm on the topic, "Historicity of Events" seems like a strange section theme. I never see that in other works. What I see instead, which this page lacks, is a historical summary of his life (to the extent that we secular people can understand it). Jonathan Tweet (talk) 03:08, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Should we cover the political situation better?

The current lede never mentions the political situation in Jesus' life, and the body doesn't give it much play. John and Jesus preached at a time when elite Jews were assimilating into Hellenic culture, and the leaders of the Temple were in an unholy alliance with the hated Roman occupiers. John and Jesus both challenged the centrality of the Temple, which was supposed to be the place to which you looked for forgiveness of sins. Not repentance and baptism (John), and not forgiving others (Jesus). John was killed by the authorities, so was Jesus, and so were most of the "signs prophets" that they inspired. Jesus was executed in Jerusalem, where the exterior of the sacred Temple was patrolled by Roman soldiers. This is the Temple that Herod the Great created, complete with a blasphemous Roman eagle over the main entrance. And it was Passover. Tens of thousands of zealous Jews thronged in the streets for a week, arriving first for a purity rite a week before Passover. Judea hated the Romans so much that Rome was forced to rule it directly, thus Prefect Pontius Pilate. In Judea, the Jews controlled only their sacred city, which was now full of restive, religiously enthusiastic Jews. And Jesus walked into this pressure cooker, caused trouble at the Temple, predicted that it would be razed to the point at which no stone is on another, and got strung up. If we're not telling the political story, we're only telling half the story. I understand that in the Christian viewpoint Jesus was killed for religious reasons and to pay humanity's debt of sin (among other explanations), but the historical version is also notable, so let's include it. Personally I think it's hard for a reader to understand the Gospels section without a political grounding, but I'm fine leaving the politics to the historical section. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:18, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

The historical context really seems like the number one missing piece on this page, so maybe I'll approach that next. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 01:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Jewish Christians

The conversation about messianic Jews brought up the issue of Jewish Christians. One element this page seems to be missing is the Church that Jesus founded. He didn't write a scripture; he founded a community or a movement. In some ways, that was his lasting accomplishment. But we hardly mention it. We hardly cover the religious movement that he founded and that carried on after his death. We don't even have Saint Paul's take on Jesus. His take on Jesus is more notable than lots of views we cover. There's nothing about the rest of the New Testament after the Gospels. We sort of jump from resurrection appearances to modern-day Christianity, especially Western Christianity. No Paul, no Augustine. When Britannica covers Jesus, they spend a good deal of time explaining how the figure of Jesus has been regarded over the last 2000 years. We don't. I'm sure that no one has enthusiasm for summarizing 2000 years of developing christology, but we could at least talk about the Jewish renewal movement that Jesus founded and that survived after his execution. It's a touchy issue because it's a place where history and faith don't line up exactly, but it's a notable historical point. And we can of course include the Christian view on what this community was. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:45, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually, we cannot be sure that Jesus ever intended to found any religious movement. Quite a number of experts in the academic world hold that he was an observant Jew, belonging to the apocalyptic movement in Judaism that was rather popular at the time. One could also ask (as many have done) if the movement Paul founded really was a continuation of the Jesus's first followers. Paul never met Jesus, there is no evidence he ever read any of the testaments (and no evidence at all that they were written when Paul started out, quite the contrary). Saying that this was the same movement would be a leap of faith in every sense of the word.Jeppiz (talk) 00:32, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Jeppiz, for your reasonable and detailed critique. It's great to know exactly what your objections are. You say, "Quite a number of experts in the academic world hold that he was an observant Jew, belonging to the apocalyptic movement in Judaism that was rather popular at the time." I agree and would go further and suggest that this is the predominant view. How about we just agree to portray Jesus' movement the way that the RSs portray it? Sound good? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 19:40, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Added material about the historical Jesus' Jewish sect to the body and lede. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:11, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Moved material regarding Jesus' father

The following passages were removed from the "Early life, family, and profession" section.

"Christian tradition places Joseph as Jesus' foster father. Historians such as Geza Vermes, E. P. Sanders, and Reza Aslan state Joseph as Jesus' father.[89][90][91] Geza Vermes notes that the differing views are due to theological interpretations versus historical views.[89]"

They appear to have been moved and paraphrased in the "Historicity of events" section. I haven't been here for a while, so perhaps I missed some discussion about this? I recommend returning these passages to the prior section for two reasons: (1) views on Jesus' father fit well in a section that covers his family, and (2) the passages fit smoothly into the surrounding prose in the previous section as befitting a Featured Article. It is currently stilted within the latter section, reducing the article's quality to some small degree. I welcome comments. --Airborne84 (talk) 22:04, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

I think I moved that material out and summarized it in the historical section, just as you said. I was trying to follow the standard set by the rest of this section. Other than in the introduction, this section doesn't reference scholarly interpretation or individual scholars. It just summarizes what the Gospels say. Is there a reason to treat this material differently from how the rest of the Gospel material is treated? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 02:51, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Seems like the passages could go in either section. But they are not only on historical views; they present both theological (scriptural) and historical sides of the topic. Issue is that removing them from the "Early life, family, and profession" section removes relevant discussion about one of Jesus's family members. (By the way, the remaining sentence about Joseph in that section read strangely.)

I recommend reinstating the passages. However, if the editors here would like to keep the current situation, I recommend two things: (1) rewording the sentence about Joseph that remains in the "Early life, family, and profession" section because it is a bit unclear why his name is brought up, and (2) the new paraphrased passages in the "Historicity of events" section should be worked into the prose so that it flows smoothly and tells a story (as befits Featured Article criterion 1a, well written). Thanks! --Airborne84 (talk) 17:00, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Since there doesn't seem to be much interest in this thread, and my recommendation on the latter requires some work, I'll wait for any additional comments and revert to the original version if there are none. --Airborne84 (talk) 19:12, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Are you saying that, if no one comes out in favor of the change you want to make, you're going to go ahead and make it? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:02, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm saying if no one objects to reverting to the previous version I will do that. I've outlined that it could go in either section, but the way it is now aligns less with featured article criteria as I noted above. Reverting to the original version seems to be an improvement. However, if you feel it should remain as it is, perhaps you could respond to my rationale for reverting to the original version? --Airborne84 (talk) 19:47, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I have no strong opinions about this, and I think both versions work. But as there is an appeal for comments, I lean slightly in Airborne84's direction about restoring the previous version. I repeat that I find both versions acceptable and I have no intention of getting further involved in this particular discussion.Jeppiz (talk) 21:11, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Several editors have strongly expressed the opinion that the Gospel summaries are supposed to speak for themselves rather than being subject to historical analysis. I don't like the section being inconsistent, with historical analysis applied to the virgin birth but not to other miracles. But it's not a big issue for me, so in a spirit of compromise I'm not going to object. I might, however, edit the text once it's replaced because some of it was maddeningly vague. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:16, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

too much coverage of appearance

Other good tertiary works don't pay this much attention to Jesus' appearance. Our article is so long that I've gotten resistance to adding key concepts such as John's Logos. Let's ditch this paragraph and let the readers focus on the same material that other encyclopedias have them focus on. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 21:29, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with this; a sentence that nothing is known about Jesus's appearance would be enough.Jeppiz (talk) 22:21, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

What makes you think that this article is too long? The Britannica article on Jesus has 20,000 words. This article only has 9,000. It's not even close. This is a featured article and it needs to be comprehensive. Articles about topics as big as this are allowed to be longer than most other Wikipedia articles. Please stop removing large amounts of material without discussion.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Future Trillionaire, if what you say is true, that's music to my ears. Other editors have often opposed my additions to the page on the grounds that it's already long. So I've dutifully tried to find places to cut to make room for important information. But if we have plenty of room to spare, that means we can add important material without first undertaking the arduous process of cutting. The next time someone says that they don't want me to add something because the page is too long, I trust you'll have my back. That said, there's no reason for us to pay more attention (relatively) to Jesus' appearance than other good tertiary sources do. How much attention did you think this topic gets in other good sources? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:00, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to the removal of info regarding Jesus' appearance. I was actually more concerned about the removal of the chronology section. Scholars have spent a lot of energy in calculating Jesus' time of birth and death, so it's worth mentioning how these dates were calculated. Anyways, I'm not as active on Wikipedia as I used to be, and I haven't been following this article frequently, so I don't know much about your situation, sorry.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:15, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I would be much obliged if someone removed the appearance material. I heard the feedback that I was cutting too much without input, so I'll dial it back. It's great news that I don't need to cut material to make room for new content, such as the political and religious situation. As for the chronology, there's some important material to add, and I'll be happy to add it. Redaction criticism, the length of Jesus' mission, Herod the Great's death, cleansing of the Temple. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 01:27, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Jesus' appearance has been of much importance to people whether or not we have a photograph. Coverage in the article is certainly relevant to the topic, and if it is too large, a separate article should be created. We don't simply delete material when we can create appropriate sub-articles. μηδείς (talk) 01:46, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 August 2015

72.37.171.156 (talk) 23:28, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Thanks, Mz7 (talk) 23:57, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Synoptics as the best source

I have tagged the following statement as a failed verification: "historians consider the Synoptic Gospels (Mark, Matthew and Luke) to be the best sources for investigating the historical Jesus". For a start, the referencing system here is rather poor for a FA. The first citation (The Five Gospels) covers a thirty page spread, and as best as I can tell makes no such claim about (most? all?) "historians". The second reference (Britannica) does not specify the page, but it appears to be page 4. But there the statement about Synoptics vs. John seems more cautious: "Scholars have unanimously chosen the Synoptic Gospels’ version of Jesus’ teaching. The verdict on the miracles is the same, though less firmly held... The choice between the narrative outline of the Synoptics and that of John is less clear... the brief career of the Synoptic Gospels is slightly to be preferred." StAnselm (talk) 08:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi St Anselm. Thanks for challenging us to treat this controversial topic with great care. Plenty of readers (and editors) don't want to see anything that makes one gospel seem less historical than the others, so it's important to offer them the best citations. Which I've now done. Together we are making this page better. Thanks. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 August 2015

i would like to put that jesus was indeed black, now im not just saying cause im black but in the bible in gives a clear description that he is indeed black in Revelation 1:13-1:15 and Daniel 10:5-7. Jjcoolworld234 (talk) 22:35, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. What bible version are you supposedly using for this? the King James Version uses the term "brass" to describe the individual in those passages. Brass looks kind of like gold. Cannolis (talk) 00:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

concessions to Christian sensibilities

Since Christians consider Jesus to be God, it's only natural that they should ask for and receive certain concessions as we edit this page. That's fine by me. I'm happy to compromise. Let's be clear about what I'm talking about.

• Gospels. This section has no support in WP policies, WP guidelines or the examples of good sources. Christians want people to hear the Gospel story, and this article summarizes the stories in the Christians' four canonical Gospels and the other parts of their NT. Scholarly and historical analysis are prohibited. This section is the biggest concession to Christian sensibilities on the page. It's unprecedented.
• Compartmentalize John's prologue. John's opening bit about the eternal Logos does not get covered in the main body of the Gospels section. By special request, it has been removed to the introduction. This prologue sounds strange to modern ears and doesn't fit with the prologues of Matthew and Luke. M's and L's prologues get regular treatment. Not John's.
• No history of doctrine. It's common for reference works to discuss how doctrines about Jesus developed over the centuries. This approach, however, makes Christian doctrine look like a human-made construct: a product of history. So the page contains nothing of this material, not even a good treatment of how St. Paul treated Jesus. Wouldn't the reader want to know where the idea of the Trinity came from? But we don't tell the reader that because it's too sensitive a topic.
• No anti-semitism. This came up months ago, that we shouldn't refer to the anti-semitism that scholars see in the Gospels. That is, we should stop following RSs on this topic because what the RSs say is too provocative.
• No bodily resurrection on historicity table.

Practically speaking, I know that we need consensus to work together, and I'm OK with living with these compromises. It's important to be clear about them, so I spelled them out. Now certain editors want a further concession: no table summarizing mainstream historical opinion on events in the Gospels, not even in the historical views section. I'm happy to compromise on the content of the table, but forbidding it altogether seems like a concession too far. That said, if we put this historical opinion in the Gospels section where it arguably belongs, then we wouldn't need the table, and I'd delete it myself. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:48, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

First of all, this is not a competition or two sides of a battle. We are a collaborative effort. So if you could please not treat Christians as the enemy, that would be really helpful.

Second of all, the section on the gospels is titled "Canonical Gospel Accounts", meaning that it is, infact, SUPPOSED to be a description/summation of the gospel accounts. Furthermore, the section is well sourced, gives a dispassionate description. Other views are mentioned elsewhere in the article. What, exactly, do you think is not in keeping with WP policies? Unless you are laboring under the delusion that the only people that can be scholars and reliable sources on the subject are allowed to be people who think its all completely made up?

So John's prologues sounds strange. What's your point? Are you trying to say it doesn't flow with the article well? I fail entirely to see how you might consider this a "concession to Christians".

It might be common for reference works to discuss how doctrines about Jesus developed in articles about religions and organizations that have doctrines that have evolved. This article is about Jesus the person. Again, I fail to see the problem.

What RSs say that a Jewish man who found and lead 12 Jewish men, taught in temples and synagogues, and followed Jewish laws are anti-semitic? I don't believe that the consensus of RS's believe such a thing.

Basically, I can't figure out how you have come to the conclusion that ANY of these things are concessions at all.Farsight001 (talk) 05:33, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

I'm not treating Christian editors as the enemy. I'm trying to collaborate with them. For instance, I wanted John's prologue about the Logos to be in the main Gospel summary like any other part of the Gospels. Christian editors objected. We compromised and put the material in the introduction rather than in the main body of the section. But let's focus on the main issue on this page. The Gospel section has no parallel in good, tertiary sources. There is no WP policy or guideline that says, "Keep scholarly analysis out of a section if the editors agree." There is no WP guideline that says, "You can slant a section toward a certain POV provided you title the section just right." Why do we have this section when Britannica doesn't and textbooks don't? For the years I've been editing this page, I've always understood that Christians want to relate the Gospel story without the indignity of critical scholarship. If that's not the reason that this section is here, why is it here? Secular, tertiary works don't need such a section. Why do we? I'd love to see answers that actually refer to WP policies and guidelines. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 21:25, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Historicity of Jesus

While its true the consensus is that Jesus existed, its also true that every mainstream scholar who examined the relevant methodology has said the methodology is invalid. So we must state both per NPOV. References:

• Chris Keith and Anthony LeDonne (eds.), Jesus, History and the Demise of Authenticity (New York: T. & T. Clark, 2012)
• Dale Allison, 'The Historians' Jesus and the Church', in Seeking the Identity of Jesus: A Pilgrimage (ed. Beverly Roberts Gaventa and Richard Hays; Grand Rapids, Ml: William B. Eerdmans, 2008), pp. 79-95
• Hector Avalos, The End of Biblical Studies (Amherst. NY: Prometheus Books, 2007), pp. 185-217
• Gerd Theissen and Dagmar Winter, The Quest for the Plausible Jesus: The Question of Criteria (Louisville. KY: John Knox Press, 2002)
• Stanley Porter, The Criteria for Authenticity in Historical-Jesus Research: Previous Discussion and New Proposals (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000)VictoriaGrayson^Talk 22:52, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

And where is the source for your claim that "every mainstream scholar who examined the relevant methodology has said the methodology is invalid"? We would need a source for THAT specific statement if we want to include such a thing.Farsight001 (talk) 23:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Victoria! Welcome to the Jesus page, and thanks for offering some reliable sources. Would you like to make a suggestion for what to change on the page? Like Farsight said, if it's true that the methodology is bad, then can you provide us with a reliable source to cite? Thanks. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Using the references above, something like "However scholars state the methods currently employed to determine the historical existence of Jesus are defective". Allison uses the word defective, and I think that is a good word to use.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 01:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

If Allison says it, we can credit it to Allison. However, we cannot say what you wanted - that "scholars" say it, implying that there is a consensus in this regard, when in reality, the general consensus among scholars is the opposite.Farsight001 (talk) 04:53, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

That's not true. Anyway you can say "several" scholars.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 12:17, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I might be with Victoria here. I'd love to see a section on Christian criticisms of the historical Jesus project. Pope Benedict, for example, said that Jesus explodes all historical categories. And maybe atheist opinions, too. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 21:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi guys, I think that this last addition about invalid methodology should be removed, according to WP:UNDUE. The immediately preceeding sentence states that "virtually all" scholars agree that Jesus existed: these others would be, consequently, a really small minority that shouldn't go in the leading section. Alternatively, they could be moved to the Jesus Myth section, depending on what they actually say (full citations or links would help). In this case, I think it should be fleshed out a little better. BTW: do they speak about a method to ascertain that "Jesus existed at all" *or* about one to ascertain "which one of the events we should deem more or less historical"? (in WP I've read about critics of the latter, but it's not the same thing). Bardoligneo (talk) 14:54, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I'd support that. The fact that methodology is invalid doesn't change the historicity of Jesus, such academic discourses better suit the article's body and convey little meaning in the lead. The lead does a good job by summarizing what most scholars agree upon. Brandmeister^talk 17:34, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

You two are conflating different issues. Noone is disputing that the consensus is that Jesus existed. But its also true the methodology is invalid. Both must be mentioned per NPOV, particularly since the lede delves directly into methodological issues by stating "historians consider the Synoptic Gospels (Mark, Matthew and Luke) to be the best sources for investigating the historical Jesus".VictoriaGrayson^Talk 18:44, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it should read like that "virtually all scholars" are inchoerently using what they deem an "invalid methodology" because they would be self-refuting (like: "I say so, but my methodology is invalid"!)... Or is this we actually want to convey? More likely, it's a different, really small minority to say so. Or probably, some of these critics refer to methodologies to "rank the historicity" of various events (Jesus seminar, for instance), but this is a separate issue that in fact shouldn't be conflated (I agree) with the issue of Jesus existence. Could someone please provide some excerpts from at least some of the sources? Bardoligneo (talk) 08:53, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Especially since the sources cited don't support the statement "every mainstream scholar who examined the relevant methodology has said the methodology is invalid". To examine just the first source listed "Jesus, History and the Demise of Authenticity", I haven't read the book yet (which btw seems to be actually titled "Jesus, Criteria, and the Demise of Authenticity" [same authors and year so not just a matter of two similar titles]) but one review of it states "As the title suggests, each contributor questions the value of the criteria for the future of historical Jesus research; yet not all of the contributors arrive at the same conclusion. Some believe that the criteria are beyond repair and should be abandoned altogether; others believe that the criteria can be salvaged"[3] There also seems to have been push back from other mainstream scholars. --Erp (talk) 04:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

A great way to settle disputes like this is to look at great tertiary sources, which sum up or review the state of scholarship. When we read the Jesus entry in Britannica or read about Jesus in a textbook, how much space is devoted to the idea that the methodology is invalid? In my reading, basically none. Victoria, could you find us a good, secular encyclopedia or textbook that treats the bogus-methodology issue? Then we can see how the topic is treated, and, according to Due Weight, we would treat it likewise. Since early in the 20th century, certain Christian scholars have argued that historians have nothing reliable to say about Jesus, but that doesn't seem like a mainstream view. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:39, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Bardoligneo says, "I think that this last addition about invalid methodology should be removed, according to WP:UNDUE," and that's right, so I removed it. I'll be the first in line to put it back in once we find a great tertiary source that treats the topic this way. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:47, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

The lede already brings up methodological issues, so citing WP:UNDUE is nonsensical.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 16:57, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

The consensus is very clear not to include this piece of original research. I'd encourage VictoriaGrayson to stop her edit warring against a clear consensus. Jeppiz (talk) 08:25, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I think Victoria and Jonathan are getting off the reservation. Adding this statement to the lead makes the conclusion, not just the methodology, sound invalid. It needs to be stated what that really means, or else it looks like, as Bardoligneo said, it makes the previous sentence, the conclusion, incoherent. --IronMaidenRocks (talk) 22:03, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

how to treat legendary material?

This article reports that the gospels say Jesus was born in Bethlehem, but it never gives the mainstream historical opinion that these stories are legends. How should we let the reader know that these stories are considered legendary? I'd like to mention it in the Gospel section, where it comes up. Is that OK? Probably not. The Gospel section follows an idiosyncratic rule that no such scholarly opinion is allowed. In that case, I'd like to call it out on a table summarizing the historical opinions that are excluded from the Gospels section. But that table keeps getting deleted by editors who don't refer to WP guidelines, WP policies, or RSs. Britannica just leaves these stories out of their account of Jesus. After all, they're just legends. I'd be happy with that solution, basically following Britannica's lead and doing away with the entire Gospels section. After all, it's Christian POV to look at the four canonical Gospels for Jesus' story. Maybe this information could go in the "Historicity of Events" section, but no other tertiary source has any such section. It could just be "Life and career," and it would tell his story as the historians tell it. I'm sure there are some editors who don't like the fact that historians consider these stories to be legends, so I'm willing to compromise on how we deal with this topic. Any ideas? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:56, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

But it is not the mainstream historical position that these stories are legends. The stuff about the miracles? Sure. But about where he was born? Not at all. Plus there is already a section for historical opinions. They are not "excluded" from the gospel section anymore than the gospels are "excluded" from the history section.Farsight001 (talk) 12:50, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Fasight, "But it is not the mainstream historical position that these stories are legends." That's an interesting statement. Do you have evidence to back it up? My evidence is Sanders, Theissen, Crossan, etc. Luke's census is impossible and Matthew's account looks for all the world like it was invented to fulfill prophecy. If you think that it's in accord with WP policy not to include mainstream historical opinion in the Gospels section, again, I ask for evidence. For example, another tertiary source that treats the material this way, or a WP policy. Opinions without evidence are fine, but evidence is what we need to agree on how to construct this article. Editors with different personal beliefs are going to have a hard time reaching an understanding if we stick with opinions and don't refer to evidence. We may never agree on what we believe, but with evidence we can agree on what the mainstream historical opinion is. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 21:13, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

A few points. One, I think the word "legend" is more than a little problematic, because it is rather ambiguous and in this context might fall within WP:VAGUE. Regarding whether the census was "impossible", this statement from the "Census" article in the Eerdman's Dictionary of the Bible seems relevant: "The NT mentions a census taken during the reign of Augustus.... Beginning with Augustus, the Roman administration regularly conducted [censuses of the provinces]. According to Luke, because of this census Joseph and Mary went to Bethlehem." Now, that source is kinda old, but I don't see anything asserting that the census was either impossible or legendary. The best places I can think of to check on this would be the recent Zondervan Bible encyclopedia (which probably has a conservative bias) and the Oxford Encyclopedia of the Books of the Bible, which I doubt has as strong a bias. Having said that, I do not myself want to be seen as arguing that they necessarily happened as described, because I don't necessarily believe they did, but I am less than sure that each of the individuals you named in all their works are necessarily "mainstream," and, without knowing the particular works, I would defer myself to what the best current reference works say. John Carter (talk) 21:27, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

John Carter says, "I would defer myself to what the best current reference works say." Well bless you. I wish all us editors would say that. It sounds like you agree with me that we should set aside our personal viewpoints and stick to what the best sources say. Any editor who disagrees probably shouldn't be editing a page devoted to a touchy topic like Jesus. If I have misidentified the best sources, then I'm wrong and stand to be corrected. Let's agree to present this material the way the best sources do. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 20:01, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

missing section: historical setting

The section that's missing from this page, a section that gets prominence in other sources, is the social, political and religious environment of Jesus. The article includes references here and there, but the reader deserves a thorough treatment. I know that some editors consider the historical setting as secondary because Christ is not a product of history, so probably this subsection should go in the historical Jesus section, rather than appearing before the Gospels as its own section. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:07, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

There is an article called Historical Jesus, which is a main linked article for the Historical views section. --Musdan77 (talk) 22:24, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

That's true! So you're agreeing with me that this material should go in the historical section even though it might be useful to the reader trying to understand the gospel section? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

No, if you want to add something major like that, it should go in the Historical Jesus article, not here -- especially since consensus is against it here. --Musdan77 (talk) 17:50, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Britannica covers Jesus' social background. Why shouldn't we? A great way to work past disagreements is to stick really closely to WP policies and guidelines. Can you please back up your opinion with reference to a policy or guideline? And "consensus" doesn't count (WP:CCC). Jonathan Tweet (talk) 21:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

My life has gotten busy. My children's book on evolution is shipping, and I'm prepping for a guest spot on Dogma Debate Wednesday. (I'll try to talk about historical Jesus, and they take callers. Just saying.) So here's a great source for Jesus' social background: Britannica Online. If someone wants to add any of this material to the page, or just see how a top-notch encyclopedia treats the topic of Jesus, take a look. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 21:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

I added a paragraph on the historical setting. Per Due Weight, we should cover the topics that the best tertiary sources cover. No scholar of historical Jesus is better respected than Sanders, and Britannica may be the best respected encyclopedia. If they think that the topic is worth 14 paragraphs, it's got to be worth at least one. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:31, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Greek or Aramaic

As the language Jesus and his people actually spoke, wouldn't it be better to have an Aramaic rather than a Greek translation at the beginning of the article? Zacwill16 (talk) 07:58, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

This has been discussed several times before. The reason we give a Greek rendition of his name at the beginning of the article rather than one in Aramaic, Hebrew or something else is because the only spelling that can be reliably confirmed by primary sources is the Greek one. There are several possible spellings in Hebrew, for example off the top of my head: ישוע Yeshua (what modern Christians usually use when speaking Hebrew), ישו Yeshu (the name Jewish Israelis generally use, despite its probably being derogatory in origin) or יהשוע Yehoshua (which is actually equivalent to "Joshua"). Anyway, in short, sources. —  Cliftonian (talk)  08:16, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Does it really matter what spelling variant is used, since they all more or less render the same name? Whichever one is used, it will at least be an approximation of the name Jesus himself used, rather than a name completely foreign to him. Zacwill16 (talk) 08:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

Since no one has made any further objections, I'm going to replace the Greek name. Feel free to re-open discussion here if you disagree. Zacwill16 (talk) 14:10, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

What? Nobody has agreed with your proposed change, and it has been opposed in detail. No consensus whatsoever for that change.Jeppiz (talk) 20:34, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

No one has offered any counter-argument or further objection or response of any kind. I took silence to mean agreement. Please, next time say something if you disagree. Zacwill16 (talk) 06:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

"Yeshua" not historical

All of the references given to support the derivation of "Jesus" from "Yeshua" are Christian or Catholic-Christian, and therefore biased.

This derivation is a Christian affectation, unsupported by any direct historical references. There is no historical source for this derivation, or, if someone thinks they know of one, then it needs to be provided as a citation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.249 (talk) 19:56, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not care about the religious persuasion of the source. Only about their qualifications as an expert. One could just as easily say that atheist sources are biased. Or Islamic or Hindu sources are biased and dismiss them as well. But if we did that, we wouldn't have ANY sources.Farsight001 (talk) 22:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Fix punctuation

Could an established editor fix the article punctuation? For example, the introduction includes the following statement:

The widely accepted calendar era, abbreviated as "AD" or sometimes as "CE" is based on the birth of Jesus.

A missing comma needs to be inserted per wiki style:

The widely accepted calendar era, abbreviated as "AD" or sometimes as "CE", is based on the birth of Jesus.

 Done Sundayclose (talk) 02:24, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

wiki's christian systemic bias

The article is generally biased and unreliable.--168.1.93.40 (talk) 12:03, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to Wikipedia. This is a talk page, where you suggest actual changes to an article ("Please change X to Y because Z") that in line with the site's policies and guidelines, such as WP:GEVAL and WP:RS. This is not a discussion forum to complain that mainstream academia doesn't love your pet belief as much as you do. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:19, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Mainstream academia is NOT a wiki that amateurs like you can speak on behalf.--31.218.140.124 (talk) 13:01, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

You're right -- that's why this article cites professionally published mainstream academic sources. The sources summarize mainstream academia's views.

Oh, and I've actually done very little editing to this article.

And "Wiki" is just the software that the site is built on. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:55, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually, it not only cites professionally published mainstream academic sources, at least in this case, I know for a fact that it has been actively compared against at least one of the best mainstream academic sources out there, because I was the one who did that comparison. The article in the Encyclopedia of Religion, arguably the best reference work in the field of religion, is rather long, and as I said at the time I did not try to do a "percentage" type examination of one against the other, but there was no significant point found in that published article that was not covered to at least reasonable length in this article, other than, I believe, Hindu views of the subject. Basically, if this particular article compares well with the article in probably one of, if not the, best mainstream academic sources out there, it is probably no more biased and unreliable than the best academic sources are. John Carter (talk) 14:53, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Let's have a look at what we have here. Two editors of the wiki are claiming that this wiki's article about jesus is consistent with "the mainstream academia". I insist that this article has nothing to do with "the mainstream academia". The question is: who is going to judge between me and them? Who is going to decide who is the wrong among us? Who is going to decide if i am the wrong one or they are the wrong ones. The answer on this wiki is always the same: let's vote! Voting is the reason why the wiki is systemically biased.. Read what "systemic bias" is and you will understand.--31.218.146.221 (talk) 15:43, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Anon 31, you are spewing a lot of bluster with no specifics. Wikipedia does sometimes have issues with reliability and bias, but you have given us nothing meaningful. First of all, Wikipedia does not decide by voting. And secondly, give us specifics -- details -- to back up your claim that the article has "nothing to do with the mainstream academia". And don't forget to back up your claims with citations to "mainstream academia." You may actually have some legitimate points, but so far you have provided no substance. Sundayclose (talk) 16:27, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what our anonymous newcomer means, but the whole "Gospels" section is based not on WP policies nor on the examples set by secular, tertiary sources but instead based on the preferences of editors. A certain amount of leaning is bound to happen, considering the personal importance of this topic to so many editors. I think there are lots of ways to improve the article short of having a big fight to try to make it actually neutral. I would encourage the anonymous editor to help improve the historical section, which could use some work. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:30, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Excessive FAQ on this page

Greetings, on (22:23, 1 November 2015‎ JoeHebda} I attempted to cleanup the many FAQ notices on this talk page. On 02:20, 2 November 2015 my good faith cleanup was reverted by Adamfinmo. The most bothersome of these is the FAQ line that covers up Search archives line making it impossible to read the lines above. So I'm now asking here if it's really necessary to have all FOUR of these entries for FAQ? Regards, JoeHebda (talk) 19:13, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
* Discussion: JoeHebda Is totally correct here. This was my mistake. The banners at the top and at the bottom were rather excessive. The FAQ in the collapsed block in the middle is more that sufficient. My apologies Joe. I have removed those banners.--Adam in MO Talk 20:18, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Adamfinmo, what I notice is that the {{FAQ}} is still generating the strange line that appears (overlays) blocking another message box (vital article). And I don't know how to fix. Should this be reported to Village Pump - Technical? Over the short term should one of those manual FAQ boxes be returned? Cheers, 20:25, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

 Done Removed offending manual FAQ message box; placed original FAQ box to top. JoeHebda (talk) 12:57, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Dating Method

This article uses the BC/AD dating method. That's not the standard dating method used in English, which would be BCE/CE. The BC/AD is the old method, which specifically referenced the year "0", which was when they guessed that Jesus was born. BC/AD specifically held a Christian bias, however, and the Jesus page is not a "Christian page", it's a "Jesus page". The page accounts for the mythological aspects, the Christian aspects, the Muslim aspects, and the later historical authors who referred back to his alleged legacy. As year "0" was certainly not the year of Jesus' birth, then the Christian bias is no longer necessary, and as BCE/CE is the appropriate standard dating method, it seems that it should be updated. Kⁿo_wl^ed_ge B^at_tl^e 15:14, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

This is addressed in the FAQ. BC/AD is the agreed-upon method. BethNaught (talk) 15:17, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Oh I understand that it's agreed-upon. It's still inappropriate, and contradicts the point that it's not a Christian article. Kⁿo_wl^ed_ge B^at_tl^e 15:20, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately for you, it's not going to change without a new RfC gaining consensus for BCE/CE. I suggest you not waste your time pursuing this unless you seriously believe the community will agree with you. BethNaught (talk) 15:27, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I think User:Knowledgebattle's suggestion is perfectly reasonable and should be carried out. Just as Wiki has agreed never to use (PBUH) after Muhammad's name, I personally think the BCE/BE should be implemented throughout Wikipedia as AD per definition carries a religious undertone that is unnecessary. Jeppiz (talk) 16:30, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I suppose AD might, maybe, be not unreasonable in articles whose significance or notability is primarily or overridingly of a Christian nature, like, say, Augustine of Hippo. Even then, though, for the purposes of consistency it would probably be best to use whatever is used elsewhere for the sake of uniformtiy. I'm not so sure about BCE/BE, because, so far as I can tell, BE might refer to "Buddhist era," which is kinda of dubious relevance in this case. BCE would probably be preferable to BC however, although I might personally prefer some form of dating which has no religious overtones whatsoever if I knew of any such in common usage. John Carter (talk) 16:59, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

You all understand that BC and BCE use the same dates, right? That changing the term to BCE doesn't change the fact that the dating system is still based around a man named Jesus, right? So what's the point? If you REALLY want to remove all reference to Christian concepts (which seems ludicrous in an article about Jesus), then perhaps we should use the Chinese system of dating?Farsight001 (talk) 21:37, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually, BCE generally refers today to "before Common Era," not specifically to "Christian era." But, we also have had many similar arguments regarding the terms "cult" and "new religious movement" and any number of other terms which have over the years had a less ideologically loaded term replace a more ideologically loaded one. John Carter (talk) 21:41, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

Additionally (to you, @Farsight001:), yes, BCE/CE and BC/AD do use the exact same dates. However, you'd be misguided to say that even the BC/AD dating system revolves around Jesus. Since, after all, they missed the date when they calculated Jesus' birth, then BC/AD actually refers to a "failed attempt to revolve around Jesus". After all, if BC means "before Christ", then that would mean that Jesus was born on January 1, year 0. However, if AD means "year of our lord", that would mean that January 1, year 0, was the beginning of Jesus' life, and the beginning of this era. That is not the case, however. Jesus couldn't have been born on January 1, if the Bible is accurate in it's depiction, and would probably have been born sometime in the Spring. Lots of scholars think it was the Spring of 7-4 BC, depending on what gospel you go off of. Additionally, when Dionysus was applying the "BC/AD" labels, he miscalculated and forgot a year - the year 0, inbetween 1 "BC" and 1 "AD".

However, BCE/CE revolves around Dionysus, as he's the one who (mistakenly) labeled the years - except that BCE/CE is the correct version. Also, all the saints, martyrs, and other religious figures are regular people - historical figures. They lived on our Earth, when time was still counting, and so it would still apply to them.

The only thing I can think of, right now, where it wouldn't apply, is when quoting someone. When quoting someone in an article, quote what they say. Kⁿo_wl^ed_ge B^at_tl^e 22:50, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

This has been argued innumerable times here (and elsewhere on the encyclopedia), and I've participated in the argument several times. One of the points I always make is that if you think we should change BC/AD to BCE/CE because of "Christian bias", then we should also rename all of the pagan-derived names of the weekdays/months (Thor's Day, Woden's Day, Janus' month etc.) to secular, neutral names. Our calendar contains references to a mishmash of historical and persistent Western religions, I would consider it more biased to scoop out only the Christian references and leave the others than it would be to either leave them all or remove them all. The Quakers once tried to rename the days of the week for exactly this reason, but it never caught on. The Jews also tried to rename BC/AD, and that did catch on, but we shouldn't prefer one calendrical euphemism and not the other. Crumpled Fire (talk) 00:18, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually, "Christian bias" isn't the point I'm making. The point I'm making is that "Before common era/Common era" has become the standard, professional dating system. "Christian bias" might have contributed to the switch; I don't know, don't ask me. All I know is that BC/AD is outdated, and that it was a broken system, because it skipped a year (year 0). My point is: BCE/CE is the standard nowadays; it's not broken like BC/AD is; and if people are only holding on to BC/AD for the Jesus page because it makes them feel more religious, then that's where the bias plays in.

But, now that you mention it, I would love to see the English days of the week and months be changed. In Mandarin, Monday is "first day", etc. January is "first month", etc. It would certainly be nice to get rid of the mythological influence, everywhere. But, alas - as of right now, that's a distraction, not the topic at hand, hopefully we'll get to it one day, and my stated reasons are more sound than the opposition's. Kⁿo_wl^ed_ge B^at_tl^e 04:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

You say that BC/AD is a broken system because it skips the year 0, well so does BCE/CE... the year zero isn't inserted into BCE/CE, otherwise you'd have a point. If it were, then the year 1 BC would actually be equivalent to 0 BCE, and 2 BC equivalent to 1 BCE, etc. Common Era doesn't correct anything, it just removes the explicit religious reference. People often use the argument you're making about how BCE is more "professional" or "standard", but where are your citations? Many scholars still use BC/AD, and while BCE is gaining traction, it is by no means the predominant terminology in the English-speaking world. Some people, like myself, see it as nothing more than a nonsense politically correct euphemism. And since you mentioned the "makes them feel more religious" by using BC/AD point, I think it's appropriate to disclose that I am in fact an agnostic atheist. Crumpled Fire (talk) 05:02, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

BCE/CE is not a "politically correct" euphemism - it's been in use, even by European Christian scholars, even since the early 1700s, if not before then. It was previously called VE (vulgar era). And yes, the current dating methods would account for the year 0. Year 1 BCE would refer to the entire year of Jan 1, 1 BCE - Dec 31, 1 BCE ("1 BC"). Year 0 CE would refer to the entire year of Jan 1, 0 CE - Dec 31, 0 CE (nowhere in BC/AD). Year 1 CE would refer to the entire year of Jan 1, 1 CE - December 31, 1 CE ("1 AD"). By going off of this structure, it alters the label of Jesus' birth forward 1 year (by subtraction of 1, to move it 1 year closer to the year 0 CE). All "BC" years, when labeled BCE, need to account for the reinsertion of the year 0, which did historically happen, to be accounted for and properly labeled. As of now, the year 0 AD has to be expressed as 1 BCE, as http://eclipse.gsfc.nasa.gov/SEhelp/dates.html shows. And yes, religious neutrality is just an added benefit. There are several added benefits. This also must be taken into account by historians and scholars, or anyone really, who refers to a document which accounts for any time prior to 1 CE.Kⁿo_wl^ed_ge B^at_tl^e 07:00, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

BC does seem weird here when you take Jesus's birth in 7 BC as meaning "Christ was born seven years before Christ".RikkiAaron (talk) 13:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Totally. Kⁿo_wl^ed_ge B^at_tl^e 22:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Per policy, dating methods are not to be changed unless a compelling reason is given. And honestly, I can't think of a single serious article here that HAS had a compelling reason provided.Farsight001 (talk) 21:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

angels

Comingdeer added a line about angels and Jesus, but it was out of place, so I removed it. But maybe there's call for a section on angels, as they play various roles in the gospels and may be worthy of special mention. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:23, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Angels are mentioned in over fifty Gospel verses. John's gospel reference (John 1:51) is particularly interesting since the Master is speaking to Nathaniel as he becomes a student under this unconventional rabbi. Here is a bibliography on the subject WorldCat websiteChurch of the Rain (talk) 00:35, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Mention of angels, in regard to Jesus, would be appropriate. However, the appropriate section would fall under "In the Gospels". This is a Jesus page, not an angels page. If there's something to be mentioned about Jesus interacting with angels, within the Gospels, then that is where it would fall under. Same with the Quran, although right now, there's not a "In the Quran" section. Same with the Gnostics, although there's not a "In the Gnostic Gospels" section. Hmmm... this problem should be fixed. But... yes, Jesus interacting with angels or whatever other supernatural stuff in the Gospels should probably be mentioned. Kⁿo_wl^ed_ge B^at_tl^e 07:08, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

I think the appropriate place to mention His interaction with angels is the 'Disciples' section since they were witnesses as referenced in the first chapter of John's gospel and they would understand the need for their ministry even in relation to the Messiah. The Apostles and early church developed a theology of angels that like other topics can become digressive when the angelic purpose is to simply inform or given urgent messages. Knowledgebattle, I think the central themes of the Bible should be addressed before we get to the associated views. The topic of angels is theologically important to understanding the person and office of the Messiah.Church of the Rain (talk) 15:39, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Church of the Rain, I'm afraid you're confusing theology and academia. Jesus as the messiah is a theological belief, it is not an academically provable fact and we're only interested in the latter. Jeppiz (talk) 16:41, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Jeppiz, if you are only interested in academic rigor one can employ oneself in much literature spanning centuries. Being a man of faith, my attention is the gospel account primarily. We have both sections for those purposes. Having been in a seminary I know much energy is directed towards academic theory and the same for university departments. Theology can get way beyond the text or the practical devotional purpose. Wikipedia has both kinds of readers and the "In the Gospels" or other sections will serve them well.Church of the Rain (talk) 21:57, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

In the Encyclopedia of the Historical Jesus, as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Jesus work group/Prospectus, there is an article on Angels with a not insignificant section directly relating to "Jesus and angels." If anyone can get access to that work, either directly or through WP:RX that might be useful. Having said that, I am less than certain that it would necessarily belong in the main article here, but I don't know exactly which subarticle or related article it might be best suited to. John Carter (talk) 22:41, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Its difficult to talk about angels and Jesus if one applies scientific standards to the gospel narrative or other biblical literature. The WP entry 'Christian theology' mentions angels 21 times. Consulting the "Encyclopedia Judaica", the Jewish academic authority, the matter of the existence of these beings is taken for granted. The naming of them is rare in the scriptures and their identities are disputed in rabbinic commentary. In reference to Jesus the NT witnesses record their presence without identity. Using 'form criticism' to discover the historicity of angels in reference to Jesus is not likely to be fruitful for our WP consensus given that the 'historicity of Jesus' project has been through several cycles in academia without consensus. I will investigate the source mention by John Carter. Using the LC subject heading and a keyword criteria-"su:Historicity of Jesus Christ. kw:angels" to search library resources on WorldCat ---only nine titles result. I propose that a narrow sentence acknowledging their ministry towards Jesus be placed in the entry. I would prefer such a sentence in the lead since each of the sections are equally relevant in terms of their presence in the life of Jesus and his resurrection. Angels were at each junction in the gospel narrative.Church of the Rain (talk) 04:04, 30 September 2015 (UTC)Church of the Rain (talk) 03:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

"Its difficult to talk about angels and Jesus if one applies scientific standards to the gospel narrative". Yes, I tend to agree. And here we do apply scientific standards, so if we cannot talk about something based on mainstream academic research, then we don't include it. This article is only about what academia says about the topic, we do not now and will not in the future include faith-based proposals in this article nor in any other one. Jeppiz (talk) 10:55, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Since 'angels' are only mentioned three times in the Jesus entry, I think the content can be improved by an addition since readers would reasonably expect to find these references in an article of this kind. Academic language should not be beyond the understanding of the average reader. I am not a disruptive element here by making a good faith edit or proposing one. On page 638 of the source John Carter suggested (Encyclopedia of the Historical Jesus, Routledge, 2007) the Matt. & Mark references to angels in the desert with Jesus is given to symbolize a 'New Moses' or a 'New Israel' for Jewish converts. I expect other academic theory to support these angel gospel passages as included in the oral tradition since angels are referenced in early creedal hymns. In the reference to the "Encyclopedia Judaica" above I made reference to the academic support in the Jewish religion for angels. Jesus is very Jewish in this regard given his utterances in canonical and noncanonical sources.Church of the Rain (talk) 16:32, 30 September 2015 (UTC)Church of the Rain (talk) 16:34, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I hope no one minds my saying that while I believe the content is probably relevant to wikipedia somewhere, I am far less certain that it is so significant that it must be included in this, the main article on the topic. I see the Encyclopedia I mentioned before has an article on angels of between 3 paragraphs and 2 pages, and a rather impressively long list of articles of two pages or more. They are listed in the "major articles" section, which is the first named subsection of Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Jesus work group/Prospectus#The Encyclopedia of the Historical Jesus. If we are to use that source as an indicator of weight, I would think that each and every one of the articles indicated as being over 2 pages long would be a higher priority than any content related to this topic, and, honestly, I am far less than sure that even all of them are directly referenced in the main article here yet. John Carter (talk) 16:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd agree with John Carter. Having read quite a number of academic books on Jesus, from a number of different perspectives, I cannot remember a single one of them discussing angles. To the best of my recollection, neither Ehrman, Vermes nor Levine even mention angles in their extensive works on Jesus, and they are certainly three of the most respected scholars on the topic. So there are serious questions about why angles would be WP:DUE here, quite apart from the fact that not serious academic has suggested that it's a fact that Jesus met any angles. Jeppiz (talk) 23:19, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

We are making a mistake to make 'de-mythologizing Jesus' the criteria for understanding him. A project aimed at removing the supernatural is setting up a gross impartial tone. Let me suggest Bowden's "Encyclopedia of Christianity" or the 'Oxford Companion to Christian thought' for balance. I will be reviewing the angels article as suggested. Pre-Christian apocalyptic literature is filled with references to angels and Jesus was right in the middle of it. Crispin H T Fletcher-Louis has done work on angels and their literature. Bruce Chilton's study of Mary Magdalene emphasizes the supernatural. Discounting the divine element in the life of Jesus is making him over to satisfy modern intellectual taste and restricts a proper accounting of the subject and the historical context. Church of the Rain (talk) 04:13, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

No attempt is being suggested to basically demythologize Jesus. What I suggested above is an attempt to establish proportional consideration as per WP:WEIGHT for this article, which is already, from what I remember, probably already too long by content standards. However, we do have a virtually infinite number of spinout articles we can create, and there are a number of direct child articles which the topic may well relate to, and I am thinking specifically of Life of Jesus in the New Testament here for those interactions between angels and Jesus described in the New Testament. That article, or some other spinout article, is almost certainly a better place for a summary section on an at least potential separate article on the topic of Jesus and angels. John Carter (talk) 14:50, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Church of the Rain, there is no academic consensus about any divine element in the life of Jesus, to put it mildly. Quite the contrary, there is a rather strong academic consensus that Jesus himself never thought of himself as divine. Of course this article should report that Christians believe Jesus was divine, and it already does. But it does not, and will not, make any suggestion that Jesus was divine or that there was a divine element in his life. That is an article of faith, impossible to either prove of disprove academically, and as such of no relevance for Wikipedia. Jeppiz (talk) 20:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

The important thing is not what we believe about angels, but what Jesus, the subject of the article, believes about angels. Angels are mentioned over 20 times in the words of Jesus. The WP Parables of Jesus entry fails to mention angels at all. I propose that a reference to angels be present in the 'Teachings, preachings, and miracles' section as well as the WP 'Parables of Jesus' entry. I think these deficiencies can be corrected with a single sentence in each of the existing articles (Jesus and Parables of Jesus). A new section to a already lengthy article or a new article would be difficult. I'm proposing the low hanging fruit be picked first...with proper academic sources and our consensus. Sources will be forthcoming in addition to those already mentioned. Paul McPartlan in "The Oxford Companion to Christian thought" (2000) writes 'angels are not proposed but rather presupposed by divine revelation...' Church of the Rain (talk) 04:16, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. Angels were a feature of Jesus' preaching, and something that set him at odds with the men who had him killed. Jesus had popular ideas about an afterlife, angels, demons, and free will. The Sadducees who ran the Temple dismissed these elements of popular 1st century Judaism as novelties, preferring to stick to more traditional views. Belief in angels is characteristic of Jesus, a faith healer and exorcist.Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:58, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Historicity table

The table in the Historicity section was recently edited to include scholars that don't represent contemporary, mainstream scholarship (particularly Christian apologist Licona) and to present conclusions that are more in line with Christian faith (e.g., there being "no consensus" on whether Jesus rose bodily from the grave). I'm sure these changes all seemed like good historical information to the editor, but they contradict the best contemporary scholars (e.g., Sanders, Vermes, Crossan). I've added references from Vermes, who had been absent from this page. I would love to see more Christian opinion on this page, especially a Christian reaction to the Historical Jesus project. But a table summarizing historicity in the historical section needs to stick closely to what the best RSs say. I've edited the table, retaining the new rows that had been added, but changing the material to match Sanders, Vermes, etc. Together we're making this page better. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC) PS: If my changes seem hasty, I brought this issue up on the editor's talk page a week ago and got no response. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 18:47, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Frankly I think the whole table should go. The problem can be seen in the sourcing: something like 2/3rds the entries are sourced to the Jesus Seminar, a lot of rest to E. P. Sanders, who as a New Perspective on Paul figure couldn't be much more opposed to the Jesus Seminar's methodology and still be in the scholarly mainstream. We would really need some magisterial figure who stood outside all this to referee the "prevailing view" disagreements, and I don't think there is such a person. Some general statements more or less along the lines of what is in the text now suffice, particularly the statement from Amy-Jill Levine. I think the hammering on what "historians" think is a bit much, since it seems to reflect a secularized viewpoint; obviously non-Christians are going to dismiss anything miraculous. Mangoe (talk) 22:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

FutureTrillionaire removed the line about the historical opinion on Jesus' bodily resurrection, and I think that's fine. There's already a general agreement n this page not to cover anti-Semitism in the gospels, and I'm also fine leaving Jesus' bodily resurrection off this table. "Jesus" is already a sensitive topic, and some aspects of this topic are probably sensitive enough that they're not worth the trouble covering. As long as we're patient with each other and we follow WP policies, we can work together on this important topic, even if we hold different personal beliefs about Jesus. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:16, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Why are the tables there? The 'historicity of events' table is large, obstructive and distracting, and it only caters to lazy readers. If there is an issue covering 'historical consensus' then surely it is better to have this discussed in prose, rather than simplistic statements in a table.-- Hazhk (talk) 00:09, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your questions, Hazhk. I'm happy to reach compromises with other good-faith editors, so let's do that. The table is there to provide due weight to the mainstream historical viewpoint on what Jesus did. I take your "lazy reader" comment as a compliment. If this valuable information is presented so clearly that even a lazy reader can grasp it, that's wonderful, isn't it? To be clear and concise, that's doing a service to the reader. Is the table too long? Another editor added lines to it, so apparently not everyone agrees that it is. In particular, this table is useful for balancing the treatment that the Gospels get in the earlier section. In our Gospels section, there's an explicit agreement among editors that we bend WP guidelines and prohibit historical commentary from that section. There's no WP policy about when to exclude notable viewpoints from a topic, as we do on this page. Jesus is such a sensitive topic that we don't treat it the standard way. You can think of this table, then, ss the information that is idiosyncratically excluded from the Gospels section. It's given prominence because it's out of place and hard for our reader to find otherwise. Honestly, I'd love to do away with this table and put all this information in the Gospels section, but that's not a tenable option given the resistance to historical analysis of the Gospels. Since the reader has a hard time finding historical information in the Gospels section, it's a service to them to make this missing information easy to find elsewhere in the article. Hazhk, I'm happy to work with you on a compromise. It would help us reach an agreement if I knew where you were coming from. Are you a fan of the historical Jesus project, but you feel that this valuable information is being treated wrong? Or are you a skeptic of the historical Jesus project, and you feel that this questionable information is being given too much prominence? I know that this is a sensitive topic, and that certain editors come to it with a degree of attachment. I have a compromise to suggest, but I don't know whether it would appeal to you because I don't know your feelings about the modern habit of treating Jesus like a historical, mortal figure. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:00, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The table was deleted. That's a nice, bold edit. I reverted. Now we discuss. That's WP:BRD. I'm happy to reach a compromise. Deleting the table instead of responding to this thread isn't much of a compromise. I'd like to know, Mangoe and Hazhk, how you feel about the historical Jesus project so that we can better work together on forging a compromise. This table clearly elucidates the mainstream historical opinion. I see that as a good thing, but some editors probably see it as a bad thing. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:38, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Please. Your one response was posted three hours after I deleted the table. Since then, nothing.

The problem with the table now is that it is a composite of different camps who it is safe to assume disagree on the historicity of most listed events. I don't think we're ever going to be able to fix that without finding some magisterial figure who'll tell us the state of the field, and Bruce Metzger has been dead for some years now. the more fundamental issue is that the different camps apply different hermaneutics, so the table is secondary to the difference in interpretative principles. It's a pretty safe bet that on most of the events the Jesus Seminar types are going to express doubts, and the New Paul people are going to doubt those doubts. Mangoe (talk) 04:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Mangoe, you seem to be saying that this table doesn't actually represent mainstream opinion. It is cited to top mainstream sources. Let's get down to brass tacks. Can you name one row on the table that is bad, and what should that row say instead? As near as I can tell, this table represents the mainstream views of top, current scholars. The Jesus Seminar and Sanders agree on most things, and the point that they disagree on (apocalypse) is called out. You don't like the table, but can you cite a reliable source or a WP policy on your side? Your personal opinion is welcome, but the way to reach a compromise is by sticking to RSs, WP guidelines and WP policies. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

A little background on the table. It doesn't represent my personal viewpoint. I don't think Jesus actually gathered 12 disciples, and I don't think he had a "last supper" with them. But WP isn't about what I think or what you think. It's about what the sources say. The university-level textbook Historical Jesus says that Sanders, Vermes and Crossan are major voices in current scholarship, so they get cited here. Crossan was a founding member of the Jesus Seminar, so that's why they get cited. FutureTrillionaire likes what Ehrman says about Jesus claiming to be the Messiah, so he's included, too. These are the opinions that, according to my textbook, best represent top mainstream opinion. Like all of us, I set aside my personal opinion and take it as my duty to represent what the RSs say. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jonathan, I just wanted to point out that if something is presented as "mainstream opinion", one needs a RS asserting (in some way) that it is considered indeed "mainstream opinion". I mean: it wouldn't be enough to find sources that support opinion X and conclude *on our own* that it's mainstream but we need sources who explicitly say that. It's some WP rule, btw :) . I don't know if this is the case for the sources provided, because they aren't accessible online: I think it would be preferable to include full citations for those. Bardoligneo (talk) 15:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Bardoligneo. I exactly agree. The university-level textbook Historical Jesus names Vermes, Sanders and Crossan as top representatives of current mainstream opinion. That's why the table cites them. I don't think Vermes is great, but my opinion doesn't matter, so there he is. If another editor has another great source that names other folks as top mainstream voices, I'm all ears. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok, so one of the sources for the claim would be this Historical Jesus textbook: we should include its author and a citation too. Btw, does he cite Funk Robert as mainstream too? (he sources many entries). Also, I think there could be a problem: there's not a unique RS saying "opinion X is mainstream": rather someone saying "author X is mainstream". This however doesn't imply that *every* opinion author X holds is automatically mainstream: it would be preferable some source(s) who asserts which is the prevalent opinion for each specific case. Bardoligneo (talk) 16:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The textbook cites Funk as a parables expert. It also cites Crossan as a major mainstream scholar, and he is a founding member of the JS. The JS also represents a large number of scholars with differing opinions, and the books report on what scholars in general find, not just Funk himself. I would say that an opinion is mainstream if a top scholar asserts it and no top scholar contradicts it. Every top scholar, for example, says that the Bethlehem stories are legends. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Let me just say that I oppose the inclusion of a table. The views of Jesus scholars cannot be summarized easily. Therefore, a table is not a good format.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your opinion, FutureTrillionaire. Do you have any evidence to support your opinion? Are there WP policies, WP guidelines or RSs that say we shouldn't summarize the mainstream historical opinion on this topic? I think that summarizing mainstream scholarly opinions is what WP is all about. Other tertiary sources have no trouble doing it. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:58, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

At this point I'm neutral on this issue (i.e., I don't care whether the table is included, although if it is I might have opinions about its content). @Jonathan Tweet, I'd like some clarification of your request for policy or reliable sources. Are you asking for a Wikipedia policy about this specific article and only this article? And are you asking for reliable sources that state whether this Wikipedia article should have such a table? If not, I think you need to reword your request because that's what it sounds like to me. Sundayclose (talk) 20:19, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for asking, Sundayclose. I know that several editors don't like the content of the table, and they've shared their negative opinions about it. What I'm asking for is evidence. My evidence is that WP policy is to prominently present the mainstream scholarly opinion, and this table does just that, referring to recognized top scholars in the field: Vermes, Sanders, Crossan (co-founder of the Jesus Seminar). If the detractors can find a WP guideline about when editors shouldn't summarize the mainstream view on a topic, that would be evidence. If they could find top tertiary sources that say that there's no consensus to report, that would also be evidence. For decades, it's been Christian POV that historians can't say anything conclusive about Jesus, and that's a perfectly reasonable reaction for the faithful. But what's the NPOV evidence that we shouldn't summarize the mainstream historical opinion on Jesus' life? Working on this page means making peace with people who have very different beliefs about Jesus, and to make peace we need to stick to evidence, not opinion. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 19:58, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, you want my view here? (1) WP is an encyclopedia, which is supposed to give facts, not opinion. History is about facts, not opinion. (2) Something major should be added to the main article, Historicity of Jesus, rather than here. (3) If you want to start a section on non-standard opinion, it should be done in prose.

Now in response to what you've said about WP:BRD, B is you boldly adding something, R is someone reverting it, and D is you explaining why it should be readded. You don't readd it until consensus is found to do so. --Musdan77 (talk) 23:25, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Musdan, for finally talking on the talk page instead of just deleting material you don't like. And thanks for sharing your opinions That's a great start. Next, do you think you could offer any evidence that your opinions are sound? Evidence is a great way for people who disagree about who Jesus was to agree no how to edit this page. For example, can you back up your opinions with reference to WP policies? Can you show us great, reliable, tertiary sources that treat the topic the way you want to? My evidence is that WP:DUE says we should give the most prominence to the most prominent viewpoints. My RSs say that the points summarized in the table represent the most prominent historical views. What's your evidence? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 13:55, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

FTR, here is the table that certain editors find so objectionable. As one familiar with the scholarship can see, it's ground-level, mainstream, historical opinion. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 23:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

Event in the Synoptics	Mainstream historical opinion
Birth in Bethlehem to a virgin, Luke's Christmas story, Matthew's nativity	Legendary
Grew up in Nazareth, in Galilee	Probable
Baptism under John the Baptist	Virtually certain
Taught in arresting parables about the Kingdom of God	Probable
Taught that an apocalyptic revelation was imminent	Probable, although disputed by some (e.g. Burton Mack)
Taught an ethic of radical forgiveness with pithy aphorisms	Probable
Scandalous ministry	Probable
Exorcist and healer	Probable
Nature miracles	Legendary
Claimed to be messiah	Probably not, possibly in secret (per Bart Ehrman)
Predicted his death	Legendary
Transfiguration	Legendary
Gathered twelve disciples	Probable, a symbolic act
Triumphal entry into Jerusalem	Probable, a symbolic act
Caused an incident at the Temple	Probable, a symbolic act
Symbolic "Last Supper" with disciples	Probable
Leaders of the Temple turned him over to the Romans	Probable
Crucified under Pontius Pilate	Virtually certain
Followers believed that Jesus rose from the dead	Virtually certain

Personally, I tend to disagree with your criterion that "an opinion is mainstream if a top scholar asserts it and no top scholar contradicts it", like you were saying in a previous comment. I think that we can call it "mainstream opinion" only when it is possible to ascertain (finding an authoritative source) that most "top" scholars hold such opinion. To the other extreme if one single top scholar holds an opinion about a matter, while all the others simply didn't express an opinion or think it's undecidable, then it's not "mainstream". Bardoligneo (talk) 08:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, can you provide any evidence for that opinion? WP policy is to summarize what the RSs say. If there are stricter criteria than that in policies or guidelines, please refer to them. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:32, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I would also have to disagree with your criterion. Think, for example, of what happens when a top scholar produces a NEW idea about something. Perhaps that idea is even laughable, but for as long as it is a new idea, no other scholars would have, as yet, contradicted the idea - not because they don't disagree, but because it is too new for them to have formally responded and refuted it yet.Farsight001 (talk) 17:24, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

A fair point in general but irrelevant for this discussion, as all the sources in the table are at least 12 years old, most of them over 20 years. They can be seen to represent modern mainstream academic consensus. If there's a viable argument against the table, it has not yet been made in this discussion. Jeppiz (talk) 19:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion. There is nothing to suggest that the Jesus Seminar represents "mainstream historical opinion". In fact, the Jesus Seminar article suggests otherwise: e.g. "They act on the premise that Jesus did not hold an apocalyptic worldview, an opinion that is controversial in mainstream scholarly studies of Jesus." StAnselm (talk) 19:49, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, if the Jesus seminar is your rubric, its no wonder you see a problem. The Jesus seminar is in about as clear opposition to the scholarly consensus as Intelligent Design is. It is simply in no way what we should be using to decide what to include in this article.Farsight001 (talk) 21:29, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I agree that the Jesus seminar is not a reliable source, but I don't find anything in the table that is in opposition to mainstream scholarship and couldn't be sourced using mainstream scholars. Could those opposed to the table please provide an example of any factual error in the table, or anything they feel does not represent mainstream scholarship? Jeppiz (talk) 21:48, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd also like to ask what's actually wrong with the table? As in, what is listed as mainstream but isn't really mainstream? People who don't like Jesus treated historically like to keep historical treatments to a minimum, but that's not the WP way.Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:35, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Precisely. It's been one week since I asked the same question, and no opposition. I'll give it one more than, then reinstate the table as WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not an argument to exclude. Jeppiz (talk) 15:38, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion (At least in this form). The problem with the table are the sources, right now. More precisely, we can't label X as "mainstream opinion" if there isn't an authoritative source ascertaining that "X is mainstream opinion/held by most scholars/etc.". Finding a single or few sources, however reliable and authoritative, holding "opinion X" (but not affirming if it's actually held by a majority), is insufficient and won't do because it doesn't show that the opinion X is actually mainstream. In practice, it would be inaccurate and misleading to label such an opinion as mainstream using sources who don't say that. BTW, it seems that Funk Roberts and the Jesus seminar, which source many of the entries, aren't even that reliable. If the mainstream consensus, at least about some topics, is so clear then I suggest someone finds authoritative sources stating in some form that "the mainstrem opinion/consensus is X". If those sources aren't freely accessible online, please, I'd ask you to provide full citations so that more editors could examine them and make suggestions. Bardoligneo (talk) 14:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Should this info be included for NPOV?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This is the material I wish to include. The lede currently mentions methodological issues, but omits the fact that several scholars have stated the methodology is invalid.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 12:57, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

→===Survey===

• Support - As RfC proposer.VictoriaGrayson^Talk 12:57, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - This has already been discussed less than a week ago, nothing has changed since the consensus then not to include it. The problem seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:NPOV by the proposer. NPOV does not require us to give equal weight to all views. Quite the opposite, it clearly states "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight mean that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all" Several users have already pointed out that this is exactly what Victoria is doing, cherrypicking minority views and trying to pass it off as the WP:TRUTH. Many users in the discussion last week concluded that this is WP:UNDUE, and I have not seen Victoria even trying to address that concern. Jeppiz (talk) 15:03, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose based on the comment above and wish to note that there seems to be a serious question of disruptive, tendentious editing on the behalf of the opener of this RfC. Given the rather incredible amount of material written about this subject, and the rather small minority of academics who raise the concerns she wishes to include, I cannot believe that it necessarily meets WEIGHT requirements as per the sources available. Should problematic edits continue, including an apparent disregard for recent consensus, I think seeking additional input at a noticeboard or similar would be not unreasonable. John Carter (talk) 17:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:UNDUE. It certainly doesn't belong in the lead, and probably should be in Historicity of Jesus rather than this article. "The methods currently employed to determine the historical existence of Jesus have been disputed" might be better wording. StAnselm (talk) 19:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support inclusion of contrasting viewpoints offered by scholars in the article's body, with a short mention in the lede. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:37, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per UNDUE. A few scholars may question the methodology. The vast majority doesn't. The mere mention of the few that do would be considered undue. Plus, the lede, being a summary of the whole article, is no place for statements not really found anywhere in the article body.Farsight001 (talk) 23:10, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose also per Undue, and because consensus was already reached above (even if a few disagreed with said consensus). I have not edited this article recently but I read all edits and Talk page discussions. It is satisfactory in the lede to state "a large majority of scholars" think there is proof for a historical Jesus without giving undue airtime in an intentionally brief statement to minority opinions. The lede is intended as a brief, consensus, summary. Even if it were decided material casting the scholars' methodologies into doubt belongs in the article proper - which I won't comment on right now as I'm typing this on a phone - it is not a significant enough viewpoint to deserve inclusion in the lede. It is also a large logical leap between "a few scholars dispute methodology" and "all" or even "most", as it is a leap to say "every single scholar in the majority opinion used flawed methodology despite disparate methods". Finally, the statement "most scholars believe in Jesus' historicity" remains true even if the methodology used is flawed. Jtrevor99 (talk) 00:11, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose I will support including this information as soon as someone can produce a good tertiary source that summarizes the state of scholarship this way. The best sources I've found don't say this, but maybe I'm just missing something. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 20:08, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support (un-involved editor here) As I mentioned at NPOVN, and as Cwobeel stated, as long as the reference is from an RS and has some sort of WP:weight and WP:notability on the subject matter, it should be included, at least to an extent. To leave out (exclude) viable (different) points of view is a WP:POV violation. As a start, I suggest going to WP:RSN and asking for opinions regarding these sources [4] from some more impartial editors. In the meantime, I suggest using a Template:POV. Darknipples (talk) 02:04, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more, but almost none of those policies is fulfilled in the suggested change, as most users have pointed out. Jeppiz (talk) 13:13, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support Without it the article is unbalanced. Louieoddie (talk) 05:05, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per Jeppiz. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 12:45, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose It isn't even clear if the proposed phrase "... the methods currently employed to determine the historical existence of Jesus are invalid" correctly represents what the sources say. It's possible the sources actually criticize the criteria used to distinguish more/less probable events in Jesus life (without even doubting his existence), as some reviews of the books suggest: in this case the phrase misrepresents what the sources mean. Alternatively, it is possible that the sources really say that we don't know if Jesus existed, because the methods (which?) to do so are invalid, in this case it would be WP:UNDUE. It may go in Jesus myth section. Bardoligneo (talk) 09:54, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose We can't just dump this into the lede and expect readers to go read the sources by themselves. At the least there should be some material in the body of the article to summarise in the lede, but there isn't. A few people questioning the methods widely accepted is a fringe view, and doesn't belong at all in this particular article. --Pete (talk) 20:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose as undue. Khestwol (talk) 20:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose as undue. If "virtually all" scholars agree Jesus existed, then any dissenters must necessarily be very few. Giving this (very) minority opinion a line in the lede is therefore undue. It might be argued that not including it violates NPOV, but "virtually all" is a very powerful term that strongly indicates that the minority position should not be given prominence. There is already a section on the historicity of Jesus in the article as well, and the article Historicity of Jesus is linked in the previous line. If a substantial number of scholars question the methods such that "virtually all" is no longer true, then I will support inclusion. Banedon (talk) 06:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
• Yes, but not in lede.

  I could certainly imagine a well worded summary of these concerns in the body of the article. This could discuss both (1) the paucity of available evidence and (2)doubts about the reasoning from the evidence, as per the fine scholarship cited. Both concerns seem to be quite widespread, particularly the former.

  On the other hand, I do not see in the sources any serious questioning of Jesus' existence, only of the quality of the evidence and reasoning for this. The lede should at most have a qualifying phrase, something like "despite the relatively sparse evidence". Or it could leave this to the body. HGilbert (talk) 01:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Yet again, Jeppiz conflates different issues. Noone is disputing that the consensus is that Jesus existed. But its also true the methodology is invalid. Both must be mentioned per NPOV, particularly since the lede delves directly into methodological issues by stating "historians consider the Synoptic Gospels (Mark, Matthew and Luke) to be the best sources for investigating the historical Jesus".VictoriaGrayson^Talk 15:36, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

How is it "true" that the methodology is invalid? Nobody has disputed we might say that it is invalid according to this or that person, given they are notable enough, but where is your source for the claim that this is a general truth held by everyone? Jeppiz (talk) 16:57, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I am not a scholar of historical Jesus issues, and at this time I don't have access to any of the sources that Victoria cited in another section above. I ask this mainly to satisfy my curiosity, but I suspect shedding a little more light on the sources might help others who are interested. Could anyone (Victoria and any other editors) provide a few brief quotations from each of the sources that support (or attempt to refute) the "invalid methodology" issue? I also would be interested in anything that might refute the claim that "every mainstream scholar" has said the methodology is invalid. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 17:04, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I find it nothing less than shocking that an editor has decided on her own to declare professional methodologies invalid. Such indications of rather obvious bias on the part of editors is obviously something that should be taken into account. And, FWIW, this is hardly the only individual of historical times who has to be reconstructed based on sources which were written significantly after their lives. Alexander the Great comes to mind. Admittedly, some have complained about them being used in the case of Jesus, but, somewhat surprisingly, not so much for them being used in the case of Alexandre.

So far as I can tell, having looked at this matter before, based on previous discussions regarding this topic, the methodologies used in the case of Jesus are basically to use the sources available and try to determine, based on the contemporary evidence available through those sources and other roughly current sources, what looks like it might be less than reliable. That is a perfectly reasonable approach to take in instances such as these. where the number of sources available could be called, charitably, unimpressive. However, to declare it, as that editor has, "invalid" demonstrates to my eyes a rather weak understanding of historical methodology and seems to my eyes rather less than useful. John Carter (talk) 17:23, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

It is the opinion of well known scholars that the methodologies are invalid. For example, Allison says "the criteria themselves are seriously defective."VictoriaGrayson^Talk 17:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:TE. Also, I believe that your above comment raises serious questions regarding your ability to accurately represent the sources. "Defective" and "invalid" are in no way necessarily synonymous, despite you apparently as per the above believing that they are, and your apparent wish to use the much stronger term when a weaker term is in fact used in the source you produce could also reasonably raise questions of WP:OR regarding your use of the more sensationalist term "invalid". John Carter (talk) 17:47, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Victoria, I came into this discussion neutral, but you are not making a very good case for your position. Give us more detail from more than one source (you used the phrase "every mainstream scholar"). Sundayclose (talk) 18:27, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Also request more info from the sources. I'm not opposed to an editor opening an RfC to get more eyes on a discussion, but it will be important to better understand the material at hand. When it is laid out, perhaps a different wording will be more appropriate, such as "some scholars have noted [or asserted] challenges with the methodology". And if it is a small group of scholars, it might then merit a footnote versus space in the main text. But that depends on clarity on the sources' statements which multiple editors are asking for. --Airborne84 (talk) 18:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

If there are scholars that challenge the methodology used (and there are), then for NPOV we ought to include these viewpoints, in proportion. There is no need to accuse editors of WP:TE for starting an RFC, which is by design one of the ways we have in WP for |dispute resolution. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

@Cwobeel, I don't disagree with you, but it is also reasonable to expect support for a claim that "every mainstream scholar" has concluded that the methodology is invalid. I have seen little to nothing to support that claim, and until it is provided I don't see that there is much to discuss. I'm not saying the support does not exist, but it certainly hasn't been presented here. If we were discussing how to interpret comments by a variety of scholars, or which scholars are considered mainstream, we might have something to discuss. But so far all I have seen here is one comment by Allison about defective criteria. Sundayclose (talk) 19:58, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I have not seen an argument stating that "every mainstream scholar has concluded that the methodology is invalid." What I see is an argument to include that there are some mainstream scholars that have reached that conclusion. NPOV 101. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:38, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Sundayclose, in the proposal diff I say "several scholars".VictoriaGrayson^Talk 21:43, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Not trying to stir things up; I'm still fairly neutral on this issue but also curious. Can someone provide the evidence of "several scholars". Specifics would be very helpful. I've seen the comment by Allison about defective criteria. Anything else? If I could get to the sources I would look for it myself, but considering how controversial this issue is it would be very helpful if someone could provide more detail. Sundayclose (talk) 22:24, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

This is an old issue, which has been hashed over for years now at Historicity of Jesus and Christ myth theory. I am most acquainted with it from the former article, and specifically talk page, particularly where it led to an editor being topic-banned. You can probably look at those articles for most of the evidence.

At the risk of repeating myself, I am unaware of any real scholars who are actively enthused about accepting the historicity of Jesus. They aren't. They all, on both sides so far as I can tell, wish there was more good evidence than there is, probably one way or another. Having said that, this isn't the only situation historians face where individuals are documented only from sources which are less than optimal, but, at least in most all the similar cases I have seen, and several which bear more or less the same characteristics of this one, they at least accept the evidence which is available as sufficient to indicate that there was some such person. John Carter (talk) 00:24, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

For sources, I guess the ones that come to mind are Bart Ehrman's recent Did Jesus Exist? which discusses the more prominent of the more recent discussion supporting the nonexistence of Jesus. Another useful source is either the first or second edition of the Encyclopedia of Unbelief, sorry I forget which, in which the author of the article, whose theory is basically that Jesus was a guy who died in the Maccabbean era with a really persistent habit of haunting the disciples of the alleged historical Jesus for some as yet unexplained reason, because the article there, in what might be reasonably thought the place in which one would see one of the strongest assertions of Jesus' non-existence, says something like (paraphrasing because I haven't looked at for a few years) that it is possible to make a rational argument that Jesus never existed. Of course, some people on the fringe of society say all sorts of more recent things are outright lies too, like the Moon landings (which happened), and disco (which never happened and is only a sick dream of someone who hadn't taken their pills for some time - no one could ever actually listen to that noise). John Carter (talk) 18:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I, for one, cannot take seriously anyone who wishes to posit that disco is dead.  :) But seriously, while some coverage of the minority scholars' doubts on Jesus' exist probably does merit coverage in this article or the Historicity one, I will continue to contend it is not a significant enough viewpoint to deserve coverage in the lede, which by definition is brief and attempts to cover majority consensus, while by necessity omitting some detail regarding contention of that consensus. Jtrevor99 (talk) 19:56, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Carrier characterizes the sources in the proposal as showing that the methodology is "proven to be logically invalid across the board". See page 21 of "On the Historicity of Jesus".VictoriaGrayson^Talk 02:30, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Carrier's opinion on what the sources prove is only good for his opinion on what the sources prove. To say that all/most/many scholars consider the methodology invalid would be a statement not supported by the source.Farsight001 (talk) 03:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the citation, Victoria. Do you have any evidence that Carrier is a great source for information about historical methodology? You know, like is he cited in encyclopedias and textbooks? Listed as a major, important voice in current scholarship? Anything like that? Crossan, Vermes, and Sanders are all cited at top, contemporary scholars in the field. Is Carrier? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 13:58, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.