Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:00, 13 August 2013

Jesus

Jesus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• Featured article candidates/Jesus/archive1
• Featured article candidates/Jesus/archive2
• Featured article candidates/Jesus/archive3

Nominator(s): FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:13, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Reviewers: Please read this article's FAQ before reading the article. If you disagree with anything in the FAQ, please voice your concern at the article's talk page, not here.

This article became a good article in early May, and also received a copy edit from the WP:GOCE later that month. After much work, I believe this article is ready for FAC.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:13, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments

• Welcome to FAC. I see User:JimWae has the most edits to the article; has he been notified? - Dank (push to talk) 17:23, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I made 740 edits (3rd place) to the article. Does that not make me a "significant contributor"? Anyways, I've just sent him a message.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:31, 3 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Sure ... but someone with 915 edits to this article might want to know it's at FAC; they won't necessarily be watchlisting it all the time. - Dank (push to talk) 20:32, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Appearance

• Language, ethnicity and appearance section: For appearance, you basically state that there is no proof of what Jesus looked like, which is totally fair. But there is general consensus out there of what a man living at that time in that place would probably look like. Can you include a sentence or two that covers what the experts believe is a best guess as to what Jesus probably looked like? That section left me wanting to know. upstateNYer 02:59, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Done. I added some brief info. Scholars agree that Jesus likely looked like a typical Jew, and had a tough appearance due to his work and travels.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 04:09, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I'm looking more for what a typical Jew looked like. Everybody reading that will think of how they see the typical Jew. The typical Jew of 2000 years ago, though, didn't look like today's Jew I'm sure. upstateNYer 17:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
      • I'm just wondering whether this might be heading for too much speculation. The ideas that Jesus probably looked like the typical Jew and was probably sinewy are already just speculations based on his ethnicity and lifestyle. To define the "typical Jew of 2000 years ago" would be another round of speculation, wouldn't it? Isn't this going to end up as speculation-squared? That and the fraught issue of ethnic stereotyping. --Stfg (talk) 17:56, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
  • A scholarly attempt was made here, which is probably worth citing. --99of9 (talk) 19:59, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
    • That's interesting, but the depiction is that of an average 1st-century Jew, not specifically Jesus.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 20:07, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
      • I agree with Stfg. Too much speculation. Could you imagine how would it be if in 2,000 years someone said that the average American looked like Barack Obama, or Bill Clinton? --Lecen (talk) 21:09, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Agree. Don't let's use that Discovery Channel-style story from Popular Mechanics! Johnbod (talk) 12:13, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Hamiltonstone

Support (but see later comment way, way below) Comment. Very interesting, looks promising. My support is qualified by this not being my field and it certainly is a subject that begets an enormous literature. I am trusting that the literature is fairly represented.

• Last para on chronology: "Astronomers since Isaac Newton have tried to estimate..." There is no explanation of why on earth astronomy would be relevant, leaving this reader confused. How does astronomy enter the picture? How are they coming up with specific actual dates? This jars with the clarity of preceding material that sets out reasons for estimates of years etc. hamiltonstone (talk) 00:08, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks for pointing that out. I've expanded that sentence and added a footnote. Is it better now?--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 00:52, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
• The article is structured by separating the new testament account from all other accounts or historical views, and I am not quite sure about the justification for the separation of Josephus and Tacitus from what are essentially other sources of the same approximate date (the new testament documents). Can an editor clarify why this is? hamiltonstone (talk) 00:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
  • There is a big distinction among scholars between the "Christ of faith" (the Jesus described in the gospels) and the "Jesus of history". This article meant to be a general article that covers all views on Jesus, including the Jesus of the New Testament, the historic Jesus, and the Jesus of other religions (such as Islam).--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
• The article states 'Bart D. Ehrman states that it is unsound to argue that since Jesus had an immense impact on the society of his day, one might have expected contemporary accounts of his deeds; Ehrman adds that although Jesus had a large impact on future generations, his impact on the society of his time was "practically nil"'. I think this sentence needs reworking, but it depends on what exactly Ehrman is saying. My interpretation is that he is not "adding" something but explaining the error of the argument. If that is correct, a better formulation would be: 'Bart D. Ehrman argues that although Jesus had a large impact on future generations, his impact on the society of his time was "practically nil". It would therefore be unsound to expect contemporary accounts of his deeds.' hamiltonstone (talk) 11:26, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I agree that your suggestion is a better wording. I've fixed it now.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:18, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
• These sentences puzzle me: 'Jonathan Waxman of the United Synagogue of Conservative Judaism writes that Jews who believe Jesus is the Messiah have "crossed the line out of the Jewish community". Reform Judaism holds that anyone in the Jewish community "who claims that Jesus is their savior is no longer a Jew and is an apostate" ' I felt they gave undue weight to one particular view in contemporary groups, and in any case seemed to express a view to which an alternative had never crossed my mind (that some Jews would see Jesus as messiah). Because of this, I was then further confused by the association of this view with "Conservative" Judaism. When I clicked on the link, i learned that the grtoup in question is North American only, which is not really consistent with the worldwide view of the article subject. All in all, this bit didn't work for me, and seems to provide unnecessary detail to elaborate that which is already stated in the first two sentences of the section. hamiltonstone (talk) 11:54, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I've removed the two sentences you mentioned. There is a group known as Messianic Jews who considers Jesus to be the Messiah. I've added some brief info about them.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:49, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
• In a top level article of this gravity that is already long, why is there coverage of the UFO religions, particularly one that has fewer followers than the population of a single town, or Religious Science, which is similarly tiny? I would also question the inclusion of the Jefferson Bible stuff. In contrast, most of the other "other" inclusions make sense; gnosticism for its historically significant role in religion; Nietsche and Russell as major infuences on western modern thought, and Hinduism, because of the global significance of the religion. hamiltonstone (talk) 12:21, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Agree. I've moved the 3 statements you mentioned to the Religious perspectives on Jesus article.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:58, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
• Any particular reason the version of the bible being quoted is anachronistic (eg. "Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jonah: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee...")? hamiltonstone (talk) 11:28, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
  • There was a talk page discussion about this. Initially, the American Standard Version (which is PD) is used to avoid copyright issues. But the discussion at Talk:NFCC seems to agree that WP's policies don't restrict the use of non-free versions. I'll change it to the NRSV, the one commonly used by scholars.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:13, 9 July 2013 (UTC)
    • Done. All the quotes have been switched.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:25, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Image review by FunkMonk

• All images have proper licenses, but there is one problem. This file obviously has wrong author information, and needs to be fixed somehow. At the least, the author field should say unknown, I'm sure it is PD old, so it can still be used either way. It seems the uploader thinks he owns copyright for taking the picture, but that is incorrect. Apart from this, no problems, and I moved one locally hosted image to Commons. Maybe the origin of the image can be determined through Google's new image recognition tool. FunkMonk (talk) 00:59, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Thanks. I've changed the author information to "unknown". I've also changed the licensing from PD-self to PD-old-100.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:08, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Looking again, all the PD old images need the dual PD old/PD US license tag, as that has become common practice now. FunkMonk (talk) 01:09, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Really? I thought just the PD-old-100 tag is sufficient, because it says "This work is in the public domain in the United States..." --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 01:13, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, for some reason I was synonymising PD-old with PD-70 in my head, but none such are even present, so PD-100 should be enough. FunkMonk (talk) 01:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

It's sufficient for Misplaced Pages and Commons. But some countries don't have the equivalent of Bridgeman, so when a user has explicitly released their photographic work as PD-self, that should still be noted on the file page to allow external non-US reusers who cannot rely on PD-Art. I've amended it. --99of9 (talk) 11:08, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Review from Cliftonian

Support from Cliftonian. After a number of read-throughs and comments and a few amendments on my own part, I now feel comfortable with giving this my backing. I've capped my comments below. Well done FutureTrillionaire! —Cliftonian (talk) 08:01, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Points by Johnbod

On a first look, the article seems pretty good for a subject with an enormous amount of literature, with very divergent views on many aspects. In an article like this nuances of wording and emphasis are very important to get right.

• Lead. " Most scholars agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher from Galilee" - to most readers, especially the young, "teacher" means schoolteacher. Not sure what a better phrasing would be.
  • I've changed "teacher" to "preacher".--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:54, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
• "Most Christians believe that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of a virgin, performed miracles, founded the Church, died by crucifixion as a sacrifice to achieve atonement, rose from the dead, and ascended into heaven, from which he will return. The majority of Christians worship Jesus as the incarnation of God the Son, the second of three Persons of a Divine Trinity. A few Christian groups reject Trinitarianism, wholly or partly, as non-scriptural" - "most" and "the majority" seem likely to be misleading by too much qualification as these key doctrines are common to almost all Christians, or at least the churches they affiliate with - well over 99% one would think.
  • Removed "Most" from the first sentence, and changed the "the majority" to "the great majority".--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:13, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
• Last para of lead - do we really need this in the lead? Especially "Bahá'í scripture almost never refers to Jesus as the Messiah, but calls him a Manifestation of God", whatever that means?
  • Removed the Baha'i part. But I think the Islamic and Jewish views are notable enough to be in the lede.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:13, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
• "Thus, in the Christian Bible, Jesus is referred to as "Jesus of Nazareth" - "Christian Bible" introduces unnecessary complication. New Testament or Gospels will do.
  • Done.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:13, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
• "namely the last week of the life of Jesus in Jerusalem, referred to as Passion Week" - it is the annual commemoration that is usually "referred to as Passion Week". Just "namely the last week of the life of Jesus in Jerusalem, referred to as his Passion" or something.
  • Changed the previous wording to "referred to as the Passion".--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:28, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
• "tekton". The article twice deals with the original profession of Jesus, and Joseph, once in "Early life and profession" and in "Profession and literacy" in the historical section. Both draw from the text at Historical Jesus, I think mostly written by me. There is a degree of repetition - I'm not sure if this is justified or not. The second version has phrasing issues: "In the New Testament, Jesus and his father were identified as τέκτων (tekton) (Matthew 13:55, Mark 6:3), traditionally translated from Koine Greek into English as "carpenter". However, some scholars argue that tekton is a generic word (from the same root that gives "technical" and "technology") that could cover makers of objects in various materials, even builders. Others have argued that tekton could equally mean a highly-skilled craftsman in wood or the more prestigious metal, perhaps running a workshop with several employees." This makes it sound as if there is or has been some sort of controversy over these issues, which isn't entirely the case (apart perhaps from Crossan's unhelpful autobiographical comments). Does anybody disagree that "tekton is a generic word ... that could cover makers of objects in various materials, even builders"? What this account misses is the strong early tradition that working with wood was what Jesus did, as from Justin Martyr, mentioned in the first section. Essentially the sources are not clear, & there's not enough material for a decent scholarly row about it.
  • To reduce repetition, I've removed the "Profession and literacy" section and moved some of its material to the "Early life and profession" section.-FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:50, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
• "Ministry section" "Public ministry" is a perhaps a better phrase, that might be used once or tice among the many occurrences throughout the article. No mention of the apostles, or their recruitment. Some sort of summary of what modern scholarship makes of the growing body of "disciples" is reallly needed. What did the term mean - roughly how many, & doing what? Tricky I know.
  • Added some info about the disciples.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 18:56, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
• Last Supper - without opening the matter too far, some sort of mention that commemoration & re-enactment of this event became central to much Christian worship is needed I think, with a link to Eucharist.
  • Done.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:19, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok on comments above. Johnbod (talk) 13:44, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

-more coming Johnbod (talk) 12:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

• "After the trials, Jesus makes his way to Calvary by a route known traditionally as the Via Dolorosa" - this is rather more than we actually know, isn't it? I believe that route has changed somewhat over the centuries. Also "makes his way" sounds rather casual and voluntary, and we have Christ Carrying the Cross. Maybe: " After the trials, Jesus is led to Calvary carrying his cross; the route traditionally thought to have been taken is known as the Via Dolorosa".
  • Good suggestion. Done.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
• A link or note for "gall" would be useful - what do scholars think this was?
  • I'm not sure. It's probably better to keep things simple. I've removed the details of substance's ingredients.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 15:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
• The summary of the Gospel accounts while Jesus is on the cross seems too brief, though I realize the accounts vary in fiddly ways. As it is there is no explanation of the "events" (not the best word perhaps) the centurion is impressed by, so that bit reads oddly.
  • Fixed. I've added the part about earthquake and torn curtain, and clarified some statements.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 17:03, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
• "The Acts of the Apostles describe several appearances by Jesus after his Ascension" - these are presented as visions etc rather than flesh & blood on the ground "appearances", & this should be made clear.
  • Changed "several appearances" to "several visionary appearances".--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:08, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
    • I don't think that's quite what you mean, so I've changed "visionary appearances" to "appearances ... in visions". I also changed "describe" to "describes", consistent with an earlier use, as it's the book rather than the acts themselves that do the describing. I hope that's OK. --Stfg (talk) 07:36, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
      • You're right. Thanks for the corrections.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:19, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
• I've changed "end times" to "last days" as more neutral; something longer might be better "last days of the world" or something. "End times" is only used by Evangelicals in my experience.
• "but since then skeptics have emerged who question the reliability of the gospels" - "skeptics" is much too loaded. Links needed here: Biblical criticism, maybe others.
  • Changed "skeptics" to "scholars". Added Biblical criticism "see also" link.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
• "The third quest, which began around the 1980s, was unique for its greater emphasis on the methods of mainstream historical scholarship" - a very dubious assertion as phrased, imo, even if it can be sourced to those involved. More neutral phrasing needed. What the first two phases were is not explained.

• Removed that 3rd quest statement.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

• I wonder if the paragraph starting "Donald Akenson has argued that,..." is helpful. This is an immensely complex area on which seas of ink have been expended for centuries, & I'm not sure this works as a useful summary of anything much. Akenson is a specialist in a totally different area of history (probably without much relevant linguistic background etc) who has written wrote two books on the subject, and far more on other subjects.

• Paragraph removed.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

• In the current size and balance of the "Historical views" section, I think more is needed on the older areas of Biblical criticism that underly current debates, which receive most of the coverage. A very brief summary with links to things like Q source would be good.
  • Expanded the intro paragraph of the Historical views section. I've also expanded the Historicity of events section to include info on reliability of sources.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 23:50, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
• "Most Christians believe that Jesus was both human and the Son of God. While there has been theological debate over his nature, Trinitarian Christians generally believe that Jesus is the Logos, God's incarnation and God the Son, both fully divine and fully human." A little expansion & links re the debates in the Early Church needed on this.
  • Done. Added wikilinks and a footnote.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:51, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
• The section on Islam implies, but should state clearly, that Islam regards the whole New Testament as inauthentic, except where the Qu'ran agrees with it.
  • Done, added a footnote.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
• "Depictions" section really needs 2-3 sentences on the development of the "standard" image, & major variants. Also the influence of "miraculous" images in forming the general depiction. I will try to add these.
• Maybe some more general points later - are all the works in "Bibliography" cited in the article? I'd really like to see one or more reviews of this by a specialist, clergy or otherwise. Johnbod (talk) 14:54, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
  • They should be. I checked this a few weeks ago, although some of the sources might have changed by now.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 13:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
• All the above covered, although the points in the footnotes j & k would be better in the text, but I won't fuss about that. Johnbod (talk) 02:19, 7 August 2013 (UTC)
• Looking at the footnotes: f just repeats a; a,b,f,g,h all cover dating, with some more repetition. I suspect some streamlining would improve them. Note h is almost all a quote, which should be shown as such, with the verse (3:1). I'm not sure what the citation there covers - probably should go up to the main text. I still want to rejik the depictions a bit. Johnbod (talk) 02:19, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• Good points. I've removed some unnecessary footnotes.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:12, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

• Also, I expanded the info about Muslims regarding the gospels as inauthentic and moved that info from the footnote to the text.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:22, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• Support I still want to rejig the "depictions" a bit, but that is a minor aspect of the topic & I'm not sure when I will do it (soon I hope). I am not concerned by the arguments over the myth fringe theory, though some tweaks to phrasing might be best. Otherwise I think it is a fine treatment of a difficult topic. Johnbod (talk) 04:03, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Review by Quadell

• Strong support. This article is among the best Misplaced Pages has to offer, and fully deserves featured status. I am doubly impressed: first for the high quality of the article, and second by the diligence of those involved. – Quadell 18:50, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you! :) --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 19:23, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• I heartily second Quadell's comments. The article is in fantastic shape and I feel proud to have played a small part in getting it to where it is. As I said already above, very well done to FutureTrillionaire and everybody else who has contributed—not least you, Quadell! —Cliftonian (talk) 22:10, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• Note to FAC delegates: Any topic as important and controversial as this one will attract fringe viewpoints, including some of those displayed on this FAC. There are people who will oppose any version of this article that does not promote their own fringe views, and they have recently caused a lot of problems for the article, edit warring and taking up a great deal of space at the administrator's noticeboard. I hope that their views will be weighted appropriately when deciding whether this article merits Featured status. I still feel strongly that it does, and it would be unfortunate for Misplaced Pages if such actions were able to sink such an excellent candidate for FA status. – Quadell 11:35, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• Seconded —Cliftonian (talk) 13:18, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment from Rbreen

Great progress has been made on this article, which considering its size, complexity and controversial nature is a huge achievement. As a battle-scarred text it has over the years been difficult to read (it still shows signs of unncessary length due to petty squabbles, but that's probably always going to be true with this subject. It's an impressive result.

There is, however, one weakness in the current form, and it's an important one. One editor above mentioned this, but it still needs to be taken seriously. Given that the main sources for information about Jesus are the canonical Gospels, the reader needs to have an understanding about how modern scholarship sees the relationship between them: beginning with Mark, which is developed further (and separately, and to some extent differently) by Matthew and Luke with the use of Q, and finally - probably from a distinct separate tradition - John. This doesn't have to be done in great detail - it's written about extensively in other articles - but it needs to be explained clearly in the "Canonical Gospel Accounts" section. What we have now is a fairly naive approach that treats all the Gospel accounts as a Gospel harmony, which misses out on much of what modern Biblical scholarship has established over the past century. It's astonishing to find no mention at all of Q, for instance, even thought it's broadly speaking part of the modern consensus. What follows in the article makes no sense at all unless the reader understands that the account they are reading is actually composed of four closely related but different ones. Right now, a reader who was not familiar with this would never suspect it. --Rbreen (talk) 22:27, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

• Note: Sorry, I am currently taking a wikibreak. I will address your concerns in a few days. The situation is rather unstable right now. I'll come back when things cool down.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:16, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

@Rbreen: Okay, I've added some info to the "Canonical gospel accounts" section. Can you take a look? Is it better now? --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 21:29, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's a pretty good summary and a fair representation of the broad consensus. I'm happy to amend my comment now to support.--Rbreen (talk) 22:58, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

@FT: Your text is Ok/good, but I think the diagram of the 2 source hypothesis should go, for that is not essential for Q source discussion and there are other diagrams you could have added. And you need to move the last 2 parags out of the Canonical gospel accounts to the super section below on Historical, then you are set. The scholarly debates on Markan priority, Four document hypothesis etc. are far too complex to handle in this article, and just a summary as you have is all that can be done, and what you have now does that. The sub-articles (a few with merge tags) are just not in good shape so do not borrow text out of those. But what you have now is fine, if you move the other 2 parags. and do not use 2 source as the diag. Not here anymore (talk) 08:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I've removed the diagram. As for your other request, the last paragraph of the "Canonical gospel accounts" section is about the gospels' content (discourses, parables, miracles, etc.). I'm not sure if that would fit well in the "Historical views" section. Did you mean to say the third and fourth paragraphs? --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 14:34, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment by Strangesad

Strong oppose.

• The article's treatment of the historical Jesus is biased in favor of the existence of Jesus.
• The "mythicist" arguments (skeptical of the existence of Jesus) tend to be weakly presented, and the article then puts more emphasis on rebutting them than explaining them.
• Sources are frequently misquoted, quoted out of context, and chosen selectively to advance a certain view.
• The majority of sources in the section are medium-quality or worse. Many of the authors are priests, pastors, or otherwise have an evangelical background. There is a surprising dearth of objective sources. There are no peer-reviewed sources. All cites are popular books.

Strawman arguments The article reduces all doubt about a historical Jesus to “mythicism,” simplistically defined as "Christians made the whole thing up". In doing so, it misrepresents several scholars lumped under that label. G.A. Wells is called a mythicist, but has modified his position over time. His current view is that there may have been a wandering preacher who can be said to be the basis of the stories of Jesus. However, “this personage is not be identified with the dying and rising Christ of the early epistles.” Other critics have expressed the opinion that there may have been a figure more responsible for starting Christainity than any others, but that he was an itinerant preacher/mystic. For example, Alvar Ellegård argues the personage commonly thought of as Jesus was the Teacher of Righteousness, who lived around 150 BCE. This range of “mythicism” is described in the lede of Christ myth theory, but omitted in Jesus. The omission makes the skepticism seem simplistic.

Unbalanced sourcing The sourcing is particularly egregious. A claim that's debated in the Talk page archives as far back as I can see is that “virtually all” scholars agree Jesus existed. Also, that all scholars regard events such as his baptism and his crucifixion as fact. Here are the sources used for those claims about the views of modern historians:

1. Burridge, Richard A.; Gould, Graham (2004). Jesus Now and Then. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. Richard A. Burridge, whose Misplaced Pages article titles him “Reverend” is a professor of Biblical Interpretation (didn't know you could major in that), a former chaplain, an ordained a deacon, and a member of the Church of England's General Synod.
2. Dunn, James D.G. (2003). Jesus Remembered. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing. James Dunn (theologian), a minister of the Church of Scotland, professor of divinity and theology (not history). In this same book, he gives a glimpse into his objectivity: “Christians have continued to affirm the resurrection of Jesus, as I do.....he was a famous exorcist and healer and many experienced miraculous happenings in his company...through the Jesus tradition the would-be disciple still hears and encounters Jesus”
3. Brown, Raymond E. (1994). The Death of the Messiah: from Gethsemane to the Grave: A Commentary on the Passion Narratives in the Four Gospels. Doubleday. Raymond E. Brown is a Roman Catholic priest. The book is an interpretation of the gospels, not historical research, as is plain from its title (the book is also 19 years old, and probably shouldn't be relied on for the state of current scholarship.)
4. Stanton, Ghraham (2002). The Gospels and Jesus. Oxford University Press. This book examines the varied meanings of the term of “gospel.” It's not about the historical Jesus. No page number is given and the intended reference can't be easily found. Any reference is probably a passing one, since the book isn't about the historical Jesus. Graham Stanton was a professor of divinity.
5. Grant, Michael (1977). Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels. This popular book is 36 years old, so a poor source for the current state of scholarship. The author's historical expertise is numismatics. I couldn't get a copy to check the reference, either online or from my local library. Update: it is out of print
6. Van Voorst, Robert E (2000). Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence. Eerdmans Publishing. . Robert E. Van Voorst is a professor at Western Theological Seminary. He received his M.Div. from Western Theological Seminary, and his Ph.D. in New Testament from Union Theological Seminary Van Voorst has also served for twelve years as pastor at Rochester Reformed Church
7. Finally, there is Bart D. Ehrman. Ehrman's training is evangelical—divinity degrees, etc. However, he recently converted to agnosticism. In one of the books used in this article, he writes of the mythicist arguments: "none is written by ... scholars trained in New Testament or early Christian studies teaching at the major, or even the minor, accredited theological seminaries, divinity schools...of the thousands of scholars of early Christianity who do teach at such schools, none of them to my knowledge has any doubt Jesus existed. But a whole body of literature ...some of it highly intelligent and well-informed makes this case....a couple of bona fide scholars--not professors teaching religion in universities but scholars nonetheless, and at least one of them with a Ph.D in the field of New Testament--have taken this position. 1) He says some of the mythicist literature is “intelligent and well-informed”. Our article omits this. 2) He says some of the mythicists are “bona fide” scholars. Our article states the opposite. Of course, he also says that he doesn't know of any “scholars” who dispute the existence of Jesus. However, in that context, he defines the relevant scholar as requiring a background in New Testament studies and holding a professorship (i.e. in his own image).

I hadn't heard of William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company until now: “Eerdmans has long been known for publishing a wide range of Christian and religious books, from academic works in Christian theology, biblical studies, religious history, and reference to popular titles in spirituality....” Fifty-percent of the article's sources asserting the unquestionable existence of Jesus are from this publisher.

I was going to get into the allegedly neutral sources for claiming that the baptism and crucifixion are undisputed facts, and that everybody acknowledges Josephus as “genuine.” These claims suffer the same sourcing problems. But the point is made. The sourcing needs to be cleaned up. Please, find some peer-reviewed, non-Christian, historical research on this controversial subject. Please represent the mythicist views fairly, with equal depth and respect. Strangesad (talk) 04:52, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

• Comment - Please, find some peer-reviewed, non-Christian literature on this controversial subject. I suggest you do that, and good luck with it. Your dismissal of Michael Grant simply shows that you do not know what you are talking about. He was an eminent classical historian and the fact that no other historian of ancient history has bothered to rebut the "Jesus never existed" idea since his book in 1977 means that what Grant says is the last word (so far) on the subject from a secular historian. Smeat75 (talk) 14:07, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

According to Bart Ehrman, a reliable source accepted by all, there are "bona fide" scholars who say otherwise, and they have "highly intelligent and well-informed" arguments. Strangesad (talk) 16:17, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Instead of asking other people to find them for you, my suggestion is that you do that, discuss it on the talk page and then we can add the citations from the bona fide scholars who say Jesus never existed. You are not going to succeed in getting the citations from Michael Grant removed, that I can tell you. Smeat75 (talk) 16:26, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

This area is for me to express my view of how to bring the article to a high level of quality. Feel free to give your own opinions in your own section. Strangesad (talk) 16:35, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

This area is not your personal space, look on the rest of the page and you will see a lot of discussion of others' comments. My suggestion that you "find some peer-reviewed, non-Christian literature" yourself that supports your idea that Jesus never existed is made in the confidence that you will not find it because there isn't any. The two most authoritative sources on the question are Michael Grant, but you say he is no good because he "wrote popular books and only knew about coins" and Bart Ehrman ( but you don't like him because he is only "a recent agnostic" and went to Bible school). When Erhman says "virtually all scholars" agree on the bare fact that Jesus existed ( a quote which is not going to be removed from the article), I know who he means by the qualification "virtually" - Robert M. Price (who actually says there could well have been an actual Jesus, but he thinks on probability there was not) and Hermann Detering, but he is a pastor, maybe for that reason you would not want to quote him, except he actually thinks there was no Jesus and no apostle Paul either.(Surprise! There are Christians who don't believe that Jesus existed!) So look for some quotes from those two, discuss it on the title page and they can be put into the article somewhere maybe, but that will not change the fact that Erhman says "virtually all" scholars agree that Jesus existed. The only people who say he did not exist, except for Price and Detering, are self-published cranks like Earl Doherty, D M Murdock and bloggers like Richard Carrier. They are not serious scholars.Serious scholars in the field of NT studies, classical or ancient history do not bother wasting their time on "Jesus never existed" because it is a silly idea pushed by people who have never studied any other figure from ancient history or the Roman empire and they don't know what they are talking about.22:23, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't think "Jesus never existed." I'm inclined to share the Wells/Ellegard view described above--and neglected by the article. I think the article is too biased to be a Featured Article, for the reasons I gave. Strangesad (talk) 03:50, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Additional comments about the Historical views/Existence section.

The treatment of the argument from silence (paragraphs 2 & 3) is a good example of selective citation in order to promote a view. The article suggests that arguments from silence are mostly considered invalid, but here is what the sources say:

• "...processes of logical thinking include: (1) generalization, (2) the argument from statistics, (3) analogy, (4) hypothesis, (5) conjecture, (6) the argument from silence"
• "Thus, the discovery and interpretation of silences is a fine art and a science...historians must often reason from silences..."

I attempted to add these quotes to give a fairer sense of what the sources actually say, but FutureTrillionaire reverted.

These paragraphs suffer from the same kind of sourcing problem. A new example is this: "Teresa Okure writes that the existence of historical figures is established by the analysis of later references to them, rather than by contemporary relics and remnants." Here is that source's bio: "Teresa Okure, a Sister of the Society of the Holy Child Jesus, is Professor of New Testament and Gender Hermeneutics at the Catholic Institute of West Africa." Here are some other comments from the source, suggesting a lack of objectivity: “This study, however, focuses on how each culture...understands and appropriates the global Jesus whose global nature is given by God, in virtue of his being God's universal Messiah, not a human construct. It acknowledges that the main resources in any discussion of the historical Jesus are the canonical gospels...” See also this tidbit: “How do we know about the historical Moses....founder of the Israelite nation and religion?” (Huh? Moses founded Judaism?) Well, we don't know about the historical Moses.

The final paragraph in this section is about non-Christian references to Jesus. It says they "establish" the existence of Jesus. The sources don't clearly say that. Feldman, who is a high-quality source, says there is a genuine reference to Jesus in Josephus (about 50 years after the alleged death of Jesus). The comment is about whether the passage in Josephus is authentic, not whether it demonstrates the existence of jesus. That distinction is unclear in our article. And again, a typical use of non-neutral sourcing:

• Blomberg, Craig L. (2009). Jesus and the Gospels: An Introduction and Survey. B&H Publishing Group. I'll just quote from the publisher's Web site: "B&H Publishing Group, a division of LifeWay Christian Resources, is a team of more than 100 mission-minded people with a passion for taking God's Word to the world. B&H exists to provide intentional, Bible-centered content that positively impacts the hearts and minds of people, inspiring them to build a lifelong relationship with Jesus Christ." Strangesad (talk) 05:18, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

These sources just need to be fixed. And given the extent of priests, pastors, and ministers used as objective historical sources in this one subsection, it is hard to trust the other parts of the Historical Views section. Strangesad (talk) 05:22, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Side comment from Hamiltonstone. When I supported, above, I did so with a qualifier regarding the representativeness of the literature. I note the issues raised by Strangesad. I got involved in a a similar debate some years ago on the talk page for Catholic Church, and found it hard to get people to understand that there are neutrality issues raised by scholars being church office-holders, and by publishers being adherents to the faith. I am sympathetic to the concerns Strangesad is raising here, and my support is qualified by whether the issue of the representativeness, and in particular the neutrality, of the scholarship is addressed. hamiltonstone (talk) 06:24, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

@Hamiltonstone: Please see my in line comments above. The myth view Humanpublic/Strangesad are promoting is a fringe item - as explained above. This is a very good article, with extensive scholarly sourcing, as Quadell stated. Not here anymore (talk) 09:53, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

My issue is not with the myth theory being fringe - i think the conclusions reached on previous talk discussions about this appear sound, and it seems fairly represented in the current article. I do however have a question about maintaining the highest standard of source quality at an FA, and would not support reliance to a significant degree on sources that are written by church office-holders (be they lay or ordained) if published by religious publishing houses, regardless of their qualifications. As long as there are no major references of this nature, I am happy to support the article. It appeared to me that Strangesad was suggesting otherwise. Can other editors familiar with this material advise on this? hamiltonstone (talk) 23:43, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment by John Carter

About a year ago, here], I reviewed the article by comparing it against the second edition of the Eliade/Jones Encyclopedia of Religion, which is from what I've read and heard in conversation with some religion reference librarians, one of the two or three reference sources on religion out there, as well as being, probably, the most current and generally accessible. At that time, the only reservations I had were about the length of the article and about the lack of inclusion of any content related to Hindu views. Given the staggering amount of information out there on this topic, on the wide variety of matters discussed in any number of reference books, I am not sure that the article could reasonably be shortened down dramatically without throwing off the balance of the article, and am even less than sure whether all the possibly indicated subarticles content might be moved to even exist yet, so I don't think that any complaints about the length per se are really actionable at this time. So, although I can see the article potentially improving, I am not sure that any such potential improvements are necessarily actionable at this time, and thus can't be used as reasons to oppose the article for FA consideration. John Carter (talk) 17:06, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Comments from Not here anymore

I will just make some general comments. What I see here is that someone like Quadell with deep knowledge of the entire topic has made very constructive remarks, which have brought an article to very good shape and ready for FA. What is very strange, but not unexpected are the comments from the sockpuppet Humanpublic, using Srangesad's account. Strangesad is by far the smarter of the two (and far more succinct usually), and her initial arguments were better than these - which map 1 to 1 to what Humanpublic had argued before and rejected on teh talk page. Those comments just promote the Christ myth theory which was discussed on talk at length and is a WP:Fringe view and has been on WP:FTN around ten times now and is called fringe or "very tiny minority" view again and again And it is totally clear that Humanpublic/Strangesad "knows" what the mainstream view is, yet specifically edits/disrupts the article to trump the mainstream view by placing the WP:FRINGE view ahead of it, and claims that it is supported by the source. Comments from this sockpuppet wcan not be taken seriously. Let me quote Jimmy Wales from the policy on WP:Due:

"If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Misplaced Pages regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article."

So the minority view that Humanpublic/Strangesad is singing about can not drive a major article. In any case, I will address those in place, which is easier to do. The reviews by Quadell and Johnbod were constructive and it is a comprehensive and well represented review of the subject. This is a very good article, but I have to stop now. From what I have seen there are highly knowledgeable users such as Quadell on this page now who can address these issues. And I should leave it to them. This article is ready for FA. Not here anymore (talk) 09:59, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

@Humanpublic/Strangesad: You know (yes, you know) that the mythicist argument you refer to is not a mainstream view and is a WP:FRINGE or "very tiny minority" view because in this edit you specifically attempted to trump the mainstream view by placing the WP:FRINGE view ahead of it. So you know you are promoting a view held by a fringe group. As you had been told before, you can not (repeat not, repeat not) produce a single professor of history in a major university should he/she be Christian, Jewish, Buddhist or Muslim to support you. You were asked for that again, and again and again on the talk page. In the end you produced nothing, nothing, nothing as a source by a single professor of history. I will address specific issues below, but they are largely illogical statements that have been addressed on the article's talk page again and again. And see what Jimmy Wales said about the issue in my comment below. Not here anymore (talk) 09:05, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

@Humanpublic/Strangesad The Ellegård theory about Jesus being Teacher of Righteousness is so far out in the "lunatic fringe universe" that no respectable scholars support it at all. Ellegård used to be professor of English, and wrote after his retirement. The person who used to support that class of far out view was John Allegro and he was so far out that he was fired from his job and his previous adviser at Oxford disowned him. This Teacher of Righteousness type "range of mythicism" you refer to is a far out fringe item, and it is clear that you may not even know the subject well enough to know it is laughable. This is like arguing that the article on Earth needs to have more weight on earth being triangular. Misplaced Pages policy says not so. And see the comment below about Eerdmans below. Not here anymore (talk) 09:50, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

@Humanpublic/Strangesad: That you have not never heard of William B. Eerdmans before this says a lot and explains why your comments are so uninformed about the subject. Anyone who has studied this subject for 10 days (really just 10 days) will know Eerdmans for they publish many of the very most respected professors from universities worldwide. But then, you have produced "no mainstream sources of your own", so that fits. Ehrman is also a very highly respected scholar who is not a believer. Was his training in the New Testament, of course: that is why he knows the subject. Your blanket underlying assumption that "Christian authors are not reliable" is of course not supported by Misplaced Pages policy and is completely incorrect, as shown by the Richard Carrier's comment about Van Voorst's book. On his blog on July 11, 2012 the very atheist Richard Carrier reviewed the book "Is This Not the Carpenter?" and criticized the treatment of non-Christian sources by Lester Grabbe in that book. But then Carrier said to his readers:

"I would recommend you simply buy and use Van Voorst on this subject".

So you have Carrier, the atheist of atheists recommending the book by the "ahh may I say priest" Robert Van Voorst. Now would you care to hazard a guess as to who Van Voorst's publisher may be? It is Eerdmans, but be sure no one sees you reading that book. Please do give us a break here with these totally uninformed opinions dressed up with huf and puff... Your comments are really unaware of the subject, and uninformed - exactly the opposite of the knowledge of the subject shown by some other users who have commented here. And as you have been told again and again and again on the talk page there is no Misplaced Pages policy that prohibits Jewish scholars as sources on Judaism, Muslim scholars as sources on Islam, or Buddhist scholars as sources on Buddhism. And anyway, Jewish scholars support the likes of Ehrman, Van voorst, etc. and myther Robert Price agrees that mythic views are not held by the mainstream. But then you knew that because the article quotes price. So you are huffing and puffing while you know the myth view is a tiny minority view. Not here anymore (talk) 09:50, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

@Humapublic/Strangesad. Then it might be a good idea to read those two authors next summer, for Wells and Ellegard do not agree. And your not having read either is totally clear in your comments. Not here anymore (talk) 09:55, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Comment from Laser brain

• Support - I agree fully with Quadell's remarks above (and for the record, I'm permanently recusing myself from taking administrative actions against Strangesad, as I've previously warned her about edit warring). This is currently written and sourced to a high standard, and deserves to be featured. Bringing an article like this to FA is exceedingly difficult because of what we've witnessed—there are always lurking editors who want to push for material to be inserted or removed for various reasons. I honestly don't think Strangesad is here just to be disruptive—I think she really wants to "fix" the article, but in the end the consensus is that her proposed fixes are fringe views. I believe her opposition is unactionable and against consensus. Any time a big topic comes up at FAC (Roman Catholic Church, Elvis, Beatles, etc.), we see the same things popping up, which can be very discouraging for the nominators and primary editors. --Laser brain (talk) 13:30, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Delegate comments

Determining consensus to promote an article to FA is not simply a numbers game, where many declarations of support will trump one or two voices of opposition, but more a matter of comprehensiveness and cogency of arguments. In this case, I can't see that the deeply felt objections raised by one reviewer nullify the arguments of many others, or that those objections (which seem to come back to one point) are actionable under the FA criteria. The stability of the article might be called into question, but a topic like this makes that pretty well inevitable. Therefore I expect at this stage to include it among a list of promotions I plan to make in the next day or so. In the meantime, some housekeeping:

• There's a Harv error on FN47 -- looks like the citation points to a non-existence reference.
• There's a few dup links, some of which may be justified by the length of the article but pls review in any case with the script. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:39, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I've fixed the citation error. I've also removed all the non-bible-citation-related dup links except for two. These links are fairly long separated from their first mention.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 16:29, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

My suggestions seem easily actionable. Make it so the majority sources on the historical Jesus are individuals and publishers who don't have a mission of promoting Jesus. People with a mission of promoting Jesus are obviously going to be biased about whether he really existed. There must be a policy about this. Represent the "mythicist" view fairly. Tell our audience what those branded "mythicist" actually believe and why, instead of only saying why they are (supposedly) wrong. Bart Ehrman says there are "bona fide" scholars who doubt the existence of Jesus. Ehrman is used widely throughout the article and is accepted as a reliable source. Do not, then, censor him selectively. These are all easy improvements. Strangesad (talk)

@Ian Rose. As I've noted above, my query related to neutrality of sources (not the christ myth debate), but I have now read some of this and considered the talk page and FAC comments further, and on balance support promotion. hamiltonstone (talk) 03:37, 13 August 2013 (UTC)