Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:40, 12 November 2010

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jesus article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137Auto-archiving period: 10 days

Jesus was one of the Philosophy and religion good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones Date Process Result January 17, 2004 Featured article candidate Not promoted June 2, 2004 Featured article candidate Not promoted August 3, 2004 Featured article candidate Not promoted November 2, 2004 Featured article candidate Not promoted May 3, 2005 Articles for deletion Kept October 6, 2005 Peer review Reviewed December 12, 2005 Good article nominee Listed December 15, 2005 Featured article candidate Not promoted April 14, 2006 Peer review Reviewed November 27, 2006 Peer review Reviewed April 21, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted August 21, 2007 WikiProject A-class review Approved July 12, 2009 Good article reassessment Delisted Current status: Delisted good article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Religion Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Christianity: Jesus / Catholicism / Eastern O. / Oriental O. / Jewish / Anglicanism / Latter Day Saints Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  This article is within the scope of the Jesus work group, a task force which is currently considered to be inactive. This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy. This article is supported by WikiProject Oriental Orthodoxy (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Jewish Christianity (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Anglicanism (assessed as Top-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement (assessed as Top-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Islam Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Biography: Core This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is listed on the project's core biographies page. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Bahá'í Faith High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bahá'í Faith, a coordinated attempt to increase the quality and quantity of information about the Baháʼí Faith on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Misplaced Pages visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.Bahá'í FaithWikipedia:WikiProject Bahá'í FaithTemplate:WikiProject Bahá'í FaithBahá'í Faith High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Mythology High‑importance This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Misplaced Pages. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.MythologyWikipedia:WikiProject MythologyTemplate:WikiProject MythologyMythology High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Bible Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WP1.0

Template:Controversial (history) Template:Pbneutral

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Jesus. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Jesus at the Reference desk.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jesus article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137Auto-archiving period: 10 days

view · edit Frequently asked questions Q1: What should this article be named? A1: To balance all religious denominations this was discussed on this talk page and it was accepted as early as 2004 that "Jesus", rather than "Jesus Christ", is acceptable as the article title. The title Christ for Jesus is used by Christians, but not by Jews and Muslims. Hence it should not be used in this general, overview article. Similarly in English usage the Arabic Isa and Hebrew Yeshua are less general than Jesus, and cannot be used as titles for this article per WP:Commonname. Q2: Why does this article use the BC/AD format for dates? A2: The use of AD, CE or AD/CE was discussed on the article talk page for a few years. The article started out with BC/AD but the combined format AD/CE was then used for some time as a compromise, but was the subject of ongoing discussion, e.g. see the 2008 discussion, the 2011 discussion and the 2012 discussion, among others. In April 2013 a formal request for comment was issued and a number of users commented. In May 2013 the discussion ended and the consensus of the request for comment was to use the BC/AD format. Q3: Did Jesus exist? A3: Based on a preponderance of sources, this article is generally written as if he did. A more thorough discussion of the evidence establishing Jesus' historicity can be found at Historicity of Jesus and detailed criticism of the non-historicity position can be found at Christ myth theory. See the policy on the issue for more information. Q3a: Is "virtually all scholars" a phrase that can be used in Misplaced Pages? The issue was discussed on the talk page: Based on this Misplaced Pages search the phrase is widely used in Misplaced Pages. The definition of the term virtually is shown by the Merriam-Webster dictionary in clear terms. The term is directly used by the source in the article, and is used per the WP:RS/AC guideline to reflect the academic consensus. Q3b: What about asking on the reliability noticeboard? Yes, people involved in the page can discuss matters, but an independent opinion from the reliable source noticeboard can further clarify and confirm the sources. An outside opinion was requested on the noticeboard. The outside opinion there (by user:DGG) stated that the issue has been discussed there many times and that the statement in the article (that virtually all scholars of antiquity hold that Jesus existed) represents the academic consensus. Q3c: What about the books that claim Jesus never existed? The internet includes some such lists, and they have been discussed at length on the talk page, e.g. a list of over 20 such books was addressed in this talk page discussion. The list came from a non-WP:RS website and once it was analyzed it became clear that: Most of the authors on the list were not scholars in the field, and included an attorney, an accountant, a land surveyor, a film-maker, as well as a number of amateurs whose actual profession was less than clear, whose books were self-published and failed the WP:RS requirements. Some of the non-self-published authors on the list were found to just write popular books, have no academic position and not scholars, e.g. Christopher Hitchens. Some of the books on the list did not even deny the existence of Jesus, e.g. Burton Mack (who is a scholar) holds that Jesus existed but his death was not due to his challenge to Jewish authority, etc. Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman's work is about the Old Testament and not really related to Jesus. Tom Harpur holds that Jesus existed but mythical stories were later added to the gospel narratives about him. The analysis of the list thus indirectly shed light on the scarcity of scholars who deny the existence of Jesus. Q3d: Do we have to survey the scholars ourselves? The formal Misplaced Pages guidelines require us not to do our own survey. The Misplaced Pages guideline WP:RS/AC specifically states: "The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view." Given that the guideline then states: "statement in Misplaced Pages that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors." we should not rely on our own surveys but quote a scholar who states the "academic consensus". Q3e: Why even mention the existence of Jesus in the article lead? A: This was discussed on the talk page. Although scholars at large see existence as a given, there are some self-published, non-scholarly books which question it, and hence non-scholars who read this article need to to have that issue clarified. And note that the statements regarding existence and other attributes need to be kept separate and stating that "Virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus was from Galilee" would not be accurate, because scholarly agreement on existence is much stronger than on other items. Q4: Are the scholars who study Jesus all Christian? A4: No. According to Bart D. Ehrman in How Jesus Became God (2014, ISBN 978-0-06-177818-6, p. 187), "most New Testament scholars are themselves Christian". However, scholars of many faiths have studied Jesus. There are three aspects to this question: Some of the most respected late-20th-century scholars involved in the study of the historical Jesus (e.g. Amy-Jill Levine, Geza Vermes, Paula Fredriksen) are Jewish. This trend is discussed in the 2012 book Soundings in the Religion of Jesus, by Bruce Chilton, Anthony Le Donne, and Jacob Neusner (ISBN 978-0-8006-9801-0, p. 132). While much of the older research in the 1950–1970 time frame may have involved Christian scholars (mostly in Europe) the 1980s saw an international effect and since then Jewish scholars have brought their knowledge of the field and made significant contributions. And one should note that the book is coauthored by the likes of Chilton and Neusner with quite different backgrounds. Similarly one of the main books in the field, The Historical Jesus in Context, by Amy-Jill Levine, Dale C. Allison Jr., and John Dominic Crossan (2006, ISBN 978-0-691-00992-6), is jointly edited by scholars with quite different backgrounds. In the late 20th and the 21st century Jewish, Christian and secular agnostic scholars have widely cooperated in research. The Muslim Reza Aslan wrote the number-one bestseller Zealot (2013). Regarding the existence of a historical Jesus, the article lead quotes Ehrman who is an agnostic and Price who is an atheist. Moreover, G. A. Wells who was widely accepted as the leader of the non-existence movement in the 20th century, abandoned that position and now accepts that the Q source refers to "a preacher" on whom parts of the gospels were based – although he believes that the supernatural claims were just stories that were then attributed to that preacher. That is reflected in his 2004 book Can We Trust the New Testament (pp. 49–50). While scholars continue to debate the historicity of specific gospel narratives, the agreement on the existence of Jesus is quite global. It is misleading to assume that Christian scholars will be biblical literalists who cannot engage in critical scholarship. Catholic and non-Evangelical Protestant scholars have long favoured the historical-critical method, which accepts that not all of the Bible can be taken literally. For example, the Christian clerics and scholars Michael Ramsey, C. F. D. Moule and James Dunn all argued in their scholarship that Jesus did not claim to be divine, Conrad Hyers, a Presbyterian minister, criticizes biblical literalism: "Literal clarity and simplicity, to be sure, offer a kind of security in a world (or Bible) where otherwise issues seem incorrigibly complex, ambiguous and muddy. But it is a false security, a temporary bastion, maintained by dogmatism and misguided loyalty." Finally, Misplaced Pages policies do not prohibit Buddhist scholars as sources on the history of Buddhism, Jewish scholars on Judaism, or Muslim scholars as sources on the history of Islam provided they are respected scholars whose works meet the general WP:RS requirements in terms of publisher reputation, etc. Q5: Why are some historical facts stated to be less certain than others? A5: The difference is "historically certain" versus "historically probable" and "historically plausible". There are a number of subtle issues and this is a somewhat complicated topic, although it may seem simple at first: Hardly any scholars dispute the existence of Jesus or his crucifixion. A large majority of scholars agree that he debated the authorities and had "followers" – some scholars say there was a hierarchy among the followers, a few think it was a flat organization. More scholars think he performed some healings (given that Rabbinic sources criticize him for that etc., among other reasons) than those who say he never did, but less agreement on than the debates with authorities, etc. As the article states, Amy-Jill Levine summarized the situation by stating: "Most scholars agree that Jesus was baptized by John, debated with fellow Jews on how best to live according to God's will, engaged in healings and exorcisms, taught in parables, gathered male and female followers in Galilee, went to Jerusalem, and was crucified by Roman soldiers during the governorship of Pontius Pilate." In that statement Levine chose her words very carefully. If she had said "disciples" instead of followers there would have been serious objections from other scholars, if she had said "called" instead of "gathered", there would have also been objections in that some scholars hold that Jesus preached equally to all, never imposed a hierarchy among his followers, etc. Scholars have very specific positions and the strength of the consensus among them can vary by changing just one word, e.g. follower to disciple or apostle, etc. Q6: Why is the infobox so brief? A6: The infobox is intended to give a summary of the essential pieces of information, and not be a place to discuss issues in any detail. So it has been kept brief, and to the point, based on the issues discussed below. Q6a: Was Jesus Jewish? Yes, as mentioned in the article, but not in the infobox. An RfC at the Village Pump says to include religion in the infobox only if it's directly related to the subject's notability and there's consensus. Some editors want to include his religion in the infobox and others do not. With no consensus, the default is to leave the religion out of the box. Q6b: Why is the birthplace not mentioned in the infobox? The question came up in this discussion and there is no solid scholarly agreement on Bethlehem, so the infobox does not address that. Q7: Why is there no discussion of the legacy/impact of Jesus? A7: That issue is inherently controversial, and has been discussed on the talk page for many years (see, e.g., the 2006 discussion, the June 2010 discussion, the November 2010 discussion). One user commented that it would turn out to be a discussion of the "impact of Christianity" in the end; because all impact was through the spread of Christianity in any case. So it has been left out due to those discussions. Q8: Why is there no discussion of Christian denominational differences? A8: Christianity includes a large number of denominations, and their differences can be diverse. Some denominations do not have a central teaching office and it is quite hard to characterize and categorize these issues without a long discussion that will exceed the length limits imposed by WP:Length on articles. The discussion of the theological variations among the multitude of Christian denominations is beyond the scope of this article, as in this talk page discussion. Hence the majority and common views are briefly sketched and links are provided to other articles that deal with the theological differences among Christians. Q9: What is the correct possessive of Jesus? A9: This article uses the apostrophe-only possessive: Jesus', not Jesus's. Do not change usage within quotes. That was decided in this discussion. Q10: Why does the article state "ost Christians believe Jesus to be the incarnation of God the Son and the awaited messiah ...?" Don't all Christians believe this? A10: Misplaced Pages requires a neutral point of view written utilizing reliable scholarly sources. It does not take a position on religious tenets. In this case, the sources cited clearly state "most", not "all", Christians hold the stated beliefs, as some sects and persons who describe themselves as "Christian", such as Unitarians, nevertheless do not hold these beliefs. This was agreed upon multiple times, including in this discussion. References R.Kendall Soulen, Handbook of Biblical Criticism, Westminster John Knox Press (2001), p. 49 Hick, John (2006). The Metaphor of God Incarnate: Christology in a Pluralistic Age. Presbyterian Publishing Corporation. p. 27. ISBN 978-0-664-23037-1. Retrieved 5 January 2024. Hyers, Conrad (Spring 2000). "Comparing biblical and scientific maps of origins". Directions: A Mennonite Brethren Forum. 29 (1): 16–26. Hyers, Conrad (August 4–11, 1982). "Biblical Literalism: Constricting the Cosmic Dance". Christian Century. p. 823. Archived from the original on June 4, 2011. Retrieved 9 November 2012.

Talk:Jesus/archivebox

Recent Archive log

Complete archive key

• Talk:Jesus/Archive 97 Removal of spurious representations of Jesus' appearance, trilemma, Mandaean views,scripture removed from historical Jesus section, Vanadalism, Pictures of Jesus, The Truths About Yeshua, Ehrman on harmonies
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 98 Proposal, Possible NPOV Violation in the Geneology Section, first paragraph, at least three years in Jesus' Ministry, this article is too big.
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 99 Literature to be mentioned, Timeline of birth, four gospels, lead; nontrinitarianism, historical Jesus, Jesus as myth, Manichaeism, year of jesus's birth, Edit at top of Jesus page, Colored Yeshua, Image of Jesus which currently exists, Proposal
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 100 Historical Jesus, The To-Do Section, commenting out instead of deleting, 2008 Islamic movie on Jesus, Historical section/Christian views section, Laundry list of non-history scholars and works (alternative proposal), Its latin, isnt it?, this page may display a horizontal scroll bar in some browsers, Proposal on archives, First Section, The historical Jesus
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 101 Edit war over capitalization, Historical Evidence for Jesus' Homosexuality, Carlaude's Majority view, What exactly did Jesus save us from and how?; Carlaude's Majority view part two., Title, PRJS, Dazed and Confused, Why was Jesus baptised?, Dates, Infobox vs. the historical Jesus
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 102 religion founder, Other parameters, He is not God But rather a Demigod, Heavily christian-centric article, Jesus' Birthdate, Jesus in Scientology, Jesus name - Yeshua in Hebrew, means "Salvation" in English
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 103 Writing clean-up, Jesus name in Sanskrit, Reforem Judaism, Jesus and Manichaeism, Bertrand Russell and Friedrich Nietzsche, Recent removal, NPOV, Detail about Buddhist views of Jesus that does not make sense, The Religious perspectives section
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 104 Black Jesus, "Autobiography" of Jesus, Genealogy - Via What Father?, Addition to "Genealogy & Family", Resurrection, according to whom?, Bhavishya Purana, Christian history category, Quick Comment, BC/BCE?, The Truth, Was he any good at his day job?, In Popular Culture, jesus picture, views on Jesus and Muhamma, Occupation, New Dead Sea Discovery- Gabriel's Revelation, Some comments
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 105 Genealogy "reloaded", Place of birth, Which religions?, was jesus ever bar miztvahed?, Bot report : Found duplicate references !, Jesus and the lost tomb, Some believe that Jesus was of middle eastern ethnicity, and not a caucasian, Mispelled cat at the bottom of this talk page, Harmony, Dating system, "Transliteration"
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 106 8 B.C., ref name="HC13", Cause of death, Renewed Discussion Concerning AD/CE debate

Subpage Activity Log

• Discussion on Judaism's views moved to Talk:Jewish views of Jesus/Judaism's views of Jesus.
• Buried vs. entombed," alleged "lack of sources" archived to Talk:Jesus/Christian views in intro.
• New subpage created, Talk:Jesus/Historical Jesus, with several models of the historical Jesus and a list of sources.
• Baptism, blasphemy and sedition discussions moved to Talk:Jesus/2nd Paragraph Debate.
• Sudden move of Christ: discussion moved to Talk:Christ.
• Disputed tag and "Christian Mythology": moved to for relevancy reasons
• User:Andrew c/Jesus: sorting data b/w New Testament view on Jesus' life, Christian views of Jesus#Life, and Jesus#Life and teachings based on the Gospels.

Nicene-based groups

"and not all Nicene-based groups believe that Jesus is the Son of God and God incarnate who was raised from the dead." Which Nicene-based groups could this refer to? How could a group accept the Nicene creed and not believe that Jesus is the Son of God, God Incarnate and was raised from the dead? ~~

Disputed vs. debated

I'd like to open this change up for feedback. I believe that "debated" is unnecessarily vague here. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

"Disputed" is better. There is, for example, no "debate" about whether the two contradictory birth narratives are historical. Historians agree that they're not. If non-historians or sectarian historians think they are historical, that disagreement doesn't amount to a "debate," just a refusal to go along with the academic consensus. Leadwind (talk) 02:39, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Here is an interesting take on the so called "academic consensus" that keeps coming up. Hardyplants (talk) 03:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I can understand why academic consensus is the last thing a minority-view editor wants to hear about, but if you want WP to be based on something other than academic consensus, then that's a conversation for another page, not this one. Leadwind (talk) 04:26, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you miss the point, the academic consensus you are referring to is narrow group that is based on self references to each other. It does not acknowledge that more scholars hold other views. Hardyplants (talk) 04:45, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

That's like saying that the scientific consensus on evolution is just a narrow group based on self references to each other: they're called biologists. To their permanent shame, they completely ignore the religious leaders who deny evolution!

Note that there is a dispute, but no genuine debate. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 04:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

No, there is no genuine debate within the scientific community about evolution, except maybe how fast it can occur or how any one specific taxon has evolved. Hardyplants (talk) 05:16, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

But there is no such consensus about Biblical matters, we should present the major different views and not use a "so called" consensus to exclude other major view points. Hardyplants (talk) 05:20, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

That's like saying there is no consensus about evolution because scientists and ministers don't agree!

There is a consensus. In fact, there is one consensus among secular/progressive scholars and an entirely different one among biblical literalists. This is the case for both evolution and the historical accuracy of the Bible. In both, there is a dispute that is not amenable to debate because the literalists have a prior commitment. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 06:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Your incorrect, there are many different and contradictory view points among "secular/progressive scholars", If the so called consensus was as monolithic as you seem to believe it is, these contradictory view points on just about every major topic they study would no exist, the field is ripe with mostly speculation. Hardyplants (talk) 07:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

There is debate among them, but only dispute between them and the literalists. As a parallel, consider the fact that there is much debate among biologists about the details of how evolution works but only dispute between them and the denialists. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 07:23, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure you understand the topic if you believe that it is a strictly ether/or issue, seems to be a straw-man argument. Hardyplants (talk) 07:35, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Hardyplants is right that there is no consensus on some topics, such as whether Jesus expected an imminent apocalypse. Jesus Seminar says no, the majority says yes, but there's no consensus. On the topic of whether either of the incredible and contradictory birth narratives is historical, yes, there's consensus because there's no historical reason to credit either one and reasons to doubt each. As good editors, we should differentiate for our gentle readers between details on which there's consensus (Jesus wasn't born in Bethlehem, not the way Luke says, nor the way Matthew says) and details on which there isn't (did he think the world was about to end?). Leadwind (talk) 14:19, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

First, there isn't a consensus that the infancy narratives are ahistorical amongst critical scholars, although they are probably the most heavily doubted. Many scholars accept different parts as historical (such as the claim that Jesus was born when Herod was tetrarch but not when Quirinius was governor of Syria), while others accept them outright and attempt to show that they don't contradict (in ways that are sometimes conjectural and sometimes not). My point is that there is no "consensus" even with regards to the infancy narratives, not unless you restrict the scope of what constitutes a "scholar" sufficiently enough to leave out most scholars. Second, this is a bit of an extreme example, as no sections in the gospels (nor probably the entire New Testament) are doubted as heavily as these. Most debated sections aren't as disputed as these.RomanHistorian (talk) 15:42, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 23:29, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

As I was the one who made the change originally, I would like to restore it, although I can't tell above what the consensus is. It's not a huge deal, but I do think the original is better. I don't see a material difference between the two versions, other than the original is more reflective of the debate. "Disputed" versus "debated" mean the same thing in this context, although "debated" is a more neutral term. Both mean there is disagreement and doubt, though not a consensus (nor even a majority view) that all "disputed" sections are questionable. Maybe in some sections many (either a majority or minority of) scholars dispute claims (either for or against), but in others scholars "debate" whether a section might have been 'colored' or 'shaped' in a particular way, while in others a minority of scholars disagree amongst themselves on various points. I don't see what the issue is with that change. As for "different" versus "some", they also mean the same thing. The only difference is that "different" suggests that different scholars see different parts of the New Testament as useful. Even different skeptics disagree amongst themselves as to what is useful. Many of these sections are accepted by other scholars. "Some" implies that there are some parts with a consensus, but the scope is limited to this. "Different" implies that there is consensus on some parts, and majority-agreement on others, while others are accepted variously by different scholars.RomanHistorian (talk) 15:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd hate to seem contrary, but I felt compelled to revert bold edit. It's the second one in the last day, so I'm going to put away my revert-o-gun before open warfare breaks out, but both of these edits were bold and biased.

Jesus is a sensitive subject, so those who make bold changes, especially the sort that alter the balance of the article, really shouldn't be at all surprised or hurt when their changes are initially rejected. In fact, it may well be a good idea for them to first bring up their proposed changes here, just to save some wear-and-tear on the article history (not to mention those revert-o-guns). What's it going to take to shift editing of this article more towards a consensus basis than "what can I get away with this time"? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 20:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to undo your change, for obvious reasons. I think we should have other people weigh in on this. The two reversions are here and here. I think these (or some modified form of them) should be included in the article. They are certainly relevant to the topic. For the first edit, the paragraph discusses the distance between eyewitnesses and the writing of the gospels. The fact that many scholars hold that the writers may have been eyewitnesses or close to them is certainty relevant. I worded it to include scholars who doubt the traditional authorship, but hold that the authors were part of some apostolic community (such as the "Johnnie Community") and thus were writing in a manner the apostles may have once taught. It is certainly true that many scholars hold this view. Actually I think a decent majority of scholars hold to either the traditional view, or that the traditional view was wrong but that the authors were linked in some way to the apostles. I don't think this edit should be controversial. As for the second, I added it because the first part of the paragraph inferred that the historical Jesus people were trying to draw a picture of the "real" Jesus, whereas the second part of the paragraph juxtaposed against the first half infers that either the historical or theological Jesus were the "true" Jesus. I don't think this is a controversial point either. The historical Jesus people are drawing a picture that isn't intended to be theological. They aren't concluding that the theology is false, nor are they even addressing the question. They are concluding all that ordinary historical methods could conclude without the introduction of supernatural explanations.

What does everyone else think?RomanHistorian (talk) 02:02, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Roman, on the one hand, I'm very glad you were willing to come to Talk and explain your edit, whereas RossNixon simply edit-warred. On the other, you're cheating by canvassing for supportive editors. Is this the Christian thing to do? Does our Bible teach us to lie and cheat to get our way? Think it over. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 04:13, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know there was any problem with "canvasing". I assumed it was preferable to letting this sit here and get little attention.RomanHistorian (talk) 04:35, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

You did it twice. And please don't pretend to be ignorant of the rules. You've been here much, much longer than I have. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 06:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

No, you did it three times, and each one was targeted because of their history of favoring your views. This is a clear violation. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 06:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

As one of the three, I must say I've been staying away from this article because it's unlikely to be dealt with properly without the full-time attention of more than one editor. I really don't have time to determine whether disputed or debated, or some or different, is a better phrasing, sorry. Roman's first insertion is a sourced and necessary POV, the second one is not sourced and might not fit its section. The notifications are not a clear violation of canvassing because there is a continuum and they meet two points (limited, neutral) and fail two points (partisan, unannounced). Nor am I going to guess how long Dylan has been here. It is better to pick battles carefully, and I'd say start an RFC if you want more input. JJB 00:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

El Papa

I just removed a paragraph about what the Pope thinks, because he is not an expert on history or historical research. His expertise is on Christianity and as an authority on Catholicism. I have no objection to including his view but it belongs in "religious views." Slrubenstein | Talk 20:44, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, he certainly wasn't speaking ex cathedra, but on the other hand, it's not like he's some layman sharing an irrelevant opinion. As Farsight points out below, he's talking about the impact of historians upon our modern view of Jesus.

I'll see if it works in the section you recommended. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 21:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

If you read the comment carefully, he was not actually commenting on history, but rather of the usefulness of historians' modern research in understanding scripture. That is, at least, the impression I got from it. Though I'm not really for or against inclusion of the paragraph anyway.Farsight001 (talk) 20:49, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

"he's talking about the impact of historians upon our modern view of Jesus" - the question is, who aqre you referring to when you say "our?" Certainly not mine. I would bet that for many Jews the Jesus portrayed by modern historians is far more meaningful and engaging than the Jesus of the NT. Benedict dos not have to be speaking ex cathedra, he is speaking as the leader of the Catholic Church and his views are that of a Catholic. I am not sure they belong here either - maybe in an articel on critical scholarship on Jesus there can be a section on Christian responses where this quote would fit. But it does not ad to our understanding of the historian's view of Jesus at all. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Scholars conclude.. gospels written xx-100AD

Several days ago I made a bold edit to Jesus#Historical_views, changing the date range of 70-100AD to 50-100AD. Andrew C rightly reverted this as I had not justified the change. When checking for supporting evidence, I found that Acts_of_the_Apostles#Date (ref #13)had a good reference, http://www.errantskeptics.org/DatingNT.htm, citing dozens of scholars dates for Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Based on the average date given for each Gospel, which was 65AD for the synoptics and 86AD for John, I changed the date range to 60-100AD. For an unknown reason, my edit summary was deemed insufficient for Dylan Flaherty, who said "here comes the expected reversion". I restored my edit with further explanation in the edit summary, but apparently this also was not good enough and I was now "practically edit warring". Does anyone have any problem with my current edit, or this explanation? Thanks. 02:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

As you said, it was a bold edit. When you make a bold edit, you are acting in advance of consensus, hoping it will support you. When it doesn't, you fully expect to have your bold work reverted, giving you a chance to explain yourself in Discussion and try to gain a consensus. That's BRD in a nutshell and we're following it now. However, you weren't following it when you reverted back to your rejected version instead of coming here to explain it. Reverting instead of discussing is, as I suggested, a bad step towards edit-warring. And, no, when you're the bold editor, edit comments are not sufficient for discussion.

I looked at your source and did not find it to be reliable. It is an apologetics web site, and is neither scholarly nor objective. It provides a highly non-random sampling of dates, which allowed you to cherry-pick a fringe view to support. Note that we don't use averaging because it gives undue weight to fringe views. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 13:06, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

What is our source for the later date? LewisWasGenius (talk) 14:34, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I like to imagine that Misplaced Pages is to some extent self-consistent, so I started by looking at the primary location of this information. The section there dates it as no earlier than 60, and possibly later than 100. The estimates in the first half of the 60's are so far on the edge that they need to be attributed to a specific pair of individuals, and anything predating them has been removed as fringe. The range of 70 to 100 is pretty mainstream. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 23:47, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

There are two problems with that. First, we do not use Misplaced Pages as a source. We can, of course, use the sources of Misplaced Pages. Secondly, the article you linked to dates Acts, not the gospels. There is a table in Dating the Bible, but it does not seem to have good sources. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:22, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Acts is contemporaneous with the gospels (as it was written by the author of Luke) and is what Ross brought up. However, you're right that we should focus on the gospels themselves, and also that we should look at that Misplaced Pages link only as a summary of reliable sources, not as a source in itself.

To that end, I recommend, this section, which covers the gospels and has no shortage of reliable sources cited. It supports the 70-100 range. The earliest date mentions is 60, and only in the context of being an extreme view. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I just checked my source again, following a link on their fron t page, it states "In a court of law the testimony of one expert is often offset by another with a differing opinion. The same thing happens in the academic community as to when the New Testament books were written. However, in the court of public opinion the testimony of several hundred New Testament scholars far outweighs the opinions of radical scholars, skeptics and nonbelievers. We have provided the opinions of several hundred conservative and liberal scholars in the links below to establish the weight of theological opinion against radical views as to when the New Testament books were penned." 01:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I assume then we agree that a source that uses argumentum ad populum and that attacks opponents with a an ad-hominem is inherently dubious? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:26, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

I see your point. To establish a date range, all relevant scholars should be consulted. However this would only extend the second date (100AD), as they prefer later datings. It would not alter the earlier datings close to 60AD, which have substantial support. Can anyone suggest reliable scholars that would extend the second date to 110AD? 01:35, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Where did you get 50 from? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:45, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Purely from memory. But I'm not pushing for that. Instead I'm pushing for liberal and conservative's average dates to be included. From my reference above, some scholars support 37-50 for some gospels; but the averages are Matthew 65.9, Mark 67.9, Like 67.9, John 86.3. So if we are rounding figures and wanting to include most views, then 60-100AD is reasonable. 02:34, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

The problem is this isn't a "present both sides as equal" situation. This is, open up a text book by a conservative Catholic scholar and you'll find the "consensus" view that Mark was written around 70, and Matt. and Luke 10-20 years later, and John a bit after that. Source: Raymond Brown's Introduction to the New Testament. This can be confirmed in other texts, such as Meier, Ehrman, Harris, Koester, et al. Yes, there is an extreme conservative sect arguing for earlier dates, and yes the liberal John Robinson argued for earlier dates, but we have to consider weight here. There are also very liberal scholars who argue for 2nd century dates (not to mention some of the myth people) should we include their views as well, if we are including the fringe conservatives? No, we should not go into that much detail in this article, and just list the mainstream, majority view, as found in normal texts. -Andrew c  02:51, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Just a minor note: in a section named Historical views the history scholars' view is the topic of interest, and anyone agreeing or disagreeing with them might be interested in what those scholars say, and oppose to that. This means that criticisms against some common historician view can also be mentioned in that section, but after the scholar opinion, up to and including "conservative sects" and "popular view". Everything must be sourced and NPOV balanced as usual. As usual Misplaced Pages is neutral, although we individual editors might snicker spitefully for various reasons. Rursus dixit. (bork!) 11:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Re JAT Robinson, here's a citation that might be useful for putting his work in context. "is later books, which argue that all the Gospels, incl. Jn., are very early, have not carried widespread conviction." "Robinson, John Arthur Thomas." Cross, F. L., ed. The Oxford dictionary of the Christian church. New York: Oxford University Press. 2005. Robinson gets mentioned over and over on WP pages because he made the boldest and best attempt to establish the gospels as early and apostolic, but he failed. Leadwind (talk) 15:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

This is a good contribution. NPOV requires us to include all significant views including majority and minority ones, so I do not object to including Robinson - I think we should include him - but we need to make clear it is a minority view and this quote from this source does a fine job of establishing that. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we should mention the outer limits as well.-Civilizededucation 17:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely, as long as they are significant and we have a reliable source that enables us to identify the view as mainstream, majority, or minority. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Offensive Picture at bottom of page

I've just noticed a picture at the bottom of the page of a donkey, with the caption "A photograph of Muhammad." I'm new to editing really, so I can't remove the photo... can someone else please remove it, as it is pretty offensive. -User:TheLastSamurai101 —Preceding undated comment added 05:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC).

Good call. The same pic has also been transcluded to a number of other articles too. I tried to remove it but could not figure out the way to do it. Reported it at WP:AN/I.-Civilizededucation 07:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't see the picture you are referring to. Has it already been removed? Wdford (talk) 16:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it was formerly on the Prophets in the Qur'an template, and so appeared in all articles that used the template. Paul B (talk) 18:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Jesus Christ and the Israelite people are black Hebrews!

• I clothe the heavens with blackness, and I make sackcloth their covering.
  • Isaiah 50:3
• She is empty, and void, and waste: and the heart melteth, and the knees smite together, and much pain is in all loins, and the faces of them all gather blackness.
  • Nahum 2:10
• Their visage is blacker than a coal; they are not known in the streets: their skin cleaveth to their bones; it is withered, it is become like a stick.
  • Lamentations 4:8

• Our skin was black like an oven because of the terrible famine.
  • Lamentations 5:10
• For the hurt of the daughter of my people am I hurt; I am black; astonishment hath taken hold on me.
  • Jeremiah 8:21

• Mary of Magdala was a follower of Jesus and the first person to see the resurrected Christ. Amba Mariam is a village in central Ethiopia. It was known as Magdala during the reign of Emperor Tewodros II of Ethiopia.
• Are ye not as children of the Ethiopians unto me, O children of Israel? saith the LORD. Have not I brought up Israel out of the land of Egypt? and the Philistines from Caphtor, and the Syrians from Kir?
  • Amos 9:7
• Can the Ethiopian change his skin, or the leopard his spots? then may ye also do good, that are accustomed to do evil.
  • Jeremiah 13:23
• My skin is black upon me, and my bones are burned with heat.
  • Job 30:30
• I am black, but comely, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, as the tents of Kedar, as the curtains of Solomon.
  • Song of Solomon 1:5
• Look not upon me, because I am black, because the sun hath looked upon me: my mother's children were angry with me; they made me the keeper of the vineyards; but mine own vineyard have I not kept.
  • Song of Solomon 1:6
• Also every sickness, and every plague, which is not written in the book of this law, them will the LORD bring upon thee, until thou be destroyed.
  • Deuteronomy 28:61 See also: HIV/AIDS in Africa
• And ye shall be left few in number, whereas ye were as the stars of heaven for multitude; because thou wouldest not obey the voice of the LORD thy God.
  • Deuteronomy 28:62 See also: Black Hebrew Israelites
• And it shall come to pass, that as the LORD rejoiced over you to do you good, and to multiply you; so the LORD will rejoice over you to destroy you, and to bring you to nought; and ye shall be plucked from off the land whither thou goest to possess it.
  • Deuteronomy 28:63 See also: African diaspora

--McYel (talk) 00:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• Delisted good articles
• Old requests for peer review
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Religion articles
• Top-importance Religion articles
• WikiProject Religion articles
• B-Class Christianity articles
• Top-importance Christianity articles
• B-Class Catholicism articles
• Top-importance Catholicism articles
• WikiProject Catholicism articles
• B-Class Eastern Orthodoxy articles
• Unknown-importance Eastern Orthodoxy articles
• WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy articles
• B-Class Oriental Orthodoxy articles
• Top-importance Oriental Orthodoxy articles
• WikiProject Oriental Orthodoxy articles
• B-Class Jewish Christianity articles
• Top-importance Jewish Christianity articles
• WikiProject Jewish Christianity articles
• B-Class Anglicanism articles
• Top-importance Anglicanism articles
• WikiProject Anglicanism articles
• B-Class Latter Day Saint movement articles
• Top-importance Latter Day Saint movement articles
• WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement articles
• WikiProject Christianity articles
• B-Class Islam-related articles
• Mid-importance Islam-related articles
• WikiProject Islam articles
• B-Class biography articles
• B-Class biography (core) articles
• Core biography articles
• Top-importance biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• B-Class Bahá'í Faith articles
• High-importance Bahá'í Faith articles
• WikiProject Bahá'í Faith articles
• B-Class Mythology articles
• High-importance Mythology articles
• B-Class Bible articles
• Top-importance Bible articles
• WikiProject Bible articles
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists