Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
Actually, per ] and ] we need a source (with a page number) that ''directly'' states: "Most scholars believe the nationality of Jesus was X", regardless of what X may be, before that can be used ''at all''. I have seen no such source offered by anyone yet. None. Hence that statement can not be used. Now, from a "practical perspective" using the term Israel for his nationality is an invitation to the restart of the Palestinian debate on this page. Given the previous long discussions about the Palestinian issue, I really think we should avoid that term just for the sake of ''debate minimization''. Else this page will become an extension of the TV debates about middle east politics. And Misplaced Pages is not the venue for that. The nationality issue was peacefully resting until Avaya restarted it, despite the comment in the infobox. I think we should just sidestep nationality for it will eat up time and will be debated for the next 7 years, or more. ] (]) 08:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Actually, per ] and ] we need a source (with a page number) that ''directly'' states: "Most scholars believe the nationality of Jesus was X", regardless of what X may be, before that can be used ''at all''. I have seen no such source offered by anyone yet. None. Hence that statement can not be used. Now, from a "practical perspective" using the term Israel for his nationality is an invitation to the restart of the Palestinian debate on this page. Given the previous long discussions about the Palestinian issue, I really think we should avoid that term just for the sake of ''debate minimization''. Else this page will become an extension of the TV debates about middle east politics. And Misplaced Pages is not the venue for that. The nationality issue was peacefully resting until Avaya restarted it, despite the comment in the infobox. I think we should just sidestep nationality for it will eat up time and will be debated for the next 7 years, or more. ] (]) 08:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
:@ReformedArsenal The Gospels as well as Acts are religiously charged and biased narratives that do not always reflect actual cultural, political, or religious circumstances of the time. References to Israel are contained for ideological reasons. "Land of Israel" has been a '''claim''', not a description, all through the past 2500+ years. The Jesus of the Gospels is someone who seeks to restore a Jewish, even Israelite, past while simultaneously completely changing the ideology. And the point is, that most of that past is imaginary. Everything that Jewish scripture (Tanakh/Old Testament) assigns to before circa 850 BCE is 100% invented and even most material well down to the time of the Maccabees and Hasmoneans is, let's say, religiously enhanced history. Now the Gospels add to that by assigning new meanings to past Jewish teachings. The whole transfiguration-of-Jesus-story seeks to create continuity between Jesus and Jewish traditions and rules. But of course the teachings of Jesus do in fact reject many very basic Jewish traditions.
:In the conflict between Cleopatra/Mark Antony and the rest of Rome, Herod and his extremely hellenized Hasmonean court had been on the losing side, so that Herod had to buy his kingship from Octavian. But soon after Herod's death the Romans no longer respected that arrangement and subsequently their already great influence turned into direct rule.
:To make it short, during the time of Jesus, no political or territorial entity named "Israel" existed. At birth Jesus was a Galilean or Judean (depending with birth-story one follows), and a Judean when Judaea became Roman. ] 10:14, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
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.
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
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
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
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 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
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
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
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.
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 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, ISBN978-0-06-177818-6, 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
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
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
There has been a mini-discussion on edit summary between LordShard and Slrubenstein about two issues:
1. Are the views about Jesus being a as a Galilean Jewish Rabbi who was regarded as a teacher etc. expressed only by "Biblical scholars" or also by other scholars such as historians.
2. Do most of said scholars consider him a "healer", or is that label just applied by some scholars.
I think Slrubenstein is correct that the views regarding Jesus are also expressed by scholars who are mainly historians and not just Biblical-types, although the lede reference does not clearly support that, as LordShard cmmented. But the body of the article does list scholars such as Vermes who are primarily historians, etc. Such references may get added to the lede, but per WP:LEDE are not necessary, although may be useful.
I think LordShard is correct that the healer label is only applied by "some scholars". Pages 124 and 125 or of Koestenberger's book have a good (and humorous) summary of the approaches scholars take in their "Portrayal of Jesus" - he points out that in many cases scholars end up "seeing themselves in Jesus" and are doing autobiography when doing biography.... By the way the same has been said of personality theory where each major theory often reflects the life of the psychologist proposing it.... And "healer" is certainly one label applied to Jesus, but so are philosopher, social reformer, etc. etc. So "healer" is true, but not universally applied by scholars. Teacher may be more widely acceptable among scholars, and although not totally universal, I think it can be used since we say "most scholars" etc.
I think LordShard and Slrubenstein should agree on a middle ground and say:
Most critical historians and biblical scholars agree that Jesus was a Galilean Jewish Rabbi in Judaea who was regarded as a teacher, that he was baptized by John the Baptist, and that he was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman Prefect, Pontius Pilate, on the charge of sedition against the Roman Empire.
That may settle the issue if the word healer is not insisted upon, given Koestenberger's characterization, as well as the fact that historians are listed in the body of the article as well as biblical scholars. History2007 (talk) 05:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Slrubenstein I saw that you reverted LordShard without responding here Please discuss instead of doing a revert ping-pong. I will not revert you now, but I do think you have not addressed LordShard's issue. Do you have a W:RS source that says the "healer view" of Jesus is the predominant view among most scholars? I doubt that given the Koestenberger overall analysis. As Koestenberger states the charismatic healer view is supported by Borg and Vermes, the philosopher view is supported by Crossan and Downing, the prophet view is supported by Sanders and Casey, the social reformer view by Theissen and Hrsely, etc. etc. So the healer is one of many views. Now why do you state the healer as the "key view" when there are multiple scholarly perspectives. Of course, reliance on the grandfather rule that a talk page discussion during the Eisenhower administration said so, may be a weak argument, but in view of LordShard's very valid statement, you have shown no WP:RS source that "most scholars view Jesus as a faith healer". Indeed Koestenberger's table invalidates your claim. History2007 (talk) 16:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, there was an edit conflict, my computer keeps timing out. The main issue for me is not a compromise with me, it is that we should not change stable consensus versions without discussion first. The paragraph in question was carefully crafted by several editors who had taken the time to do considerable research - and this after a very contentious year when compromise seemed impossible. There used to be a note to this effect which was accidentally deleted when more recently Jesus myth stuff was added; I have restored the note. My main point is that a long-standing stable consensus should not be changed without discussion first.
As to the specifics: first, concerning "historians," the point is not that this is a view of historians as well as Bible scholars; the point is that many Bible scholars are historians. When the modern university system emerged at the end of the 19th century, historians who worked with sources in modern languages or European states with origins in the Middle Ages were trained and employed by history departments, and historians who worked with sources in dead languages (e.g. ancient Greek, Latin, Akadian, Sumerian, Biblical Hebrew), on states that no longer exist, were trained and employed by Classics Department, Bibliecal Studies Departments, or Ancient Near Eastern Studies Departments - these specific departments reflect the fact that the historical sources are more limited and require specific skills - but the scholars are nevertheless "historians;" they make the same assumptions and use the same methods as other historians (eht exception is archeologists, but none of the sources cited are archeologists). As for "healer," there are many sources at the end of the sentence that identify Jesus as a healer including the most notable historians of Jesus today like Fredricksen, Sanders and Vermes. The table you refer to is misleading, because the views of Jesus do not so neatly divide into these mutually exclusive categories - for many scholars, Jesus was a healer and a prophet and a reformer. Different books often emphasize different aspects of his career, but this is because authors of scholarly books and articles usually seek to advance an original argument by calling atttention to a view or dimension of their object of study that they feel have been downplayed or insufficiently explored - but this does not mean that views so neatly divide into Jesus is x or Jesus is y rather than x and y. I am not basing my claim on primary sources by the way but rather secondary sources that are still in print and published within the past twenty years or so. We discussed this, and the sources are all at the end of the sentence.
If there is any term here that is controversial and I think should be changed (but only after discussion!) it is the word "rabbi." Many English translations of the NT use the word "rabbi" but many scholars consider this anachronistic. Rabbi comes from the Aramaic word meaning "my master" but English NTs are using Rabbi where the Greek word is "diskalos" which means teacher. I note that the first sentence of the paragraph includes the word "teacher" so saying "teacher" and "rabi" for the same word, diskalos, is redundant. I acknowledge that a small number of scholars do identify Jesus as "rabbi" and I would not objct to a separate sentence providing the specific sources, but many consider the term anachronistic because the word "rabbi" as it is understood today did not develop until the Tannaitic period. We shoud make clear that there is no consensus about this term. Slrubenstein | Talk17:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I have been trying very hard not to work on that lede... But now that LordShard started it, let me say:
I think your change back to historians is not subject to major contention, given the contents of the article. So let us leave that aside.
The three remaining qualifiers are healer, Rabbi and teacher. So we need to address those.
I think neither healer or Rabbi is accepted by "most scholars" and there is no support for those in the article, hence per WP:LEDE can not be claimed in the lede, if not supported in the body by references. Yes, there is no mutually exclusive determination, but you have not established that healer is more predominant than philosopher, etc. I see no source for that claim. Hence we may have to just say nothing, until sources are found a,d just say he was Jewish, was from Galillee and was regarded as a teacher - the qualification everyone accepts. History2007 (talk) 17:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Really? According to Theissen and Mertz 1998, "Just as the kingdom of God stands at the centre of Jesus' preaching, so healings and exorcisms orm the centre of his activity." They cite Ebeling, Held, Hogan, E and ML Keller, Meier, Twelftree, and Weeden in addition to themselves to support this claim. Sanders says Jesus was a healer (1993: 159-168). Fredriksen says he was a healer (1998: 98) and Crossan says he was a healer as well (1991: 334; his total analysis is 304-332). All of these sources agree that as far as the best reading of the sources in their historical context goes, Jesus healed. The differences between them is their interpretation of his healing. Some people specify "faith healing" or :charismatic healing" or "miracle worker" and Crossan goes much further with his interpretation of the political significance of healing. Perhaps this article needs a more detailed section on "healing" although I suspect this belongs in the "historical Jesus" article instead. One reason for the multiple interpretations has to do with our own beliefs about healing: we believe that most illness is caused by germs and that healing occurs through drugs like antibiotics. We believe in this so much, that we just call it "healing" without qualification - and this means that many of us, when we look at beliefs about healing in other culures, must add modifiers to distinguish what they do from what we do. This is understandable but not really very good history, because historians start of by not assuming that people in the past shared our beliefs ("the past is another country.") Jews in the first century believed that most illnesses had specific causes that called for specific forms of healing. from our perspective this was "miracle working" or "exorcisms" or the like, but my point is it is our need to add modifiers - for Jews at the time (just as for us in our time) people were sick and were healed, the underlying theory did not need to be stated because everyone shared it. So Crossan and Fredricksen have diferent interpretations of the significanc of Jesus' healing and characterize it in different ways. This is a debate or diference that can be explaind in the body of the appropriate article. In the lead of this article we should just mention what most historians agree on and they all agree that he healed the sick. We have had this discussion before. There are plenty of sources. To say that Crossan takes "the philosopher view" and Theissen takes the "social reformer view" as if this meant that they do not think Jesus was a healer is really disingenuous, it flatly contradicts what they themselves wrote, and I have provided the sources for you. I thought we mentioned Theissen and Sanders and Fredricksen and Crossan (as well as Vermes) in the notes to this sentence. Are we missing one of them? Slrubenstein | Talk17:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, I would try not to bring antibiotics into it, but although you list some scholars that call him a healer, I see no source that does a summary review that says: "most scholars view Jesus as primarily a healer above his other characterizations". That was the heart of LordShard's argument. No source that summarizes that. The only summary source I have seen (and I could look more) is teh Koestenberger table. And I do not think we can just call a table in a WP:RS source confused at will. But let us wait for other comments. History2007 (talk) 17:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Do you really think I called the table confused "at will?" I tried to provide specific page references for in-print and recently published books by scholars who call Jesus a healer, and who are not identified as such by the table. This is not willful, this is informed and carefully considered.
And I am not saying that the table is "wrong," I am saying that it is being used inmproperly, that it is being misinterpreted. The most important work of scholarship is not to provide information (although many undergraduates and non-scholars think so), it is to interpret that information. All scholars might agree that Jesus was a healer, but they might interpret the reasons why he was, or is remembered as, a healer - interpretations that are parts of larger arguments about why Jesus is important. Crossan definitely does not think Jesus was important because he was a healer. Crossan has a different reason, and all of these scholars have different reasons, and I think that this is what the table is trying to capture. The fact that Crossan does not think that Jesus was important because he was a healer (i.e. there is another reason) however does not mean that Crossan did not say Jesus was a healer. To interpret the table as saying this is ignorant. I am sorry if I am hurting your feelings, but just because WP is the article anyone can edit does not mean that any edit is appropriate. The most basic rule that anyone working on an encyclopedia ought to understand - so basic that it is implicit in the project of writing an encyclopedia and shouldn't need its own policy (although this rule is provided in various policies) is: do not quote out of context." To use a quote or a reliable source in context requires editors who are not just mechanical copiests, it requires editors who can read and understand the scholarship on an issue. I do not see this standard as opening the door to original research, on the contrary, we need it to prevent original research. One has to understand the views one is representing, which reuires one to read more than just a table on a page. Sometimes one has to read a whole book to properly understand a page. Sometimes one has to read several books to understand a page. I am certain that anyone who has read the books mentioned in that table would acknowledge that the view being represented in the table has to do with arguments about why Jesus was important, or analytical frameworks for interpreting the specifics of Jesus's life and work. To say Jesus was a philosopher surely doesn't mean he was not crucified To say he was a social reformer doesn't mean he wasn't crucified! These approaches however suggest different ways of interpreting why he was crucified. If you can understand this, surely you can understand how these approaches suggest different ways for interpreting why Jesus was a healer, too. haven't you read Crossan? Aren't you aware of his explanation for the importance of Jesus' work as a healer? If we cannot answer this question, then we are misrepresenting a view. The table is not about how many scholars think Jesus was a healer, it is about something else. To interpret it as claiming that only a minority of scholars thought Jesus was a healer is to misrepresent it. This is not the proper way to use reliable sources. We should not take things out of context in order to push our own POV at the expense of the views of published scholars. I named scholars and provided citations from reliable sources where they say Jesus was a healer. This does not mean that this is the principal argument of each of these books. Scholarly books say many things in the course of building an argument and these books make different arguments. But as to the simple question of, was Jesus a healer, they all agree. Just read the pages I cite.
Finally, when it comes to scholars, I think we should also be guided by WEIGHT. I do not actually have a survey of all University teachers of NT or Jesus related courses to use as a basis for saying "most" - but to be fare, I think many WP articles say "most" when they mean "most of the sources we know of." I do not think this is a bad idea. I just think it is important for us to look for the most significant or notable sources. Along with Ehrmann and Maier (whose relevant books I - sadly - do not own), Sanders, Fredricksen and Vermes are to my knowledge (I asked some college professors) the most frequently assigned books in college courses. I would never argue against the notability of Theissen or Crossan either, by the way. Maybe you think we should changed the word "most scholars" to "the most notable scholars" or something to that efect, fine. But I do not think we should make this a flat out matter of votes or a survey. It is not always easy to agree about who is the best scholar, but the very idea of WEIGHT is that we can agree about who are the most notable or significant scholars. We can use citation indexes for example, if there is serious doubt about this. But I sincerely believe that anyone who has done university-level research on Jesus will know that the people I name in this paragraph are all among the most notable scholars in their field. Slrubenstein | Talk18:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
But the simplest way to resolve this is: Can anhyone provide a reliable source expressing a significant view that says that the historical Jesus was not a healer? So far all we have is the table, which does not actually say that Crossan or Theissen do not say that he was a healer. When I keep providing sources that say he was a healer, I think that before demaning a source that says "most scholars say he was a scholar" it is reasonable to ask you to provide one major source that says he was not a healer. Slrubenstein | Talk18:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
That is not how it works. To establish that Jesus was a healer you need RS that provide evidence for Jesus' existence in the first place and then RS that provide evidence what the historical person actually was and did, especially whether he in fact healed anybody. And the Bible is not a RS here for obvious reasons. ♆ CUSH ♆19:16, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
@Cush I do not understand what you mean, "That is not how it works." When you wite, "The Bible is not a RS source here for obvious reasons," why do you say this? To whom are you speaking? Are you replying to anyone? Should we refactor your comment and put it in another section? Slrubenstein | Talk21:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
I am replying to you. You ask for a RS that says he was NOT a healer. That is not how it works. Being a healer is not the default position and not something that would be automatically assigned to some historical Jesus. What you have to come up with are RS for Jesus' existence and then with RS for his actions. That's how it works. This is an encyclopedia, and not some Christian platform. ♆ CUSH ♆07:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Then please stop misrepresenting me. Where did I ever say that being a healer is a "default position?" Wher did I ever say that it would be "automatically added" - or anything to that effect? Please provide the date stamp. What have I written that has ever even suggested that this is a Christian platform? Where have I ever written that we should favor Christian views over the views of critical historians? Again, please provide the timestamp. You can't just show up and spout nonsense misrepresenting other editors because you prefer to soapbox rather than improve articles. Do not misrepresent me. Slrubenstein | Talk14:55, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
18:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC) You wrote "But the simplest way to resolve this is: Can anhyone provide a reliable source expressing a significant view that says that the historical Jesus was not a healer?", to which I replied that it is not necessary to demonstrate that he was not a healer. However it is necessary to demonstrate that he was a healer, which is the statement you requested counter-sources for. Such a request is a stereotypically religionist statement. ♆ CUSH ♆19:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
By the way, I have no objection to removing "rabbi" but I think it is very likely someone sooner or later will add it (if only because the read an English translation of the NT that uses this term) so if we remove it maybe after "teacher" we need a note on the different translations of "dyskalos" and the different meanings of "rabbi" (i.e. as an honorific - "You're great!" - versus as the title of a particular authority, specifically on Jewish law, that emerged as a title during the Tannaitic period) Slrubenstein | Talk18:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
That was pretty long. Let me just say that per WP:RS/AC: "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" and "most scholars we know of" can not be used as you suggested it, per policy. History2007 (talk) 18:16, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
It was pretty long. But all of it aimed at improving the page. Policies are descriptive and should never trump the good sense of editors working on a page. I still would like to see anyone provide a significant source that says Jesus was not a healer. I also think we should take it for granted that "most" means most of the significant sources we rely on in writing the article. But we could just cut the word "most" if you want. Until we have an example of a notable significant scholar who says Jesus was not a healer I see no cause to disregard all the sources we have. Slrubenstein | Talk18:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
No, sorry I must differ on that. WP:RS/AC is specific, there is no ambiguity on that and it say it does trump the selection made by the editors. If you remove "most" that would immediately imply all scholars, and can not be used. And your requirement that X can be stated unless there is a source that says not(X) clearly runsagainst WP:RS. Sorry, but policy is policy. History2007 (talk) 18:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
No, sorry I must differ on that. WP:Ignore all rules makes it very clear that no rule is binding. I actually do not think we shoud ignore all rules absolutely, if this makes you feel any better. I think we should consider the spirit of the policies, and take them into consideration in our good faith discussion about how best to improve the article. We give a great deal of weight to consensus, and here we are discussing a paragraph that has expressed a very stable consensus for several years, and I do not think we should change it lightly or, as Lordshard did, without explanation and time for discussion. Misplaced Pages never claims to present all views. We do not have to provide fringe views or the views of non-experts. We atrive to provide all significant views. When distniguish between majority and minority views among significant views. The use of the word "most" signifies that among significant views this is a majority view. If you or Lordshard cannot provide an example of a significant view that says Jesus was not a healer, I just do not see any reasonable well-considered basis for suggesting that this is a minority view. That is disingenuous and misleading. Policies are not machines that autonatically dictate the right decision. We editors are responsible for reading the research, and discussing among ourselves which views are fringe, which are minority, which are majority, which are mainstream. Let's discuss who are the significant scholars and what their views are before making any changes, shall we? Slrubenstein | Talk19:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
So let me get this straight. Now you know that the statement your prefer "runs against WP:RS/AC" but are suggesting that WP:RS/AC is not binding and "should be ignored" based on WP:Ignore all rules? Wow... Is that what I am hearing now? And I am not at all prepared to ignore WP:RS/AC. It was the heart of LordShard's argument that started this. What is the use of policy if one is to ignore it as desired? I think policy must be followed, not ignored. History2007 (talk) 19:11, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Well, to "get this straight" I would ask you to read and comment on my entire comment and not just the first sentence. The reliable source you ant to follow is Koestenberger and I explained why you were misrepresenting Koestenberger as well as the other scholars you mentioned. I am sorry that you took this personally, I did not mean to offend you. But if your idea of WP/RS is to misrepresent sources, I just do not know how to move past this. Slrubenstein | Talk19:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
No, it is not that way at all. And I do not take talk pages seriously. It will be forgotten tomorrow. Bu I do not even want to add Koestenberger, nor do I need to. What I say is what LordShard said and what Cush said above: "you have no source" for the statement that "most scholars say Jesus was a healer". Per WP:RS/AC the absence of a source seals the fate of your desired statement. Simple. History2007 (talk) 19:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
There used to be a source with a far more explicit quote regarding "healer". I do not see that source any more. Sometimes the sources get moved to the wrong part of the sentence or paragraph.--JimWae (talk) 23:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
Ok, but I guess that was before my days. However, again without having to use this, I would remark that Chilton and Evans say that assigning major importance to paranormal acts performed by Jesus is not common within the historical Jesus discipline. And in fact in general the "only two" events considered historical by scholars in the life of Jesus are his baptism and crucifixion under Pilate, as the rest of the sentence says, as well as review articles in the body of the page. That is for sure. History2007 (talk) 00:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
The missing source did not say he was a healer, but that he was regarded as one. Wonder why he never said something about the germ theory of disease instead of perpetuating the view that disease was punishment/trial--JimWae (talk) 00:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I am not sure if I follow this germ story and its significance. Is that somehow some fundamental issue I am unaware of? But in any case, I do not see that as a key bullet point that should show up in the lede, in view of WP:Undue in any case and in view of the issue of historicity being a key element of the start of the lede. History2007 (talk) 00:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I thought I posted before, but I must have messed up somehow. Regardless it appears the consensus is to go with the proposed changes. LordShard (talk) 06:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I have provided a great many reliable sources saying that Jesus was a healer. You have a source saying that his "paranormal" activity was not of major significance (I am not sure that the paranormal activity refers specifically to his being a healer). If they actually say "healer," I have no objection to saying somewhere that some scholars do not consider his work as a healer to be of major importance. My point is only that a lare number of the most notable historians writing about Jesus say that he was a healer. Do not delete content from reliable sources, and do not misrepresent reliable sources. These sources are provided in the sentence in question. The paragraph in question reflects a longstanding stable consensus and two editors who wish to make a change do not equal a consensus. Moreover, a consensus must be based on reasoned discussion. I still have yet to see any reason for disregarding the views of Crossan, Ebeling, Fredricksen, Held, Hogan, E and ML Keller, Meier, Sanders, Theissen and Mertz, Twelftree, Vermes, and Weeden. Are you saying that they are not notable scholars? Slrubenstein | Talk15:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
e/c What I said was quote: 'What I say is what LordShard said and what Cush said above: "you have no source" for the statement that "most scholars say Jesus was a healer". Per WP:RS/AC the absence of a source seals the fate of your desired statement. Simple.' And I still say that. Now, FYI, page 105 of Powell's book Jesus as a figure in history says, quote: "Parting company with the majority of his colleagues in the Jesus Seminar (but in agreement with Crossan) Borg regarded the assertion that Jesus was a healer and an excorcist as virtually indisputable". So your desired statement is not only unsourced but runs against Powell. But again, I do not even need to use Powell, but I would remind you that you have no source for your desired statement, and it needs to be marked as "uncited" as the next step. History2007 (talk) 15:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Just skimming over this discussion, would the phrasing "many scholars seeing a third role as healer" instead of "most scholars" work? We have sources that show it's a pretty common idea. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
It is the case that a number of scholars see a "role as a healer", but not clear if it is the 3rd role or the 5th role or the 7th. There are roles as sage, philosopher, movement builder, etc. and I could also drop 1,000 scholar names,but will not. History2007 (talk) 15:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
You need to distinguish between things Jesus did, and the meaning of those things. You seem to think that these roles are competing rather than closely related. Slrubenstein | Talk21:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Also skimmining through this LONG discussion - maybe "many scholars see another of his roles as healer".
I think it is getting clear that "most scholars say Jesus was a healer" statement is on its way out, given that it has no source. The question will then be what will replace it, if any. History2007 (talk) 15:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
That is called progress. Now, given that the one of the two points that the two of us agreed on was that the Rabbi characterization is a NT item, and probably not subject to the quantification it receives in the lede, now that this issue is being discussed, I think we should deal with that too. My preference would be to either not mention it, or relegate it to a "many" qualifier, or even a "some" qualifier. Let us get opinions on that as well, and see. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 22:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I am glad we are making progress. I understand your policy concerns but (and I say this because i actually do believe that talk on talk pages is important) I think that one of your concerns is to distinguish the view that Jesus was baptized by John and crucified for sedition under orders of Pontius Pilate as two elements of the narrative that by far have the most support from critical historians, and I have no objection to this.
Concerning "rabbi," my preference would be to remove it entirely from the lead. We could add a note following the word "teacher" that explains that dyskalos is generally understood to mean teacher but is often translated as "rabbi" in contemporary editions of the New Testament. Or, we could add a paragraph to the section on Jesus according to the Gospels, where we explain this. Or both. I do not know of any critical historians who claim that Jesus was a "rabbi" but if you have read a thousand works on Jesus I will defer to your knowledge on this issue - I just want to distinguish between a word that is chosen by NT translators, versus a claim that has actually been made by historians or scholars in books or journal articles. This is why I am uncomfortable with the "many" qualifier - I do not know of many or even any historians who claim he was a rabbi, to my knowledge this is only a translation decision and we should distinguish between the choices of translators and the arguments of historians. But if you know of historians who do say he was (among other things) a rabbi, then we can say some or many and provide the citations.
If there are any historians who say that one of his roles or titles was rabbi, then I think it is important to add (in the main text or in a note) what they actually understand the word to mean, because whatever it meant in the year 30, I think it came to mean something else between 200 - 600, and this needs to be acknowledged somewhere. From what I know, there may have been a time when "rabbi" was a colloquial expression of respect - but it also meant a legal authority within Pharisaic/Rabbinic Judaism, a legal authority recognized by other legal authorities (rather than one's disciples or students) and today it is the second meaning that is the primary meaning among Jews. So it is not just a matter of how many people hold this view, and who (e.g. translator or etymologist or historian or some other kind of scholar) holds this view, it is also a question of what they mean by "rabbi." Slrubenstein | Talk15:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Ok, but we are going to have a "heated agreement" on that one now. I also think Rabbi does not fit, and moreover we have no source that says it does as it is in the lede now. But before moving on it, let us get another opinion at least. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 15:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
It's been 10 days and this fairly simple and trivial change is still suck in a bureaucratic quagmire? I think it will not happen at all at this rate. LordShard (talk) 05:20, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Wait until Sunday please. In the next 2 days I will get the material together so we can talk about it. Look here on Saturday. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 08:45, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
The untranslated Hebrew/Aramaic words ραββι ραββουνι occur in the Greek New Testament, not always used in a positive way (Matthew 23:7)... AnonMoos (talk) 14:15, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but we were trying to have those items that are subject to wide scholarly agreement. NT content is not necessarily historically accepted by scholars at large, except the two key events of baptism and crucifixion. I have been intending to make a list of those items that are considered "scholarly accepted labels" of which healer is one, and list them here... I will do it soon. History2007 (talk) 15:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Not entirely sure what the point of that is -- if we want to know the attitudes of the earliest Christians towards the title "rabbi" (and slight variants), then the New Testament is the only real evidence available... AnonMoos (talk) 20:09, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
Actually many scholars combine elements they see as possibly historical in the NT with other external and background factors to arrive at conclusions. The NT alone is never enough for historical conclusions. As I said above, I will gather some material by tomorrow so it can be discussed. History2007 (talk) 16:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
I have now clarified the 3 stages of the Quest for historical Jesus and how NT accounts are at times supplemented, and at times rejected by various scholars as they construct their "portraits of Jesus". Next step will be to address the various "building blocks" they use in their portraits, e.g. healer, preacher, reformer, etc. As a summary, that should not take much space either. A longer discussion for those can be added to the historical Jesus pages, but probably not this weekend. History2007 (talk) 11:14, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
Based on the discussion above, we need to separate "most scholars" from the other items. I have clarified the portraits of Jesus in the historical analysis section to show that after the Quests there are various overlapping attributes - with no total agreement on the mix of attributes. And the point that both LordShard and Cush made was that we need to explicitly say if scholars agree that he existed or not, then state the attributes. So we may try:
That is pretty well referenced and is well supported y the body of the article, per WP:LEDE. I think it may also be worth adding:
Scholars also contend that given the scarcity of historical sources, it is generally difficult to construct a portrait of Jesus that can be considered historically valid beyond the basic elements of his life.
At the moment we have a sentence beginning, "Most critical historian agree ... ," in the Lead which is sourced to Bart D Ehrman's Lost Christianities, the Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew. Below, I've quoted the relevant passage from the book and argued that the statement sourced from it misrepresents what the book says. One of the ways that it may misrepresent is the statement that Jesus was a rabbi, a historical anomaly perhaps, as it rather implies that Jesus was part of the system created by the Pharisees, of which sect there's no real evidence that Jesus was a member, which was in its infancy at the time. ← ZScarpia18:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
"Most critical historians agree ... ," in the Lead must not include the "faith healer" reference. Only Christians and people who think faith healing actually works could possibly assign such a profession to Jesus. Other than the Bible, which is conjectural, there are no sources to indicate Jesus' factual behavior. "Most critical historians" is a weasel phrase anyways: non-critical historians are not historians to begin with and it has not been demonstrated that "most historians" (i.e. > 2/3 of all historians in the world) come to such a conclusion. "healer" must be derived from demonstrable medical expertise, while "faith healer" rather indicates a charlatan. ♆ CUSH ♆07:12, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
The new text does not have that problem, as above. And I agree that healer should not link to faith healer, given that the sources do not say faith-healer. History2007 (talk) 09:08, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Sorry on the accidental rollback, something on my watchlist popped up asking if I want to encourage university professors blah blah and moved everything down after I already tried to click a different link. :\ Ian.thomson (talk) 08:18, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I repeat that the long-standing text does not say historians agree Jesus WAS a healer but that he was regarded as one. See http://www.preventingtruthdecay.org/jesusmiracles.shtml for details on who agrees. I do agree that "rabbi" could be misleading & that preacher/teacher does the job. I am not sure if we have enough to say "most", but certainly "many". Removing (regarded as a) healer (from the description of Jesus) would give an adequate picture of neither the historical nor biblical context. --JimWae (talk) 08:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Actually the suggestion is not to remove healer, but to remove Rabbi, and add a couple of other items as well as healer, given that healer is not the "only characterization" provided by scholars and should not get to be there alone all by itself. Thus:
This solves all of those issues, and is supported by the body of the article. And as Cush pointed out healer should not link to "faith healer" given that it implies charlatan, and the sources say healer, not faith healer. As is the existing lede is not supported by references or the body of the article, and will need to be tagged. I would prefer to fix it rather than tag it. History2007 (talk) 09:17, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Jesus: A Palestinian Jew
Jesus was ethnically a Palestinian Jew, from Galilee.
(1) 'In the time of the definitive redaction of the Gospel, the differentiation of two groups of indigenous Palestinians, the Jews and the young community of the Christians, had become a fact.' Georges Augustin Barrois - Jesus Christ and the temple St Vladimir’s Seminary Press1980 p,154
2)Much is made today of pre-Pauline hellenistic Christianity, whether pre-Pauline hellenistic Jewish or pre-Pauline hellenistic Gentile. To this category all concepts that manifestly antedate Paul but are judged too advanced for native Palestinians (Jesus and his disciples) are assigned; . .Rather than building hellenistic castles in the air, this work will centre its attention upon Palestinian foundations.’ Richard N. Longenecker - The Christology of Early Jewish Christianity (1970 SCM) Regent College reprint2001 p.8 n.15
(3) Those events and that teaching would have meant much to the dozens of Palestinian Jews we call the early apostles. . . .Could any of those who were not familiar with Jesus in his native Palestine have been totally incurious about his public life and teaching, what manner of man he was that some had thought him intimately related to God and others wanted him dead.?’ Gerard S. Sloyan, Jesus: Word made flesh, Liturgical Press, 2008 p.40
(4) Jesus’ rejection of divorce outright would have offended practically everyone of His day. Further, Jesus’ view that the single state was a legitimate and not abnormal calling for those to whom it was given, went against prevailing views in various parts of the Roman Empire about a man's duty to marry and procreate, but nowhere more so than in His native Palestine.’ Ben Witherington 111, Women in the Ministry of Jesus: A Study of Jesus' Attitudes to Women and and Their Roles As Reflected in His Earthly Life, Cambridge University Press 1987 p.125
(5) The earliest church was not entirely homogeneous culturally. Acts 6 indicates that almost from the beginning two groups existed.: the Hebrews and the Hellenists. Most scholars conclude that the Hebrews were primarily Aramaic-speaking Jews and native Palestinian in dress. The Hellenists were on the other hand Jews that had .. adopted Greek as their language as well as Greek dress and customs David A. Fiensy, New Testament Introduction, College Press p.167
(6) 'Jesus, a Jew of First-Century Palestine.' Frederick James Murphy, The religious world of Jesus: an introduction to Second Temple Palestinian Judaism, Abingdon Press1991 p.311
(7) 'As I examined these scenes again, I could find none where Jesus directly challenged the forces occupying his native Palestine.' Virginia Stem Owens, Looking for Jesus, Westminster John Knox Press 1999 p.250
8) 'Jesus, and the message that he preached to the people of his native Palestine, was truly prophetic,' Joseph Stoutzenberger, Celebrating sacraments, St Mary’s Press, 2000 p.286
(9) As a man, he (Jesus) traveled throughout his native Palestine teaching the word of God (see Sermon on the Mount), healing the sick,and performing miracles.’ Eric Donald Hirsch, Joseph F. Kett, James S. Trefil,The new dictionary of cultural literacy, Houghton Mifflin 2002 p.12
(10) ‘The Bultmann era of New Testament scholarship did not encourage research into the Palestinian background of either Jesus or his movement’ (citing Freyne) Morten H. Jensen, The Literary and Archaeological Sources on the Reign of Herod Antipas and its Socio-Economic Impact on Galilee, Mohr Siebeck 2010 p.5
(11) The "influence" of Sal terrae and Lux Mundi seems to have originated, as ideas, with the Palestinian Jesus. Eric Francis Fox Bishop, Jesus of Palestine: the local background to the Gospel documents, Lutterworth Press 1955 p.73
(12) But of all the traditions to which Jesus and his Palestinian disciples would have been exposed, the most influential would naturally have been the Jewish.' John Davidson,The gospel of Jesus: in search of his original teachings, 2005 p.177.
(13) 'We can say that Jesus was a Palestinian Jew who lived during the reign of Emperor Tiberius.' Christopher Gilbert,A Complete Introduction to the Bible, Paulist Press 2009 p.187
(14) 'Jesus was a Palestinian Jew; Paul was a Jew of the diaspora.' William Baird,History of New Testament Research, Fortress Press, 2002 p.260
(15a)‘Jesus was a first-century Palestinian Jew. .His faith in God was nurtured within the context of a Jewish home and family, within the context of first-century Palestinian Judaism.’ p.30
(15b)'Catholic sacraments have their foundation in the preaching and teaching ministry of Jesus of Nazareth a first-century Palestinian Jew.' Gregory L. Klein, Robert A. Wolfe,Pastoral foundations of the Sacraments: a Catholic perspective, 1998 p.32
(16) 'Born in Bethlehem, Jesus was a Palestinian Jew,' George Kaniarakath,Jesus Christ: a Meditative Introduction, Society of St Paul, Bombay 2008
(17) 'Jesus, like many Palestinian Jews,..' Chuck Colson, Norm Geisler, Ted Cabal, The Apologetics Study Bible, 2007 p.1481 on Mark 7:35
(18) 'The title Kurios applied to Jesus by the Palestinian disciples,' David B. Capes, Old Testament Yahweh texts in Paul's christology, Mohr Siebeck, Tuebingen 1992 p.13
(19) 'The reader also will notice the new beatitude generated by Palestinian Jesus culture—'Blessed is whoever is not scandalized by me' (Matt. 11.4/Luke 7.22).' Vernon Kay Robbins, The tapestry of early Christian discourse, 1996 p.140
(20) 'How did Jesus relate to Palestinian Judaism and how was he different from other Palestinian Jews?' Mark Allan Powell, Jesus as a figure in history, Westerminster John Knox Press, 1998 p.170
(21) 'Christianity was at first essentially a sect of Palestinian Jews who believed Jesus was the Messiah.' Kathryn Muller Lopez, Glenn Jonas, Donald N. Penny, (eds.)Christianity: A Biblical, Historical, and Theological Guide, Mercer University Press, 2010 p.115 Lazyfoxx (talk) 02:19, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
You make it abundantly clear that you don't understand the basis of the argument against calling Jesus a Palestinian. You linked Palestinian Jew to Palestinian People in a Wikilink. Palestinian people is not being used the same way as your sources.Luke 19 Verse 27 (talk) 02:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I fully understand Luke, it's you that clearly does not understand semantics. Yes I linked Palestinian Jew to Palestinian people, because Palestinians are Jews, and Christians, and Muslims, historically and modernly. It is being used the same way, to describe an ethnic Palestinians who have ancestry from Palestine. If you wish to further debate, we shall remove Jesus' current "Jewish" ethnicity on the page until we can come to a consensus. Lazyfoxx (talk) 03:10, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I do not see an easy solution to this discussion, given that I think it is a "surrogate debate" for a somewhat larger socio-political issue. I have no personal position on the matter, except that I know apart from getting high blood pressure, participation in this debate will achieve nothing. Furthermore, given that this is a totally peripheral issue to this page, I suggest the discussion should take place elsewhere, where the participants have no doubt been debating each other before. And per WP:Forum I suggest a suspension of the discussion here. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 03:12, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I do not mind either way on the ethnicity issue, but soon the whole page will have to blank that way if everyone wants to blank everything they want to debate. I think the page should go back to what it was before all this and you guys can come back in 2 years after you have settled it elsewhere. Else please call him to settle it, although I doubt if he will succeed. And you are not debating that Jesus was Jewish, your aim is to narrow it down. Hence the information you removed is actually "correct", per our own edit summary. The debate seems to be at Talk:Palestinian people and should be centralized there, not spread across pages. One can not blank page entries just due to a peripheral debate from another page. History2007 (talk) 03:27, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, reverting Lazyfoxx - this page had consensus - and completely agree with History2007's comments above. (Doesn't mean happy with Luke 19:27's edits and incidentally Luke 19:27 is a pretty aggressive verse to pick as a User name). In ictu oculi (talk) 03:49, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I kind of like Lazyfoxx's 2nd edit. No need to comment on ethnicity. There is no need for an infobox even, and all the information inside of it is contraversial. I really like the picture choice, though.
P.S. In ictu oculi I like the imagery of Luke 19:27. The table-flippin' Jesus is my favorite Jesus.
e/c I only comment on the use of the word "controversial". That is certainly not the case regarding the statement about the date ranges for birth and death as supported by many references in the article, neither is the fact that he was born in Judea, nor that the home town of "Jesus of Nazareth" was Nazareth. The information in the box is subject to "widespread" scholarly agreement. The only reason the current mayhem started is the overspill of the socio-political debate taking place on the page for Palestinian people. That debate should take place there, not spread elsewhere out of frustration. That will just increase the amount of energy wasted on that debate, not decrease it. History2007 (talk) 10:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
The point is that you already accept the "Jewish" label which has been there for long. I do not even remember the Palestenian label being discussed in the past 2 years. It seems like a new issue. In any case you guys can discuss that for ever and a day but do not revert In ictu oculi. History2007 (talk) 10:23, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Facts previously stated do not accept the sole Jewish label for Jesus' ethnicity and I'll tell you why. There are countless sources I have provided that show Jesus as a Palestinian Jew, a member of the Palestinian people, a Palestinian historical figure. But only the one source on this page stating that he is Jewish. Jesus is more specifically a Palestinian Jew, and to disavow him as that, disavows the Palestinian people and their History. Misplaced Pages is for facts, not personal agendas that would seek to ignore the history of an entire people. Lazyfoxx (talk) 10:32, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I am sorry to break the news here. Misplaced Pages is not about facts, but about verifiability, per WP:V. And again, I am not going to enter into a recent political debate. History2007 (talk) 10:35, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Misplaced Pages is not about facts huh? Misplaced Pages's mission statement "The mission of the Wikimedia Foundation is to empower and engage people around the world to collect and develop educational content..." Hm...Educational content, that seems like facts to me...unless you would like to educate people with statements that are not fact? That seems a little counter-intuitive, don't you think? Lazyfoxx (talk) 10:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I do not set Wiki-policies, just follow them. Please read the talk page on WP:V and will see the loooong debate there. On that note, please read WP:3RR as well. History2007 (talk) 10:49, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Even if we are only discussing Verifiability, I have shown 20 verifiable sources stating that Jesus was a Palestinian Jew, there are countless more out there in the world, because it is a fact, one that many users here on Misplaced Pages would like to ignore due to their Ethno-Political Agendas. Lazyfoxx (talk) 10:54, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't understand the resistance here to the description of Jesus as Palestinian when there are hundreds of sources that say this is so. Its a verifiable fact. Those opposing its inclusion have to give a compelling reason, rooted in our policies and guidelines, as to why we should censor this majority viewpoint from the article. Making vague illusions to ethno-political agendas or socio-political battles isn't a counterargument to the sources presented above. If there are sources that take issue with Jesus being described as Palestinian, please present them. We can include all significant viewpoints on his identity. But we cannot exclude a widespread one just because people are afriad of the political implications. Tiamut11:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Look, even a blind person can see that this discussion, and the proposed edit is "not about improving this Misplaced Pages page". It is the spillover from political grievances being discussed elsewhere. I do not take side on the politics. But Misplaced Pages is not the place to discuss political grievances. Please take your issues to this organization and discuss them there. History2007 (talk) 11:39, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I don't want to sound like History2007's echo but again he's spot on. ::Hi Tiamut, I cannot speak for everyone but my own personal "resistance" is to a geopolitical hot potato from elsewhere on Misplaced Pages spilling over to this article when very few WP:RS related to this article subject will have "Palestinian Jew" or even state the obvious that Jesus was Jewish. I just tested that doing a GB search with "Raymond Brown" as a fairly mainstream variable reducer:
The American ecclesiastical review: Volume 169 Herman Joseph Heuser, Catholic University of America - 1975 As Raymond Brown indicates: when we ask whether during his ministry Jesus, a Palestinian Jew, knew that he was God, we are asking whether he identified himself and the Father — and, of course, he did not ..
New Catholic world: Volumes 219-221 1976 As exegete Raymond Brown is so fond of saying, "He was a Galilean Jew of the first third of the first century." If Jesus came as a native, then the good news is meant to go native wherever it goes.' ..
This above discussion, some of it, just looks, to me anyway, like an excuse to unproductively editwar and add zero of value to a Misplaced Pages article that is not related to the geopolitics going on about these terms elsewhere on Misplaced Pages... In ictu oculi (talk) 11:43, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi In ictu occuli. I've seen your contribs elsewhere and while I haven't always agreed with you, I've always respected your approach. I do think its a little unfair to characterize people's interest in this subject as purely geopolitical. for some editors, Palestinian isn't a loaded word and they are genuine in their desire to see our articles reflect the terminology used in scholarship, even if they may be sympathetic to the Palestinian cause.
I didn't really understand your comment though (forgive my ignorance) and eould appreciate if you can restate? Tiamut13:07, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
But these are not the only political groups. I do not even look at the political pages in any detail, but there are many out there. And if the door is opened to this becoming like a TV talk show on current politics, it will no longer be an encyclopedia but either a "social network" or should I say "anti-social network".... History2007 (talk) 11:47, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Just one day. I will do it. But I have a feeling this type of political issue will continue across Misplaced Pages until everyone gets exhausted, then "community backlash" will set in and the issue will settle, and those pushing for political issues will even be set further back than when they started... History2007 (talk) 12:13, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Before this nonsense started? Really? You call it nonsense because it has been realized that there are fallacies on this page which need to be addressed? You have no problem identifying Jesus solely as Jewish. Editors on this page time and again wish to ignore that he was a Native of Palestine, a Palestinian Jew. He is a significant if not the most significant figure in Palestinian history, and on his personal Page it is not even mentioned once that he was a Palestinian Jew, there is definitely something wrong with that. Lazyfoxx (talk) 19:06, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
@Lazyfoxx OK, you have played enough. This is not your private soapbox. Please desist from propagating this absurd nonsense any further. Maybe it is even time to open up a RfC.
This is an encyclopedia and you cannot use or abuse proper names as you see fit. Although Palaestina/Φιλισταία and variations and translations thereof is a name used in various meanings throughout ancient history, none covers what you push as some nationality or ethnicity or geographical place of origin of a historical Jesus. And the term "Palestinian" is exclusively used to refer to an Arab living in or descending from someone living in the former British mandate territory of Palestine, especially after 1967 when Jordan and Egypt renounced their claims to what are now the Palestinian territories. Neither in Greek, Roman, Byzantine, or Turkish times where inhabitants of Palestine called "Palestinians" (or the translation thereof in the respective language). There is no such thing as a "Palestinian Jew" in the time conventionally assigned to Jesus. ♆ CUSH ♆21:55, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Without discussing the references etc. I would again comment that this is not a debate about sources, but a "surrogate debate" about a current political issue that needs to be addressed at the United Nations, not within Misplaced Pages, per WP:Forum, as stated before. History2007 (talk) 22:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
What? This has nothing to do whatsoever with any current political issue. This has to do with usage of names in the historical context of the land between the Jordan and the Mediterranean at the time assigned to Jesus, approximately six BCE to thirty-something CE. Find contemporary Aramaic, Greek, or Latin sources that call anybody living in the area at that time a "Palestinian" in the respective language, but of course there are no such sources because at the time such a designation would have been conveying no information whatsoever. The Philistines were already gone and the Romans had not yet renamed Idumaea and Iudaea into Palaestina. Geographical or political designations cannot be used out of historical context. Case closed.
Oh, and the UN does not determine the usage of names in ancient times. Historians, Archaeologists, and Linguists do. ♆ CUSH ♆22:53, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
No need to let that nonsense spill over here any further, though. It's rather time to award a few temporary editing bans to allow some heads to cool down. ♆ CUSH ♆22:58, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Just a note/heads up: I walked into the 1RR trap 2 days ago since there's an active arbitration enforcement concerning anything related to Palestinians; so — if this goes on for longer, an administrator could very well decide that Jesus is now part of said arbitration and block people without warning. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az8655623:16, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
I guess that is called "community backlash". Misplaced Pages should not be an "anti-social media" website. So we should just stop debate on the political items. History2007 (talk) 23:21, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
There are enough users opposing my sources and factual edit that you think it will just evaporate away by itself, really History2007? Will it "evaporate" away just like the Israeli's agenda would like the Palestinian history and people to? For your information there are many users on here that supported my edit, see the Palestinian talk page, which was completely factual and is supported by countless more sources than the current one source being used on this page...The lack of accepting the truth on these pages is astounding in itself, being an American, I am exposed to this type of bias on a daily basis through the various media outlets and personal accounts and have talked to many people from both the Israeli POV and the Palestinian POV of the current political agendas in the region, keeping a neutral point of view and displaying and researching facts when need be has always been my top belief. Hopefully someday Misplaced Pages will have more users that have learned how to not put their bias before facts and reliable sources that are provided to them, therefore to not show bias whether they be indirect of direct. Lazyfoxx (talk) 07:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
If you feel you are the subject of bias/discrimination in your daily life, please contact the ACLU. Misplaced Pages is not the venue for that discussion per WP:Forum. Hence I will stop on this now. History2007 (talk) 13:52, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
History, when did I say that I was personally the subject of bias/discrimination? You did not read what I wrote in my last statement correctly, I suggest you re-read it, I clearly stated that I was exposed to it, as in I have gained an understanding from repeatedly seeing it performed by others, not that I have been personally a subject of the matter. Stop talking in circles, Misplaced Pages is the place people come to find verifiable information. The fact that Jesus was Jewish is a verifiable fact, just as the fact that he was ethnically a Palestinian Jew is verifiable information. That information improves the article by giving the reader background information about who Jesus was related to, Palestinians, and where he lived, Palestine. Lazyfoxx (talk) 22:59, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
Strongly oppose intruding the word "Palestinian" into the lead section or the infobox, since this seems to be based solely on an illegitimate conflation or confusion between the modern meaning of "Palestinian" (as an ethnic, cultural, and political term which refers almost exclusively to Arabs) and a technical scholarly use of "Palestinian" as a narrow geographical term (not ethnic or cultural) to refer to non-Arab peoples of ancient times. Nishidani can assemble 500 numbered bullet points, but if they don't actually address the main issue of whether there is any substantial connection or continuity between the narrow technical geographic scholarly meaning vs. the modern political/ethnic meaning, then all 500 of them will be completely irrelevant and useless for this discussion. In fact, the meaning of "Palestinian" to refer to Arabs only did not become familiar among the publics of English-speaking nations until the 1960s; before that time, "Palestinian" had referred to both Jews and Arabs of the British Mandate territory (the Jerusalem Post was known as the "Palestine Post" until 1950, etc. etc.).
The use of the word "Palestine" in the infobox isn't as tendentious and quasi-revisionist as the use of the word "Palestinian" would be, but it's unfortunately semi-anachronistic, since the name of the Roman province of Judaea wasn't changed to Palaestina until ca. 135 A.D. ( a century after the death of Jesus). Before ca. 135 A.D., the word Palaestina (Latin) / Παλαιστινη (Greek) often tended to refer to the coastal plain (i.e. old "Philistia"), and it seems to be those who were remote from the area, or knew little about it who most often extended the meaning of the term to cover inland hilly areas such as Judea and Galilee (Pausanias refers to Judea as being "above" Palestine, not "in" it). The word Παλαιστινη does not occur in the text of the Greek New Testament, and it's most unlikely that Jesus would have referred to himself as being a "Palestinian"... AnonMoos (talk) 03:32, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Lazyfox your arguments (I haven't read them all yet) are a muddle. When the English speaking sources refer to Jesus as a 'Palestinian' - they mean that he was someone living in the area that was known (incidentally only after Jesus's death), as Syria Palestine. Whereas the meaning of the word 'Palestinian', as it is used today (in 2012), refers to the Arabic speaking populations of that same (Roman-named) area. The meaning of the words has changed over the last 50 odd years, and they are therefore now being used in a different way. From a strictly academic point of view, scholars would be laughing at us if we introduced that confusion into the article. Avaya1 (talk) 01:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Jewish (Ioudaioi)
Further to my edit, if we're going to have an "ethnicity" for Jesus in the infobox (see infobox discussion above), let's at least clarify the subtle differences between the word today and the word "Jewish" back then. The ethnic label Jews has been debated ad nauseum on this page in the past - I assume most here are aware of the issues so I will not rehash, other than to summarise that the objections center around whether Jesus was Jewish in the way the word is commonly used today (i.e. a follower of Rabbinic Judaism as codified in the Mishnah and Talmud). RS are clear that "Jew" is a very common descriptor for Jesus, so on this basis I agree with the historical consensus here that the term is appropriate as a starting point for this wiki page. My reservation is that it is meaningfully "oversimplistic" for such an important descriptor. Hence my suggestion that we add a bracketed clarifier so that the box shows "Jewish (Ioudaioi)". This additional word would be a reasonable balance, in that with a simple one word wikilink we take the whole issue off the table, directing future debates about what it meant to be Jewish at the time of Jesus to another more appropriate page. Oncenawhile (talk) 10:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
No, that would not be correct. There is no scholarly agreement beyond the term "Jewish". Any addition to that term would be a deviation from the general scholarly view, and per WP:RS/AC can not be used as the general state of scholarship. In her summary of modern scholarship (reference 366 in this article), in The Historical Jesus in Context 2006 ISBN 0691009929 on page 10 Amy-Jill Levine states quote: "Beyond recognizing that 'Jesus was Jewish' rarely does scholarship address what being 'Jewish' means." So the label Jewish is accepted by scholars in general, but going beyond that is not. The situation is simple, and needs no fanfare. History2007 (talk) 11:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
No Scholarly agreement beyond the term "Jewish", really? There is scholarly agreement that Jesus was a Judaism practicing Palestinian Jew. Here's just a few of the sources already cited before in case you have forgotten. Lazyfoxx (talk) 23:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
(1) 'We can say that Jesus was a Palestinian Jew who lived during the reign of Emperor Tiberius.' Christopher Gilbert,A Complete Introduction to the Bible, Paulist Press 2009 p.187
(2) 'Jesus was a Palestinian Jew; Paul was a Jew of the diaspora.' William Baird,History of New Testament Research, Fortress Press, 2002 p.260
(3)‘Jesus was a first-century Palestinian Jew. .His faith in God was nurtured within the context of a Jewish home and family, within the context of first-century Palestinian Judaism.’ p.30 (15b)'Catholic sacraments have their foundation in the preaching and teaching ministry of Jesus of Nazareth a first-century Palestinian Jew.' Gregory L. Klein, Robert A. Wolfe,Pastoral foundations of the Sacraments: a Catholic perspective, 1998 p.32
(4) 'Born in Bethlehem, Jesus was a Palestinian Jew,' George Kaniarakath,Jesus Christ: a Meditative Introduction, Society of St Paul, Bombay 2008
(5) 'Jesus, like many Palestinian Jews,..' Chuck Colson, Norm Geisler, Ted Cabal, The Apologetics Study Bible, 2007 p.1481 on Mark 7:35
(6) 'The title Kurios applied to Jesus by the Palestinian disciples,' David B. Capes, Old Testament Yahweh texts in Paul's christology, Mohr Siebeck, Tuebingen 1992 p.13 Lazyfoxx (talk) 23:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I read the source "Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium by Bart D. Ehrman 1999", especially page 164, which is currently being used by some editors on this page to assert Jesus as solely Jewish, but to what I expected, when reading through the book I came across many instances where the book describes Jesus as a Jew in the context of his religion, but him and his people as Palestinian Jews regarding ethnicity and history. As well as his disciples not as solely Jewish but as a Palestinian Jews. A couple of the many instances,
"...Important enough for Josephus to mention, though not as important, say, as John the Baptist or many other Palestinian Jews who were considered to be prophets at the time..." P.62
"But the historical events leading up to his time are significant for understanding his life because of their social and intellectual consequences, which affected the lives of all Palestinian Jews." P. 107 Lazyfoxx (talk) 00:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Actually what any single scholar says is not relevant to the "over all academic consensus". Some may say he was Norwegian, some may say Brazilian - that matters not if there is no "direct statement" regarding academic consensus. Per WP:RS/AC the over consensus (or lack thereof) needs to be directly stated by a reference. Misplaced Pages editors can "not" perform their own survey of the field to determine the consensus. Amy-Jill Levine directly states the lack of academic consensus beyond the term Jewish and her book is a Princeton Univ book, and fully WP:RS. Per WP:RS/AC all we can do is accept the lack of academic consensus beyond the term Jewish. Pretty simple. History2007 (talk) 03:37, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi History2007, of course, I'm just trying to ascertain if Lazyfox has any understanding of what language like this means from a scholar of 1st Century rather than 21st Century contexts. Could you do the honours and revert Lazyfox's latest back to the article status quo? In ictu oculi (talk) 03:43, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
It was pointed out above that there is a Wiki-wide 1RR regarding anything Palestenian. And it appears that LazyFoxx is determined to get on the train to block-land. I will wait for almost a day then revert him, just to be on the safe side. However, I think someone else may revert him in any case before then. LazyFoxx's edit is not going to stand, neither is a WP:TE approach here, about which I will leave him a message. History2007 (talk) 03:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Right, understood. Perhaps if it's confirmed that that is applied here we need to add a permanent warning at the Talk page header to prevent good faith edits reverting this sort of stuff getting snared. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Oncenawhile -- the purpose of an infobox is really not to raise issues which need to be explained at length and placed into a meaningful context, in a manner which is impossible within the confines of the infobox itself (see discussion in previous infobox section above). It's to give a convenient tabular summary of important facts which can be clearly understood even when presented very briefly. It's my firm conviction that anything which raises many more questions than it answers, or cannot be properly understood without a somewhat lengthy exposition, should be omitted from the infobox... AnonMoos (talk) 03:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to hear AnonoMoos restatement of whether the ethnicity tag is needed.
But Lazyfox - please stop edit warring - as regards this 02:30, 8 March 2012 Lazyfoxx edit summary - "If we are to retain a neutral POV the ethnicity section must be removed until the subject is agreed upon by the current consensus.)" (undo) ...I don't think you understand how WP:Consensus works - it doesn't mean you have to agree. Various sources give various qualifying geographical adjectives - Galilean, Judean, Palestinian, "of the Land", but these isn't consensus here for anything but the way the page was last week. In ictu oculi (talk) 04:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Lazyfoxx -- he was not a convert to Judaism or a children of converts to Judaism, so I don't see what the objection to describing him as ethnically Jewish (technically "Israelite") is... I don't know whether it's important to include ethnicity in the infobox, but his being ethnically Jewish seems to be far more solidly-based and factual than his being "Palestinian"... AnonMoos (talk) 04:09, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
As stated above, nothing beyond the "Jewish" label can apply given no academic consensus beyond "Jewish" in a general sense. History2007 (talk) 04:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Because there is no academic consensus for anything beyond Jewish, be it Palestinian or Norwegian. You have been told this enough times. Now I will stop. And please do read WP:TE. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 05:01, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Don't accuse me of that, it is quite clear where the bias lies on these pages, it's a true David and Goliath story. Lazyfoxx (talk) 05:05, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
That statement indicates that you realize the consensus is against your edit. Hence please accept that Misplaced Pages works by consensus, and let us move on. History2007 (talk) 05:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
I'd be more interested to see a consensus of all the editors on the Jesus Christ as well as Palestinian/Israeli pages rather than the few of you posting, who I have noticed may or may not have agendas agreeing with eachother. *cough* *cough*. Lazyfoxx (talk) 05:59, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
In any case, someone else reverted you now. However, I think the Infobox could say "Background = Jewish" instead of "Ethnicity" if there is a label for it, so we can move on. I requested that field for the Infobox person, and once it becomes available we can just change it to "Background= Jewish" and be done with this saga. History2007 (talk) 09:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
Lazyfox your arguments (I haven't read them all yet) are a muddle. When the English sources refer to Jesus as a 'Palestinian' - they mean that he was someone living in the area that was known (incidentally only after Jesus's death), as Syria Palestine. Whereas the meaning of the word 'Palestinian', as it is used today (in 2012), refers to the Arabic speaking populations of that same (Roman-named) area. A area that was only named that a century after Jesus died. The meaning of the words has changed over the last 50 odd years, and they are therefore now being used in a different way. From a strictly academic point of view, scholars would be laughing at us if we introduced that confusion into the article. Avaya1 (talk) 01:27, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Weasel tag
Cush, please provide a "complete list" of the weasel words you tagged about so they can be addressed one by one. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 08:36, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
You know, all the "most scholars", and "some scholars" etc. The entire article is written so vaguely that it seems pretty obvious that there is no factual knowledge contained that would be presentable in an encyclopedia. The article is based almost solely on religious interpretations. But this article is about a person that possibly existed, not about claims made by various religions about said person. And as I have stated before, the Bible is not a reliable source about the factual existence Jesus.
What bugs me the most is the use of the word "scholars" which lumps together historians and archaeologists (which are real scientists) with theologians (which are religionists with no contribution to fact-finding whatsoever). History is established by historians and archaeologists, not by theologians ("biblical scholars"). And there are too many religious=subjective editors involved here. ♆ CUSH ♆13:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree on the "most scholars", some scholars item, and as above, there is a suggested fix for that which I think should be just applied. The new paragraph which has minor changes, addresses that issue, as in the section above. Regarding the use of "scholars" as it happens many of those who are historians that relate to the topic also study biblical items. Perhaps a comparison should be made to the articles on Buddha, Moses and Muhammad. Those three articles are roughly the same length as this one, and have a similar flow, and any historians who could write about Buddha need to be able to read Sanskrit and they could be viewed as Buddhist scholars etc. And although a few archaeologists are involved in these issue, most of the items are textual, so archaeologists usually play a smaller role. And if you buy books on this topic, you will find them written mostly by the professors referenced here. History2007 (talk) 14:45, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
"The entire category of ethnicity is itself fraught with with difficulty"
Above, History2007 used a quote from Amy-Jill Levine to support his view that we should not explain what we mean when we say that Jesus was ethincally "Jewish" (in the infobox and in the Language, race and appearance section. I have had a look at the quote in its full context:
"In light of the Holocaust, the Jewishness of Jesus increasingly has been highlighted (ideological pressure and historical-critical rigor need not be mutually exclusive). However, beyond recognizing that “Jesus was Jewish,” rarely does the scholarship address what being “Jewish” means (aside from a connection to Mary's ethnic group—and here we might note, as well, that the entire category of ethnicity is itself fraught with with difficulty)."
It was misleading to the debate to have left out two key sentences: (1) "ideological pressure and historical-critical rigor need not be mutually exclusive" and (2) "the entire category of ethnicity is itself fraught with with difficulty". These statements underline that the use of the term Jewish to refer to Jesus needs proper contextualizing, as it is easily misinterpreted. For example, is it obvious what we mean by "ethnicity"? Ethnicity today means something very different to ethos two thousand years ago. And being a Jew today means something very different to Ioudaioi two thousand years ago.
All I am suggesting is a word or link to allow readers to find out more if they think appropriate. History, how strongly do you feel about this? Oncenawhile (talk) 20:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
I think the "the entire category of ethnicity is itself fraught with with difficulty" is a valid and sourced statement. Do I know the ethnicity of Jesus? Not a chance. Do I care about his ethnicity? Not at all. What he taught was not dependent on his ethnicity, and the New Testament as a whole is totally free of racial overtones, as the article states. But what I think matters not. A separate, and obvious, item to note however is that many groups like to claim Jesus as having their ethnicity, the Nazis wanted him to be Aryan, others want him otherwise. And according to the most reliable source of all (Misplaced Pages) he was from the far east, and Misplaced Pages could no be wrong, could it. But jokes aside, what Levine's statement says is that scholarship can not agree on the ethnicity of Jesus. So once there is no agreement among scholars, all we can do is avoid any label on his ethnicity. I have asked at the Infobox Person for a tag that avoids the word ethnicity and just says "background" and we just need to wait for that to become available. And again, I really think this whole issue of Jesus was of our race is not about encyclopedic content, but a surrogate debate about the "establishment of an ethnic identity" for the claimant group, not for Jesus. And Misplaced Pages is not the venue for that. History2007 (talk) 21:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Hi History, thanks for your thoughtful response. I think we are agreed at the heart of what we are both saying. Personally I disagree that "background" is any better than "ethnicity" - if anything it is even more vague. At least I have some idea what ethnicity means, but background could mean many things. Separately, when referring to Jesus' Jewish background, are you ok if we refer somewhere, or at least link to, the Jew / Ioudaioi translation debate? If you haven't already it might be worth taking a quick read of the external references listed in the Ioudaioi article - they explain better than I can the reason why this is worth being clear on. Oncenawhile (talk) 21:41, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, "background" is even more vague than ethnicity. And that was why I suggested it. As far as I can tell by looking at sources, there is no certainty about the ethnicity of Jesus among scholarly views, and hence we can not state that issue with certainty. The Ioudaioi article itself has unsourced tags on it. I did, however, do a search on the use of Ioudaioi and it seem sthat it has some undertones of its own, and John by Jo-Ann A. Brant (ISBN 080103454X) says: "Hoi Ioudaioi seems to signify different Jewish constituencies rather than simply adherents of Judaism" and that "There is no scholarly consensus about to whom John refers when he uses the term Ioudaioi" in the context of the Temple incident. So from what I can tell scholars are to date debating how John used the term Ioudaioi and what he meant by it and the term is not uniformly used in other first century accounts. And Maurice Casey says in his book that the term also seems to have some unnecessary undertones based on it use related to WWII issues, etc. And Morton Smith in his book "Christianity, Judaism and other Greco-Roman cults" has a discussion of the debate about separating the uses of Ioudaioi, Judean and Galilean, etc. So the more one looks, the more debate turns up on that term. Hence, it seems to me that applying Ioudaioi to Jesus is not the subject of scholarly consensus, and Misplaced Pages would be breaking new ground in asserting that. History2007 (talk) 03:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Jesus was, without a doubt, ethnically Jewish in the sense that he was born to a Ancient Israelite family. But I think the issue for us is that Jewish is not a homogeneous ethnic group or an entirely ethnic category (you can convert), and the modern ethnic groups have changed since the Ancient World. But I still think we should keep it, since the hyperlink goes to an article (Jews) that discusses all these issues in a lot of depth. We're having similar discussions on some other wiki pages as well. Avaya1 (talk) 01:16, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
That's nonsense. Israelites ceased to exist as any "ethnic group" in the 6th century BCE. The populations of Judaea, Peraea, Samaria, Galilaea, and the Decapolis were a mixture of all kinds of "ethnic groups" like Arameans, Samarians, Judeans (which were only in small part descended from the former tribe of Juda), Egyptians, Anatolians, Greeks. Judaism at that time was only a religion split up in numerous factions, with the main temple and sacrificial industry at Jerusalem. In addition, the entire region of the southern Levant was highly hellenized in culture and everyday life (even the Romans never changed that, and it was the reason for the clash of fundamentalist Jews with the rest of the population and the ruling elite). Medieval and modern Judaism of course claims that Jews are Israelites (otherwise their whole racial ideology of being "the chosen people" descended from Abraham would fall apart), but the actual descent of Judeans from Israelites was minimal.
It is not knowable whether a historical Jesus was indeed a Judean as the Bible says he was. All that seems knowable is that he was religiously brought up to be a YHWH-worshiper (a "Jew") in the manner conducted at the Jerusalem temple (e.g. Samarians also were YHWH-worshipers but not accepted by the temple authorities of Jerusalem). During his childhood in Egypt, Jesus would of course have become even more hellenized. ♆ CUSH ♆07:35, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
To claim that there was minimal descendence of the Judeans from the Israelites, simply because a lot of neigbouring populations were culturally assimilated or forcibly converted, is contentious (I'm not aware of any studies showing the degree of descendence as opposed to conversion in the intervening period), and also irrelevant (since they were Israelites in their self-conception, re-constituted or otherwise). Mass conversions of neighbouring populations also occurred during the Monarchic period - this fact doesn't imply that the Jews were not an ethnic group at any one time, although the composition of that group changed across time. Across time, the ethnic composition of Jews changed substantially, and splintered. But at any one time, it refers to specific ethno-cultural groups, with specific profiles. Of course the 'Jewishness of Jesus' has a contentious historiography. It is clear that Jesus was born into a Jewish family, in the religious sense. I agree that the issue here is that 'Jews' are plainly not a static ethnic group that persisted unchanged across time. And the ethnic composition changed more rapidly during certain periods in the Ancient World. But the article that we're linking to in the infobox doesn't claim otherwise, although I would suggest that we link to this article instead (Jewish history). Avaya1 (talk) 19:55, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Without commenting on your reasoning, I should say that "you are arguing from facts" here, not from WP:RS references. Hence per WP:V this should refer to more references than inferences. However, I would point out that you may not be that far apart in your views, so this may not need to be a big issue. Cush's comment that Jesus grew up in a household that worshiped Yahweh is not far from your statement that he was born into a Jewish family and both statements corresponds to Bart Ehrman's extensive WP:RS statement in any case. History2007 (talk) 20:25, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
Further to the expanded quote from Amy-Jill Levine above, please see below a quote from John H. Elliott in the Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus 2007; 5; 119:
There is no direct evidence indicating how Jesus identified himself—to fellow Israelites or to outsiders, though some indirect evidence is at hand, which we shall mention below. Aside from the so-called ‘messianic titles’ or ideological labels, Jesus customarily was identified, as were his contemporaries, according to family, lineage, tribe or ethnos, on the one hand, or according to place of birth, origin, upbringing and activity, on the other. Thus, in the New Testament Jesus is identified in terms of:
his parents, siblings and lineage. In terms of his family and lineage, Jesus was Yeshua bar Yosef, of the house of David (Mt. 1.1), of the tribe of Judah (Mt. 1.2-3), of the house of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (Mt. 1.1, 2).
his birthplace, geographical origin and place of activity. Thus he is depicted as Jesus of/from Galilee (apo tês Galilaias, Mt. 3.13) or ‘from Nazareth of Galilee’ (apo Nazareth tês Galilaias (Mt. 21.11; 27.55; Mk 1.9) or as ‘Jesus the Galilean’ (ho Galilaios, Mt. 26.69). Galilee was the chief locale of Jesus’ activity, the locale of Jesus’ parents and family, and the locale of Jesus’ first followers. Simon Peter is twice identified as a ‘Galilean’. Thus, of the sixty-one New Testament occurrences of Galilaia in the New Testament, the vast majority of instances identify Jesus, his family and followers as from, or active in, Galilee. Of the eleven New Testament occurrences of the related adjective or substantive Galilaios, most also are of Jesus and his followers.
A related geographical identification is his being of/from Nazareth: (a) Jesus of/from Nazareth (b) ‘Jesus of/from Nazareth of Galilee’ (c) ‘Jesus the Nazarene (Nazarênos, Nazôraios)’: All six of the NT occurrences of Nazarênos modify Jesus. Of the thirteen NT occurrences of Nazôraios, twelve modify Jesus and one identifies his followers as ‘the party of the Nazarenes’ (Acts 24.5). The creedal expressions of Acts identifying Jesus as Nazôraios (2.22; 3.6; 4.10) are ancient and consistent in their formulation. This reveals an ancient and consistent identification of Jesus, his family, and his initial followers with the localities of Galilee and Nazareth but not Judaea. Jesus and his followers were said to have visited Judaea, but they were never called Ioudaioi by fellow insiders.
The only exceptions to Jesus’ never being called Ioudaios in the New Testament are three occasions where he is said to be called Ioudaios by outsiders, namely by the Persian Magi who refer to the infant Jesus as ‘king of the Ioudaioi’ according to Matthew (2.2) , by the Samaritan woman of John 4.1-42, who mistakenly identifies Jesus (coming from the territory of Judaea) as a Judaean (Ioudaios, 4.9), and by the Romans who executed him (Mt. 27.37/Mk 15.26/Lk. 23.38/Jn 19.19)
W/O reading this whole thread and at the risk of being flamed, I don't see any issue with saying that Jesus was a Jew. He obviously born and raised as one... Ckruschke (talk) 00:34, 16 March 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke
I agree, there has been an enormous amount of research that shows that the Gospels portray him as a Jewish man, specifically from Galilee. See NT Wright Jesus and the Victory of GodReformedArsenal (talk) 02:41, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
I hope these two last comments will end this saga to claim Jesus as a "national property" of some type through long and novel arguments that do not appear in comprehensive books on the subject by scholars such as Ehrman, Vermes, etc. History2007 (talk) 02:53, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
That is only if Wright and Ehrman disagree, as they do on some issues. On this issue they agree, so there is no need for debate on that. For the record, Wright does have some academic respect, but for use in some Misplaced Pages pages, he may also have some liabilities, but I do not want to be sidetracked into that separate, unrelated discussion. History2007 (talk) 07:42, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
You could change your ethnicity in the ancient world, from Greek to Jewish or Jewish to Greek, or whatever. An option not available to us today :) PiCo (talk) 10:48, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I read a news report a few weeks ago that the top plastic surgeons are now "desperately seeking clients", given that business has been seriously affected by the recession. So these days that can be arranged pretty quickly - no waiting... History2007 (talk) 11:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
The plastic surgeons change the external appearance, and a few hours of brainless TV watching while recovering liberates the viewer from all cultural concepts (the Kardashinas would work specially well, they say)... Then new ideas can be planted... History2007 (talk) 13:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Part of the problem is thst some editors confuse "ethnicity" with "race". There is little doubt that Jesus was born into a Jewish family (whatever that meant at the time), but his "race" is obscure. There is then the issue of whether Jesus rejected Judaism and founded a new religion (later called Christianity) after which point he would no longer be Jewish. Please note also that a "worshipper of JHWH" would include all Muslims as well, as Allah is the God of Abraham and all Muslims are Abraham's decendents as much as are Jews.
However Jesus' "nationality" is also an issue - as it depends on when Jesus was born. Galilee and Judea were not part of the same "country" after the death of Herod, so was Jesus' nationality based on being born Bethlehem or on being raised in Nazareth?? If we follow Luke, Bethlehem was in Judea but Nazareth was at the time in Galilee (Syria). If we follow Matthew, Herod was still king and both provinces were still together in Israel - although when they were separated shortly thereafter, Jesus' family lived in the Syrian part and would presumably have had Syrian "nationality" - or maybe even "Roman". Wdford (talk) 14:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree with much of that. The "born in a Jewish family" is well sourced, race is unclear and nationality should be sidestepped. Pretty much what Levine's book said actually: not clear what Jewish means when scholars use it. History2007 (talk) 14:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Jesus had no nationality, and neither did anyone else - the concept was only invented in the late 18th century and became popular in the 19th. (Before that, people were mostly subjects of various kings, not citizens of nations; in Jesus' time it was rather similar, you were a subject of Rome, and your rights varied according to your status, not according to your birthplace - spare a thought for Paul's statement that he was a Roman "citizen" - it was something that didn't come to him by birth).PiCo (talk) 23:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
He didn't have a 'nationality', which is a recent term. But he was a provincial subject (a peregrinus) of Judea, in the Roman Empire. Looking at the infobox options, we could use the category "citizenship" (although it might be a little misleading, since he didn't have citizenship rights - hence why we chose nationality). At any rate, what needs to be listed is this: Peregrinus, Province of Judea), Roman Empire.
I think it's really useful to have that in the infoxbox, because it gives readers a quick reference to the historical situation. Avaya1 (talk) 15:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Ok, let us try a novel approach here Avaya. How about reading WP:Truth first, then reading WP:V again. You have no source for the peregrinus item you added to the infobox. Are other editors expected to find the source for you? Most readers have no idea what peregrinus means, so it does not help as a "quick reference". And of course, neither citizenship, nor nationality apply to peregrinus.... History2007 (talk) 20:10, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
'Nationality' is an anachronistic term, but Jesus certainly did have a nationality in the sense that the word is defined in the dictionary. And he didn't have 'citizenship' (in the Roman sense), but he did have a specific legal status within the Roman Empire. It certainly is useful to list this in the infobox as a "quick reference" as the readers can click on three hyperlinked articles. It's a very quick way of providing biographical facts, that the reader can explore in more depth by clicking on the words. I agree that the categories are not ideal. Avaya1 (talk) 21:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
At least you added references now. But although Kreinecker does use the term peregrinus, it is simply used as the legal/social status of Jesus, not as his nationality. And the Misplaced Pages reader who clicks on Peregrinus will read that: "In the 1st and 2nd centuries, the vast majority (80-90%) of the empire's inhabitants were peregrini". The reader then has to scratch his/her head when the next sentence makes it clear that people from Spain and Tunisia were also called peregrinus. Now does that help a user get any idea of the "nationality of Jesus" given that had he been born in Spain or Tunisia he would have still been called a peregrinus? I really do not know why you are pursuing this angle, or why I bother to discuss it given that it is a clearly illogical characterization of any possible nationality for Jesus, in view of the fact that people from Spain, Tunisia and Judae could all be labelled as a peregrinus. History2007 (talk) 23:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
All of the historical data that we have in both Gospel accounts, as well as extra-canonical accounts, point to the fact that Jesus was born, lived (with a relatively brief stint in Egypt according to the Gospel of Matthew), and died in Israel. Nationality not anachronistic, as Israel both considered itself a nation politically and ethnically. There is abundant research that nearly unanimously affirms this (See Wright and Ehrman)... why are we really hemming and hawing on this — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReformedArsenal (talk • contribs) 00:07, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
@ReformedArsenal No Israel existed during Jesus' lifetime. Assigning the term "Israel" to everything that has anything to do with the Bible is a modern practice rooted in fundamentalism, religious extremism and religioracism. Please do not keep pushing that position, as this encyclopedia is not some Jewish or Christian propaganda platform.
@Cush - There are references to the land of Israel throughout the Gospels. Unless you can give me some valid reason why we should consider the Gospels absolutely ahistorical documents... your assertion that No Israel existed during Jesus' lifetime is simply false. People like NT Wright have no problem referring to the southern Levant as Israel during the time of Jesus. ReformedArsenal (talk) 05:52, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Actually, per WP:V and WP:RS/AC we need a source (with a page number) that directly states: "Most scholars believe the nationality of Jesus was X", regardless of what X may be, before that can be used at all. I have seen no such source offered by anyone yet. None. Hence that statement can not be used. Now, from a "practical perspective" using the term Israel for his nationality is an invitation to the restart of the Palestinian debate on this page. Given the previous long discussions about the Palestinian issue, I really think we should avoid that term just for the sake of debate minimization. Else this page will become an extension of the TV debates about middle east politics. And Misplaced Pages is not the venue for that. The nationality issue was peacefully resting until Avaya restarted it, despite the comment in the infobox. I think we should just sidestep nationality for it will eat up time and will be debated for the next 7 years, or more. History2007 (talk) 08:55, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
@ReformedArsenal The Gospels as well as Acts are religiously charged and biased narratives that do not always reflect actual cultural, political, or religious circumstances of the time. References to Israel are contained for ideological reasons. "Land of Israel" has been a claim, not a description, all through the past 2500+ years. The Jesus of the Gospels is someone who seeks to restore a Jewish, even Israelite, past while simultaneously completely changing the ideology. And the point is, that most of that past is imaginary. Everything that Jewish scripture (Tanakh/Old Testament) assigns to before circa 850 BCE is 100% invented and even most material well down to the time of the Maccabees and Hasmoneans is, let's say, religiously enhanced history. Now the Gospels add to that by assigning new meanings to past Jewish teachings. The whole transfiguration-of-Jesus-story seeks to create continuity between Jesus and Jewish traditions and rules. But of course the teachings of Jesus do in fact reject many very basic Jewish traditions.
In the conflict between Cleopatra/Mark Antony and the rest of Rome, Herod and his extremely hellenized Hasmonean court had been on the losing side, so that Herod had to buy his kingship from Octavian. But soon after Herod's death the Romans no longer respected that arrangement and subsequently their already great influence turned into direct rule.
To make it short, during the time of Jesus, no political or territorial entity named "Israel" existed. At birth Jesus was a Galilean or Judean (depending with birth-story one follows), and a Judean when Judaea became Roman. ♆ CUSH ♆10:14, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
Second paragraph
Avaya, I am actually surprised how you are commenting on the edit summary regarding accuracy as you enter items that run against the sources. After 7,000 edits I probably do not need to tell you to read WP:V as I stated above. Chapter 5 of the Lost Christianities reference begins by specifically rejecting "most" applied to Rabbi. And "most" applied to healer was discussed at length above. This issue was discussed at length (I mean at length) further above on this talk page within the last 10 days. Please read those discussions, see the references there and correct what you are doing. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 17:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
I think you wrote this just when I was in the middle of editing the paragraph. I had to answer the door and get the shopping in half way through. Comment on its current form Avaya1 (talk) 18:00, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
Somewhat better now, but still (per the long discussions above) it is not entirely sourced and does not address the issues that both Cush and LordShard had raised. As discussed above healer "must move" to the second sentence, and can not exist in the first. And the existence should probably clarified and stated separately, given that there have been many questions about that on this talk page. So the only thing supported by the body (which must be supported by WP:LEDE) we can have in the first sentence is:
And I think you need to add all those references there, to avoid future discussion. The references are already in the body (and per WP:LEDE do not even need to be there) but people will ask if we do not have them. Then after this first sentence, we can have the second sentence that discusses "the labels" (to which "most" does not apply) as in the body:
Critical Biblical scholars and historians have offered competing descriptions and portraits of Jesus, which at times share a number of overlapping attributes, such as a rabbi, a charismatic healer, the leader of an apocalyptic movement, a self-described Messiah, a sage and philosopher, or a social reformer who preached of the "Kingdom of God" as a means for personal and egalitarian social transformation.
That way the labels are applied, but healer is not given the front row seat, given that there are many labels, as discussed above again. And note that as Cush commented healer can not link to faith healer, and the sources do not say faith healer anyway. I think there will still be objections to rabbi, but that is a separate story. History2007 (talk) 19:01, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
The "critical historian" item was not my preferred item - it actually came from Avaya. I would prefer to just say "scholars". But there have been many questions on that in the past, with everyone and his brother suggesting every possible permutation of biblical, historian, scholar and window-washer. So just saying scholar will start the musical edit game again. I think we need to say "historians and biblical scholars" just to achieve stability. What do you suggest? And are you ok with the rest of it? History2007 (talk) 01:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
"Critical historians" is just plain nonsensical; there is no such category of historians. What are they supposed to be critical about, exactly? "Historians" is perfectly adequate. Other than that, I endorse History2007's suggested wording of the sentence in question. Gatoclass (talk) 01:08, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
From a logical point of view, you are right, of course. From a practical point of view, within 3 weeks someone will feel like saying that there is a field called biblical criticism that needs to be mentioned... so we somehow need to address that need, not due to logic, but practical issues. History2007 (talk) 01:12, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
It's because earlier historians generally weren't allowed to interpret the texts except through the official positions of the church. It's historiographically necessary to mention that we're talking about "most historians", after the introduction of biblical criticism.Avaya1 (talk) 02:58, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
"Critical historians" is a meaningless term. If you really think a qualification of some sort is appropriate, why not just "modern historians"? Gatoclass (talk) 04:11, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
I think "modern historians and and biblical scholars" may need to be used just as a form of "debate deferral" because some IP will comment in 3 weeks that some of those who express the opinions are historians, but some others are biblical-scolars. History2007 (talk) 07:19, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Let's drop the "biblical scholars". That's not a name of a profession. People dealing with the subject at hand are either historians, which are scientists with a methodology of investigating things, or theologians, who just make wild interpretations and speculations to make fit to their respective religious views what archaeologists and historians have discovered. Theologians have no methodology of investigating things and they are not scientists, although they are considered 'academics'. Except in the sections dealing with religious teachings of Jesus, "biblical scholars" have no place in this article. They have nothing to contribute to establishing the historical Jesus.
Thanks for the reply. The references are all there - if you check ref 24, it's a compression of those references.
Ok, let's remove the 'healer' clause from the first sentence. (It's repeated in the second one anyway).
And what is your opinion about the "(or 'rabbi')" parenthesis after "teacher"? The reason I added this was because I found a qualifying footnote, which I thought would be useful for the lead (but only if people read footnotes when they're in leads). I'll quote it below:
(or 'rabbi' Bernard J. Lee, (Paulist Press, 1988)), page 119-120: "However, both Jewish and Christian scholars have advised us not to import a later meaning of rabbi into Jesus' time. Jewish scholar Joseph Klausner says that in Jesus' milieu rabbi was not a fixed title and was used in current speech as a unofficial indication of honor. Thus it may or may not have specifically named a teacher of honor. Martin Hengel takes this position too, and adds that probably by the time John's Gospel is written, rabbi is a more official designation of a teacher (and soon it designates an ordained teacher).) Avaya1 (talk) 02:38, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, that is the case. And Avaya, if you have to have a mile long footnote to justify and explain how rabbi is used, the case for it is already lost. And rabbi is simply used in the second sentence anyway, given that a few scholars use it. What is clear is that (as the second sentence says) there are multiple scholarly portraits of Jesus and every few scholar build a collage based on a subset of the available attributes, so there is no universal agreement on rabbi. And again (and please do read it now) per WP:RS/AC just because you have one reference that says rabbi that does not make it academic agreement. History2007 (talk) 07:14, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
I think you have missed the point of the footnote. It is a simple fact that Jesus is addressed by the term rabbi "ραββί" a number of times in the Gospels (including, most importantly, in Mark). The naming of Jesus as a ραββί is part of the original text of several of the Gospels. This is not under dispute. There is also a general consensus that some of the additional terms by which he is regularly addressed are Greek translations, or at least synonyms, of "rabbi". The point about my adding the footnote is to clarify that the meaning of 'rabbi' had not become formalised, and it was not an ordained position, and hence the term needs to be in brackets. The use of the word was different in Jesus' time. I agree that having a footnote to explain this is not ideal for a lead. I could add a section about this to the body of the text, instead of the lead. Avaya1 (talk) 15:13, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
It would certainly make sense to explain that in the body (say the 3rd or 4th paragraph of the Historical analysis section) basically as you had it, but I suggest we avoid "scholars advise us" and say "stated" or "suggested" instead, so it reads more formal, e.g.
Scholars have suggested not to import a later meaning of rabbi into Jesus' time. Joseph Klausner stated that in Jesus' milieu rabbi was not a fixed title and was used in current speech as a unofficial indication of honor. Thus it may or may not have specifically named a teacher of honor. Martin Hengel takes this position too, and adds that probably by the time John's Gospel was written, rabbi was a more official designation of a teacher, and soon it designates an ordained teacher.
I am sorry Avaya, but I double checked your text and references, but again they have problems that had to be fixed. The reference you used from Bernard Lee is a WP:Tertiary source, and your quoting it intact outside quotes is close to running into WP:Copyvio. So here is how I fixed and added it:
However, some scholars have suggested caution when reading modern meanings into terms such as rabbi at Jesus' time. Joseph Klausner states that title rabbi at the time of Jesus was not a fixed title, as is perceived now. Martin Hengel states that as a "teacher of Wisdom", Jesus was not a typical representatives of the official scriptural learnings of the time.
Note that I used your Lee reference, but only for a summary. Then I used the actual WP:Secondary sources from Klausner and Hengel with the actual books they had written, and did not step on the copyrights by using the exact words they had written. Frankly, I am getting somewhat tired of giving a personal tutorial on these issues, so please do read Misplaced Pages policies somewhat more carefully, instead of having others explain them to you. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, more problems. I was going to add links, and realized that Joseph Klausner is a pretty old reference, so I would hesitate to use it on this issue. His book says 1989, but he died long before that. On more mundane issues (e.g. the number of books in the bible) he could have been used, but perhaps not on this. But Martin Hengel, is a solid WP:RS source and can be used. I will look for an alternative to Klausner and try to replace him with that source. But this really shows the need for more care when just clicking on Google and quoting verbatim from WP:Tertiary sources, and the general need for care when using sources to be sure they are solid WP:RS Secondary sources. History2007 (talk) 20:25, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
Anyway, easy enough. I replaced the Klausner item with William Herzog who is living and teaching at Harvard as we speak. History2007 (talk) 20:50, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
History2007, no offense since you seem to be working hard and constructively on this article, but you really are muddled up here. Nobody, except you, has ever suggested using the source without quotation marks. Please read over this talk section again. My suggestion is to use the source as a footnote in quotation marks when we mention 'rabbi'. It's pretty bizarre reading comments like: "Frankly, I am getting somewhat tired of giving a personal tutorial" - when you are the only person who ever suggested using it except as a footnote. You appear to be having an argument with yourself. As for Klausner, he is extremely famous, and I think everyone here is aware of the fact that his work dates to before 1989.
History2007, the most bizarre comment you write above is this: "The reference you used from Bernard Lee is a WP:Tertiary source, and your quoting it intact outside quotes is close to running into WP:Copyvio." I think you'll find that the only person who has "quoted it intact outside quotes" is you. Avaya1 (talk) 22:26, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
No, I meant what I said. But I see no point in furthering this issue now that I have stated the need for care about using references. Leave it at that. History2007 (talk) 22:55, 17 March 2012 (UTC)
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.
