Talk:Crucifixion of Jesus

I added a paragraph about the point of view of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
Such edition has been repeatedly reverted. This is discriminatory. This Church currently has more presence than several older faiths in several countries and User:ජපස claims that all BYU scholar are not reliable. Whether he proves it or he must apologize. I will keep adding this material until more voices be heard. George Rodney Maruri Game (talk) 22:15, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Find a reliable third-party source to source the claim to WP:PROMINENCE. This is not a page about the religious beliefs of Mormons. This is a page about a claimed historical event. As such, it is academic scholars who deserve the weight of encyclopedic treatment as is always the case at this website. jps (talk) 22:31, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

CALL FOR VOTING
To make it brief, there is a similar situation at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Date_of_birth_of_Jesus#CALL_FOR_VOTING.

Please, vote and present arguments in favor and against.

This is my edition: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crucifixion_of_Jesus&oldid=1191961948

And what I added was:

Jeffrey R. Chadwick, a scholar from Brigham Young University, in 2015 provided evidence supporting Jesus died on Thursday, April 6, AD 30 (Julian calendar), which was the 14th day of Nisan in the Judean calendar, the day of the preparation of Passover. In the Gregorian calendar, that date corresponds to April 4, 30 AD. George Rodney Maruri Game (talk) 22:58, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
 * See WP:POLL. This isn't how we decide matters at Wikipedia. jps (talk) 15:38, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia arguments tend to rely on the quality of supporting sources, rather than the pure numbers of the people involved. And you have not made clear what changes you are proposing. Dimadick (talk) 17:10, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your interest! I really know very little about the bureaucratic side of Wikipedia. I've added a lot of material for other Wikipedia articles on Physics, for example, but it seems that the community working on religious topics are surely an interesting and extremely zealous "fold". I thought my purpose was pretty evident... Anyways, my purpose is to include the perspective of The Church of Jesus Christ regarding the date of the Crucifixion of Jesus Christ. This perspective may come in two forms: "official" (via revelation through a prophet) or "scholar" (work of a researcher that used conventional social sciences methods together with the official doctrines of The Church). This specific edition I would like to do here is of the latter kind. Happy New Year, btw! George Rodney Maruri Game (talk) 00:56, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * There is certainly going to be a difference in how articles about topics in physics and articles in topics about history (especially those with a religious interest) are treated. To be sure, there are the limited historical facts of the matter which are paltry to say the least (just about the only thing agreed upon in WP:MAINSTREAM scholarship is that the crucifixion of this cult leader likely happened -- beyond that, almost nothing can be determined owing to the context in which the religion and textual sources developed in the following centuries). Of course, one of the major points of WP:Notability for this subject are the religious beliefs which surround it. Documenting those requires a standard for inclusion that centers a lot on WP:Independent sources necessarily because, of course, the sources of the religious believers themselves are more likely to be hyperfocused on their own personal beliefs than they are to be on the wider significance of those beliefs. Not always, but often. It may be that the perspective of the LDS believers is WP:PROMINENT enough in wider contexts to warrant inclusion on this page, but so far I've seen no sources that attest to that. As this is an article on the wider subject and not on the specific beliefs of a specific group, it is best for us to adhere to something like the principle of WP:ONEWAY since there really is no other way to determine who should be included in this top-level article and who should be excluded. To that end, I would suggest finding non-LDS sources which indicate that LDS beliefs about the crucifixion have enough substantial import to warrant brief discussion at this article. If you cannot find that, my suggestion is to include them in articles about LDS beliefs themselves. Note that there may be material in this article about other religious groups' beliefs which may need excising as well, but that can be discussed separately. jps (talk) 16:10, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Revert
This revert reintroduces a number of problems in the article. Since the reverted simply said they did not think it was an improvement, I request they clarify here. jps (talk) 19:57, 2 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Which problems? Clarification needed too. I reverted because the writing-style is too complex; for example,
 * was changed into
 * Next sentence,
 * Quotes were removed, explanations removed; overall, no improvement. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  06:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Next sentence,
 * Quotes were removed, explanations removed; overall, no improvement. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  06:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)


 * The first sentence is incorrect. Saying that it a "historically certain fact" is implying that there is some level of "certainty" that is done when historians evaluate claims. This is not true, and, in fact, none of the sources indicate as much. What they do indicate is that these are the least argued over points of the life of Jesus. But there are various reasons why scholars don't argue over them which are not pertinent to this article (but are to articles like the Historicity of Jesus). In short, the sentence you prefer is misleading on the face. Now, I don't care if my sentence is used or one that gets across the same points, but I don't think "historically certain fact" is something that we can reasonably WP:ASSERT in Wikipedia's voice.
 * As for the removal of "quotes", the entire passage was acting basically as a quotemine which Wikipedia should avoid. The main upshot of the list is that there have been a number of relevant and highly regarded scholars who have identified the crucifixion in particular as an event in the life of Jesus. Further commentary in that regard seems rather to belabor the point. I am fine with including quotes in the references, if that is necessary, but I get the impression from the history and the talkpage that these quotes were being included to fight off various Christ myth fanatics in the past. Wikipedia should't be organizing its prose as a way to fight off fringe theories. Instead, we should state facts plainly and clearly and leave the extensive listing of excerpts to venues where such is more appropriate.
 * Happy to entertain other opinions on this, but I think that these two arguments you are making are not well considered.
 * jps (talk) 17:13, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
 * reverted back to a previous version and I invited them to comment here. However, it seems they may be interested in moving on. Still interested in feedback as to my comments above. jps (talk) 01:10, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

After a good night of sleep, my brain works better.... So, some more comments regarding your first edit diff:
 * You changed
 * into
 * Yet, these authors do make such a strong claim.
 * Yet, these authors do make such a strong claim.
 * Yet, these authors do make such a strong claim.


 * The quotes do explain what these authors state about this certainty. Changing this into
 * obscures this point, and is also irrelevant; why would readers want to know that precisely these authors state that these two biographical elements are considered to be historically certain? I do agree, though, that it's quite a laundry-list, which could be shortened, or partly moved into a note. On the other hand, this section is about the historicity of the crucifixion, so we can offer some more than just a summary. Anyway, I've shortened the laundry-list diff.
 * obscures this point, and is also irrelevant; why would readers want to know that precisely these authors state that these two biographical elements are considered to be historically certain? I do agree, though, that it's quite a laundry-list, which could be shortened, or partly moved into a note. On the other hand, this section is about the historicity of the crucifixion, so we can offer some more than just a summary. Anyway, I've shortened the laundry-list diff.


 * You summarized
 * into
 * "Offered" is a strange formulation here, and the summary does not explain what is embarrassing here. Also not sure why we should mention that Meier is a priest...
 * "Offered" is a strange formulation here, and the summary does not explain what is embarrassing here. Also not sure why we should mention that Meier is a priest...
 * "Offered" is a strange formulation here, and the summary does not explain what is embarrassing here. Also not sure why we should mention that Meier is a priest...


 * You changed
 * into
 * "Any other aspect surrounding it" is vaguer than "the reason and context for it."
 * "Any other aspect surrounding it" is vaguer than "the reason and context for it."
 * "Any other aspect surrounding it" is vaguer than "the reason and context for it."

Regards, Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  06:54, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Many readers would evaluate commentary on the life of Jesus very differently from a Christian vs. secular historian, for example. Catholic priests in particular can lose their jobs if they teach facts or opinions that are contrary to those endorsed by the church, so on top of personal bias there's also a question of whether or not they are free to give their honest scholarly opinions. Even when there aren't huge questions of bias, in general I always add in a short phrase identifying the academic discipline or profession or other qualification, if any, for why an expert is being quoted, just so readers have some context and the opinion doesn't feel like it's coming out of left field. -- Beland (talk) 19:53, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'll note that in addition to the reason and context for the crucifixion, there is disagreement (even among the canonical gospels) over the details of what happened during. -- Beland (talk) 19:57, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I also think that the inclusion of criteria such as "multiple attestation" and "embarrassment" is likely a violation of WP:UNDUE in the context of this article. Neither of these criteria are used outside of the apologetics industry, as far as I can tell. Should we just get rid of them in the historicity section (they could be included elsewhere as in places where we discuss the beliefs of Christians vis-a-vis the reasons they give in the context of apologetics for their faith)? jps (talk) 21:53, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I think both of those are interesting to learn about in this context, and help readers evaluate the reliability of claims. Use of multiple independent sources is a bedrock principle in journalism and I believe among academic historians as well. This criterion of embarrassment sounds a bit like the declaration against interest, but also sounds like it might be a bit unreliable. For example, written accounts would be unreliable if early Christians were hiding something more embarrassing (like their leader got bored and wandered off, in which case being martyred by the Romans gets a lot more sympathy). I think it would be worthwhile to find out what historians outside of Bible studies think of the idea. -- Beland (talk) 02:08, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Seeing as how the invention of the Biblical canon follows something of a few centuries-long game of telephone in the reporting of the multiple "independent sources", it's a bit of a canard to apply it here. That is, of course, what the serious academics who are cornered with the argument vis-a-vis the gospel stories typically say (and, let's be honest here, the multiple attestation being referenced is much more often tied to the resurrection mythos than it is to the fact of crucifixion). As for criterion of embarrassment, I think there was at least one biblical scholar who said that the ones who should be embarrassed were those who made the argument. That said, there really isn't any serious scholarship on the crucifixion as an event which centers these faith-based exegeses. The one-off references listed here don't seem to be taken seriously in the literature, for example. jps (talk) 04:19, 13 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Shall we stick to representing what scholarship says, instead of our personal evaluations of that scholarship? Calling the criterion of multiple attestion a "canard" sounds like an uninformed judgment, if not a personal quest, especially given the comment the multiple attestation being referenced is much more often tied to the resurrection mythos than it is to the fact of crucifixion and rejecting those criteria as "undue." As far as Wikipedia is concerned, it is tied to the crucifixion, not the resurrection. Nor are those criteria only used in the "apologetics industry," or "undue" here; those are two of the criteria used in the scholarly quest for the historical Jesus. Which, as you may know, does bot combine very well with the maintenance of an orthodox/conservative faith.... Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  04:35, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
 * It's a bit strange that you are contending that these criteria are being used in mainstream academic scholarship but our sources that identify them show that they are promulgated by apologists. Do you see a situation where this is not the case? Please, let us know! jps (talk) 04:10, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Did you try James Dunn? A liberal, as far as I know. Not to mention Bart Ehrmann, an atheist despised by apologists. Anyway, the third quest, disliked by conservatives for it's critical stance, resulted in these criteria; it's where Biblical scholarship stands, like it or not.
 * Not all Christians, or Christian scholars, are dogmatic fanatics; most that I meet are broad-minded, tolerant people, who don't take the Bible too literal. But maybe that's the Dutch situation, where the majority of the population is non-Christian. Joshua Jonathan  -  Let's talk!  05:26, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
 * James Dunn was certainly an apologist. Odd that you would claim otherwise. Ehrmann, as far as I can tell, poo poos these "criteria". . jps (talk) 00:06, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Then you don't know much about Ehrman.  You can't read the full but sufficient on independent attestation and embarrassment https://ehrmanblog.org/jesus-and-the-historical-criteria-for-members/  However note that good scholars such as Ehrman don't consider them perfect tools.   They must be used with care. Erp (talk) 04:17, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think highlighting and preferencing them as the primary means to determine the reality of a crucifixion of this particular religious leader makes a whole lot of sense in light of the full weight of Ehrman's points. The reality is that boiling down the consensus of scholars to a checklist of criteria that are used in no other historiographical contexts is doing a disservice to the actual scholarship. That's rather the point that Ehrman is making! jps (talk) 16:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)