Talk:Historical Jesus/Archive 6

perpetual virginity of Mary, other Christian doctrines
This good article is often marred by partisans who want to attack or defend Christianity. I prefer that we keep references to Christianity and treatment of Christian themes to a minimum. For example, I don't want to have a section on the virgin birth. In the apocalypse section, I don't much care for the quotes about how Christians wish those Bible verses would go away. And I don't want the perpetual virginity of Mary to be an issue. The only reason Jesus' siblings are an issue is because of this doctrine. That said, I see things differently from the average editor, so if there's a clamor for treatment of these topics, let's hear it. Leadwind (talk) 22:37, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree - these matters belong in other articles, e.g. Christology. Theology is one discipline, history is another.  Historians cannot be concerned with the theological implications of their research; theologians are not trained to research history (with of course some notable exceptions). Slrubenstein   |  Talk 01:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Wisdom Sage section
"If you study the New Testament, you may conclude that he did prophesy the world to be ending in the lifetime of those standing around him.(Mark 13:30)." The sentence is out of context and probably placed by the kind of partisans as described above, so I assume nobody will say it is unjustified to remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomvasseur (talk • contribs) 10:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

missionaries during Jesus' life?
The gospels portray Jesus sending missionaries out to proclaim the kingdom of God, heal, etc. Crossan takes this as a key differenation between Jesus' movement and John's. But did Jesus really send out missionaries, or do those sayings reflect early Christian practice? Luke's reference to seventy or seventy-two pairs of missionaries represents that gospel's global orientation. But even if that's an invention, the more basic commission could be historical. Anyone? Leadwind (talk) 00:56, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it is a good question, and the only answer is to follow NPOV and V i.e. state Crossan's view, and add other views as we find them. I know Crossan's is not the only view - his view is notable enough that i has to be included.  Beyond that, I can't help, I do not have my fave sources handy and don't remember what they say. I know that most historians agree that there were Christian missionaries by Paul's time (otherwise there wouldn't be Christians for the Jewish authorities to prosecute) but during Jesus' lifetime, I dunno Slrubenstein   |  Talk 01:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Jesus Seminar was sharply divided on this issue. I'll incorporate that. Leadwind (talk) 02:08, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
 * He did send some out in groups of 2. Whether you can call them missionaries or not is the answer. Arlen22 (talk) 20:08, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

pagan influences on Jewish Temple?
When Jesus showed up in Jerusalem and caused a stir the Temple, was there anything pagan about it? I've heard references to the Jewish high priest performing imperial sacrifices and to an imperial eagle mounted above the main entrance, but I don't remember where I saw those references or whether they even referred to the Temple of Jesus' day or whether I'm just confused again. Anyone know? Leadwind (talk) 18:57, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Herod added an "Eagle Gate" to his temple, but according to Josephus, the Zealots removed it. Jewish Encyclopedia: Zealots 64.149.82.228 (talk) 07:07, 23 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There was also the Antonia Fortress. See also Jewish Encyclopedia: Jesus of Nazareth: In the Temple. 64.149.82.228 (talk) 07:23, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Images
I know this page is noticeably lacking in the picture department. But I'm a little uncomfortable with the newly added images. None appear to be from a historical point of view (or at least a contemporary historical POV). They all appear to have strong religious connection, if not ahistorical and/or mythical elements. Is is appropriate to use off topic images covering similar subject matter? Or is it deceptive? Do we need images of the resurrected Christ in the Historical Jesus article? Images from the "pious fiction" infancy narrative? Images from a mostly 16th century European POV (with ethnic features and wardrobe anything but 1st century Judean)? -Andrew c [talk] 02:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * We need pictures, but not the ones you're describing. Leadwind (talk) 03:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * My rationale: I used the best artists, Caravaggio, Michelangelo, Raphael, etc. The article was just too dry and needed some life. If you have "historical images" by great artists please add them. And not all of them have religious significance, e.g. Jesus playing with John the Baptist is just a great piece of art f two children playing, by one of the top 3 masters in the world. In any case, to accomodate Andrew's concern I removed 3 images that could have been called semi-religious. The Pilate image has no religious issues, neither does the Crucifixion image. It is just Jesus on a Cross with no angles, etc. The resurrection image also has no angels, etc. If you want to add other images, please select some with high quality from great artists. However, it should be remembered that prior to the 19th-20th centuries paintings that did not have a favorable depiction of Christ would land the artist in a great deal of trouble. Hence any "historical images" with a clinical view would be hard to find. Anyway, please look for some and let us discuss it. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 04:04, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, we call the infancy naratives "pious fiction" in the article, so the depiction of those two infants together is not a historical occurance (not to mention their ethnicity and cultural depictions are also ahistorical). How much of the article text is devoted to pre-modern scholarship? So why are all the images pre-modern? Just some thoughts. -Andrew c [talk] 05:22, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't want to just be shutting down ideas, so here are a couple examples of the type of imagery that I think would fit better than western renaissance paintings: File:Pilate Inscription.JPG, File:Judea 1 by David Shankbone.jpg, just for example.-Andrew c [talk] 06:39, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, I have to agree with you. The ones you have are more suitable than teh Raphael. But the Pilate image is probably ok. Please feel free to replace the Raphael. Thanks History2007 (talk) 09:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Someone did a computer graphics reconstruction of what Jesus might have looked like, I think it might have been the BBC. I'll see if I can find it. The current images are not appropriate, as they all seem to be painted from a literal understanding of the gospels, which is not the theme of this article. Triangl (talk) 19:02, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Scholarly Methods
The Scholarly Methods section deserves a main page. I can't find one for it. Maybe it could go somewhere on Biblical criticism, but I couldn't figure out where. Even if it gets its own page, it still deserves a place on Biblical criticism. Anyone want to suggest a spot? Leadwind (talk) 16:56, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

This giant synthesis ...
is truly heroic, but I don't believe Wikipedia should present its own view of the historical Jesus. Of course, it's not quite like that, rather at every point the article argues back and forward. But instead of this grand synthesis, or maybe complementary to it, the article should present the different views in their own right. Every scholar has her interpretation and very own Historical Jesus and everything in the life of Jesus are interpreted in that light. All the books on the historical Jesus present consistent and coherent accounts of who Jesus was, so trying to reconcile these issues is hard, heavy-weight WP:OR, to say the least. One could identify main areas of contention, but the core of this article should be to present the best current theories on the historical Jesus. Unfortunately, I don't have the time and the expertise to do this myself, but I hope that someone agrees with my general idea, so that this article starts going in the right direction, and one day I can read consistent and clear accounts of the prevailing theories. Thanks, Vesal (talk) 18:31, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Vesal, I'm totally with you that you should be able to read a consistent and clear account of the prevailing theories. I'd like to see that information associated with the respective source. What's Sanders' vision? Vermes? The Jesus Seminar's? Tabor's? Crossan's? In fact, maybe this page should contain a section of "notable views," and we'd summarize Crossan, Sanders, whoever. Throw in historical views, like 19th century Ritschlianism. This page, however, is about (what scholarship has to say about) the historical Jesus, about which the experts agree in broad terms. He was baptized. He preached about the Kingdom of God and attracted a following as an exorcist, a healer, and a sage. He taught his followers to view God as a loving father, etc. There's a lot we know about this guy. They disagree on whether he preached an imminent apocalypse, and, if he did, whether he made himself out to be the Anointed (Messiah, Christ), as well as whether he claimed to be the apocalyptic Son of Man. They disagree in how much credit to give the Gospels. But overall we do have a historical figure of Jesus. Napoleon gets a page describing him as a historical figure, and Jesus deserves the same. This is that page. Leadwind (talk) 19:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with what you say here, but not with the article ... :) Well, it just seems to me that it tries to do it all within a single layout, that is, present consensus, areas of disagreement, differing interpretations, while building a single biography. When we have different theories about the most fundamental aspect of the person and his teaching, building a biography is harder than say for Napoleon. These "Jesus as X" are almost like different people, and I believe they are sufficiently notable scholarly constructs to each deserve their own sub-section in an article like this.


 * Another thing I like about about your short post, but I find lacking in the article is the main areas of scholarly contention. Currently, they get lost among the minor disputes about the details of his biography. I think a better structure would be to have a section on the consensus, then, point out the fundamental areas of disagreements, as you did above, and finally, present the different theories. Something like that ... Vesal (talk) 22:36, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Leadwind, this is incredible work on your part! The section looks very nice, but what do you think about the bigger picture now? I've been thinking. When reading the title "Historical Jesus", a person may primarily think about the Quest, but one may indeed simply wish for a biography of the historical person. The article now takes both approaches: I am personally more interested in the first topic. For example, I'm very interested in the social and theological implications of these findings. Most of these scholars are themselves religious, often even devout Christians, but the historical Jesus they come up with is so different, so what approaches do they take on the relationship between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith??
 * Sections 1, 2, 6, 7 are more about the scholarly process of doing history;
 * Sections 3, 4, 5 focus on the result.

To come back to the point, though, maybe people like me should be directed to the article on the quest for the Historical Jesus, which is currently only about the history. These recent additions about contemporary Jesus theories (together with "scholarly methods" and the "criticism" sections) might be better suited to the article on the quest. Then, this article could follow the attempted biography approach. I have nothing against having it all here, except this article might be bit long now. What do you (and other people) think? Vesal (talk) 22:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the compliments. I bought two books: Theissen & Merz, which surveys the field with authority and names Sanders as an important representative of the majority view; and I got Sanders on Historical Jesus. These two sources really have helped things fall into place for me and answer lingering questions I had. I think this page should be results, about "Jesus the historical man" with a section on "Quest," and Quest should be the process, with a section summarizing this article. This page should be to Jesus roughly what the Napoleon page is to Napoleon (because the Jesus page is not that). Leadwind (talk) 00:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that a Jesus page can't be anything like the Napoleon page, because we have enormous amounts of mutually supportive data about Napoleon, he was known by thousands of people, who wrote about him at great length, we have hundreds of letters to and from him, we have his portraits by contemporary artists (really good ones, at that), we have his body, we've done neutron activation analysis of his hair, from multiple samples, etc, etc, etc. The French, the English, the Russians (especially the Russians), the Spanish, the Austrians, the Italians, the Dutch, etc, etc, all wrote contemporaneous accounts of him and his activities, his associates, his favorite recipes, his moods, his attitudes, etc, and none of these were subjected to censoring or centralized editing or emendation or redaction, and subsequent fraudulent insertions. What comparison is really possible? Nothing, not one thing, was written about Jesus until long after he was dead, and soon enough thereafter whatever was written was subjected to pretty nearly absolute control by a totalitarian authority with a party line to establish. And, the Napoleon story isn't encumbered by a popular expectation that he is going to save us for eternal life with him in paradise. Which could influence the character of the Jesus story, don'tcha think? And, although Napoleon pulled off some pretty good tactical successes in war, nobody thinks there was anything supernatural or miraculous involved. But people treat the Jesus story as if he walked on water. Trigley (talk) 05:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Trigley, if we get to the point at which historians acknowledge that they can't really assemble a meaningful account of Jesus the way they can for Napoleon, you'll be right. As long as historians believe that they actually can discern the historical figure behind the gospels, then WP ought to report on that historical figure just like it does any other. Leadwind (talk) 19:26, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Vermes and Burchard
Anyone feel like summarizing their views on historical Jesus for the "theories" section? Leadwind (talk) 18:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

The Consensus View and the culture of California
The article states: "The latter, non-apocalyptic view is dominant in North American scholarship, though it is said to reflect the culture of California more than the culture of Jesus's Galilee." This is based on German scholars, which is kind of unfair in itself, but I'm more concerned that it might be dated. There are some nice free lectures on iTunes U by Thomas Sheehan from Stanford. I think he said that his views have slowly shifted from an apocalyptic to a non-apocalyptic interpretation, and that his change of opinion has occurred in the last ten years. He claims the consensus has shifted as well, but I'm not so sure about that... Vesal (talk) 17:31, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The sentence you mention comes from a recent university textbook. Personally, I would personally lean toward the non-apocalyptic view, but I wrote what the book said. It's current and I don't have any particular reason to doubt it. If there's an RS of similar stature that says something else, please find it.. Leadwind (talk) 01:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I did a little search on google books and I did not find anything that actually disputes what you say. Most of the people claiming the consensus have changed are participants in the debate, e.g., Marcus Borg, so I'm not sure these can be used. The most neutral formulation I found was this:, which makes clear the lack of consensus is deep-rooted. But I think you are right that the apocalyptic view is still somewhat dominant. For example, the book description for [ http://www.amazon.com/Apocalyptic-Jesus-Dale-C-Allison/dp/0944344895 The Apocalyptic Jesus: A Debate] (published in 2001) states "Borg, Crossan, and Patterson argue that Jesus taught that God's kingdom was already here, not that it was coming in the near future. Dale Allison defends the widely-held view that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet." Vesal (talk) 21:27, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Historical Enoch
Enoch is an important figure in all three monotheistic faiths, but he is still rather misunderstood. Have there ever been attempts to discover the historical Enoch, much like the historical Jesus ? ADM (talk) 21:49, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that much of the "scholarship" referenced in this section presupposes the phenomenon it attempts to establish. We should apply the same scholarship to the subject of "Historical Leprechauns", with equal justification. For example, we can locate multiple ancient leprechaun stories that feature nearly identical elements (but also plenty of contradictory ones), and we can find evidence of concurrent belief in leprechauns by people who lived where the leprechauns lived. Or, why don't we undertake to reconstruct the "Historical Hercules"? Now there's a son of God with supernatural powers, for whose existence the evidence is as firm as that for Jesus. Or why not Huckleberry Finn? He must have existed, to think otherwise would be absurd; we have his autobiography for Christ's sake, and clearly his contemporaries believed he existed, they wrote about him extensively, and I dare you to find text from a single contemporaneous authoritative source that seriously claims he never existed. So there! And what about Paul Bunyan? Do you think somebody just made up all those stories about logging in the Old Northwest woods? We have extensive archeological evidence for it! And how about Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq? Would somebody just make that shit up? Obviously ridiculous, as much "scholarship" has established! Trigley (talk) 14:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Just find the books on historical Hercules, and you're on. It's the editors' jobs to report what the experts say, even if you disagree with the experts. I don't think there was a historical Hercules, but if there's a rack of scholarly books on the subject, then the topic deserves a page. Leadwind (talk) 02:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello Leadwind, thanks for the response, and I've appreciated your comments in the foregoing sections. I agree that the task is to report what the experts say, but I can't help chafing under their tyranny sometimes; nonetheless, I don't make any changes to articles unless I think the scholarship truly justifies doing so. So instead I explore the freedom of the discussion page! It seems that's where much of the fun really is. I'm somewhat new to Wikipedia participation, so I don't want to step on any toes by overreaching the bounds of propriety. And, thanks for the message on my talk page; it's my first; I've been noticed! I am interested in adding constructively to Wikipedia, but I'll admit that a Historical Hercules page probably won't achieve that. Trigley (talk) 02:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Caesar as Jesus
I would say the text the anon wants included is at best undue weight. It should be cut down, if not removed entirely. One scholar's very out-there theory certainly constitutes fringe. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 03:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I suppose a case could be made that Caeser's death and deification reverberated throughout the Roman world so thoroughly that the Jesus story couldn't escape their influence. If that is what is suggested, there may be evidence that should be described and referenced. But it does sound like a bit of a stretch, on the face of it. Probably lots of other ancient world events and personalities contributed to the development of the Jesus story too. Trigley (talk) 04:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Lacey, for just going ahead and getting rid of this. 09:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Jesus's look alike
Is it conceivable that a look-alike of Jesus was on the cross, e.g. one of his cousins, while Jesus himself escaped the ordeal on the cross, and lived on somewhere else, to continue with his teachings in security and away from harm of the Romans and High Priests. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.167.70.208 (talk) 13:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Jesus' claims on his divinity in the pre-catholic era
I miss a section about the claims of Jesus about his divinity quoted from the pre-catholic (Constantin, etc) era (early church fathers in the II and III. centuries, gospels, letters). I am not interested in pseudo and false gospels written from the V. century. Varadiattila (talk) 14:06, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * What pre-Catholic era?Farsight001 (talk) 05:14, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Latest edits
From the looks of it, I would guess that a college level class (perhaps Religion 301), is editing this article as a group as part of a class project. I would first encourage the instructor and everyone else to read WP:SUP. Next, perhaps there needs to be a little bit of coordination. I can see that one user already reverted 8 or so students all at once, which isn't a great way to welcome a group of (probably) college level students willing to improve this article. From what I've read of the most recent contributions expanding the birth section, the sourcing and content seems good. However, I personally am a little concerned that there are 15kb just on the birth narrative in an overview article. Perhaps it could be summarized and the bulk of the content moved to the Nativity of Jesus article, perhaps starting a historicity section? Anyway, I thought a talk page discussion should be started so anyone with problems or questions can ask and established users with concerns regarding new edits can raise them here. Welcome new users, and good luck.-Andrew c [talk] 00:38, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi - just wanted to jump in as the one who reverted the 8 edits - I did it because a lot of established, sourced material was deleted in the process, without consensus, and without so much as an explanation in the edit summary. I haven't undone the newest editor, because no deletions have been made.  I wasn't trying to be unwelcoming.  I would encourage the new editors to introduce themselves here and to make use of the edit summary, especially for major edits.  Dawn Bard (talk) 00:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree this was probably the only thing to do in this situation, though I think some could be salvaged, here or elsewhere. Style & quality were very variable. Maybe explain about sandboxes? Yet more Crossan, who is arguably already over-prominent here. Johnbod (talk) 04:18, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, all of them, like User:BillWrede have just been banned as sockpuppets: Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of CollinsShelby. I wonder if that is right. Johnbod (talk) 15:20, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

As professor of the class which attempted to upload new material to the historical Jesus page, I think my students are owed an explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.190.174.230 (talk) 19:06, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The information posted to the page was by a college class (Religion 301) that had intended to better the page. The welcoming given was most unfriendly and the charges of sockpuppetry were absoulty rediculous and false. I also think we are owed an explanation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JCD10 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * What you have here is diffusion of responsibility: a simple mistake was made, but dealing with it in a volunteer project is not always going to be swift; Johnbod speculated above whether this was right or not, and I asked the admin who blocked to comment here --- I will ask more prominently for this to be dealt with, but if you want to avoid situations like this in the future, the students should have introduced themselves and discussed massive changes like this. Vesal (talk) 18:20, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Not to mention that if a checkuser was performed (I don't know if it was or not), multiple accounts editing from a college network would almost certainly appear to have the same IP address, and probably (given that college equipment is usually consistent) the same technical spec as well. Black Kite 18:44, 11 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi. I just wanted to welcome the Religion 301 group (belatedly, unfortunately), and make a couple of suggestions.  First of all, it is good practice to briefly explain your edits in the edit summary - it just lets everyone else who's interested in this article know what you're doing.  Also, as I mentioned above, I was the one who reverted the first batch of edits, and the real red flag for me was that several of the edits removed references and well-sourced material.  If you have well-sourced information that contradicts sourced information in the article, it's best to either add it in addition to the current info as an alternate view, or to discuss the change here on the talk page - in advance - to see if there is a consensus to replace the reference.  I'd also suggest checking out how to format inline citations to keep the cites in the article consistent and readable.  And above all, if you have any questions, please ask - that's what this talk page and our user talk pages are for.  In spite of your dubious "welcome," most of us here really just want to make Wikipedia better, and we'll be happy to help.  Dawn Bard (talk) 19:23, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Class / Professor confirmed on unblock-en-l - Unblocking

 * The professor emailed unblock-en-l after we told a couple of the students who mailed us there to have him verify the class. The professor's identity, email, and class schedule check out - the class exists, the email he used to send the note to us is on his faculty information page, etc.  This is reasonably solidly confirmed as a class project.
 * I am going to be unblocking the individual accounts involved, as this was not a sockpuppetry or normal meatpuppetry exercise, but a class project which didn't know to warn us and which nobody warned adequately.
 * I am concerned that there were nothing like the normal amount of user talk or article talk page warnings made over this incident. Our policy against biting new users specifically requires that we assume good faith, warn people who transgress, etc.  I understand that a large number of new users showing up all at once raises all sorts of red flags - I've been around enough that I know well and personally that 99% plus of these types of incidents are a single ideologically driven sockpuppeteer trying to drive an agenda on Wikipedia.  However, even in those cases, we are required to give them warnings and a chance to identify themselves.
 * The handling here seems to have fallen far short of our best practices for abuse cases (apparent or real). I am dissapointed that there were no warnings or serious discussion attempts that I can find prior to the SPI report.
 * As I said - I'm going to unblock the accounts. I have requested that the newly unblocked accounts identify themselves on their user pages and on this talk page as class project affiliated, to avoid further confusion, and made sure that they understand the importance of using article talk pages.
 * The meatpuppetry policy still applies - if they collectively start edit warring again, the ones involved can be treated as such - but the global block on all of them was not a good step. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 19:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There was no edit-warring as such, but a number of rather drastic, and very varied edits were made in one burst all within a few minutes, mainly adding, but also just replacing previous material on similar topics which was as good or better, and with no edit summaries. While there is plenty of room for improvement here, this was not very helpful. I still think it would be better if the class efforts were to go in a WP:SANDBOX for now, and be moved over after discussion here. Expecting users here to issue 8 sets of warnings to people who have been presumably instructed to do something by their professor, and/or to wade through and judge a mountain of edits, is also rather unreasonable. A sandbox will ensure that everyone's efforts remain untouched initially, which is presumably helpful to the class.  Johnbod (talk) 19:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to those of you who worked to get my students unblocked. Although we are currently in final exams, several of them plan to participate in editing as soon as they can. I think you will find them to be articulate, intelligent, and good-natured. No socks or meat in the bunch. BTW, apropos of the sandbox, it was important to their learning experience in the seminar that they not view the Wikipedia article on the historical Jesus until they had done their research. Accordingly, we created our own wiki and wrote up our own article, and then compared it to the Wikipedia article. Engaging with Wikipedia before working through the scholarship would have short-circuited the learning process. Again, thanks to all you for welcoming them into the conversation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rel 301 (talk • contribs) 21:11, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

C. Stephen Evans
Hi all, I at first deleted the quotation below, but realize that such actions probably should be explained first - so I have reverted and offer the following proposal;

I am proposing a rework of C. Stephen Evans' position which is, in my opinion, potentially misrepresented in the below citation from the section Christian Criticism;

In my view this quotation risks misrepresenting both Evans and the book from which the quotation is taken for the following reasons;
 * Evans' position is a bit more complex than a simple appeal to faith as the basis for belief in the Historical Jesus. Rather he is a consistent defender of the view that the essential historical reliability of the Gospels can be rationally defended - see, for instance, the discussion in chapter eight, of "Why Believe: Reason and Mystery as Pointers to God" (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996).
 * The above quotation is taken from a book which is more than a simple appeal to faith. As Evans writes;
 * "'My own title reflects my thesis that the story of Jesus as told by the Church-the story of Jesus as the Christ the Son of God-can be reasonably accepted as historically true...This book aims to give a convincing account as to why knowledge of the story is important, and also argues that ordinary people who claim to have knowledge of the truth of the story of Jesus of Nazareth may be quite reasonable in making such a claim. Specifically, I claim that the reasonableness of such a claim is not undermined by modern critical biblical scholarship' (p.vi, vii)"


 * The specific quotation is taken from a paragraph in which Evans is putting a case quite different from that which the quotation implies i.e. he is arguing that the distinction between the Jesus of History and the Christ of Faith is "a half-truth" (p.vi). The extended quote makes clear that all historical reconstructions require "faith" - even those of 'scientific, critical historians' as can be seen from the extended quotation (with the out of context quotation above in italics);
 * "'the claim that the Church's story must be accepted by faith, as usually understood, is misleading for two reasons. For it is often thought that it means that believers hold their convictions by faith and not reason, while serious historical scholars base their views solely on reason. However, to say that the Church's story must be accepted by faith does not mean that such faith cannot be reasonable, or that it can or should be isolated from critical scrutiny. And the suggestion that it is only the Church's version of the story that it requires faith to accept is mistaken. The truth is that their is no story of the historical Jesus that can be isolated from faith convictions, and this is as true for the stories told by 'scientific, criticial historians' as it is for the story told by the Church.'"

In sum, Evans' position is more nuanced that the quotation implies. I intend to work up a more detailed summary of his position and add it to the article in the next couple of days.

-- Muzhogg (talk) 05:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Would it perhaps be enough to say, on the basis of the quotations given above, that he holds that the stories told by "scientific, critical historians" are based on faith convictions no less than is the account of Jesus as the Christ the Son of God, an account that can be reasonably accepted as historically true?  Soidi (talk) 09:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Very much so. He does make the point that faith itself isn't the conclusion of a rational argument - but he's very clear that the Christian account of the historical Jesus is no more irrational than the "historical Jesus" of the historians, and thus a faith that affirms this historical account is not itself "irrational". Evans is a pretty competent philosopher, and the book itself is almost 400 pages, so you can imagine he says alot about the relation of faith, history, and reason. But your remark above does, I think, accurately reflect a major part of his argument. -- Muzhogg (talk) 23:11, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed mergers
There are many articles on Jesus, as can be seen at Jesus and History. Much of the content overlaps. Would it not be a good idea to merge these sites, with brief and focused fork articles to expand on certain points without repeating all the detail over again? Wdford (talk) 10:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

This page does not represent a historical view.
I propose that the following text be included in the first section:

Some scholars find the existence of Jesus, as described by the Church, disproved by the fact that Paul the Apostle, by many regarded as the founder of the Church, was aware of neither the existence of any of the Synoptic Gospels, nor the existence of Jesus as his contemporary. St.Trond (talk) 19:53, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Saying "some scholars" is a bit vague and weaselly. Did you notice we already had Historical_Jesus? Is there anything in that summary you think is missing or needs to be changed? -Andrew c [talk] 23:54, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Fringe hypotheses should not be described as "facts." john k (talk) 00:20, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Please provide a contemporary source which says that Paul knew Jesus was his contemporary.St.Trond (talk) 06:27, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * How about Paul's own words in Galations 1:19...This thread is getting off topic and into trolling territory. Hardyplants (talk) 07:21, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * KJV: "[19] But other of the apostles saw I none, save James the Lord's brother.", Alvar Ellegard p. 215: Note that none of those mentioned here are called disciples by Paul, but 'brethren' and 'apostles'. St.Trond (talk) 07:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
 * "Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Peter and stayed with him fifteen days. I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord's brother."
 * That is one of the reasons why the theory your source is promoting is not taken seriously by scholars, If Peter and the apostles and even Jesus siblings are not recognized as contemporary with Jesus, who is? Hardyplants (talk) 08:30, 19 September 2009 (UTC)


 * We must not forget that no historian can claim to possess actual historical record (beyond biblical text) of Jesus except scant historical confirmation that he was in fact crucified by the Roman Empire. No, this article is not about painting a factual picture of a figure based upon primary historical accounts with that figure as their subject. It is about taking the biblical story and analyzing it critically in a historical context based upon the known culture/politics/religion of that time. Only the historical context of Jesus can be legitimately called fact; the historical figure of Jesus can only be the subject of speculation. by hajatvrc 12:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Final line of the 'Criticism as myth' section ("This Position ... is very rare among Historians and Bible scholars") is inappropriate, likely biased, and incorrectly sourced.
The full line is... "This position, put forward works such as the 2005 documentary The God Who Wasn't There, is very rare among Historians and Bible scholars."

There is already a full page devoted to "Jesus as Myth" and so it seems appropriate to just have the link here rather than to pronounce judgment on that page on this one. Also, it might be easy to justify the validity of such a comment if it involved "Bible Scholars" only but to include "Historians" requires a considerable burdon of proof and the 4 sourced references include one broken web link (120 - link to http://home.ca.inter.net/~oblio/CritiquesRefut3.htm), a book reference with no page (117), and the opinion of 2 Biblical Scholars as the belief of all other Historians. At least a reference to a credible survey of Historians with a resulting number of those who believe in "Jesus as Myth" at under 5%?? (is 5% = "very rare"?) would be required to justify such a reference. Either way, it is inappropriate to comment on the validity of such an article especially when it is available and can be read and evaluated on its' own merits.

I suggest loosing the entire section and leave only the link.

Ericpol (talk) 18:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You certainly don't need a survey of historians. You need a reliable source saying that historians reject the theory.  To go through and count historians ourselves would be OR. john k (talk) 18:55, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I think he probably means an existing survey :) "reference to a credible survey of Historians" was what Ericpol called for. John, surely the only type of "reliable source" on the prevailing historian opinion would be a survey? Gorton k (talk) 12:11, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * A survey conducted by a third party source would be best. If that doesn't exist, however, we can rely on historiographical essays and the like to summarize mainstream scholarly opinion.  john k (talk) 18:04, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

exorcisms in particular are well-attested
As it stands now, the article contains the line:
 * Jesus' exorcisms in particular are well-attested

That would seem like a rather contentious statement. Even though there are regions of the world where Christians currently are in the majority, in fact on the planet christian are a minority, so it is a minority view that he was the son of god and had some supernatural powers. The word attested means affirmed to be correct, true, or genuine. If the article is to remain neutral, then the statement must be changed. On the other hand I think it would be acceptable to have: scolar X wrote that Jesus' exorcisms in particular are well-attested. But it would be absolutely crucial to have the scolar X wrote bit. Pnelnik (talk) 17:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This should probably be reviewed. But nearly every scholar of the historical Jesus agree that he was a "miracle" worker, which means that during his day he performed acts that some or most of the population would consider "miracles" or "magic". This doesn't mean that these historians accept the supernatural. They may have rational explanation for the acts, either intentional deception/slight of hand, or mass delusion, or write it off to well known techniques such as cold reading, etc. It is just saying that there was a common class of people who were magicians/miracle workers in Jesus' day, and that they all accept that historically, Jesus was accepted by his peers and his contemporaries as such. Meier wrote a great deal on this in his second volume. I agree that we shouldn't give the reader the impression that all scholars accept that Jesus held supernatural powers, but we shouldn't down play his accepted social role.-Andrew c [talk] 17:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Problem of Gospels as Primary Source
Normal historical method requires a primary source to be contemporary of subject and unbiased. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.52.25.64 (talk) 18:50, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * We must not forget that no historian can claim to possess actual historical record (beyond biblical text) of Jesus except scant historical confirmation that he was in fact crucified by the Roman Empire. No, this article is not about painting a factual picture of a figure based upon primary historical accounts with that figure as their subject. It is about taking the biblical story and analyzing it critically in a historical context based upon the known culture/politics/religion of that time. Only the historical context of Jesus can be legitimately called fact; the historical figure of Jesus can only be the subject of speculation. by hajatvrc 12:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Evolving Jesus
I have a concern with With every new historical discovery, the Historical Jesus changes or evolves. being the second sentence of this article. I believe it gives undue weight, and may be used to (perhaps inadvertently) poison the well. How often are new historical discoveries of Jesus found? How often do the pictures of the Historical Jesus change? This isn't the second most important aspect regarding this topic, in my opinion. It seems like a basis of all historical and scientific research. We don't say "the scientific model of evolution changes with every new fossil discovery" in the second sentence of evolution, or any other article that uses historical/scientific methods. We don't say "Napoleon Bonaparte was a military and political leader of France and Emperor of the French as Napoleon I, whose actions shaped European politics in the early 19th century. The historical picture of Napoleon is continuously changing with every new historical discovery". See where I am going with this? Furthermore, it is generally against the MoS to use external links in the body text of an article. Instead of linking "Changes or evolves" to a google book hit (which doesn't work for me due to a lack of access permission or something), please instead use a citation tag in the future. Thanks. -Andrew c [talk] 17:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, just cut it. Arguably WP:SPAM. The whole new first paragraph is written in an unsuitable discursive essay style. Johnbod (talk) 18:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I also cut the following paragraph, because it seems quite redundant. Most, if not all of the points, are already mentioned elsewhere in the lead, and furthermore, it has problematic tone. Repeated use of the 1st person plural, and other stylistic issues. -Andrew c [talk] 14:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "Finally, the Historical Jesus is conceptually different than the Christ of Faith. The former is physical, while the latter metaphysical. As we learn more the about the Historical Jesus we view him differently. The Historical Jesus is based on historical evidence. Every time a new scroll is unearthed or new Gospel fragment is found, the Historical Jesus is modified. And because so much has been lost, we can never know him completely"
 * Guys this was not meant to be over the top, but pretty basic stuff from the Historical Jesus for Dummies. Please read the sources and if you still have a problem we will discuss it. They show how why the Historical Jesus has been less static than the "Historical Napoleon" -
 * See the comments above. Accuracy is not the issue, but style, tone & organization. Johnbod (talk) 16:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * If you look style, tone & organization of sources, you see what the Historical Jesus Concept is and what it is not. Ret.Prof (talk) 16:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * The style has a purpose. What these and other sources are saying up front is that this is not an attack on your faith (The Christ of Faith) rather what we are doing is looking at the evidence objectively (NPOV) and as we acquire new evidence we will revise our views accordingly. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia uses encyclopedic style, as do other reference works. The WP:LEAD section should contain a clear and concise summary of the subject and the rest of the article. The old lead was not ideal fromn this point of view but yours is a move in the wrong direction, regardless of the quality of the actual information it contains. Johnbod (talk) 18:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree the WP:LEAD section should contain a clear and concise summary of the subject and the rest of the article. I accept your deletions in the first paragraph. But please rethink deleting the third paragraph. Happy editing - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

This article is not about painting a factual picture of a figure based upon primary historical accounts with that figure as their subject. This cannot be done because the "historical" (i.e. from the first century) documents on Jesus, in general, are extremely difficult (and in many cases, impossible) to label as "reliable" or "not reliable" from a historical prospective. This article is about taking the biblical story of Jesus and analyzing it critically in a historical context based upon the known culture/politics/religion of that time. Only the historical context of Jesus can be legitimately called fact; the historical figure of Jesus can only be the subject of speculation. This discussion seems to be obsessed with including "facts" about Jesus, but we can only cite what historians have speculated about him. My point is that we need to be OKAY with portraying a very speculative account of the historical Jesus (with all of our information being cited from reliable historians, of course) and not waste time arguing about what actually happened. It is okay to provide multiple accounts of what different historians speculate actually happened. This is obviously different from the case of Napoleon because there are reliable primary texts written by people who knew Napoleon. by hajatvrc 13:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Hajatvrc, I have pondered what you wrote and it not only shows knowledge but wisdom. If we follow what you say with humility and good humour things will work out. Easier said than done! Thanks for your input. Thanks - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

What I am trying to do.
Many editors have put a lot of time and work into a difficult topic. The result has been a good article on the Historical Jesus. What I am trying to do is the "grunt work" of finding good references to support it and "smooth out" some of the past difficulties.

I have often seen other editors use EXTERNAL LINKS in articles and I have followed their example. It does not appear to be against Wikipedia policy. It is much easier to verify New Developments re the Historical Jesus with a link than with a normal footnote. Why would such links cause any more problems than internal links. In any event, I will be flexible and go slowly. Also as I said earlier, great photo. Last but not least, Andrew you do a lot of good work. Happy Editing - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:45, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Just read through the article again and I am fine with what you deleted from the first paragraph. CHEERS - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Just read policy on ex links and I am on shaky ground! Therefore delete what you must! - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Lead Section
The article claims to "reconstruct a biography of [Jesus] life and times", and the lead section states specifically that the gospel texts are used as the primary source of information for compiling this biography. However, the accuracy and reliability of the gospels is disputed. This is disclosed in the body of the article. However wikipolicy states at WP:LEAD that the lead section should also include a summary of "any notable controversies" pertaining to the subject matter. As the bulk of the content of this article is seemingly based on a single source, and as the reliability of that single source is disputed, I believe this issue is notable enough to rate at least one sentence in the lead section. Wdford (talk) 22:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)


 * And the introduction to the article also claims "This reconstruction is based upon historical methods.[2] These include critical analysis of gospel texts as the primary source for his biography, and non-biblical sources for the historical and cultural context in which he lived." linking to biblical criticism. This criticism of the NT texts is dealt with through the article, and is dealt with in the introduction. Similarly, poisoning the well with a claim that frankly your sources don't support to any of the extreme implied isn't doing anything productive.--Ari (talk) 02:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Good points Ari. --BwB (talk) 21:39, 19 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Ari, critical analysis of gospel texts as the primary source hardly says the same thing to a layman as "the gospels are not universally accepted to be reliable historical sources." Secondly, the Biblical criticism article specifically differentiates itself from the Criticism of the Bible, which is where criticisms are actually made against the Bible as a source of reliable information. The intro as currently worded includes the sentence "The Historical Jesus is based on historical evidence". With that kind of statement, I continue to believe that a caveat is needed in the intro to clarify that much of the so-called "historical evidence" is not necessarily quite so "historical". This has got nothing to do with "poisoning the well", whatever that means, it is a statement of fact. This is an encyclopedia, not a propaganda leaflet. A bit more neutrality would be nice. Wdford (talk) 13:42, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

"Failed verification" tags in "Reconstructions Vary"
Two references to Wilson (1992) are used to support "Jesus was the son of Mary" and "The debate among early Pagan (Celsus), Jewish (Talmud), and Christian Sources had to do only with his father". A sample quote, from page 76, confounds the use of the citations, but there are many more: "Celsus...knew the rumour that Jesus was the illegitimate son of Mary and a Roman legionary." --Old Moonraker (talk) 10:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've seen this in other articles were a source can seemingly contradict itself in a different section. However, if a statement in the article is supported by the source, then I fel it is legitimate to have it in the article. --BwB (talk) 21:41, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Long time since I read the book, but as far as I can recall Wilson is consistent throughout (and the second reference helpfully gives the page numbers). Happy to be corrected if anyone can give the page number: the work is ready on the shelf behind me as I type. --Old Moonraker (talk) 21:58, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry for being so obtuse, but I just don't see any contradiction between the statement in the article and "Celsus knew the rumour that Jesus was the illegitimate son of Mary and a Roman legionary." Doesn't this expressly say that Jesus was the son of Mary, and that there was a debate about whether his father was Joseph or someone else? So I don't understand why "failed verification" was added.  There must be some explanation that at present escapes me.  Soidi (talk) 17:10, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the lack of clarity. To take it further: a rumour that Jesus was the son of Mary doesn't seem to support the stark "Jesus was the son of Mary". I've looked for sources that say this, but without success so far.--Old Moonraker (talk) 17:17, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * So that is what is meant by the objection. However, even now, I think that is a very strained interpretation.  The most natural interpretation is that the "rumour" was not that Jesus was Mary's child, an undisputed fact, but that he was her illegitimate child by a Roman legionary.  Did anyone, among pagans, Jews or early Christians, ever say that some other woman was his mother?  But Celsus did tell the story (drawn it seems from Jewish sources) that Jesus' father was a certain Panthera.  Isn't that what the article refers to?  Soidi (talk) 21:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * On this see Raymond Brown, The Birth of the Messiah, pp. 534-542 (Appendix V: The Charge of Illegitimacy). Soidi (talk) 21:12, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Back to the topic: Wilson does not say that Jesus was the son of Mary. Accordingly, the reference is flagged .--talk) 21:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Well then, take some other source that states the obvious. Is this enough: "The following historical statement can be made of Mary: she was the mother of Jesus from Nazareth and the wife of Joseph" (Encyclopedia Americana [2001], p. 395)?  If it is not enough, I give up.  Old Moonraker (talk) 23:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC) (Soidi)   -- (The formatting of this page is gone awry.)

That's the sort of thing I was looking for, but couldn't find. If you like we could also keep Wilson, but reported more closely to what he actually wrote. And the page malfunction was my fault: a piece of markup accidentally deleted with a piece of text I decided not to keep—sorry. --Old Moonraker (talk) 23:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposed split and merge
This article is getting rather large (97k). Two big sections of this article, namely the "Personal Background" and "Ministry of Jesus" sections, overlap extensively with the existing article New Testament view on Jesus' life. I propose that the "Personal Background" and "Ministry of Jesus" sections be split out of this article, and be merged with the New Testament view on Jesus' life article. Any objections? Wdford (talk) 16:41, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "New Testament views of Jesus" is very different from modern scholarly views of Jesus' life and ministry. Leadwind (talk) 01:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. There are two debates going on this - I have added more at the other one. Johnbod (talk) 01:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

lead should summarize the topic, see WP:LEAD. Also spark interest in the topic.
Gosh darn it, who eliminated all the biographical information from the lead? We've been through this before. The lead should include the scholarly consensus about who the historical Jesus was. The lead should summarize the topic. The lead should say who historical Jesus was, and it doesn't any more. Leadwind (talk) 01:58, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I thought this was supposed to be about a historical figure
At least half the "information" in this article is straight from the Bible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Noloop (talk • contribs) 03:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * But the Bible can be used as a historical source as long as the article doesn't present the Bible as the word of God. The section on "son of God", which you removed, is relevant to the Historical Jesus, as it explains what historian take that phrase to mean. You are welcome to improve that section, but it is certainly relevant, since I believe it is a historical fact that it was one of Jesus's titles. Vesal (talk) 07:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Information using the Bible for citations should be removed. But information in which reliable sources refer to the Bible is OK, as are Bible references in that context (only). Leadwind (talk) 01:16, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The whole of the article (almost) is "that context". References to gospel episodes should be cited to the original text, but accompanied by scholarly interpretation. Johnbod (talk) 01:22, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You are correct. It is a bullsht article. No roman records, etc.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.67.113.235 (talk) 16:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

>> This article is not on the 'historical jesus' but on a history derived from a story. There was not and could not be a 'historical jesus'. >> —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.77.57 (talk) 12:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed--no historian can claim to possess historical records of Jesus beyond very scant historical confirmation that he was indeed crucified by the Roman Empire. Therefore there is no such thing as a "historical Jesus" (as "history" is that which is written down). Instead, this article is about the attempts to analyze the biblical story in a historical context of the culture/politics/religion of that time. by hajatvrc 12:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I expected details of that scant historical information you mention and not this analysis of the biblical story being called "Historical Jesus". Rename the article to "Jesus Story in History" 203.97.255.148 (talk) 11:20, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

You may disagree with the term "Historical Jesus" but it is certainly one of the dominant terms used to denote this field of study by the individuals involved in this field of study. So while changing the name of the article may result in greater accuracy if consider only the meanings of the words used, it would lead to greater complications for individuals seeking information on the Jesus Seminar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DefiningEternity (talk • contribs) 03:03, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Ascension
In the Ascension of Jesus article, we have the following about Jesus: Scholars of the historical Jesus commonly reject New Testament accounts of Jesus' resurrection as inventions of the Christian community in the Apostolic Age.[3] Some describe the Ascension as a convenient device to discredit ongoing appearance claims within the Christian community.[3] Shouldn't there be something about that here or even on that article? Faro0485 (talk) 13:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, that statement does in itself have POV issues, and attempts to present a consensus that the source doesn't make. The interpretations of the resurrection at the more critical view are never as blatant as saying they made it up. The end. Some critical scholars such as E.P. Sanders state that what lead to the resurrection believe, he cannot explain; others like Marcus Borg spiritualise the experience while others like James D.G. Dunn accept the physicality of Jesus' resurrection. --Ari (talk) 13:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Minor Correction in the Lead
The third paragraph begins "The historical Jesus was..." and continues to describe Jesus thereafter. I propose changing the line to something like "These scholars/this scholarship contends the historical Jesus was..." and continue thereafter unchanged. I believe the current language makes it unclear that the view given is their perspective of Jesus, which is neither monolithic nor entirely uniform within their own ranks. Their scholarship represents a view of Jesus from liberal Christianity and not Christianity as a whole. Therefore I feel a slight change of language is needed to avoid attributing their beliefs to the whole of Christianity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DefiningEternity (talk • contribs) 03:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Possible Vandalism
"More notable ones are that of revolutionary,[29] prophet of social change, and mystical spirit-person, e.g., Marcus Borg." Implies Marcus Borg is a mystical spirit person.

"In the Judaic religion of Jesus' day, the Pharisees were a powerful party, espousing (like the first Christians) belief in the resurrection of the dead"

I'm guessing that's a poor stab at the fact that Jesus rose from the dead yeah? Either way it's misleading and pointless.

"They demand that dissenting scholars be more cautious" I don't know about this one but demand seems a little to strong a word. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.46.71.26 (talk) 14:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Historical Jesus . Historicity of Jesus
I feel that Historical_Jesus is redundant with Historicity_of_Jesus. I feel that the paragraph is more germane here, given that the focus of Historicity of Jesus is more on sources, but I'd like to know opinions on what to do. -- Cycl o pia talk  13:41, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Please don't delete large swaths of referenced material just because you don't like it
Thank you. Noloop (talk) 05:26, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for posting on the talk page.
 * Just because text is referenced does not mean it should be added. Whether it is neutral, relevant, and is not undue weight should all be given consideration.  The text you propose to add, does not talk about the Historical Jesus.  Flash  05:39, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't propose to add it. Someone else added it. The text pertains to the topic. Noloop (talk) 05:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

--Ari (talk) 05:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) It is not referenced;
 * 2) The bold edit was objected to by multiple editor and does not have consensus. Edit warring it in as you have done is no excuse for discussions.
 * 3) It is not a model for understanding the historical Jesus, and has no place under the "other views" section.


 * It is about certain academic and theological understandings about the historical Jesus. That some of what has come to be understood as being about a historical figure was derived from myth or tradition, and not related to any historical account of a figure who may (or may not) have existed.  So please do not keep edit warring to remove material that deals with this aspect in various ways.  Without including such views, anybody reading this article might be led to think we took a view on this one way rather than another. -  Mish Mich  -  Talk  - 00:28, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not about whether I like it or not (I've been editing long enough to know that my opinion is as worthless as everyone else's). The text is blatantly false and/or sourced to fringe theorists who have no current backing in the relevant academic fields.  But don't take my word for it, just look here.  More importantly, this article is not about a Jesus who never existed&mdash;it's about a mere historical figure (sans claims of miracles).  Please discuss before attempting to add in again.  If you add it in again, it will be considered vandalism.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 00:46, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Every opinion in the text is attributed to its source, so the text can't be "blatantly false." We provide the relevant, referenced theories and let the reader decide what to believe. This is not the place for you to push your religious beliefs. The sources are professors, renowned scholars of humanities, and authors who are not self-published. The article is about the historical figure of Jesus, and whether that figure is real or imagined is obviously relevant to the topic. It is a classic POV-fork to declare all dissent a "Christ Myth theory" and then move it to a "Christ myth theory" article. If you have evidence from peer-reviewed, religion-neutral journals that the theory is now widely disproven, provide it. Otherwise, stop deleting the text. Noloop (talk) 04:00, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * This article is about the scholarly construction of a historical Jesus. It is not about whether Jesus existed or not.  The viewpoint you inserted is already included in the article, and even that inclusion may be excessive.  Flash  04:27, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Theories of the Historical Jesus
As it stands, the section is broken into four categories:
 * 1) Apocalyptic prophet
 * 2) Wisdom sage
 * 3) Son of God
 * 4) Other views

Issue 1: The categorisation is okay but insufficient. For example, a very popular view (Wright, Horsley and others) is Jesus as an eschatological prophet, but not necessarily apocalyptic (esp. in the sense of Allison, Ehrman and Schweitzer.) Ben Witherington in The Jesus Quest used the following categories:
 * 1) Jesus the Itinerant Cynic (Mack, Crossan although Crossan doesn't push the Cynic);
 * 2) The Man of the Spirit (Marcus Borg);
 * 3) Jesus the Escatological Prophet (Sanders, Casey);
 * 4) Jesus the Wisdom Sage (Witherington),
 * 5) Jesus the Prophet of Social Change (Theissen, Horsley, N.T. Wright to an extent)

I believe Eschatological prophet should be added at a subheading in its own regard and that "other views" should be expanded (e.g. Vermes.) Borg and Witherington are often placed in the same category as emphasising the Wisdom Sage aspect of Jesus, so probably move Borg up to it.

Issue 2: This is not a model for understanding the historical Jesus, so I am unsure why Noloop is restoring the uncited content as somehow a model: "Some theologians and clerics, such as John A.T. Robinson, Don Cupitt, John Shelby Spong, and David Jenkins have questioned details in the gospel accounts, specifically focusing on the mythic elements that have been traditionally been read as historical fact. The former Bishop of Durham's views on the historicity about the virgin birth and resurrection were seen as quite controversial, despite having been standard mainstream liberal theology for half-a-century."

I am going to again remove the edit that doesn't have consensus, and I would hope the editor who just got unblocked for edit warring will not edit war the uncited OR.--Ari (talk) 05:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Cupitt I believe might be left out of this article. The man has travelled a very long track of personal faith, right out of Christianity. Jenkins and Spong are legitimate contributors to a view of a historical Jesus - advancing more strongly than many the notion that the words of Jesus have a validity above the miracles, the virgin birth the 'conjuring trick with bones' version of the resurrection. There's 200 years of British theology behind Jenkins, and it should have a more prominent position. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:14, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Spong does advance Jesus theories so it is fine to have something about his actual theory under Other views (instead of just some uncited fluff that has been objected to above). That said, although his views are known at the popular level they are viewed as quite idiosyncratic by the academy so it would require a neutral note on that.
 * How would we word concisely word Spong's model for Jesus as a historical figure? --Ari (talk) 02:57, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be a challenge, given that the man has lived for so long and written so much:) And I do believe his views have changed over time - as is inevitable in anyone who thinks deeply about anything. There are always new things to be integrated. Spong started from the position that we must strip away the Virgin Birth, we must strip away the miracles, we must strip out the theological language, and find what was the seed, the kernel underneath.  He started out I believe premising that it wasn't necessary to have a historical Jesus, that in fact viewing the gospel accounts as history was stopping Christianity from transforming itself to meet the new knowledge that needed to be incorporated (that human beings cannot undergo parthenogenesis, that we evolved from single cell organisms rather than being whizzed into existence in the image of G-d etc).  This is clearly a different position from saying that there was not a historical Jesus - it's a theological challenge, not an archaeological one.  In his later musings he seems to have become more mystical - almost Kaballic - viewing Jesus as a 'perfect human', creating a channel through which God (Spong's God anyway, which seems to me to have moved a little away from G-d) can be seen. This is Jesus as a model, as a vehicle for the expression of the divine - in some ways closer to the Buddhist ideal of achieving enlightenment, but with a different view of what that enlightenment would look like, since Spong (like the Kemitic Egyptians) sees God as Life, rather than an escape from life. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:16, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * This is a historical article not a theological article or BLP. It would be far simpler and more accurate to just use a third party reliable source. However, it seems that no one engages him as presenting a historical Jesus model so I was probably wrong in my opinion to add him. --Ari (talk) 10:59, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the perfect human view may deserve inclusion, as Spong seems to believe this is a historical possibility - although I may be misinterpreting him on a skim read, I think he considers it possible that Jesus did exist as a perfect human (a metaphysical state), even though he does not believe Jesus was the result of parthenogenesis (a physical constraint). Certainly, the idea that Jesus lived his life and chose his deeds to achieve the 'one perfect act' that brings about the Kingdom of God (in a Kabbalic sense, as Spong is using it, rather than an apocalyptic one) is capable of being a historical view.Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:22, 23 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Perfectly human is theological and reflective, not something historical studies can really talk about. E.g. Spong in Jesus for the Non-Religious states:

"Being a Christian is not to be a religious human being; it is to be a whole human being. Jesus is a portrait of that wholeness; and that is why he is for me, in his complete humanity, the ultimate expression of God. (p.265)"
 * Furthermore, Spong does not seem get any mentions in scholarly treatments of the historical Jesus. Popular reviews of historical Jesus studies such as Reviews of historical Jesus studies such as Ben Witherington, The Jesus Quest and Mark Allan Powell, Jesus as a figure in history: how modern historians view the man from Galile make no mention of it. N.T. Wright, Jesus and the Victory of God - none; Bart Ehrman, Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium - none; The Cambridge Companion to Jesus - none; James D.G. Dunn, Jesus Remembered - none; Marcus Borg, Jesus'' - none. --Ari (talk) 11:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
 * While exclusion is always a danger in any self-identifying group, I expect you are right and Spong is viewed as 'spiritual', and not having anything to say on the historical figure.Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Undue repetition and contradictory interpretation of a single author
Under Historical Jesus we have: And under Historical Jesus we have: The same source is used to substantiate both assertions: This presents several problems: Rather than edit warring to keep material that is clearly dubious, please address this in the text of the article - my next step will be start tagging this material as appropriate, as I do not engage in edit wars. Thanks. -  Mish Mich  -  Talk  - 14:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
 * "E. P. Sanders portrays Jesus as expecting to assume the "viceroy" position in God's kingdom, above the Twelve Disciples, who would judge the twelve tribes, but below God."
 * "Scholars see him as accepting a divine role as God's viceroy in the coming kingdom."
 * "Sanders, E. P. The historical figure of Jesus. Penguin, 1993. Chapter 15, Jesus' view of his role in God's plan."
 * They contradict each other - in one he expects to assume the 'viceroy' position, in the other he accepts the role of viceroy. Which is the correct interpretation of what he says?
 * One accurately reports this as Sander's view, the other that Sander's view is that of several scholars - does Sanders say this is the view of several scholars, is this his view, or if it is the view of several scholars, who are they (apart from Sanders)?
 * The same source is being used to make the same point in two different contexts - either this is about his apocalyptic mission, his divine role, or one (or both) of these is WP:SYNTH.
 * Using the same source to say the same thing in two places and two different contexts is WP:UNDUE, as it gives a single author more emphasis by virtue of repetition (rather than actual substance).

Thanks to User:Hardyplants for clarifying the second instance where this material is used - could somebody now address the first instance now, please. In the second instance, Jesus accepts the divine role of viceroy, in the first he expects to assume the position of viceroy. These still seem to be a contradictory synthesis of the same source, and it is not clear why the same information needs to be duplicated in the context of the role of apocalyptic prophet and his divinity. -  Mish Mich  -  Talk  - 23:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)


 * the two are not necessarily contradictory - they both reflect Sanders' view (which is I think not unique to him but he puts it in his own way) that Jesus saw himself as accepting a divine role - one in which he would, in the coming kingdom of God, assume the position of viceroy (Sanders says 'king' but that 'viceroy' is the term he prefers: "There was no title in the history of Judaism that fully communicated all this, and Jesus seems to have been quite reluctant to adopt a title for himself. I think that even 'king' is not precisely correct, since Jesus regarded God as king. My own favourite term for his conception of himself is 'viceroy'. God was king, but Jesus represented him and would represent him in the coming kingdom." Penguin edition, p. 248) The same information is here used to elucidate two aspects of Jesus' self-understanding: as an apocalyptic prophet, Sanders says, Jesus saw himself as announcing the future Kingdom of God in which his role would be that of God's viceroy; his divine role - his relationship with God - would be as a viceregal ruler at the head of the apostles. Does that make sense?Rbreen (talk) 02:28, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think, in the apocalyptic sense, this needs to be clarified that he announced the coming of a kingdom in which he would be viceroy, while in the divine sense, he accepted the role of God's viceroy.-  Mish Mich  -  Talk  - 07:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The Historical Jesus spectrum
Over in the Christ myth theory there are two reliable sources that might help:

"We have in effect been looking at two myths in this introductory chapter; two views of the historical Jesus which stand at opposite ends of the spectrum of opinions about him. At the one end is the views that there never was such a person as Jesus; the Gospels are descriptions of a fictitious person. [...]  At the other end of the spectrum is the view the Gospels give us a picture of the historical Jesus, every detail in the Gospels being recorded just as it happened." (Marshall, Ian Howard (2004), I Believe in the Historical Jesus (rev. ed.), Vancouver: Regent College Publishing, ISBN 978-1573830195 pg 24)

"To accomplish this, it will prove helpful to break down the wide variety of views regarding the Jesus of history found in New Testament scholarship today into four broad (and admittedly overly simplistic) categorizes. This spectrum of views points is, of course, ideal-typical in nature is offered merely as a useful heuristic" (Eddy, Paul R.; Boyd, Gregory A. (2007), The Jesus Legend: a Case for the Historical Reliability of the Synoptic Jesus Tradition, Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, ISBN 978-0801031144 pg 24-25)

Note what both these reliable sources are saying: the views of the historical Jesus is a spectrum of ideas. Marshall tells us the full range of that spectrum and Eddy-Boyd tells us that this spectrum can be broken up into "admittedly over simplistic", "ideal-typical", and "useful heuristic" categories. At least two other notable authors have also broken up the historical Jesus spectrum into four broad categories: John Remsburg in his 1909 book The Christ and Dan Barker in his 2006 book Losing Faith in Faith on pg 372.

If you examine these categories you will see the definitions don't exactly match but their exact definition is not the issue--the ideas of the historical Jesus covers a spectrum is our main issue.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Islamic sources
The article is lacking information that Islamic literature are also used as scholarly methods. There are many scholars that also use the Qur'an (and Hadiths) to help piece together the historical Jesus; people cannot forget that Muslims also believe that Jesus is the Messiah, even though it differs from the Christian point-of-view of Jesus. RekonDog (talk) 02:31, 1 August 2010 (UTC)


 * What are your sources for this? I'm not familiar with any historical Jesus scholar who uses the Qur'an as a source, as it seems unlikely that a document that far removed from the events in question would preserve any independent traditions not already found in the NT and other sources. According to Craig Evans "All of the Wur'anic traditions are dependent on the New Testament and/or Christian teachings (or in the example paralleled in Irenaeus, on Chrsitian heresy). Much of it reflects Islamic ideas. Some of it may reflect aspects of Jewish-Christian polemics. None derives from early, independent sources.29" But I'm not sure if this source I just found is representative of scholarship. So again, what sources do you have? -Andrew c [talk] 03:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

NPOV/N - is this a non-neutral fork?
This article looks like a POV fork aiming to promote certain perspectives and exclude others. I have requested independent feedback via the NPOV noticeboard: WP:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard. -  Mish Mich  -  Talk  - 18:23, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * The noticeboard post doesn't mention any specifics. So, anything specific? --Ari (talk) 13:03, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I am going to repeat what I wrote on the NPOV/NB so it can relate into this discussion as well: This has been well discussed already.
 * Historicity of Jesus deals with the theories of Jesus' existence
 * Historical Jesus deals with the "scholarly reconstruction" of Jesus (i.e. the theory that he was a real historical figure)
 * Christ myth theory deals with the theory that Jesus is an entirely frictional character.
 * There is no ambiguity there. The Historical Jesus article has a section pointing people at the opposing theory. All is right in the world. :) --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 13:06, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Historical Jesus is not about the theory that he was a real historical figure. That article would have to be named something like "Historical Jesus theory"--something parallel with Christ myth theory. This article is about Historical Jesus just like it says. Whether Historical Jesus is real or imagined is part of the topic. An article on unicorns should contain information about whether unicorns are real or imagined. To create an article Unicorn myth theory and immediately move all skepticism to that article would create a false presentation of uniformity in the Unicorn article. It's a POV fork.. Information about whether XYZ is real or imagined belongs in the article on XYZ.

'''A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. All POV forks are undesirable on Wikipedia, as they avoid consensus building and therefore violate one of our most important policies.''' Noloop (talk)
 * Noloop, screaming in bold won't help you get heard. The problem with your example of the unicorn is that academic consensus is positive on unicorns not existing, and in Jesus existing. So we should have a Unicorn existence theory separate article for the fringe view. Separating fringe views from standard views is not POV forking: do you think it is POV forking to have a separate article for Creationism vs Evolution? I very much hope not. Read WP:FRINGE again, please. -- Cycl o pia talk  15:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Please don't bold shout. It doesn't help clarify things.
 * Whether Historical Jesus is real or imagined is part of the topic - no, because there is an entire article about that. Plus criticism in this article directing people to the right counter article. If the issue is over the fact that one is named "theory" and the other isn't then, I suppose, you have the beginnings of a point. The only concern I have is that the Christ Myth theory is tenuous at best and, so, giving it equal status with an article about the historical figure theory (which is quite well expounded/established) is possibly undue. Anyway; there seems no reason to go over ideas on Jesus as a myth in this article because it is simply duplicating content from elsewhere --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 15:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * This article appears to start from an assumption he did exist in a particular way, and excludes academic sources that suggest he existed in a different way. -  Mish Mich  -  Talk  - 18:25, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Not at all; it presents one of the theories about Jesus (the fact it is the wide consensus is really irrelevant) and then deals with the counter theory at the bottom with sufficient detail. Would you say the Christ myth theory needs a big paragraph with material from scholars who think Jesus is a historical figure? --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 19:19, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I would expect to see two such things here: the historic theologians who argued from a perspective that what we know about Jesus as a historical figure is limited, so we have no historical record of the resurrection or virgin birth, or various conjuring tricks reported in religious texts. I would expect the theory to be laid out in that context.  I would then expect a paragraph about those who have subsequently argued against this theory.  In the myth article, I would expect no less - the historical background where people believe Jesus existed as a real person in the way this has been handed down by the church and within Islam, the theory that argues against this, and subsequent responses that seek to refute the myth theory. -  Mish Mich  -  Talk  - 19:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Both articles are reasonably lengthy - I still don't buy the rationale of moving extensive commentary across. Where scholars dispute particular points in this article it seems reasonable to include both sides where it fits into the article scope (there are areas that is needed actually). But what NoLoop is suggesting is, basically, putting elements of the Christ Myth theory into this page - which is irrelevant. This article starts from the perspective that Jesus was a historical figure and discusses the various theories and arguments the scholars make about that. Theory about Jesus being a purely fictional/mythical individual should, surely be handled elsewhere. Where specific points in this article are disputed by historians as being non-factual/fictional then that should be noted at that place. --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 19:53, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Constructing a short summary about the contrary perspective is not 'moving extensive commentary across' - and the section should start with a link to any articles that deal with this in depth. It is not unusual in many articles.  My main concern, however is not Noloop's insertions, but any insertion - even by notable theologians.  This suggests to me that there is an issue about where this stands in relation to the historicity article (with the sharing of structure and information being reproduced across the two articles suggesting this article is more about a POV about the historicity of Jesus, that about the historicity). -  Mish Mich  -  Talk  - 21:13, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Constructing a short summary about the contrary perspective is not 'moving extensive commentary across' - and the section should start with a link to any articles that deal with this in depth. would that not be this part -> Historical_Jesus? I, personally, would support an expansion of that plus addition of other criticism if applicable. The important distinction to remember here is that the historicity is a synthesis of information by scholars - I am interested where you feel contrary perspectives exist that require a separate section? Perhaps if we can deal with specifics (such as suggested additions and citations) that would help? --Errant Tmorton166(Talk) 21:20, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Absolutely, but whenever material is put in there, it seems to get deleted for some reason. Given C.S. Lewis is included, I am perplexed that notable theologians are removed.  I see from the link that Campbell and Russell have survived the most recent cull.  It would be reasonable to expect Christian theologians who have publicly commented on aspects of this to be included as well. -  Mish Mich  -  Talk  - 21:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me, having skipped through a number of the sources (and there are one or two that I've read in more depth in earlier years) that this article isn't about the historical Jesus. It's about a phenomenon often termed Quest for the historical Jesus, which was primarily a theological movement aimed at stripping back the doctrine/dogma/superstition that had grown up in the churches, and get back to a 'real' Jesus. In this, it was akin to the House Church movement that sought to strip back all the liturgy/dogma etc that had grown up in the established churches. This is why sources such as Spong and Jenkins are being rejected, because they were never part of the Quest movement. In the Quest, it is axiomatic that Jesus not only exists, he largely said the things recorded in the gospels, and he largely did the things recorded in the gospels - although some things are let go as later embroidery, or downgraded to symbolic (the claim was made that he was born of a virgin in order to fulfil the requirements of the prophecy of....). If that is the case, then the article should state this, should say more about the Quest itself (ie more about the sources, the historical progress of the Quest, the changes over time in views - eg from a view as an apocalyptic prophet to one whose "Kingdom of God" was just some moral endeavour) and Noloop would be wrong to add any information of the 'did Jesus exist' variety.Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * More recently, the rise of philosophical rationalism and modern biblical criticism have challenged this orthodox understanding of the resurrection. Yet even today, while many scholars question the nature and veracity of the resurrection per se, most accept that it remains pivotal for Christian theology and apologetics [...] John Shelby Spong, the provocatively radical Bishop of Newark, while denying the historical facticity of the resurrection, nonetheless still accepts that it is ‘the foundation of Christianity itself’. Certainly, one does not have to be an Evangelical to recognise the priority of the resurrection: hence Günter Bornkamm’s asserts that without it there would be no be no Church, and Jürgen Moltmann insists that Christianity either stands or falls by it.


 * Accepting the key role of Jesus’ resurrection in Christian belief is one thing, however. Establishing what ‘resurrection’ actually means, whether it does in fact necessitate belief in an empty tomb, and whether Jesus in truth did come back from the dead to appear to his disciples before ascending to heaven – all this is quite a different matter, and is now subject to often fierce controversy.


 * In the British setting, such controversy crystallised in 1984 around the consecration of David Jenkins as Bishop of Durham. Although hitherto known as a relatively conservative theologian, Jenkins generated considerable debate at the time when he questioned the bodily nature of Jesus’ resurrection and appeared to liken such an event to ‘a conjuring trick with bones’.7 Incendiary though his comments were, they reflected at least two centuries of serious academic debate on the credibility of the resurrection.

(FYI). -  Mish Mich  -  Talk  - 21:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

And, oh, look - here's another one... Quest for the historical Jesus. -  Mish Mich  -  Talk  - 22:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Shoot - howja do that. See my comments above!! Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I think this article has GOT to let in Jenkins, Spong, and a few others. Cupitt I'm not sure of - Cupitt turned pagan in his later years.Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:10, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * And even Robinson, while despised by some for some of what he said, was important in establishing the idea that the Synoptic Gospels were much earlier than had been supposed, and therefore more credible as documentary sources. Lindars focused on John, and saw this as evidence of the historical person of Jesus, in the context of revealing what he had to say about himself more than as an accurate historical document.  The symbolic in these is part and parcel of the historic - as that is what we were given.  I agree about Cupitt, although not as a pagan, but having a more a philosophical understanding of who Jesus was.  An article about the 'Historical Jesus' has to incorporate any views about the person in history (and I am less sure now that ideas about his not existing are relevant - but who he was, or was not, is clearly relevant) - unlike 'Quest for the historical Jesus', which is clearly about a series of historic movements seeking to uncover who he was.  If this is about the reconstruction of the historical Jesus, then it should be renamed 'Reconstruction of the historical Jesus (movement)' or something like that.-  Mish Mich  -  Talk  - 22:39, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It's been weeks since NPOV discussions have been active, therefore the tag on the article is misleading. I'd like to remove it. If not, could someone summarize the outstanding POV issues in this article, so we can work to address them. Thanks. -Andrew c [talk] 02:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It is sourced primarily to Christians and popular books, while telling the reader the sourcing is secular and academic. It downplays skepticism about the existence of Jesus by falsely dubbing skepticism a fringe theory. Noloop (talk) 03:20, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Maybe you are confusing this article with another, this article (just browsing through the citations) for the most part relies on the biggest names in HJ studies: Sanders, Ehrman, Funk, Witherington, Bock, Brown, Meier, Theissen and Merz, Borg, Wright, Vermes, Habermas, Harris, etc. Many of these are by scholarly presses, but SV has posted elsewhere the RS doesn't forbid us from using popular sources (especially if written by an expert in the field for a non-specialist audience). As for the second half of your criticism, I'd again ask if you are referring to this article. Where does it call the JM crowd "fringe". How does it downplay skepticism? If you are concerned with us saying "very rare among Bible scholars", that is no reason to tag the entire article. Seriously, I think this article may be in better shape than the historicity article (especially when it comes to sourcing). But still, saying you are concerned that the article is "sourced primarily to Christians and popular books" still does not explain the POV issues. What content specifically is POV? If we can't pinpoint how this article is biased, but only throw generalities at our sources, I don't believe that warrants a POV tag at the top of the article. -Andrew c [talk] 04:11, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Skepticism about the mere existence of an historical Jesus IS a fringe theory and therefore, does not belong in this article any more than the Moon landing hoax needs to be mentioned in an article about the Moon landing (other than to essentially dismiss it as fringe). But if you have a source that says that mainstream scholars don't think it is a fringe theory and/or not rejected, then please provide the source for that&mdash;I can provide sources that say it is almost universally rejected (and which I have provided to you in the past).  So, show us what you got.  Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 05:08, 12 August 2010 (UTC)


 * It is important to recognize the obvious: The gospel story of Jesus is itself apparently mythic from first to last." --Robert M. Price, professor of biblical criticism at the Center for Inquiry Institute (Deconstructing Jesus, p. 260)
 * The problem I have with all these versions of the so called "historical Jesus" is that they each choose certain early sources as their central evidence, and each presents a part of the picture. My own problem with this, as a historian, is that none of the historical evidence actually goes back as far as Jesus—so these various speculations are that, and nothing more. But what we can investigate historically is how the "Jesus movement" began. What the new research shows is that we have a wide range of teaching attributed to Jesus. Elaine Pagels Professor of Religion, Princeton University. (MacArthur Fellowship, National Book Critics Circle Award, Guggenheim Fellowship, Rockefeller Fellowship)
 * Some hoped to penetrate the various accounts and to discover the "historical Jesus". . . and that sorting out "authentic" material in the gospels was virtually impossible in the absence of independent evidence."-Elaine Pagels, Professor of Religion at Princeton University
 * I quite agree with Earl Doherty that the most important result of research carried out by writers like Wells, himself, Freke and Gandy, and myself, is the demonstration that the Jesus figure of the New Testament Gospels and Acts is a fiction, without any real evidential support. --Professor Alvar Ellegard,Dean of the Faculty of Arts at the University of Goteburg
 * We can recreate dimensions of the world in which he lived, but outside of the Christian scriptures, we cannot locate him historically within that world.-Gerald A. Larue (The Book Your Church Doesn't Want You To Read)
 * The gospels are so anonymous that their titles, all second-century guesses, are all four wrong.-Randel McCraw Helms (Who Wrote the Gospels?)
 * All four gospels are anonymous texts. The familiar attributions of the Gospels to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John come from the mid-second century and later and we have no good historical reason to accept these attributions. -Steve Mason, professor of classics, history and religious studies at York University in Toronto (Bible Review, Feb. 2000, p. 36)
 * The question must also be raised as to whether we have the actual words of Jesus in any Gospel. -Bishop John Shelby Spong
 * Many modern Biblical archaeologists now believe that the village of Nazareth did not exist at the time of the birth and early life of Jesus. There is simply no evidence for it. -Alan Albert Snow (The Book Your Church Doesn't Want You To Read)
 * Historically it is quite doubtful whether Christ ever existed at all, and if He did we do not know anything about Him, so that I am not concerned with the historical question, which is a very difficult one. -- Why I Am Not a Christian, philosopher Bertrand Russell
 * When it comes to the historical question about the Gospels, I adopt a mediating position-- that is, these are religious records, close to the sources, but they are not in accordance with modern historiographic requirements or professional standards. -David Noel Freedman, Bible scholar and general editor of the Anchor Bible series (Bible Review, December 1993, Vol. IX, Number 6, p.34)
 * The various reports of miracles connected with Jesus' life may be true but a rational person will surely demand better evidence than the conflicting reports of four unknown authors writing decades after the events. --The Case Against Christianity (1991) Michael Martin, professor emeritus at Boston University.
 * James Dunn says that the Sermon on the Mount, mentioned only by Matthew, "is in fact not historical." How historical can the Gospels be? Are Murphy-O-Conner's speculations concerning Jesus' baptism by John simply wrong-headed? How can we really know if the baptism, or any other event written about in the Gospels, is historical? -Daniel P. Sullivan (Bible Review, June 1996, Vol. XII, Number 3, p. 5)
 * David Friedrich Strauss (The Life of Jesus, 1836), had argued that the Gospels could not be read as straightforward accounts of what Jesus actually did and said; rather, the evangelists and later redactors and commentators, influenced by their religious beliefs, had made use of myths and legends that rendered the gospel narratives, and traditional accounts of Jesus' life, unreliable as sources of historical information. -Bible Review, October 1996, Vol. XII, Number 5, p. 39
 * The Gospel authors were Jews writing within the midrashic tradition and intended their stories to be read as interpretive narratives, not historical accounts. -Bishop Shelby Spong, Liberating the Gospels
 * Other scholars have concluded that the Bible is the product of a purely human endeavor, that the identity of the authors is forever lost and that their work has been largely obliterated by centuries of translation and editing. -Jeffery L. Sheler, "Who Wrote the Bible," (U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 10, 1990)
 * Yet today, there are few Biblical scholars-- from liberal skeptics to conservative evangelicals- who believe that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John actually wrote the Gospels. Nowhere do the writers of the texts identify themselves by name or claim unambiguously to have known or traveled with Jesus. -Jeffery L. Sheler, "The Four Gospels," (U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 10, 1990
 * Some scholars say so many revisions occurred in the 100 years following Jesus' death that no one can be absolutely sure of the accuracy or authenticity of the Gospels, especially of the words the authors attributed to Jesus himself. -Jeffery L. Sheler, "The catholic papers," (U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 10, 1990)
 * The bottom line is we really don't know for sure who wrote the Gospels. -Jerome Neyrey, of the Weston School of Theology, Cambridge, Mass. in "The Four Gospels," (U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 10, 1990)
 * Most scholars have come to acknowledge, was done not by the Apostles but by their anonymous followers (or their followers' followers). Each presented a somewhat different picture of Jesus' life. The earliest appeared to have been written some 40 years after his Crucifixion. -David Van Biema, "The Gospel Truth?" (Time, April 8, 1996)
 * So unreliable were the Gospel accounts that "we can now know almost nothing concerning the life and personality of Jesus." -Rudolf Bultmann, University of Marburg,
 * The Synoptic Gospels employ techniques that we today associate with fiction. -Paul Q. Beeching, Central Connecticut State University (Bible Review, June 1997, Vol. XIII, Number 3, p. 43)
 * The narrative conventions and world outlook of the gospel prohibit our using it as a historical record of that year. -Paul Q. Beeching, Central Connecticut State University (Bible Review, June 1997, Vol. XIII, Number 3, p. 54)
 * "...the earliest references to the historical Jesus are so vague that it is not necessary to hold that he ever existed; the rise of Christianity can, from the undoubtedly historical antecedents, be explained quite well without him; and reasons can be given to show why, from about A.D. 80 or 90, Christians began to suppose that he had lived in Palestine about fifty years earlier." --Professor G.A Wells. (The Historical Evidence for Jesus)
 * The gospels are very peculiar types of literature. They're not biographies. -Paula Fredriksen, Professor and historian of early Christianity, Boston University (in the PBS documentary, From Jesus to Christ, aired in 1998)
 * The gospels are not eyewitness accounts -Allen D. Callahan, Associate Professor of New Testament, Harvard Divinity School
 * Before the Gospels were adopted as history, no record exists that he was ever in the city of Jerusalem at all-- or anywhere else on earth. -Earl Doherty, "The Jesus Puzzle," p.141
 * Many contemporary scholars have abandoned the ideal of establishing who Jesus was with scientific objectivity on the grounds that the historical project cannot be separated from the author's own convictions. -- William C. Spohn. Professor of Theology, Santa Clara University
 * “...a reconstructed Jesus is just that—one scholar's version of Jesus. It is unlikely to convince anyone other than the scholar, his or her students (who more or less feel obligated to agree), and perhaps a few others.” --Scot McKnight, Karl A. Olsson Professor in Religious Studies at North Park University.


 * Obviously there are individuals who don't think it is a fringe theory, but that's not what I asked you Noloop. I asked, "[Do you have] a source that says that mainstream scholars don't think it [the CMT] is a fringe theory and/or not rejected"?  I have sources that say that the consensus among scholars is one of almost universal rejection of the CMT.  Do you have any sources that counters that?    Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 08:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Noloop, please do not copy and paste quotes over and over again. Please specifically say, in your own works, how you think this article is POV specifically, so we can work to fix it. No matter how much you quote, you are still making an argument that amounts to claiming the evolution article is not neutral because creationists exist. This article is about the historical Jesus. We have another article about the JM, a third article on the historicity issues, and finally the top tier Jesus article, where the historical view and JM are both presented in summary. Per our content forking guidelines, this IS the best place to discuss the historical Jesus using scholars of the HJ as sources, and we do even have a section here discussing criticism of the HJ from the mythist POV. So you still have not explained what is POV about this article.-Andrew c [talk] 13:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Most of those quotes aren't about the existence of the HJ, anyway. Noloop is mixing together quotes that say Jesus didn't exist with quotes that say that the Gospels can't be taken at face value as historical sources. The latter point is accepted by just about any scholar working in the field. Noloop seems to be making a depressingly common error—he apparently thinks that if one thinks there was a historical Jesus, this entails accepting the Gospels as literal truth. But, as should be obvious, one can be very skeptical about the "truth" of the Gospels and still think there was a historical Jesus. There are very few scholars who adopt the "maximalist" position that everything narrated in the NT actually happened, and I doubt that any of the editors working on these articles think that, either. On the other hand, Noloop doesn't seem to understand what historical research is, so I suppose it's no surprise that he's making this error. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Seeing something like "The gospels are not eyewitness accounts" mixed in with the above is like... I don't know what Noloop is trying to demonstrate. Brown, Meier, Ehrman, et al. all say the exact same thing. How many of Alexander the Great's biographies are "eyewitness accounts" (with the caveat that the "gospel" genre is often described as a different genre from ancient Greek biography)? -Andrew c [talk] 15:17, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * This comment is funny and ironic: "Noloop seems to be making a depressingly common error—he apparently thinks that if one thinks there was a historical Jesus, this entails accepting the Gospels as literal truth.... On the other hand, Noloop doesn't seem to understand what historical research is, so I suppose it's no surprise that he's making this error. " The article in that link is a straight up textual analysis of the New Testament, which Akhilleus has equated with historical research. Noloop (talk) 23:28, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Are you suggesting that a) doing textual analysis of the gospels means that one is "accepting the Gospels as literal truth"?; and b) that doing textual analysis of a primary source cannot constitute historical research? john k (talk) 00:36, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The article in question is "Why was Jesus Crucified, but his Followers were not?" by Paula Fredriksen. It's short, and easy to read—well, I thought it was, but Noloop has read it and has a very different idea of what it's about than I do. It's not about one source—it draws upon all four gospels, as well as Philo and Juvenal. And it comes to a historical conclusion—Jesus was executed as a means of crowd control. The article is a short version of an argument Fredriksen makes in more detail in her book Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews, which is certainly about historical research, as is the entire investigation of the historical Jesus. So yeah, Noloop does seem to think that textual analysis of a primary source doesn't constitute historical research, in spite of clear evidence to the contrary. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:49, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * In order to treat that article as reaching a conclusion about a historical figure, you have to assume that the New Testament is close to the literal truth. The main evidence for its claims is the text of the New Testament. Noloop (talk) 00:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It assumes the New Testament is a historical source like any other, from which inferences about the events discussed can be made. It assumes that there is some first hand knowledge at the root of what the Synoptics and John discuss about the life of Jesus.  This may or may not be right; as I understand it, some scholars would probably dispute Fredriksen's use of evidence and say that she gives too much credence to the gospel accounts, which are too garbled and late for inferences of the kind Fredriksen is making to have much value.  But talking about "literal truth" is a red herring - it's just a term that you can use so that you can imply that Fredriksen (who is Jewish) is some kind of fundamentalist.  If someone wrote an article about Alexander the Great, and tried to use the four extant narratives of the life of Alexander (all of them written at least 300 years after Alexander's death, much further removed from Alexander than the gospels are from Jesus), would you say that they are just engaging in literary textual analysis of Arrian, et al, and that the only way to treat such an article as reaching a conclusion about a historical figure is if you assume that Arrian, et al, are the literal truth?  If not, why not?  Why are Arrian and company proper historical sources to use (Carefully, of course, with an eye to their biases and so forth) in writing a life of Alexander, but the Gospels are not proper historical sources to use (carefully, with an eye to their biases) in writing a life of Jesus?  The Alexander sources are probably more straightforward historical works, but you are still being incredibly unfair here.  Plenty of scholars think the Gospels are useful historical sources without thinking they are "literally true" in all aspects.  You are just using that terminology to tar anyone involved in the historical Jesus business as a fundamentalist.  In fact, virtually nobody who writes about the historical Jesus is a fundamentalist; fundamentalists see no need for "the quest for the Historical Jesus," because that quest is based on the premise that the New Testament account is not literally true.  The quest for the Historical Jesus treats the gospels as historical sources like any other, and tries to look at them in the context of the times and understand their biases to get at the "real" Jesus which is supposedly behind the gospel accounts.  At its root, the quest for the historical Jesus is all about the idea that the New Testament account is unreliable.  It arose from exactly the same nineteenth century higher criticism tradition from which the "Jesus Myth" theory did.  Where it differs from it is that it thinks that the Gospels, for all their flaws, contain a great deal of useful historical insight when approached the right way, while those who disbelieve in Jesus's existence think they are worthless.  One can disagree on how successful the quest for the historical Jesus has been, but it is a fundamentally different project from Christian apologetics.  john k (talk) 04:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The phrase "literal truth" came from Akhilleus. This is a waste of time. Nobody is listening. Noloop (talk) 05:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Noloop, I am listening. And for what it's worth: I'm an agnostic in general, but a non-believer when it comes to the bible. It seems to me that there is miscommunication going on between you and your interlocutors. Solving that miscommunication will not remove differences of opinion, but I think it could help improve the article. I made some suggestions below and I'd love to hear your comments. Martijn Meijering (talk) 10:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, Akhilleus was using "literal truth" in the normal meaning of "fundamentalists who treat the Bible as the word of God and assume that every word in it is literally true." That is not what Fredriksen is doing.  You are twisting the meaning of the phrase so as to do exactly what Akhilleus said you are doing - assuming that treating the Gospels as a useful historical source that gives real information about Jesus is the same thing as treating them as the inerrant word of God. john k (talk) 15:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

No attempt has been made to specifically discuss the alleged NPOV violations. artilce contains pov-fork; promotes Xian POV is simply false. So when we call the birth narratives "pius fiction" and say they are "the clearest cases of invention in the Gospels" we are promoting a Xian POV? When we say the Jesus did not consider himself to be "god" and that the early Christians likewise did not see him as "god" we are promoting a Xian POV? We cite scholars who say the tomb wasn't empty, or that Jesus did not physically rise from the dead.... more Xian POV? Of course we do also mention other scholars who claim otherwise on these matters. But that is the crux of NPOV. We present all notable views. Some scholars have argued that the tomb may have been found empty, others do not. And we cover multiple angels on the issue. Maybe I'm not reading the same parts of the article as you. So please cite specific parts of the article that you think we have an unbalance of views? Where are we excluding notable scholars? This information will only help us improve the article, yet I've seen NO specifics. Without such, a POV tag cannot be substantiated. -Andrew c [talk] 00:33, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I've concluded you simply do not know how to respect people who disagree with you. When you communicate with me in a way that has no sarcasm, no strawman, no mockery, I'll believe you are making an effort to be open minded. Noloop (talk) 00:58, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * First of all, I am curious if anyone else agree with the above conclusion? Next, I'd be glad to summarize in a different manner: There has been a lot of talk on a lot of different pages, so it's possible I missed something, but I do not believe I have read any discussion from those supporting a POV tag which deals specifically with this article's content. I think it would be helpful if those supporting the POV tag describe what they feel needs to happen in order for their NPOV concerns to be met. What actionable article changes need to be made? Additionally, it would be helpful if the specific aspects of the article that are under dispute would be pointed out by the ones in support of the POV tag, and briefly describe the WEIGHT issue and/or the specific POV which is being excluded and/or pushed. In other words clearly and exactly explain which part of the article does not seem to have a NPOV and why. Make some suggestions as to how one can improve the article. Be active and bold in improving the article. Thanks for your consideration. -Andrew c [talk] 17:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit/Issue
My draft of the first sentence: "The term historical Jesus refers to Jesus of Nazareth regarded as a human being of his time for scholarly or other non-religious purposes." Lycurgus (talk) 13:45, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Sounds too polemical to me. This sentence also disregards the possibility that some people investigate the historical Jesus for religious purposes, or that scholarly investigation of the historical Jesus affects people's view of religion. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:14, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I also think this is an important point that people have brought up. The historical Jesus, at least described in this article, doesn't mean "the real guy who lives 2000 years ago", but instead all the information about the real guy that can be gathered or suggested from historical methodology. This historical Jesus is just a reconstruction, and will always be incomplete, and not entirely representative of the real guy. So the propose change about seems to change the scope of the article, or give the historical reconstructions more credit than they deserve.-Andrew c [talk] 14:41, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, Akhilleus, I hear ya. Would drop "or other non-religious" with its implication that a religious person could not be a scowler. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 16:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)