Talk:Historical Jesus/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Czarkoff (talk · contribs) 09:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Status
''This section is supposed to be edited only by reviewer. Please place your comments in Discussion section, addressing the reviewer's notes by their numbers (eg. 1a1).''

''The review isn't complete yet. More issues could be added by reviewer later.''

Discussion
Feel free to discuss the review here. As I believe this article currently can't be listed and the normal 7-days-long hold won't be enough, I fail this nomination. Feel free to ask any questions regarding the points discussed above. &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 18:18, 5 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I happened on here by chance now. I do not even watch this article because I see it as such a low quality item and I did not want to work on it. A "good article"? Please, please... If there is a "bad article" review, I would nominate it as such. There are so many errors of commission and omission here that I do not even know where to begin... And why does this article diverge inti theology and discuss Son of man? Why is there a long section on eschatology on a page about history? That is a theological discussion and is beside the point here. Yet many historical issues are missing here. It will take serious, and major effort to clean this article up. But "good article"?... it misses that mark by miles and miles. History2007 (talk) 20:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Whom did you address this comment to? Me or the nominator? &mdash; Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 13:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Resurrection and Historical Method
Do you consider that this sentence here is correct : "Since supernatural events cannot be reconstructed using empirical methods, the resurrection of Jesus qualifies as a point of Christian dogma unamenable to the historical method" The references are from John P. Meier and Bart Ehrman.

I ask you this because some major philosophers and biblical scholars clearly disagree with Meier and Ehrman. See for example Stephen T. Davis, Daniel Kendall, Gerald O'Collins (ed.), The Resurrection: An Interdisciplinary Symposium on the Resurrection of Jesus, Oxford University Press, 1998 ; William Lane Craig :'"Noli Me Tangere, Why John Meier Won't Touch the Risen Lord", The Heythrop Journal, 50, 2009, 91-97 article; Aviezer Tucker, “Miracles, Historical Testimonies, and Probabilities,” History and Theory, 44: 373–390, 2005; N. T. Wright, The Resurrection of the Son of God, 2003 ; Michael Licona, The Resurrection of Jesus: A New Historiographical Approach, 2010 ; Craig S. Keener, Miracles:The Credibility of New Testamaent Accounts, Baker Academic, 2011. Thucyd (talk) 10:50, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * A side comment Thucyd. While sources like N. T. Wright are fine to use, in Wikipedia using Lane Craig type sources will not go far because he will be called a "way off" non-mainstream item. So it is best to use the most established people like Wright and not even mention Craig. And from what has been seen elsewhere on many talk pages, Ehrman, Sanders, etc. seem to be the mainstream scholarship on historicity. And although some scholars disagree, WP:RS/AC determines what the majority view may be. History2007 (talk) 21:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe.... but notice that William Lane Craig published an article on John Dominic Crossan's view on the Resurrection in Oxford University Press on the topic (Stephen T. Davis, Daniel Kendall, Gerald O'Collins (ed.), The Resurrection: An Interdisciplinary Symposium on the Resurrection of Jesus, O.U.P., 1998). And the article I mentioned was published in an peer-reviewed journal : The Heythrop Journal. Craig wrote a book with Crossan and an other with Gerd Lüdemann (The Resurrection: Fact or Figment?). So Craig is a well known figure in the debate on the historicity of the resurrection.
 * But I don't think that we should keep as it is the section "Resurrection Appearances", imho a section "Historicity of the Resurrection" is necessary. Unforunately I'm afraid I don't have enough time to do itThucyd (talk) 11:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I find the subjective and emotional content of the talk about this review and about the article itself quite disturbing. Qualitative assessments are made of the article and of the assessment without substantiation in a derogatory and subjective tone. One should not refer to scientific standards but then be completely the opposite thereof in one's choice of words.

However I feel that the assertion that the article "covers all aspects relevant to the subject matter" is not completely correct, and I hereby suggest that the following should be addressed for the renomination of this important article, which in my humble view deserves another nomination for its quality and objectivity on a highly sensitive and abused subject:

The article is incomplete in the sense that it does not point out the fact that Jesus's existence as historical fact is further confirmed by the sheer magnitude of the effect this man has had on history, language, ethics, philosophy, art etc since virtually right after the seemingly routine and unimportant event of the travels and crucifixion of an (at the time) unimportant man. In an article about the historicity of Jesus this should also have been mentioned/explored - the completely disproportionately large effect these events have had on the world since antiquity right through to the development of the English language (just browse through English expressions in the Oxford dictionary to see how many of them have New Testament roots)*. It is a significant fact directly related to the subject on hand, and much more relevant than the objection that "weasel words" (a meaningless slang phrase) have been used. It is improbable that someone who never existed could have had an effect of this magnitude.

I thoroughly enjoyed this episode on wikipedia, reading substantive quality work written in neutral and responsible register about the most important aspect of the day (25 December). I commend wikipedia for placing it, and the reviewer for managing to do an objective unemotional review on such sensitive material and in the face of such irresponsible abuse from isolated readers. This article deserves another look and another nomination, and the article is strengthened by the subjective and insubstantial nature of the most of the criticisms of it.

196.2.126.173 (talk) 04:16, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oxford dictionary of modern English.