Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:51, 23 February 2013

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Template:Controversial (history) Template:Pbneutral

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk:Jesus/archivebox

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Edit by NE Ent while discussions are ongoing

NE Ent would you like to explain your bold edit here while discussions are ongoing? You know that it is being discussed right now. You know it has been on WP:RSN. You know there is no talk page consensus for the change, and existing consensus has been discussed about that wording; following a request for assessment on WP:RSN. This did not happen by chance, it was discussed, independent RSN assessment was requested, etc. And yet you just do it? You edit means there may be a 51%-49% consensus, but the sources indicate a far, far more widespread agreement among scholars. I did not boldly revert you, for your action would then in effect start a useless edit war. Bold may be a pillar, but WP:V is not to be forgotten. I see no source for your edit. In any case, someone else reverted it, and so we can hopefully avoid revert ping-pongs, and build consensus in general. History2007 (talk) 20:06, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

After coming here from the ANI thread, I saw no evidence serious discussions about the article where taking place; comments about other editors are not content discussions.

Content is reliably sourced. Phrasing is not. If fact, taking phrasing directly from sources is copyright violation and prohibited by policy. As to the edit at hand, Virtually all is an absolute (all) preceded by a weasel word (virtually). What encyclopedic purpose does it serve when the simpler, more direct Consensus is will serve just as well? NE Ent 21:48, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

So you are not disputing the source. Good. But the difference is between a luke-warm consensus and a landslide consensus. And please see FAQ Q 3a regarding the use f virtually, and the search therein. So you really need to be frank about the other issue: is your objection on possible copyright grounds, or deeper grounds about the very widespread vs luke-warm nature of the scholarly consensus? You can of course be very frank/upfront about that and just say it out loud. History2007 (talk) 21:56, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Lukewarm consensus? Landslide consensus? What is wrong with plain ol' unadjectived consensus? NE Ent 22:03, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

The difference is between 99% of scholars vs 51% of them - a huge difference. Take dietary cholesterol. Is there a 99% consensus among physicians about its impact? No way. No way. They would be lucky to get a 52% agreement and hence they debate it in conferences for ever. A very different situation with going faster than the speed of light among physicists where 99% oppose it. Does the article on speed of light say that there is a consensus about it? As far as I know there are probably 2 physicists that dispute it. History2007 (talk) 22:09, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Guys, this is hardly a matter to get upset over :-) I can understand NE Ent's edit, though I think History2007 is also right. As the case is a bit stronger than just "consensus", I'd opt for virtually all, but let's not get drawn into a discussion of such a detail at this stage.Jeppiz (talk) 23:53, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Done deal, will just move on. History2007 (talk) 23:57, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

The consensus among scholars of antiquity is that Jesus existed. is better because the implicit emphasis ends up being The consensus among scholars of antiquity is that Jesus existed.

On the other hand, with Virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, the emphasis ends up being Virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed. The "virtually all" phrasing is unusual and immediately draws the reader's attention -- specifically "Virtually?? That means "not," right?"

Consensus just means consensus -- it doesn't mean 51, 99 or 31π %. Insisting that some percentage of scholars agree to something is unnecessary and problematic; it's unprovable and not particularly relevant and shows a lack of confidence in the statement-- Thou doth protest too much. as the Bard would say. NE Ent 13:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I think it is fine the way it is right now. If it is changed, in my opinion it should be changed to something like "The overwhelming consensus among scholars of antiquity is that Jesus existed". The "virtually all" statement is sourced to the secular historians Bart Ehrman and Michael Grant, Ehrman says ""He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees" and Grant says "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few". In his survey of the sources cited as scholars who deny existence recently on this talkpage, History2007 found two or possibly three scholars, or experts, or whatever you want to call them, who deny that there was ever such a person as Jesus at all .Just to say "consensus" sounds like there is a debate with most "serious scholars" coming down on the side of existence, but the truth is that there is no debate among qualified authorities on that question. There are however a multitude of self-published authors and websites pushing the "Jesus never existed" fringe theory. I believe wikipedia's policy of neutrally summarising reliable sources requires this article to carry a clear, unequivocal message that the bare existence of Jesus is no longer something that is debated among "serious scholars" whether religious or secular.Smeat75 (talk) 23:58, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Why not just remove the sentence altogether, and simply start the paragraph with "While the quest for the historical Jesus..."? NE Ent 23:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Why would we do that? Because it upsets "fringe theorists" who disagree with the overwhelming agreement among the relevant authorities that Jesus existed and was crucified (which is the only thing about him that they do agree about)? To quote Bart Ehrman again, in a rebuttal of a negative review of his recent book "Did Jesus Exist?" and referring to the self-published author and "mythicist" Earl Doherty, he says "The reality, however, is that every single scholar of early Christianity that Doherty appeals to fundamentally disagrees with his major thesis (Jesus did not exist). This is completely unlike other works of true scholarship, where scholars are cited as having disagreements on various points – but not, universally, as an entire body, on the entire premise and virtually all the claims (foundation and superstructure). I was urging that Doherty should come clean and inform his readers in clear terms that even though he quotes scholars on one issue or another, not a single one of these scholars (or indeed, any recognized scholar in the field of scholarship that he is addressing) agrees with the radical thesis of his book....the evidence that I adduce in Did Jesus Exist," (in which he answers the question with a firm "yes") and realize that they are the views, in popular form, of serious scholarship. They are not only serious scholarly views, they are the views held by virtually every serious scholar in the field of early Christian studies." I did not put that sentence "Virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed" in the lede of the article, but in my opinion it is a neutral, accurate, well sourced and important piece of information and it should stay. Smeat75 (talk) 04:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Link to above piece by Ehrman:Smeat75 (talk) 04:32, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Smeat75, why would we removed the sentence? It is well-sourced and relevant for the introduction.Jeppiz (talk) 11:07, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Disruptive edit to introduction

Despite having no consensus for his claims, Humanpublic went ahead and inserted his claim into the introduction. What is more, his edit was intellectually dishonest in the extreme, as he took a source that states categorically that Jesus existed and used it to claim that there is no evidence for Jesus's existence. Given that Humanpublic has been informed about Misplaced Pages's policies time and time again, his edit appears to be clearly disruptive. Controversial changes are to be discussed on the talk page, and using sources to claim the opposite of the main message of the source is just dishonest. Should it be repeated, it looks like a clear case for ANI. If Humanpublic wishes to argue for the change to the introduction, he is of course welcome to do it. Preferably with sources that support his argument.Jeppiz (talk) 01:36, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I just saw that and after the long discussion above regarding arguments from silence Embassy to Gaius etc. in this edit Humanpublic modified what the sources say, and added WP:Synthesis using a source by Ehrman which effectively rejects the assertions made in the very edit. I did not revert that not to start an edit war with a WP:SPA, but that was a disruptive in my view in that it misrepresents the source and the user has been informed of that in a very long discussion above. History2007 (talk) 01:40, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I've rarely seen such a dishonest edit in so many ways. The proper way to edit is to discuss controversial changes first, then edit. Not insert controversial claims in spite of a consensus to the contrary. And talking a long article that categorically states that Jesus existed and using it as a source to claim there is no evidence that Jesus existed is certainly dishonest editing.Jeppiz (talk) 01:45, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

What I wrote didn't "categorically" state that there is "no evidence for the existence of Jesus." I said exactly what the source says.

The source says: "there’s no physical evidence or archaeological evidence that Jesus existed—which is absolutely true. There are no writings from Jesus—absolutely true. There are no Roman sources from Jesus’ day that mention Jesus—again, true."

I added to the article: "There’s no physical or archaeological evidence that Jesus existed, nor are there any writings from Jesus. There are no sources from the time Jesus is alleged to have lived that mention him."

If you'll explain how I "modified what the source says...and added synthesis" (what exactlly is "synthesis"), we might be able to work together.

OK, I omitted "Roman". If I add that back, will that be acceptable? Humanpublic (talk) 01:46, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Please read WP:SYNTHESIS. And also note that a source may say Jerusalem is south of Galilee but that does not by itself qualify it for inclusion in the lede. What you knowingly did was change scholars of antiquity to NT scholars, and precede that with a sentence comment from Ehrman, an author who a few paragraphs later rejects the applicability of the lines you picked. Your edit was a clear reflection of your own views which were being discussed 2 sections above, and you were told about the scholarly views just above and how scholars see your view of having very little relevance, if any at all. So you should have discussed those, not use sources that contradict your own views. History2007 (talk) 01:57, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

He calls them "absolutely true". That's a weird way to "reject the assertions". The fact that there is no archaeological evidence and no contemporaneous evidence of any kind for the existence of Jesus is relevant and likely to be of interest to people. It is highly relevant to the readers making up their own minds. It belongs in the article and, if historical existince is going to be in the led, it belongs in the lede. Nothing I wrote is synthesis as the page you linked to defines it. I nearly quoted the source exactly, except for dropping the word "Roman." You are censoring. Humanpublic (talk) 02:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

No, as I said, a source may say that "it is absolutely true that Jerusalem is south of Galilee" and you say why should it not be added, given that I quoted the source. Please read WP:LEDE. The lede must reflect what the body of the article states. A detailed discussion of the first century sources has not been presented in the body and can hence not be present in the lede. If there is a detailed discussion of 1st century sources in the body, then its conclusions can get "summarized" in the lede. If you think a lengthy discussion of first century sources is needed in this article, it can of course be discussed. But unless present in the body can not go in the lede per WP:LEDE. But that is just one problem, and whatever goes in the lede must be a clear reflection of the scholarly consensus on the subject, again per WP:LEDE. Else another user will add something else Ehrman said next to yours, and the lede will be the size of 3 sections. There are policies and guidelines, you seem unaware of them, and are walking all over them. And please avoid multiple reverts, for an edit war will buy nothing except headaches and wasted time. Please discuss before reverting. History2007 (talk) 02:21, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The basic idea is already there: "Supporters of the Christ myth theory point to the lack of any known written references to Jesus during his lifetime and the relative scarcity of non-Christian references to him in the 1st century, and dispute the veracity of the existing accounts of him.". If I add info about archaelogical evidence (none) and writings of Jesus (none), will you accept that? Humanpublic (talk) 02:31, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, if there is scholarly dispute about the nonexistence of any evidence from his alleged time, please provide sources. Humanpublic (talk) 02:33, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The problem is WP:Due as well as WP:LEDE and of course WP:Fringe now. Although the "supporters of the Christ myth theory point to the lack of any known written references to Jesus" that section makes it clear that the myth theory is a WP:Fringe item. And fringe items can not get prime time in the lede. The long and short of it is that your edit is giving prime time importance to a WP:Fringe item, and is hence running over multiple policies. A few sections above there was a long discussion and a clear consensus that Christ myth theory items are WP:Fringe items and should be minimized in this article. You certainly saw that discussion. Hence please avoid the addition of WP:Fringe items to the lede, for even their inclusion in the body was rejected by consensus a few sections above here. Hence the path you are following is going to lead to nowhere for it is both clearly against the consensus established a few sections above and clearly against policy per WP:Fringe and WP:LEDE both. History2007 (talk) 02:41, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I saw that you added a sentence on that, and I added proper overview sources. As you see, the lack of 1st century sources is not accepted by scholars as an indication of non-existence. Hence you can not give it prime time in the lede, per WP:Synthesis, WP:LEDE and WP:Fringe. Is that clear now? History2007 (talk) 02:57, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

What you added was, ironically, an enormous amount of "synthesis" as defined in the link you gave me. And, NONE of it it is verifiable since it is all from books. Please cite below all of the actual source text you are using in what you jus added. Your comment about the lede doesn't make sense to me. The lede should contain what is highly relevant. The absolute lack of physical evidence is relevant to historicity, so if historicity belongs in the lede, so does the lack of evidence. Please quote the texts you cite below, so we can assess them.... Humanpublic (talk) 03:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

What nonsense. It is verifiable; if you want to verify it, get the books. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 03:09, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Seb is right of course. I did get a chuckle out of "NONE of it it is verifiable since it is all from books." You need to read WP:V as well. Books by well known publishers are the best WP:RS sources. Trust me that after writing 600 articles I know how to source. Trust me on that one per WP:AGF. I do not need to quote my source so you can assess it. Trust me on that, and read WP:RS about books being the best sources. As for lack of sources being relevant, so is the inapplicability of arguments from silence. Look, there is an entire article on Christ myth theory and you are effectively attempting to do a WP:Merge on these two articles. If you wan to do that, suggest it here, and there. All your edits are pointing to the presentation of Christ myth theory in the lede. If that is to happen, there needs to be a WP:Merge. To make it easy for you, I will suggest it in both places. And we will let the process begin. Now, remember WP:3RR, stop reverting for a day or two and let us see what people say about the merge idea. Ok? History2007 (talk) 03:18, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. I'm not "applying" any arguments. I'm informing readers of facts that are true, relevant, interesting, and sourced. Everything you added is just an attempt to belittle those facts. And a lot of it is synthesis and irrelevant. According to the definition you gave, the argument from silence applies mainly to writings. The facts I added are about physical and archaeological evidence. Please quote the texts you are citing. You made your edit less than 20 minutes after mine, and added seven sources. I find it hard to believe you carefully examined seven scholarly books in less than 20 minutes. Humanpublic (talk) 03:39, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Now, read WP:AGF and stop this. Understand? I do not need to examine 7 books in 20 minutes. I have researched this topic for years. I know exactly where to get the sources for I have spent years on that. The 7 sources I added came from... you guess. I had even given you the link in the section above, you did not even read it. History2007 (talk) 03:45, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. You complained I was merging Christ myth theory with this article, then you took whole chunks of text and references from Christ myth theory and added them to this article. Have you actually read the sources you cited?? Humanpublic (talk) 03:54, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

and have you read his explanation. Not everyone here started reading books yesterday. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 03:57, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

By the way, I will have to stop for a while, but will be back later. History2007 (talk) 03:50, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I think this discussion is an instance, of a more general WP:Fringe issue, as below. I will just briefly mention that in the historical method arguments from silence may go beyond text, have been discussed since the Rankian method, are part of folk knowledge, and are a somewhat weak method of analysis in many cases from a historical analysis perspective. Nothing new to write home about. History2007 (talk) 13:16, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I didn't present an argument. I added true relevant and sourced facts. You then added a bunch of synthesis about the argument from silence, apparently with sources you haven't read. Again, please tell us: 1) which of the sources you added have you actually read, if any, 2) what they actually say. Thanks. Humanpublic (talk) 15:07, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the argument you made, we both could and should mention in the relevant section of the article that there is no physical evidence for Jesus. However, when so doing, we should stay true to the sources and reflect what they say. Surely you agree that the main message of the article you cite is that there is no doubt about Jesus's existence. Now, if you want to make an argument about this historical person being very different from the "Christian Jesus", you have both my support and, more to the point, the support of good academic sources.Jeppiz (talk) 15:27, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

This discussion is now taking place on Chris myth theory, where he is even asking if the term exists. Good Heavens. This is eating time like anything, but here is the term The Argument from Silence John Lange, History and Theory, Vol. 5, No. 3 (1966), pp. 288-301. Quite obvious actually. But this is bordering on comedy now, asking if the term exists, asking for a "basic tutorial" on the historical method, etc. Anyone can type into Misplaced Pages of course, logical or not, but this is pushing to the limit of absurdity. History2007 (talk) 15:42, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

This user is now running wild, cutting items all over the place based on Misplaced Pages:I just don't like it. In this edit he deleted a ref to the Oxford Dictionaty and added a website. I have not looked at the website yet (which may eventually get WP:LINKROT), but the Oxford Dictionary is a good source. In the next edit just deleted a source statement that goes against his arguments elsewhere. This needs to stop. History2007 (talk) 16:00, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Have you read the sources you added here, or not? I see the material I removed from Argument from silence was added by you. You used a 2007 translation of a text from the year 1103 as a source. You misquoted another book that was not reliable anyway--a book on trade in ancient Greece not a source on the general validity of a type of argument, and it didn't say what you said anyway. You don't seem to bother to actually research the sources you use.Humanpublic (talk) 16:08, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support topic ban. In ictu oculi (talk) 16:20, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but may get a block before a ban anyway, and he started the ANI thread himself. I am out of breath here. In this edit he deleted a statement from Yifa based on Misplaced Pages:I just don't like it really. History2007 (talk) 16:25, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I also support a topic ban. ReformedArsenal (talk) 18:21, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

The issue of a topic-ban is discussed here .Jeppiz (talk) 19:41, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

History2007: Have you read the sources you added? Please provide the specific text you are citing, so other editors can assess it. Thank you. Humanpublic (talk) 23:34, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

History2007: Have you read the sources you added? You copy/pasted the text from another article. You added multiple book-length sources in under 20 minutes. Have you read them or not?

Please, as a matter of informing both your fellow editors and our readers, provide the text from the sources that you are relying on.

The argument from silence is about statements, not physical or archaelogical evidence. What does it have to do with my edit? Thanks. Humanpublic (talk) 17:37, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

My fellow editors? But of course. Yet that made me smile... I liked that one. Now, two points: Let me categorically, categorically state that as far as I recall I have read or checked every single source there some time in the past few months. Every single one. In the case of Van Voorst, I practically know that book by heart now. As I said upfront, I brought it over from the other article and AGF-ed on it because your edit was so far off. Let me say that again: because your edit was so far off. But why should I say it: another user said it to you much better:

Bart Ehrman's interview on Jesus-mythicists "There are no Roman sources from Jesus’ day that mention Jesus—again, true. Our only sources come decades later by biased individuals who believed in Jesus, and that they’re not trustworthy sources. Those are their negative arguments. I deal with all of those arguments. I lay them out as fairly as I can and then show why they’re not very good arguments, even though they sound really good. When you actually investigate them they’re actually not that strong." to User:Humanpublic "There are no sources from the time Jesus is alleged to have lived that mention him." (period) wouldn't of itself be a problem if acres of Talk page bytes hadn't been trying to explain to User:Humanpublic why that isn't good processing from source to high-profile article lead copy. Too much WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT on Talk, too much of being an evangelist for the WP:TRUTH. The rest of the editors on that article (of whom I'm not one) deserve a couple of weeks' rest.

He said it very well. Your edit took the first part of Ehrman's utterance, ignored the fact that Ehrman demolishes that in the second utterance and just left it there. It is of no use quoting Ehrman to suggest non-existence when he is a strong supporter of existence. It is like quoting Milton Friedman to support more regulation. Anyone who has ever read Freedman knows he was against it. Anyone who has read Ehrman knows that he defends existence. So there is no point in using Ehrman as a source to suggest that the lack of contemporary evidence maters when Ehrman's basic tenet is that it does not matter. But he said it well anyway about the past discussions on this eating time here, so I really don't know why I have to say more on that issue. The other brouhaha on the Arguments from silence page was along the same lines as this. Oxford Dictionary is no good, etc... In the end: nothing. Zero. Zero. This one will probably amount to the same. In fact that entire quote you added and what I added to it from the other page needs touch up given the above statement about Ehrman, and I will address that later today or tomorrow. The suggested vacation is over I guess... I just love Misplaced Pages... History2007 (talk) 18:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I quoted his support for the nonexistence of physical, archaelogical, and written evidence, which is appropriate because he supports those views. He calls them absolutely true. I did not say he "supports nonexistence." You are being dishonest.

Please provide the source texts you're using to support your edit. Humanpublic (talk) 20:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Your statement "You are being dishonest" is surprising and unacceptable to me. I issued yet another notice, and stated that a block is in order for you based on the continued disregard for WP:NPA. I can not continue editing here in the face of unchecked and continued personal attacks by you after multiple warnings that go unheeded. I will hence have to stop editing here due to these continued personal attacks. History2007 (talk) 21:01, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I felt the same way when Jeppiz said I was "dishonest in the extreme" and that I made "the most dishonest edit" he's seen in a long time. Why aren't you demanding that he be blocked? Humanpublic (talk) 21:08, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

My due apologies. Sorry if it sounded harsh. I thought, and I still think, it was a rather bad edit and I thought and still think it misrepresented the source. I should only have said that, nothing more, so I'm striking it in my comment above.22:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC) (user:Jeppiz)

The brouhaha seems to have died out now in any case. So I will try to make some edits, and fixes. History2007 (talk) 05:54, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

In that case, will you participate in dispute resolution? Humanpublic (talk) 19:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

You were reverted by various other users. It is just not me. I have commented there already. That is it. As Jeppiz suggested above, I will stop feeding you now. History2007 (talk) 19:48, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Right, you think you don't need DRN in order to "win", so why bother. How about working collaboratively? Humanpublic (talk) 15:10, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Humanpublic you can work collaboratively or you can engage is massive edit-warring, forum-shopping and harassing users who express different opinions to yours. This far History2007 has chosen the former while you've chosen the latter, but if the statement above means you'll opt for the former from now on, then all the better.Jeppiz (talk) 15:41, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Refusing DRN is refusing collaboration. Your agenda has become obvious with your latest ANI. You're just a drama-hound. At least History2007 is here for something he believes in (albeit with a lot of biases). Go back to ANI and find some new carcasses to pick at. Humanpublic (talk) 15:49, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, there he goes again... What can one say? History2007 (talk) 15:48, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Early Christians did not think Jesus was God

I feel a rather important aspect of Jesus life is not sufficiently addressed in the article. There is broad academic support from experts in the field (Bart Ehrman, Geza Vermes etc.) that Jesus did not consider himself God and that early Christians did not consider him God either. The idea that Jesus is God is later invention (not much later, but still several decades later) and would have been alien to Jesus, to Peter, and to all of Jesus's followers. That is at least what a fair number of highly regarded experts say. In my view, there is enough support for that to have an expanded section on it, probably also a sentence about it in the introduction. I realize that might be controversial, so I'd prefer a discussion about it before making any edits.Jeppiz (talk) 22:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

That sounds like something a Muslim would say. Are you Muslim? Pass a Method talk 23:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment on content, not on other users. And no, I am not a Muslim. Neither is Bart Ehrman or Geza Vermes. Further comments like the one above will be reported.Jeppiz (talk) 23:32, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. The above comment by Pass a Method was a very unhelpful one, not to mention rather thoughtless. Why would Muslims have a particular opinion on the beliefs of early Christians? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:47, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Actually that comment is not entirely unhelpful, because i was wondering if this viewpoint should be added to the Muslim subsection of this article. Pass a Method talk 23:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

@Stephen, Muslims see the Christian view of Jesus as God as blasphemous. In fact theres a verse in the Quran which states it is so blasphemous that even inanimate objects such as mountains and the sky are about to split from such an "evil utterance". In fact this is one of the reasons Islam came about; to supersede what they view as idolatry. Pass a Method talk 06:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

You could have said that, rather than asking an editor about his own personal religious beliefs, however. That aspect of the comment was certainly uncalled-for. Regarding the question about what some modern scholars say about what they think the early Christians thought about Jesus, a few things come to mind. One, I would think that, in all honesty, that information is probably more relevant to an article about the early Christian church being spoken of, because it relates to the beliefs of that church. Second, I myself would very much prefer that, in cases which are both widely written about and widely speculated upon, that if possible some recent reference source which addresses the subject were produced to provide evidence regarding how much weight to give the idea, and in which relevant article.

As we all know, this subject is one of the most widely discussed in academic literature for some 2000 years now. That being the case, several modern academics, hoping to make names for themselves, and/or money, have had real problems finding anything new to say. Ehrman himself alluded to that at least once, when he said that the way academics in the field today make names for themselves is often by making sensationalist statements which might not have much support in the academic world, but which are of the kind that gets them invited to chat shows and gets their names out, and also, generally, helps increase sales of their works. That being the case, I think it not unreasonable to see what the prevailing academic sense of this idea is before determining what weight to give it where. John Carter (talk) 00:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

We should start by seeing where this idea is covered in other articles, make sure that is full and well-referenced etc, then see if it needs expanding here. Deity of Jesus redirects to Christology, where 2 and 2.1 cover this area, but not perhaps very fully. No doubt other articles touch on it. I think one would need to cover the closely related issue of who thought Jesus was the Messiah, and what that meant. Johnbod (talk) 11:40, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

John and John, thanks for good points about the topic, and thanks to Stephan for his comment as well. If I can start from the back, the early Christians did think Jesus was the Messiah. They did not think he was God, the idea of the trinity and Jesus's deity came later. Needless to say, these are claims that need to be sourced. I'm at the office right now and cannot give the exact quotes, but the ideas come from the books and articles by Bart Ehrman, Geza Vermes and James Tabor. As James Tabor makes the most "sensational" claims, I would prefer relying more on the rather scholarly works by Ehrman and Vermes, in line with what John Carter says. The actual paragraph would of course go under the history section of this article, but I do think there should be a sentence (properly sourced) in the introduction making it clear that the first Christians did not believe Jesus was God; the fact that the idea of Jesus's deity developed later is a rather important one to understanding who Jesus was. Needless to say, the sentence should also make it clear that the view I just mentioned is held by some scholars, there is of course no unanimous consensus on the matter, but neither is it a fringe view.Jeppiz (talk) 13:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

You would certainly want other sources as well; these issues are very far from new, and Tabor verges on fringe. The Gospel of John is obviously crucial here; that "the first Christians did not believe Jesus was God" is pretty over-emphatic I would have thought. Then there's Paul. But do it more fully at Christology first. Johnbod (talk)

I agree with all you say. Tabor's view about the "dynasty" is certainly what I'd call a fringe view and I would consider it WP:UNDUE for this article. Then again, there are several points where Tabor is in line with other researchers, and he is of course a professor in the field satisfying WP:RS. But as I said above, I would not want to rely too much on him. I'd even go further and suggest not using Tabor exclusively for any claim. Then again, when Ehrman, Vermes and Tabor all make the same claims, we already start to have a case. Concerning the Gospel of John, it was of course written (most scholar would agree) many decades later, 50-60 years after Jesus's followers came to think he was the Messiah. And once again, I don't plan on making any edit to the article on this topic untill we have had a good discussion about it here first. As we're beginning to have :).Jeppiz (talk) 14:51, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you and John that that Tabor is really fringe. He still has his professorship, and used to have some respect, but once he went off the edge he became fringe. These days he has as much scholarly respect as a historian as Elmer Fudd has as a marksman really. And the parts of his writings that agree with Ehrman and company are also supported by other scholars, so you can always find better sources for his non-fringe views.

However, on that very topic of "claims of Jesus", there is no scholarly consensus on historicity either way and the situation is quite complicated. But you could know there is no consensus on that because beyond the obvious consensus on existence and crucifixion, there are only a few other things (the list of 8 fact in the Historical article) on which there may be weak agreement - far from consensus. Perhaps something this article needs to clarify in a more prominent way. I will suggest that below.

Back to this issue, his claim to be God, and the perceptions of early Christians, there are really 3 separate items that could have been held by Early Christians: being the Messiah, the Son of God or God. But the issues are complicated. The person who has spearheaded that research in the past few years is not Ehrman but Larry Hurtado, e.g. see the list of his books on his Wiki-page. One of the elements in the debate about Jesus' image in early Christianity is of course 1 Corinthians 16:22 's usage of the Aramaic "Maranatha" and the debates do place around that. There is some agreement that it predates Paul, but the question is whether this usage was in a Jerusalem or Antioch circle. So a complicated topic, with no scholarly consensus.

By the way, the entire set of articles on early Christian beliefs in Misplaced Pages are pretty weak and there is not even an article on pre-Pauline beliefs and creeds, and how 1 Cor 15:3-5, Philippians 2:6-11, etc. reflect the mindset of the early Christians. But I would not add these to the Christology article, for as "a field of study within Christian theology" it does not deal with this type of historical analysis. By the way, also note that there is a debate about the claims being either direct or indirect, e.g. he may have not "claimed it himself" on Jewish grounds but when called as such would have not objected, leading to speculation among his followers, etc. A pretty long and pretty complicated story on which there is no scholarly agreement, and can certainly not be tweeted in a simple form. History2007 (talk) 00:00, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

I think Christology, or other articles, should be added to rather than here, initially and also at fuller length. But I agree there is plenty of room for a new article (or several) if anyone adds the material. But generally it is best to add to the appropriate existing articles until there is a good amount of material, before branching off into a new one. In general we have too many too short articles in this area as in many, imo. Johnbod (talk) 00:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, there is room for lots of work, but as I stated below about the Quest article, some of them have been mostly untouched for over 2 years. But to be upfront with you, the pre-Pauline material is complicated enough that I do not think it will even happen anytime soon. It certainly does not fit here anyway, but the issue needed clarification, that is why I mentioned it. History2007 (talk) 00:34, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Jesus Christ redirect

Since using the name "Jesus Christ" implies one is talking about Jesus as the founder and central figure in Christianity, I wonder if Jesus Christ, which currently redirects to Jesus, should redirect to Jesus in Christianity. I was looking at the inter-wiki language links and noticed many wikipedias have a Jesus Christ or a Christ page, which is from a Christian perspective, and a Jesus of Nazareth page, which is for the historical person. They are the same person, depending on how you look at it, but I think they are two sets of information, and that someone who is looking for Jesus Christ is more likely looking for Jesus in Christianity. --JFH (talk) 19:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

That is an interesting observation. As I'm sure you know, there is already a Jesus in Islam article. But while my observation has been the same as yours, I've been thinking a bit in the opposite direction. I think that articles such as Abraham and Moses are reasonable well written. I'd like to see a bit more of a scholarly view (Abraham is certainly a mythical figure, Moses probably is one) but they are at least acceptable. Unfortunately, the articles Abraham in Islam and Moses in Islam are quite bad. While the general articles discuss Abraham and Moses from a Jewish, a Christian, a Muslim and a historical point of view, the articles on each biblical person X in Islam is always 100% religion and ignore all research and all facts. If a person follows one of the countless links to, say, Abraham in Islam, he won't get any academic information, no religious perspective, nothing but "pure" religious islamic views, not even Abraham's name in Hebrew. So no, I don't think we should make separate pages for the same person, and I think we should ultimately delete the ones we have.Jeppiz (talk) 22:34, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see that problem. Of course one of our "X in religion Y" articles will give a purely religious perspective - that's what the title says, isn't it? Is, for example, Abraham's name in Hebrew in any way relevant to the role Abraham plays in Islam? I don't think so. Similarly, I wouldn't expect Eagle (Middle-earth) to deal with biology or to give the latin name of the bird family.

However, I'd say it's better to have the redirect point to the main Jesus article; readers interested in the purely Christian perspective will still find an overview of what they're looking for. Huon (talk) 23:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Why? Isn't someone looking for Jesus Christ almost certainly looking for the purely Christian perspective? --JFH (talk) 23:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Huon on both points. I think the redirect issue is really minor, and will be subject to discussion for the next 12 years. No need to sweat it, but the the other issue Jeppiz brought up is wider. There are a number of articles:

• Jesus in Islam
• Muhammad in Islam
• Jesus in Christianity
• Judaism's view of Jesus

which deal with the various religious perspectives on Jesus/Muhammad/etc. as their titles indicate. I think the chance that an Afd on these articles will fail is 100% because the topic clearly meets WP:NOTE and what the "Muslims teach about Muhammad" or the "Christians teach about Jesus" is a notable topic, and needs an encyclopedic entry. And a merge of any of these articles is also impossible, given WP:LENGTH issues. So those articles will be there. Can the content of some be improved? Probably so, but that is a separate discussion, not related to this article. History2007 (talk) 06:08, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, I think that "Jesus Christ" should redirect here, not to Jesus in Christianity. Many people are not aware of the particular meaning of Christ, and use it like a name, without making or accepting a religious statement, but simply to disambiguate. So they should get to the most general page on the subject, which is this. Secondly, I think all the "X in Y" articles should indeed have a short summary with a link to the main article to establish proper context. This is analogous to WP:FRINGE, which requires it for the presentation of fringe views, and makes sense even in cases like this where the covered opinion is not particularly fringe, but where there is a fairly refined mainstream interpretation of the topic. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:03, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Total agreement on that on my part. History2007 (talk) 08:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

And mine (to all of Stephan's points - the short summary and link seems important). Dougweller (talk) 09:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree with all three of the preceding posts... Jesus Christ this topic is getting tiring.Crumpled Fire (talk) 10:07, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Me too. Johnbod (talk) 15:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, this is tiring. But what would a scientist say when he observes a phenomenon? I have asked that question. There is a fundamental reason for the turbulence we are observing, not just in this thread, but in some others, and it has underlying causes. My explanation is that Crossan is right on this issue: "those who write about Jesus think they are doing biography, but do autobiography". The details of the life of Jesus and "who he was" is the prototypical Blind men and an elephant situation where every 5 scholars see a different person: Ehrman seeing an apocalyptic prophet, Vermes sees a Charismatic healer, Bockmuehl sees a Jewish Messiah. And as the article on Historical Jesus indicates the trend has been towards increased turbulence, not scholarly agreement. I think that is the underlying issue that gives rise to the turbulence we see. What is likely to happen is this:

• User A reads Ehrman's book and says: Oh no, this article is all wrong, Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet. Change it to say that.

• User B reads Bockmuehl and says: Oh no, this article is all wrong, Jesus was a Messiah claimant, change it to say that.

• User C reads some internet blog and says: Oh no, this article is all wrong, Jesus never existed, change it to say that.

The mindset of the users gets formed by what they read, and the turbulence in scholarly (and non-scholarly) opinion gets reflected here. Given the Misplaced Pages editing model the situation may continue as such. There is only one conclusion: In ictu oculi is the smartest user in Misplaced Pages, for he knows the topic so well, and does not edit this article. History2007 (talk) 11:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Suggestions to improve balance in first part of the article

This article has received quite a few complaints of bias lately, albeit often directed at the entirely accurate and well sourced sentence, 'Virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed" and reading over the first part of the article, parts one - three, I do agree that there are problems with it. I hope I will be forgiven for a rather long post which is really intended as a springboard for discussion rather than wanting to gain consensus for specific edits.For this reason I am not going to include references and sources for all my points.

Parts of the article do read like a Sunday School lesson, contradictions between the synoptics and John are glossed over, various difficulties unmentioned or downplayed and the focus in my opinion is too much on theological aspects and almost nothing on the more human side of a figure, who, if as most of us working on the article agree, certainly existed, was a real person, not just a divine figure who was transfigured, resurrected and ascended, etc.

The most glaring omission to me is that there is no mention at all of his ethical teaching, not a word about "love your neighbour as yourself","turn the other cheek", "inasmuch as you did it unto the least of these my brethern you did it unto me", etc. This cannot be right, to have as the main "overview" wikipedia article on Jesus a piece which completely ignores what many through the ages have thought was the most commendable thing about him and the most precious element in the Christian tradition. Also completely lacking is any mention of Jesus' outreach to the poor and outcast of his society, his association with "tax collectors and sinners", his (reported) teaching that " the tax collectors and the prostitutes are entering the kingdom of God ahead of you."

And although the lede does mention that some scholars have seen Jesus as " the leader of an apocalyptic movement", that is the only reference to what the most notable "Jesus in history" writers such as Schweitzer, Michael Grant and Bart Ehrman see as the central fact of his thinking and ministry, and needs more than a passing reference, also "apocalyptic" needs to be explained - he thought the world was about to come to an end.

I am going to address specific sentences in parts one - three that I feel there are problems with in another post, otherwise this section will probably be too long and no one will read it.Smeat75 (talk) 01:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

You are completely correct on a wider issue, namely the "glaring omission" of a thorough treatment of the Ethical teachings of Jesus from Misplaced Pages in general; not just here. But it used to be much worse, see Misplaced Pages the land of invention. There used to be invented material that as user:SimonP said did not exist elsewhere. Now that has been partially cleaned up. But a long, long way to go and no one is even working on it. Simon had done a lot in that area, but is far less active now. So I think if you start an article on Ethical teachings of Jesus that ties all of that together may be good, and then a summary can appear here. But it is a vast topic, and subject to wide ranging disputes among Christian denominations and must be treated carefully, as just that there are at least 36 different interpretations of the message of the Sermon on the Mount. Which of those 36 is going to appear in this article? That type of issue will be hard to manage in Misplaced Pages , given its editing model. Similarly "Jesus' outreach to the poor and outcast of his society" is a real hot topic of disagreement among scholars, and the underlying tenet of the "social reformer model" of viewing Jesus but no scholarly agreement exists on that at all. Perhaps Crossan said it best: "those who write about the life of Jesus think they are doing biography, but end of doing autobiography" for each sees something different. A very complicated topic really, and most statements/interpretations will likely be challenged by a new source and a different scholar. History2007 (talk) 06:38, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Non neutral and / or problematic passages in parts one - three of the article

The following are passages or sentences in parts one to three of the article that I feel are non neutral or problematic. It is intended as a starting point for discussion and to see if others agree, so I am not including references or sources for everything as these are not edits I am intending to make right away.

• "Year of death" section -

the meeting of Priscilla and Aquila who were expelled from Rome about 49 AD/CE - shouldn't this say who may have been expelled about 49?

The remaining period is generally accounted for by Paul's missions (at times with Barnabas) - what is the significance of Barnabas here, what difference does that make?

• Canonical gospel accounts section -

There is a brief discussion of the fact that various events are put in different orders in the synoptics than John, but I feel that somewhere it should be mentioned that the personality of Jesus also varies in John. In the synoptics Jesus tells homely parables, in John there are no parables but Jesus makes grandiloquent theological "I am" statements such as "I am the way the truth and the life" which are absent in the synoptics

Although there are differences in specific temporal sequences, and in the parables and miracles listed in each gospel, the flow of the key events such as Baptism, Transfiguration and Crucifixion and interactions with people such as the Apostles are shared among the gospel narratives - this is quite wrong in my opinion, outright false as the Transfiguration is not mentioned in John at all.

• Key elements and the five major milestones section -

I am not entirely happy about The five major milestones in the gospel narrative of the life of Jesus are his Baptism, Transfiguration, Crucifixion, Resurrection and Ascension - who decided that, and why is the Transfiguration included and not the so-called "Cleansing of the Temple" when all four gospels include that episode but John does not have the Transfiguration?

Parables represent a major component of the teachings of Jesus in the gospels, forming approximately one third of his recorded teachings, and John 14:10 positions them as the revelations of God the Father -this is absolutely false, John does not contain any parables, John 14:10 says " Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own authority, but the Father who dwells in me does his works."It does not refer to parables at all, that statement has got to go.

• Ministry section -

The Final ministry in Jerusalem is sometimes called the Passion Week and begins with the Jesus' triumphal entry into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday. In that week Jesus drives the money changers from the Temple, and Judas bargains to betray him. This glosses over the notorious fact that John does not place the "cleansing of the temple" during Passion Week at all but at the start of Jesus' ministry.

• Teaching and preaching section -

As I said in my previous post, there has really got to be some coverage of Jesus ethical teachings somewhere, how can you have an article meant to be an overview of Jesus with no mention of the Golden Rule or "turn the other cheek", and his proclamation of the imminent coming of the"Kingdom of God" with the implication that the world was about to end, ie "apocalyptic". I note that this section does say "the Gospel of John includes no parables", which makes the earlier statement that John 14:10 "positions" the parables as "revelations of God the Father" rather absurd.

• Final week: betrayal, arrest, trial, and death section

During the week of his "final ministry in Jerusalem", Jesus visits the Temple, and has a conflict with the money changers about their use of the Temple for commercial purposes - a very sanitized and toned down account of a violent disturbance created by Jesus in the most sacred place in Judaism - Mark - "he overturned the tables", Matthew and Luke,"he drove out all those who bought and sold", John, "he made a whip of cords and drove them out"

During these trials Jesus says very little, and is mostly silent - in the synoptics only, he has quite a lot to say in John.

• Final entry into Jerusalem section

While at Bethany Jesus sent two disciples to retrieve a donkey that had been tied up but never ridden and rode it into Jerusalem- Matthew 21:7 "They brought the donkey and the colt and placed their cloaks on them for Jesus to sit on." It isn't really good just to leave out inconvenient contradictions in my opinion.

• Trials by the Sanhedrin, Herod and Pilate section

Although the gospel accounts vary with respect to various details, they agree on the general character and overall structure of the trials of Jesus. - I dispute that, in my opinion that is not a neutral statement at all, the structure of the various trials do not agree at all. Matthew/Mark have Jesus tried by the Sanhedrin at night,Luke in the morning, John not at all, Luke has Jesus sent to Herod, the others do not, in the synoptics Jesus stays silent, in John he does not, there are many other differences, yes that statement along with a few others I have noted does indeed indicate a pro-Christian bias in this article.

That's enough for right now.Smeat75 (talk) 04:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Some of those issues such as Priscila/Aquila Barnabas, etc. are wording changes, and please just fix them as necessary. The other issues are really the subject of the Internal consistency of the Bible discussion. I have not even read that article, but took a quick look at its talk page and looks like no one is working on it. Issues such as one Temple visit or two Temple visits should be explored further in the Cleansing of the Temple, etc. and mentioned here. But doing a thorough analysis of the long scholarly debates on the inconsistencies of the biblical accounts takes serious effort. But overall, the internal inconsistencies in Biblical accounts could be clarified in a central article Internal inconsistencies in the Canonical gospels and related to other articles. But again, I do no see anyone working on that. History2007 (talk) 06:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you History2007 for amending almost all of the passages I identified as problematic and removing the majority of the problems! I really appreciate that. I will try to follow your advice and start articles on "Ethical teachings of Jesus" and "Internal inconsistencies in the Canonical Gospels" but that is likely to take me a looooong, loooong time. I feel the "ethical teachings" is much more important, as I say it is hard for me to believe that the main wikipedia article on Jesus says not a word about "love your neighbour as yourself" or anything of the kind. Thanks again for your help!Smeat75 (talk) 01:18, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

You are welcome; that is what we all get paid for. I think even if it takes a long time to do the Ethical teachings article, it does not matter, because no one else is working on it anyway. So please do have fun with it. History2007 (talk) 01:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Historical views items

As I said above, the discussion above about claims of Jesus and beliefs of early followers, seems to indicate that this article needs more on the background of that. We can already know that there is no consensus on Jesus' claim to be a Messiah or God because:

• There are only 3 solid issues on which there is almost unanimous agreement: existence, baptism by John and crucifixion by Pilate.

• There are 8 items on which there is general agreement, but nowhere close to unanimous, in 2 groups of 4 (as explained in this section):

• Jesus was baptized, called disciples, had a controversy at the Temple, was crucified by the Romans

• Jesus was a Galilean, he confined his travels to Galilee and Judea; after his death his disciples continued; some of them were persecuted

• There is no general scholarly agreement on anything else at all and a feudal system exists among scholars with 5 mainstream schools of thought being: apocalyptic prophet, charismatic healer, Cynic philosopher, Jewish Messiah and prophet of social change

I think something simple and similar to that needs to be added here for clarification.

The comment by Jepiz above about additional articles reminded me of the need for clean up elsewhere. If you guys feel like doing something to improve this topic, in my view is that here is the place to start, as suggested back in October. Note that the last talk page comment there was December 2010 and no one seems to be working on it. That article is really written with the mindset that the Commodore 64 is still the main force in personal computing. One can not present a study of the historical views topic without that article. In any case, the biggest positive impact can be provided by dispelling the rumor that the Commodore 64 still reigns and that the scholars mentioned in the Quest for the historical Jesus still represent the field.

Now, to add some of the historical views material here, per WP:LENGTH, some of the "life in the bible" material should go, and we can move that elsewhere. But should not be hard to do. If you guys agree, we can move out some of the life in the bible material, and add more about the historical views items such as apocalyptic prophet, charismatic healer, Cynic philosopher, Jewish Messiah and prophet of social change. That should not be hard either. History2007 (talk) 00:25, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

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