Talk:Jesus

Archives of older discussions may be found here:

Talk:Jesus/Archive details, Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3, Archive 4, Archive 5, Archive 6, Archive 7, Archive 8, Archive 9, Archive 10, Archive 11, Archive 12, Archive 13, Archive 14, Archive 15, Archive 16, Archive 17, Archive 18, Archive 19, Archive 20, Archive 21, Archive 22, Archive 23, Archive 24,Archive 25, Archive 26,Archive 27, Archive 28,Archive 29, Archive 30

---

Legacy

I know some people are disturbed about the section on anti-Semitism I put in the "legacy" section. First, I want to make clear that I have no objection to people editing it if they think it makes it more accurate or NPOV. However, I do believe that anti-Semitism is part of Jesus' legacy. This does not mean that Jesus himself would have sanctioned anti-Semitism. But when people object to the paragraph I put in on the grounds that it may be the legacy of "the Church" (rossnixon, my talk page) or "a sad legacy of his followers" (KHM03, my talk page), I see a double standard (and I am not saying this to offend rossnixon or KHM03, both of whom I am sure are acting in good faith). The first sentence of the section is "According to most Christian interpretations ..." I think this opening signals a plain and simple fact: that Jesus' legacy extends far beyond what he accomplished in his life, to what his followers centuries or millenia later have said and done. The first sentence rightly establishes Christianity and the acts and beliefs of Christians to be Jesus's legacy. If anti-Semitism has at certain times been encouraged by the Church or elements of the Church, or by some of Jesus's followers, who believed that their acts were supported by their reading of the New Testament, that is as much a part of Jesus's legacy as any other Christian interpretation of scripture, or Christian's belief in relics like the shroud of Turin. Jesus's legacy is about the significant consequences of both his ministry and - especially "and" - the words and deeds of his followers who have claimed to act in his name. One's legacy is often at odds with one's own intentions. I don't think that anyone would deny that the current political system in the US is the legacy of the "founding fathers" - while at the same time agreeing that the current political system is not necessarily what they intended or imagined.

I tried, earnistly and in good faith, to write an NPOV paragraph. In addition to mentioning anti-Semitism, I note that not only have their been exceptions, but that many Christians and Christian Churches have also promoted mutual respect and reconciliation. In addition to mentioning Christianity's role in colonialism, I note that many Christians have fought on behalf of the poor and oppressed. I have striven to achieve balance. If people want sources, the article on Christianity and anti-Semitism is full of them [1] and [2]. This does not mean that all christians have always been anti-Semitic and I truly felt that what I wrote made this clear. Eduardo Galleano is a good source on Christianity and colonialism but really any textbook on or history of the European settlement of the Americas discusses the relationship between the conquerers and the missionaries. Paolo Freire and Gustavo Gutierrez would be the best sources on Christians who have fought on the side of the colonized.

I can understand why a Christian would feel uneasy about mentioning anti-Semitism as part of Jesus's legacy. But reconciliation is also part of Jesus's legacy, and we cannot honor that part of Jesus' legacy without also stating what it is that led to the need for reconicliation. Must we add a sentence that explicitly states that Jesus' legacy has been so great as to include Christians whose actions other Christians have deplored and denounced? Slrubenstein | Talk 12:36, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

I respect your view and agree with much of it. But would it be fair to mention terrorism as a legacy of Mohammed on that article? Truly, anti-semitism is a tragic thing...sinful, in fact. And Christians need to own this sin, repent, and reconcile. But while Christians have used Jesus (esp. the Gospel of John) to support anti-semitic thought & behavior, it isn't unique to Christianity, and most modern theologians would claim that this is a misinterpretation of Jesus' words and intent. I think we just need to be careful here. KHM03 13:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree that we must be careful. I do think that an article on Mohammed - if it has a "legacy" section - should mention current Islamic extremism, although I agree too that that would have to be carefully worded. There are not nearly as many articles on Jewish topics as on Christian ones, but I think a more apt analogy is this: if an article discusses God's giving the Children of Israel the land of Canaan as part of the covenant, and if there were any sections on the eventual consequences of this (something comparable to "legacy"), I think that such an article should mention (1) that for a long time Jews abandoned their nationalist aspirations, (2) that starting in the 19th century some Jews - and after the Holocaust most Jews - came to believe that a democratic Jewish state needed to be created, and (3) that the history of this state has involved, among other things, conflicts over the territorial claims of the Jewish state versus the territorial claims of Palestinians, that the war of 1948 led to the expulsion of many Arabs from Israel, and that the occupation of the West Bank has been condemned not only by Palestinians and the UN but by segments of the Jewish Israeli citizenship as well. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Scholars Generally Hold... Paragraph

This paragraph was discussed above under Talk:Jesus#Streamlining the Historicity Paragraph A resolution was reached to keep it and to move the names of scholars representing the majority consensus to a footnote.I offered to document these, but no one requested that. While it's not exactly necessary, since the whole body of the works of these individual scholars of very different perspectives amply demonstrate it, as a visit to their wiki pages testify, I will happily do so in the morning, if all find it useful.

What is not tolerable, however, is the removal of a reference, no matter how incomplete.

To all: Will one book or article per scholar do, or should I cite three or four of them? I work in a theological library. --CTSWyneken 01:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Cite as many as you want, but who was removing references? Homestarmy 02:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

User Robsteadman. --CTSWyneken 02:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, don't let it stop you, i'll try to defend any citations you make anyway, unless you like sneak some insane references in there that make no sense at all heh :D. Homestarmy 05:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Ditto; Rob is welcome to make his case here. KHM03 11:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll do one book per scholar. If you'll notice, he's once again taken out a note, which destroys one of my references and didn't bother to discuss it. I'm reverting it. --CTSWyneken 10:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The intro makes it clear that some (we could even say many) doubt the existence of Jesus. Beyond that, it MUST represent all major points of view. The views of Christians and Muslims are obviously important. But so are the views of critical scholars. The paragraph in question fully conforms with our policies. It is not the result of original research; it is verifiable; sources are provided, and it is written in a way that complies with NPOV and including it in the intro is demanded by our NPOV policy. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I removed the note because it seems to be duplication Robsteadman 13:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

SL, I agree. One question, though. I've expanded the set of scholars you originally had in the paragraph to include scholars of perspectives other than critical scholars. We now have a range from the views of the most critical scholars to ones that have little use for the method. Since they all agree on the statements you've listed in the paragraph, I think it makes the argument stronger to acknowledge that. I'd like to find a way to indicate that in the paragraph that is not cumbersome.

On the opposite, small minority view of the Jesus Myth folk, if given enough time, I will document it also. --CTSWyneken 12:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

That's fine with me. KHM03 11:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

To be fair Rob did put in the edit summary "who are these people references needed". I was the one who said I didn't need the references documented but he obviously didn't agree with that. I'm away this weekend but I'm happy to put theJesus-Myth references in if we really think they are necessary for balance. I personally feel the wiki link is enough as all the info is on that page. SOPHIA 12:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree; if this article is taking the majority view that Jesus was a real historic figure, then those are the citations we need. A link to the myth article will work for that view. KHM03 12:57, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Why do we need the same list twice in notes? Why is this not just one note? And yes, we should have other views - if we are having it stated that he DID exost (massively POV) we need to have it stated that many commentators do not believe this. The article should NOT be a "jesus" existed article - it should be the verfiable - which is that there is no contemporary evidence, and much that existed afterwards is eiethr biased, written by non-eye witnesses many decades after or was altered )Josephus). Robsteadman 13:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

There's no reasoning with you Rob, it is clear you are blinded by your POV and I'm giving up trying. Anyone else who wants to join me?Gator (talk) 13:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

There is reasoning - but we MUST stay NPOV and verifiable. Anything that says "jesus did this..." must have a dsiclaimer attached that "according to..." or "christians believe that..." . VERIFIABLE NPOV Robsteadman 13:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC) Robsteadman 13:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh there is reasoning, just not with you. SOPHIA, yes, but not with you. You've let your obvious POV blind you to reason and the fact that you can't see it just proves that you are in fact blind. I'm done.Gator (talk) 13:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Robsteadmen systematically and continually misconstrues the issue. No one is saying "Jesus existed." The article is saying that certain groups of people believe Jesus existed: Christians, Muslims, and critical scholars. This statement is verifiable and NPOV. Robsteadman, if you cannot tell the difference between the sentence "Jesus existed" and "X,Y, and Z believe that Jesus existed" then I don't see how you can contribute to this discussion. I wrote that critical historians believe that Jesus existed and I provided a list of scholars who have published many books and articles. That is an NPOV and verifiable statement. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

In that case the dates should be removed from the opening - there position there imply he DID exist. Look at teh first paragraph:

"Jesus, Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus the Nazarene (about 8-4 BC/BCE – 29-36 AD/CE)[1], is the central figure of Christianity, in which context he is known as Jesus Christ (from Greek Ιησούς Χριστός) with "Christ" being a title meaning "Anointed One" or "Messiah". The main sources regarding Jesus' life and teachings are the four canonical Gospels of the New Testament which are generally agreed to have been written decades after his death."

Now, someone coming tohis article fresh... does that poara say that he existed ort that some groups believe he existed? I believe it states categorically that he existed - this cannot be verified or proven. The "evidence" is written decades later by POV writers and the neutral references are questionable or have been doctored (Josephus). We need to think what would the newcomer to athe article understand from the article - I think the current article misleads because it gives a massive POV. Robsteadman 14:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Ohhhh I see what's happening now, he wants a certain POV (that Jesus never existed) to be the firt thing people read whern they come to the page...and....that POV just happens to be his personal POV. Just a coincidence though. Like I said...blinded.Gator (talk) 14:10, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

No that's not what I have said. Plerase don;t pout words into my mouth. I would like the intro (and the first paragrpah) to make it clear that there is some debate about this, that evidence is not available and that whilst some "believe" he existed , despite the lack of fact, other take a rational view that he didn't. That would be NPOV. That would be verifiable. The current intro is still heavily POV and reads as if he existed and that there is no debate. Stop misinterpreting what I am saying. Start thinking NPOV. What would a newcomer to the article get from reading it. Would it be NPOV verifiable fact or a heavily slanted article? Robsteadman 14:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The evidence is available for many who do see evidence. The fact that some, like yourself, don't accept the Gospels and other writers, etc, as evidence is massively POV. Is it true there are no contemporary documents? Sure. Does that mean there is no evidence of Jesus' existance? Many believe no, some including yourself have the point-of-view that it means no evidence. It's POV. Simply saying no documents exist, and doing so in such a way that it's not pushing that as reason why "rob" thinks everyone is nuts, is ok. Using it to imply the rest of the article is junk believed only by wackos is unacceptable. --Oscillate 15:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

But that's just it rob, your creating a majority where none exist, if all the certified and highly respectable (supposedly) historians who say that Jesus existed are massively POV and stupid or something for that reason, then that means that almost every single archaeological and historical work forever was written or worked on by people who couldn't actually be certified if, by what your saying, they would represent a too "biased" view to be a respectable historian. There's almost not a history book in the world that would be certified, as the extreme majority view is that Christ did exist, you can't just sit there and say that all those people aren't really historians just because they believe Jesus existed and obviously had an enormous impact on the world without invalidating almost every single historical or history related degree in the world. There would be almost no historical works that could be used today, most of Wikipedia would have to be deleted for "biased sources" history article wise, and we wouldn't be having this discussion because there wouldn't be a point trying to maintain an encyclopedia cited with a grand total of an extreme minorities works. There might be many of these people who don't believe Jesus exist, but proportionently, their numbers are extremely small. Plus, the facts of Jesus's existance, when acknowladged, are not biased just because Jesus was a very POV person, come on, He was God, I think He might of had something to say from a Godly POV. Homestarmy 13:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Homestarmy - I think you;re missing the point deliberately. 1. Historians or "christian" theologians? 2. "jesus", if he existed, may have been POV - but that must be allowed for in what is written. 3. What people believe about him must be stated as belief not fact. It is factual that they believe it - it is not verifiable and factual that he did x or y. We must be NPOV - it is that simple. And those trying to maintain the heavily POV slant on this article are going agaainst the basic principles of Wikipedia. Robsteadman 14:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Can you prove Jesus didn't exist? Are you going to stand here and proclaim that all historians who happen to be Christians also, or any historians who are not Christian but still assert Jesus existed, are not to be believed at all? That is clearly what you think, and that's your POV, which you are trying to pepper the article with. Making mention of other views is fine, and according to the NPOV guidelines should be done properly considering the prominence of the view and the context of the article. --Oscillate 15:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Robsteadman, thank you for coming here to discuss it. My problem with your actions was that rather than reading the talk page and discovering that we had decided that the names were needed to verify the paragraph's claims that a majority of scholars hold what we say they hold. You deleted it, thereby making the statements appear to be OR. When someone tried to put them back, you reverted them. When I saw all this happening and that you requested full citations, I began to add them. One of them also supported the point of the first reference, which is to support the scholarly opinion of the dates for the life of Jesus. In customary academic form, I put the full form of the citation in the first note and an abrreviated form in the second. You then deleted the first note, invalidating my citation, which you had requested. To be honest, I do not like my work destroyed.

That being said, on the first citation, I think we need something there to support the dates given, since there is quite a difference of opinion on those dates. I think the note was inserted there as a "quick and dirty" solution, but is very likely true. It is for Witherington, in any case.

If you will simply slow down, I will document them as time permits. Even though I am a seminary librarian, I do have a day job and it does take a little bit to do this right, even though most of the works are on shelves near me. Why either help us document the views or just leave it alone long enough for those of us who will do this work to get to it. --CTSWyneken 14:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

But Rob, these historians don't simply believe Christ existed as a matter of personal preference, the evidence, circumstantial or biased or whatever, has led them to the conclusion that it is an historical fact that Christ existed. If scientists can do this sort of thing with evolution, why can't historians do this with Jesus? Homestarmy 14:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Homestarmy makes a crucial point: the critical historians who believe Jesus existed are using the same methods that any historian or classicist would use studying the past. IF any of them happen to believe in God, they bracket that in their research. They are explicitly speaking from a secular point of view (just as a religious Christian can also be a physicist - that doesn't make their work "Christian physics"), and are not making theological claims. At least, not the ones I named. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The problem being that there is no evidence. If you have proof.... Robsteadman 14:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

But Evolutionists can hold that evolution is true without the kind of first person proof you want, (As in, a bacteria turning into an amoeba of sorts or something, I don't mean microevolution) why shouldn't historians be able to determine the same thing about Christ in an academic perspective? If first person proof that was free from all bias was needed to prove people existed somehow, then Julious Caesar probably couldn't exist since most of the works about him were either against him or for him back then, standards a couple thousand years ago wern't quite so NPOV when it came to documentation, can you name anyone who you consider compleatly free from bias in citations of existance thousands of years ago? Homestarmy 14:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

But to claim someone existed when there is no proof of it is just nonsense. It's fair to say that some believe, it's fair to say he is referred to in the book written decades later by someone disconnected from the events, it's fair top say he was added to this book at a later date by some trying to shore up their religion. But the issue is verifiable proof. Where is it? There is not one single contemporary document that makes reference to him by his enemies or supporters. There is nothing within the next couple of decades. That is very important - probably more important than the documents that do mention him. Then the documents seem a hotch potch of stories borrowed from other religions, with unverified "facts" - the star in the east.... the murder of the innocents ... these were not historiocal events. THey very probably did not exist. An article about "jesus" should be making this clear. It shouldn't be hiked off to an "historical" article - this article is meant to be a biography about a man for whom there should be huge doubt. I have read several books arguing for the existence of "jesus" in fairly scholarly terms.... but they don't hold up to simple scrutiny and factual analysis. This article needs to make sure that "belief" is clearly labelled as such and that the veriufiable facts are given prominence. Robsteadman 14:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Your standards for proof are unreasonably high in this area Rob and it has nothing to do with you being a good scientist/scholar or us being stupid or POV and has everything to do with you being blinded by your own POV and issues with Jesus and (probably) Christianity in general.Gator (talk) 14:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

You are making a habit of just being abusive gator. I am trying to get an NPOV article full of verifiable fact. It's that simple/. Is it really that unreaqsonable to want some evidence? no. Show the proof. Robsteadman 14:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

"Abusive?" is that your new angle? Give me a break. I'm not going to be intimidated for revertying clear POV edits in violation fo consensus just because someone (with POV issues)accuses me of "abusing" them. Please.Gator (talk) 14:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

It's not an angle - you are being abusive. Now NPOV, verifiable and factual. That's what we should be doing. The fact you believe something that, it seems, can't be proven is fine. DO that but that should be made clear to be a "faith" stance in such an article not a veriufiable fact of "jesus" existnce. I don;t have POV issues - quite the opposite - I am trying to get NPOV into this artuicle. It is only some who are trying to defend the unverifiable and the POV taht this article has. Robsteadman 14:46, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Let's be NPOV, then. Whether you or I believe something to be true is beside the point in Wikipedia. What scholars who have studied the issue have said. See WP:CITE. In addition, when the majority of scholarship in a field is behind a statement, a small minority position is not to be given equal treatment See WP:NPOVUW,WP:NPOV#A simple formulation and WP:NPOV#A vital component: good research, WP:NPOV#Giving "equal validity" The existence of Jesus and the description of him as set forth in our first two paragraphs are asserted by virtually every historian of the ancient world and virtually every historian of the New Testament. I can continue to add names of those even outside the discipline of New Testament history, if you'd like.

To be practical and to move us along, I'll ask of you a similar question. Can you produce a citation to a scholar, writing since 1950, who states that Jesus did not exist or even that his existence is in doubt? --CTSWyneken 14:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

But when the scholars all come from a particulkar POV that POV must be made clear. That is what I have been trying to do but the tag team multiple reverts are preventing veriufiable fact from being added. Will get back to you with a name. Robsteadman 14:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

That is purely opinion Rob, (I had to post this late because people kept editing so fast) you can't say with factual accuracy that Christ didn't exist just because you think Christanity is too similar to other religions and that the world didn't document His existance soon enough for you, (And im sorry, but man, your just coming off sounding like anything that seems unlikely to skeptics can't exist.) and like I said, can you name one person that existed thousands of years ago that you feel not only had contemporary and compleatly NPOV documentation, but those documents had first person representation? Remember, if documentation is like 800 or 900 years too late, there's no way to confirm that it was a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy or something of the first person who wrote it, yet with the Gospels, we have scraps of documentation almost to the very first manuscripts, and compleate documentation still exists only, what, about 150-200 years after Jesus's death? That's pretty good recording in my book for documents written on highly degradeable material that has to last thousands of years. Homestarmy 14:50, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

But, as with Josephus, we klnow that tmany of such documents were altered to "christian" perspective by later generations. Robsteadman 15:04, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if future copies got altered, we have the nearly original documents, and can compare them to the modern day to see if anything has been changed. By using such a standard, the modern day NT is at least 99 percent textually accurate to the oldest manuscripts or manuscript pieces we have, the Church couldn't possibly get their hands on all the documents and alter such old things without damaging them, there were no erasers back then. Homestarmy 15:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

And that is why we know the :christian" authoritiesadded stuff. Thank you. Robsteadman 15:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Rob, you have continued to dodge the question: name a person from two thousand years ago that meets your standard of having tryle existed. I think it is iimportant. You have set a standard even our greatest historical figures can not meet. The truth is that the vast majority of historians agree that Jesus of Nazareth was an acutal individual. You often use the term "many" to describe those historians that believe he was a hoax or a figment of the imagination. Unfortunately, many is a relative term. In reality, relative to those that agree that Jesus was a historical figure there are few that think he did not exist.

You also seem to mix issues of historical fact with how Christians "changed" historical documents such as Josephus and others. I believe that some Christians did contaminate some documents, but that does not invalidate all docments. Storm Rider 15:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

So wait, your telling me that because the people who wrote the Bible actually got it right by the documents then therefore, they must be wrong? Where is the NPOV in this? Homestarmy 16:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Scholars and commentators who state that there is doubt that Jesus existed historically

Historically, it is quite doubtful whether Christ ever existed at all, and if He did we do not know anything about Him." Bertrand Russell, "Why I am not a Christian."

Also - Bruno Bauer, a mid-19th century German theologian (yes I know you said in the last 50 years but trying to give this some hiostorical context - taht it's not just a flash in the pan)

John M. Robertson - early 20th century

G.A. Wells - quite recent

Michael Martin "The case against Christianity," (1991) - conclusion - insufficient evidence for Jesus' existence

Earl Doherty

Will that do for starters?

Robsteadman 14:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

This is fun: http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/ Robsteadman 15:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the list. Can you give me more to go on, so I can verify: if they are scholars and if they say what you claim? If they do, I'll cite them and the end of the second paragraph. If they, and others, are actually scholars in history and contemporary, I might be willing to see an adjustment of the language concerning the dates of the life of Jesus.

The last fifty year request has to do with whether or not this is a live issue among scholars. If it is not, the current paragraphs are balanced enough according to wiki rules. --CTSWyneken 15:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcno.htm

http://www.i4m.com/think/bible/historical_jesus.htm + Dan Barker, + Templeton

Robsteadman 15:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

No one is saying there aren't people who don't believe Jesus existed, and people here aren't saying they're crazy wackos. You are saying, however, that anyone who doesn't deny his existance is a POV nut who should be disregarded. That's the big difference here. I would also put forth that there is no way you can use a website named "jesusneverexisted.com" as NPOV material. --Oscillate 15:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

You must do the same and recognize that there are scholars, Christian and non-Christian who do believe Jesus existed. --Oscillate 15:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

No I am not. I'm saying that stating he existed, without verifiable proof, is POV. If you state that some believe this that's fine. If you say that many or most believe this, if that';s true, then fine. But to state he existed without proof is a nonsense. The website was listed as fun - I did say "This is fun" by the side.Robsteadman 15:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

A theologian does not an historian make, the credentials of these people bear reaserch, im mostly sure some of them are historians since there is a minority of historians that i've heard of, but simply writing names of famous people who disagree with Christ does not give them verifiability. Oscillate also has a very important note, anything coming from a website called jesusneverexisted.com cannot possibly be taken seriously as NPOV, that's overt anti-christianity, come on now, let's be seriouis here. Homestarmy 15:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Just out of interest - why is the "jesus never existed" site considered POV where christian (who obviously state he did) sites stand unchallenged? SOPHIA 15:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Because, Sophia, they are going against the overwhelming consensus of historians who base this consensus on the overwhelming force of the evidence. Of course, anyone is free to disbelieve the evidence presented in all fields but mathematics. Creationists and "jesus never existed" proponents are similar in that regard. The statement that Jesus existed is not a specifically Christian position (that'd be "Jesus is the Messiah" or "Jesus lives") but the one suggested by the overwhelming force of evidence. Str1977 15:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think SOPHIA is missing the point. That Jesus was the Son of God, and one with God, messiah and savior is one point of view. That he did not exist is another point of view. That he did exist is a third point of view. SOPHIA and Robsteadman are making three mistakes. First, the seem to think that POV number three and number one are identical. They are not. Second, they falsely attribute POV number three to religious Christians, when in fact it can be attributed to critical historians. Third, they mistake verifiability for truth. SOPHIA, what kind of challenge do you want to make to the Christian POV? That it is wrong? You cannot do that, because it is not for editors to decide which view is right and which view is wrong. Our job is only to represent different views and ascribe them to verifiable sources. No article has ever construed the Christian point of view as "true." Every Wikipedia article that represents the Christian POV makes it clear that it is the Christian POV. And the article states that there are people who believe that Jesus never existed. The vast bulk of the recent debates here, and Robsteadmans persistent reverts and other people's incorrect edits, is not over whether some people believe Jesus was God and others think he never existed. The debate has been over, "Who is it that claims that Jesus existed?" The article makes it clear that one group of people who believe that he existed are Christians, who believe many other things about him. But I put in a paragraph representing another group of people who believe he existed: critical historians. This is of course a POV, just like the other two. But whereas I continue to claim that this is a view held by critical historians, others insist on claiming that it is a Christian point of view. It is not. It is the view of historians, and I have provided verifiable sources. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:04, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

No I have not missed the point. I don't want to get into this area as it has been rightly said that this is not a debating ground. I am fully aware of all the options and whether they are they are mutually exclusive or not. As I have said before we have three layers to any historical claim. Data, analysis and interpretation. The primary (contemporary) data is thin on the ground to be very generous so we pretty quickly move into the analysis area which is of course subject to POV. I think this is the point Rob was trying to make is his unique way. SOPHIA 16:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The vast majority of scholars say Jesus existed. See my POV flag below. Here is the current state of New Testament scholarship thoughout the world: Resurrection Research from 1975 to the Present: What are Critical Scholars Saying? by Gary Habermas ken 18:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

The vast maority of Biblical scholars coming from a "faith" position maybe. But then their evidnce is so POV to need a warning beside it. How many Biblical scholars are non-believers or, at least, agnostics? What about historians? No historian can seriously state that, categorically, "jesus" existed as there is insufficient proof - unless the, too, are coming from a deciodely biased position. Robsteadman 20:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The scholars listed as notes on the intro

Gator wants this discussed:

Are they "biblical schoalrs" or "christian scholars". I would say thaht they are "christian" scholars - every single one of them They come from a particular POV and as such this is important to document. Robsteadman 15:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Trying to get a word in edgewise here:

Fine, cite these ( Robsteadman's list) in a footnote under "…minority of critical Biblical scholars, and others..." However, I still maintain that you don't have to be Christian to believe that there was a Jesus of Nazareth. Consider that many Jews believe that Jesus existed (although they also believe that he was either a false Messiah, a false prophet, and/or that his teachings were distorted). archola 15:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

No I agree you don;t. But te impotant thing is that there is no evidence to suggest that he did exist. People can believe whatever they want - it just doesn;t make it NPOV or encyclopeidc to state that the content of that belief is fact. Maybe I think there are fairies at the bottom of my garden. Are there? Are they factual? Nope. But the fact I believge it could be. Robsteadman 15:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe that a few in the list provided by slrubenstein are Jewish and/or secular scholars. If I am mistaken, we certainly can add a few, since almost every scholar in this field asserts it. --CTSWyneken 15:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Of those I can find one was Catholic but became a Jew - so "Religious scholars"?Robsteadman 15:20, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Then we should also note each scholar who is athiest or agnostic and qualify them as such. --Oscillate 15:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

What you're doing is obvious. You are trying to down play the credibility of those who oppose your POV by implying that they only believed that Jesus existed, because they were "religous" or "Christian" (same thing) Why not put atheist scholars to describne those who support your view? Just stop.Gator (talk) 15:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

No, once again you are putting words into my mouth. PLEASE STOP. I am trying to get their views put into context. It is important., And being "christian" and being "religious" is NOT the same rthing - are you not aware of other religions?The veriufiable fact is there is no evidence for "jesus" having existed or much of what is written about in the NT. Please stop telliung me what I can and cannot do. It is not me thaht is being overtly aggressive. I do feel you are going against the basic principles of Wikipedia. Robsteadman 15:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Please help me with a distinction here: There are:

• Secular scholars of history who happen to be Christian, Jewish, or whatever. If we are talking about such scholars, their religion truly is irrelevant. They are likely to consider a preponderance of evidence to consider whether Jesus was a historical figure or not; clearly they can't definitively prove that he didn't exist, but they will make such findings as "in all likelihood..."
• Theological scholars, whose premise is one thing or another. If we are talking about such scholars, not only should we write their religious affiliation, but also the fact that they are scholars of theology and not history. They have as their premise that Jesus existed and are largely seeking more information about him.
• Religious studies scholars, the grey area. These are people who study theology, but from a secular or philosophical point of view. These will accept that Jesus is a religious figure, whose historical authenticity is less important than his meaning of his role in theology, church history, etc.

Which are we talking about? --Leifern 15:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that most atheist/agnostic scholars also believe he existed, though it's difficult to prove this since secular scholars don't typically list their own religious belief in their publications. Most of the writers who adopt the non-existence line are not recent or are fringe non-professionals with idiosyncratic theories (such as the Jesus was Julius Caesar theory mentioned above). Many actually represent anti-Christian New Age ideas. Paul B 15:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I think you're missing the point. If you are a historian, you can not rely on faith or theology as a historical source. Whether or not a historian is Christian is irrelevant if he/she applies rigorous academic standards to his/her research, and in doing so renders his/her own religious beliefs irrelevant. The question really is what type of historian we are talking about, not what religion they may or may not subscribe to. --Leifern 15:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what point I'm missing here - if indeed you (Leifern) are replying to me. It's all very confusing. My comments were intended as a reply to Robsteadman, but got caught in an edit conflict and ended up under yours. I am a historian, by the way. I agree that the beliefs of professional historians should not get in the way of their scholarship, though, of course, we are all human. However, Rob seems to think otherwise. That is why he is demanding evidence that "atheist" historians believe Jesus did exist. Professional standing does not seem to matter to him. Paul B 15:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but that's simply not true. Do take a look at the list I provied plus the web sites I have cited which go through specfiic publications. They might be in the miority but they do not believe he existed. Remember verifiable. We should NOT be implying he existed when there is no evidence. Robsteadman 15:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

"rob", The list you gave is by no means comprehensive for every non-Christian scholar, and you cannot take your short list, including a website named "jesusneverexisted.com" to be comprehensive and therefore it's "simply not true" that all or most non-religious scholars deny Jesus' existance. You cannot take a few people's opinion and go to say "there is no evidence", it's their POV and it's your POV. We've gone over this so many times it's past frustrating. --Oscillate 15:53, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I have requested this page be blocked for 24 hours, since we simply can't be bothered to slow down long enough to do some research.

And, Rob, few on the list you gave are verifiable. Give full citations please. Anyone can say anything on a website. --CTSWyneken 15:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I provided those websites because they refer to specific books and give specific quotes - do you really want me to copy them out for you? Robsteadman 15:43, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Do you realize you're at about 5 reverts so far for the past 24 hours? Please slow down. --Oscillate 16:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Just because the people you listed believe there is no evidence doesn't make them right, the evidence exists whether anyone in the world likes it or not, biased, non-instantly recorded, and supposedly re-written does not stop the Gospels or anything else mentioned in Historicity of Jesus or anywhere else from being evidence. People thinking the evidence might be "bad" also, once again, doesn't stop it from being evidence. Also, I think many of us are out of reverts Oscillate heh. Homestarmy 16:01, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

No, but to keep things verifiable, factual and NPOV we need to make things clearer and more balanced. Delayed writing makes the documents non-contemporary, non-Primary sources. It adds doubt. The fact that the contents do not appear elsewhere adds doubt. The things you quote are evidence that these things are believed and teh source of that belief - they are not evidence of the things contained being true. There is a difference. Robsteadman 16:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Just because there is some doubt among some does not equal factual non-existance, it just means there is some debate. You cannot push forward the doubt as factual evidence of non-existance. --Oscillate 16:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and just counting the history, your on your seventh revert Rob if im counting correctly, this is not helping to build credability for your argument. Homestarmy 16:08, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Different reverts of different things. Battling against a tag reverting army! I was asked to discuss things - and yet the tag reverters carried on..... Robsteadman 16:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

It's getting harder for those of us on dial-up to get a word in edgewise!

Just to clarify, my last revert was more to clean up vandalism by 208.49.141.11 (which removed large parts of the article) than to tag-team Rob. "Christian scholars" is clearly misleading. "Religious scholars" is ambigious, but I'm content to discuss the issue here. Leifern rightly pointed out that "Religious scholars" can mean either scholars who are religious, or scholars who study religion. Another important question is whether either interpretation applies to the scholars cited. That's beyond my expertise, but I will be following the discussion. archola 16:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

But just "scholars" is also misleading and ambigous - it suggests ALL.Robsteadman 16:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Firstly, scholars only means a plural amount of scholars, not all scholars, we note that not all scholaars agree at the end anyway. WP:REVERT, "Wikipedia policy states that you may not revert any article more than three times in the same day. This is a strict limit, not a given right; you should not revert any one article more than three times daily. See Wikipedia:Three revert rule for details on this.

High-frequency reversion wars make the page history less useful, waste space in the database, make it hard for other people to contribute, and flood recent changes and watchlists. Sock puppets may not be used to violate this rule. Please request protection rather than reverting. Violation of this rule may lead to protection of the page on the version preferred by the non-violating party; blocking; or investigation by the Arbitration Committee."

I see no exception here for reverting this single word because you feel that POV pushers are repressing the supposedly Atheist overmind controlled reality. (See www.evilatheistconspiracy.org, we're on to your plans! :D) Homestarmy 16:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Well I apologise but the origianl change I made was reverted without good cause or discussion and then tag team reverted. THAT is far worse. There is a big issue about the word "scholars" and what exactly it implies. It is important that it is changed in some way to ensure NPOV and verifiability. Robsteadman 16:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

It might be better to do exactly what we do in the next paragraph—qualify by "most" or "many" rather than by "religious" or "secular." Just a thought. archola 16:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Qualifiers are useful, but the article should ideally be written and understood in such a way that not every phrase and clause and sentence needs one. --Oscillate 16:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Revert war

Please stop revert warring over one particular qualifying word. Robsteadman, in particular, you've personally reverted 9 times in just over an hour[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]. This is not in the best interest of encylopedia building. You mention you are aware of WP:3RR, so why are continuing to escalate things? In the interest of encylopedia-building, please take a break and relax and try to discuss without letting your passions get so worked up. The topic really can be discussed dispassionately and academically and editors can work together on agreed wording. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 16:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Above, in response to my last comment, Robsteadman wrote, "The problem being that there is no evidence. If you have proof...." Robsteadman 14:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC). This demonstrates Robsteadman's utter misconstrual of our NPOV and NOR policy. It is not up to any of us contributors to prove or disprove ANYTHING. We provide verifiable information. It is verifiable that a number of major critical historians and Bible scholars believe Jesus existed. If Robsteadman wants to call any of them and say "but there is no proof" he is free to argue with them, personally. But he cannot use these pages to argue with them. Wikipedia articles are simply not the place for people to present his own views. Robsteadman, it does not matter to me whether these critical historians are right or wrong. It does not matter to me because as an editor at Wikipedia that is not my job. All that matters to me is that they have said that they believe he existed in published (and thus verifiable) material. Whether you, robsteadman, agree with them or not is utterly immeaterial as well. And by the way, their "POV" is not religious. Their POV is as critical historians and classicists. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

You have clearly misunderstood my edits and comments. Robsteadman 16:45, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Well stated, slrubenstein. I believe Robsteadman is a fairly new editor and is not yet fully aware that WP is not a forum for debating personal beliefs (or nonbeliefs). Many of us have *no* personal vested interest in whether Jesus actually existed. Our purpose here is to accurately reflect the extant academic and cultural research on the topic. Btw, I go with "Most critical historians and Bible scholars". I think that accurately represents the kind of scholars who agree to the generic events about Jesus' life. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 16:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey Slrubenstein, do most critical Bible scholars really reject Christ's claim of divinity? Many of them could be Christian like Rob states, but of course, they can still hold their own opinion even if it is of course not exactly a very secular one, right? Im not trying to attack you or anything, im just wondering where that idea is coming from :/. Homestarmy 16:42, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I reported Rob for violations and he's being blocked for 48 hours (again), so you can thank me later. Now we can have some peace and discuss these issues rationally.Gator (talk) 16:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Well after I get my reverts back i'll have 24 hours to help out for real then :). We could go back to discussing other parts of the article like I suggested a few days ago, (And I thought the changes we got were pretty good) we can ignore the first and second section since we're getting entrenched over those, and try to focus on some of the later ones to see if there's something obvious in any of those that everyone agrees needs fixing. Homestarmy 17:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, I'm just eager and happy to move on and have some peace for at least the next 48 hours. I just wish Rob would take more after SOPHIA.Gator (talk) 17:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

In response to Homestarmy, you ask a good question. I think the answer is mixed. One of the scholars I cite is Jewish and I am certain that he rejects any claims about Jesus' divinity. I think I read somewhere that Geza vermes used to be religious but over time (and presumably as a consequence of his research, but who knows) lost his faith. I have no idea about Sanders, but his books make no claims about Jesus's divinity. Ditto Bartman, and Fredriksen. I think Crossan and Meier may be religious and if so, you are right to point out that they do not reject Jesus' divinity. But again, as far as I know they do not make claims, in their academic books, about Jesus' divinity. So perhaps (if someone wants to reintroduce the clause in question, which someone took out) we should say "in their published scholarly work, make not claims ..." which would leave open the question of their personal beliefs. Let's be frank: what is at issue here is not what they personally believe, which by our own policy may be unverifiable. What is definitely verifiable is their published works. And I have read at least one book by each of the authors cited in which no claims about Jesus's divinity or any supernatural powers were made; indeed, Sanders and Fredricksen and Vermes, at least, read as if they reject Jesus's divinity, but that is my impression from reading them - I do not remember if they actually ever say "I do not believe he was divine." But Sanders and fredricksen, for example, say things like, Jesus probably believed that God would restore the kingdom in the immediate future, and that he (Jesus) would occupy a privileged place in the restored kingdom - but this kind of claim is at odds with the idea that Jesus himself would cause the kingdom to be established, and implies a very clear distinction between God and Jesus that I think really allows the reader to conclude that these authors think Jesus was a man, and in no way divine. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:48, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Discussion about the divinity or not should be carefully separated from the discussion over historicity. The discussion over whether Jesus is God or not is a separate issue altogether. --Oscillate 17:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

If I took something out that people want back in feel free, I'm fine with that. i removed language tht I felt was not approved by consensus yet and needed to be further discussed. That's all. Block me. lol.Gator (talk) 17:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I get it, it just seemed like a pretty general statement is all, is that sentence just referring to the people we've cited here or is it a more general population sort of thing? that kind of idea might be hard to get clearly from the historical community :/. Homestarmy 18:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Critical scholars/historians

Maybe this has been explained before, but what do you mean exactly by this phrase? I think the majority of the population will take is as meaning "those who do not believe in jesus and are critical" - but I'm assuming you don;t mean that? ARobsteadman 16:44, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

The list that note 2 refers to includes exclusively believers including an evangelical.... are you really saying they do not believe his divinity? Robsteadman 16:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

CTSW said he'd find some scholars who aren't Christian who agree that Jesus existed, we can at least leave it like this now until he gets the time to help us out, and to tell you the truth, I dunno what critical means here myself, I didn't put it in there. Homestarmy 16:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Not everyone in the Jesus Seminar are Christian, and they affirm his existence. KHM03 18:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

"Critical" in this sense does not carry the negative connotation I believe you are likely ascribing to it. It doesn't mean "disagree". It means objective, analytical. To be a critical thinker, for example, would be to make the effort to objectively look at something from all angles. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 17:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

"Critical" does not mean "irreligous." There are Christian denominations that follow the Higher criticism interpretation of Scripture. The ELCA, for instance. archola 17:30, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes I agree. I don't have strong feelings either way, but "critical" scholars is fine by me.Gator (talk) 17:47, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Right, "critic" in this sense is like a literary critic or art critic. They do not see their job as bashing literature and art. They do, however, see their task to involve interpreting literature and art. Moreover, in the context of Biblical scholarship - as someone pointed out above - the term "critic" is associated with "higher criticism" and "source criticism" namely people whose interpretation of the Bible rested on three basic assumptions (and, in reference to the Hebrew Bible, none of these assumptions are shared by Orthodox Jews or Christian fundamentalists) (1) that human beings wrote the Bible (2) that the Bible was written over a considerable part of time and (3) that the text of the Bible should be interpreted in relation to the historical context in which it was written. Now, one can believe in God, and perhaps even believe Jesus is Christ. But interpretations of the Bible based on these assumptions, which are shared by historians and classicists, for example, people who interpret The Iliad or The Gilgamesh Epic, do not require anyone to believe in God or be religious in order to accept these interpretations. Sanders may or may not believe in Jesus. But one can read his book and agree with everything in it without believing in God, just as one can read eric Aurbach's comments on The Odyssey without believing in Zeus or Hera. Robsteadman, despite his protestations about believing in God, is in fact a fundamentalist, because he believes that the only reading of the Bible must be a religious one. He seems incapable of imagining reading it as a historical document. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Who says fundamentalists can't think the Bible is historical fact? :/. Homestarmy 18:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Parsing the issue

First of all, we should make sure that we write about historicity of Jesus is consistent with what is in Historicity of Jesus. Now, back to the issue. Let me propose a couple of principles here:

• The divinity of Jesus is not a historical issue. It's a religious issue, and I think even Christian theologians would agree that faith is not something one can or should try to prove through scholarship. So, on questions of the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth, we can only discuss the theology, not the history. Everyone agree?
• The historicity of Jesus is taken for granted in Christian theology, but is open for review among historians. This is complicated by the following scenario: Can a devout Christian historian say that Jesus was not a historical figure? Or can an observant Jewish historian say that Jesus was in fact a historical figure? The answer is that historians don't phrase things that way. They would try to reach common ground by examining the evidence. It is virtually impossible to prove that Jesus didn't exist, but one can certainly say that there is little archeological, literary, or other evidence that he did. As historians, one could attribute the story of Jesus to any number of explanations rather than his actually having lived, much like one would with other possibly historical figures, such as King Arthur, Robin Hood, etc.

I don't know at what point a historical figure's existence is proven beyond all doubt. I suppose we are fully convinced that Napoleon and Julius Caesar really lived, but I don't know about others. --Leifern 18:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Technically speaking, many who call themselves Christian don't literally think of Jesus as literal, as I understand it, cults such as Scientologists consider the Bible...sort of imporant.....but they also consider that nothing really exists, or so I understand. I think it would simply be a better article if we went on the assumption that our subject matter wasn't just a fairy tale, otherwise, we would be clearly taking a side against Christ, and this article is supposed to be reporting on Christ, not against Him. Homestarmy 18:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Even within mainstream Christianity there are those who consider there to be little connection between what they call the Historical Jesus, i.e. the man who actually lived, and the Christ of Faith, i.e. the figure about whom Christianity has these beliefs. Only very few of those would deny Jesus' actual existence, but then hardly anybody does that.

Here is a good reference on the distinction. DJ Clayworth 18:25, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Homestarmy says "we would be clearly taking a side against Christ, and this article is supposed to be reporting on Christ, not against Him." A couple of minor corrections. Actually the article is about "Jesus" not "Christ". The latter is a particular title many use to describe Jesus, but they are not one and the same from an encylopedic perspective. Also the objective is neither to endorse nor disendorse Jesus. --MPerel ^{( talk | contrib)} 18:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Yea I get it, it's just these days, Christ is sort of almost like Jesus's last name in addition to being the messiah title. But still, this article at least has to report on Him, technically speaking, if the article doesn't really take a side itself in the debate, I can't see why it would be a problem necessarily, people would still know about Christ, and it would still help get people interested anyway. Homestarmy 18:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Early life section

Moving on in helping this article, does anyone see anything we need to correct about this section? It seems fine to me, but if anybody wants to bring something up about it, we might as well get it done now so that we won't have to argue over it in the future. Homestarmy 18:49, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Who are these Scholars?

Below I will list what I find out about each scholar on slrubenstein's list, my list and robsteadman's list as I poke around. I'm concentrating first on pinning down references where the scholars listed affirm what is in our paragraph, deny the existence of Jesus or question it. Please feel free to add to it.

Comments on the Scholarly Opinion of the Non-Existence Hypothesis

Robert E. Van Voorst, Professor of New Testament at Western Theological Seminary, in Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000, has written:

"Many books and essays -- by my count, over one hundred -- in the past two hundred years have fervently denied the very existence of Jesus. Contemporary New Testament scholars have typically viewed their arguments as so weak or bizarre that they relegate them to footnotes or ignore them completely." (p. 6)

"The issue of the nonhistoricity of Jesus is indeed a side current in New Testament study." (p. 7)

At the end of the eighteenth century, some disciples of the radical English Deist Lord Bolingbroke began to spread the idea that Jesus had never existed. Voltaire, no friend of traditional Christianity, sharply rejected such conclusions, commenting that those who deny the existence of Jesus show themselves "more ingenious than learned." (Note 12: F. M. Voltaire, "De Jesus," from Dieu et les hommes, in Oeuvres complétes de Voltaire (Paris: Société Littéaire-Typographique, 1785) 33:273. He accepted the historicity of Jesus (p. 279).)" (p. 8)

Bruno Bauer

A 19th Century disciple of Hegel and a compatriot of Marx and Engels. He is credited with the Marcan Priority hypothesis and with coining the phrase "Messianic Secret." He is one of the founders of the original "Jesus Myth" school. He is worth citing on the minority position note, when we create it. Since he is 19th century, however, he does not contribute to our knowledge of the current state of Jesus research. (for example, he dates Mark's composition to 125 AD/CE, not 40-75 AD/CE as the field currently does. --CTSWyneken 04:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Shaye Cohen

Littauer Professor of Hebrew Literature and Philosophy in the Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations at Harvard University and called by Hebrew University "A distinguished Harvard University Historian[12]." He appeared on a Nova episode[13] as an expert on Jewish history. Writes in the field of the development of Judaism from 4th Century BC/BCE to the 4th Century AD/CE. While I have not seen a point blank statement that he is Jewish, his work strongly suggests he is.--CTSWyneken 22:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

He is Jewish; he used to teach history at the Jewish Theological Seminary and (I think) at Columbia University too. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

John Dominic Crossan

Crossan, a Catholic Priest, is Professor of Biblical Studies at DePaul University of Chicago. He is a prolific writer from the higher critical school of New Testament studies, a member of the Jesus Seminar and frequent guest scholar on television specials related to the life of Jesus, along with Paula Fredrikson and Paul L. Maier.--CTSWyneken 22:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh good a Catholic Priest who is a Professor at a CAtholic UNiversity sitting on things like the Jesus Seminar - not in any way biased... Robsteadman 20:17, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

All people have a point of view. Crossan is far from a traditional Catholic one. The point here is that he is one of a very wide range of scholars that assert the profile of Jesus in the paragraph. Do you contest that he holds such a viewpoint? --CTSWyneken 21:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

No I don't contest he holds taht view - I suggest, however, that his POV is highly biased - and, to be honest, hardly scholarly. Strange that only pro-"jesus" academics seem to be being allowed to be included. Robsteadman 21:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

By what standards do you judge Crossan "not scholarly?" I disagree with him on much of what he concludes, but have little doubt he is a scholar. Please be careful when you attack the person of a scholar.

Also, I have no objection to the last sentence, which states what is a minority viewpoint, and attaching the names of the scholars, and eventually citations to their works.

It is when we're trying to decide if the WP:NPOV rule on overwhelming consensus is met so, that a person must be from an appropriate discipline to qualify for seeing if there is a significant minority view to require qualification of the dates in the first paragraph. --CTSWyneken 22:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that academic people are not allowed to have a religion to be academic rob? Homestarmy 23:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that is what Robsteadman is saying. But more to the point: on the basis of knowing that Crossan is a priest, Robsteadman infers that his views are "hardly scholarly." This shows just how anti-intellectual and anti-science Robsteadman is. In science we know that what determines the quality of scholarship is the methods one uses. A person can believe that Marduk was god or that god does not exist, but they can use the same methods to determine the laws of motion or of thermodynamics. When it comes to more complex phenomena (say, evolution) the methods of research are more complex - harder, or impossible, to express in terms of mathematical models - but once again, someone can believe in God or not believe in God and still demonstrate that speciation is occuring among hawthorn/apple flies. It just doesn't matter what their religious beliefs are, what matters is their methods. The same goes for the study of history. The ONLY way to judge John Crossan's scholarship is by looking at the methods he uses. This would require Robsteadman to do something he appears loathe to do when yammering on about his own beliefs: read books. Read John Crossan's books and show me where any a priori beliefs about God of Jesus determine his conclusions. That is the ONLY scientific basis for faulting Crossan. In fact, there are historians who disagree with Crossan (including another priest-historian, John Meier). But they disagree with him on historical, not theological grounds. To spell it out more clearly for contributors who know nothing of scholarly research, what I mean is this: debates between Crossan and other historians are comparable to debates among historians of the Holocaust (I am not including revisionist/deniers) or of the French Revolution. They are scholarly, not religious, debates. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I would appreciate you stop flaming me. It is not anti-science - anti-science is accepting stuff that cannot be proved... "god" for instance. I am not saying taht he cannot be quoted it's just that a believer or chaplain should have that noted - it does add an angle to their research. Now, stop the flaming, stop the aggression and start with the verifiable facts about "jesus" with NPOV. Robsteadman 17:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Your understanding of science is mistaken. "Proof" is a term used in mathematics and logic, not in science. Scientific theories are more or less useful, and hypotheses may be falisified, but neither are ever "proven." Philosophers debate whether or not the existence of god can be proven; some argue it can be, others that it cannot be- that is a fact. But no wikipedia contributor can add to an article (you can of course air your own views here, as I have) that "there is no proof that God exists" or "There is proof that God existes" because editors do not (1) add their own views to articles (violates NPOV) and (2) add these kinds of facts to articles (violates NOR). I agree with you that in an article on Crossan or in a paragraph dedicated to his views we should add that he is an ordained priest. But what information we provide about him depends on the context. In the context under discussion, we are not focussing on Crossan. We are making a claim about critical historians. You continue, despite what I wrote above, to insist that Crossan's being a priest adds "an angle" to his research. Maybe, maybe not. I continue to hold that your claiming this solely on the basis of the fact that he is a priest is un-scientific. Science requires evidence. Crossan, in his history books, relies on historical evidence, that iwhat makes him a critical historian. If you think I am wrong, then you have to provide evidence. Please quote to me from one of his history books the evidence that he is not holding himself to the same standards as all critical historians. Unless you can provide evidence, you are pushing dogma, nothing more. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

No. I'm saying that if they are of a "faith" that needs to be noted though because it makes a differnce. "Faith" without proof is rather non-academic though, isn't it? Robsteadman 17:30, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Rob, we are not discussing Crossan's faith. We are discussing his historical research. I am saying his research holds up against the same standards as any critical historical research. Byt this I mean that the book of his that I read is comparable in its assumptions, methods, and use of evidence, to histories I have read of Tudor England or the American Revolution. If you have evidence to the contrary please provide it. I have no evidence that Crossan's faith has played a role in his historical research. Show me. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Show me one professor of history at any accredited university or college who ever denied that Jesus existed. ken 23:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

Bart Ehrman

James A. Gray Distinguished Professor and Chair, Department of Religious Studies, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. Previously taught at Rutgers University (UNC and RU are both secular, state universities). PhD. Princeton Theological Seminary (Magna Cum Laude). He has published extensively in the fields of New Testament and Early Christianity, having written or edited nineteen books, numerous articles, and dozens of book reviews. Among his most recent books are a college-level textbook on the New Testament, two anthologies of early Christian writings, a study of the historical Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet (Oxford Univesity Press), and a Greek-English Edition of the Apostolic Fathers for the Loeb Classical Library (Harvard University Press). He has served as President of the Southeast Region of the Society of Biblical literature, chair of the New Testament textual criticism section of the Society, book review editor of the Journal of Biblical Literature, and editor of the monograph series The New Testament in the Greek Fathers (Scholars Press). He currently serves as co-editor of the series New Testament Tools and Studies (E. J. Brill) and on several other editorial boards for monographs in the field. Winner of numerous university awards and grants, Prof. Ehrman is the recipient of the 1993 UNC Undergraduate Student Teaching Award, the 1994 Phillip and Ruth Hettleman Prize for Artistic and Scholarly Achievement, and the Bowman and Gordon Gray Award for excellence in teaching. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:01, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Paula Fredriksen

A William Goodwin Aurelio Professor at Boston University (a secular university). B.A., Wellesley College (1973); Theol. Diploma, Oxford University (1974); Ph.D., Princeton University (1979). Previously taught at Stanford, UC Berkeley, and the University of Pittsburgh. Lady Davis Visiting Professor, the Hebrew University, Jerusalem (1994-95). Professor Fredriksen specializes in the social and intellectual history of ancient Christianity, from the Late Second Temple period to the fall of the Western Roman Empire. Besides her books on Augustine (Augustine on Romans, 1982) and on Jesus and Christian tradition (From Jesus to Christ. The Origins of the New Testament Images of Jesus, 1988), she has written extensively on conversion, apocalypticism, Paul and his interpreters, and Jewish/Gentile relations in Late Antiquity. In 1999 she received a national Jewish Book Award for her most recent publication, Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews. A Jewish Life and the Emergence of Christianity (Knopf). Slrubenstein | Talk 14:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Paul L. Maier

Maier is Russell H. Seibert Professor of Ancient History at Western Michigan University. His Ph.D. is from the University of Basel (1957). A graduate of Harvard University (M.A., 1954) and Concordia Seminary, St. Louis (M. Div., 1955), he pursued post-graduate studies on a Fulbright Scholarship at the Universities of Heidelberg, Germany, and Basel, Switzerland. After studying at the latter under famed scholars Karl Barth and Oscar Cullmann, he received the Doctor of Philosophy degree summa cum laude in 1957.

In 1984, Dr. Maier was named "Professor of the Year," as one of America's 25 finest educators, by the Washington-based Council for Advancement and Support of Education. He currently travels and lectures widely and appears frequently on national radio and television.

Dr. Maier's is a specialist in correlating data from the ancient world with the New Testament. His research includes a variety of methodologies involved in manuscript and text analysis, archaeology, and comparison of sacred and secular sources from the first century A.D. His scholarly monographs include: (ed., trans, with G. Cornfeld) Josephus – The Jewish War (Zondervan, 1982),(ed., trans.) Josephus – The Essential Works (Kregel, 1995),(ed., trans.) Eusebius – The Church History (Kregel, 1999) He appeared as a guest historian on several television specials on the New Testament including: "Peter Jennings Reporting: Jesus and Paul--The Word and the Witness" (2004)

Michael Martin

"Michael Martin is a professor of philosophy at Boston University. His books include Atheism: A Philosophical Justification (Temple University Press, 1990) and The Case Against Christianity (Temple University Press, 1991). His most recent attack on the Christian faith comes in his article The Transcendental Argument for the Non Existence of God (Autumn 1996, The New Zealand Rationalist)." Michael Martin, "Responses to Atheist Philosopher, Michael Martin" Reformed Apologetics Center for Reformed Apologetics and Theology, 2002. Accessed 10 February 2006. <http://www.reformed.org/apologetics/index.html?mainframe=http://www.reformed.org/apologetics/martin_TAG.html>[14] He also is not a historian, therefore, not a scholar in this field. We can quote him in support of the minority position, however, since he qualified as an "academic."

Interesting use of language to describe his book as "His most recent attack on the Christian faith...". SOPHIA 20:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

True, this is from a very partisan site. When reading it, you need to do so with a grain of salt. It was the only bio I could find online about him. What I'm looking for is credentials -- what qualifies him to write about historical events of the ancient world in general, or Palestine in particular? While a scholar, he is working outside his discipline. see Wikipedia:Reliable sources#Beware false authority He would, however, fit to document the minority view, as long as we keep language that explains that some of these writers are not historians. --CTSWyneken 21:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

And yet you (? - or ios it someone else) is happy to include a German scholar because they say the right thing? Robsteadman 21:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

On the talk page, we're simply gathering information. I would not include this item in the main article for this very reason.

As far as the list of scholars here, the German scholar and the scholar of German express opinions contrary to the consensus. A scholar should be included when he or she is in the field of the subject article or if the text of the article makes clear they are speaking as someone from another field. --CTSWyneken 22:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree - we certainly need to differentiate between hisorians and Bible scholars. How is the list of historians who state that "jesus" existed going btw?Robsteadman 22:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

If you;re going to make a difference between scholars and Biblilcal or religious scholars you need to say that in the article - it seems that some only want beliving scholars to be included - in which casdetheir POV is a major factor in their "research" and, to be encyclopedic, their views should either be tempered to show the POV from which they are coming or should simply be ignored. How many "biblical" scholars are non-believers? Is this a self selecting group? Robsteadman 20:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The point here is that Martin is not a historian. Thus, his view does not apply to the scholarly consensus in this field of study. He does qualify as a scholar, so we can use him to document the minority view. --CTSWyneken 21:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed; see here: Beware false authority. KHM03 21:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Are Bible scholars historians? I don;t think so. Robsteadman 22:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

So it it that the vast majority of Bible scholars say "jesus" existed but that the opposite is true for historians and philosophers? Robsteadman 22:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The opposite is not true for historians and philosophers. Please cite names (see below). KHM03 22:28, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

As stated below historians tell of what is there, not what isn;t. There is no evidence for "jesus" so why would they bother saying that? Robsteadman 22:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, with all respect, it's you vs. the academy on this one. Historians do believe Jesus existed. Again, take it up with them...not here. KHM03 22:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

These Biblical scholars are historians by background, training and discipline.

As far as lists go, your request to document these scholars and your list has taken quite a bit of time, thank you. Finding biography on your folk has been quite a task, BTW. Perhaps if you would go to the library yourself and look up information about them, it would move faster.

Given time, I will track all this down. By the way, one scholar on the list, Paul L. Maier, is a historian of ancient Rome, editor and translator of a modern edition of Josephus and Eusebius. He also believes Jesus existed. Oh, I forgot, he's a Christian, so he doesn't count. --CTSWyneken 22:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Paul L. Maier is not just a :"christian" but also a chaplain! This article [15] by him claims that archaelogy supports the NT version of "jesus" but, sadly, it does not - it supports that it included names and places and some events - he misses out the fact that the massacre of the innocents, for example, is only mentioned in Matthew... etc. etc. Robsteadman 22:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I've taken a moment to add sub-section Talk:Jesus#Paul L. Maier Let's discuss Maier there. My questions for you are: So, because Maier is a Christian, a Chaplain, (you've missed Lutheran Church--Missouri Synod Vice-President and apologist), you write him off? Do you dispute his credentials as a historian? Have you read anything more than an online radio transcript of his? If not, how do you know what evidence he marshalls to support his conclusions? --CTSWyneken 01:39, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Robsteadman is again taking us off track. Inter alia, yes, many Bible scholars are historians; I explain this below. But here we are discussing Michael Martin. He is indeed a qualified philosopher and we could certainly provide an account of his work on proofs of God's existence, in the God article - other philosophers, like Mortimer Adler, claim that they can prove God exists. No matter - these are debates among philosophers about a topic long debated by philosophers. But I see no reason to take Michal Martin very seriously as a scholar of Biblical criticism or history. There is no evidence that he is trained to do any serious university-level research in the history of Roman/Second Temple/Hellenic Palestine. His thoughts about Jesus are not the thoughts of an expert, but a hobbiest. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Oooo I'm looking forward to that proof that "god" exists..... marvellous! Bible scholars are not neccesarily historians and those of "faith" approach it with an overwhelming POV that shoudl be noted. Robsteadman 17:33, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Ooooh - let me satisfy you. Mortimer Adler, a professor of Philosophy at Chicago, provides a proof for god's existence in How to Think About God: A Guide for the 20th-Century Pagan. You may not agree with the proof. However, that the book exists verifies my claim that there are philosophers who believe they can prove the existence of God. However, I do not understand why you bring this up. We are not debating whether or not God existed. I do not see what God has to do with any of this. The books by the critical historians that are provided in the bibliography to this article do not claim that God exists, that is not even part of their analysis. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

John P. Meier

Meier is Professor of Theology at Notre Dame University. He has served from time to time as an editor for Catholic Biblical Quarterly and New Testament Studies. --CTSWyneken 00:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Msgr. Meier is a professor of New Testament in the Biblical Studies Department at Catholic University of America, where he has taught since 1984. He holds a doctorate in sacred Scripture (1976) from the Biblical Institute in Rome, where he graduated summa cum laude and received the papal gold medal. He had received the same honors in 1968 when he graduated from the theology program at Gregorian University. He is a former president of the Catholic Biblical Association (1990-91), has authored numerous books and is widely published in a variety of journals and reference works. In a recent Catholic University interview with St. Anthony Messenger, Msgr. Meier explains why he considers studying Jesus of history to be worthwhile and what he sees as the serious shortcomings of some scholars studying the historical Jesus.

Q: Why do we need Jesus scholarship in the first place?

A: The need is in the eye of the beholder. If one is a professional historian, then one is interested of course in the great figures of history that had an impact on history, whether one believes in them or not....I don’t think we need any more apologetics for a quest for the historical Jesus as a historical discipline, say in the department of history, than you would have to apologize for trying to find out something about the historical Socrates or the historical Plato or the historical Mohammed. I think a lot of the confusion comes from the fact that people claim they are doing a quest for the historical Jesus when de facto they’re doing theology, albeit a theology that is indeed historically informed. Go all the way back to Reimarus, through Schleiermacher, all the way down the line through Bultmann, Kasemann, Bornkamm. These are basically people who are theologians, doing a more modern type of Christology [a faith-based study of Jesus Christ].

Q: Can historians address the Resurrection, then?

A: We can verify as historians that Jesus existed and that certain events reported in the Gospels happened in history, yet historians can never prove the Resurrection in the same way. Why not? Perhaps some fundamentalists would claim you can. Apart from fundamentalists, perhaps even some more conservative Catholic theologians would claim you could. I myself along with most questers for the historical Jesus—and I think a fair number of Catholic theologians as well—would say the Resurrection stands outside of the sort of questing by way of historical, critical research that is done for the life of the historical Jesus, because of the nature of the Resurrection. The resurrection of Jesus is certainly supremely real. However, not everything that is real either exists in time and space or is empirically verifiable by historical means.

I interpret this interview to mean that Meier is a devoutly religious Catholic, but that he sees a clear and unbreechable wall between his religious faith and his work as an historian. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

John Mackinnon Robertson

According to the wikipedia article, a Scottish Journalist and rationalist. He is not a historian, therefore his work does not count as scholarship in this field. As a philospher, we can quote him in support of the minority position since he may qualify as an "academic." --CTSWyneken 02:36, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

E.P. Sanders

Professor, Duke University (secular private university) Department of religion. Received his Th.d. from Union Seminary (NY) 1966. In 1990, he was awarded a D. Litt. by the University of Oxford and D.Theol. by the University of Helsinki. He is a Fellow of the British Academy (a secular scholarly institution in the UK, extraordinarily prestigious). The author, co-author or editor of thirteen books, as well as articles in encyclopedias and journals, he has received several awards and prizes, including the Grawemeyer Prize for the best book on religion published in the 1980s (Jesus and Judaism). His work has been translated into nine different languages. He came to Duke from Oxford, where he was from 1984-1990 the Dean Ireland's Professor of Exegesis and also fellow of the Queen's College. If you go to his Duke University web-page, there is a link to his "intellectual autobiography." Whatever it suggests about his personal religious convictions, it shows that his scholarship has been driven by non-theological or faith-based concerns, and he has employed the same methods used by other historians and classicists regardless of the object of their study. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:11, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Interesting you keep picking out secular as if its a crime. Robsteadman 20:19, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not believe that Slrubenstein meant anymore by secular than that it is a school not owned by a religious organization. That E. P. Sanders is no longer a "believer" and works at a secular institution adds to the consensus that Jesus existed a historian without the bias you are concerned about. --CTSWyneken 21:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know anything about Sanders, but I just wanted to point out that Duke isn't purely secular. Most people seem to consider it a Methodist school, even if it's not actually owned by the Methodist church. --Allen 22:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Duke is affiliated with the United Methodist Church. Still, I can't imagine anyone would question Sanders' academic credentials. KHM03 22:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

So NOT a secular university at all. Oh dear. His credentials might be good, but he does, again, seem to be from a particular bias. Robsteadman 22:05, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Where do you get that he is no longer a "believer" from? Robsteadman 22:03, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

If he is a believer, that doesn't disqualify him from academia (obviously). If that were true, everyone of the atheistic faith would be discredited...and Hindu...and Buddhist...until there were no scholars left. KHM03 22:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

My apologies here. I thought I read it in slrubenstein's summary. --CTSWyneken 22:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I see where. I confused him with Vermes. --CTSWyneken 22:41, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Hold on a second, im sorry, but I went to Duke on a collage tour last year, and despite their enormous chapel which was built an extremely long time ago, their campus is certainly secular in nature. You cannot discount Sanders because Duke is extremely loosely related to the Methodist church or whatever, and from what I heard from the tour guide, the church may even stop being related with Duke some time in the future. My point is, there's no way anyone should buy your "So NOT a secular university at all." argument Rob, I saw more than enough ACLU posters trying to recruit students to resist the police to be fooled about what Duke is like nowadays. Homestarmy 23:51, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Nothing I wrote here or anywhere else ever suggested that "secular" is a crime. If Robsteadman cannot even read a simple paracraph, how can he comprehend serious academic scholarship? As for secular - one need not be religious to teach or study at Duke and no student is required to take courses in Christian theology or anything like that. If Robsteadman doesn't know that Duke is one of the most prestigious universities in the US, in a league with Chicago and Stanford and Yale, then we just have one more peice of evidence about Robsteadman's ignorance. My problem with Robsteadman doesn't have to do with his own bias. It has to do with this: he has done no serious research into the topic, and does not even seem to understand what rigorous, university-level research is. Now, one does not have to have a PhD. to edit Wikipedia. But we do expect people to do actual research when editing articles, and to take research seriously. The very fact that Steadman does not recognize the names Sanders, Vermes, etc. is proof of his ignorance and incompetence for contributing to this article. This is not the place for bullshit artists. This is the place for people who do research in order to make serious contributions to an encyclopedia. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Robert E. Van Voorst

Robert E. Van Voorst is professor of New Testament at Western Theological Seminary, Holland, Michigan. --CTSWyneken 21:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Geza Vermes

Geza Vermes was born in Hungary in 1924. He studied in Budapest and in Louvain where he read Oriental history and languages and in 1953 obtained a doctorate in theology with a dissertation on the historical framework of the Dead Sea Scrolls. From 1957 to 1991 he taught in England at the universities of Newcastle-upon-Tyne (1957-65) and Oxford (1965-91). He is now Professor Emeritus of Jewish Studies and Emeritus Fellow of Wolfson College, but continues to teach at the Oriental Institute in Oxford. He has edited the Journal of Jewish Studies since 1971, and since 1991 he has been director of the Oxford Forum for Qumran Research at the Oxford Centre for Hebrew and Jewish Studies. Professor Vermes is a Fellow of the British Academy (again, incredibly prestigious), the holder of an Oxford D. Litt. and of honorary doctorates from the Universities of Edinburgh, Durham and Sheffield. Vermes was a Priest in the Sion Order but left the Priesthood and the Catholic church after his groundbreaking work on the Dead Sea scrolls, no longer considering himself a Christian. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:13, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

G. A. Wells

G. A. Wells is professor emeritus of German Birkbeck College. Interestingly enough, a website claims he believes Jesus existed, but was not crucified under Pontius Pilate.[16] Our copy of the book cited is off the shelf here, so I can't verify that. He could be listed, if true, as supporting at least that Jesus lived. But since, as far as history goes, his opinion does not count as scholarship, we should not use him for that. We can quote him in support of the minority position, however, since he qualified as an "academic." --CTSWyneken 16:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

On another scholar you said his view couldn;t be included (conveniently an atheist) because he was not a scholar in the right subject (philosophy) - so why can a Proifessor of German be included? Robsteadman 20:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The language in the article changed since I started adding these bios to talk. Initially it was framed to include the consensus of Biblical scholars. By that measure, even this fellow does not fit. Before this bio made it in, the language changed to include "academics." He fits that definition, as does the philosopher. I have not gotten all the way through the list to put notes in all the bios that now fit. I will do so before long. --CTSWyneken 22:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I would not take G.A. Wells very seriously as a scholar of Biblical criticism or history. He is a German historian and there is no evidence that he is trained to do any serious university-level research in the history of Roman/Second Temple/Hellenic Palestine. His thoughts about Jesus are not the thoughts of an expert, but a hobbiest. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:55, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

New Legacy section

I agree with Slrubenstein that one should participate in the discussion rather than simply delete. However, I also agree with IP 152...'s deletion (not necessarily with his circumstantial explanation) for the reasons given above: this article is about Jesus and not about Christianity (including the faults and misdeeds of Christians). Str1977 15:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Str1977, with all due respect I am reverting your deletion. Here is my basic reason: all the other elements of the "legacy" section are about beliefs and acts of Christians. If you want to delete the paragraph I put in on the grounds that this article is about Jesus and not Christians, then you would have to delete everything else in the "legacy" section. Also, again with respect, please see this discussion too: [17] Slrubenstein | Talk 16:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Dear Slrubenstein, let's look at the section in detail:

• According to most Christian interpretations of the Bible, the theme of Jesus' preaching was ...

This certainly is about Jesus himself, so no problem here.

No, it is about how Christians interpret the Bible. The subject is "Christian interpretations" Slrubenstein | Talk 17:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Jesus extensively trained disciples ... clearly distinguished the religion of Christianity from Judaism ... Christianity spread ...

This is about Jesus' disciples and what they have done, so legacy of Jesus as well.

I am not denying that this is Jesus' legacy, I am only saying that his legacy involves Christians. This sentence refers to the spread of Christianity. If that is one of the legacies, then the unsavory aspects of the spread of Christianity is as much part of the legacy as the praiseworthy elements of the spread of Christianity. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Jesus has been drawn, painted, sculpted, and portrayed ... sayings attributed to Jesus ... view of God as more fatherly and less angry but more forgiving, growth of belief in an afterlife and in the resurrection of the dead.

Jesus himself again.

We may just be at loggerheads, but I would say this is about how Christians have imagined Jesus. It is still about Christians. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Jesus and his message have been interpreted, explained and understood by many people ...

Jesus and his message again.

Agreed. And I believe the paragraph I added falls squarely within this sentence. It is sad that some people have interpreted Jesus' message in a way that led to forced conversions and anti-Semitism, and I do not claim all or even necessarily most Christians interpreted Jesus this way. But some did. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• For some, the legacy of Jesus has been a long history of Christian anti-Semitism, although in the wake of the Holocaust many Christian groups have gone to considerable lengths to reconcile with Jews and to promote inter-faith dialogue and mutual respect. For others, Christianity has often been linked to European colonialism (see British Empire, Portuguese Empire, Spanish Empire, French colonial empire, Dutch colonial empire); conversely, Christians have often found themselves as oppressed minorities outside of Europe and the Americas.

Here is the disputed paragraph. It already starts with "for some" and gives no explanation of such a link. It only says some think that way, which IMHO is not enough. While the first sentence at least suggested anti-Semitism as Jesus' legacy, the passage on colonialism doesn't even try to draw a link. This is followed up by an equally unconnected passage about oppression of Christians.

We could find specific sources in the Christianity and anti-Semitism page ...Slrubenstein | Talk 17:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Now, don't think I just want to delete. Here is my sketch for a alternative structuring:

• Jesus as common ground between Christianity and Judaism (as he was Jewish), but also the basis for many disputes (is he the Messiah or not?), feeding anti-Semitism. Also possible here (instead of above): rapid distinction between C. and J.

• Jesus teaching constituting Christians as a religious minority (open to all, entered by choice) in a majority of different religion leading to ideas of following conscience over coercion (martyrs as example),despite violation by Christians themselves. (Possibly even separation of Church and state - this can be linked with Christianity as state religion and this with the influence on all of European culture).

I also suggest a different ordering:

1) religious (forgiveness, God the Father, 2) disciples, spread, & Judaism, tolerance and state religion ( the last possibly after sayings, to form spread - impact - t/sr) 3) impact on culture (sayings, interpretation, relics, art)

There are few wordings that are problematic as well, I will tweak them. Please consider my suggestions. Str1977 17:18, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I would have to think more about your suggestions and would have to see how you actually develop them. But I am certainly open to other ways of handling this issue, and I sincerely appreciate your attempt to respond constructively to my approach, Slrubenstein | Talk 17:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• The legacy of Richard Nixon does not include ONLY what he intended - it also includes reaction to him. Jesus' disagreements with the Jewish authorities and the story of Barabbas have been used to justify anti-Semitism by his followers. Resistance to including this in the legacy is partially due to non-acceptance that Jesus did not know that his teachings could lead to bad things too. 2ndly, many justified colonization as a way to bring Xty to those "poor people" --JimWae 18:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Do you want to include this into articles on Barabbas and Pilate as well? And I don't want to exclude it - I want to include in a meaningful way, with the link clear instead of a mere "well, some folks think this way". As far as colonialism goes, there is no link at all (aside rhetorics). Str1977 19:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• I put it in the Barabbas article long ago --JimWae 19:50, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
• I agree there needs to be more to substantiate the legacy - such as http://www.dissentmagazine.org/menutest/articles/fa05/judis.htm - especially see McKinley. There's plenty to support the linkage earllier too - too much in fact --JimWae 06:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

We also ought to mention things like the development of medicines and vaccines which have saved countless lives, which Christians developed through the years and, if we're mentioning a lot of negative things, deserves mention as a positive part of Jesus' legacy. Lives transformed as many ministries enabled people to flee drugs or domestic violence...the modern peace movement (rooted in Anabaptist thinking)...incredible art, music, literature (which is already mentioned, I believe, albeit briefly)...on and on and on. KHM03 11:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The article in general

Just reading this article, I don't see how it is even qualified as a featured article. The chronology of Jesus according to the New Testament jumps around sporadically and doesn't really do a good job with a biography in what should be a biographical article. In my opinion, a person who wasn't familiar with Jesus would have a hard time even understanding what the NT said about his life without outside research. I think we desperately need a better illustrated biographical section according to the NT followed by the more in-depth discussion. This article just assumes the reader knows a lot more about Jesus than it provides. I think a major rewrite is in order. —Aiden 20:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

re: POV flag

Right now the article states:

"However, citing a lack of extant contemporaneous documents making references to him, and similarities to other mythological heroes, a minority of critical Biblical scholars, and other academics, question the historicity of Jesus."

I think the above is overblown.

I cite:

Scholarly opinions on the Jesus Myth by Christopher Price

Here is an excerpt from the above:

In his book, I Believe in the Historical Jesus, Howard Marshall points out that in the early to mid 20th century, one of the few "authorities" to consider Jesus as a myth was a Soviet Encyclopaedia...

Robert Van Voorst

It is also obvious that the diverse and all but completely unanimous opinion of modern Jesus scholars and relevant historians remain completely unconvinced by the Jesus Myth arguments. Robert Van Voosrt writes in Jesus Outside the New Testament:

Contemporary New Testament scholars have typically viewed their arguments as so weak or bizarre that they relegate them to footnotes, or often ignore them completely.... The theory of Jesus' nonexistence is now effectively dead as a scholarly question. [18]

I also cite:

Following a brief introduction regarding the importance of the evidential approach, particularly regarding the Resurrection, within evangelism, the authors briefly discuss 5 historical principles (e.g. multiple attestation) that they will go on to use in making the case for the Resurrection. Next, the authors introduce what they call "The Minimal Facts Approach," the criteria for which is 1) data with substantial supporting evidence and 2) data accepted by virtually all scholars, Christian and non-Christian alike. After this, Habermas and Licona present their "Minimal Facts" case for the Resurrection by appealing to 4 facts accepted byvirtually everybody, plus one that is granted by a sizeable majority of scholars, yet not as much so as the other 4. These are 1) Jesus died by crucifixion; 2) Jesus' disciples believed that he rose and appeared to them; 3) Paul, an enemy of Christianity, was suddenly changed; 4) James, a skeptic during Christ's earthly ministry, suddenly changed; 5) and the one accepted by, according to Habermas, 75% of scholars (not virtually all like the other four; pg. 70), the empty tomb.[19]

Reason for POV flag:

I put a small minority of scholars above and the word "small" was erased.

Before it read:

"However, citing a lack of extant contemporaneous documents making references to him, and similarities to other mythological heroes, a small minority of critical Biblical scholars, and other academics, question the historicity of Jesus."

I don't think we need to give so much space and at the beginning of the article for such a small minority opinion but if we do we should clearly say it is a small minority.

ken 16:37, 12 February 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

I made a change in the article but I think this small minority opinion should be place much farther down the article. ken 17:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

Please note the paragraph is under discussion above. I think the paragraph as it stands is fair. There are a large number of folks out there who buy into the minority opinion. I think one sentence is acceptable, with a link to the Historicity of Jesus artcle. This gives us the opportunity, for future reference, to document the relative support for the existence of Jesus.

You are welcome to join us in the effort on the main page to document both positions. --CTSWyneken 17:22, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

to: CTSWyneken, you wrote: "There are a large number of folks out there who buy into the minority opinion." I am not granting you this statement in terms of the "folks". You never cited any polls. With that being said, I care about what the vast majority of scholars say as I documented and not what the "folks" say. Now the article states "scholars" and not "folks" and let us not confuse the issue. ken 17:46, 12 February 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

To: CTSWyneken, addendum: ::The vast majority of scholars say Jesus existed. Here is the current state of New Testament scholarship thoughout the world: Resurrection Research from 1975 to the Present: What are Critical Scholars Saying? by Gary Habermas ken 18:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

Please forgive the lack of clarity. By "large number of folks" I'm referring to among the general public. A quick google search will show that. I'm not referring to the state of scholarship. Please note that I'm one of the folk trying to document that the minority opinion is indeed samll. It is indeed curious to be challeged at one moment for not wanting to give the minority a voice and then at the next moment for giving them a voice. --CTSWyneken 01:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

The fact is that there will always be people who believe Jesus was a myth coming here and editing the article. Find a way to include comment in the intro to reduce future edit wars - and even reduce some vandalism --JimWae 18:54, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I think we really need to think about this in perspective for a minute. From what I can tell, We've got a big, ugly POV tag on this enormous article because of the difference between "a small minority" and "a minority" in one sentence. is this really necessary? Homestarmy 19:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

No. KHM03 19:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

But the POV flag is justified for much of the rest of the slant of the article. Robsteadman 19:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

agreed --JimWae 20:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Well according to the person who put up the flag, the only reason is because of "a small minority" vs. "a minority", there needs to be a better reason that that....or AD/CE debates....or consensus debates.....Homestarmy 21:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The clause citing "similarities to mythological dieties" is in itself POV. Who is to say a diety is mythological and not truly divine? That clause adds nothing to the substance of the paragraph and isn't needed in the least. —Aiden 00:06, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Stating "other mythological deities" is either a clever way of inadvertently referring to Jesus as myth or a simple oversight. I'll assume good faith that it was unintentional, but even if it's kept, we ought to remove the "other" to remove the blatant POV. KHM03 00:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Sophia changed it to "older deities" which is just as POV. Christians consider Jesus as God incarnate and the only god at that. Saying other deities are older or even lumping what one groups believes is the true God in with what they consider false gods is in itself POV. This insistence on marginalizing Christian views is not going to fly. —Aiden 05:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't intended to be controversial but accurate. The Jesus myth camp doesn't only quote the lack of documents, they also use the similarities to the older religions of the time - these mythical deities were worshiped as gods then. This bit I feel would sit better in the historicity section but I can't see how to refer to another "god" that won't be taken as an attempt to "marginalise Christian views". The "documents" and the "similarities" can all fit in one sentence and between them pretty much sum up the jesus-myth camp so people following the link there will know what they are going to find. SOPHIA 08:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Historicity

I restored the bit about historicity in the intro. This stuff has been debated for weeks and weeks, and, while we are probably far from a full consensus, we need to show all sides respect (WP:NPOV and all that), and discuss these things before simply removing them. Please review the lengthy discussions on this page and join the dialogue rather than just eliminating passages. Thanks...KHM03

A section in the Historicity section has been removed by an anonymous editor. We can argue as to the paragraphs content and length but without it there is no mention in this section that there is a minority view that disputes the historicity. SOPHIA 20:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Critical Historians

We seem to have found no "critical historian" in the list of academics being listed so why is this still in the intro? It also seems that POV scholars who are pro existence are allowed but those who disagree are being dismissed for spurious reasons. Why don;t we simply put that "a majority of Biblical scholars"? ~At least people will understand they are coming from a particular POV. Robsteadman 20:25, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Wait, we had a list of people who disagreed with Jesus's existance in the article, didn't we? I know we dismissed one for just plain not being qualified to make a decision, but I thought we left the others somewhere in the article? Homestarmy 21:27, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Nope. Only those who agreed were included. Odd that. Robsteadman 21:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Well where did the names we had in the section about people who didn't believe Christ existed go, we reviewed some of them above in talk, and I thought we only struck out one of them? Homestarmy 23:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

This is true. And if Robsteadman will not object, I will add a footnote to the minority opinion sentence and list the names. Since I'm still answering his challenge to provide specific references for the names in footnotes one and two, someone else will have to pin the references down or wait for me to be done with them.--CTSWyneken 00:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Robsteadman reveals a serious lack of understanding of Western academe. There is a tradition division of labor at universities between professors of modern languages and professors of so-called dead languages - thus, most universities have a "Modern Languages" department (or school) and a "Classics" department. This disciplinary division has spilled over into history. Since knowledge of Greek and Latin is essential to historical research on ancient Greece or Rome, for a very long time, and to a large degree even today, historians of ancient Greece and Rome were trained and then taught in Classics Departments. The same reasoning goes for the Bible. Biblical Hebrew, Aramaic, Akkadian, Sumerian, and Ugaritic are taught in Biblical Studies departments, or Ancient Near Eastern Studies, or Departments of religion. Again, this reflects the deeply instilled, institutional divide between "living" and "dead" languages. Robsteadman probably does not speak Hebrew, Aramaic, Ugarritic, or Akkadian, or even Koiné Greek, and is probably not qualified to do original research on the history of the ancient Near East. He is not alone - many people have claimed to be "Bible experts" and yet they are utterly unqualified to do any serious historical research as they have no knowledge of the languages necessary to do university-level research. Nevertheless, anyone who wants to get a PhD. from, or teach in, a good university on the topic of Biblical history will have to learn at least a few of these languages. Although they will start with the same assumptions, and use the same methods, as anyone studying French or German history, they are not likely to study or teach in a History Department. Instead, they are more likely to train and teach in a Department of Ancient Near Eastern Studies; Classics; Biblical Studies; or Religion - it really depends on the University. Now, this is not an absolute statement: there are History Departments who hire people qualified to teach Biblical history. Nevertheless, very few - if any - history departments have enough well-trained people to train new PhD.s in Biblical history. You are still better off going to an Ancient Near East or biblical Studies or Classics department for your training. BUT you are being trained to read historical sources, whether literary or historical, critically. And the products of these departments are historians. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

infidels.org

I think an essay posted on a website whose goal is to "defend and promote a naturalistic worldview" is not sufficiently NPOV for a site about Jesus. So much has been written about Jesus, we ought to be able to find a more reliable source for any opinion worth including in this article. --Allen 21:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Though as web sites go it seems to have been going for 11 years - so not just a flash in the pan. Why is a web site any less appropriate than a book or magazine publication? Is it just because it doesn;t say what you want it to say? Robsteadman 21:13, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

No, it's because with a title like "defend and promote a naturalistic worldview" it fits the very definition of POV slant, 11 years of existance or not. We don't have to delete this site as a reference, as long as information from other sites or something is used to balance whatever we get from that site. What information comes from that in this article anyway? Homestarmy 21:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

A problem with the site can be found here (which, to be fair, is also a problem with many Christian websites), also here and possibly here. I think we ought to be able to do better than any website as a source. In my experience, most are not as authoritative or worthwhile as many journals or books by scholars. KHM03 21:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I think them having submission criteria and the sheer quantity of documents etc. makes them at least as relevant as some of the so-called "Biblical" scholars. Robsteadman 21:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

(response to Robsteadman and Homestarmy) It's the second paragraph of "historicity". I've been trying to find out more about the author of that piece, Robert M. Price, but it's tough. He apparently teaches at the Johnnie Coleman Theological Seminary [20] in Florida. Is this really an accredited school? Why does it have a .org, rather than a .edu domain? And apparently he also teaches at the Center for Inquiry Institute ([21]), which was started by CSICOP and also doesn't seem to be an accredited school. Robsteadman, if this were an article about a relatively obscure religious topic, I'd support taking what we could get for references. But when it comes to Jesus, I'd like to see some heavier scholarly guns behind claims, especially claims as controversial as that he didn't exist. --Allen 21:53, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Why is "jesus" any different? Are you saying you accept non-contemporary docuiments written by non-eyewitnesses as evidence? Should we rep[ort "historical" events mentioned in the gospels for which there is no oither documentation? Robsteadman 21:57, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The sources you are referring to, Rob, are indeed contemporary and some possibly eyewitness accounts. Str1977 23:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't think the infidels site is anywhere near as relevant or academically authoritative as, say, a book or article by E.P. Sanders or any number of other scholars. Websites are still gaining a foothold in academia, and a site like infidels, which has such bias problems, is hardly non-partisan. And regarding non-contemporary documents acceptance, etc., remember that we're here to parrot academia, not make any case on their behalf. They think Jesus existed (though a few depart from that consensus), so we need to represent that fairly and accurately here. If you disagree with the position of the scholars, take it up with them (many of their websites have email links). KHM03 22:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

No. Believing scholars say he existed despite the lack of evidence. How many non-believers say he existed. And, to be honest, I'd be more interested in historians rather than Bible scholars because that is what we're talking about not biblical content. If we're checking the historical existence of someone we should be looking at what bhistorians say not those who are just trying to prove their own scriptures. Robsteadman 22:09, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Apart from a minute fringe practically all scholars would consider Jesus as having existed. Historians even more than Bible scholars/theologians (who are sometimes shock-awed into "anti-fundamentalism"). Str1977 23:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

By all means, give us some notable names. KHM03 22:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

The point is, I thnk, that there are none - because there is no contemporary historical evidnce for "jesus", his birth, the star, the massacre of the innocents, his crucifixion, ressurection or just about anything in the gospels and at the basis of "christianity" - not even for Nazareth at the time. Robsteadman 22:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Again just because you are dismissing the "contemporary historical evidnce" for Jesus' existence (particulars and accuaracy disputes nonetheless) doesn't mean the evidence is not there. In any case, give notable names that make such claims. Str1977 23:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

It's the existence of Jesus that's at issue here, not the other tenets of Christianity that you mention. And if there's no historical evidence that Jesus existed (I'm leaving out the word "contemporary" because I don't know the details of what's considered valid evidence to historians), then there ought to be examples of respected historians saying there's no such evidence. --Allen 22:24, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

But surely historians talk about what is there not what isn;t? As there is no evidence would an historian bother commenting unless specifically asked?Robsteadman 22:26, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

They talk about what is, not what isn't, when it comes to things like the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But when the existence of a person is the basis for the religious faith of billions of people, then the non-existence of that person is indeed something that I would expect historians to talk about. --Allen 22:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Anyone heard an update on this... http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13509-1967413,00.html ? Robsteadman 22:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, historians do believe there was a Jesus because there is evidence. It dates from the 1st century. Let's stop this silliness...Rob, you've had all kinds of time to convince users to reject academia, and you've failed. Let's just agree that the minority "Jesus myth" view will be mentioned briefly, linked to, and we can move on. Let's end it, for crying out loud. We're wasting time and brain power on one user's absurdities. KHM03 22:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

No, there is no evidence that "jesus" existed - unless you're claiming books written decades later which write about events not documented anywhere else. Historians do NOT say that "jesus" existed or that there is proof he did - that is exactly the point. Bible scholars, being mostly believers,. say he did but other scholars in fields rather more neutral don;t. Odd that. No need to resort to personal abuse btw. It is not absurd. We should be reporting on the verifiable evidence and, at the moment, the article does not - it presents a heavily biased POV that does not reflect actual fact but a "faith" position founded on a lack of evidence. Robsteadman 22:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Paul L. Maier (see above), a historian says there is evidence for the existence of Jesus, as does Michael Grant, the eminent historian of ancient history. In addition, Ph. D. holding scholars in Biblical Studies are historians for the most part, as their writings attest. Arguments from silence only convince those who are already convinced. --CTSWyneken 01:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Like it or not, the gospels and other non-contemporary historical accounts are evidence, whether you think that them being non-contemporary makes then un-authoritative or not, it doesn't matter how bad evidence seems in, well, just about anything, even if evidence is bad, (Which it isn't in this case, but we've gone in circles over that anyway already) it does not stop being evidence. If I had a computer from the 1970's, it's very poor quality when compared to today would not stop it from being a computer. And yes, historians do say Jesus existed, you'll have to submit quotes from every historian who ever lived that says Jesus never existed to disprove that and we would indeed need very particular citations to see, some of those Bible scholars are supposed to be historians anyway, and now that I think about it, didn't it even say historians before it said Bible scholars? We have gone over most of the famous names mentioned in this article somewhere above as I understand it, we ruled out one person who didn't believe in Christ's existance because he had no credentials at all historically, please feel free to prove to us that all our names do not have historical, archaeological, or otherwise highly related degrees in history to make them authoritative on this subject, then we can improve the article by getting real names of actual historians and the like, and at the end of the day, we will have made this article better. I see no problem with this suggestion. Homestarmy 23:01, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, practically all historians (excepting a fringe of which some members are not historians) do accept the evidence as conclusive that Jesus existed. It is those that deny his existence that are putting forth a "faith position". Their beliefs require that Jesus did not exist so they doubt all they can, but that is a unreasonable approach as it quite frankly leads to no knowledge at all (another parallel to Creationism), as you can doubt anything. It is not mere skepticism, as it is selective: they do not question the historicity of Socrates, Caesar, Mohammed or Voltaire. Str1977 23:32, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

One of the great myths of the "christian" - that there is more proof of "jesus" thanm of Julius Caesar - absolute rubbish. Robsteadman 23:56, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Rob for your indeed profound insight and your unique niveau in dicussions. I did not say that that there was more proof, only that if you were consistent you would have to throw the people I mentioned out as well - and many many more. The thing is that there is sufficent evidence for Jesus' existence and everyone except the loonies accept it. But the loonie don't have an axe to grind with Socrates, Caesar or Voltaire and are too afraid to tak on Mohammed. Str1977 00:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I think, as discussed above, you miss the point about historians and what they report. What IS there, not what ISN'T. Are there any agnostic or atheist historians who say that "jesus" existed as an historical person? I think it just said scholars before - which was VERY misleading. Bible scholars are, as far as I can tell, a self selecting group as a result of "faith" - are there any atheist BIble scholars? And, if there are, son they agree that "jesus" existed? Robsteadman 23:12, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Rob, it is not our job here to provide names of "agnostic or atheist historians" (though I am sure there are loads of these who disagree with you). It is overwhelming consensus that Jesus did exist and only the loonie fringe denies that. Since you cannot accept this fact you try to blacken the consensus by claiming bias in these historians. However, before you ask us again to provide atheist historians, have you ever proven your insinuation?

Note also that not all bible scholars actually are Christians or really care about the existing Jesus. Str1977 00:07, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Again, academia has made its decision...Jesus existed. Some members of academia are religious, some are not; the point is moot here. We need to report what they (and society at large) believe, with a reference to the fringe view and a link to the Jesus myth article. KHM03 00:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Additional references

http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/nogod/jesus.htm This provides references and a clearly argued case. I'd certainly like the references to be included. Robsteadman 22:33, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

And the references on here shuold be included: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/gordon_stein/jesus.shtml

First one starts POV with an attack on all historians who "are" reaserching modern methods of determining whether Christ existed and what He was doing despite what that website claims, (In effect, this article is saying that historians are lying when they say they are reaserching about Christ in the modern day and have written many modern-day books on the subject)then goes on to not mentino that the Bible today is about 99 percent textually accurate when compared to the oldest manuscripts, then doesn't mention that most of today's Bible's were not written by the church, (I can bring in citations of copyright and history from www.biblegateway.com if you wish)I don't see why I need to read on further from there, and that was just the first 2-3 paragraphs I think. We've already discussed the infidels site above, haven't we? Homestarmy 23:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Well Biblegateway is neutral! "A ministry of gospel communication"! The references are the important thing in the links I provdie above. Robsteadman 23:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Touche on the Biblegateway thing, but they cite the history of the Bible versions they have from non-Biblegateway sources, but anyway, i'll take a closer look at the top one to look for citations, but I don't think i'll have anything more favorable to say about an article that starts off with lies and doesn't appear to want to stop, hold on a minute or two while I take a closer look. Homestarmy 23:10, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I looked at that first website closer, and as I suspected, it didn't become much better. Most of the stuff in the first few paragraphs which spelled out the author's apparently dislike for history and factual accuracy wern't cited at all, and even when things were cited, they were either just discussing direct quotes from things, or wern't making anything less than extremely unverifiable points. Furthermore, almost all those citations were extreme POV to the max, I really don't think I need to explain why with the titles they had. I did think that NEP thing at the end was very interesting, especially when the person claimed it did not disprove Christ and then the person turns around and says that because of this they think Christ was a myth, and because it actually seems surprisingly similar to your views Rob. the article also seemed quite deceptive in it's use of comparing Soctrates's existance to Jesus, the evidence we have for Socrates is not the norm, the evidence for all extremely ancient figures is all very different depending on the person is. I could probably go on at more length if I examined that thing point by point, but what im trying to get at Rob, is that I think you'll need a much better source than that to cite for the views you want in this article. Homestarmy 04:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

So we're dismissing Bertrand Ruseell too? Robsteadman 16:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure we're dismissing Bertrand Rusell too, as he isn't qualified to speak on the subject - he was a philosopher, a mathematician, but was he a historian? Str1977 17:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

So philosophers aren't allowed to talk about religious matters and be taken seriously? Seems a little harsh. Or is it just convenient because many are non-believers? Robsteadman 17:26, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

This article is supposed to be part historical, which means philosophers cannot have a historically credible opinion without also being a historian, which many of them are not. the rest of the article is about people's beliefs on Jesus, Christianity is first since it was the first source to talk about Jesus and has the oldest and most important culturally sources, next comes Islam and other views, and then we are supposed to have a paragraph about dissent on Christ's existance. I see no issue here. Homestarmy 22:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'd accept Russell, though he had no specific expertise in Christian history or in Jesus research, since his is such a prominent voice on the atheist side (one of the few taken seriously in the academy, actually). Russell is perhaps the spokesman for the atheist faith. He might merit a mention...if not here, then on the articles for God or Religion. KHM03 22:56, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't see much wrong with merely mentioning the guy and his position especially since we have a paragraph about the opposing position which of course isn't just about historian's POV, but the issue is whether or not we can refer to him as, say, on par with an actual historian or the like. Homestarmy 01:12, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Slrubenstein

Thank you. You make many assumptions about me and the extent of my knowledge and background and you dish out aggression and personal insult as if it is acceptable on Wikipedia. Thanks for showing your true colours. Now, let's get back to the verifiable facts shall we..... Robsteadman 16:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

You still don't get it, do you? It is not for us to say what is or is not a fact. We look for verifiable sources which is what I have always drawn on when working on this or any other article. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes thank you I do "get it' - maybe you don't? Now stop your assumptions, your aggression and your flaming. Start applying the verifiable facts about "jesus".... and make sure that verifiable comments are put in context - it's called being NPOV and encyclopedic. Try it, you might enjoy it. Robsteadman 17:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

No, you really do not get it. I am making no claims about Jesus, and it is not for any of us to make any claims about the "facts" about Jesus. We can only make claims about what other people believe about Jesus and provide verifiable sources. I have added a claim about critical bible scholars and historians. It is a verifiable claim (not about Jesus, but about historians and critical Bible scholars) which I have backed up by citing my sources. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Slrubenstein: Your comments above are all 100% correct and I support you. Rob has had all kinds of time to produce evidence beyond the classic "just because" argument and has failed to do so. Instead, he has demeaned people of faith and the academy, demonstrating, as you wrote, a phenomenal ignorance of the subject and academic study. I appreciate your truthfulness throughout. I also suggest that until Rob is able to actually produce material, we pretty much just move on and ignore him in as civil a manner as possible (regarding Rob's behavior, we should review this). KHM03 18:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I have offered articles and references and names but, oddly, they get dismissed out of hand as POV - whilst heavily POV articles by people of "faith" are accepted. "Faith" is NOT academic. "Faith" is not scientific. "Faith" is unencyclopedic. If they have something to say that's cool - but their "faith" is an issue which must be stated to put their comments into context. This is not "demeaning" people of faith of academics - it is stati8ng the obvious to, it seems, anyone unless they are in the position of wanting to push their POV. So, KHM03, 1) Get your facts straight about what I have posted. 2) stop your flaming. 3) Stick to what is verifiable - facts first, opinion (and that includes scholarship) second and, with scholarship, clearly labelled if coming from a particular POV. I reject some of your comments, I detest your abusive tone and find them truly not in the spirit of Wikiepdia. I am in two minds as to report both of you for flaming and abuse. Have a nice day. Robsteadman 18:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with you KHMO3 and I suggested that same thing a few days ago. Don't worry about the legal threats threats and name calling, no one here has done anything wrong except, Rob. Which is why he's been blocked twice and no one else has been blocked at all (nor will they be). I think it's time we all just move on and stop arguing with him. It's an unproductive area of discussion. Gator (talk) 21:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Rob, the sources you just posted up above were perhaps more about faith than any of our sources, the first one was just anti-christian faith with a bunch of also anti-christian faith books cited in them with probably really unscientific basis, The facts have been made clear for too long already, the scientific consensus is that Christ exists, and the minority view that He does not is represented as such. There are many articles out there that simply discount all minority views as rubbish and don't actually try to discuss them at all besides a one sentence blurb or a link at the bottom or rhetoric which harshly denounces them as crazy people or something, (Evolution) I think we've been more than generous already over the minority POV when you compare with other types of articles. Homestarmy 22:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Rob, I feel that your arguments are more appropriate for Criticism of Christianity than for this article. In one sense, you may have a point about the lack of objective, scientific evidence; however, no one here is arguing for Jesus' miracles or anything else that would violate the laws of science. In another sense, your argument is inappropriate to an historical discusson. History, as a social science, has a different standard of evidence than the physical sciences. Others have pointed out that arguments for the historicity of Jesus are at least as good as for other generally recognized ancient historical figures. (For example, where is the evidence for Socrates outside of Plato and Xenophon? Yet Plato and Xenophon were as much Socrates' disciples as the New Testament writers were disciples of Jesus). Certainly the existence of a rebel Galilean preacher with a common Jewish name makes sense in the context of the times. Neither side is going to prove whether or not Jesus existed; the most we can do is summarize the various religious, historical and other relevant views on the subject. We've done that much. archola 23:36, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

PS: this page includes an interesting comparison of the historicities of Jesus and Socrates. archola 00:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Robsteadman, you are being entirely unfair to me. I have never "dismissed out of hand as POV" any sources you have suggested. Never. What I have done, though, was to argue that they were inappropriate sources. A philosopher can argue for or against something on logical grounds. But a philosopher is not a trained historian. S/he did not study the languages of the primary sources, and therefore is not an authority on the primary sources; moreover, the medthod of a philosopher is different from the method of a historian. A philosopher can say whatever he or she things about the historical Jesus but they are just expressing their personal opinion, as much as if they commented on art history or geology. The same goes for a professor of German. We wouldn't put his views in an article on physics. Why should his views on Roman/Hellenic/Second Temple Jewish/Palestine history be considered appropriate then? Second, you continually misconstrue and misrepresent what I wrote. in fact, I doubt you read it and if you did you did not understand it. I have provided verifiable sources from credible reputable trained professional historians, and you write, "heavily POV articles by people of 'faith.'" This is pure BS. I explained to you that Crossan (and Meier's and Sander's) faith does not enter into their historical scholarship. I explained to you that they use the same methods any trained historian uses, regardless of their personal beliefs. Yet you keep deleting the word "critical" or "historian." I have asked you to provide evidence for your claim that Crossan and others' history books are written based on the authors' faith, and you have provided no evidence. If you cannot put up, shut up. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

too many clauses

Kdbuffalo, I think there are too many clauses on that sentece to justify saying, "virtually all" scholars agree. Maybe virtually all scholars agree on any given one of those things, but for all of them together, "most" seems safer to me. --Allen 23:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

See my material under the heading "Re: POV compliant" But if you can show my material to be wrong then do so. For example, show me a historian in any part of the world (both living and dead), at a accredited university/college who ever denied Jesus existed. ken 23:48, 13 February 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

Thanks for pointing me to your earlier comments; I didn't realize you had addressed the crucifixion issue. That's the issue I really had in mind in my comment, not the existence of Jesus. I'll take your word for it unless I do find out about such a historian. Thanks again. --Allen 00:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to have caught your change up in the revert, kdbuffalo, but I had to undo the radical surgery on the paragraph.

Think we need to represent the minority view for these reasons:

Far more than three people hold these views. Hundreds of works over two hundred years hold this position. It is a small cottege industry on the internet. We need to acknowledge this view, while pointing out that the position is rejected by nearly every scholar in the field itself. By indicating that the minority are mostly not scholars in this field, we achieve that. If we do not, we will have this fight all over again. --CTSWyneken 02:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The phrases "a vast majority" and "a small minority" work perfectly fine. —Aiden 06:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Jesus went to India

Am I the only one who is still baffled that nobody ever talks about Jesus going to India during his lost years? In the bible from about age 11-30 something there is no talk about what Jesus did or where he was...This is called his so called "Lost Years"....And there is tons of evidence that he went to India 71.119.249.226 01:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC) Note: This anonymous IP belongs to Verizon Internet Services, Inc.

That's one theory. Another is that he went to England with Joseph of Arimathea. You mention "tons of evidence," but I've seen little beyond medieval Christian legends. Can you supply a source that dates back as far as the New Testament? archola 01:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, there is no evidence I know of that Jesus went to India, England or anywhere else other Egypt and Palestine during his lifetime. If you have such evidence, please log in and cite it here. --CTSWyneken 02:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The Jesus and Joseph in England (specifically Cornwall and Glastonbury) may have started as propaganda by English Kings. In some versions, it's also tied to the King Arthur legend via the Holy Grail. I know of no evidence either; actually it's something I remember reading while persuing my first BA in English Language and Literature. I only brought it up because I suspect that both it and the anonymous Verizon IP's India theory are both examples of Christian mythology. archola 03:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Or perhaps Muslim mythology. A quick Google search on "Jesus in India" revealed several references to Ahmadi Muslims (apparently they believe that Jesus travelled to India in search of the Ten Lost Tribes of Israel). This is already included in the Jesus article (except that the reference is made to Kashmir, not India.) It's also mentioned in the Ahmadi article archola 04:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

There's been quite a bit written about this, but little of it would be considered mainstream scholarship as far as I know. See, for example, Holger Kersten (1994), "Jesus lived in India". Some of the theories have Jesus visiting India during the "lost years" as mentioned above, and others have him surviving the crucifiction (swoon hypothesis) and making his way there. It is a central belief of Ahmadiyya, and a number of christians in Kashmir claim to trace their community back to Jesus himself. ntennis 05:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

So...not scholarship but perhaps relevant to the appopriate Religious perspectives on Jesus articles. archola 05:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

As long as we clearly identify that, in the view of historical scholars, these are religious views and/or legends, myths and stories and not historical events, we certainly can do this. --CTSWyneken 11:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Towards a relatively final form of the second paragraph

I'd like us to summarize where we would like this paragraph to go and our reasons for it. For the sake of clarity, let's please not rehash the argument above. Let's not engage each other for the moment and see if we can't come to something we can live with.

I'm for retaining the paragraph more or less as it is and finishing the documentation of the views. Why? It represents the consensus of scholarship in the disciplines of ancient history and Biblical Studies, yet gives voice to the minority view that has a lot of popular support and even some academic support from outside the discipline. --CTSWyneken 11:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I would support the follwoing version and hereby ask for a consensus so we cna put this thign to bed once and for all:

The vast majority of critical Bible scholars and historians ^[22] hold that Jesus was a Jewish Galilean preacher and healer who was at odds with the Jewish religious authorities (Sadducees and Pharisees), and who was crucified outside of Jerusalem during the rule of the Roman governor Pontius Pilate.^[23] However, citing what they consider a lack of extant contemporaneous documents making references to him, ^[24] a small minority of others question the historicity of Jesus.

I think this is a fair, NPOV and good compromise paragraph that is capable of gaining consensus and should be the "final" version. I just kept the small minority part referring to "others", because it should refer to the same parties as above (Bible scholars and historians) and there is no need to repeat oursevles (or add different parties) here. Also, given the fact that we are dealing with a small minority (fringe if you will) there is no good cause to go into greater detail regarding their arguments so I just kept it simple. I think we've discussed this more than enough and I think the fact that this POV is geting into the intro pargraph at all is more than enough to satisfy NPOV here. I ask for editors to signal that they accept or reject this version. Once we get consensus, then we can finally move on. Thanks.Gator (talk) 15:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Accept

1. Gator (talk) 15:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
2. Jpers36 Jpers36 15:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
3. Accept with a small caveat—see below. archola 15:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
4. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC) Note: I would not object to changing "a small minority" to "some" or just "a minority," if we have already noted that the majority is vast.
5. Homestarmy 17:18, 14 February 2006 (UTC) Good enough for me :/.
6. Str1977 17:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
7. Paul B 17:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC) Good enough for me too.
8. Wesley (talk · contribs) 18:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
9. Storm Rider 18:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Reject

I think it needs to be added that only non historians working outside their field who say Jesus never existed. The Jesus mythers have yet to cite a history professor in the world who has stated that Jesus never existed. Furthermore, it should be stated the extreme minority of scholars say Jesus never existed. ken 18:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

Further Discussion (please keep all discussion here and votes (with summaries if desired) above

I can go either way. I like short and to the point, but it does help to state the principle objections of the minority. If we were to reference the historicity article, then I could live with it. --CTSWyneken 15:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. Can you fix the ref at the end, though? Jpers36 15:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Done. Change to "accept" now? We need a clear consensus here if we ever hope to be able to move on.Gator (talk) 15:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

In general, I agree with the paragraph. However, speaking strictly as a recently minted journalist, I can see how the modifiers "vast" and "small" can be construed as POV. I might point out that the third paragraph simple refers to "most" and "other" Christians. "The majority" and "a minority" of critical Bible scholars and historians is probably sufficient.

I'd also like to point out that essentially the same point has a "citation needed" tag in the Jesus-Myth article. archola 15:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. We should keep the current reference to the minority position and spend some time finding precise citations for each author. --CTSWyneken 16:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The mythology debate

• Where did "and similarities to various mythological figures" go? --JimWae 15:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

See paragraph above "Accept." --CTSWyneken 16:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

There may be some who use the mythological similarities to claim that Jesus never existed. However, I think most historians who refer to similarities between Christian beliefs about Jesus and beliefs about other gods during the Hellenic period believe that those beliefs influenced Christian beliefs and made Christianity appealing to a wider population - i.e. it is very relevant to critical histories of Christianity. But this is apart from the question of whether a human being named Jesus whom people believed to be a healer and who preached love existed in first century Galilee. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The thing about the mythology debate is that it can go either way, for instance, Christian's beliefs could of influenced other religions rather than the other way around, and religions before Christianity could of gotten influenced by the OT, which predicted Christ's coming. At the end of the day however, is it really that important to this article? Homestarmy 17:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

There's also a school of thought (theological, not historical) that states that the similarities between Christianity and other religions are the result of God preparing the world for Christ's incarnation. I'm not sure if it would fit in this article, but it might merit a mention in Christianity and world religions, for example. archola 17:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Nice thoughts, but, could we keep this on the topic of the 2nd paragraph? 8-) --CTSWyneken 17:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure. The thread started as a response to JimWae's remark on the 2nd paragraph but quickly went off on a tangent. ;-} Both Homestarmy and I pointed out alternative interprations of the mythology debate. This demonstrates that recognition of the similarities need not lead to a skeptical position on the historicity of Jesus, and thus casts doubt on whether "and similarities to various mythological figures" should be included in the second paragraph (at least without a caveat). archola 17:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

It was certainly quite a familiar claim in the early 20th century that "Jesus" was an amalgam of mythic archetypes derived from Mithraism, Orisis, Orphism and "death-rebirth" deities. It fitted with ideas about myth-formation that were emerging from Max Mueller's followers, Frazer's Golden Bough, Jung etc. As you say, though, it was rather more common to argue that these religions affected the growth of Christian doctrine rather than that Jesus had been conjured up out of pure mythic imagination. Most of the Jesus myth arguments are based on supposed mythic precusors of the Jesus-persona, not on the lack of contemporary documents, which is, I think, pretty much a red herring. Paul B 17:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

One question: is the minority position we're discussing one and the same as the Jesus Myth school, or are there other skeptics outside the Jesus Myth school? If they are one and the same, I reccomend a link to Jesus-Myth in the second paragraph of the Jesus article. Since the Jesus Myth article currently has a point-counterpoint structure, a discussion of the debate over "lack of contemporary documents and similarities to various mythological figure" would fit well there (without cluttering up the intro to the Jesus article). archola 18:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Needed addition: "No historian has ever said that Jesus never existed."

I wrote in the article:

"No historian has ever said that Jesus never existed."

I think this statement should stay. It is the non historians who proclaim that Jesus never existed. ken 18:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

Addendum: Here is what I recently read:

At first glance, the "Jesus-myth" seems to be a stroke of genius: To eliminate Christianity and any possibility of it being true, just eliminate the founder! The idea was first significantly publicized by a 19th-century German scholar named Bruno Bauer. Following Bauer, there were a few other supporters: Couchoud, Gurev, Augstein [Chars.JesJud 97-8]. Today the active believer is most likely to have waved in their faces one of four supporters of this thesis: The turn-of-the-century writer Arthur Drews; the myth-thesis' most prominent and prolific supporter, G. A. Wells, who has published five books on the subject; Earl Doherty, or Acharya S. Each of these writers takes slightly different approaches, but they all agree that a person named Jesus did not exist (or, Wells seems to have taken a view now that Jesus may have existed, but may as well not have).

Does the "Jesus-myth" have any scholarly support? In this case, to simply say "no" would be an exaggeration! Support for the "Jesus-myth" comes not from historians, but usually from writers operating far out of their field. G. A. Wells, for example, is a professor of German; Drews was a professor of mathematics; Acharya only has a lower degree in classics; Doherty has some qualifications, but clearly lacks the discipline of a true scholar. The greatest support for the "Jesus-myth" comes not from people who know the subject, but from popularizers and those who accept their work uncritically. It is this latter group that we are most likely to encounter - and sadly, arguments and evidence seldom faze them. In spite of the fact that relevant scholarly consenus is unanimous that the "Jesus-myth" is incorrect, it continues to be promulgated on a popular level as though it were absolutely proven. taken from: http://www.tektonics.org/jesusexist/jesusexisthub.html

ken 18:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo