Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:40, 16 December 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Template:Controversial (history) Template:Pbneutral

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk:Jesus/archivebox

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

Infobox

I noticed that the beginning of the article has a fairly bulky infobox with lots of hidden comments and references. I propose that this slightly messy jumble of code be moved somewhere like Template:Jesus infobox that can then be transcluded at the top of the page with a simple {{Jesus infobox}}. This might help make the article slightly more welcoming to editors who are afraid of code, and would also make it easier to edit for the rest of us. ~Adjwilley (talk) 21:04, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Is it a mess? Yes. Are the comments needed? I would say for sure, for sure. It may be good to clean it up of course, but if you have been watching the info box saga you will remember that everyone and his uncle was changing nationality to be something new - I don't recall Jesus being claimed as being from Luxembourg, but I may be mistaken. Then there was the parents saga, then the ethnicity, etc. As you can see it does not even say Jewish any more. And there have been no edit wars on it for a while.

And remember that this page gets 400k views a month and there have been very few (if any at all) objections to the simplified info box. When it was longer and more controversial, there were brouhahas far more frequently. In fact at one point someone suggested no info box, etc. and the final compromise was a simple info box, and the comments have helped keep it free of edit wars.

So I would say clean up, sure, but get rid of the comments will be an invitation for unending debate. In fact, there has been so much talk on so many issues that I was planning to build an index of the talk archives to help direct people to past discussions. So the infobox could in fact be one of those items, with the silence on ethnicity, nationality, parents hot-buttons explained there. History2007 (talk) 21:41, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Template:Christology

Appropriate for the article? It's very much related to Jesus and theology related to him. I understand that per WP:Avoid template creep will think that it should not be here, but I believe it is quite relevant. I am asking here for consensus. JZCL 17:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

It happens that I built that template, but I did not place it here. I used it in many other places, but not here because as you said it is a theological item. My guess is that it fits in the Christ article while the Jesus template (which is here) is more appropriate here. Anyone can add that anywhere of course, but my guess is that if you add that type of thing to a secular article, you will get talk page comments that will object to it over time. History2007 (talk) 18:22, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I didn't realise that it was on the Christ article. You're probably right. JZCL 19:59, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Lohfink book

PurpleMundi keeps adding the book Jesus of Nazareth: What He Wanted, Who He Was by Gerhard Lohfink to the bibliography. We don't actually cite the book, and while Lohfink apparently was a Professor of New Testament, he voluntarily resigned his professorship to focus on his vocation as a Catholic priest, and Lohfink's work seems to be mainly as a theologian, not as a bible scholar. The book seems written more from a faith-based than from a scholarly perspective. Thus I don't think it adds much of value to this article, and I've removed it once again. If PurpleMundi disagrees I'd ask him to explain his reasoning instead of just reverting once again. Huon (talk) 13:41, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear HuonThoughts for consideration: 1)Lohfink was a professor of New Testament exegesis at the University of Tubingen (see his biography on Misplaced Pages), 2) A "Bible Scholar" can also be a "Theologian," I submit, this simply means the scholar is writing from a faith perspective (which doesn't have to be at odds with "objective scholarship"), 3)The author attempts a balanced perspective between "raw historical criticism" as a tool, and how this can be applied for people with a faith perspective, at least this is what I have gleaned from his work, 4)In your comment you state: "the book seems written more from a faith-based than from a scholarly perspective," Question- Are you saying a person can not come from a "faith" perspective and not be an "objective" scholar? No one, not even a non-faith person (who in reality has a faith in "something")is free from a set of values/ideas that are not tied to a disposition of value perspectives whether they are shaped by cultural, anthropological, or sociological bearings, 5) With all due respect, how can you make the judgment of "thus I don't think it adds much of value to this article," if you haven't even read the work, to decide if it "doesn't have value,"? 6) I think the work does add a "significant" contribution to the conversation regarding "the historical Jesus" debate, and finally, 7) All I'm asking for is a sound hearing of the work, as Daniel J. Harrington, professor of New Testament at Boston College, stated of the work: "Lohfink's 'Jesus of Nazareth' is the best Jesus book I know. It is solidly based on sound biblical scholarship, full of fresh theological insights, respectful of the Gospels and their portraits of Jesus, and beautifully expressed. It is especially effective in highlighting the centrality of God's reign and Israel as God's people in Jesus' life and work." Thus, it also makes a contribution for the dialogue between Judaism and Christianity, and that is significant!

Thanks for hearing me out PurpleMundi (PurpleMundi)(talk) 15:06, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm not convinced. First of all, Lohfink resigned his professorship about a quarter century ago to work for an Apostolic Community. Harrington is a Jesuit working at a Jesuit-run School of Theology and Ministry. Here's one Catholic priest endorsing the theological insights of another Catholic priest. That alone doesn't mean he's wrong, but when author, publisher and endorser all are directly related to the Catholic Church, that doesn't carry quite as much weight as we could hope for. Besides, where exactly did Harrington say that? I couldn't find a source beyond the publisher's website; it sounds like a sales blurb to me. Was it published as part of a book review in a scholarly journal?

Secondly, the book itself takes a clearly Catholic approach. Take for example p. 8-10 where the Bible is interpreted exclusively through the lens of Catholic liturgy. Or take this quote from p. 15: " can therefore be adequately understood only in faith and out of the believing memory of the people of God. An understanding of Jesus demands the foundation that is Israel, that is the church. If we do not hold to the church's interpretive tradition then sooner or later the image of Jesus will disintegrate before us." This may be correct according to Catholic theology, but I don't think many others recognizes the necessity of the church's interpretive tradition - Protestant churches don't, Judaism doesn't, and I doubt mainstream Biblical scholarship does. For Misplaced Pages we'd do better to rely on sources without such a partisan agenda, except possibly on Catholic interpretations of Jesus, for which this probably isn't the appropriate article.

Thirdly, I'm even more skeptical about the book's use on the historical Jesus. It doesn't seem to have much to say on that subject, even putting "historical" in scare quotes.

Finally, whether or not the book itself is valuable, just adding it to the article's bibliography is useless. If the book covers significant content that's currently missing in the article, we should expand the article and use this book as a source (though I doubt it's a good source, see above).

And while religious persons of course can be good scholars (I'd point to Van Voorst as an example), that's because their scholarship is not based on their faith. Lohfink's seems to be. Huon (talk) 17:22, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

"Virtually all scholars"

The sentence "Virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed." is pretty unusual wording. I was going to change it but I saw the note on the article asking to leave comments here. Usually we would want to be a lot more precise than 'virtually all' which seems rather weasel word like (the virtually), and hard to back up even with the listed sources. Might I propose changing it to "There is little contention among scholars of antiquity that Jesus existed."? I think this gets across the point that most scholars agree Jesus is a historical figure, without using this 'virtually all' construction. Comments? Prodego 21:10, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

If we had a penny every time this is discussed... Please look at the archives for a loooong discussion on that. The source says that, and it has been discussed on talk, WP:RSN, etc. So please see that. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

That response doesn't actually address my question. Prodego 21:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, put it another way, my thinking is that virtually all is accurate, given that it corresponds to the source, and past talk page discussions also indicate that, so it is not just my thinking alone. History2007 (talk) 21:20, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

That phrasing is used because that is what scholarship says (published scholars of repute say that virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed). We've been over it ad nauseum... just trust us on this one this time. ReformedArsenal (talk) 21:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

In fairness we need a link to the archives in the FAQ so people do not have to search for them. I will try to get those FAQ links added. History2007 (talk) 21:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, well I don't think I've ever seen "virtually all" used in a Misplaced Pages article before, and I've edited for quite a long time. The fact that it is contentious is probably a sign that this wording is problematic, which is consistent with my impression. I'm curious if either of you have problems with my wording? Previous discussion doesn't prevent change, though I'll definitely want to look through that. Prodego 21:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually that was also discussed: Misplaced Pages uses that term all over. And this definition clarified the term, etc. And given that this page gets 400,000 views a month, a discussion here or there is not really contentious in the larger scheme. And I am sorry, but I think your wording deviates from the source. History2007 (talk) 21:31, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, and any wording that deviates ever so slightly from the source is likely to be attacked as inaccurate or hyperbolic. Not that using the same wording as the source precludes such attacks entirely, but it makes it much easier to reply. Huon (talk) 21:43, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

It is false that all scholars agree that Jesus existed. "Virtually all" is a weasel-word tactic. There is no poll from a reputable pollster. In fact, there is no poll at all, that I know of. There is no statement in a peer-reviewed, non-Christian journal saying "virtually all." In fact, nobody has produced an example of a peer-reviewed, non-theological article saying it is fact that Jesus existed at all. I'm not sure there is no such source, but none has been provided. All such sources are written for a popular audience, and usually the authors have a religious background. Many of the books are published by the Christian press, whose editors obviously aren't going to question whether Jesus was real. The wording should really be changed to "According to so-and-so, virtually all....". Humanpublic (talk) 23:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

"Virtually all" is the wording used by our reliable source, an academic published with a reputable publisher. We have Michael Grant, a classicist, saying the same thing. He does so in a book, not a journal article, but that's also a reliable source, and Orion Publishing is not a "Christian press". Neither is Cambridge University Press which published Dunn's essay that says the same thing. Of course there's Van Voorst, a scholar whose competence virtually everybody respects even if they disagree with him, who also says so. And there's Price who himself disagrees with existence but accepts he's in the minority.

This insistence on peer-reviewed articles strikes me as odd. Of course such articles make excellent sources - but so do textbooks. I cannot think of any reason to insist on articles over textbooks except to exclude the various textbooks whose content we may not like.

In summary this strikes me as beating a dead horse. We've been here repeatedly, the sources have been discussed at WP:RSN and accepted, we use wording that precisely corresponds to the source, and we're backed up by WP:RS#AC. There isn't even a hint of disagreement in reliable sources with the contested statement. In short, there's nothing to discuss here any more, and repeating the old refuted claims is useless. Huon (talk) 00:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. This won't fly. We have a whole article, Historicity of Jesus, dedicated to this, with the same phrasing and references, but lots more detail. Huon doesn't mention the Ehrmann ref, very current & from an agnostic. I note Humanpublic has produced no sources of his own.... Johnbod (talk) 00:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Humanpublic is expressing a personal opinion, given that the number of sources he has produced is zero. Note that a list of 20 possible opposing "authors" was proposed on talk - archived now, and the results were laughable: some were accountants, some attorneys, etc. This repeated statement sans source is sounding like a broken record now, and from an account that does not seem to be doing anything else. I now wonder if.... You know what I mean.... Humanpublic has said this for a few months now, but given that he has zero sources, whatever he says does not matter, and for one I think he can just be ignored, for in Misplaced Pages sources talk and ... nothing else matters. So for all I care Humanpublic can say the same again and again, be just ignored and will make no difference to anything. History2007 (talk) 04:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

In order for this discussion to get off the ground, you have to make an effort. Little of what I said is "a personal opinion." It is a fact that there are no peer-reviewed sources. It is a fact that Grant wrote popular books. It is a fact that Ehrman's training and background is evangelical and theological, regardless of his current belief. It is a fact that being a classicist does not make you an expert on what "all scholars" believe. Neither does being a professor of religion. A pollster is an expert on what all scholars believe, and this article cites no pollsters. Huon's comment about textbooks is out to lunch. No textbooks have been cited. None of what I just said is a personal opinion. Humanpublic (talk) 16:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, what?! How exactly is Van Voorst's Jesus Outside the New Testament not a textbook by a respected scholar published with a reputable publisher? What, precisely, makes Sacrifice and Redemption, published by Cambridge University Press, not an academic source?

By now we've arrived at scholars being rejected because they were evangelical sometime in the past. What's next, scholars being rejected because undeniably a grand-aunt was a Christian? And I'm particularly amused by the comment how being a classicist is insufficient - I remember hearing the same argument about biblical scholars, too. Who would be in a position to know the academic consensus?

If you want to make an effort to get this discussion off the ground, I'd suggest one of two routes: Either present a reliable source that actually supports your point of view, or go to WP:RSN and make the case that Ehrman, Van Voorst et al. are not reliable sources. I'd prefer the former because firstly it would be a genuinely new approach and secondly the people at RSN have better stuff to do than to tell incredulous editors yet again that Ehrman is an acceptable source for this statement. Huon (talk) 18:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Disputing the reliability of apparently good sources is a tactic in tendentious editing. Making original and unsourced claims about the sources falls under WP:No original research as well. The current wording is fine until reliable sources are produced claiming that more than a small minority reject the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth; then things will be divided into "these scholars say virtually all scholars agree, these scholars say that many scholars disagree." Since even Robert M. Price, who denies the existence of Jesus, admits that virtually all scholars agree on Jesus's historical existence, I doubt that's going to happen.

Continuing to ignore a glaringly obvious consensus, refusing to acknowledge what everyone has to say, is also a tactic in tendentious editing (and rude at that), especially since we could probably let it be known to Helen Keller without even using a Ouija board.

All claims intended to change articles require sources, or a demonstration that current sources are unreliable. When the consensus is that the sources are reliable, and one cannot actually point to any part of WP:RS or to any RS to show how the source is unreliable, disputing the reliability of that source is nothing short of disruptive. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

FAQ link

I added a link to FAQ at the end of this page, with archive links in the FAQ. But it looks like hardly anyone reads the FAQ and no one may even watch it. So it would be good if we can refer people to read that first, and have people read and watch it as well anyway.

The FAQ link at the end shows below the categories. Is there a way to condense or minimize the automatic talk page categories. They buy nothing here anyway. History2007 (talk) 00:35, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The FAQ page is transcluded at the top of this talk page, and I don't think someone looking at it there will be counted as reading the sub-page. So the FAQ may not be as forgotten as the stats indicate. I'll add them to my watchlist, though. Huon (talk) 01:24, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

The counter may treat it as a page. Let us look in 3 days and see if the count goes up. History2007 (talk) 02:14, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Just one suggestion - could you put it at the top of the page so that it stands out more? The only reason that I'm suggesting this is that people may just click on New section asking another question we have answered countless times, and should hopefully prevent this. JZCL 18:11, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Can do both. It is easy to put one more at the top. It was actually tricky to get it to show at the end of the page. Will do. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 19:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

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