Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:43, 15 November 2015

176.204.181.45 (talk) 15:38, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

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.

Template:Vital article

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

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.

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.

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.

	Jesus is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
[REDACTED]	This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 25, 2013.
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 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 May 5, 2013 Good article nominee Listed May 28, 2013 Guild of Copy Editors Copyedited August 15, 2013 Featured article candidate Promoted Current status: Featured article

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

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

This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations: "Topics that spark Misplaced Pages 'edit wars' revealed". BBC News. 18 July 2013. Retrieved 18 July 2013. Caitlin Dewey (6 November 2015). "Demon cats, helicopter escapes and crayon colours: The most fascinating Misplaced Pages articles you haven't read". National Post. Retrieved 10 November 2015.

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, 137

Obsolete subpages Cited Authors Bios Christian views in intro Scribes Pharisees and Saducees Dates of Birth and Death Historicity Reference Comments Sockpuppets Languages Spoken by Jesus Historical Jesus Topical archives 2nd Paragraph Debate

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

Historicity table

The table in the Historicity section was recently edited to include scholars that don't represent contemporary, mainstream scholarship (particularly Christian apologist Licona) and to present conclusions that are more in line with Christian faith (e.g., there being "no consensus" on whether Jesus rose bodily from the grave). I'm sure these changes all seemed like good historical information to the editor, but they contradict the best contemporary scholars (e.g., Sanders, Vermes, Crossan). I've added references from Vermes, who had been absent from this page. I would love to see more Christian opinion on this page, especially a Christian reaction to the Historical Jesus project. But a table summarizing historicity in the historical section needs to stick closely to what the best RSs say. I've edited the table, retaining the new rows that had been added, but changing the material to match Sanders, Vermes, etc. Together we're making this page better. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC) PS: If my changes seem hasty, I brought this issue up on the editor's talk page a week ago and got no response. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 18:47, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Frankly I think the whole table should go. The problem can be seen in the sourcing: something like 2/3rds the entries are sourced to the Jesus Seminar, a lot of rest to E. P. Sanders, who as a New Perspective on Paul figure couldn't be much more opposed to the Jesus Seminar's methodology and still be in the scholarly mainstream. We would really need some magisterial figure who stood outside all this to referee the "prevailing view" disagreements, and I don't think there is such a person. Some general statements more or less along the lines of what is in the text now suffice, particularly the statement from Amy-Jill Levine. I think the hammering on what "historians" think is a bit much, since it seems to reflect a secularized viewpoint; obviously non-Christians are going to dismiss anything miraculous. Mangoe (talk) 22:23, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

FutureTrillionaire removed the line about the historical opinion on Jesus' bodily resurrection, and I think that's fine. There's already a general agreement n this page not to cover anti-Semitism in the gospels, and I'm also fine leaving Jesus' bodily resurrection off this table. "Jesus" is already a sensitive topic, and some aspects of this topic are probably sensitive enough that they're not worth the trouble covering. As long as we're patient with each other and we follow WP policies, we can work together on this important topic, even if we hold different personal beliefs about Jesus. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:16, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Why are the tables there? The 'historicity of events' table is large, obstructive and distracting, and it only caters to lazy readers. If there is an issue covering 'historical consensus' then surely it is better to have this discussed in prose, rather than simplistic statements in a table.-- Hazhk (talk) 00:09, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your questions, Hazhk. I'm happy to reach compromises with other good-faith editors, so let's do that. The table is there to provide due weight to the mainstream historical viewpoint on what Jesus did. I take your "lazy reader" comment as a compliment. If this valuable information is presented so clearly that even a lazy reader can grasp it, that's wonderful, isn't it? To be clear and concise, that's doing a service to the reader. Is the table too long? Another editor added lines to it, so apparently not everyone agrees that it is. In particular, this table is useful for balancing the treatment that the Gospels get in the earlier section. In our Gospels section, there's an explicit agreement among editors that we bend WP guidelines and prohibit historical commentary from that section. There's no WP policy about when to exclude notable viewpoints from a topic, as we do on this page. Jesus is such a sensitive topic that we don't treat it the standard way. You can think of this table, then, ss the information that is idiosyncratically excluded from the Gospels section. It's given prominence because it's out of place and hard for our reader to find otherwise. Honestly, I'd love to do away with this table and put all this information in the Gospels section, but that's not a tenable option given the resistance to historical analysis of the Gospels. Since the reader has a hard time finding historical information in the Gospels section, it's a service to them to make this missing information easy to find elsewhere in the article. Hazhk, I'm happy to work with you on a compromise. It would help us reach an agreement if I knew where you were coming from. Are you a fan of the historical Jesus project, but you feel that this valuable information is being treated wrong? Or are you a skeptic of the historical Jesus project, and you feel that this questionable information is being given too much prominence? I know that this is a sensitive topic, and that certain editors come to it with a degree of attachment. I have a compromise to suggest, but I don't know whether it would appeal to you because I don't know your feelings about the modern habit of treating Jesus like a historical, mortal figure. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:00, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

The table was deleted. That's a nice, bold edit. I reverted. Now we discuss. That's WP:BRD. I'm happy to reach a compromise. Deleting the table instead of responding to this thread isn't much of a compromise. I'd like to know, Mangoe and Hazhk, how you feel about the historical Jesus project so that we can better work together on forging a compromise. This table clearly elucidates the mainstream historical opinion. I see that as a good thing, but some editors probably see it as a bad thing. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:38, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Please. Your one response was posted three hours after I deleted the table. Since then, nothing.

The problem with the table now is that it is a composite of different camps who it is safe to assume disagree on the historicity of most listed events. I don't think we're ever going to be able to fix that without finding some magisterial figure who'll tell us the state of the field, and Bruce Metzger has been dead for some years now. the more fundamental issue is that the different camps apply different hermaneutics, so the table is secondary to the difference in interpretative principles. It's a pretty safe bet that on most of the events the Jesus Seminar types are going to express doubts, and the New Paul people are going to doubt those doubts. Mangoe (talk) 04:43, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Mangoe, you seem to be saying that this table doesn't actually represent mainstream opinion. It is cited to top mainstream sources. Let's get down to brass tacks. Can you name one row on the table that is bad, and what should that row say instead? As near as I can tell, this table represents the mainstream views of top, current scholars. The Jesus Seminar and Sanders agree on most things, and the point that they disagree on (apocalypse) is called out. You don't like the table, but can you cite a reliable source or a WP policy on your side? Your personal opinion is welcome, but the way to reach a compromise is by sticking to RSs, WP guidelines and WP policies. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

A little background on the table. It doesn't represent my personal viewpoint. I don't think Jesus actually gathered 12 disciples, and I don't think he had a "last supper" with them. But WP isn't about what I think or what you think. It's about what the sources say. The university-level textbook Historical Jesus says that Sanders, Vermes and Crossan are major voices in current scholarship, so they get cited here. Crossan was a founding member of the Jesus Seminar, so that's why they get cited. FutureTrillionaire likes what Ehrman says about Jesus claiming to be the Messiah, so he's included, too. These are the opinions that, according to my textbook, best represent top mainstream opinion. Like all of us, I set aside my personal opinion and take it as my duty to represent what the RSs say. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:14, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Jonathan, I just wanted to point out that if something is presented as "mainstream opinion", one needs a RS asserting (in some way) that it is considered indeed "mainstream opinion". I mean: it wouldn't be enough to find sources that support opinion X and conclude *on our own* that it's mainstream but we need sources who explicitly say that. It's some WP rule, btw :) . I don't know if this is the case for the sources provided, because they aren't accessible online: I think it would be preferable to include full citations for those. Bardoligneo (talk) 15:36, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Bardoligneo. I exactly agree. The university-level textbook Historical Jesus names Vermes, Sanders and Crossan as top representatives of current mainstream opinion. That's why the table cites them. I don't think Vermes is great, but my opinion doesn't matter, so there he is. If another editor has another great source that names other folks as top mainstream voices, I'm all ears. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Ok, so one of the sources for the claim would be this Historical Jesus textbook: we should include its author and a citation too. Btw, does he cite Funk Robert as mainstream too? (he sources many entries). Also, I think there could be a problem: there's not a unique RS saying "opinion X is mainstream": rather someone saying "author X is mainstream". This however doesn't imply that *every* opinion author X holds is automatically mainstream: it would be preferable some source(s) who asserts which is the prevalent opinion for each specific case. Bardoligneo (talk) 16:31, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The textbook cites Funk as a parables expert. It also cites Crossan as a major mainstream scholar, and he is a founding member of the JS. The JS also represents a large number of scholars with differing opinions, and the books report on what scholars in general find, not just Funk himself. I would say that an opinion is mainstream if a top scholar asserts it and no top scholar contradicts it. Every top scholar, for example, says that the Bethlehem stories are legends. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 16:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Let me just say that I oppose the inclusion of a table. The views of Jesus scholars cannot be summarized easily. Therefore, a table is not a good format.--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 03:52, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your opinion, FutureTrillionaire. Do you have any evidence to support your opinion? Are there WP policies, WP guidelines or RSs that say we shouldn't summarize the mainstream historical opinion on this topic? I think that summarizing mainstream scholarly opinions is what WP is all about. Other tertiary sources have no trouble doing it. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:58, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

At this point I'm neutral on this issue (i.e., I don't care whether the table is included, although if it is I might have opinions about its content). @Jonathan Tweet, I'd like some clarification of your request for policy or reliable sources. Are you asking for a Misplaced Pages policy about this specific article and only this article? And are you asking for reliable sources that state whether this Misplaced Pages article should have such a table? If not, I think you need to reword your request because that's what it sounds like to me. Sundayclose (talk) 20:19, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for asking, Sundayclose. I know that several editors don't like the content of the table, and they've shared their negative opinions about it. What I'm asking for is evidence. My evidence is that WP policy is to prominently present the mainstream scholarly opinion, and this table does just that, referring to recognized top scholars in the field: Vermes, Sanders, Crossan (co-founder of the Jesus Seminar). If the detractors can find a WP guideline about when editors shouldn't summarize the mainstream view on a topic, that would be evidence. If they could find top tertiary sources that say that there's no consensus to report, that would also be evidence. For decades, it's been Christian POV that historians can't say anything conclusive about Jesus, and that's a perfectly reasonable reaction for the faithful. But what's the NPOV evidence that we shouldn't summarize the mainstream historical opinion on Jesus' life? Working on this page means making peace with people who have very different beliefs about Jesus, and to make peace we need to stick to evidence, not opinion. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 19:58, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, you want my view here? (1) WP is an encyclopedia, which is supposed to give facts, not opinion. History is about facts, not opinion. (2) Something major should be added to the main article, Historicity of Jesus, rather than here. (3) If you want to start a section on non-standard opinion, it should be done in prose.

Now in response to what you've said about WP:BRD, B is you boldly adding something, R is someone reverting it, and D is you explaining why it should be readded. You don't readd it until consensus is found to do so. --Musdan77 (talk) 23:25, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks so much, Musdan, for finally talking on the talk page instead of just deleting material you don't like. And thanks for sharing your opinions That's a great start. Next, do you think you could offer any evidence that your opinions are sound? Evidence is a great way for people who disagree about who Jesus was to agree no how to edit this page. For example, can you back up your opinions with reference to WP policies? Can you show us great, reliable, tertiary sources that treat the topic the way you want to? My evidence is that WP:DUE says we should give the most prominence to the most prominent viewpoints. My RSs say that the points summarized in the table represent the most prominent historical views. What's your evidence? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 13:55, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

FTR, here is the table that certain editors find so objectionable. As one familiar with the scholarship can see, it's ground-level, mainstream, historical opinion. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 23:18, 18 September 2015 (UTC)

1. Funk, Robert W. and the Jesus Seminar. The acts of Jesus: the search for the authentic deeds of Jesus. HarperSanFrancisco. 1998. "Birth & Infancy Stories" p. 497-526.
2. ^ Sanders 1993, p. 11. sfn error: no target: CITEREFSanders1993 (help)
3. ^ Funk, Robert W. and the Jesus Seminar. The acts of Jesus: the search for the authentic deeds of Jesus. HarperSanFrancisco. 1998. "Mark," p. 51-161
4. ^ Funk, Robert W., Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar. The five gospels. HarperSanFrancisco. 1993. "Introduction," p 1-30.
5. Vermes, Geza. The authentic gospel of Jesus. Penguin Book. 2003. p. 380–385.
6. Theissen & Merz 1998, p. 11. sfn error: no target: CITEREFTheissenMerz1998 (help)
7. Vermes, Geza. The authentic gospel of Jesus. Penguin Book. 2003. p. 402.
8. Ehrman, Bart D. (March 23, 2014). "Did Jesus think he was God? New insights on Jesus' own self-image". Salon.
9. Funk, Robert W., Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar. The five gospels. HarperSanFrancisco. 1993. pp. 75–78.
10. Vermes, Geza. The authentic gospel of Jesus. Penguin Book. 2003. pp. 385–389, 415–416.
11. Funk, Robert W., Roy W. Hoover, and the Jesus Seminar. The five gospels. HarperSanFrancisco. 1993. "Mark," p 39-127.
12. Sanders 1993, pp. 184–187. sfn error: no target: CITEREFSanders1993 (help)
13. ^ Sanders 1993, pp. 249–275. sfn error: no target: CITEREFSanders1993 (help)

Personally, I tend to disagree with your criterion that "an opinion is mainstream if a top scholar asserts it and no top scholar contradicts it", like you were saying in a previous comment. I think that we can call it "mainstream opinion" only when it is possible to ascertain (finding an authoritative source) that most "top" scholars hold such opinion. To the other extreme if one single top scholar holds an opinion about a matter, while all the others simply didn't express an opinion or think it's undecidable, then it's not "mainstream". Bardoligneo (talk) 08:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, can you provide any evidence for that opinion? WP policy is to summarize what the RSs say. If there are stricter criteria than that in policies or guidelines, please refer to them. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:32, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I would also have to disagree with your criterion. Think, for example, of what happens when a top scholar produces a NEW idea about something. Perhaps that idea is even laughable, but for as long as it is a new idea, no other scholars would have, as yet, contradicted the idea - not because they don't disagree, but because it is too new for them to have formally responded and refuted it yet.Farsight001 (talk) 17:24, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

A fair point in general but irrelevant for this discussion, as all the sources in the table are at least 12 years old, most of them over 20 years. They can be seen to represent modern mainstream academic consensus. If there's a viable argument against the table, it has not yet been made in this discussion. Jeppiz (talk) 19:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion. There is nothing to suggest that the Jesus Seminar represents "mainstream historical opinion". In fact, the Jesus Seminar article suggests otherwise: e.g. "They act on the premise that Jesus did not hold an apocalyptic worldview, an opinion that is controversial in mainstream scholarly studies of Jesus." StAnselm (talk) 19:49, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, if the Jesus seminar is your rubric, its no wonder you see a problem. The Jesus seminar is in about as clear opposition to the scholarly consensus as Intelligent Design is. It is simply in no way what we should be using to decide what to include in this article.Farsight001 (talk) 21:29, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

• Comment I agree that the Jesus seminar is not a reliable source, but I don't find anything in the table that is in opposition to mainstream scholarship and couldn't be sourced using mainstream scholars. Could those opposed to the table please provide an example of any factual error in the table, or anything they feel does not represent mainstream scholarship? Jeppiz (talk) 21:48, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

I'd also like to ask what's actually wrong with the table? As in, what is listed as mainstream but isn't really mainstream? People who don't like Jesus treated historically like to keep historical treatments to a minimum, but that's not the WP way.Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:35, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Precisely. It's been one week since I asked the same question, and no opposition. I'll give it one more than, then reinstate the table as WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not an argument to exclude. Jeppiz (talk) 15:38, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose inclusion (At least in this form). The problem with the table are the sources, right now. More precisely, we can't label X as "mainstream opinion" if there isn't an authoritative source ascertaining that "X is mainstream opinion/held by most scholars/etc.". Finding a single or few sources, however reliable and authoritative, holding "opinion X" (but not affirming if it's actually held by a majority), is insufficient and won't do because it doesn't show that the opinion X is actually mainstream. In practice, it would be inaccurate and misleading to label such an opinion as mainstream using sources who don't say that. BTW, it seems that Funk Roberts and the Jesus seminar, which source many of the entries, aren't even that reliable. If the mainstream consensus, at least about some topics, is so clear then I suggest someone finds authoritative sources stating in some form that "the mainstrem opinion/consensus is X". If those sources aren't freely accessible online, please, I'd ask you to provide full citations so that more editors could examine them and make suggestions. Bardoligneo (talk) 14:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Should this info be included for NPOV?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This is the material I wish to include. The lede currently mentions methodological issues, but omits the fact that several scholars have stated the methodology is invalid.VictoriaGrayson 12:57, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

→===Survey===

• Support - As RfC proposer.VictoriaGrayson 12:57, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose - This has already been discussed less than a week ago, nothing has changed since the consensus then not to include it. The problem seems to be a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:NPOV by the proposer. NPOV does not require us to give equal weight to all views. Quite the opposite, it clearly states "Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight mean that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all" Several users have already pointed out that this is exactly what Victoria is doing, cherrypicking minority views and trying to pass it off as the WP:TRUTH. Many users in the discussion last week concluded that this is WP:UNDUE, and I have not seen Victoria even trying to address that concern. Jeppiz (talk) 15:03, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose based on the comment above and wish to note that there seems to be a serious question of disruptive, tendentious editing on the behalf of the opener of this RfC. Given the rather incredible amount of material written about this subject, and the rather small minority of academics who raise the concerns she wishes to include, I cannot believe that it necessarily meets WEIGHT requirements as per the sources available. Should problematic edits continue, including an apparent disregard for recent consensus, I think seeking additional input at a noticeboard or similar would be not unreasonable. John Carter (talk) 17:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per WP:UNDUE. It certainly doesn't belong in the lead, and probably should be in Historicity of Jesus rather than this article. "The methods currently employed to determine the historical existence of Jesus have been disputed" might be better wording. StAnselm (talk) 19:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support inclusion of contrasting viewpoints offered by scholars in the article's body, with a short mention in the lede. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:37, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per UNDUE. A few scholars may question the methodology. The vast majority doesn't. The mere mention of the few that do would be considered undue. Plus, the lede, being a summary of the whole article, is no place for statements not really found anywhere in the article body.Farsight001 (talk) 23:10, 9 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose also per Undue, and because consensus was already reached above (even if a few disagreed with said consensus). I have not edited this article recently but I read all edits and Talk page discussions. It is satisfactory in the lede to state "a large majority of scholars" think there is proof for a historical Jesus without giving undue airtime in an intentionally brief statement to minority opinions. The lede is intended as a brief, consensus, summary. Even if it were decided material casting the scholars' methodologies into doubt belongs in the article proper - which I won't comment on right now as I'm typing this on a phone - it is not a significant enough viewpoint to deserve inclusion in the lede. It is also a large logical leap between "a few scholars dispute methodology" and "all" or even "most", as it is a leap to say "every single scholar in the majority opinion used flawed methodology despite disparate methods". Finally, the statement "most scholars believe in Jesus' historicity" remains true even if the methodology used is flawed. Jtrevor99 (talk) 00:11, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose I will support including this information as soon as someone can produce a good tertiary source that summarizes the state of scholarship this way. The best sources I've found don't say this, but maybe I'm just missing something. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 20:08, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
• Support (un-involved editor here) As I mentioned at NPOVN, and as Cwobeel stated, as long as the reference is from an RS and has some sort of WP:weight and WP:notability on the subject matter, it should be included, at least to an extent. To leave out (exclude) viable (different) points of view is a WP:POV violation. As a start, I suggest going to WP:RSN and asking for opinions regarding these sources from some more impartial editors. In the meantime, I suggest using a Template:POV. Darknipples (talk) 02:04, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more, but almost none of those policies is fulfilled in the suggested change, as most users have pointed out. Jeppiz (talk) 13:13, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

• Support Without it the article is unbalanced. Louieoddie (talk) 05:05, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per Jeppiz. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 12:45, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose It isn't even clear if the proposed phrase "... the methods currently employed to determine the historical existence of Jesus are invalid" correctly represents what the sources say. It's possible the sources actually criticize the criteria used to distinguish more/less probable events in Jesus life (without even doubting his existence), as some reviews of the books suggest: in this case the phrase misrepresents what the sources mean. Alternatively, it is possible that the sources really say that we don't know if Jesus existed, because the methods (which?) to do so are invalid, in this case it would be WP:UNDUE. It may go in Jesus myth section. Bardoligneo (talk) 09:54, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose We can't just dump this into the lede and expect readers to go read the sources by themselves. At the least there should be some material in the body of the article to summarise in the lede, but there isn't. A few people questioning the methods widely accepted is a fringe view, and doesn't belong at all in this particular article. --Pete (talk) 20:03, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose as undue. Khestwol (talk) 20:07, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose as undue. If "virtually all" scholars agree Jesus existed, then any dissenters must necessarily be very few. Giving this (very) minority opinion a line in the lede is therefore undue. It might be argued that not including it violates NPOV, but "virtually all" is a very powerful term that strongly indicates that the minority position should not be given prominence. There is already a section on the historicity of Jesus in the article as well, and the article Historicity of Jesus is linked in the previous line. If a substantial number of scholars question the methods such that "virtually all" is no longer true, then I will support inclusion. Banedon (talk) 06:37, 28 September 2015 (UTC)
• Yes, but not in lede.

  I could certainly imagine a well worded summary of these concerns in the body of the article. This could discuss both (1) the paucity of available evidence and (2)doubts about the reasoning from the evidence, as per the fine scholarship cited. Both concerns seem to be quite widespread, particularly the former.

  On the other hand, I do not see in the sources any serious questioning of Jesus' existence, only of the quality of the evidence and reasoning for this. The lede should at most have a qualifying phrase, something like "despite the relatively sparse evidence". Or it could leave this to the body. HGilbert (talk) 01:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Yet again, Jeppiz conflates different issues. Noone is disputing that the consensus is that Jesus existed. But its also true the methodology is invalid. Both must be mentioned per NPOV, particularly since the lede delves directly into methodological issues by stating "historians consider the Synoptic Gospels (Mark, Matthew and Luke) to be the best sources for investigating the historical Jesus".VictoriaGrayson 15:36, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

How is it "true" that the methodology is invalid? Nobody has disputed we might say that it is invalid according to this or that person, given they are notable enough, but where is your source for the claim that this is a general truth held by everyone? Jeppiz (talk) 16:57, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I am not a scholar of historical Jesus issues, and at this time I don't have access to any of the sources that Victoria cited in another section above. I ask this mainly to satisfy my curiosity, but I suspect shedding a little more light on the sources might help others who are interested. Could anyone (Victoria and any other editors) provide a few brief quotations from each of the sources that support (or attempt to refute) the "invalid methodology" issue? I also would be interested in anything that might refute the claim that "every mainstream scholar" has said the methodology is invalid. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 17:04, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I find it nothing less than shocking that an editor has decided on her own to declare professional methodologies invalid. Such indications of rather obvious bias on the part of editors is obviously something that should be taken into account. And, FWIW, this is hardly the only individual of historical times who has to be reconstructed based on sources which were written significantly after their lives. Alexander the Great comes to mind. Admittedly, some have complained about them being used in the case of Jesus, but, somewhat surprisingly, not so much for them being used in the case of Alexandre.

So far as I can tell, having looked at this matter before, based on previous discussions regarding this topic, the methodologies used in the case of Jesus are basically to use the sources available and try to determine, based on the contemporary evidence available through those sources and other roughly current sources, what looks like it might be less than reliable. That is a perfectly reasonable approach to take in instances such as these. where the number of sources available could be called, charitably, unimpressive. However, to declare it, as that editor has, "invalid" demonstrates to my eyes a rather weak understanding of historical methodology and seems to my eyes rather less than useful. John Carter (talk) 17:23, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

It is the opinion of well known scholars that the methodologies are invalid. For example, Allison says "the criteria themselves are seriously defective."VictoriaGrayson 17:33, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Please read WP:TE. Also, I believe that your above comment raises serious questions regarding your ability to accurately represent the sources. "Defective" and "invalid" are in no way necessarily synonymous, despite you apparently as per the above believing that they are, and your apparent wish to use the much stronger term when a weaker term is in fact used in the source you produce could also reasonably raise questions of WP:OR regarding your use of the more sensationalist term "invalid". John Carter (talk) 17:47, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Also request more info from the sources. I'm not opposed to an editor opening an RfC to get more eyes on a discussion, but it will be important to better understand the material at hand. When it is laid out, perhaps a different wording will be more appropriate, such as "some scholars have noted challenges with the methodology". And if it is a small group of scholars, it might then merit a footnote versus space in the main text. But that depends on clarity on the sources' statements which multiple editors are asking for. --Airborne84 (talk) 18:39, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

If there are scholars that challenge the methodology used (and there are), then for NPOV we ought to include these viewpoints, in proportion. There is no need to accuse editors of WP:TE for starting an RFC, which is by design one of the ways we have in WP for |dispute resolution. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:22, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

@Cwobeel, I don't disagree with you, but it is also reasonable to expect support for a claim that "every mainstream scholar" has concluded that the methodology is invalid. I have seen little to nothing to support that claim, and until it is provided I don't see that there is much to discuss. I'm not saying the support does not exist, but it certainly hasn't been presented here. If we were discussing how to interpret comments by a variety of scholars, or which scholars are considered mainstream, we might have something to discuss. But so far all I have seen here is one comment by Allison about defective criteria. Sundayclose (talk) 19:58, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I have not seen an argument stating that "every mainstream scholar has concluded that the methodology is invalid." What I see is an argument to include that there are some mainstream scholars that have reached that conclusion. NPOV 101. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:38, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Sundayclose, in the proposal diff I say "several scholars".VictoriaGrayson 21:43, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

Not trying to stir things up; I'm still fairly neutral on this issue but also curious. Can someone provide the evidence of "several scholars". Specifics would be very helpful. I've seen the comment by Allison about defective criteria. Anything else? If I could get to the sources I would look for it myself, but considering how controversial this issue is it would be very helpful if someone could provide more detail. Sundayclose (talk) 22:24, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

This is an old issue, which has been hashed over for years now at Historicity of Jesus and Christ myth theory. I am most acquainted with it from the former article, and specifically talk page, particularly where it led to an editor being topic-banned. You can probably look at those articles for most of the evidence.

At the risk of repeating myself, I am unaware of any real scholars who are actively enthused about accepting the historicity of Jesus. They aren't. They all, on both sides so far as I can tell, wish there was more good evidence than there is, probably one way or another. Having said that, this isn't the only situation historians face where individuals are documented only from sources which are less than optimal, but, at least in most all the similar cases I have seen, and several which bear more or less the same characteristics of this one, they at least accept the evidence which is available as sufficient to indicate that there was some such person. John Carter (talk) 00:24, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

For sources, I guess the ones that come to mind are Bart Ehrman's recent Did Jesus Exist? which discusses the more prominent of the more recent discussion supporting the nonexistence of Jesus. Another useful source is either the first or second edition of the Encyclopedia of Unbelief, sorry I forget which, in which the author of the article, whose theory is basically that Jesus was a guy who died in the Maccabbean era with a really persistent habit of haunting the disciples of the alleged historical Jesus for some as yet unexplained reason, because the article there, in what might be reasonably thought the place in which one would see one of the strongest assertions of Jesus' non-existence, says something like (paraphrasing because I haven't looked at for a few years) that it is possible to make a rational argument that Jesus never existed. Of course, some people on the fringe of society say all sorts of more recent things are outright lies too, like the Moon landings (which happened), and disco (which never happened and is only a sick dream of someone who hadn't taken their pills for some time - no one could ever actually listen to that noise). John Carter (talk) 18:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I, for one, cannot take seriously anyone who wishes to posit that disco is dead.  :) But seriously, while some coverage of the minority scholars' doubts on Jesus' exist probably does merit coverage in this article or the Historicity one, I will continue to contend it is not a significant enough viewpoint to deserve coverage in the lede, which by definition is brief and attempts to cover majority consensus, while by necessity omitting some detail regarding contention of that consensus. Jtrevor99 (talk) 19:56, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Carrier characterizes the sources in the proposal as showing that the methodology is "proven to be logically invalid across the board". See page 21 of "On the Historicity of Jesus".VictoriaGrayson 02:30, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Carrier's opinion on what the sources prove is only good for his opinion on what the sources prove. To say that all/most/many scholars consider the methodology invalid would be a statement not supported by the source.Farsight001 (talk) 03:33, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the citation, Victoria. Do you have any evidence that Carrier is a great source for information about historical methodology? You know, like is he cited in encyclopedias and textbooks? Listed as a major, important voice in current scholarship? Anything like that? Crossan, Vermes, and Sanders are all cited at top, contemporary scholars in the field. Is Carrier? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 13:58, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

why Caiaphas had Jesus killed

BRD means that now my material has been deleted we discuss it. My question is, under what circumstances would I be allowed to restore this material or something like it?

Editors who oppose a historical treatment of Jesus have deleted my latest contribution to the historical treatment of Jesus. The Gospels say Jesus was killed for blasphemy, but historians disagree. If we're going to report the Gospel version, then we are honor-bound to give the reader the historical version, too. Otherwise we're committing a POV error. Of course, the entire Gospels section is already a POV error, so the need to balance its account with historical scholarship is especially strong. I cited the world's top scholar on the topic. When Britannica needs someone to write their article about Jesus, they turn to Sanders. Theissen lists him, along with Crossan and Vermes, as top scholars on the topic.

According to E. P. Sanders, Caiaphas, the high priest, probably had Jesus arrested and turned over for execution to prevent him from inciting riots, which Roman troops would have put down with much bloodshed.{{sfn|Sanders|1993|pp=269-273}} The disturbance that Jesus caused in the Temple was likely the deciding factor, although other factors, such as his entry into Jerusalem, would have contributed to Caiaphas's decision.{{sfn|Sanders|1993|pp=269-273}}

Historically speaking, if this isn't why Caiaphas had Jesus killed, what is? The editors who don't like treating Jesus historically would be happy for us not to mention any historical opinion on this point. They want the reader to know less of what historians say because they don't approve of it. But that's not the WP way. Sanders is the most mainstream scholar out there. So I ask the editors who want to leave this material off the page, under what circumstances would I be allowed to restore it? If it truly is undue weight, what other opinion should be included for balance? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

The only way I could see that material being restored is by seeing that an existing academic overview on the topic of Jesus, which is to basically say something like an encyclopedia article,or in this case by averaging some of the remarkably numerous encyclopedia articles of great length on this topic, which give that material sufficient weight in their own articles for it to receive roughly proportional weight in this article. That would mean that I am basically requesting that it be demonstrated, as per WP:BURDEN that this content receives roughly enough "percentage" coverage in those articles for the proposed addition here to be of basically the same broad "percentage{ weight. Otherwise, I very much believe that I may be seeing a possibly tendentious refusal to get to the point regarding this matter, and I would regret having to raise concerns about such issues. John Carter (talk) 17:47, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, JC. When you yourself look up what historians say about why Caiaphas had Jesus executed, what do you find, and what are your sources? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 18:19, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

I looked at the Anchor Bible Dictionary, which I have in front of me. The outline of that article, of which this matter is only a rather smallish part in the section "The Why and the How of Jesus' Death," can be seen at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Christianity/Jesus work group/Prospectus.

The summary of the first paragraph of that section, which is the only part relevant to your question, can be said to be Jesus never reserved a place for the scribes, elders, and priests in his scheme of the new world, that there wasn't room enough for this aristrocracy and this individual possible messianic contender, and that the Sanhedrin (Caiphas is not mentioned by name) took the initiative and brought Jesus down. John Carter (talk) 19:03, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

3 Encyclopedia of Christianity(2003) 27 "Finally he invaded the temple precincts in a public act. He banished commercial dealings from the sanctuary and thus achieved proleptically the eschatological purity of the place of worship (Other interpreters hand understood the act as his symbolically destroying the temple to make way for a new eschatological temple made by God)" The person of the High Priest might be referenced in this source in preceding sentences. Scholars like C. Fletcher-Louis discuss the High Priest as representative of God in the Temple worship of the times. Church of the Rain (talk) 03:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, JC. The Anchor Bible project looks like a religious work. I'm not sure why we would be citing it in the historical section. If you look up Jesus' death in secular, historical sources, what do they say about the Sadducees' motive for having Jesus killed? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 17:11, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

historical account first

I put the historical account of Jesus before the Gospel accounts. Chronologically, Jesus' ministry took place first, and then the Gospels were written a generation or two later. Now the material is in chronological order. Also, Britannica follows this same pattern. First, E. P. Sanders gives the historical account of Jesus' life and ministry. Then a second author addresses early Christian views about Jesus, such as the virgin birth. That's evidence that we should put history first and Gospels second. I'm sure that many editors will be happy to share their opinions about why we should put the Gospels first, and opinions are great, but let's decide what to do based on evidence. No editor has offered any evidence that we should have the Gospels section at all, let alone evidence that it should go before the historical account. If you want the Gospels to be first, please offer evidence for your position. Opinions differ, but if we stick to the evidence we can agree on how to treat this important topic. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 17:19, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

I see that over the last weeks, no opponents of the historical account have offered any evidence in support of relegating it to second place. Instead, an editor who doesn't like the historical account reverted my edit and didn't explain themselves here on Talk. WP:BRD means i boldly edit, a detractor reverts it, and then that detractor provides evidence for their reversion. Does anyone have any evidence that the Gospels section should come first? Editors without evidence love long arguments, but how about we agree to stick to the evidence? Britannica leads with an historical account, followed by Christian beliefs, such as the virgin birth. Harris's textbook Understanding the Bible gives a chapter to each Gospel, but not until after an account of the historical Jesus. If there's no evidence for putting the Gospels first, let's put history first. Seems simple. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:50, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

How do other encyclopedias treat the Gospels when describing Jesus? Here are Jesus entries from several online encyclopedias. How many of them, do you think, summarize the Gospels before establishing the historical account? Take a look. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 17:27, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't reply here. Obviously, though, this is a massive change, and for a FA you should expect a reversion on something like this. I hadn't actually seen this thread before - this was before the initial reversion. In any case, rather than look at other encyclopedias, I'd be much more inclined to look at comparable articles here - David, Moses, Abraham all start with the biblical narrative. There is no reason why Jesus should be treated differently. StAnselm (talk) 18:30, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for replying here, and thanks for actually supplying evidence. Your evidence is other WP articles. My evidence is other encyclopedias. Now we weigh the relative weight of your evidence and mine. Is that fair? As long as we're comparing evidence and making decisions on that basis, I'm happy, and if the evidence says to put the Gospels first, OK! So that's what we editors are considering, how to weigh the evidence of outside encyclopedias versus the weight of other WP articles? If that's the issue, let's discuss it. Before we begin, is there any other evidence in favor of putting the Gospel accounts first? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I agree StAnselm, however the most important thing (in my interpretation of Misplaced Pages policies) is that both sides are given adequate publicity, regardless of which order. I too would prefer the Biblical versions first and then the so-called "secular historical versions" due to the fact that the gospel versions are first hand accounts and the existence of the author's (of the gospels) belief that Christ was God, whether true, or not does not invalidate their first hand, eyewitness testimonies on other non-supernatural details surrounding the life of Christ. We wouldn't discount Roman historians view on Roman leaders simply due to the fact those Roman historians believed in Pagan gods, so why should we treat the gospel writers any differently that Tacitus for example. In fact their testimony should carry more weight than non-Hebrew sources as they were contemporaries of Christ, lived in close proximity to Christ and actually met Christ. And if it is possible that they were lying, it is also possible other ancient authors were lying too. You at least have to give them equal weight and present their views as the truth, unless there are secular historical sources that can PROVE their inaccuracy. Innocent until proven guilty, but it there are differences of opinion and neither can DISPROVE the other, then list all of them, at least with the biblical versions last, although I think they should be first due to reasons listed above--41.146.191.17 (talk) 10:20, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your opinion, Anonymous. We're also interested in actual evidence for how the topic should be treated, if you have any to share. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:22, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm Leadwind

Today i returned to the page and saw that last week I had logged in under my old handle, Leadwind. It seems that I switched back to using Safari, which had my old login credentials stored, and I logged in as Leadwind without realizing it. So the editor who appeared briefly a week ago was me. I'm sure that you editors judged my edit based on its merits rather than by who wrote it, so it didn't make any difference. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 17:24, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I don't have any problem with judging your edits by their merits, but I think in the interest of complete transparency and avoiding any suggestion of sockpuppetry to tilt the weight of arguments on this page, you should change your signature on all of the Leadwind posts, and you should make it clear on both user pages that you are the owner of both accounts. Sundayclose (talk) 17:51, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for being upfront it. I see absolutely no problem whatsoever. Jeppiz (talk) 18:02, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Sundayclose, thank you, those are good suggestions. This topic is a touchy one, and we should all be on our best editing behavior so we can all work together despite our differing opinions on who Jesus really was. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:36, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

More detail needed on crucifixion of Christ

There seems to be a severe lack of detail on precisely who crucified Christ. The second paragraph of the first section of the article states:

"Most scholars agree that Jesus was a Galilean, Jewish rabbi who preached his message orally, was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate."

The role of the chief priests has not been included in this section. Since it was the chief priests that crucified Christ after Pontius Pilate gave the permission, it seems logical to also include this important fact in the narrative.

The gospels give clear indication of this fact related by numerous authors and not just one. For example:

"And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King! 15 "But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar. 16 ¶ "Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified. And they took Jesus, and led him away. 17 "And he bearing his cross went forth into a place called the place of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew Golgotha: 18 "Where they crucified him, and two other with him, on either side one, and Jesus in the midst." - - - John 19:14-18

Paul, in his letter to the Thessalonians, confirms this:

"For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews: "15 Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men:" - 1 Thessalonians 2:14-15

- - - To give more context, I therefore request permission from an admin for these verses to inserted, or quoted indirectly with citations to the specific verses above. I would like to also request the option to add this to other sections of the article where appropriate with regard to the parts detailing the crucifixion.--197.229.0.187 (talk) 23:07, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

We go by what academic sources say, not what Paul or the Gospel authors say. Jeppiz (talk) 23:11, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

How does this quote then fit in? "Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed historically, and historians consider the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) to be the best sources for investigating the historical Jesus."--MarlinespikeMate (talk) 23:54, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Not true Jeppiz. I agree with MarlinespikeMate above. You can't have it either way depending on what suits you at the time on particular issues. As per NPOV both historical and biblical sources have to be given (if both are available and each to the extent of the amount of relevant info they supply).

This article already contains references to how the Koran (Quaran) views the life of Christ.

You don't seem to have a problem with that.

Then in the article: https://en.wikipedia.org/Crucifixion_of_Jesus#Gospel_harmony

In the fourth paragraph of the section called Gospel harmony:

"According to Mark's Gospel, he endured the torment of crucifixion for some six hours from ::the third hour, at approximately 9 am, until his death at the ninth hour, corresponding ::to about 3 pm." These citations are directly from the gospels. Go and have a look.--UPDATED: --41.151.117.104 (talk) 08:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Here is another example: https://en.wikipedia.org/Pharisees#Pharisees_and_Christianity

Should we remove half of Misplaced Pages due to your concerns?

What about if a historian actually disagrees with the gospel and quotes the parts he disagree with? Do we not allow ourselves to include those quotes, if we are quoting his quotes? Ridiculous!--197.229.0.187 (talk) 23:56, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I am assuming we have a majority in favor of my proposed edit?--Dayofrest12 (talk) 11:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

We do not WP:VOTE at Misplaced Pages. Jeppiz (talk) 11:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

We also don't try to sway the weight of an argument by editing from multiple accounts or IP addresses. That may not be what's happening here but it needs clarification. Dayofrest12, are you the same editor as anon 197.229.0.187 and anon 41.151.117.104? For the record also let me say that I oppose Dayofrest12/197.229.0.187/41.151.117.104's proposed edit, so thus far there is no consensus for it. Sundayclose (talk) 16:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Yes that's true, you do not vote at Misplaced Pages, but you do require consensus, which is almost the same thing. By consensus I assumed it was meant a consensus of the majority of editors who leave a comment here - as you will never have 100% consensus on most topics I am sure.

For the record, by "majority" in favor of my proposed edit, I only meant MarlinespikeMate and myself, which was already a majority as nobody else responded yet.

I did NOT try to appear to give myself extra support under different names for the following reasons: My ISP only issues dynamic IP addresses, so my IP address always changed automatically every X hours since it is a dynamic IP. Secondly, I did then register an account on Misplaced Pages as "Dayofrest12" and made no attempt to pretend I was a different person BY ADMITTING IT WAS "MY PROPOSED EDIT" in question. "Dayofrest12" had no proposed edit under that name, only above that comment under the IP addresses I mentioned.

Why do you oppose my proposed edit? Do you not ever give reasons for disapproving of proposed edits?--Dayofrest12 (talk) 21:57, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

OK, I see your reasons below this, you made things a little confusing by starting a whole new section below. Please see my response below your section below:--Dayofrest12 (talk) 22:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Consensus is not "almost the same thing" as a voting majority. If it was every content dispute would have a poll in which the majority decided the content of the article. Please read WP:CON and WP:VOTE. And I oppose your proposed change generally for the same reason given by Jeppiz: it lacks reputable, verifiable scholarship from sufficient sources to indicate that it is the prevailing and mainstream opinion of Biblical scholars. And BTW, please read another policy, WP:AGF, before suggesting to another editor that he/she does "not ever give reasons for disapproving proposed edits?" Sundayclose (talk) 22:27, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

The Gospels and historians agree that it was the Sadducean leaders of the Temple who decided to have Jesus killed. John the Baptist had a ministry that implicitly challenged the authority of the Temple, and so did Jesus. For those reasons, we should mention the involvement of the Temple leadership. On the other hand, there's something of a gentlemen's agreement in place that we downplay any anti-Semitism found in the Gospels. With that in mind, this change isn't one that I'm keen to fight for. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 14:31, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

@Jonathan Tweet: I understand your point that many of us (by "us" I mean people in general, not just Wikipedians) try to avoid even hinting at any anti-Semitism, has this been an issue regarding the crucifixion in previous discussions for this article? I would agree that it can be a sensitive issue, but I'm not sure that it has been much of an issue here. I want to be sure we don't confuse the issue of scholarly sources with the issue of anti-Semitism. Thanks. Sundayclose (talk) 15:02, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for prompting me to clarify my point, Sundayclose. TNo. the anti-Semitism issue first came to my attention in another area, maybe Jesus' ministry. It doesn't come up often, but when it does there's a clear preference on the Talk page to avoid the topic. There's a whole current in the Gospels about Jesus hiding his message from the Jews so they don't repent, and then God turns his back on them and designates the Christian Church as his new chosen people. When I read a secular account of the Gospels (e.g. Harris's textbook, Understanding the Bible), anti-Semitism gets treated, but it's probably best to leave it off this page. Any anti-Semitism is more about the Gospels than about Jesus himself, so it's a point I'm happy to let slide. Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:14, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Basic policies

I see we have several new users, so let me explain some basic policies. First, WP:NPOV does not mean all views should be heard. If you read the policy, it says a lot about which views we don't include: we do not include views with no academic support. So appealing to NPOV to use the Gospel's as a source is a non-starter. As for the quote that MarlinespikeMate uses, I suggest reading it again. It says that scholars (not Misplaced Pages users) use the Gospels to investigate the life of Jesus. That is perfectly correct, and we then report what the scholars say. But we do not use Gospels to make our own investigation, that is what WP:OR is all about. Jeppiz (talk) 11:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Quoting the Bible outside the context of scholarly interpretation is fine for a sermon, but not for an encyclopedia. I also think newcomers should know that administrators on Misplaced Pages do not dictate or control content any more than any other user, so appealing to an administrator for anything except clear vandalism or policy violation is pointless. There are other ways to resolve disputes on Misplaced Pages, which includes this discussion. Sundayclose (talk) 16:03, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

"Quoting the Bible outside the context of scholarly interpretation is fine for a sermon, but not for an encyclopedia" Then why is this already accepted in numerous places already on Misplaced Pages as per the examples I already gave above? How did those edits pass consensus?--Dayofrest12 (talk) 22:23, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I have updated my comment directly above this section and am commenting here as well to acknowledge that this section has been somewhat of a response as well, although I still do not agree. Here is a scenario, what if I were to quote a verse from the gospel and then write straight after that, that secular historical scholars have not found any evidence to support that, or historians have found not other records outside of the gospel to corroborate this which makes it unlikely to be true. What if I more, or less say that in the article? Is THAT allowed by Misplaced Pages policies?--Dayofrest12 (talk) 22:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

The articles in which you state that Bible quotes alone are "already accepted on numerous places" as sufficient (Crucifixion of Jesus and Pharisees) have considerable scholarship referenced in them and do not rely simply on Bible quotations. So far you have produced very little scholarship for your arguments. The wording of your question about the "scenario" is very confusing. I think it would be best if you would provide citations to the sources here along with the Bible verses. Sundayclose (talk) 22:34, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, this is ridiculous. As said, "appealing to NPOV to use the Gospel's as a source is a non-starter" makes zero sense. We can't use original scholarly sources? This is not original research, as it is plainly written.--MarlinespikeMate (talk) 23:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

If by "original scholarly sources" you mean your own ideas, the answer is no unless you are a recognized Biblical scholar and you use one of your own publications as a source. If you mean sources by authors who are recognized as Biblical scholars and published in reputable journals or books, such sources might be used to provide interpretation of Biblical passages. But the Biblical passages alone are insufficient. That's not ridiculous. It's Misplaced Pages policy. Sundayclose (talk) 23:20, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Sundayclose is perfectly right. No offence MarlinspikeMate, but if you cannot tell the difference between the Gospels and "scholarly sources", then I'm afraid Misplaced Pages might not be for you. What contemporary peer-reviewed scholars say about the Gospels, Quran, Tanakh, Edda or Epic of Gilgamesh is relevant and we can cite what those contemporary peer-reviewed scholars say. Whatever the Gospels, Quran, Tanakh, Edda or Epic of Gilgamesh say is not reliable in itself. Jeppiz (talk) 23:25, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

I've done a bad job of explaining my stance, I'll clarify. Jeppiz, I should have said 'primary source'. Here is my argument as plainly as I can say it. According to the scholars, we know the biblical texts to be the best sources for investigating the historical Jesus. This text is a primary source. We are by no means offering up our own research on behalf of the primary sources, but how is it in any sense fair to the article "crucifixion of Christ" to not include this stance, knowing what I just said?MarlinespikeMate (talk) 06:37, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

So just to clarify, I'm not saying we couldn't include it (though no case for its inclusion has yet been made), I'm just explaining how we use sources at Misplaced Pages. If you provide good academic sources in support of your version, then of course those sources will be considered. I'm merely pointing out that the Bible is not what Misplaced Pages considers a reliable source, and we won't make changes based on "The Bible says so". Jeppiz (talk) 09:52, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Just speaking in general without reference to the crucifixion issue specifically, even with scholarly references, a general conclusion about the role of biblical texts in understanding the historical Jesus doesn't necessarily support conclusions about specific events in the life of Jesus (e.g., nature miracles) because scholarly interpretation of the biblical text may differ from the literal interpretation of the biblical text. If scholars view biblical texts as the best source in general, we can't jump to the conclusion that everything in the biblical text must be accepted at face value. See WP:SYN for details. Scholarly interpretation of specific events is necessary. To make this even more complex (which is unavoidable with an article on Jesus), every scholarly point of view isn't given equal weight on Misplaced Pages (or any unbiased encyclopedia). If there is a preponderance of scholarly opinion, that perspective is given more weight. Sometimes the scholarly opinions are diverse enough that several explanations of an event are discussed. If Wikipedians disagree on how much emphasis a particular scholarly perspective should be given, then there needs to be a decision by consensus, and if that is not successful an editor has the option to pursue other legitimate means of dispute resolution. Sundayclose (talk) 14:40, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Jonathan Tweet, you said above: "On the other hand, there's something of a gentlemen's agreement in place that we downplay any anti-Semitism found in the Gospels. With that in mind, this change isn't one that I'm keen to fight for." --- Sounds like the ultimate in political correctness to me. Who says that?!!! Who says, if a source sounds anti-Semitic, then downplay that part of it and pretend it doesn't exist?!!! Are you hearing yourself? I am not assuming bad faith here, I am observing it in front of my eyes!!! If the Gospels are anti-Semitic, how is it right to pretend they are not!!! - - - I will reply to the historical scholars perspective, which right now is more important - below:--Dayofrest12 (talk) 18:17, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Dayofrest12, I think you misinterpreted Jonathan Tweet's comments, and there's no need to shout at us by using bold print. Read JT's comment again. My strong impression is that he is commenting about society in general which can be reflected on Misplaced Pages talk pages. Many people are sensitive to the extremist minority who consider Jews "Christ killers". If you want an example, look at the furor over the film The Passion of the Christ; read about it at The Passion of the Christ#Controversies. I'm not espousing any point of view here, just pointing out how controversial some issues can be. Wikipedians are no different than most people in that respect; we don't like getting embroiled in a controversy. I don't think Jonathan Tweet was arguing that we should be "politically correct"; he was simply pointing out the sensitivity of an issue. And when I asked him for clarification, he made that even clearer. If you don't mind getting into controversial areas, that's fine. But until you see someone in an article (not a talk page) add incorrect information because of political correctness, don't be so harsh about talk page comments. Talk pages are for discussing, and that's all Jonathan Tweet was doing. Sundayclose (talk) 21:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

single scholars OK?

When I cited E. P. Sanders on the crucifixion of Jesus, Farsight and St Anselm reverted me. Farsight said: "A scholar is not the same thing as scholarly CONSENSUS, thus undue weight." Above on this page, John Carter confirmed that it would be wrong to add what I added without evidence that it represents proportionate treatment, as seen in overview sources, and that the burden of evidence is on the person who wants to cite a single author. How do editors take that criticism? I thought that citing individual scholars would be OK, but three other editors say it's undue weight unless one can show that there's a consensus on the point. I'm happy to live with this rigorous standard, if that's what we decide. Should we as editors agree to follow this standard in the Historical Accounts section? Jonathan Tweet (talk) 15:04, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Without reference to the particular Sanders issue, I think the idea in WP:NPOV#Due_and_undue_weight is that we have to be careful not to give a minority perspective among scholars equal weight with a more prevailing opinion of scholars. That idea can be slippery to define. I think it would be unwieldy to cite 20 scholars simply to demonstrate that something is a widely held opinion. If one scholar summarizes the consensus of other scholars that would seem appropriate to me. But then what if there is disagreement on Misplaced Pages that the one scholar's summary accurately captures the consensus of scholars? Then consensus here would be necessary. On many Misplaced Pages articles that never is a problem. On controversial articles such as this one it occurs more often. Sundayclose (talk) 15:19, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

To chip in on this - In interpreting this policy (directly above) it would make sense to allow an editor to quote a particular scholar alone, if it is not obviously a point rejected by the majority of other scholars already. Not all scholars openly declare consensus with other scholars on every point they write and it would be unfair to expect an editor here to find PROOF of that for everything they quote from scholars. Thus, it should be "innocent until proven guilty" of offending on this point. Just my opinion on the interpretation of the policy.--Dayofrest12 (talk) 18:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

But getting back to my complaints above. Let me ask this, if we cannot quote scriptures alone, without scholars views on those exact same scriptures, where in the article should the scholars views be inserted? Must they be inserted directly after the scripture you inserted/quoted/refered to? In the same sentence? Same paragraph? Same article?

I ask this because there seem to be cases where this is NOT happening already (at least not in the same paragraph - and nobody has objected).--Dayofrest12 (talk) 18:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

My second question is as follows: (Please treat this totally separately as I am not using it to support my first point in any way). - - - What if there is an event mentioned in scripture, but not a single scholar throughout history has commented, or interpreted the verse in their own writings (or not to the knowledge of a particular Misplaced Pages editor). Should we not even quote that verse with "quotation marks" and no interpretation of our own attached? Should we automatically treat the verse as unreliable and unverifiable because it is not already uninterpreted by anyone? I am not saying we should be allowed to interpret the verse ourselves on Misplaced Pages and present our interpretation as truth. I am talking about merely quoting the verse in view of lack of analysis of the verse by scholars, with no analysis of our own either. If another editor THEREAFTER finds proof of adequate expert analysis of the said verse, instead of reverting the edit, the editor can insert analysis in addition to existing quote of the verse in order to improve the article rather that make it worse by just reverting the edit. I am sure it is not the intention of Misplaced Pages policies to restrict expansion of knowledge using such restrictive and unreasonable measures. - - - Regarding my proposals of certain scripture further above these paragraphs, to quote the scriptures I mentioned (without analysis in my own words, lets agree) - can anyone here find a single scholars interpretation which disproves the view presented in the quoted scriptures I mentioned, using secular historical sources, or archaeology, etc to disprove them. If not, then I don't see why they can't be quoted directly - as long as their is no analysis of my own present and scholarly analysis in included by anyone who can find any - if it even exists. Quoting scripture, does not mean the same as using it as proof that something occurred. It is simply using what you have got, opening it up to others analysis, when nothing else can be found.

Please can the editors commenting above answer both of my questions above.--Dayofrest12 (talk) 18:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

In answer to your second question, never state your own opinion on anything in any article on Misplaced Pages unless you are a recognized scholar and you are using your own publication as a source. And I can't think of any circumstance in which you would quote scripture if it was not in the context of scholarly interpretation. At best that would be a very odd non sequitur that adds nothing to the article; more likely it would suggest that the scripture supports some point but without scholarly support. As for not being able to find a scholar who "disproves" your personal point of view, it would then be unacceptable to conclude that your perspective can be included in a Misplaced Pages article since no one has provided sourced information that refutes your opinion. That would be a logical fallacy. Absence of proof is not proof of absence. We can never prove a negative because there is always the possibility that the negative exists but has not been found. If I say the moon is made of cheese and no one can find a sourced statement to the contrary, I cannot state in a Misplaced Pages article that the moon is made of cheese. I cannot state that scripture X has a meaning of Y simply because no one provides sourced evidence that refutes it. I have to find a source stating that scripture X means Y. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution. Sundayclose (talk) 22:48, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

"where in the article should the scholars views be inserted?": Read WP:CITE.There are different ways to do it. The most important thing is, wherever you put the citation, make sure it is clear which part of your edits the citation supports. If you think you need a citation after every sentence you edit, that is far better than providing no citation at all. There may be stylistic problems, but those are easily fixed. If in doubt, give the example on this talk page and I'm sure someone can help you out.

"I ask this because there seem to be cases where this is NOT happening already": If you mean that there are places where citations are not provided but should be, Misplaced Pages is always a work in progress, and there will always be bad edits (sometimes horrible edits) that go either undetected or unchallenged. We are all volunteers here, and none of us has the time to pore over every detail of every article trying to find problems, challenging them, or fixing them. But as the old saying goes, "Two wrongs don't make a right." Pointing out bad editing as an excuse for adding to the problems is the weakest excuse anyone can find for making bad edits. Feel free to point out where the problems are; if you feel strongly about a bad edit, try to fix it yourself; place a "citation needed" tag on anything that you think is inadequately sourced. But don't make poorly sourced edits simply because someone else did. Sundayclose (talk) 02:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

OK, I hear you Sundayclose. But then let me ask this: If these examples are allowed, as long as you include the disclaimer "citation needed" after each one, does that mean I can do the same and can also include quotations of scripture alone like others have done, but also include "citation needed" after the quote?--Dayofrest12 (talk) 19:50, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I don't think you intended what part of your question suggests, so first let me clarify something. The examples you mention are not offically "allowed". They just haven't been addressed (for the reasons I gave above about Wikipedians being volunteers). The answer to your question about adding a "citation needed" tag to your own edit is no, the "citation needed" tag is used when you find an unsourced edit by another editor and you are asking for someone to produce a citation or risk getting the edit reverted. It is simply a courtesy to give someone a little time to find a source before you remove the edit. The tag is not intended to allow an editor to add unsourced information at will merely by adding the tag, in effect trying to shift the responsibility for sourcing to another editor. As far as I know, adding a CN tag to your own edit isn't a policy violation, but it is very poor editing and in many cases pointless because the edit will be reverted. I don't mean this to be directed at you personally because you asked a legitimate question, but an editor who makes an unsourced edit with a CN tag is very likely a lazy editor who doesn't want to bother to find a source, or that editor may be hoping the edit will linger in the article for a period of time unsourced (in low traffic articles that could very well happen). Occasionally I have seen sincere editors put a CN tag after their own edit stating in the edit summary that the citation is pending. But "pending" does not mean indefinite. If I see an editor add a CN tag to his own edit, I usually will send a courtesy message explaining the above. If the source isn't added in a day or two, I revert the edit. So to summarize, don't quote scripture with no sourced scholarly context and then add a CN tag. As much traffic as this article gets and as controversial as it is, your edit probably won't stay in the article more than a few hours. Once again, feel free to add CN tags if you see unsourced edits made by others; that can be very useful in alerting others to find a citation, or to revert the edit if a source is not provided in a reasonable time. Thanks for asking for clarification. Sundayclose (talk) 21:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Sunayclose - for taking so much time in addressing my concerns and for the clarity used in your responses as well!!! I will make an effort to add CN tags to these sections when I find them quoting Bible scripture without following with scholars interpretation of that scripture. I will likewise remove those verses if the scriptural citations are not followed up by scholarly citations covering those same scriptural verses within a "reasonable amount of time". One a different side note: What is considered as a more reliable source, a gospel account of an event by first century Christian(s), or a Pagan/Roman historian(s) account of the same event. Assuming consensus among either group. I would like to know if either of them ALONE count as enough evidence to use ALONE as consensus in the same way as modern historian's consensus is enough to cite ALONE as evidence. Of course I ask this in light of yours and other editor's interpretation of existing Misplaced Pages policies on these matters.--Dayofrest12 (talk) 21:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

I hesitate to give an answer about which source is considered more reliable. I'm not a theologian or religion scholar, although I have developed some knowledge in those areas over the years. I believe, however, that modern scholars are much better equipped to provide the best interpretations of the scripture as well as the ancient sources simply because of all the advances in methodology over the last 2000 years. But I'll let others who feel more comfortable with that expertise address your question. If I personally doubted the reliability of a source in this article, I would discuss it on this talk page before challenging it. For more general information on reliability of sources, see WP:RS. Sundayclose (talk) 22:52, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

jesus was a bastard whom christians hold to be the son of god

It is requested that an edit be made to the semi-protected article at Jesus. (edit · history · last · links · protection log) This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y". The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{ESp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

The lead should say that "jesus was a bastard son of a whore" per WP:NPOV instead of saying that "he is believed by christians to be the son of god". The secular facts should come before the christian religious views.--31.219.124.176 (talk) 09:05, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha> tags or {{efn}} templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}} template or {{notelist}} template (see the help page).

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Misplaced Pages articles that use American English
• Misplaced Pages featured articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• Old requests for peer review
• Articles copy edited by the Guild of Copy Editors
• All unassessed articles
• FA-Class Religion articles
• Top-importance Religion articles
• WikiProject Religion articles
• FA-Class Christianity articles
• Top-importance Christianity articles
• FA-Class Christian theology articles
• Top-importance Christian theology articles
• Christian theology work group articles
• FA-Class Saints articles
• Top-importance Saints articles
• WikiProject Saints articles
• FA-Class Catholicism articles
• Top-importance Catholicism articles
• WikiProject Catholicism articles
• FA-Class Eastern Orthodoxy articles
• Unknown-importance Eastern Orthodoxy articles
• WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy articles
• FA-Class Oriental Orthodoxy articles
• Top-importance Oriental Orthodoxy articles
• WikiProject Oriental Orthodoxy articles
• FA-Class Jewish Christianity articles
• Top-importance Jewish Christianity articles
• WikiProject Jewish Christianity articles
• FA-Class Anglicanism articles
• Top-importance Anglicanism articles
• WikiProject Anglicanism articles
• FA-Class Latter Day Saint movement articles
• Top-importance Latter Day Saint movement articles
• WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement articles
• WikiProject Christianity articles
• FA-Class Islam-related articles
• Mid-importance Islam-related articles
• WikiProject Islam articles
• FA-Class biography articles
• FA-Class biography (core) articles
• Core biography articles
• Top-importance biography articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• FA-Class Bahá'í Faith articles
• High-importance Bahá'í Faith articles
• WikiProject Bahá'í Faith articles
• FA-Class Ancient Near East articles
• Mid-importance Ancient Near East articles
• Ancient Near East articles by assessment
• FA-Class Bible articles
• Top-importance Bible articles
• WikiProject Bible articles
• Misplaced Pages pages referenced by the press
• Misplaced Pages semi-protected edit requests