Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Noloop (talk | contribs) at 04:06, 20 July 2010 (→Historicity, legend, myth, etc.: delete canvassing, personal attacks, based on editing in different article). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Religion Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Christianity: Jesus / 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 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. Mythology High‑importance This article is supported by WikiProject Mythology. This project provides a central approach to Mythology-related subjects on Misplaced Pages. 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.MythologyWikipedia:WikiProject MythologyTemplate:WikiProject MythologyMythology High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Bible Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Template:WP1.0

Template:Controversial (history) Template:Pbneutral

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk:Jesus/archivebox

Recent Archive log

Complete archive key

• Talk:Jesus/Archive 97 Removal of spurious representations of Jesus' appearance, trilemma, Mandaean views,scripture removed from historical Jesus section, Vanadalism, Pictures of Jesus, The Truths About Yeshua, Ehrman on harmonies
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 98 Proposal, Possible NPOV Violation in the Geneology Section, first paragraph, at least three years in Jesus' Ministry, this article is too big.
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 99 Literature to be mentioned, Timeline of birth, four gospels, lead; nontrinitarianism, historical Jesus, Jesus as myth, Manichaeism, year of jesus's birth, Edit at top of Jesus page, Colored Yeshua, Image of Jesus which currently exists, Proposal
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 100 Historical Jesus, The To-Do Section, commenting out instead of deleting, 2008 Islamic movie on Jesus, Historical section/Christian views section, Laundry list of non-history scholars and works (alternative proposal), Its latin, isnt it?, this page may display a horizontal scroll bar in some browsers, Proposal on archives, First Section, The historical Jesus
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 101 Edit war over capitalization, Historical Evidence for Jesus' Homosexuality, Carlaude's Majority view, What exactly did Jesus save us from and how?; Carlaude's Majority view part two., Title, PRJS, Dazed and Confused, Why was Jesus baptised?, Dates, Infobox vs. the historical Jesus
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 102 religion founder, Other parameters, He is not God But rather a Demigod, Heavily christian-centric article, Jesus' Birthdate, Jesus in Scientology, Jesus name - Yeshua in Hebrew, means "Salvation" in English
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 103 Writing clean-up, Jesus name in Sanskrit, Reforem Judaism, Jesus and Manichaeism, Bertrand Russell and Friedrich Nietzsche, Recent removal, NPOV, Detail about Buddhist views of Jesus that does not make sense, The Religious perspectives section
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 104 Black Jesus, "Autobiography" of Jesus, Genealogy - Via What Father?, Addition to "Genealogy & Family", Resurrection, according to whom?, Bhavishya Purana, Christian history category, Quick Comment, BC/BCE?, The Truth, Was he any good at his day job?, In Popular Culture, jesus picture, views on Jesus and Muhamma, Occupation, New Dead Sea Discovery- Gabriel's Revelation, Some comments
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 105 Genealogy "reloaded", Place of birth, Which religions?, was jesus ever bar miztvahed?, Bot report : Found duplicate references !, Jesus and the lost tomb, Some believe that Jesus was of middle eastern ethnicity, and not a caucasian, Mispelled cat at the bottom of this talk page, Harmony, Dating system, "Transliteration"
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 106 8 B.C., ref name="HC13", Cause of death, Renewed Discussion Concerning AD/CE debate

Subpage Activity Log

• Discussion on Judaism's views moved to Talk:Jewish views of Jesus/Judaism's views of Jesus.
• Buried vs. entombed," alleged "lack of sources" archived to Talk:Jesus/Christian views in intro.
• New subpage created, Talk:Jesus/Historical Jesus, with several models of the historical Jesus and a list of sources.
• Baptism, blasphemy and sedition discussions moved to Talk:Jesus/2nd Paragraph Debate.
• Sudden move of Christ: discussion moved to Talk:Christ.
• Disputed tag and "Christian Mythology": moved to for relevancy reasons
• User:Andrew c/Jesus: sorting data b/w New Testament view on Jesus' life, Christian views of Jesus#Life, and Jesus#Life and teachings based on the Gospels.

Etymology section Issa and Isus? / Also leader, monk, archetypal, christianity based on sermon on the mount speech

Should there be a mention on the etymology section of names Issa or Isa as Arabic names and Isus or Isu as Egyption names? There is no mention at all of Arabic/Islamic/Muslim name of Jesus. The section lacks of this. Also the Egyptian name should be taken into work on progress.WillBildUnion (talk) 14:40, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Only because you want to work in references to Isis to fit your pet "Cleopatra and Caesarion" = "Mary and Jesus" theory. If you have reliable sources linking the etymology of "Isa" to Isis or Isu provide them. Paul B (talk) 14:49, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

What Paul said. --Ari (talk) 14:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

My edits on Cleopatra and Caesarion are completely not related subject to the question im asking here. I would not want in the article stand anything of son of Isis, the gospels do not mention Egyptian Isis, not in bible not in quran.

Issa/Isa should be mentioned as Arabic name. In the arab world Jesus is widely recognized as prophet, called Issa/Isa, but the article does not mention name Issa in the etymology section, however, latin, greek, english and hebrew translations are covered.WillBildUnion (talk) 15:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Jesus' native language was most likely Aramaic which is closely related to Hebrew. The lingua franca of Jesus' time was Greek, and all of the Gospels (the primary sources most closely associated with Jesus) are in Greek. Thus, having mention of Hebrew/Aramaic and Greek seem very on topic. The English name "Jesus" (note this is the English Misplaced Pages) came through the Latin, so mentioning Latin as well (in addition to being a large witness to the Gospel manuscript tradition) seems again on topic. We don't go into details of what Jesus' name is in languages like Japanese or Turkish or, say, Arabic. Jesus in Islam, Wiktionary, or ar:يسوع seem like better locations for your proposed information. If we were to add Arabic entymological information, where would it stop? Would we need to discuss Chinese? Hindi?-Andrew c  15:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

To many, it does not seem off-topic. In addition to the 4 gospels, quran is a notable source of Yeshua's life (as well as Talmuds and the apocrypha), and quran is read by millions of english speaking arabs/muslims, and they don't find mention of their Issa in here.WillBildUnion (talk) 16:09, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

This is the English Wiki. It should reflect that. The primary entymology should be Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek since those were the most likely used at the time. As was already mentioned this is not the place to list all the derivations in every language. The place for that would be in their respective wiki pages. Marauder40 (talk) 16:33, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

No historian uses the Quran as a source on Jesus' life. Th largest (population) Islamic ountries are Pakistan (national languages: Urdu and English) and Indonesia (national language: Indonesian) ... so should we provide jesus' name in Indonesian and in Urdu? YES!!! in the Indonesian and urdu Wikipedias. 18:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Issa or Isa are english translations of Arabic name of Jesus. The western world is populated by great percentage of arabs and muslims. These users use english wikipedia.

There are no coherent opinions to leave etymology Issa out of the article.

Not to mention that the area of were Jesus did his ministry, was largely populated by arabs at the time, and still are.

Coherent opposition lacks.WillBildUnion (talk) 19:07, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Your edits to the lead violate many issues with WP:Lead including the fact they are stated in the lead but not referenced anywhere in the article. The lead is supposed to be an introduction and a teaser for what is found in the article. Also stating things like "Christian belef is largely based on Sermon on the Mount" is POV. Many say Christian belief is based on the entire life and teaching of Christ. Not just the Sermon on the mount. You are adding unreferenced things to the lead that are not backed up either in a reference or in the body of the article. Also by WP:Bold you are supposed to discuss any issues that people are reverting. Marauder40 (talk) 20:11, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

How much a catholic christian you are not? Sermon on the mount is his main work main speech, this is where christianity is based on. In the article it was written: "Nonetheless, Jesus was and is a leading and archetypal monk of christian faith and all its branches. Christian belief, christian movement, is largely based on Sermon on the Mount speech." You must know what archetypal means? his life and teachings.WillBildUnion (talk) 20:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what type of "Catholic Christian" I am. You are not following the policies of Misplaced Pages concerning WP:Lead, WP:NPOV and a few others. Why don't you try adding what you are doing to the body of the article instead of the lead? The lead is a summary of things that are discussed in the article. What you are adding isn't currently in the article so it shouldn't appear in the lead. Also you should read about WP:Bold because if someone disagrees with a Bold edit you are supposed to discuss it before reverting it and getting into a edit war. Marauder40 (talk) 20:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

He was living in the Essene community. That makes him an Essenean monk.WillBildUnion (talk) 02:29, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

No he wasn't. For starters he ate meat (lamb and fish), whereas the Essenes were vegetarian. 02:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

The Essenes also stayed out of towns and would never have gone to the Temple. Jesus spent a lot of time in town, and went to the Temple pretty often. The Gospels also are clear that Mary and Joseph observed the rituals for a new-born at the Temple, a temple which the Essenes believed was lead by corrupt officials. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

According to canon and apocrypha, he went to the temple with the Galilee and Essene crowd to proclaim his message. To the meat thing, lamb and fish have symbolic meaning, not that he ate them. Or how many of you eat the body of christ and drink his blood? Nevertheless, there is no mention of him eating meat.WillBildUnion (talk) 03:00, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Galilee was a region, not a group. The Essenes are not mentioned in the Bible. You have no evidence that he did not eat meat. There is mention in the Bible of Jesus eating meat.

Exodus 12:3, 12:8 - ...On the tenth of this month every man shall take for himself a lamb, according to the house of his father, a lamb for his household... ...Then they shall eat the flesh on that night; roasted in fire... - On Passover, you eat lamb.

Luke 22:15 - Then He said to them, "With fervent desire I have desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer" - Jesus celebrated Passover.

On Passover, you eat lamb. Jesus celebrated Passover. Ergo, Jesus ate Lamb. If you don't accept that, there's Luke 24:42-43 - So they gave Him a piece of broiled fish and some honeycomb. And He took it and ate in their presence. The idea that this is symbolic does not argue against the idea of Jesus eating meat. However, it is a symbol that would have been abhorrent to the Essenes, indicating that Jesus and most of his early followers probably weren't strictly and totally Essene. Ian.thomson (talk) 03:16, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Even Pope Benedict himself says it is just a theory that Jesus was an Essene. Cardinal Albert Vanhoye commented on this theory saying "Even if Jesus was able to feel sympathy for the Essenes, who were very pious, his mentality was very different from theirs because they were very attached to ritual observances, which he wasn’t. Vanhoye noted that the opinion of the pope, who was referring to a theory already advanced by some experts, was an intellectual musing rather than a pronouncement with all the authority of papal infallibility." http://www.ejpress.org/article/15698 As I said before this doesn't belong in the lead and should be in the main part of the article with all the appropriate clarifications and references. Marauder40 (talk) 13:10, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Have removed the Pope's comment. Have not heard of any scholarly opinion that supports it. 02:11, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

In exodus they refer to lamb and passover, it might be a symbol, not actually eating the animal. Luke mentions Jesus celebrated passover, of course, the spring solstice, but it does not say Jesus ate an animal. Lamb is a very symbolic in bible and it means humans, caretaking others. Also fish is very symbolic in bible, also meaning humans. However, there is some indication Jesus might of eaten fish. But you are making false assumptions. For example, Jesus had few times sex with his half sister -> Jesus was in incest sexual intercourse most of his life. Or, Jesus had few times sex with Thomas Judas Didymus -> Jesus was homosexual. No conclusion cant be made what he was. You are basing it on very loose and shaky ground that Jesus was not a vegetarian.

Qumran and Nag-hammadi scholars agree Jesus was an Essene. And the Pope has jumped into this scientific bandwagon. As Misplaced Pages is encyclopedia, all editors of this article perhaps needs a reminder, bear in mind, that the 4 gospels are not the only sources and references to write this article.WillBildUnion (talk) 16:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I know Galilee was a region, why take your time with small unnecessary details? Surely I meant Essenes and the crowd _from Galilee_, not the actual region, or all of it's inhabitants. Surely it is understandable that I meant crowd from Galilee who had heard Jesus preach for em, ok? —Preceding unsigned comment added by WillBildUnion (talk • contribs) 18:45, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I was just watching this National Geographic program "The Truth Behind the Dead Sea Scrolls". The program lists a lot of differences between Jesus and the Essenes (Jesus hung out with lepers, sinners, tax collections, and taught to love thy enemy, while the Essenes shunned all those, etc) and then goes on to show Dr. Eric Cline saying there is no evidence Jesus was an Essene, and the most scholars are willing to say is that John the Baptist might have been an Essene, but it's difficult if not impossible to actually link Jesus himself With the Essenes. Just thought I'd mention this since it reminded me of this. Qumran and Nag-hammadi scholars agree Jesus was an Essene simply isn't true unless NatGeo had some strong selection bias, which I doubt strongly. -Andrew c  02:59, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Essenes were an older group formed long before birth of Jesus. Jesus hang out with Essenes as much as with lepers etc. Essenes influenced the ideology of Jesus, hence, a new group formed from Essenes: the Nazoreans. Anyhow it is questionable, as Essenes were healers surely Essenes also spent time with lepers and sinners. Yes, Jesus was a rebel, he wasnt a hardcore Essene which is why Nazorean group broke out from Essene ideology. During the times of Jesus there were mainly 4 groups in the area of Palestine: Pharisees, Sadducees, Esseneans and Zealots. Bible only makes a clear refers to pharisees and sadducees, Jesus was not both of these. What is left are Essene and Zealots, and John the baptist being an Essene, it doesn't leave much to assumptions.

1. The ideology of Jesus was influenced by Essene community. He also got an Essene baptisment. 2. Essene were healers with similar skills and methodology as Egyptian and Indian healers. Jesus was a healer. 3. From the Essene broke out nazorean group led by Jesus. It was a spiritual movement. 4. Zealots. Attacking the money lenders in the temple was a Zealot action. Disciples like Peter and Matthew were Zealots. The rivalry with Zealots and Essene Mary Magdalene being there in the middle were an early acts towards what later became canon. 5. Jesus based his ministry and succession to two groups, sort of a divide and conquer, order out of chaos, Essene/Nazorean being a spiritual movement, a backdrop, when the Zealots were a frontal group. 6. Jesus wanted a revolution, and it took longer than his lifetime. But he achieved at least some of it. And he only used a very basic setting of two groups: spiritual front and rebel front.WillBildUnion (talk) 12:25, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

You are topic banned from this article . I recommend you revert the above edit (on the merits of which I make no comment) before an administrator decides to take some action against you.Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:35, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Elen, I just blocked him for three days. I hope he will study other talk pages to learn how they are best used to improve articles, or peruse the encyclopedia to find other articles he can work on. In the meantime, since he violated the topic ban, I have blocked him to try to get him to put his mind on a more fruitful track. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:19, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I think because it had been archived at ANI he thought it was forgotten. I hoped that if I reminded him he'd instantly revert it (I reminded him within 10 minutes of posting). However he didn't. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:21, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Blocks are not supposed to be punitive, but I do hope tis makes it clear to him that these things have to be taken serioiusly. If the post above is all that he is coming to WP for perhaps at some point he will be banned. I'm all for giving him another chance; my hope is that three days is enough to make him want to take a more constructive approach to editing. But we all have to kep an eye on him, I am glad you called attention to the above. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:30, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Sexuality and Gender

Clearly this individual was homosexual, why is this not pointed out on the main page? His orgies were very famous and the main reason for his liqudation, to avoid the blackmail he was involved in vis a vi the Roman soldiers with whom he was involved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.6.12.124 (talk) 21:46, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

NPOV in lede section

I believe that this sentence:

"Judaism rejects Jesus' prophethood, arguing that he did not fulfill the Messianic prophecies in the Tanakh" is POV.

The lede gives the viewpoint of all major religions, but only for Judaism does it give an argument for those beliefs, and is therefore apologetics.

Does anyone see a reason to keep this information in the lede? The information already appears in the body of the article. Flash 08:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the well-chosen words should stay in the lede. They are embellished upon in a later section, and they are crucial to the following words about the Islamic interpretation.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  08:23, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for discussing on the talk page.

Your response did not touch on the most crucial point. Why should the lede give an argument for only one religion's belief? Flash 08:32, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Truthfully, I'm on the fence regarding the word "arguing". I believe the statement is meant merely as a brief description rather than an argument. Maybe if it were to be altered like this...

"Because Jesus did not fulfill the Messianic prophecies of the Tanakh, Judaism rejects his prophethood, whereas . . ."

Keep in mind that there are more subtle "arguments" and "apologies" throughout the lede, so this descriptive "reason" for Judaism's rejection is essentially NPOV.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  08:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the formulation "because Jesus did not fulfill the Messianic prophecies" would be POV, because it asserts as fact that he didn't, which Christians and Muslims would dispute. As currently phrased the sentence presents the position as a view within Judaism. Furthemore saying that Jews consider that he was a "false prophet", as preferred by Flash, imples that they all accept that he claimed to be a prophet and that what he prophesised was false. Well, I'd suggest that many Jewish scholars would see Jesus as as figure within Jewish culture at the time, whose life took on new meaning in stories and claims after his death; so they would not necessarily make such clear cut claims about what he actually believed about himself. Paul B (talk) 08:53, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

How is it NPOV to explicitly state an argument for only one religion's belief? There is a huge difference between supposed "subtle" arguments and one that is plainly stated. Flash 09:02, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't really follow your objection. The current wording says "Judaism rejects Jesus' prophethood, arguing that he did not fulfill...". That is different from saying that he was a false prophet. It a rejection of claims made on his behalf, not necessarily an assertion about the actual Jesus. The rest is a very brief explanation that follows from the much longer explanation of why Christians think he was the Messiah prophesised. IMHO, this is hardly bias towards the Jewish view. Paul B (talk) 09:38, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The Christianity section does not give an argument defending their beliefs. The Judaism sentence is the only one in the lede which explicitly gives a specific argument. The first part of the sentence sums up what Judaism believes; the second is pure apologetics. Flash 10:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree in that all the Judaism sentence gives is a source for the rejection. The entire 2nd paragraph of the lede, and much of the rest of the lede gives sources for the Christian belief. The judaism sentence merely gives a source for the disbelief that Jesus was the Messiah. In this respect it is no different from the second paragraph of the lede.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  11:30, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

The Judaism sentence gives a reason, an argument, for the belief, and is therefore apologetics. The Christian section doesn't give arguments, such as, "arguing that Jesus has fulfilled or will fulfill the Messianic Prophecies" or "arguing that the historical evidence suggests that Jesus resurrected".

I'm making a distinction between stating what the belief IS, and stating an argument which supports that belief. Flash 12:49, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I do understand, however the entire second paragraph is a subtle "argument" that supports the Christian belief, isn't it? I see no difference other than the word "arguing". If you can leave the entire statement alone and find another word for "arguing", that might work. However, I personally think it's a pretty big leap from "arguing" to "apologetics".

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  13:57, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Talk about apologetics, what does this sentence mean to you: came to provide humankind with salvation and reconciliation with God by his death for their sins. Furthermore, what is the difference between Most Christian scholars today present Jesus as the awaited Messiah and Judaism ... argu that he did not fulfill the Messianic prophecies in the Tanakh. If we change "present" to "argue" or vice versa, they are nearly identical claims (identical opposites). Switch "awaited Messiah" for "Messianic prophecies"... really, there is great parity between those sentences. I can't see how you can read the entire paragraph on Christian belief, and then claim the one sentence about Judaism in the lead is doing something more than what the entire previous Christian paragraph did. I see no such "Jewish Apologetics". -Andrew c  14:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

No, the opposite of "Most Christian scholars today present Jesus as the awaited Messiah" would be:

Judaism does not view Jesus as the Messiah.

There is a difference between the belief itself and the reasoning or argument behind the belief. Flash 23:05, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I really think it is semantics at this point. What does it mean to be "the awaited Messiah"? Is this referencing say Messianic prophecies found in the Tanakh? Is it referencing anything more? Anything less? The exact opposite of your proposed sentence would be "Christians view Jesus as the Messiah". When we introduce arguments (or presentations) made by Christian scholars in regards to a theological concept derived from Judaism and their ancient texts, such as the "awaited Messiah", I believe you are doing more than simply presenting belief. But then again, I wouldn't agree with you that the Judaism sentence is going above and beyond what the Christian paragraph did. But even if we grant that there is something more, I don't see how that is problematic. Is the sentence inaccurate? Is there something problematic with the presentation or facts of the sentence? I don't think that is the issue. Just out of curiosity, is there a sentence or two that you can think up that we could hypothetically add to the Christian paragraph that present reasoning and arguments for their beliefs?-Andrew c  23:22, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, "awaited Messiah" is not an argument. Where do you see the Christian paragraph presenting arguments?

If arguments are added to every belief, the lead would be unreadable.

The sentence is not inaccurate, and appears in the body of the article, but stating the arguments of only one religion's beliefs is POV.

The sentence can easily present what Judaism believes without going into arguments, such as, "Judaism believes that Jesus is the not the awaited Messiah" Flash 23:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Sorry. -Andrew c  02:09, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

NPOV is the perhaps the most important aspect of wikipedia. I was hoping you would defend and clarify your position. Nevertheless, thanks for discussing on the talk page. Flash 13:58, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry I did not convey my position adequately enough. Or I'm sorry I couldn't convince you. I believe I have put forth my position, and that continuing this discussion wouldn't be productive. To repeat, I don't agree with your assessment that the one single sentence about Judaism is presenting a detailed argument and rationale behind a belief, while the entire paragraph devoted to the Christian section is doing nothing of the sort. Saying "Jesus is the awaited Messiah" and "Jesis is not the awaited Messiah" is really really similar to "Jesus fulfilled messianic prophecies" and "Jesus did not fulfill messianic prophecies". To me, it comes down to minor semantic issues. I don't see any NPOV violation, and I don't believe you have made a convincing case (and it doesn't seem like anyone else agrees). Sorry. -Andrew c  19:54, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying.

I disagree with you in that I believe the sentence, "arguing that he did not fulfill the Messianic prophecies" is giving an argument. I see that as a NPOV violation, you clearly do not. I believe discussion is still productive in determining what should go in the article even if there is a disagreement about NPOV.

Why do you oppose making the sentence in both sections the same? As I said earlier, changing the sentence to "Judaism does not believe Jesus to be the Messiah" summarizes their beliefs without referring to an argument. Flash 00:25, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Explaining why Jews don't recognize Jesus as the Messiah makes perfect sense in the lead. There's nothing in NPOV about not explaining reasons for different perspectives. Leadwind (talk) 01:18, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

There are reasons and arguments behind many of the Christian beliefs as well. Why should the Judaism section be treated differently? Flash 02:00, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

You just keep repeating the same statement over and over. There is an entire paragraph devoted to the Christian view. The fact that it does not use the word "argue", but has "present" and other words instead does not mean it is not putting the Christian argument. It is. The one sentence devoted to Judaism is essentially a very short respose to the previous para, "aruging" is a actually a modest, tentative word in contrast to - say - "asserting". Paul B (talk) 08:44, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

There is a difference between belief and argument. Where, specifically, do you see the christian paragraph presenting the argument? Jesus is (or is not) the messiah is a belief. Whether he fulfilled (or did not) the prophecies is a reason behind those beliefs. I am simply advocating both sections be phrased very similarily. Flash 09:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

This sounds like splitting hairs to me. Christianity "views him as the Messiah foretold in the Old Testament", which implies that Christians see him as fulfilling those foretellings - or are you arguing that the reader could get the impression that Christians see him as the Messiah foretold in the Old Testament despite not fulfilling said prophecies? Huon (talk) 11:30, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

I didn't get that impression when I first read it. It certainly implies that, but one needs at least some basic knowledge of messianic prophecies and to read into the text a bit to get the implied message.

I would be OK with the sentence saying: Judaism "does not view Jesus as the Messiah foretold in the Old Testament" Flash 13:47, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I misunderstand you, but are you saying that instead of clarifying Christianity's views, we should de-clarify Judaism's? While that could be seen as "neutral", it seems counterproductive. Huon (talk) 14:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Judaism "does not view Jesus as the Messiah foretold in the Old Testament" is neither ambiguous nor confusing, and it sums up the beliefs of Judaism. I am advocating that the lead does not contain sentences such as Religion A believes x, arguing y. Flash 06:17, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see a problem with the wording you object to. I argued above that, while using different wording, we say the same about Christianity's opinion, namely, that Christianity sees Jesus as the Messiah because he fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies. I don't think NPOV requires us to use templates for our sentences without variation. On the other hand, the Judaism sentence seems a little awkward to me. If I read it correctly, it makes two different points: Jesus is believed not to be a prophet in general, and not the Messiah in particular. Thus, the "arguing..." part does not actually provide an argument for the "not a prophet" part. Or am I mistaken? Huon (talk) 10:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I argued previously that I believe the Christianity and Judaism sentences were substantially different, in that it is very difficult to deduce "fulfilled Messianic prophecies" from "foretold in the Old Testament".

To me, it is more natural to say that Christians believe Jesus to be the Messiah foretold in the Old Testament because they believe he fulfilled the Messianic prophecies, and so the fulfillment is the reason behind the belief.

I am confused about the wording as well, it seems that the editor who wrote that sentence used "Messiah" and "prophet" interchangeably, and the sentence does not directly say Judaism believes Jesus is not the Messiah. Flash 12:06, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd consider "is the Messiah as foretold" and "fulfilled the Messianic prophecies" as synonymous, but if you feel otherwise (can you explain the difference?), we should indeed clarify that Christians believe he fulfilled the prophecies instead of making it difficult to deduce that Jews believe he didn't fulfill them - as you now say we'd do if we followed your suggested wording for that paragraph. Huon (talk) 12:28, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

To me, "is the Messiah foretold in the Old Testament" says that Christianity sees him as the Messiah, but does not specify why. It's simply a belief.

Christianity could have believed him to be the foretold Messiah simply because they see him as divine or have miraculous powers, and that Messianic prophecies could be fulfilled later. So the messianic prophecies may have nothing to do with why Christianity believes him to be the Messiah.

"fulfilled the Messianic prophecies" is not even a belief, it is more of a condition. Someone who haven't fulfilled the prophecies could be believed to fulfill them in the future, and so "have not fulfilled" does not necessarily mean "not the Messiah".

Therefore, one is not equal to the other.

The reasons behind believing whether Jesus is the Messiah is not limited to the Messianic prophecies. Flash 13:00, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, now I see what you mean. How about "... which views him as the Messiah, having fulfilled the prophecies of the Old Testament, ..." instead of " ...which views him as the Messiah foretold in the Old Testament, ..." in the first sentence? Actually, do all Christians really believe Jesus has already fulfilled the prophecies, or are there significant groups who believe that he is the Messiah, but has some work yet to do? In that case, "fulfilling" may be better than "having fulfilled". Anyway, should we also clarify that Jews don't see him as the Messiah? Huon (talk) 13:25, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The Old Testamant may be an importan point of reference in describint Christian beliefs. When it coms to Jewish beliefs however the Old testament is irrelevant; since Judaism does not accept an "Old Testament," we cannot refer to the old Testament to say anything about Jewish beliefs. As with AndrewC, PaulB and othersI must say, I have yet to see an explanation as to how the current phrasing violates NPOV. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:23, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it's not an NPOV problem as much as a lack of clarity. My suggested modification was meant for the first sentence, which reads in part "the central figure of Christianity, which views him as the Messiah foretold in the Old Testament". If I understand Flash correctly, we should mention both that Christians believe Jesus is the Messiah, and that they believe he fulfilled the Messianic prophecies (in what Christians call the OT). Conversely, we currently say a few paragraphs later that Jews don't believe Jesus fulfilled the prophecies, but don't explicitly say they also don't believe he's the Messiah. We don't say anything about Judaism and the OT, and I wasn't suggesting we should. Huon (talk) 15:36, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Oky, I see what you are saying, Slrubenstein | Talk 15:41, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

However, since we do mention the views of Islam and the Baha'i Faith, and since Christianity arose out of Judaism, should we not include a sentence that states the position of Judaism as well, for completeness? Wdford (talk) 17:14, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I would say that since Jesus was the leader of a Jewish sect and that Christianity became a distinct religion by breaking with Judaism, it is important to restore to the first paragraph a line on the Jewish view. Also, I added the word "messiah" to the sentence on the Jewish view later down, since what Jews really care about is the claim that he was a messiah, more than any claim about prophecy. These cannot be NPOV violations: adding attributed views is never a violation of NPOV. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The "foretold in the Old Testament" is an important clarifier to disambiguate between different Messiahs. The fulfillment of Messianic prophecies, as I previous said, is more of a condition. Christians don't necessarily believe he fulfilled those prophecies, and that they believe he will fulfill them later. Furthermore, why Judaism rejects Jesus goes far beyond prophecies, it is also due to the fact that Jesus rejected the Law in the Torah, and established a new Covenant. The Judaism section in the body also gives some other reasons.

The sentence not only singles out a particular reason, it also would be the only place in the lead where reasoning behind beliefs is discussed.

And Judaism is already mentioned in the last paragraph of the lead. As you previously said, Slrubenstein, Judaism really have no view of Jesus, and it is fitting that it is mentioned last. Flash 22:13, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Flash that this is apologetics for Judaism and not really called for in the article lead. POV would seem to be the only reason to include it there. 23:27, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

The first paragraph has the views of major Abrahamic religions, and the lead then has mor detailed paragraphs, generally giving more space to those religions in which he counts for more. There was a line for judaism in the first paragraph for a very long time I see no reason to delete it. My only concern is that it say that judaism rejects claims that he is the messiah. as to why Christians believed or still believe he is the messiah, I am not trying to make any claims one way or the other about that. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:52, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Rever Flash, you say I should not make changes without discussing them here. Except i do discuss them here, i discuss them above. But you ignored my expanation and just restored your own version. Now, you should not delete what i wrote on the article page without responding to what I wrote on the talk page. You are insisting on a version that violates NPOV, and that misrepresents Judaism. Yet you have not even tried to defend either of these! Try responding to my talk, and see if we can reach an agreement, before you impose your POV on the articleSlrubenstein | Talk 23:56, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Judaism simply rejects Jesus, and therefore really doesn't have a view on him, even you said that earlier. There is absolutely no reason to include it twice in the lead. Please reach an agreement on talk before making changes. Unilaterally making changes before an agreement is reached upon is counter-productive.

I have said repeatedly why I think the sentence is POV: it is the only sentence where a reason/argument is presented which supports a religion's belief. Flash 00:23, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

That does not explain why the sentence violates NPOV. Providing the reason is essential, since Christianity established itself through reasons relating to Judaism. The vast bulk of the article goves much attention to these reasons. As to Judaism "simply" rejecting Jesus, you are being anachronistic. Judaism has little to say about Jesus today but for a great deal of the Middle Ages most Jewish philosophers were asked by Christians to provide their reasons for rejecting Jesus, and did so. Judaism's reasons for rejecting Jesus were important to those Christians, and are important now, because jesus first preached to Jews. Now, even if you disagreed with all my points, that woulod still not be enough to explain how the sentence violates our NPOV policy. you have to be more specific. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:37, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I have repeatedly said that giving an argument or reason behind just one religion's belief is POV. Please do not simply ignore what I have said.

Furthermore, please stop making unilateral changes before the discussion has concluded. First, it makes no sense to include the exact same information in the lead twice. Not only that, the word "claims" implies questionable credibility. Flash 11:30, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Reaver you keep removing material that was in the article for a very long time without any consensus. Stop doing that. You have removed the statement that Jews do not share the views of Christians and Muslims. Why? Is it false? Why do you wish to exclude this point of view? Do you not know that the only way we achieve NPOV is by adding multiple views? you have also removed the specific claim that jews reject jesus as messiah. Why? Again, you seem determined to exclude the jewish view from the article. YOU WILL NOT CENSOR WIKIPEDIA. You MUST comply with NPOV. This means including views, even the Jewish view you seem not to like.

"I have repeatedly said that giving an argument or reason behind just one religion's belief is POV." So what? of course it is POV, just as stating that Christians believe jesus is the messiah is POV and that Muslims believe Jewsus is a prophet is POV. All of these are POVs. Please read out NPOV policy again. Articles must comply with NPOV and one way we do that is by including different points of view. So your "repeated" statement is simply a reason for putting it in the article. You have yet to justify your deletions in any way. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:27, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I gave you the reasons why I objected to your edits: First, it makes no sense to include the exact same information in the lead twice. Not only that, the word "claims" implies questionable credibility.

Please do not simply ignore what I said and label my edits as "censoring". Making unilateral edits in an ongoing discussion is also very counter-productive.

And only giving arguments or reasons behind one belief is POV, and violates NPOV. Giving POVs does not mean you can add information indiscriminately, especially in the lede where information are supposed to be very general. Flash 23:42, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

It appears to me that Slrubenstein's edits are to portions of the text that you do not contest. Unless I have read too quickly, you chiefly contest usage of the word "argue". His edits are meant to clarify WHAT the Jewish position IS, not why, and do not affect your dispute with about "argue". I think it is quite reasonable & NPOV for the lede to briefly say WHY Jews do not think Jesus was the Messiah--JimWae (talk) 00:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

There are many reasons why Jews reject Jesus as the Messiah and why Christianity accepts Jesus as the Messiah. The lead is already quite long, and the lede would become almost unreadable if all the relevant arguments are added to it. Such specific information belongs in the body of the article. My main objection is therefore, not the word "argue".

I contested Slrubenstein's edits because they are repetitive, and add specific information to parts of the first paragraph, where only general information are supposed to be presented. Flash 00:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

There is far more in the lede about Islam's views AND some of it is also repetitious. The repetition comes about because sometimes the first paragraph introduces other parts of the lede--JimWae (talk) 01:01, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

The lone argument presented in the lead is also problematic. Why should the argument of only one religion be presented? Arguments such as "he did not fulfill Messianic prophecies" or "he will fulfill them at the second coming" should go in the body of the article. Flash 01:39, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Repetitious info on Islam's views is not the issue. Repetition on one thing is no reason to keep repetition on another. That said, feel free to remove an excess on Islam's views and/or discuss elsewhere if need be.

I mostly see no one addressing (or understanding?) Flash's view. 05:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

particular text

Maybe if a partictular text was proposed here it can help move things along. 05:32, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I support this proposal. It presents the views concisely and neutrally. Flash 06:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a bit more informative than that, yet avoids the word "argue":

Judaism rejects assertions that Jesus was the awaited Messiah, maintaining the Messianic prophecies in the Tanakh were not fulfilled.--JimWae (talk) 06:35, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Copying the entire Judaism section into the lead would be more informative as well.

Why do you support introducing arguments or reasons behind beliefs into the lead, where information presented are supposed to be very general?

Also note there are several reasons why Christians accept Jesus as the Messiah and several why Jews do not. Flash 06:46, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

We could just say "Judaism does not think Jesus was the Messiah" - but that is too cursory. There's plenty of detail in the lede already, these 10 words are as informative as just about any other 10 words there. And they are still general - they do not, for example, say which Messianic expectations were not fulfilled. Since Christianity grew out of Judaism, any Jewish position on Jesus is very relevant. --JimWae (talk) 07:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

There are no other arguments/reasons behind beliefs in the lead. Why do you propose to introduce them? They do not add any information about what Judaism actually believes, they just present an argument which defends it, and is therefore, apologetics. The information is general; a reason which supports a belief is not general.

If you do intend to introduce arguments into the lead, keep in mind there are several reasons why Christians accept Jesus as the Messiah and several why Jews do not. Flash 07:16, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

YOu insist using the word "argument" somehow violates NPOV policy. You keep repeating this, ad nauseum, as if it meant something. What part of the NPOV policy rejects the use of the word "argues?" Plase quote the portion o policy you are refering to. I cannot find it. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:59, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

A text can be an argument without the use of the word "argument."

It is POV to include an argument here because there aren't any counter-arguments included here. 18:48, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. It is really, really POV to say Jesus was born of a virgin, so we should remove that from the lead because we don't have counter arguments. We shouldn't say he came to save sinners either, because that is extremely offensive to non-Christian (or at least an outright lie) so without a counter to that, it's incredibly POV and should be removed. In fact, we should strike the whole Christian paragraph from suffering from POV, because we don't balance it with the scientific, atheistic, Jewish, Muslim, and other POVs. Heck, we should probably not say he was a historical figure in the lead either, because that is POV and those crazy Jesus mythers would disagree. Of course I am not serious about any of the above, but then again, I don't see why you two are so hung up on the concept of "argument". I don't see the difference between the presentation of the Christian views, and our sentence on the Jewish view. Saying there is an argument, and that it is POV, doesn't make it so (or doesn't make it a bad thing). I don't feel like when reading it there is any imbalance between the various views presented in the lead. Perhaps we need to have a RfC, and ask the reader if they think the one sentence on Jewish views violations undue weight, or is otherwise inappropriate when compared to the paragraph on Christian views... -Andrew c  19:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

So do we have consensus? I can delete the material on virgin birth, saving sinners, etc from the lead to sae it for the body where we can deal with such controversial material. Does anyone object? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:44, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe Andrew is being sarcastic. The lead is supposed to be a summary and introduction to the article, not a place for arguements, etc. If it is a summary to x, y, and z in the lead that is fine. There is no reason to have every arguement in the core of the document in the lead otherwise it isn't a summary. Marauder40 (talk) 20:10, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I believe SLR is being sarcastic. Marauder40, do you think the one sentence on Judaism currently in the lead is appropriate or problematic based on your notion of "summary" vs. "arguements"? I'm just trying to get down to specifics, and how your comment can be related to the current debate in this thread. Thanks!-Andrew c  21:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

I personally don't see a problem with including and only including the Jewish counter-arguement due to the fact that Jesus was Jewish and either he claimed or was claimed to be (depending on how you view the theology) to be the Jewish Messiah. He wasn't claimed to be the Messiah of any other religion whether it existed at the time or not. Clarification on how each of the individual religions view Jesus can happen in the body but I don't think it is needed in the lead. If we want to include some summary a simple sentence could be added that says other religions have differing views of Jesus' importance or something like that. Marauder40 (talk) 12:54, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Just because the text is one sentence long doesn't mean it's not problematic.

Andrew, please understand the distinction between a belief (e.g. virgin birth, Jesus is the Messiah, Jesus is not the Messiah) and an argument or reason to support that belief (e.g. Jesus did/didn't fulfill Messianic prophecies).

Currently, the Judaism sentence contains the only argument in the lead, and the Judaism is the only section that is supported by an argument. Flash 22:38, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

It is fine to say "most Christian denominations believe him to be X, Y, and Z" and to say "...Judaism does think Jesus is not-X" but it is something different to say "so-and-so believes this because of such-and-such." -- Now I think it could be fine to give arguments for the Christian view-- because Jesus is hardly noteworth without Christianity-- but this no NPOV reason to have the arguments for Judaism's view only. 00:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

What would such arguments reasons look like? Could it be given in 10 words or less? 30 words or less? JimWae (talk) 00:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Reasons that could be added are:

Jesus fulfilled Messianic prophecies resurrection is the best explanation for historical evidence

Since Jesus is the central figure of Christianity, the christianity section should have more reasons given.

I would rather put all the reasons/arguments into the body instead of further expanding an already length lead section. Flash 01:11, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not proposing we add any arguments for the Christian view. That would add to a already long lead section, and would require starting this whole discussion again from scratch. I recommend the text in the blue quotes above. I am just indicating how "reasons" or "arguments" here for Judaism's beliefs are POV. They are arguments only for one POV. 07:41, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Flash writes, "Andrew, please understand the distinction between a belief (e.g. virgin birth, Jesus is the Messiah, Jesus is not the Messiah) and an argument" but this is the problem - Christians have beliefs, Jews have arguments. What I mean is, that christian views take the form of beliefs, and Jewish views take the form of arguments. If you wish to give equal space to Jewish and Christian views, some will take the form of arguments, and others, beliefs. This is because of a difference between Judaism and Christianity. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

First, read what apologetics is.

Second, such a prejudiced posting dosen't even help improve the article-- which is the only reason for this discussion page-- even if you do really "think" your post to be true.

Thrid, this would be yet another attempt to troll for unproduction diatribes and rabbit trails-- hoping reasonable people will tire and leave-- since such there is evidently no good or genuine purpose to keep this POV in the lead, for such people to discuss anymore. 17:42, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Apologetics for only one religion's beliefs clearly violates NPOV. I see no reason to keep the sole argument in the lead, which was only added recently by a previously banned sockpuppet. Flash 08:32, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

You guys can spout however much rhetoric as you want. NPOV is our policy. It says that al signficiant views belong in an article. You think that only those views that take the form of "beliefs" count, when another group of people's views don't count because they take the form of "arguments." that is just your own prejudice. You cannot keep Jewish views out just because they do not take a form you approve of. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:22, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

The Judaism view would be included even if the argument is removed. The policy you cited is hardly relevant in the discussion. Please respond to what I wrote. Why should the lead include apologetics for only one religion's beliefs? Flash 11:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying that I added apologestics to the article? Do you have any evidence? Please provide the edit difference in which I added apologetics. Now, here is an edit difference for where YOU reverted me: And this is what you deleted: you deleted my adding the Jewish view alongside the Christian and Muslim view, and you deleted my saying that the Jewish view is that Jesus was not the Messiah. You did not delete any apologetics. That is because I did not add any apologetics. I did add content, and it is content that you deleted. You deleted content that expressed the Jewish view, not apologetics. Your whining about apologetics has nothing to do with your campaign to exclude the Jewish view or to distort it. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:27, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Just because I think a part of the text should not be included does not mean I'm on a campaign of censorship. Please discuss in good faith and focus on the topic at hand instead of making accusations. Flash 04:48, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you discuss in good faith the topic at hand? All this talk and you refuse to respond to anything I have written. The article said that Jews do not believe Jesus was a prophet. I added that they also do not believe he was the messiah. This is undoubtedly true, and it is more notable than "prophet," so should be an uncontroversial edit. But you deleted it. I added "messiah" again. You deleted it. i added it again, you deleted it. Each time you keep adding this obnoxious edit summary that I should discuss my edit on the talk page - obnoxious because I keep explaining to you that Jews do not accpet Jesus is the Messiah and you keep deleting it and you have never responded to my explanation. Your only explanation for deleting what i added is that we should discuss it on the talk page which is an insult to me and to Misplaced Pages given that I keep trying to discuss it and you refuse to discuss it. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:50, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The talk page is for discussing what should be in the article. Whatever complaints you have about me as an editor should be brought up on my talk page, or elsewhere; I will not discuss it here.

The lead currently contains only one argument for a single religion's beliefs, which was only added recently by a currently banned user. Including apologetics for only Judaism's beliefs is a violation of NPOV.

I propose cutting the bolded text:

Judaism rejects assertions that Jesus was the awaited Messiah, arguing that he did not fulfill the Messianic prophecies in the Tanakh Flash 05:53, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, Flash, I still disagree with your entire presented concept. The lede is chock-full of argument. The entire second paragraph is argument, just worded with more subtlety than the sentence you propose to change. I disagree that your bolded text is the only "argument" in the lede and therefore must be removed. I'm so sorry that you cannot see this. That is not the only argument in the lede.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  11:45, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The 2nd paragraph? Do you mean:

The principal sources of information regarding Jesus' life and teachings are the four canonical gospels, especially the Synoptic Gospels, though some scholars believe texts such as the Gospel of Thomas are also relevant.

or do you mean another paragraph? Where else do you see an argument being presented which supports a belief? Flash 12:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I do not even see where the jewish reasons for not believing in Jesus are provided. Sure, it says that Jews don't believe he was the messiah their sacred writings foretell - but it desn't provide a single word as to why Jews do not believe that. May we need to addd the specific arguments, why have Jews been telling the world Jesus isn't the messiah, for two thousand years? I do not see any reason provided. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Willful blindness. 02:16, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not willfully blind and this is an insult. Please quote for me the argument? Reading the articl, do you have any clue what the argument is? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:44, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

What exactly is an "argument"?

You, Flash and şṗøʀĸ, are contending that the following sentence, found toward the end of the lede, is an argument and an apology:

Judaism rejects assertions that Jesus was the awaited Messiah, arguing that he did not fulfill the Messianic prophecies in the Tanakh.

Let us first note that all this sentence really does is to state the source of why Judaism rejects the assertions. It goes into absolutely no detail, therefore it cannot properly be called an "argument", let alone an "apology". The second paragraph:

The principal sources of information regarding Jesus' life and teachings are the four canonical gospels, especially the Synoptic Gospels, though some scholars believe texts such as the Gospel of Thomas are also relevant.

...also provides the source(s) of the beliefs noted in the first paragraph. Therefore it is just as much an argument or apology as the sentence above about Judaism! Just as much. There are more of these mini "arguments and apologies" throughout the lede. They are more subtle, but they are definitely there in the lede. To remove the second part of the sentence, i.e., "arguing that he did not fulfill the Messianic prophecies in the Tanakh", would be a violation of NPOV, and that is not what we are here to do. So, editors Flash and şṗøʀĸ, since you have spent a lot of time trying to convince other editors, and you have not succeeded in doing so, then I suggest you try another tack. If you truly cannot "see" why you are incorrect, then you seem to need more editors involved to either agree with you or to agree with me and the rest here. Feel free to use the proper channels if you are unable to see the truth of our argument.
 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  08:25, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for responding and clarifying your position.

Apologetics is the defense of a belief. That Jesus did not fulfill Messianic prophecies is an argument used to defend Judaism's belief. When you ask Jewish scholars why they don't believe Jesus is the Messiah, this is an argument they would use to defend their beliefs.

Likewise, Christian scholars of theologians would use arguments such as Jesus did fulfill the Messianic prophecies, or that he will fulfill them at the Second Coming.

The sentence you cited, which lists the principal sources of information for Jesus' life, is not a defense or argument for any belief. It's just a statement of fact. Flash 08:54, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I do know what apologetics is. You are correct when you say that his not fulfilling the prophesies is an argument. Since it does not furnish any detail, it might be called a "mini-argument". It is just as much of an argument as showing the sources for belief in paragraph two. Why do Christians believe that Jesus is the Messiah? The second paragraph "argues" that:

The principal sources of information regarding Jesus' life and teachings are the four canonical gospels, especially the Synoptic Gospels, though some scholars believe texts such as the Gospel of Thomas are also relevant.

You cannot seem to see the truth in this, so as I said, rather than continue an argument that you are losing, why not use the proper channels to either garner support or to lose to greater consensus?

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  21:13, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Paine, can you please clarify how a statement of fact concerning sources of information for Jesus' life is an argument for the Christian belief that Jesus is the Messiah? Flash 05:50, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe I already have, Flash. That statement of fact does not only concern sources of information for Jesus' life. They are writings upon which the Christian faith is based, so the second paragraph is saying (a bit "between the lines") "Christianity accepts assertions that Jesus was the awaited Messiah, arguing that he fulfilled the Messianic prophesies of the Old Testament, as clearly depicted in the four canonical gospels, especially the Synoptic Gospels, and in other texts such as the Gospel of Thomas."

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  15:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

That is at best, a very, very big stretch. To say that a statement about the main sources of information for Jesus' life, which does not even mention any specific religion, is an argument for the a specific Christian belief just doesn't make sense. Flash 03:36, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

When taken out of context, yes, it would be a stretch. However when one reads the article and starts with the first paragraph, then one places the second paragraph in context following the first paragraph, which does mention Christianity, then one can see the mini-argument. It's "Jesus' life and teachings" that are the reasons that Christians view him as the Messiah. I've done all I can, Flash, to show you that the lede has subtle "arguments" and "apologetics" in addition to the one you want to remove. We need to move on.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  04:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

How about using the term "reasoning" rather than "arguing"?:

Judaism rejects assertions that Jesus was the awaited Messiah, reasoning that he did not fulfill the Messianic prophecies in the Tanakh.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  04:56, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The question is, is Jesus the messiah, or not. Jews say no, and have arguments as to why he is not. Christians say ye, and have arguments as to why. Our article has the following: "Christians traditionally believe that Jesus was born of a virgin, performed miracles, founded the Church, rose from the dead, and ascended into Heaven," and then concludes, that jesus was the Messiah. Now, Jews have arguments for why all this is baloney - Jews regularly had to provide community representatives to argue over this with represantatives of the pope during the Middle Ages. So it would not be that hard to find the arguments as to why Jesus could not have been born of a virgin (and why no messiah will ever be born of a virgin), the arguments against miracles, the argument agaist his rising from the dead ... All these jewish argumnts for Jesus is NOT messiah are missing from the article and if I am wilfully bind in not seeing them, maybe you are hallucinating in seeing them The arguments are not there. SO: Which do you want, should we delete the mterial I quote here, full of Christian arguemtns, or should we add the Jewsh counter-arguments? Slrubenstein | Talk 22:26, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the essential question is about the mean of the word "Jews", although I acknowledge that the material quoted by Slrubinstein above needs serious reworking, particularly regarding the virgin birth, founding of a church, and rise and ascension. Yes, that is what most modern Christians believe, I think, but that hasn't always been the case, and it would be a mistake to imply that it has. It does seem that most Jews who have historically seen Jesus as the Messiah also accepted his divinity, and became "Christians". However, at least initially, there seems to have been serious disagreement within Jewish Christianity whether Jesus was god or "just" a Prophet. Those who saw him as "only" a Prophet tended to be treated as outsiders by both groups, and apparently died out in the first few centuries, but they were and are counted as Christains. I think changing the text to read "From the 400s (or whenever) onward, the majority of Christians have believed...," would probably be preferable. John Carter (talk) 00:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Which historians hold this view? Most of what Jesus does in the Gospels is preach and heal, and we do not have any evidence that he was viewed as an outsider by Jews. What really was going on between say 25 CE and 100 CE is far from clear. But all historians I know of say that the vast majority of Jews rejected claims that he was messiah (using any definition/all deinitions) after he was crucified, and this has been a view of normative Judaism ever since. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Good questions. All I can really say is that the early Jewish Christian groups, which some might consider "Jewish", in some possibly broader sense, were not all agreed about Jesus being "Son of God", although they did, I think, all agree that he was a "Messiah". This may partially be about how numerically big these groups may have been, and I haven't seen a lot of evidence that they were ever particularly big, but I haven't researched the subject that extensively. John Carter (talk) 18:52, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Excluding information from the lead

We should generally favor edits that make the article more informative rather than less, especially edits to the lead, which should be able to stand alone as a concise summary of the topic. Editors who are pushing a particular POV regularly attempt to reduce how informative our articles are, especially leads. It's routine for editors to try to get information that they don't like out of an article or at least out of the lead. It's a disservice to the reader to reduce the lead's informational value. If the problem is that only Judaism gets its view explained, then we can simply add some context for Islam. "Islam recognizes many Biblical figures, putting Moses and Jesus in a class with Muhammad, as divine prophets each with a written revelation." Let's add information, not reduce it. Leadwind (talk) 15:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly, Leadwind, because in the classic struggle between WP:PRESERVE and WP:BURDEN, I always tend a bit toward preserving information when possible. However, articles can get very long, and ledes especially can get extremely long if not attended to frequently. When this begins to happen, that is a time when any questionable text must go, or else Readers, in this age of "Drive-thru" mentality, might just take a pass on reading long, drawn-out ledes and articles. That's why we're here. To discuss the Readers' needs and adjust articles whenever possible to those needs. Sorry, I didn't mean to "soapbox". I'll step back down, now.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  16:03, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Most critical scholars

I also changed "most" to "a number" at the start of the third para. You may think "most" is correct, Jim, and you may be right, but it does not appear to be supported by the cites. Four sources, even if the they agree on the point, don't constitute "most critical scholars". What would be needed for that would be a summarising source. --FormerIP (talk) 00:10, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure the readers would also like to know exactly what this historical incompatibility is as well. In an article like this, I don't think you can just stick out a statement like that without a little explanation.Farsight001 (talk) 03:25, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

The main section seems to be locked. Could someone correct Afaprof01's revision to the sentence starting with "critical scholars in biblical studies believe that" - it needs a "Some" in front of it. Cheers. Luciform (talk) 09:42, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't seem to be locked. Do you have support for it being only some? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

"Some" would at least pass WP:V (we have some sources, do we not?), but I would agree that it would be a potentially misleading way to word the text. "Most" seems to be based purely on the impressions of some editors, which is not good form. I don't think "a number of" has that problem. Another alternative might be to name some of the writers ("..such as..."). --FormerIP (talk) 10:38, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

trouble is, for me they are all a bit weaselly (weasley??) and invite a "well, what do the others say" kind of question. Looking again, I'd take Critical scholars in biblical studies believe that the New Testament is useful for reconstructing Jesus' life. right out of the lede, and just keep the second sentence.Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:14, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

As near as we can tell, critical scholars regard the nativity stories as inventions. Certainly the prominent, notable ones do (Sanders, Vermes, Theissen, Crossan, etc.). If someone can cite a notable critical scholar who credits either nativity story with historicity, then we would need to say that only "some" critical scholars regard them as inventions. Until we get any such citations, we take our sources as represented what critical scholars say. Leadwind (talk) 15:19, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Leadwind. Think the discussion has become a bit confused because two separate statements are being discussed - I can see how, if you just dropped in, that might not be clear. Don't think there is a proposal to qualify the statement about the nativity, but I was concerned that there was no verifiable sourcing for the claim. Have created a new section heading above to help make things less confusing--FormerIP (talk) 15:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Elen: if WP:WEASEL is the right place to be looking, then guidance seems to be "claims about what people say...should be clearly attributed". This ought to give us something like:

Writers including Stephen Harris and Robert Funk believe that the New Testament is useful for reconstructing Jesus' life.. Raymong Brown, Géza Vermes and Paula Fredriksen are amongst those who agree that Jesus was a Jew who was regarded as a teacher and healer, that he was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman Prefect of Judaea, Pontius Pilate, on the charge of sedition against the Roman Empire.

Or, following your suggestion:

For writers including Raymond Brown, Géza Vermes and Paula Fredriksen, Jesus was a Jew who was regarded as a teacher and healer, was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman Prefect of Judaea, Pontius Pilate, on the charge of sedition against the Roman Empire.

(Reformulated to avoid "agree" per WP:SAY).

PS:

--FormerIP (talk) 15:52, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget Sanders, who agrees with Vermes and Fredricksen on these points. What about Meier? And Ehrmann? We should try to include their views. Does Funk not believe Jesus was baptized by John, or crucified by Pilate? Slrubenstein | Talk 22:27, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, it's not a roll-call. We don't have to name everyone. And there might well be an issue as to whether all the writers are in agreement on all the points, but that might have been an issue any way. It certainly isn't a problem that's created by providing their names - it might make it more noticeable, but obscuring problems is not a virtue. --FormerIP (talk) 22:55, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Generally speaking, for common, majority, or 'mainstream' positions (i.e. when we say "most scholars"), we use this phrasing because our sources are the ones make the claims, not us. I agree that if we open 3 books and find 3 people holding a position, it is drawing too much of a conclusion jump to saying "most scholars", and would agree that we'd need to instead simply specify who holds those positions. However, if our sources are saying "most scholars" themselves, then I think it is fine to follow our sources, because is it really accurate to say "Raymond Brown says X happened" when we open up Brown and he says "Most scholars say X happened"? With that said, we should double check out sources, and see if there are claims being made about what scholarship believes, or if these are simply individual scholar's opiniosn/ -Andrew c  01:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not calling for a roll call. I mentioned three of the leading historians of Jesus, who are also cited in the article already. I would thinkg an educated readership would want to know whether these scholars agree or not. And I asked a question bout someone Former IP mentioned, a question that has not yet been answered. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:22, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know the answer to your question, Slruberstein. At the moment, Funk is not cited as believing those things, so, if the sentence were reformulated to mention authors in-line, there wouldn't be a reason to include his name in that connection.

Andrew, I'm not sure if you're categorising common practice there, but per WP:WEASEL it looks to me like we should avoid "most scholars" here. I would agree that if the sources say "most scholars" then it would be appropriate to reflect that in the text. However, we do not appear to have any such sources to do the sythesising for us. If I'm wrong and we actually do, then that's a different story altogether. What we have is a small number of sources which say something being used to support a broader claim - "too much of a conclusion to jump to" IMO. --FormerIP (talk) 09:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought you had a copy of Funk's book. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

An RS on what most scholars believe. I. Howard Marshall writes "It can be said with confidence that there are very few elements in the summary presented by Perrin which would be considered inauthentic by even the most sceptical of scholars." These are what he quotes as what most scholars agree on:

"He was baptised by John the Baptist, and the beginning of his ministry was in some way linked with that of the Baptist. In his own ministry Jesus was above all the one who proclaimed the Kingdom of God and who challenged his hearers to respond to the reality that he was proclaiming. The authority and effectiveness of Jesus as proclaimer of the Kingdom of God was reinforced by an apparently deserved reputation as an exorcist. In a world that believed in gods, in powers of good and evil, and in demons, he was able, in the name of God and his Kingdom, to help those who believed themselves to be possessed by demons. A fundamental concern of Jesus was to bring together into a unified group those who responded to his proclamation of the Kingdom of God irrespective of their sex, previous background or history. A central feature of the life of this group was eating together, sharing a common meal that celebrated their unity in the new relationship with God, which they enjoyed on the basis of their response to Jesus' proclamation of the Kingdom. In this concern for the unity of the group of those who responded to the proclamation, Jesus challenged the tendency of the Jewish community of his day to fragment itself and in the name of God to reject certain of its own members. This aroused a deep-rooted opposition to him, which reached a climax during a Passover celebration in Jerusalem when he was arrested, tried by the Jewish authorities on a charge of blasphemy and by the Romans on a charge of sedition, and crucified. During his lifetime he had chosen from among his followers a small group of disciples who had exhibited in their work in his name something of his power and authority."

--Ari (talk) 10:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

From my own reading of critical scholars, I would say all agree with everything but the last few lines - several question whether he was arrested on charges of blasphemy (suggesting disturbing the peace instead). Slrubenstein | Talk 10:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Ari, I think that is helpful. I don't think it quite supports the specifics of the text as it is, because Marshall doesn't tell us what parts of the summary are and are not accepted by "most scholars". Perhaps it could be used to support something not quite so exact, though:

'The majority of scholars agree that a number of key historical facts about the life of Jesus are established. For writers including Raymond Brown, Géza Vermes and Paula Fredriksen, Jesus was a Jew who was regarded as a teacher and healer, was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman Prefect of Judaea, Pontius Pilate, on the charge of sedition against the Roman Empire.

BTW, I am not speaking for the accuracy of the second sentence (maybe the sedition claim should not be included, for example), but I don't have any reason to suppose that it isn't a fair representation of the sources. Perhaps the first sentence sounds a little odd as well, but I can't figure out why.

--FormerIP (talk) 12:16, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I am a bit confused by why he would say what most scholars do not agree on when he is giving the positive of what scholars do agree upon?

I should also point out: The statement about the facts that even the "most sceptical of scholars" is said by Marshall, but that big exert I quoted was of Norman Perrin (Marshall quotes this so it isn't synth on my part ;) ). I.e. Marshall stated that 'what Perrin says here is what most critical scholars believe to be authentic.'

For another consensus statement but focusing on the passion narratives:

"Overwhelmingly, modern scholars accept as secure the broad outline of the passion narratives, from Last Supper to final breath. ...there is a strong consensus...that affirms at least the following few facts: Jesus shared a final meal with the twelve during the Passover week of AD 30; he was betrayed by one of the twelve; he was arrested by the Temple guards; he was interrogated by the Jewish authorities and then 'officially' tried by Pontius Pilate; after scourging, he was crucified outside the walls of Jerusalem under the charge, 'King of the Jews'." (John Dickson, Jesus: A Short life p.110.) --Ari (talk) 12:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Marshall quotes the summary and says "most scholars would agree about most of this". It is clear that there are some parts of the summary to which Marshall does not think this applies, but he doesn't say which. So, I think Marshall is a good source for a general statment that there exists a general agreement that there are some historical "facts" about Jesus. But, because of the wording, the source doesn't allow us to be specific (Marshall doesn't say which bits, so neither can we). BTW, the head claim is about the agreement amongst scholars, so I think Marshall is the source here, rather than Perrin.

On the passion narriative, my impression is that there may be a scholarly consensus that testimonies about this contain more "fact" than accounts about Jesus' earlier life. I'm sadly not an RS for this, but wouldn't object to that being included if one can be found.

What do you think of the wording I proposed in my last post?--FormerIP (talk) 13:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

You are misreading Marshall. He is not saying that there are elements in that list that do not apply. That list is the "bare minimum" that even the most sceptical scholars would affirm from the life of Jesus. Perrin and his notorious stringent use of double dissimilarity is why he is the anchor point for the minimum. Your list is quite limited - as the scholarly mainstream says a lot more than that. Sanders' for example list has 14 elements and he is on the sceptical side of the mainstream. --Ari (talk) 14:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Marshall says: "There are very few elements in the summary presented by Perrin that would be condidered inauthentic by event the most sceptical of scholars.". That clearly implies that there are some elements that would be condsiered inauthentic by at least a significant section of scholars.

The second sentence isn't my list, it is what was already in the text. --FormerIP (talk) 14:43, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Nope, it does not imply that there are elements there that would be considered inauthentic by a "significant section of scholars." Firstly, that sentence says the very opposite - even the most sceptical scholars agree with this list. Secondly, the context of it gives us no doubt that this is what Marshall is saying. He states that the list provided of what Perrin affirms is the "bare minimum" (in fact, the section is called the "bare minimum")that even the "most sceptical" and "radical" scholars affirm. --Ari (talk) 15:01, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

"There are very few elements..." does not mean none - in fact it excludes the possibility of none. He doesn't say "even the most sceptical scholars agree with this list", he says "there is only a small part of this list that scholars do not agree with". But he doesn't say what part, who exactly the scholars are or to what extent they disagree. It could be a few minor quibbles or one absolute clanger, we just don't know. --FormerIP (talk) 15:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

You have failed to address the quote and context in forcing your interpretation based on an extracted sentence. --Ari (talk) 16:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Most critical scholars do agree that Jesus was most likely executed on orders of pilate with the charge of sedition. I say this because I have read many books on the topic and they all made this point.

This is getting silly. Semantically, "very few" functions analogously to "most" - it is indeed why we use the word most, and if "most" is a weasel word, well, then I guess "very few" is too ... and this shows that there are good, scholarly contexts in which such phrases are used. I think FormerIP is wikilawyering about weasel words. Certain terms are indeed often weasel words, but they are not automatically weasel wordas and we editors have to use good judgment. In peer-reviewed articles we all use words like "most" and " a few" on occassion and just have to use good sense as to when. I certainly do not think the word "most" was being used in the article in an abusive or obscurantist way, it was not being used to mislead, and here is the main thing: it was not being used as a substitute for research. What do we mean by "weasel word" anyway? It is when we use words that are vague because we have not actually done serious research on a topic. This may not be written in the policy but I'd say that is because it is good common sense. And the fact is, the editors who are most active here have in fact done a GREAT deal of research, and when we say "most" it is because among us we have read a great many books, and in our judgment "most" is the right word. This is not one editor trying to squeeze in an editorial comment in lieu of research, it is the considered judgment of several editors who have done a lot of research. In my view, that means it is not a weasel word. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

(after EC) What is this all about? DO you know of critical biblical scholars who don't accept those simple facts about the historical Jesus? Is this entirely speculative, or is it based on real world knowledge? Do you have evidence that we are presenting the information inaccurately, or do you just not like the wording? -Andrew c  15:53, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Slruberstein: It's not about the difference between "very few" and "most", it is about the structure of what Marshall is saying. He is not saying "most scholars agree with this summary". He is saying "scholars agree with most of this summary". Which makes a big difference. That means it is a good source for the claim that there are a number of areas of agreement amongst scholars, but it is not a good source for saying what those areas are exactly. "Most" is acceptable here only if it supported by a source. We do not have any source, so far, that tells us that most scholars agree about anything in particular. We do have a source that tells us that there is such an agreement, just not what is covers.

Andrew:I don't have evidence that the informaion is inaccurate (as in wrong, necessarily), but it doesn't pass WP:V until there is a source that agrees with it (which should be a single source, not a sythesis of sources). --FormerIP (talk) 16:23, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

We discussed this recently here. The reason why we padded the sentence with references was a bit reactionary. People would complain "we can't use source X because he's Christian" or "we can't use source Y because she's Jewish" or "we can't use source Z because he's agnostic". In the past, we did have one source which was a summary, see source 8 here, in addition to the long list. But including the large list of individual scholars gives not only some of the biggest names in historical Jesus research, but also is a diverse spectrum of religious views. People seem to always find fault with a single source (not Christian enough, not skeptical enough, etc). So padding the sources with the big names was an attempt to address past and future concerns. Of course it isn't a perfect solution, because people have complained that we have too many sources, or your complaint now. But it works for me. I'm not sure why the Introduction to European History reference was removed from the lead. If we added it back, would it address your concerns? I personally don't see this as a major issue because I've contributed to the research that formed the sentence, but I know that puts me at an advantage that our general readership doesn't have. Verifiability is important, but this seems a bit nitpicky unless you think the sentence is inaccurate, or not representative of what "most critical scholars believe". -Andrew c  16:46, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

FormerIP, you are still misrepresenting Marshall. I take it that you do not have the book, so you are not in the best position to tell others what Marshall is really saying when he has made the position so clear explicitly and in context. --Ari (talk) 16:55, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

IP, you misundestand WP:V. This policy requires that all claims in Misplaced Pages be verifiable; it does not actually require that all claims be verified. That is, there is no necessary obligation for an editor to provide a source. Now, the claims made are verifiable because you can go to the library, read all the books on Jesus by critical historians, and you will discover that most of them agree about these things. Is it worth your effort to read avery book? Buddy, that is up to you. You may decide after reading four books that you have a good enough sample to conclude that the claim is so uncontroversial that you do not need to read any more. I think AndrewC's point is precisely this question: do you have any reasonable grounds for considering this claim controversial? Saying "Obama was born in Indonesia" for example is a pretty controversial claim and beyond the fact that it is "verifiable" (meaning, one can determine whether or not a reliable source makes the claim), editors working on an article might reasonably insist that you actually verify the claim by providing a reliable source. Again, we use common sense about different kinds of claims. I think to anyone who knows anything about the scholarship on jesus, this claim is so uncontroversial that no one needs to waste their time going out to prove it. Remember, most of us have day jobs and volunteer our time at Misplaced Pages, some of us doing a lot of research for free. I wouldn't know Andrew c if I walked right into him, but I know he has done enough research on this topic to trust him. Some people want more. The article currently provides a great many citations of works by critical historians on jesus. We have fulfilled the verifiability requriement. if you think it is a controversial claim, by all means, go to the library and read the books.

In the meantime, having done so much research on the topic I would actually change "most" to "virtually all," I want to see some meaningful evidence from you that casts doubt on this sentence before I put any more time into this. I have already contributed a lot of my time, reading books and articles and working out different scholarly positions. I see no need to do more. But like I said, if you actually care to do research, well, we have already provided you with a list of authors to start with. Go ahead. Read the books. Nothing is stopping you. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:58, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

The source does say that even the most sceptical scholars believe these "bare facts" to be authentic so there is no reason to object to strong wording such as "virtually all". In fact, it suggests that a more representative majority would include many more details. In fact, EP Sanders was kind enough to provide us with two lists of 14 points in this regard. --Ari (talk) 17:03, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of the statement being misread in the most obscure ways, here is another consensus statement on the bare minimum: "For example, there is widespread (if not always total) consensus that Jesus was baptized by John, that he taught and preached in Galilee, that he drew followers to himself, that he was known as an effective miracle worker and exorcist, and that he made a final journey to Jerusalem for Passover where, in conjunction with an incident in the temple, he was arrested, convicted by Pilate and crucified." --Ari (talk) 17:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

That's another useful find, Ari. It says something valid and citable, although not to support the exact wording that is currently in the article. I think it would also be good to reference what comes immediately before the bit you quote ("...consensus in Jesus studies today is elusive..."). Y'know, for balance. --FormerIP (talk) 22:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

How about:

There is little academic consensus regarding the details of Jesus' life, but a majority of Bible scholars agree that he was baptised by John the Baptist, that he preached in Galilee, that he was know to his followers as a miracle-worker and that he was crucified in Jerusalem under the orders of Pontius Pilate.

This seems to me to be very close to the current version.

--FormerIP (talk) 10:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The source does not say that there is "little academic consensus regarding the details of Jesus' life". A majority of Biblical scholars agree on much more than this list as we have seen (e.g. Dickson on the mainstream "consensus" on the passion events and Marshall). This is an "example" of consensus, and they provide other "Jesus studies" examples that are not about the events of Jesus' life such as his "Jewishness".

John Dickson writes "Nevertheless, there is very wide agreement amongst contemporary scholars - whether Christian, Jewish or agnostic - that we do in fact know quite a bit about Jesus. Virtually everyone agrees that we know at least the following:

• when and where he lived;
• that he started out within the orbit of John the Baptist;
• that he was famous in his day as a teacher and healer;
• that he proclaimed the kingdom of God and warned of a looming catastrophe in Israel;
• that he insisted on a radicalized ethic of love;
• that he selected a group of twelve to symbolize a renewed Israel;
• that he attracted many women into his circle and was notorious for dining with sinners;
• that he caused a major, albeit symbolic, disturbance in the Temple;
• that he shared a final meal with his disciples during Passover;
• that he was handed over to Pontius Pilate by the priestly elite;
• that he was crucified under the mocking charge of 'King of the Jews';
• that numerous men and women insisted they saw him alive shortlty after his death;
• and, finally, that these followers established communities that looked forward to Christ's kingdom and sought to win Jews and Gentiles to that vision.

Plenty of other details are considered either probable or plausible, but these are the acknowledged facts about the historical Jesus. Doubting them requires an arbitrary type of scepticism insensitive to historical method and consensus."

EP Sanders, who is described as a mainstream scholar on the sceptical side, writes that "There are no substantial doubts about the general course of Jesus' life: when and where he lived, approximately when and where he died, and the sort of things that he did during his public activity." In his two books he explicitly states the following historical events in the life of Jesus:

1. Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist
2. Jesus was a Galilean who preached and healed
3. Jesus called disciples and spoke of there being twelve
4. Jesus confined his activity to Israel
5. Jesus engaged in controversy about the temple
6. Jesus was crucified outside Jerusalem by the Roman authorities
7. After his death Jesus' followers continued an identifiable movement
8. At least some Jews persecuted at least parts of the new movement.
9. Jesus was born circa 4 B.C., at the approximate time of the death of Herod the Great
10. Jesus grew up in Nazareth of Galilee
11. Jesus taught in small villages and towns and seemed to avoid citied
12. Jesus ate a final meal with his disciples
13. Jesus was arrested and interrogated by Jewish authorities, apparently at the orders of the high priest
14. although they abandoned Jesus after his arrest, the disciples later "saw" him after his death. This led the disciples to believe that Jesus would return and found the kingdom.

--Ari (talk) 11:38, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Ari, your source says:

...Crosson begins his major study by stating that "historical Jesus research is becoming something of a scholarly bad joke". The primary reason for this, he notes, is "the number of competent and even eminment scholars producing pictures of Jesus at wide variance with one another". For some this radically divergent assortment of Jesuses suggests the quest has hit a dead end...But while consensus in Jesus studies today is elusive, it is not entirely absent...

I don't see how you can deny that this supports a statement that there is "little academic consensus". That would seem to me to be actually a fairly mild way of putting it, compared to what is in the source.

I also don't see how you come to the conclusion that it would be reasonable to use this is support of a statment that there is consensus, ignoring the fairly important contextual information that, for the most part, there isn't consensus.

Dickson is a popular writer of polemics against atheism, so I don't think this can be regarded as a disinterested scholarly source (or, if this can be used, then it would make sense that Richard Dawkins, for example, could also be used).

Sanders is a perfectly good source, I think. But I also think you'll agree that the list you've posted above represents the views of Suanders, rather than the views of any consensus or majority of scholars. --FormerIP (talk) 12:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The source does not say there is little academic consensus about the "events" in the life of Jesus - it talks of "Jesus studies". There is wide agreement on these events as multiple sources have attested to in no uncertain terms e.g. Sanders commenting on the state of play writes "There are no substantial doubts about the general course of Jesus' life: when and where he lived, approximately when and where he died, and the sort of things that he did during his public activity." You misunderstand historical Jesus studies as an enterprise if this is what you mistakenly take Crossan's comment to mean. There are different models of Jesus, and they widely affirm the same events in the life of Jesus. That is why there are different models for understanding Jesus - an eschatological prophet, Spirit filled man, Hasid, etc. It is far easier to take what multiple sources clearly state than to go and obscure some statements.

Regarding John Dickson, he is an academic ancient historian and is a Senior Research Fellow in the ancient history department at Macquarie University. The book is a reliable source, and Dickson is a reliable expert. Why would we make reference to a biologist like Dawkins when we can easily make use of a bona fide historical Jesus scholar? --Ari (talk) 12:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, my proposal doesn't say "events". That aside, it would seem fairly obvious that there is little meaningful disctintion between "Jesus studies" and "studies about the details of Jesus' life". None of the sources draw a distinction between "events" and "models" in the way you are trying to, and it is clear that, whichever we are talking about, scholars on the subject differ quite widely. You also seem to me to be misrepresenting Sanders, who is obviously speaking in very general terms (he even uses the word "general") about very very basic outline details about Jesus' life, which I don't think are in dispute. The next thing he says, which you don't quote is: "When we begin to probe beneath the surface, difficulties and uncertainties arise".

Dickson is a writer of popular works with a particular POV. I'm not saying he's a bad writer, just not a neutral academic source (whatever his credentials, his main writings are clearly not academic). In that sense he is equivalent to someone like Dawkins (who, biologist or not, is obviously a noted popular writer on religion, if that is the standard we are going for). Talking about different sources may be a little moot though - it seems to me that Eddy and Beilby covers everything and it is now just about ensuring NPOV. --FormerIP (talk) 15:19, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec)FormerIP stillhas not responded to my comments. In any event, it is becoming clearer and clearer that FormerIP has not done any research on Jesus and does not know this scholarship. Ari, you do not have to keep spoon-feeding her stuff from what you have read. It is not even clear to me that FormerIP knows anything about the field of history. Obviously Crossan's comment is not referring to the details of Jesus' life but rather how they are interpreted. In all the books I have read, the historians spend relatively little time debating over what they think happened in Jesus' life, and instead spend a lot of time developing an analysis of what they do know. In fact, our article lays out the major interpretations of Jesus' life and do let readers know what the wide variance is. But isn't that what history is all about, interpreting the meaning of the past? Oh, wait, FormerIP would have to read actual books to know that, maybe. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, you are correct, Slrubenstein. Multiple statements on the position of the mainstream have been provided, this in itself dismisses the entire synth claims. However, it seems that at every turn there is a forced reason to dismiss these statements. It is ridiculous by this stage. C'mon, FormerIP, you are calling a professional historian at a secular university who is actively engaged in the field of historical Jesus studies the equivalent to Richard Dawkins views on Jesus. Seriously? --Ari (talk) 15:54, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Break

Slruberstein: AFAICT, the only significant comment of yours that I haven't repsonded to is the one about WP:V not requiring an editor to provide sources for an assertion that can be checked in a library. To be honest, I didn't think it merited a response. I'm really happy for you that you have read so many books, but it's a bit beside the point and you should avoid ad hominem arguments against editors.

Ari: Dickson is a popular writer and a polemicist, which is why I don't think he is a good source for such an appartently contentious issue. However, I don't see that this needs to be such a big issue. Eddy and Beilby already contains support for a statement so close to what is in the article at present that the remainder is not worth arguing over, I would suggest, and I have agreed that this is a good source. It is also a good source for the wider context (ie "scholars disagree for the most part, but there are some items they on which most of the agree"). Even if Dickson were allowed as a source, Eddy and Beilby would still be a good source for the context and the paragraph would most likely turn out pretty much the same. (ie whether Dickson is or isn't usable doesn't seem to me a determining factor when considering how the paragraph should be worded). --FormerIP (talk) 16:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Dickson is Senior Research Fellow in the Ancient history department at Macquarie University. He has a PhD in ancient history, he teaches early Christianity in an ancient history department, he supervises theses in historical Jesus studies, he presents academic papers, etc. Your personal opinion of him does not count for anything; he is a more than reliable source for something that is not even almost contentious. --Ari (talk) 16:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Jumping in: Sanders is the most mainstream expert we have, and a key feature of his books is that they mostly represent not his personal conclusions but rather the broad agreement of mainstream historians on Jesus' life. When he voices his personal opinion (such as how many Jews could have been in Jerusalem for Passover, or that Jesus didn't preach repentance), he calls it out as his opinion. The vast majority of his work in, for example, The Historical Figure of Jesus is not his original work but is instead his framing of contemporary historical opinion. When Sanders says that Jesus was renowned as a teacher and healer, that's not "According to Sanders," and it's not what "some scholars think." What Sanders reports as contemporary scholarship we can readily cite as representing majority, mainstream scholarship. The same goes for scholars like Harris and Ehrman. While they have their own opinions and mention them, they are primarily relating academic consensus to a broader audience. When you get an author like Spong, however, much or most of the material is his argument, not mainstream thinking. Here on WP we have often done a disservice to our reader by treating scholars such as Sanders and Ehrman as if they were just individual scholars, like Spong, when in fact they speak for good scholarship in general. Leadwind (talk) 22:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Christian antisemitism and Legacy section

I recommend that this entire paragraph be stricken from the article because it does not address the topic at hand. The topic at hand is Jesus Christ not Christianity. The paragraph is misplaced in this article and has no relevance to either Jesus or his teachings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.28.164.2 (talk) 19:34, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

What paragraph are you referring to? --FormerIP (talk) 23:45, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I am referring to the last paragraph of this article titled 'Christian antisemitism'. Christian anti-Semitism has nothing to do with Jesus Christ, his life or his teachings. It clearly appears to be misplaced here. It could be mentioned in an article on Christianity because it would be pertinent; however it is totally irrelevant to an article about Jesus Christ. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.28.164.2 (talk) 13:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

No. This is an important part of Jesus' legacy. Unless your point is that the entire legacy section is irrelevant to an article on jesus. Now, if your point is simply that too much weight is given to it in this article, I agree with you - except I think the entire "legacy" section is now overblown, and given too much weight in an article that is on Jesus and not Christianity. I would much rather we pared it back to the more proportionate size we had back here. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:27, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I completely disagree with you Slrubenstein when you assert that "This is an important part of Jesus' legacy.". 'Christian anti-Semitism' is a legacy of the Christian denominations that practiced it and not Jesus Christ. There is nothing in his teachings or his life that even hints at anti-Semitism. An article on Jesus Christ should be focused on Jesus Christ and not his followers (Christians) especially when we have a separate article exclusively dedicated to Christianity. Adding a paragraph on 'Christian anti-Semitism' to this article is like adding a paragraph on 'Islamic Terrorism' to the article on Mohammad. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.28.164.2 (talk) 14:07, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

So? You disagree. That's what we have an NPOV policy for. But you are responding only to the secondary of my two points. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:49, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

He is right that the section does not belong. This is because it is a comparitively minor part of the legacy, and obviously just there because someone at Misplaced Pages wants it. Where is the section on wars and crusades? Where is the section on the impact of the church on the industrial revolution? Where, even, is the history of the Roman Empire under Christianity? The impact of the Catholic Church? This is a matter of undue weight, more than anything else. The whole legacy section should be cut out, or it should reflect the Christianity article and also the articles such as you see in the box on the Christianity page. _Critical__Talk 19:02, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with those saying it doesn't belong. Jesus legacy is the early church, and (ultimately by occasionally convoluted routes) the whole of Christianity, but most of it is too complex to be summarised in this article - is it Jesus legacy that the mother in Angela's ashes has to (allegedly) bury her unbaptised infants on waste ground? Or are we getting into territory better covered by comedians here.Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Let's just get rid of the entire section six. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and deleted the antisemitisim section as a first step, but think maybe WP:FIXTHEPROBLEM applies to the section as a whole.

Apologies IP for my initial challenge. I scanned the article but maybe my brain wasn't expecting to see something so egregious so it didn't. --FormerIP (talk) 21:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion:

Legacy

Jesus' legacy includes the Christian religion, as well as innumerable and ongoing impacts on ethics, metaphysics, culture, art, politics, literature and economics.

And just leave it at that. _Critical__Talk 22:45, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Seems good to me. You could write a dozen books on the legacy/impact of christianity - we're not going to be able to do it any justice in half a dozen sentences. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

You cannot just delete something you do not like without consensus. Whatever happened to NPOV? No one is saying that Jesus was an anti-Semitie ... just as no one is saying that Jesus was the artist who painted, or even the living model for, so many representations of Jesus in Western art ... or the inventor of the Gregorian calandar. "Legacy" includes everything that the person inspired in people after him - and sadly, anti-Semitism is one of them, already appearing in the Gospels, accourding to some significant scholars. I repeat: the few sentences we had a year ago were fine, and had been stable for years. We should just go back to them. But any section on "legacy" has to mention anti-Semitism, even if it is just a link to other articles. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:31, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Disagree entirely. Any section on legacy has to mention the oppression of women - far more important than anti-Semitism (because I'm a woman but I'm not Jewish - and yes, Iam just saying this to make a point). And the crusades - must refer to the crusades. Absolutely profound influence on the military development of Europe. Colonialism - very significant in the modern political development of the world. In short, it's an WP:UNDUE nightmare. The legacy of Jesus is the Christian Church. Everything else is the legacy of the Church. Far better to leave it that way. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:49, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Even though you are presumably being provocative, its worth pointing out that the oppression of women is absolutely not a distinctive product of Christianity. Patriarchal societies exist all over the world, in all religious traditions and long predated Jesus. The crusades might be mentioned. Colonialism had very little to do with Christianity (and again, empires and colonisation long predated Christianity). I don't really have strong views about whether or not there should be an antisemitism section, but a good argument can be made that it is a specific product of Christianity, whereas oppression of woman and colonialism are not. Paul B (talk) 16:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I am of course being provocative, yes:) But anti-Semitism isn't a legacy only of Christianity either, and anti-Semitism (and the oppression of women for that matter) is not directly transmitted from Jesus. I just think the whole 'legacy' thing doesn't work in this particular case. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:13, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

And where does anti-Semitism have its origins? You know, the Romans came down very brutally on the Jews, but as far as I know no one has ever accused them of being anti-Semities, or suggested that anti-Semitism has its origins in Roman policy in occupied Palestine or towards Jews living elsewhere in the empire. It starts with Christianity, and it starts with Christianity because of specifics of Jesus' life. Now, if you "disagree entirely," feel free to provide a reason. But surely you know that arguing that part of Jesus' legacy is x is NOT an argument that it wasn't y. Jesus' legacy is manifold. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:47, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

That is a very confusing thing to say. Anti-semitism existed without Jesus and including in the Roman empire. Roman writers often attacked Judaism such as Seneca calling Jews an "accursed race". Philo recounts mob violence against the Jews, and the emperor refused to step in for protection. Josephus responds to the criticisms of Apion. Lawrence H. Schiffman categorises this as "anti-semitism". --Ari (talk) 18:07, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The Jews are a minor people who have had a inordinate impact on history... through Christianity (and maybe Islam but that's irrelevant. But antisemitism is a footnote in history (not notable at all for Misplaced Pages in this article) till you get to WWII. Perhaps one could include it on those grounds if there are sources which say that Christianity is the cause of Nazi antisemitism. However, this disregards the problem that we can't do an adequate legacy section for this article. I definitely don't think this one promoted by Slrubenstein works per WP:UNDUE. I'm not a scholar and I may be wrong, but it reads to me like an essay focused on pet interests, and seems to include original research. _Critical__Talk 19:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I like the legacy section but think it should be cut back or cut entirely. There's no way to give due weight to all the issues. Maybe the section could survive as a couple of sum-up paragraphs. First, review the nice things that Christianity is associated with (hospitals, etc.) and then the bad things (pogroms, etc.). This man seems to have had more influence on Western civilization than any other single man. It would be a shame to have the article imply that his legacy is limited to theology. Leadwind (talk) 21:46, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Becritical, what you write is just incredibly ignorant. Christian anti-Semitism is a major aspce of Jewish hisotry in Europe from the rise of Christian Europe on. It is covered in depth by every major work on medieval jewish history. For you to characterize it as a footnote is simply offensive. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

If you do not like the "Legacy" section I suggest because you think it violates UNDUE, I do not see how you could accept the current "Legacy" section, which is five times as long. But as for the one sentence on Jews and anti-Semitism, there certainly is no original research, I can provide a couple of cites from major Jewish history works if all you are asking for is a citation. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:16, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks. You unintentionally make my point: antisemitism is a large part of Jewish history, not of world history till WWII and not of Jesus' legacy. If you will read above, you will see I do not accept the current legacy section, per my suggestion for its replacement. _Critical__Talk 23:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Jesus' influence should be summarized in the lead as well. Omitting this information makes the article incomplete. Although it is hard to give due weight to all the issues, a short summary should not be difficult. Flash 00:53, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps but no one here seems to have a suggestion about how it could be done without

I was opposed to a legacy section originally, and still think it is unnecessary and causes hassles. If we MUST have such a section, I think the one we had a year ago, which was carefully crafted with much discussion and then stable for quite some time, is the best we can expect. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:12, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

You may be right, in which case it seems like an argument for limiting the section to listing the various subject areas. And I think the one you point to is very arguable. It says "For some Jews, the legacy of Jesus has been a history of Christian antisemitism," which I think is like saying the legacy of Lincoln is the policies of George W. Bush. There are other issues surrounding wp:undue (such as focusing too much on media depiction), but I just noticed the antisemitism one now. I'm sure it was carefully crafted at the time and a consensus of the editors who were there at the time, but I'm not at all sure the editors who are here now would agree to it. _Critical__Talk 14:23, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be the general consensus that the Legacy section needs to be cut down to listing subject areas and pointing to other articles. This could include an article dealing with antisemitism. There is one person who disagrees, and others who have ideas but can't tell us how to apply them (and did not address the problems brought up here concerning how we create an adequate section while avoiding WP:UNDUE WEIGHT issues). So I'm wondering if it's time to apply this to the article? _Critical__Talk 17:48, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Um... The discussions seem to have mostly died.... but I'd like to proceed as described with the Legacy section if nobody minds? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 05:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Is my proposal, that we replace the entire section six with the the "legacy" version here, unacceptable to you? If so, I am open to your suggestion but I would ask that you present it here first, see if others have any suggestions, before actually changing the article. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Well my suggestion above seemed to garner some support, and it seems to be where this discussion was leading us. And yes, I think the section you point to is inadequate and also questionable. We can discuss that if you want, but see what you think about the suggestion below which might be equally acceptable and includes antisemitism. I suggest we replace the Legacy section with something like this:

Jesus' legacy includes the Christian religion, as well as innumerable and ongoing impacts on religion, ethics, metaphysics, culture, antisemitism, art, politics, law, war, literature and economics. Jesus also influenced Islam and the Baha'i Faith.

The legacy of Jesus could be covered in summary form in a whole (long) article (maybe), just not a section. We could also just remove the whole section. Any section we write is going to come up against objections of "but you left out X." BE——Critical_{__Talk} 14:29, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I am fine with this, although I think perhaps it could be better phrased. I think economics and metaphysics are arguable, and war and politics a little too general. While I like your simpler = better approach, I do wonder whether it would be well-served by an introductory statement. Here is my counter-proposal (inspired by yours):

Jesus' legacy firstly takes the form of writings such as the New Testament and non-canonical gospels, as well as oral traditions in the Syrian Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox Churches. Through these, Jesus has left a much wider and sometimes conflicting or ambiguous legacy, influencing religion, ethics, social justice and human rights movements such as abolitionism and liberation theology, art and music, the preservation of literacy in medieval Europe, as well as anti-Judaism and anti-Semitism, the Crusades, heresies, the Inquisition, witch-hunts, the Wars of Religion, and colonialism.

I am mainly trying to be more specific; I hope people consider this balanced. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:56, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it's beautifully done. I do think we should mention politics though. Suggest this:

Jesus' legacy firstly takes the form of writings such as the New Testament and non-canonical gospels, as well as oral traditions in the Syrian Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox Churches. Through these, Jesus has left a much wider and sometimes conflicting or ambiguous legacy, influencing religion, politics, ethics, and ideas of social justice; human rights movements such as abolitionism and liberation theology; art and music, and the preservation of literacy in medieval Europe; anti-Judaism and anti-Semitism, the Crusades, heresies, the Inquisition, witch-hunts, the Wars of Religion, and colonialism.

If this looks good let's leave it for a few hours at least to see if others have input, and then would you like me to put it in? Did Jesus really influence witch hunts or is this an older theme that got carried over into Christianity? BE——Critical_{__Talk} 16:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I am glad you like it! I still thinkk "politics" is too broad. "Religion" is broad too, but obvious enough to leave ... but if you go to the politics article, does it mention Jesus or even Christianity? I consider social justice and human rights, as well as the wars of religion, all to be forms of "politics." Is there a more specific form of politics that you think is being left out? Do you mean Christian Democrat parties, for example? Or sometheing else? I just wonder if we could break it down to more concrete things. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:12, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

By the way, one could argue that Jesus influenced witch-hunts because Jesus cured people of demon posession and left a belief that people could be posessed by demons. However, I do not think your question, "Did Jesus really influence witch hunts" really has anything to do with legacy. A legacy is literally money left to an inheritor. How the inheritor spends it is not controled by the person granting the legacy, who of course is dead. Jesus, being dead, couldn't influence any of his legacy. I take Jesus' legacy to be what people did in Jesus' name. You ask, "or is this an older theme that got carried over into Christianity?" but if we ask this question we may as well just delete the entire legacy section and leave it blank. After all, ethics and religion existed before Jesus. Again, I think that unless legacy means whatever later people did in Jesus' name (whether we agree with them or not), then it doesn't mean anything useful at all. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:16, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Re the meaning of legacy, I suppose you're right. By politics, I mean the Roman Empire under Christianity, Feudalism and its justifications, and for example the influence of Christianity on politics in the Unites States, racism etc. etc. etc. I don't know what else we could use besides a broad category, and listing all that would be too much and we'd forget something. I also think we should include the history of science; Christianity has had a huge influence on it, see Darwin et al. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 18:30, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, my own view is that the Roman Catholic and Greek Orthodox Churches cover Christian influence over the empire. I do not think Christianity had a big influence on feudalism, and I think the reference to the wars of religion get right at the real political consequences of Christianity. For contemporary examples we can just add a link to the moral majority. That's what i would do. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, Darwin is not an example of Jesus influencing science. I know there are Christians who reject evolution, but they are influenced by Genesis not (definitely not) by Jesus. I do not know of another example of Jesus really influencing science. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:22, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

I thought feudalism was justified by Divine Right? Re Darwin, I meant his own internal struggle, plus the fight over his legacy. The influence on politics is more subtle than wars of religion. Just to take an example you would relate to, it kept Jews out of politics, at least till Hitler came along (joke), and keeps atheists from running for president. However, I'm satisfied to put it in as it is and we can debate about "politics" later. And yes, put in the link to the moral majority, that's a good contemporary example. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 19:35, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

The entire section is uncited and could be interpreted by some as original research. Do you have sources which sums up the legacy of Jesus? Flash 00:39, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

RfC - is "most scholars" synthesis? (closed)

The article lead currently contains the paragraph:

Critical scholars in biblical studies believe that the New Testament is useful for reconstructing Jesus' life. Most agree that Jesus was a Jew who was regarded as a teacher and healer, that he was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman Prefect of Judaea, Pontius Pilate, on the charge of sedition against the Roman Empire.

A number of sources are provided to support these claims, but none of these tell us about the view of "most critical scholars" or "critical scholars" in general. Each gives the view of an individual scholar.

Is combining sources in this way an unacceptable example of WP:SYN (see also WP:RS/AC), or can it be defended on the grounds that the contents of the paragraph are judged to be accurate by editors?

In discussion, a further source has been presented which includes the sentence:

There are very few elements in the summary presented by Perrin that would be condidered inauthentic by even the most sceptical of scholars

Is this sentence best interpreted as meaning:

a)that most scholars, even the the most sceptical, fully agree with Perrin's summary;

b)that scholars in general, even the most sceptical, agree with most of Perrin's summary?

Prior discussion here: Talk:Jesus#Most critical scholars.

Thanks FormerIP (talk) 22:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Additional information for the RfC: Although FormerIP states that"but none of these tell us about the view of "most critical scholars" or "critical scholars" in general." However, I they are in error. Most likely because they do not have access to the source, and for this reason I would be sceptical of their presentation of something they have not read. I. Howard Marshall does tell us what "even the most sceptical" agree with. He calls these the "bare minimum" of the "radical" scholars, and this is exerted above as two extensive paragraphs of things above. For this reason, the whole idea of synthesis is irrelevant as we have a single reliable source that acts as the basis for this. --Ari (talk) 04:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

See my comments below. Briefly, the source is here: . I'm am not sure why ari is saying I don't have access to it. This is the source I refer to above, containing the statement: "There are very few elements in the summary presented by Perrin that would be condidered inauthentic by even the most sceptical of scholars". Note that this is not the same as Ari's interpretation of it ("even the most sceptical of scholars agree with all elements of the summary presented by Perrin" - this is not what the source says). --FormerIP (talk) 22:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, it is synthesis. However, I believe that you can easily source it to a textbook. I recall reading such statements in textbooks years ago. I think that it is easy to source, and so should be. _Critical__Talk 23:29, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

There is a source that states that this is what the "most sceptical scholars" which invalidates the whole synth claims, but another would be great to add to it. --Ari (talk) 04:28, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, we already had a general citation in the article, Ann H. Moran Cruz and Richard Gerberding, Medieval Worlds: An Introduction to European History Houghton Mifflin Company 2004, pp. 44–45. I have no idea why it was removed, but now we have two general citations which make claims on what most scholars think about the historical Jesus, in addition to listing very prominent individual scholars in the relevant fields (from various religious backgrounds). -Andrew c  13:17, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• no it is not synthesis because we are not patching together diverse views into one sentence. Rathe, we are providing a series of sources that make the same claims; they reiterate and reenforce one another. That is not SYNTH. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:42, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

• Yes I will start out by saying that I am not an expert on this topic by any means, and I have not read the sources cited. However, unless Slrubenstein (or someone else who supports the statement at issue as written) disputes the factual accuracy of FormerIP's objection, then yes, this is a pretty clear violation of WP:SYN, especially in the light of WP:RS/AC. What Slrubenstein is talking about might be one type of synthesis, but it seems to me (s)he is reading it way too narrowly. Saying, "Scholars A, B, and C agree on X, therefore most scholars agree on X," is original research unless you can produce one or more sources that draws that conclusion, "directly and explicitly" (see WP:NOR) and is precisely the kind of thing WP:RS/AC is warning against. I agree with Becritical that if this is as widely agreed upon as several editors have said it is, it should be quite easy to cite a source that comes right out and says it. CBHoncho (talk) 02:18, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Please note, a single source provided states what "most sceptical scholars" affirm as the "bare minimum." --Ari (talk) 04:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

• Not synthesis. I have the book, I have provided the content. Here, I. Howard Marshall has stated that this is the "bare minimum" that even the "most sceptical" scholars would agree with. Frankly, FormerIP who does not have access to the source except for this incomplete sentence is misleading you all. Prima facie and in context, Marshall is stating what even the most sceptical of scholars would affirm. --Ari (talk) 04:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The source referred to is the one mentioned in the RfC . I'm not sure why Ari is saying I don't have access to it. My contention is that this would be a good source for something like "there are numerous points of agreement amongst scholars...", but not for specifiying what those points of agreement are. A summary is provided and we are told that "very few" parts of the summary are doubted by scholars. But, since we are not told what these parts are, we cannot point to any part of the summary and safely assume that it is universally agreed. --FormerIP (talk) 09:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

This seems like a correct argument on the face of it. _Critical__Talk 14:08, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'm not sure I understand the nature of the dispute here. I initially thought it was a disagreement over the use of multiple sources, but now I'm getting the sense that it's actually a disagreement over the text of the Marshall source specifically. FormerIP, if what you say is accurate, that the source states that there are a "few" points of the whole that are not necessarily widely accepted, then I can definitely see your point that the statement in the article needs to be changed to reflect that. However, Ari89, you seem to be disputing that the text of the source qualifies it that way, that FormerIP is selectively quoting the source out of context or something. If that's the case, could you perhaps explain what that context is and how it supports your position in a little more detail? I don't think FormerIP is trying to mislead anyone here; I think he just doesn't see you specifically addressing the matter of the "very few" qualification. CBHoncho (talk) 20:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi CBHoncho. Yes, the basic dispute is over the use multiple sources to back up a "most scholars" claim. I'm especially objecting to the formulation of a list of things "most scholars" agree about Jesus, because this is, in reality, a list of positions advanced by various scholars, and there is no evidence that they all concur on each individual point. This is contrary to WP:RS/AC, and I think it is difficult to see how that can be disputed.

Ari has put forward the Marshall source in defence of the list. I think it is a good source for a general claim saying that there are points of agreement, but it doesn't support the inclusion of a list for the reasons I gave in my last post. The list should either be removed, or the different views should be attributed to the people who hold them, according to the sources we have.

Hope that's the sort of clarification you were after. --FormerIP (talk) 21:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks FormerIP, I'm pretty sure I understand your position. I'm really hoping for some clarification from Ari89, because it looks to me like (s)he agrees that synthesizing a consensus view from a list of sources is a problem, but seems to think that Marshall explicitly identifies this list of views as the consensus. So far I haven't seen any response to your objections to using Marshall other than a general statement to the effect that (s)he thinks you are misreading the source. That's what I think Ari89 should elaborate on. CBHoncho (talk) 01:33, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Multiple sources state what most mainstream scholars believe about Jesus, the whole idea of synth is irrelevant. These sources include everything in the statement that: "Critical scholars in biblical studies believe that the New Testament is useful for reconstructing Jesus' life. Most agree that Jesus was a Jew who was regarded as a teacher and healer, that he was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman Prefect of Judaea, Pontius Pilate, on the charge of sedition against the Roman Empire" + more. --Ari (talk) 16:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

A further source has been put forward which supports wording that is very similar to what is in the article. So similar that I think it was probably the source origninally used, but for some reason at some point it must have been replaced with a sythesis of sources. However, assuming this is the original source, it has been used quite selectively IMO and distorted somewhat.

I'm closing this RfC and I'll launch a new one reflecting the changed situation. --FormerIP (talk) 17:21, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Should the lead contain apologetics for religious beliefs?

Apologetics such as:

Judaism rejects assertions that Jesus was the awaited Messiah, arguing that he did not fulfill the Messianic prophecies in the Tanakh.

Should religious beliefs be simply stated or should apologetics behind those beliefs be stated as well? Apologetics in this case being the defense of a religious position. Flash 02:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Interesting one. The lede should summarise the lemma, but one could equally argue that it should limit itself to summarising the stances taken, as religious apologetics are often lengthy and convoluted. However, in the case you list, 'he did not fulfil the messianic prophecies' is not an apologetic but part of the stance. One could rewrite the sentence as "The view of Judaism is that Jesus did not fulfil the messianic prophecies present in the Tanakh."--Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:39, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The sources do not list it as a belief, rather than an argument for a belief. The structure of the sentence also suggests it is an argument. Flash 11:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

If there is no problem with presenting the argument to support the belief that Jesus is not the Messiah, the arguments for why he is the Messiah should be presented as well, namely that he did fulfill the Messianic prophecies. Flash 13:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, we should totally say that he was the Messiah that the Israelites were waiting for based on the prophecies in their religious texts... or rather that he was simply their awaited Messiah... oh wait. (BTW, I believe most Christians acknowledge that Jesus did not fulfill ALL messianic prophecies, but will finish the job during the second coming...)-Andrew c  03:39, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec)@ReaverFlash: No, this would make the article anachronistic. Jesus' disciples did not believe he was the messiah while he was alive; it was not until some time after his death, when Paul and other Christian leaders changed the definition of "messiah," that many of his followers began to believe he was the messiah. Many Christian misread Paul's epistles which contain much midrash, i.e. he is presenting his own interpretation of Biblical verses, this does not mean that those verses were understood by Jews before Paul to refer to the messiah. The idea of "messianic prophesies" is more a construction of medieval Christianity which used the idea to debate with Jews. In the Middle Ages both Jews and Christians had different beliefs about the Bible than they did in the first century. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:22, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

So are you saying that Messianic prophecies should not be mentioned in the lead section? Flash 02:52, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

My point was, we already are making the ARGUMENT that Christian (scholars, no less) argue that Jesus was the awaited messiah in the lead, currently. ;) -Andrew c  17:16, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The lead makes no such argument. Simply saying they believe he is the awaited Messiah is not an argument for it. Flash 23:26, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

However, while we are on this subject - the body of the article gives perspectives from other religions, so should the lead just focus on mainstream Judaism and two out of the three main Islamic denominations.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

The lead should focus on the most important religions or nations relevant. Jesus was Jewish, so the views of Jews are obviously important; his life is also an important source for historians of 1st century Jewish life. He is worshiped by Christians as if he were a God, so of course their views are important. He is venerated by Muslims as a prophet so their views are important. Are there any other religions in which he is nearly as important? Slrubenstein | Talk 13:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, modern Hinduism has taken the position that he is another reincarnation of Krishna (I'll find a reference for that, so it can go in the article). He's quite significant to the Ba'hai faith. Having now read the lede several times over the course of this discussion, I think the different faith views don't belong in the lede, and should be trimmed out.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

This isn't that reference, but I find it absolutely fascinating. It is a Hindu's explanation to other Hindus of what Christianity is about Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

My humble contention is that the lede is fine as it is. Trim the succinct, summarized "views" and the TOC will be at the TOP just beneath the hatnote.

 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  17:54, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

I dont think "Hinduism" as such has taken that position. Hinduism is a compendium of traditions and practices. The most one can say is that in certain Vaishnavite traditions he has been absorbed - as Buddha was before - into the system of incanations of Vishnu/Krishna. Paul B (talk) 15:03, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

While Hinduism does not have a central "position," in general Jesus is considered a avatar of Krishna I think. If the Baha'i Faith is going to be mentioned, then I would think Hinduism should be as well. _Critical__Talk 14:33, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Reply to original question: We should explain the context of a religion's beliefs about Jesus, wherever it's relevant and can be kept concise. In this case, the bald fact that Jesus didn't fulfill messianic expectations is worth mentioning. Christians say that Jesus was the messiah that Jews were expecting, so the Jewish view on this issue is clearly germane. Christians say that Jews were wrong to expect the messiah to be a conquering human king instead of a crucified and resurrected god, but it remains a plain historical fact that Jesus failed to meet 1st-century Jewish expectations of the messiah. Leadwind (talk) 18:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The fact that Jesus' Jewish disciples believed him to be the Messiah causes much of a problem for the idea that it is a historical fact that Jesus failed to meet contemporary expectations and, whatever we mean by "Judaism" and its rejection. On the historical question, we only have a limited view of Messianic expectations, and those we do have are very diverse, many of which are not shared by contemporary Judaism. Michael F. Bird in Are You the One Who is to Come? writes, "I would shy away from the opinion, once commonly held, that there was a uniform hope for the coming Davidic king in common Judaism. What messianic aspirations did exist display a variety of beliefs about a coming deliverer. One obvious distinction is that some conceived of the Messiah as an earthly warrior..., while there were others who conceived of him as a preexisting and transcendent figure... Or there again, some, like those at Qumran, could conceive of two Messiahs, one of Aaron and one of Israel..." Furthermore, historically messianic expectations were not necessarily based on the Tanakh. Contemporary Judaism may reject it on that basis, but in the first century the expectations were greatly developed in the intertestamental literature. Then there is the whole Messianic Judaism thing. This leads to a number of problems for the current form of the sentence. --Ari (talk) 02:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

It is not certain that Jesus' Jewish disciples believed he was the Messiah when he was alive. Most historians believe that they did not, for obvious reasons. It is not certain when his followers began believing he was the messiah, but it does seem clear that the process by which they came to view him as "messiah" coincided with a transformation in the meaning of the word "messiah." How about rephrasing it as "because they did not believe he conformed to their traditional expectations of a messiah?" This covers the "earthly warrior" thing. Which is very much based on the book of Samuel. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Paula Fredriksen, James Dunn and others believe that Jesus was perceived as Messiah by others during his ministry such as the crowds at Jerusalem. Many argue that Jesus' ministry was self-consciously messianic in terms of actions and eschatology (D.C. Allison, N.T. Wright, Theissen and Merz, etc.) --Ari (talk) 05:13, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but don't they also suggest that the vast majority of these people concluded he was not Messiah when he was crucified? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, the beliefs of the largest Abrahamic religions should count. Islam, judaism, and bahai faith are all abrahamic with significant populations so these three should have priority, whereas hinduism is dharmic. It does seem however islam makes up too much space in this article. Islam already has two articles ; Jesus in Islam, Isa (name) Someone65 (talk) 22:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit requests to this semi-protected page

Any editor who would like to edit this this semi-protected page is invited to contact me at my talk page - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:00, 8 July 2010 (UTC) See Misplaced Pages:Reviewing

Are you offering yourself as something similar to a WP:MEATPUPPET, Ret.Prof? --FormerIP (talk) 20:26, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Is that a joke, or don't you understand what semi-protection is? _Critical__Talk 22:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I do understand semi-protection. However due to the hostile response I am retracting my offer. It is clearly an idea whose time has not yet come. Happy editing - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:40, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

The hostile response seems to be from Slrubenstein on my talk page. I was talking, as I thought the indentation showed, to FormerIP, whose response you could interpret as hostile, but which I interpreted as a genuine question. _Critical__Talk 23:29, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Becritical, you are absolutely right that I misinterpreted you and I apologize. In situations like this it often helps to begin with an "@ —" so it is clear whom you are addressing. But this is not meant to excuse my misreading. I am sorry, and thank you for your explanation. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem, misreading people is extremely easy in a text-only environment. Cheers (: _Critical__Talk 00:03, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

And I could have been more clear about who I was talking to, on re-reading it. _Critical__Talk 04:04, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Request

I think the lead looks fine except that theres too much coverage on islam in the lead of article about the founder of Christianity. Judaism is a biblical religion but gets only two sentences in the lead, whereas islam is non-biblical and gets 5 sentences, which is undue weight in my opinion. There are enough passages about Jesus and Islam in several other articles: Jesus in Islam, Isa (name), Disciples of Jesus in Islam, Religious perspectives on Jesus, Islamic eschatology, Christianity and Islam, Jesus in Ahmadiyya Islam, Islamic view of Jesus' death, Jesus through Shia Narrations, etc. Even though i agree its inclusion in this page is valid, i think this is too much. As an example, if you look at Moses page, you won't see this much coverage on other religions. Nor do we see a whole paragraph devoted to buddhism on a Krishna article. Also, Jesus is not so important in Islam as is evident here Template:Prophets in the Qur'an where he is an ordinary prophet and one of many. Matter fact, the Quran makes much more coverage of other prophets such as Moses and arguably gives more reverence to Noah and Abraham. On tis page theres a heading called religious perspectives and three of those two islamic sentences should be moved there instead to balance it out. Everything has it's right place and i'm simply asking for this islam paragraph to be reduced and/or partly moved to religious perpectives part. Thoughts? Someone65 (talk) 18:03, 10 July 2010 (UTC) Also, i want somebody to mention what language Jesus spoke. I think it was greek, or aramaic right? Someone65 (talk) 02:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

It already does "Jesus lived in Galilee for most of his life and spoke Aramaic and possibly Hebrew and some Greek." The bit in the lead on Islamic views doesn't seem to bad to me. It is true that the lead does not really summarize the article very well, but it does do a fairly decent job (I think) of giving a broad perspective and hitting the most important points, even if it doesn't give coverage in the same proportions as the article. Getting a broad perspective is more important than giving proportionate coverage. _Critical__Talk 04:00, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I dont mean in the article. I mean in the infobox template. Could somebody add this to the infobox Jesus template please that he spoke greek, aramaic and hebrew? I tried to do it but its just not showing. Someone65 (talk) 11:37, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

But we do not know that. Most historians agree that he would have spoken Aramaic, I do not think this is controversial. It is very likely he spoke Hebrew, and likely he spoke Greek or some Greek, but even from the Gospels do we have real evidence of this? Is this enough to change the infobox? (In articles, we can explain sources and uncertainties; in infoboxes we cannot) Slrubenstein | Talk 11:41, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Look. theres different, gospels, canons, manuscripts and other books accepted by some and not by others. Therefore we should go by what the historians say. Since they mostly agree Jesus spoke Aramaic, greek and hebrew it should be reflected in the template, especially since it says so in the article. I doubt there's any controversy here, but if you insist we could wait it out for any opposition and make the edit in 2 days. Do you agree? Someone65 (talk) 13:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I think I missed the part where you established, through citations, that Jesus spoke Greek. Meier, in A Marginal Jew argues that if Jesus spoke any Greek, it would have been rudimentary phrases used in commerce, and he would not have been fluent, and that none of the Greek phrases attributed to him in the NT can go back to him untranslated. If this is the case, would it be fair to say that he spoke Greek in the same manner he spoke Aramaic? His Hebrew is similarly disputed, and goes along, to a degree, with the question on whether he was literate or not.-Andrew c  15:06, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec)@Someone, your proposal for two day's discussion is fine by me. But Andrew C's point is well-taken. Meier is well-respected and clearly there is some range of opinion, and this should give us reason to be very cautious about changing the template. My point was not to veto, but to call for more discussion. This is a controversial topic - many historical topics are - and in my view there is a world of difference between saying that "Jesus spoke Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek" and saying "Most historians believe Jesus spoke Aramaic, Hebrew, and Greek." I am not trying to be difficult or play a semantics game. The reason I believe there is an important difference is: those historians may not be uniform in the degree to which they are sure Jesus spoke a particular language, and they may have different arguments. When we say this in an article, we can explain what the different arguments are and where and why there is room for doubt. But when people see it in a template, they just conclude that it is a fact, as much a fact as other information commonly found in templates like, the anthem of Ecuador is "Salve, Oh Patria." or Barack Obama is the "44th President of the United States." it just seems to me that information in templates is virtually never speculative or controversial. And I think we should be careful that it not be speculative or controversial, even if most scholars would agree that a degree of controversy is unavoidable, or that they are as confident in this bit of speculation as anyone can be. I see a threshold and I am very concerned about readers scanning these templates and assuming that they are, if you forgive the pun, gospel. In the case of what number president Obama is or what the national anthem of Ecuador is, in fact people can treat what Misplaced Pages says as if it were "the truth" (even though we are officially agnostic about the truth). Such is not the case here. So, this is my concern. I hope enough people take it seriously that there is some healthy discussion for two days. Whatever the consensus emerges by say Tuesday night, or Wed. morning, is fine with me! Slrubenstein | Talk 15:18, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I vote for the addition to be phrased like this... Language; Aramaic, (some greek and hebrew) Someone65 (talk) 16:39, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

By the way, have you guys read my concerns about the lead above? Someone65 (talk) 18:07, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Since Jesus is more important to Muslims than to jes, I think it is reasonable and in fact necessary that the lead say more about Muslim views of Jesus than about Jewish views. I certainly do not think there is anything more about Jewish views of Jesus that can be said in the lead. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:25, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

I likewise how no issue with the coverage of Islam in the lead, or in the article. You mention other Islamic prophet's articles, such as Moses, but I don't think that is a fair comparison because the lead is too short as is (and there is significant coverage of Islam in the body of that, and other articles). Just saying that I don't find an issue currently, and think part of NPOV is including multicultural coverage.-Andrew c  22:20, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey two days have passed and there have been no objections to addding a language section to the Jesus template. So lets do it. Someone65 (talk) 18:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

If Andrew C has no objection then i won't object. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

The proposal was Language; Aramaic, (some greek and hebrew) ? I'd feel more comfortable with (possibly some Greek and Hebrew). -Andrew c  15:44, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Are we waiting for Christmas to make this edit or what ? Someone65 (talk) 20:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I promise to do it for you as a Christmas present. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 21:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

It should have been done a week ago but still nothing. Didn't we come to a consensus to add Jesus' language? Someone65 (talk) 01:07, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Needed copy edit

Someone needs to fix this. I'm not sure how to do it:

Not all groups that identify with Christianity are Trinitarian. or Nicene-based believe that he is the Son of God and God incarnate who was raised from the dead. Only a few do not.

It's inside a ref tag. BE——Critical_{__Talk} 16:34, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Historicity, legend, myth, etc.

We can't define the topic of this article as the Christian Messiah, and then claim the historicity of Jesus is accepted by most scholars. The historicity of someone who was the son of God, conceived immaculately, performed miracles, and was resurrected is not accepted by most classical scholars. That figure is a legend, mythic in the same sense that Odysseus or Rama are mythic. They may very well be based on individuals who really existed, but those real individuals didn't battle cyclops or winged monkeys. We could not say scholars agree that they did. This article doesn't exist to promote Christian doctrine: from a secular perspective, Jesus (as Messiah) is a legendary, mythic figure. Noloop (talk) 14:34, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I've just reverted your edit (actually it seems Ari and I did it at the same time, and he got there first). Please wait for consensus before reintroducing the unsourced assertion that Jesus is a legendary (in the sense of 'not historical') figure, particularly as the article now contains more than adequate sourcing that many scholars are happy to work from a point that there was a historical Jesus. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:44, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) (1) The claim that the historicity of Jesus is accepted by most scholars is cited. In fact, most scholars do not know of any scholar in the field that doubts the historicity of Jesus. Your edit misrepresents this cited fact. (2) Your opinion that the "figure is a legend" is your opinion, your opinion does not dictate the scholarly consensus. (3) I agree, this article doesn't exist to promote Christian doctrine, but more to the contentious edits - it doesn't exist to promote your own personal opinions. --Ari (talk) 14:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say there was no historic Jesus. I said there was no historic figure who walked on water, etc., and that is not a point of contention among classical scholars. Noloop (talk) 14:49, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

At what point does the article say that the historical Jesus most definately did perform those miricles? IIRC, it says that Christians, Muslims, and a few others believe that, but where does it say that this means it's true? It doesn't. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:58, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

There are many historical figures to whom supernatural events have been ascribed including all saints. All the people in the List of people beatified by Pope John Paul II were considered to have performed at least one miracle after their deaths, but no one argues that Pope John XXIII (d. 1963) was not an historical figure - there are pictures of him! TFD (talk) 17:43, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the proper response to Noloop's reasonable concern is: this article does not discuss ANY activity of the resurrected (i.e. crucified) Christ. The historical Jesus - who is also known as Jesus Christ, but perhaps not when he was alive - is the proper subject of this article. And the fact that many believe he peformed miracles does not mean that he is the real messiah (Elisha and Honi the Circle Drawer performed miracles just like Jesus, and were not messiahs). In fact, there is a lot of material on the Christ part of Jesus' identity that is not included in this article and that goes into the article on Christology. I think having these two distinct articles is the best solution we will ever come up with to this matter. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:51, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I do not see how we do that since the only source for Jesus assumes that he did all those miracles. There are many semi-mythological characters like this, like King Arthur and Odysseus. The difference with the last two is that archeological evidence may be found that provides an independent source of information. We of course do not know if Jesus lived, some scholars claim he did not, in which case separating the real from the mythological Jesus would not make sense. TFD (talk) 19:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Not sure exactly what The Four Deuces is referring to, but I too believe that Jesus and Christology should be different articles, and that the bulk of the material on the "Christ"-like material related to Jesus be included in the latter article. It is possible (maybe not likely, but possible) that we might, at some point, find contemporary sources from the time of Jesus attesting to these miracles, just as we might about King Arthur/Riothemus and Odysseus and the other figures of the Trojan War. Also, the fact that individuals claimed he performed these miracles doesn't necessarily mean that they were all "miracles." I remember having read a few works which indicated that many of these miracles could be ascribed, potentially, to Jesus having "charismatically" cured people of what may have been psychosomatic illnesses. Such cures would not, necessarily, be "miraculous" by our standards today, although they probably would have been described as such by contemporaries at that time. John Carter (talk) 19:28, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I think the important thing is that there is enough consensus among scholars that there was a historical character who started a bit of a religious movement in Galilee. The religious movement snowballed remarkably, based (and here TFD is right) on the legend who walked on water, raised the dead etc, but also based on a religious or philosophical creed which the first generation of the movement believed were passed to them by the historical character. An article which attempts to pick the historical character out from the "legend" (as in "Mick Jagger is a legendary rock star", not "King Arthur is a myth without historical grounding") is a good thing. Noloop is right in that we should ensure that this article only refers to the 'legend' side incidentally - detailed interpretation of the parables, miracles etc belongs in the Christology article. The focus here should be on the scholarship surrounding the prospect of Jesus as a historical figure.Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:55, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

My point was that we know nothing of the historical Jesus except what is in the New Testament. Even if he did live, we do not know if he spoke the words ascribed to him. Some writers believe that his words were changed in order to conform with Pauline doctrine, and there are a variety of interpretations of Judas Iscariot. Many of the things ascribed to him, which fulfilled Jewish prophesies, may have been added later: his birth in Bethlehem, descent from David, Herod's slaughter of the innocents, his riding into Jerusalem on a donkey, the crucifiction. Then again, the miracles may have happened, but had natural causes, just as modern magicians can pull a rabbit out of a hat. I just do not see how we are to determine what is and is not historical. And there will never be any contemporaneous evidence. TFD (talk) 21:36, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The subject of this article is the Messiah. I say that because the lead defines the subject, and that is the essence of the lead. The suggestion that this article is about the historic Jesus makes no sense, because there is already Historical Jesus, as well as Quest for the historical Jesus. The gist of my edits was simply to clarify that classical scholars tend to believe there was a Historical Jesus, not a Messiah. It was to clarify that Misplaced Pages views the Messiah as a legendary figure, which is as NPOV as Misplaced Pages viewing the Earth as being 4 billion years old, or Hercules as a mythical figure. It is not a violation of NPOV to stick to science and reason, and conclusion of science and reason is that the Messiah is as mythical as Shiva or Zeus. Noloop (talk) 01:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, Noloop has a good point here. Why do we have an article on Christian Jesus, Historical Jesus and this one? What's this one supposed to be about? Is this the 'outline of Jesus' article? Are we able to clarify on this. Elen of the Roads (talk) 08:31, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

We do not, and should not, because it would be a POV fork, which is against WP policy. It seems to me at this point that Noloop simply misunderstands out NPOV policy and also has misread the article. NPOV is premisedon "verifiability, not truth." We are not claiming that this article is about the messiah. it is about a Jesus who is refered to in, or reconstructed in people's minds based on, the Gospels. Now, people have different views of that Jesus, and this article has to represent all significant views. One view is that he was God incarnate. There is a wide range of views that he was just a human being. When some say Jesus was messiah, they could mean he was God incarnate or purely human, depending on what they mean by messiah. In any case, this article should present all significant views. To fork views as if there are two different Jesuses is just to mislead our readers and to undermine the very idea of NPOV. The subject of this article is not the Messiah. It is a person called Jesus, and the introduction presents multiple views of him including a few views that he was not the messiah, so the only way Noloop can claim that this article is about "the messiah" is by ignoring all the views we include that he is not messiah. To create a POV fork would be to make his hallucination real, which is not a good idea. Let's just keep the views that he was not messiah in this article, and remind readers that Christians and non-devout historians are talking about the same person but have different views of him. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how it is a POV fork. It is recognizing that there are different topics: historical Jesus and mythic Jesus. The Jesus who (presumably) was a real man, conceived by a human sperm fertilizing a human egg, and the other One. It is recognition that the Misplaced Pages is not a dictionary, so articles need to have well-defined topics, not be mish-mashed overviews of how a term is used. As for the view that Jesus was not the messiah, I might be more convinced that it is an equally important part of the article if it had a significant portion of the lead. But none of that actually addresses the point of my edit, which was simply to clarify that scholars generally support the existence of a guy named Jesus conceived in the usual way, not the other One. Noloop (talk) 14:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC) P.S. As I look into this topic further, I am increasingly disturbed that most of the sources for the historicity of Jesus are 1) Christian, and 2) not identified as such.

OK so this is the Outline of Jesus article. I'm just grateful no-one has yet suggested that he has fjords. Srsly, in that case it needs to tie together an introduction to Jesus-in-the-Bible, Jesus-in-history, Jesus-in-Christianity, Jesus-as-seen-by-other-religions etc. So it must refer to the accounts in the bible of walking on water, raising the dead etc, along with the extent to which scholars consider there was a historical Jesus (more than a historical King Arthur, at any rate), together with what Jesus means for Christianity. Can't see any reason to use the word 'legendary' (which is kind of an inflammatory word in the way that it is used), but the article should clearly cover that scholars recognise a historical possibility in some of the stories, which can be extrapolated to work towards a historical Jesus, while at the same time acknowledging that some of the stories can only really be analysed in a faith context (there used to be a popular talk given at Christian Unions 30-odd years ago "A lawyer discusses the case for Jesus", which was supposed to be an evangelistic tool. Seemed pretty dumb to me - you can't make faith in a court of law - but there you go.)Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:59, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

No, this is the Jesus article and it does a pretty damn good job of compling with our NPOV policy in providing all significant views from verifiable sources. It correctly distinguishes between diferent fiews, and the introduction has one of the best summaries of what critical scholars suggest about Jesus, as well as a very fine short account of Christian belief, and the jewish view and other views. Noloop seems intent on casting every view in this article as Christian. Sorry, that won'e fly. Please reread our NPOV policy. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

How is Jesus any different from the Pope, who is claimed to be God's representative on Earth, or the Queen of the U. K., the "Defender of the Faith" who rules "by the grace of God". In both cases supernatural forces are are ascribed by followers, but we do not split the articles. TFD (talk) 18:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what Slrubenstein is talking about. The characterizations of my edits and my intent fly in the face of my own statements about my intentions and what any common-sensical person could possibly glean from my edits. We all agree that there are different versions of "Jesus" in play in the article. The intent of my edits was to clarify that the historicity of Jesus is not concerned with the historicity of the Messiah, or an entity immaculately conceived, etc. That was the main point of my edits. I further note that there is nothing controversial at all, from a neutral scientific standpoint, in referring to Jesus as a legend--that's the mythic/divine/messianic Jesus. It is no different for encylcopedic purposes than referring to the legend of King Arthur or from rejecting Creationism as a neutral scientific description of anything. There is an additional problem that is starting to surface: most of the sources used to assert "scholars" agree that a historic Jesus existed are Christians. Somehow, I don't think Christians are going to investigate the matter and conclude that, no, it turns out Jesus never existed. There is a conflict of interest and bias in the sourcing. Noloop (talk) 22:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

You're also not going to get many non-Christians who disagreed that Jesus existed, so the point is moot. Soxwon (talk) 22:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

How so? I don't disagree that there was a person on whom some of the Jesus legend derives, i.e. a historic Jesus. I'm not Christian. Likewise, I believe there was a real Troy from which the legendary one derives (this is fact). Yet, I don't believe in Zeus. I believe there was an historic King Arthur, yet I'm not a druid. Legends are commonly accepted to have some connection to an actual event, place, or individual. That's what we're talking about here when we distinguish the historic and divine Jesus. Of course it is controversial because Christians object to that distinction just as they object to distinguishing the origin of the Earth from creationism. So? Noloop (talk) 22:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree that there was a person on whom some of the Jesus legend derives, i.e. a historic Jesus. Then what was the point of your edit? The sources we used happened to be Christian, but since there is scholarly consensus, there is no need for the change. Soxwon (talk) 23:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

My edit didn't imply there was no historic Jesus, so I don't understand your question. I've explained the purpose my edit repeatedly. Noloop (talk) 23:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Once again, Noloop, your edits have been reverted. For example, why is "Critical Biblical scholars and historians believe that the New Testament is useful for reconstructing Jesus' life" changed into "Christian scholars believe that the New Testament is useful for reconstructing Jesus' life." Other than your personal misgivings, what verifiable basis is there for this change? --Ari (talk) 19:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I am getting pretty tired of the hateful way you express yourself to me. Hating in the name Jesus. Now that's a miracle. Noloop (talk) 20:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

My above post was so overwhelmingly hateful, right? Is that really the best justification you could bring for objections to your clearly POV disruptive edits? --Ari (talk) 03:40, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, the issue is not what is the religion of the historian. Have we stooped to asking university professors about their personal beliefs? When it coms to history, any historian can recognize a bias like "The Bible is the revealed word of God" or "The Bible is historically accurate." We do not need anyone to tell us what their religion is. Conersely, it is easy to see when a historian rejects those assumptions. What is important is whether a historian applies to all 1st and 2nd century sources (including the NT) the same methods they apply to any historical source. The views described in the paragraph in question are those of critical historians. Their religion is irrelevant. But Noloop just wants people to think that this article is only about what Christians think. Sorry, Noloop, we include all significant views. Slrubenstein | Talk 20:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I made the edits for the reasons I've explained a million times. When you use a fundamentalist Evangelical Christian as a source for a neutral factual claim about Christianity, readers should know. Slrubenstein, your characterization of the issue is a strawman. Nobody is saying all Christian historians are biased on all topics. Christians are biased about Christianity. Ultimately, Christians are harming their own cause. Non-believers who read this article, and notice that Evangelicals are being used as sources for historical claims, will just stop taking the article seriously. Noloop (talk) 20:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

A million times? Hah, hah. The paragraph that follows draws on the scholarship of over ten different authors. It does not matter whenther one of them is Jewish or Christian, Protestant or Carholic. The views in the paragraph are those held by critical historians. There is nothing "Christian" about the views in that paragraph. If a "non-believer" is too stupid to accept good scholarship from whatever source, it is that person's loss. Surely i tis not our fault if some of our readers are idiots. What is our fault however is the acts of our editors. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing Christian about the view that Jesus existed, huh? I'm not sure which paragraph you mean, since I edited two. One of my edits concerned a statement that was sourced to a single "scholar" (described by his Misplaced Pages article as a fundamentalist Evangelical). The other had two books (three authors). Not ten. You're arguing as if I am challenging reliability and trying to remove sources. That's wrong. I'm noting potential conflicts of interest, and trying to explicitly identify sources for readers. There's a big difference. Noloop (talk) 21:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Francis Schaeffer is not described as "a fundamentalist Evangelical". Please get your facts right. Antique Rose — Drop me a line 22:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

"Francis August Schaeffer (30 January 1912 – 15 May 1984) was an American Evangelical Christian theologian, philosopher, and Presbyterian pastor. ... Opposed to theological modernism, Schaeffer promoted a more fundamentalist Protestant faith and a presuppositional approach to Christian apologetics, which he believed would answer the questions of the age. A number of scholars credit Schaeffer's ideas with helping spark the rise of the Christian Right in the United States.....Schaeffer popularized, in the modern context, a conservative Puritan and Reformed perspective." Noloop (talk) 01:48, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

1. Emunoth ve-Deoth, II:5
2. Houlden, James L. (2005). Jesus: The Complete Guide. London: Continuum. ISBN 978-0-8264-8011-8.
3. Prof. Dr. Şaban Ali Düzgün (2004). "Uncovering Islam: Questions and Answers about Islamic Beliefs and Teachings". Ankara: The Presidency of Religious Affairs Publishing.
4. "Compendium of Muslim Texts".
5. Paul Rhodes Eddy and James K. Beilby, "The Quest for the Historical Jesus: An Introduction." in The Historical Jesus: Five Views." pp.47-8.
6. John Dickson, Jesus: A Short Life. Lion Hudson 2009, pp. 138-9.
7. E.P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus. Penguin Books, 1993. p. 11
8. E.P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus. Penguin Books, 1993. p. 11

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