Talk:Jesus: Difference between revisions

From Citizendium
Jump to navigation Jump to search
imported>Bei Dawei
imported>Arne Eickenberg
 
(347 intermediate revisions by 39 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
Major changes. I look forward to reading the final product.  It will be important to analyze the changes after this major reworking is complete.  Happy writing and best of luck on this huge article! [[User:Thomas E Kelly|-Tom Kelly]] [[User talk:Thomas E Kelly|(Talk)]] 00:58, 15 January 2007 (CST)
{{subpages}}


:This one has gone from bad to worse - so far. [[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] 21:53, 16 January 2007 (CST)
==Archives==


::will the history of jesus according to the Christian gospels still be included in the final product? [comment added on 19 January 2007 by [[User:Thomas E Kelly]] ]  
[[Talk:Jesus/Archive 1|Archive 1]], January, 2007


[[Talk:Jesus/Archive 2|Archive 2]], February 1-15, 2007


::Feel free to join in... I had assumed that each of the gospels would have its own article. How much time do we have, anyway? [[User:Bei Dawei|Bei Dawei]]
==Jesus as historical figure==
:::I don't think there really is a time limit.  It's going to be a long time before CZ has a ton of articles so just work hard on a few articles that you are passionate about.  The reason I liked the history according to the gospel is because a lot of people won't actually go to the gospel subpages but will read this article.  I think it's important anyone else? [[User:Thomas E Kelly|-Tom Kelly]] [[User talk:Thomas E Kelly|(Talk)]] 14:00, 19 January 2007 (CST)


::::Yes, I think it is absolutely important. [[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] 19:47, 19 January 2007 (CST)
I open this article and the first sentence I read is "By virtue of the impact of Christianity, Jesus (also known as Jesus Christ or Jesus of Nazareth) is one the most influential people who ever lived." Excuse me? Who says a person called Jesus of Nazareth ever lived? Where is the textual or archaeological evidence for his historicity? We will have to do better than this. [[User:Adam Carr|Adam Carr]] 21:02, 23 February 2007 (CST)


I just want to point out that the article in its present shape is horribly biased.  The very first thing the article says under "Sources" is: "The major historical difficulty concerning Jesus is that the most important sources of information, the four canonical gospels, are works of sectarian propaganda. As historical sources, they suffer from the following shortcomings: ..."
:See [[Talk:Jesus/Archive 1|Archive 1]]. [[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] 21:49, 23 February 2007 (CST)


Pathetically biased--and I say this as a confirmed nonbeliever, by the way.
:While not strictly true, if it were this is hardly an isolated case. There is only one account of the Goth's destruction of Emperor Valens' Roman army at Adrianople (August 9, 378 A.D.). One. It was written by Ammianus Marcellinus who was not even there and was a Greek, not Roman or Goth. That the accounts of Jesus' life were written by people who knew him or knew people who knew him personally and were also followers of his philosophy, believed in his assertions, whatever, is simple ad hominem and hardly grounds for dismissal. Josephus also mentions him. --[[User:Thomas Simmons|Thomas Simmons]] 20:06, 23 June 2007 (CDT)


And the first sentence is bizarre in its description of Jesus as "a Palestinian Jewish religious figure": "Jesus (or Jesus Christ) was a Palestinian Jewish religious figure who was executed by the Roman government by crucifixion around AD 30 or 33. He is chiefly remembered as the (perhaps unwitting) founder of Christianity, and as a prophet of Islam."
OK, I have read all that, for my sins. None of it seems to address my point, which is that the statement that Jesus was a person who lived (ie, a historical figure) is not universally accepted, and supported by very slender evidence (texts written by Christians). Placing such a statement in the opening paragraph as though it was an uncontested fact is POV and unacceptable. The Brittanica gets around that by prefacing its description with the phrase "In Christianity,..." In other words, "this is what Christians believe, not necessarily what we believe." That seems to be a fair solution.[[User:Adam Carr|Adam Carr]] 22:28, 24 February 2007 (CST)


Sure, he was Jewish, sure he lived in what is now called Palestine, but surely these aren't the first most notable things to say about Jesus.
Adam, I respectfully disagree. There is not more than very slender evidence- in the scheme of things- that any particular named individual from a couple of thousand years ago lived in all but very few parts of the world. Here there are several texts and references. It is not limited to a Christian view. As was made very clear in the full discussion in the archives. Perhaps you missed some of it? [[User:Nancy Sculerati MD|Nancy Sculerati MD]] 22:34, 24 February 2007 (CST)


In every controversial subject, the ''only'' way to proceed according to the neutrality policy is to begin with a vanilla description (such as "Jesus (or Jesus Christ) is generally regarded as the founder of the Christian religion") and then proceed to describe the controversy as neutrally and engagingly as possible.
Oh dear - I had this argument at ENORMOUS length at Wikipedia in 2003 and I don't want to have it all again, but I suppose I must. You are wrong about the textual evidence for the life of Jesus as compared with other figures from the same period. There are NO contemporary sources for Jesus outside the Gospels and the Letters of Paul. What are these "several texts and references?" Kindly name me one. Not the reference in Josephus, please, which is a Christian forgery. In any case Josephus (born 32 AD) was not a contemporary. Pliny, writing in 112 AD, is the oldest reference by a non-Christian source. As a matter of fact, I accept that Jesus was a historical figure, although no more than that. But there are plenty of people who don't, and it can't be stated as an uncontested fact. If I am sufficiently provoked, I will write at length on this, using as my text "Modern Biblical Scholarship and the Quest for the Historical Yeshua", which appears as Appendix D to Donald H Akenson's book ''Surpassing Wonder: The Invention of the Bible and the Talmuds'' (Harcourt and Brace 1998). Akenson argues that there is no recoverable evidence at all for a secular life of Jesus. [[User:Adam Carr|Adam Carr]] 22:58, 24 February 2007 (CST)


This article does something quite different.  It pretends that ''skepticism'' is equivalent to neutrality, when that is so obviously (since it is a topic about which so many people have ''faith'') incorrect. The Wikipedians have certainly completely gotten the neutrality policy wrong in this case. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 21:38, 19 January 2007 (CST)
I notice the last paragraph of the lead notes different theoretical existences for JesusIs there a problem with noting as the very last sentence that there is a following that doubts that Jesus even existed, or something to that extent.  Or are we treading on thin ice (references?) with a statement like that? Just a thought from someone who has no real education in this field.  [[User:D. Matt Innis|Matt Innis]] [[User talk:D. Matt Innis|(Talk)]] 23:13, 24 February 2007 (CST)


:I not trying to privilege "skeptical" views of Jesus here, just start from the least-contested and proceed to the more controversial. (A common approach in Jesus Studies, by the way.) While other Palestinian Jews were crucified at this time, this opening does serve to pin him down to as close as we can come to a generally-agreed historical event. Anything else, such as a description of his teachings, would be far more iffy, and in any case less influential as a sheer symbolic image.  
My view is that the whole introductory section (the first three paragraphs) are (how shall I put this politely?) ahistorical and tendentious. I will have a go at drafting a replacement. [[User:Adam Carr|Adam Carr]] 23:20, 24 February 2007 (CST)


:The very next line does describe him as the Christian founder (and Muslim prophet). And two more paragraphs of the introduction cover the essentials of how they see Jesus. Later sections should go into even more detail. In what way is this inadequate? Is it a matter of language, or of presentation? I'm afraid I don't understand your objection.
:Adam, I could then pull out a shelf of books like F.F. Bruce's ''The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?'' (Eerdmans 2003) (Bruce replies with a strong "yes"), dig in my heels, and argue ad infinitum for the contrary view. But we are not here to write personal position papers but an encyclopedia article on the subject "Jesus" (not "Jesus as historical figure") for general use. [[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] 23:22, 24 February 2007 (CST)


:On rereading, I think you object to the phrase "sectarian propaganda." "Sectarian" means that the gospels were created and promoted by a religious sect. "Propaganda" means that it is material meant for distribution, in order to bring other people around to their views. Both are statements of fact, though I admit the phrase does sound jarring. (But then, you don't want to sound neutral anyway, it seems...?)
I agree. My simple point is that the opening section cannot simply assert that Jesus was a historical figure as an uncontested fact, when it is in fact contested. An article on "Jesus" must address the question of whether he was a historical figure, and not simply assume that he was or he wasn't. (I haven't read the rest of the article. If it goes on to make assertions about the life and career of Jesus as if these were historically accepted facts, then that will have to be disputed as well.) [[User:Adam Carr|Adam Carr]] 23:31, 24 February 2007 (CST)


:Or perhaps I should ask, How would you organize or express the basics of Jesus? Do you think we should begin with a summary of the gospels? [[User:Bei Dawei|Bei Dawei]]
Jesus, hasn't anybody read Tacitus? :-) --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 00:08, 25 February 2007 (CST)


The basic principle of writing an encyclopedia article is: you begin with the most general description of the thing; in the case of a historical personage, what the person is best known for.  Therefore, one does not begin with "the least-contested and proceed to the more controversial." Since beginning with "what a person is best known for" is what people expect, after all, out of an encyclopedia article, to begin with anything other than the precise reason why Jesus is famous--he is reputed to be founder of Christianity, and the son of God according to Christians--is going to look biased to a lot of people.  Certainly to me (a confirmed agnostic, by the way).
Tacitus was writing in the 2nd century, and records no more than the fact that someone called "Christus" was executed in Palestine in the reign of Tiberius.  


The second sentence, beginning "He is chiefly remembered as the (perhaps unwitting) founder of Christianity," is plainly biased, because for Christians, he is chiefly not remembered, but known as an immediate presence, as God.  For us not to say so in, indeed, the first sentence is precisely to be biased against Christians.  It would be like opening the article about Muhammad without saying both that he was a prophet of God, according to Muslims, as well as the founder of Islam.  Surely all this is obvious?
Here is a suggestion for a new opening section:


Bei, I am indeed trying to make controversial articles like this neutral. The reason the phrase "sectarian propaganda" is obviously not neutral is that it is the way that one group of people would describe Jesus, and a way that another large group of people (i.e., most Christians) would ''not'' describe him.
:'''Jesus''', known as '''Jesus Christ''' or '''Jesus of Nazareth''', is the central figure in Christianity, one of the world’s major religions. Christians believe that Jesus was the son of God, one of the three persons of the Trinity, whose death and resurrection brought salvation to humanity, and also that he was a historical figure who lived in the Roman province of Judea from about 4BC to about 35AD. Christians believe that Jesus, after preaching to the Jews and performing various miracles, was condemned to death and crucified by the Roman authorities, and that three days after his death he rose from the dead.  


I think that a summary of the gospels should, obviously, be one of the first things, not the first thing, in an article about Jesus, because for the vast bulk of your audience, that is the most interesting information about the topic. Also, and perhaps more importantly, the gospel story is again what Jesus is famous for.  What could ''justify'' omitting it from the beginning of the article, since that is indeed the very explanation for the existence of the article?
:The only source of historical knowledge about Jesus is the Christian Gospels, which are based on documents written within living memory of the events described in them. The Letters of St Paul, which are older than the Gospels, also attest to the historical reality of Jesus. There are however no contemporary references to Jesus from non-Christian sources. Some writers therefore deny that Jesus was a historical figure at all. Most secular historians, however, accept that Jesus existed, but do not believe that the details of his life can be known from the available evidence.


I'm sorry, but it really is difficult to write neutrally about controversial topics.  You must realize something that you appear not to realize fully yet, namely, that you are speaking on behalf of everyone--including Christians--interested in this topic.  That means that, essentially, you have to write in such a way as to make everyone as happy as possible.  Surely we can do better than how the article is at present.
[[User:Adam Carr|Adam Carr]] 00:30, 25 February 2007 (CST)


The real trick to writing neutrally, by the way, is by "going meta," i.e., rather than making vague, but widely-agreed claims ("was a Palestinian Jewish religious figure whom Roman authorities executed by crucifixion"), one makes quite specific, but ''attributed'' claims, and one proceeds to ''describe the disputes fairly.'' So it's all right to say, in the first sentence, that Jesus is regarded as son of God, as long you say he's so regarded by Christians as the central tenet of their faithAnd, of course, as long as you also say that he's regarded in other specific ways by Jews and by Muslims. The emphasis in the beginning should, clearly, be on ''attributed'' Christian claims, for the simple reason that it's Christians who care most about the article's subject.  That's the article's "constituency." You'd give the Islamic view of Muhammad similar billing in the Muhammad article, and so forth.  It's just that, in each article, you also present other views of the subject--each one, indeed, presented ''sympathetically.'' (And in a lively fashion, as well.)
:I would actually like to consult a religious scholar or a historian who studies the period to determine the ''neutrality'' of the claim, "The only source of historical knowledge about Jesus is the Christian Gospels." Is this generally accepted by the relevant scholars, i.e., is there pretty much universal agreement on that point? I very much doubt that, Adam, in which case the claim needs to be changed somehow.  I think you assume, for example, that Tacitus did not have some other source of information, such as a living tradition or "common knowledge" that continued to the time in which he was writing, and that he relied on the GospelsOtherwise, then, Tacitus too certainly does count as a "source of historical knowledge."


I will rewrite the article myself, if and when I have time, to demonstrate what neutrality, on my view of it, requires. Please do read [http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neutral_point_of_view--draft&oldid=756], if you're interested in the policy I'll be editing for CZ.
:Perhaps this could be handily solved by simply rewording the claim, "The only source of historical knowledge that purports to be based on eyewitness accounts..."  But even this might fail to be neutral; to determine whether it is we require the input of the relevant specialists.


--[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 20:23, 21 January 2007 (CST)
:As to whether to make the entire second paragraph of the article about doubts about the historical existence of Jesus, this seems to be a nonstarter.  The introductory paragraphs of a ''biography'' in particular should concern the aspects of the person's life or thought for which he or she is most notable.  Jesus is not nearly as notable for being possibly fictional as he is for many other things. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 12:35, 25 February 2007 (CST)


:I don't think we disagree terribly much about neutrality, only in whether what I have written so far qualifies as neutral. Try as I might, I don't see what the problems are. You keep insisting that I have somehow ignored Christian beliefs, when I think I have given them appropriate prominence.  
I strongly disagree that your version is an "improvement". The fact that there are some legitimate doubts about the historical existance of Jesus of course deserves a mention in the article, in the same way (the Jesus Talk archives has this point in depth-as made by Gareth Leng) that there is at least as much doubt over the actual authorship of the plays attributed to Shakespeare. It is just as inappropriate to insert that doubt in the introductory paragraph of Jesus as it would be to insert the authorship issue in the first paragraph of an article on Shakespeare for all the reasons that Gareth so clearly presented in his long reply - now in the Archives. We've covered this ground, Adam, and accept the first paragraph as written. I'm interested in your views, but not a de novo debate. [[User:Nancy Sculerati MD|Nancy Sculerati MD]] 05:58, 25 February 2007 (CST)


:What I would most like to see happen, is to have actual biblical scholars come and go over this. After all, this isn't really my field. I'm only trying to get it into some sort of condition where real scholars wouldn't just slam their heads against the wall.
Well now, this is where things get interesting. If this were Wikipedia, Nancy, your view would carry as much weight as mine, and we would be deadlocked. But this is Citizendium, and this project, we are told, values the opinions of experts over those of non-experts. I have a doctorate in history, you are an otolaryngologist. I don't claim to be a particular expert in early Christian history, but nevertheless as a trained historian I think I trump you. '''Larry''', if you are still following this thread, what is your view on this? What would happen if I were to install my text and ignore Nancy's objections on the ground that as a non-historian she has no standing? Would you say I was within my rights? [[User:Adam Carr|Adam Carr]] 06:09, 25 February 2007 (CST)


:I have assumed that the historical Jesus--i.e. the real guy--should have priority over faith-based fantasies thereof. I propose that an analogy would be with Saint Nicholas / Santa Claus. Compare the following descriptions:
:There is no "rank" here to "pull."  None of us is an expert on the topic, I assume. Hence none of us is an editor with respect to this topic, and we are equal when it comes to making decisions. If we wish an editor to settle this, we should look to the Religion Workgroup, or perhaps to a historian who specializes in early Christianity. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 12:25, 25 February 2007 (CST)


::''(a) Saint Nicholas was a fourth-century bishop of Myra, who ultimately inspired the legends of Santa Claus.
Indeed I could argue that since Stephen is a chiropractor and you, Larry, are a philosopher, I am the only qualified historian currently editing this article, and that I can do as I please with it until someone with higher qualifications (say, a doctorate in Christian history), comes along. [[User:Adam Carr|Adam Carr]] 06:20, 25 February 2007 (CST)


::''(b) Saint Nicholas is a folk figure said to deliver toys to children during the Christmas holidays. He is loosely based on Saint Nicholas of Myra.
You would be right if the focus of this article were
the historical facts relating to the story of Jesus' life, that would place this article exclusively in the History workgroup. The issue that has been gone over extensively is whether such history should indeed be the focus of the article, and the consensus was that it should not be, that the article should describe the story of Jesus, and discuss the importance of the Jesus of Christianity, and its ethical moral cultural and societal implications and consequences as well as the history, and be a gateway into specialised long articles about many things including the history. For many of the issues that this article must cobver, mostly only in outline, the historical facts of Jesus' life are actually irrelevant. The impact of the teachings ascribed to Jesus are there regardless of the truth of Jesus' life. Tracing that impact of course is something we need historians for too.... :-)[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 06:22, 25 February 2007 (CST)


::''(c) "Saint Nicholas" has more than one referent. For the Christian saint, see [[Saint Nicholas of Myra]]. For the Christmas figure, see [[Santa Claus]].
Excuse me? The historical facts about the life of Jesus are ''irrelevant''? Dear me. If it were to be established that Jesus never existed, or indeed if it were just to be established that he was an ordinary Jewish agitator who performed no miracles and was not resurrected, the entire Christian religion would collapse in a heap. I rather think these are relevant questions in an article about Jesus. What Christians believe about Jesus is a question of theology, not history, and actually belongs in the [[Christianity]] article. ''This'' article is about "Jesus," and the ''first'' question it must address is whether any such person as jesus ever existed, and the second question is, if he did, what facts can be known about his biography. [[User:Adam Carr|Adam Carr]] 06:30, 25 February 2007 (CST)


:Note that discussion of the Santa Claus cult only makes sense when grounded in time and place, so we can't just declare that he has eight reindeer (not Rudolf?), or appears on Christmas Eve (not Epiphany?). Better to start with the real guy (or as much as can be known of him), and then trace the development of the legend over time.
:I'd encourage everyone to be as collegial as possible, please; this isn't Wikipedia.  The next instance of "Excuse me? ... Dear me."  We will replace with [[:Template:Nocomplaints]].


:On to other points... To say that Jesus "founded Christianity" is very likely wrong, which is why I said that he is remembered that way (as it happens, by most of the world's people). To say that Jesus is mainly known for being the Son of God, ignores the fact that the Qur'an explicitly denies this. (How important is it that Christians slightly outnumber Muslims, or that they presumably care somewhat more about Jesus?)
:Anyway, I have to support Gareth here. For many of the issues we have to cover in this article, as he said, the actual historical facts are indeed ''irrelevant,'' no more relevant than the actual historical facts of the life of Moses are to our recounting of the Biblical story of the flight from Egypt, for example, and no more relevant than whatever Tolstoy's inspiration might have been for our account of Anna Karenina's life. More to the point, Jesus is quite obviously first and foremost a religious topic, not a historical one.  Nearly every topic has multiple connections.  There are, of course philosophical aspects (concerning the nature of divinity): should "Jesus" thus be a philosophy article too?  Of course not.  Indeed, due to the importance of the topic, there are anthropological aspects, psychological aspects, artistic aspects, and no doubt many others. We would like to cover those aspects (in this article or in other ancillary ones) but that does not mean that the topic itself belongs to all of the relevant workgroups. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 13:02, 25 February 2007 (CST)


:While the phrase "sectarian propaganda" would not be used by most Christians, it is nevertheless accurate. Which is more important--the happiness of (non-liberal) Christians, or accuracy? (Perhaps the phrase is needlessly inflammatory, since the same points are developed later.)
I much prefer Adam's version for stylistic reasons (it is also my unqualified opinion is that he is right about the significance of the historicity issue). The current version tells us who Jesus was in a rather roundabout way. Adam's version gets to the point immediately, in a logical order and without resorting to wrapping-paper prose like "by virtue of the impact of", "is one the most influential people who ever lived" and "The question 'Who was Jesus?' seems a simple one, yet the answers which have been proposed defy easy summary." [[User:Fredrik Johansson|Fredrik Johansson]] 07:07, 25 February 2007 (CST)


:Anyway, I look forward to your rewrites.  
:Fredrik, the first quote is very precise; the second gives the article a personable tone. "Encyclopedia" need not equate with "sterile". BTW, I am not a chiropractor. I am sure this was just an oversight by Adam. [[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] 14:49, 25 February 2007 (CST)
:--Dawei / Dawud [[User:Bei Dawei|Bei Dawei]]


Is that User: Be Ware? Or Borat? Is that a goof? Is that Ken Kesey off the bus? Or on? Is that a big waste of everybody's time? Or just a big waste of everybody's good will? But then, waste's a goof, too! Goof on you, you, ''you!'' Where's the line? Here? There? Or are you over it? Get over it! Maybe just push ''us'' over it? Maybe just focus ''down down down'' bring us ''down'' to the line you can draw right here, in religion, that's always a good goof, right, one big goof, keep it going going gone, always a line to draw in religion, always a way to get a rise, and the biggest goof, is you can just keep that goof GOING GOING GONE, and nobody catches ON. Hey, man, what a goof! In case you are wondering, that is my ''very'' considered opinion of this sophisticated pranksteristic essay. Oh, you had NO idea it was offensive? It is offensive and I object to it, right down to the Santa Claus analogy and I'm not a believer, either. But I do have respect for people that are. [[User:Nancy Sculerati MD|Nancy Sculerati MD]] 00:55, 22 January 2007 (CST)
:I concur. Adam's opening sentence is a big improvement. The current version is not what I would expect when reading an encyclopedia article on Jesus. --[[User:Tom Morris|Tom Morris]] 10:34, 17 May 2008 (CDT)


:I'm sorry that you're offended, but I assure you that everything I wrote was in earnest. At least I am attempting to communicate rationally. The bulk of your post appears to consist of some sort of dadaist ad hominem.
==Points arising==


:I have a suggestion. One of Citizendium's authors is [[User: Peter Kirby]], who created [http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html this webpage]. Perhaps he could be persuaded to edit the "Jesus" article...?
*Sorry Stephen: ''someone'' here is a chiropractor, but not you. You have a masters' degree in education.
*Larry, am I to understand that the use of irony in debate is banned at CZ? I won't last here very long if that's the case, and nor will many other people. I was not making a personal attack on anyone. I think you need to lighten up a little.
*I thoroughly disagree with the views expressed about the importance of discussing Jesus as a figure in history. He is not a character in a novel, nor a figure like Moses whom many Christians and Jews agree is probably mythological or symbolic, and who in any case is not central to either religion. One can have Judaism without Moses, but not Christianity without Christ. Christians claim that Jesus was a real person, and that the events described in the Gospels actually happened.  
*Any article about Jesus must begin with that proposition, and must then point out that it is a proposition for which there is no evidence beyond the Gospels themselves and the Letters of Paul. In the view of ''most'' secular historians, that is sufficient evidence to accept that Jesus is a historical figure, but there are several perfectly respectable historians who maintain that he is a mythical figure. ''No'' secular historian accepts that the Gospels are sufficient evidence for events such as the miracles and the resurrection (if they accepted that they wouldn't be secular historians).


:As for me, I will try to get the "biographical details" sections into some sort of order in the next week or so. Perhaps this should be combined with the requested section summarizing the canonical gospels?[[User:Bei Dawei|Bei Dawei]]
::Does the entire article need to be a debate on whether or not Jesus existed? Could this issue be addressed in one section of the article, leaving the rest remaining? I would think the article should be mainly about what is believed about Jesus from all perspectives, including, though not solely, whether or not he existed. To make the primary thrust of the article an analysis of his existence would be inappropriate. [[User:Michael Yates|Michael Yates]] 21:36, 25 February 2007 (CST)


Sigh...yes, I think that might be helpful. Here's my concern: The topic of this article is one that is, as I know you are aware, legitimate from a variety of viewpoints. Although in one sense the amalgamation of those views into one article is neutral, their juxtaposition is inflammatory. I'm going to copy a post I made (4 days ago, by the way) in the Neutrality section of the forums below:
*All this other stuff belongs in another article, or at least in a later section of this article. I am not a theologian, but I believe that the correct term for the study of Jesus ''within'' the framework of Christian belief is [[Christology]]. I suggest that someone with expertise in that field write an appropriate article, and that ''this'' article be primarily a historical one. It is ''not acceptable'' that the principal article on Jesus be written from within the framework of Christian belief, any more than it would be acceptable that the article on Karl Marx be written from with the framework of Marxist belief. [[User:Adam Carr|Adam Carr]] 19:30, 25 February 2007 (CST)
I understand that balancing the presented facts in an unslanted manner is important. I'd like to present a different aspect of bias, one that feeds into offensiveness, and might be handled in a pragmatic way for our "unforked citizendium" experiment. I started going through articles and mentally constructing workgroups for each of the CZ live articles, simply as a way to come up with workgroups we might be missing. I was analysing 'rabbit' (of all things!) and it struck me that one article containing a balanced view of this subject would be (1) offensive (2) a sort of dictionary definition and (3) boring. That's because the very same rabbit can be legitmately handled 4 ways:
#Rabbit- Animal husbandry workshop (perhaps a division of Agriculture?)
#Rabbit-pet rabbit- Animal Hobbyist (Recreation)
#Rabbit- anatomy, physiology, evolution of: biology workshop (Natural Sciences)
#Rabbit- recipe for red sauce, cholesterol content, use in low fat dishes- (Cooking) Culinary Arts Workshop


Having an article that includes practical wisdom on “caring for your pet rabbit” along with “Recipes for rabbit” promotes gratuitous discord. Having an article which includes “keeping a house rabbit”, “making toys for your rabbit”, along with “mass production of rabbits” and “world survey of techniques for proper butchery of rabbits” does the same. It's inflammatory. It's also so scattered that it will almost certainly produce an unreadable article. Keeping to our convention of 32 kilobyte articles converts a single article on rabbits, or any other subject that has many contexts, into an overview kind of a list, rather than something entertaining and enlightening. So, one way to deal with this is to use workshops to approve different articles with the same main subject. We need a software adaptation to title articles accordingly.  
::I would agree with your last sentence. However, it should be perfectly acceptable for a ''portion'' of the article to be written from within the framework of Christian belief. It is difficult to fully comprehend Jesus' influence on a particular religion without having a great deal of experience in that religion. Therefore, I would think it appropriate for the section of "Jesus in Christianity" to have a great deal of Christian authors and non-Christian authors involved. Likewise "Jesus in Islam" should have a great deal of Muslim authors and non-Muslim authors. A proper view of Jesus is not limited to the secular view of Jesus. [[User:Michael Yates|Michael Yates]] 21:36, 25 February 2007 (CST)


Anyway, this same schema might work for religions, Let say Religion X, where including a sacred view- how believers see it,  with a very sceptical viewis much like including a detailed section on rabbit cookery along with a detailed section on socializing rabbits as household pets in the same article. Juxtaposing them is liable to make even an extremely tolerant person who happens to be either a member of Religion X or a pet rabbit owner offended for a gratuitous reason. Having whole articles that are from a single point of view can be neutral, is my point, as long as there are several of them and there is an outright statement at the start making the slant explicit. I'm not saying this is a rule that articles can't include the whole array of views, I'm saying that single view articles are not biased if the bias is openly stated and articles from other points of view are linked. ''
::As not [[Christology]], so not [[Historical Jesus]].  You stated in the section above, "''This'' article is about "Jesus," and the first question it must address is whether any such person as Jesus ever existed, and the second question is, if he did, what facts can be known about his biography." To insist that "secular historians" be given primacy in an article titled [[Jesus]] - I find this position simply very peculiar, and editorially unsound. With all due respect, the approach appears much more one of writing a position paper than a general encyclopedia article on the topic. Our job is not to assign a particular set of criteria (certain historians') of what is "knowable" about Jesus and filter everything else through that. It is to neutrally survey human knowledge, whether that is knowledge or "knowledge" in our view. [[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] 21:05, 25 February 2007 (CST)


My apologies for not believing that you were in earnest, because I did not. I do believe that we have a responsibility to fairly present all views, but optimally, do that without shattering us as a community.  Perhaps we can work together to do that here in a manner that is not whitewashed but is sensitive to the many people who hold Jesus sacred. For example, the portrayal as a wandering excorcist, alhough colorful (and strictly true) might be less offhand. ;-) [[User:Nancy Sculerati MD|Nancy Sculerati MD]] 02:31, 22 January 2007 (CST)
==Plan and conflict==
It's perhaps appropriate to recall the diifferences berween this and Wikipedia. One difference that is not immediately obvious but which is very very important is that nothing written in this article will count for anything unless and until it is approved. We are working on a draft, and contriving a path that will meet defined objectives, and hopefully lead to approval. That requires a plan and clear objectives, that have been proposed and I think agreed for this article: a plan that I repeat again:


:No problem. Grace and peace to you (as one of those Bible people says somewhere or other).
I proposed above that this article, the gateway article, be written for lay people, who may have only a very superficial knowledge of Jesus and who may never have read the Gospels. It should be written to summarise


:Are you proposing separate articles for "The historical Jesus" and "Jesus Christ in Christianity"? Or separate articles covering various points of view about the historical Jesus?
*a) the Story of Jesus and his teachings as represented by the Church
*b) the place of Jesus in Christianity  
*c) the impact of his teachings on society culture and ethics
*d) the historical basis for the Story of Jesus
*e) Jesus in Islam
*f) The Jewish view of Jesus  
*Other things that may be just touched on? Jesus the revolutionary, Jesus the communist, Jesus the Cynic, Jesus the feminist, Jesus in the Mormon Church....


:The part about exorcism is more than just strictly true. Exorcism seems to have been an important practice of Jesus's, and one of the few things about him we can be relatively confident about (which is why I put it up there in par. 2). I suppose it must have formed a part of his/their theory of disease / insanity, since it's linked with healing. Anyway, the gospels seem to take it for granted, though it may seem garish to some of us moderns. [[User:Bei Dawei|Bei Dawei]]
I proposed that all issues can be covered in appropriate depth within articles overseen by relevant workgroups. We cannot objectively rank the relative importance to this article of the diverse strands that must contribute to it, but we can have a plan that addresses an anticipated radership, Our job is to allow people to make up their own minds, not to try to make their minds up for them. The plan was conceived as an attempt to identify a potential readership, in order to establish a style and a level, and to anticipate the kinds of questions that those readers might ask or be interested in.  
I'm a scientist and an atheist so what do I know. But as I understand it, faith gives a knowledge that is different from the knowledge of experience; we may not understand it or accept it, but nor need we denigrate it, certainly not here. The notion that faith based knowledge would be threatened by evidence based knowledge is an interestng one, Is any evidence from history of any religious belief ever having been undermined in this way? I have to say that there are planty of examples of belief in scientific, political, or economic theories surviving long after refutation, but perhaps people who hold strong religious convictions are more rational than others in this respect?[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 05:12, 26 February 2007 (CST)


The central constraint on all articles, required by the neutrality policy, is that articles on a general subject must express every sincere viewpoint as sympathetically as possible, given that many other viewpoints must be expressed equally sympathetically.  It is quite frankly difficult to believe that Bei Dawei is, as you put it "in earnest," if he maintains that ''the Christian view'' of this subject is expressed "as sympathetically as possible, given that many other viewpoints must be expressed sympathetically as well."  I say that because it is perfectly obvious that the Christian view is not presented ''sympathetically'' at all in this article.
I am neither a philosopher nor a theologian, so those questions are rather over my head. I adhere to a simple proposition. This article is not about the Christian religion, it is about Jesus, who was, most of us believe, a historical person (and who was, by the way, a Jew and not a Christian). Any article about any historical person must begin with the facts of their biography, so far as these are known, and only then move on to consider the impact of their career on their own and subsequent ages. In the case of a person whose historicity is disputed, and where the evidence for their biography is slight and/or in dispute, those issues must be discussed.


I also do not think that you have understood what I wrote earlier, Dawei, regarding "going meta."  Should I explain this further? --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 09:37, 22 January 2007 (CST)
I therefore suggest that the scheme of this article should be:
*a) Jesus as a historical figure, and a discussion of the sources of his biography
*b) the life and teachings of Jesus as described in the Gospels
*c) the career of Jesus in the context of Jewish history and thought
*d) the place of Jesus in Christian theology
*e) the view of Jesus by other religious traditions
*f) the impact of Jesus on western culture
*g) theological and historiographical controversies about Jesus in the modern age


:You're right--I don't understand "meta," and suspect that the theory may turn out to be incoherent. May I suggest that you focus your remarks on the practical issue of what to say in this article, and how to organize its presentation?
Not being a theologian or a Christologist, I am not especially committed to the order or the wordings of points (b) through (g). I am committed to the wording of and priority of point (a). [[User:Adam Carr|Adam Carr]] 05:30, 26 February 2007 (CST)


:The way I have been dividing the topic is (a) historical Jesus (which necessarily includes many ideas contrary to the Christian mainstream, (b) Jesus in Christianity, (c) Jesus in Islam, (d) Jesus in Judaism, and (e) Jesus in the broader culture (or something like that). You've been complaining about (a) the "historical Jesus" section and saying that it neglects Christian views, which I had intended for (b) based on historical order. Is your objection to the order of presentation--perhaps (b) should come before (a)? Or do you think that my "historical Jesus" coverage itself is slanted, and that I have unjustly favored the minimalist end of the spectrum? [[User:Bei Dawei|Bei Dawei]]
Adam, I believe the only important thing that you're disagreeing with (most of) the rest of us about is the proposition that the article must begin with a discussion of the historicity of Jesus. It's true that claims regarding the actual (and thus historical) existence of Jesus are of extreme importance for this topic. But it does not logically follow--it doesn't follow ''at all''--from that that we must go into the issue of Jesus' historical existence in detail from the outset.


The notion of "going meta" is not incoherent, and indeed is the bedrock of the neutrality policy to which all participant in CZ are committed. It is something we have illustrated many times in many ways on Wikipedia.
As I said, for biographical articles, the thing to begin with, in virtually every case, is not the person's life, but what the person is famous for.  And, as I said before, he isn't nearly as famous for the details of what can be known through historical methods as a lot of ''other'' things, such as that (as Christians say) he died for all our sins, etc., etc. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 09:36, 26 February 2007 (CST)


Do you take the view that the Christian view is indeed expressed ''sympathetically'' in this article?  Or, perhaps, do you not care whether or not it is?  If you think it's adequately sympathetic, you clearly haven't got a grasp of what a sympathetic presentation would look like; and if you don't care whether it's sympathetic, then you have rejected the neutrality policy. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 00:07, 23 January 2007 (CST)
== Some thoughts about the lead, as giving context to the article. ==


:It would help my answer if you could identify some specific objections. Again I ask: are you complaining about the accuracy / comprehensiveness of the "historical Jesus" section, or about an article plan which assigns "Christian views of Jesus" to a subsequent section? (While I have not gotten that far yet--the current content from that section is just re-arranged Wikipedia--I assume that the final version would cover a similar range of material.) [[User:Bei Dawei|Bei Dawei]]
Having read the archive and this discussion, and the article as it now stands, I am once more struck with how easy it is for persons to misunderstand each other on a wiki, and how difficult synthesis can turn out to be. As a partial solution to one of the ongoing problems, that of the introductory section, may I suggest that a lead is not an abstract, as some seem to think. On the contrary, I think that the Wikipedia tradition of ''introduction-as-abstract'', with the first sentence almost invariably ending up as a definition, is neither necessary, nor good style - and this article originated as a Wikipedia branch. Not requiring that, leaves one free to ''orientate'' the reader on what the article is about, rather than to try desperately to give all the relevant information right at the top. This eliminates a large part of the argumentation about the introduction, relegating controversies to the specified sections of the article. The type of lead I am thinking about is along the lines of:


:Commenting on the rewrite of the introduction, is this all you were talking about earlier--paragraph order? The reshuffling itself doesn't bother me. However, the rewrite as it stands now suffers from certain infelicities:
<blockquote>
Considering that Christianity has without any doubt been one of the major forces shaping European and Western civilisation in the last two millenia, the biographical facts about the person Jesus - known as Jesus Christ or Jesus of Nazareth, on whose life and teachings the religion is based - are surprisingly unclear.
<BR><BR>
The difficulty arises because the most contemporaneous records of the events of his life - the New Testament Epistles of Paul, and the canonical gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John - are of a religious nature, and emphasise the spiritual message that the writer wished to convey, rather than the history of Jesus himself. However, the impact of Christianity on history has been so great that the academic study of the life of Jesus, by Christians and non-Christians, has remained active for centuries. As a result the modern reader may discern two distinct histories of Jesus; the one is the rather patchy description of his life story as related in the Gospels, and the other is a group of scholarly argued opinions on what events and actions in Jesus' life are likely to be historically factual.
<BR><BR>
Most commentators agree that Jesus was a real historical person, a Jew who spent his reported life in the Roman provinces of Galilee and Iudaea - provinces which centuries later were incorporated into the larger area that came to be known as Palestine. He lived between the first decade BCE and the forth decade CE. It is accepted that he was an itinerant Jewish preacher, considered a healer and exorcist, was baptised by John the Baptist before his period of recorded teaching, and was executed by crucifixion on the order Pontius Pilate. Due to the uncertain nature of known documentation about the life of Jesus, many of these claims have been challenged, even to the extent of surmising that Jesus was not a real person at all.
<BR><BR>
For the purpose of clarity, this biographical article discusses the biblical writings, historical commentaries, and different religious views of Jesus separately.
<BR><BR>
''Sections then: Jesus in the Canonical Gospels, The Historical Jesus, Jesus in Christianity, Jesus in Islam, Jesus in Western culture, etc; or as per other outlines; whatever. ''
</blockquote>


:(1) It unintentionally privileges Jesus's status as an ethical exemplar, over his mythical (I mean as the hero of miracle stories and the like) and theological roles.
Having described the problem that one has with writing a ''universal biography'' of Jesus, it may be possible to rewrite the whole article in a unique (and improved, one hopes) style, illuminating each part of the issue in its own section.
:(2) The purpose of the second paragraph is unclear, as it now lumps together points from Christian theology with points showing Jesus's importance in the world.
:(3) The paragraph about Islam is treated differently from the one on Christianity, and now sits awkwardly at the end of the introduction.
:(4) The number of at least nominal Christians would be somewhere between one and two *billion*, so talk of "millions" is odd. [[User:Bei Dawei|Bei Dawei]]


Just an attempted rejuggling to try to ensure that the tone of the article is sympathetic, without compromising any factual content. I've tried a further change in the light of your comments. I don't think Larry was talking just about the lead and order but about the overall tone. I'm not a Christian as it happens, so perhaps am not the best person to judge whether a Christian would see this as a sympathetic rendering. However I suspect that he would be more likely to do so if the ethical example of Christ was given prominence. Yes, for me it was an intentional privileging of this positive aspect in order to balance later skeptical treatment.  
Something of interest to others: Seeing the section on Mandaean Views of Jesus made me recall an article I read recently about the plight of the Mandaeans following all the goings-on in Iraq ([http://washtimes.com/national/20070209-112332-2401r.htm]). It seems as if what may be current ("M regards...") encyclopedic fact is at risk of becoming historic comment ("M regarded...").
Though as it happens I do think that the ethical values of Christ are not really covered as extemsively as perhaps they should be. But just my two cents...[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 09:51, 24 January 2007 (CST)
--[[User:Christo_Muller|Christo Muller]] [[User_talk:Christo_Muller|(Talk)]] 07:53, 26 February 2007 (CST)


:Now the introduction has become rambling and disorganized. May I suggest devoting each paragraph to some particular point?
I think Christo makes a good point in the discussion above about the lead "not being an abstract" for the rest of the article.  This is certainly a distinction from WP format and I think an important one.  However, that lead follows that same format. Combining your comments with Gareth, Larry's and Adams, it seems feasible to create the article and just add a section discussing to the historical aspects of the Jesus that flows with the rest of the article.  Whether this is at the beginning or at the end is an editorial workgroup decision that says more about the direction of all of the subjects - whether Jesus, Buddha, Moses, Mohammed, etc.  -[[User:D. Matt Innis|Matt Innis]] [[User talk:D. Matt Innis|(Talk)]] 10:06, 26 February 2007 (CST) (the chiropractor;)


:For many (perhaps most) Christians, the image of Christ as an ethical teacher is not more "positive" than his other roles. (Think C.S. Lewis's "trilemma.") [[User:Bei Dawei|Bei Dawei]]
I think Christo here has elegantly made an excellent point. Escaping from the lead as a summary makes excellent sense in many contexts. I have found it often bizarre how intensely people argue about the lead, as though the lead ecapsulates some kind of editorial judgement. I think we should escape the notion of an article as summating a viewpoint, but embrace the idea that a gateway article is an open and interesting essay introducing different viewpoints and varied aspects of the subject. I think the difference between Adam and myself is actually very narrow, my concern is only that promoting the historical facts of Jesus' life seems to set a disparaging tone for the article, in making this probably eternally unresolvable questions appear to be the most important things about Jesus. I'm not sure that I'd begin any scientific article by starting with what we don't know; it would be more common I think to end with the unknowns, for the same reason. We don't know exactly how many medical interventions work, I think we'd begin by describing the interventions and the evidence that they do work before exploring the unknown mechanisms. It may not be a good analogy, but my feeling is similar, starting an article on breast cancer with an account of what we don't know is not what we would choose to do.[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 10:39, 26 February 2007 (CST)


:: Go ahead. I'd tried, obviously not well. I had tried to rearrange the introduction where each paragraph had an intended purpose
Well, generally (probably not ''always''), we should begin articles about ''general'' things with definitions; that's far and away the most important piece of information about general topics, it's what users expect, and it's required in many cases to understand what follows. As to articles about particular things (like Jesus, the Taj Mahal, WWII, etc.), I have always been of the opinion that articles should begin with an account of why the thing is notable. You can't ''define'' "Jesus" because "Jesus" is a name.
::*1) Brief overview
::*2) Summary of Christian story of Jesus
::*3) Jesus as a prophet of Islam
::*4) Social and cultural impact
::*5) Historical view
::I don't have the time or knowledge for a rewrite however which is perhaps what is needed. As for positive aspects, I don't know how to rank positive aspects, but I feel that a lead article on Jesus should not be dominated by the issue of historical evidence; perhaps the interrogation of the historical evidence would be better placed as a separate article. It seems to be to be no more appropriate to start with the issue of historical accuracy here than it would be to start any article on a religious theme with a discussion of the lack of scientific evidence for the existence of the relevant deity.[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 04:45, 25 January 2007 (CST)


===We need more eyes===
Neither a definition nor an account of why something is notable, however, requires that we not develop an interesting narrative, from the very first sentence.  Indeed, I am strongly in favor of regarding the introduction to a longer article as indeed an ''introduction'' to (not necessarily, or always, a detailed summary of) the article, and in any case a kick-off of the narrative that the article embodies.  I enjoyed Christo's indented narrative above, and I also appreciate his point that it is more important that we create a narrative than that we try to summarize everything about a topic in a few paragraphs; but I also must agree with Gareth that starting the article with an account (however eloquent) of what we don't know about the topic is inappropriate, not just because it's a negative, but for the quite simple reason that the fact that we don't know much about Jesus (or, many of us think we don't) ''just isn't even close'' to being the most important thing about Jesus. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 13:17, 26 February 2007 (CST)


I think I will weigh in here a bit again.  
Sometimes it is helpful to take one's basic assumptions and place them prominently in the article. The one I hear in the new intro goes like this: "The assumption we begin with in this article is that the Gospels are unreliable historical documents and that the millions of Christians who disagree with us on the matter are wrong." Thus it is does not achieve the neutrality to which we should strive. [[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] 15:18, 26 February 2007 (CST)


Full disclosure: I am a devoted Christian who holds to the historical doctrines of Christianity per the Nicene Creed.[http://www.creeds.net/ancient/nicene.htm]  And I never put my brain on hold to come to that. Beyond that, I am most certain to not fit into anyone's stereotypes of what is a Christian, as I am sure others will recognize soon enough, if some have not already based upon past interactions with me.
==In conclusion==


I think Larry's comments here on neutrality and bias have been excellent, to say the least.  Let me add to Bei Dawei that this appears to be a very emotional subject for you and that your bias shows through in a most clarion way both in the article and here, e.g., "those Bible people"; "faith-based fantasies", etc. My initial thoughts upon reading this article, when I made my brief comment way up top of this page, have already been expressed better by Larry and Nancy.
Since I don't intend spending time on writing or rewriting this article, I think I should probably now withdraw from this argument, having played I hope a useful role in getting people to clarify what this article should say about Jesus as a historical figure. I will however state one more time my disagreement with Larry when he says:


I do not doubt, Bei Dawei, that you are writing this based upon what you see; yet, consider that what you see may not be alone adequate for the task, but yes a part.  
:"For biographical articles, the thing to begin with, in virtually every case, is not the person's life, but what the person is famous for. [Jesus] isn't nearly as famous for the details of what can be known through historical methods as a lot of ''other'' things, such as that (as Christians say) he died for all our sins, etc."


I happen to have browsed through the "A's" and "B's" of the authors and editors here, and some just at random. Among them I found a candidate for the Catholic priesthood (equals a seminary graduate usually), an evangelical seminary graduate, and a few other such people. I am sure there are or will be Muslims here; Mormons; and others, skeptics (e.g. [[User: Peter Kirby]]), non-skeptics, indifferents, and what have you. Simply put, I think it is crucially important to get more eyes on to this article. Perhaps I can visit more userpages and invite a diverse group here of, say, for now, six or so others, along the lines of what I am talking about.
So what is Jesus "famous for"? He is famous for being the Son of God, as evidenced by the miracles and above all by the resurrection. Not many historical figures get to rise from the dead, so this has ensured Jesus quite a lot of "fame." Since this is the basis for his claim to fame, surely the most fundamental question any article about Jesus must ask (and attempt to answer) is: DID THESE EVENTS IN FACT TAKE PLACE? And that leads directly to the question, what are the sources for the biography of Jesus?


Also, I think Nancy has a point in her Rabbit analogy. It may be wise to have biased articles, stated to be such, on certain topics. Still, I think we can do both. I see no reason why an article on rabbits cannot ''survey'' them from the sciences, and then move on to ''survey'' their "importance": as pets and as a product produced for food. And then have more focused articles on each area.
As a historian, I ask about Jesus the same questions I ask about any other historical figure. What are the sources for their biography? How reliable are those sources? What claims can I make about their life based on those sources? If I wrote an article claiming that George Washington walked across the Delaware, and fed the troops at Valley Forge on five loaves and two small fishes, it would rightly be demanded that I produce a verifiable source for these claims. Why is Jesus exempt from this basic historiographical requirement?


Thoughts?
This question is fundamental, because all the rest of the commentary about Jesus rests on it. Christians do NOT claim that Jesus was a symbolic, mythical or supernatural figure. This is not like an article about Achilles or Apollo, for example. Christians claim that Jesus was an actual living man, who died on the cross for our sins and rose from the dead. The death and resurrection of Jesus are the very core of Christianity. If this claim were to be falsified, the whole edifice of Christian belief would collapse. This is why this question must be addressed FIRST in any article about Jesus with any claim to intellectual integrity. [[User:Adam Carr|Adam Carr]] 20:21, 26 February 2007 (CST)


[[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] 05:20, 25 January 2007 (CST)
I'm not sure what your worry is, Adam, so long as we are not actually ''asserting as facts''--as we obviously will not be doing--the various things Jesus is famous for (allegedly) being or (allegedly) having done.  I mean, if we aren't saying that all the things Jesus is famous for ''really happened'' or ''really are true,'' then how on Earth is there any issue of "intellectual integrity" here at all?


:Yes, yes--by all means, bring in some people who specialize in this. (I don't, as I said before.)
Besides, Adam, your argument "proves too much."  If your argument were sound, then I could also make an argument that we must begin with the ''philosophical'' questions about whether God even exists, because, of course, his divinity is also the basis for Jesus' main claims to fame, and thus we must ask: DOES GOD EVEN EXIST?  And that leads directly to the question what the merits of various arguments, for the existence of God and for the coherence of the doctrine of the Trinity, are.  Therefore, we must begin with those things.


:I had to smile at the description of me as the emotional...did you think I was a believer or unbeliever? Either way, I assure you that I'm having fun here, and hope everyone else is too. The whole point of a wiki is collaboration. On the other hand, the point of it not being Wikipedia is to have it be a higher level of collaboration (grounded in scholarship, I hope).
Nope, so long as our claims are hedged, or we are making it clear that we are engaged in reportage about belief rather than assertion of belief, these are not requirements.


:So far the main theme of our discussions has been "Will the Christians like it?" I think this concern is misplaced. If the basic coverage is fair and accurate, the smarter Christians will appreciate that (some of the strongest skeptics are actually Catholic--I guess they have their rabbit and eat it too!) and of course a sizeable contingent won't like anything.  
If your argument were simply that it's really important if Jesus didn't exist, I would agree with that.  I also think it's really important if ''God'' doesn't exist, too, and that, moreover, ''religion in general'' might be a great evil to the world.  But the importance of these things doesn't have any immediate implications for ''how much to emphasize'' such doubts, no matter how well-founded, in the opening paragraphs of the article.


:What do you think of my Santa Claus analogy? (for whether the article should give priority to Jesus as a historical figure or an object of faith)
--[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 20:32, 26 February 2007 (CST)


:[[User:Bei Dawei|Bei Dawei]]
Looking at the article as it is now, I don't detect in it any assertion of the story of Jesus as historically established fact, only a reporting of the received accounts of his life; if the article did assert these events as facts then I would share your concerns Adam. Instead as I read the article, I see it made very clear that the actual events are all shrouded in uncertainty as far as the historical evidence goes. Christians claim that he exists, and indeed that he still lives, but these are claims based on faith that transcend evidence of the sort you talk about. The article is not asserting the truth of these faith based claims either. So I don't think that this article is constructed from a Christian perspective or asserting the truth of any claim of fact that is seriously disputed, but is "sympathetic to its subject", as it should be, in my view. [[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 03:35, 27 February 2007 (CST)


::I see your Santa analogy between "the historical Jesus" vs. "the Jesus Christ in Christianity" as problematic on several fronts. Most Christians maintain that their faith is in the historical Jesus. But that is largely neither here nor there. I do not suspect we will see everything the same way, nor should we expect to; nor should we waste our breath trying to change each other's minds. The relevant thing is the task at hand: to collaborate as professionals, with all our diverse views and quirks and foibles, to construct an outstanding, neutral point of view article. None of us will get our full "plate". [[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] 19:39, 25 January 2007 (CST)
To return to my orginal point, the opening paragraph still asserts that Jesus was a person who lived, as though this was an uncontested fact, which it isn't. I have proposed an alternative introduction, which I think has had one negative comment and one positive comment. I now propose inserting that text in the article. [[User:Adam Carr|Adam Carr]] 04:28, 27 February 2007 (CST)


:I've given the intro another go, on the following schema:
Now I see what everyone is saying.  It does look awkward from just the secular historian view.  One thing for sure, it makes the neutral view look better.  Let's go back to that. [[User:D. Matt Innis|Matt Innis]] [[User talk:D. Matt Innis|(Talk)]] 20:05, 27 February 2007 (CST)


::Par. 1 -- simplest possible description
== Question of Dating ==
::Par. 2 -- Jesus's importance
On the dates of the birth and death of Jesus one can hardly reach a consensus. If we accept the Biblical record, then his birth can be no later than the death of Herod in 4BC. In Matthew 2:16, Herod ordered the slaughter of all children under 2 years of age in Jerusalem, which would place the birth of Jesus between 6BC-4BC. However, I have never heard a specific date for his death. Based on Luke 3:23, Jesus was "about" 30 years old when he began his ministry. The gospels mention three (separate?) Passovers during his ministry. Therefore, many Biblical scholars believe that he was crucified at age 33-34, which would put his death 26AD-30AD. Currently the intro to the article reads 4BC-35AD. What are your thoughts? [[User:Michael Yates|Michael Yates]] 01:06, 28 February 2007 (CST)
::Par. 3 -- Jesus, as he is remembered
:::*as ethical exemplar
:::*as hero of miracle stories (Christians and Muslims)
:::*as divine (Christians)
::Par. 4 -- historical Jesus
::Par. 5 -- some concluding flourishes.


:The first line of (5) really belongs with history, but I was struggling with where to put the part about the resurrection (which is problematic for Muslims, as many don't accept the crucifixion). Maybe something about atonement and the incarnation should be added...? I took out some stuff on the eucharist, just because I thought it didn't have to be mentioned in the intro, but it's a tough call. 
Change 35 to 30 if that is a more widely accepted date. But I reverted "late 1st c BC to early 1st c AD" as both obvious and too vague. There seems to be a reasonable scholarly consensus on the dates so they should be used. [[User:Adam Carr|Adam Carr]] 01:28, 28 February 2007 (CST)


:Perhaps the most noticeable change here is that Christianity and Islam are not separated into different paragraphs. Thoughts? [[User:Bei Dawei|Bei Dawei]]
I will make the change to 30. I understand the changes you made, and posting a specific year does look a lot better than the vague centuries I put up there. Thanks for your help. (To others:) If there is further discussion on an appropriate date, let me know. [[User:Michael Yates|Michael Yates]] 10:35, 28 February 2007 (CST)


The problem here does not seem to be defined as "will the Christians like it" (and it wasn't really the main theme of the discussion). I think the problem is that the intro should express briefly and sympathetically different points of view. As far as I understand, we agree that there are three major perspectives (Christian, Muslim, historic, the order here expresses my thoughts on prominence of each one in the text). And observe that the current version is almost exclusively written from the historic point of view with much positive light shed on Jesus' influence and prominence of the Christianity in the world. Definitely, this is not what I understand by neutrality. Observe, for example, that the ''actual'' Christian point of view is hard to deduce from the present version. In this regard, the former one looked more clear and neutral as separated paragraphs gave important perspectives that were ''assigned to its proponents''. I do not think we have to "please Christians", I think we are able to ''fairly present their point of view'', in a sympathetic way, given that other points of view are expressed sympathetically too. [[User:Aleksander Halicz|Aleksander Halicz]] 04:00, 26 January 2007 (CST)
==The most important thing about Jesus==
I'm not competent to contribute to this article, but as someone deeply ignorant I am competent to read it. At present it doesn't begin to answer for me what was so important about Jesus, the history doesn't begin to help me understand why he is remembered. Where, in this article, is the answer to the question of ''why'' the story of his life was so influential?  The former lead, that I preferred and still do, introduced something that is still unwritten - the explanation of the moral and ethical message of his (attributed) teachings and of the example of his (reported) life, and an account of the influence of that message on the world since. This to me seems ''by far'' the most important thing about Jesus. However, his ''message'' still isn't part of the article, but it surely must be to make sense of anything.[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 06:28, 28 February 2007 (CST)


:Hmmm. That is a problem, if the text is now unclear. I suppose it would be a simple matter to dig up the previous versions where Christianity and Islam are separated... I do wish there were some convenient way of viewing our various attempts side-by-side... Anyway, I will leave the intro in your (collective) capable hands.
Since I am neither a Christian nor a theologian, I don't intend getting into a debate about what Jesus's message was (or at least the message attributed to him in the Gospels), or how it should be described here. Earlier I proposed the following structure for the article:
*a) Jesus as a historical figure, and a discussion of the sources of his biography
*b) the life and teachings of Jesus as described in the Gospels
*c) the career of Jesus in the context of Jewish history and thought
*d) the place of Jesus in Christian theology
*e) the view of Jesus by other religious traditions
*f) the impact of Jesus on western culture
*g) theological and historiographical controversies about Jesus in the modern age
It seems to me that the appropriate place to describe his "message" is in section (b). There could be some reference to it in the opening section, but I suspect it will difficult to write a single-sentence (and NPOV) summary of the teachings of someone who said both "I say unto you, love your enemies" and "I come not to bring peace, but a sword." [[User:Adam Carr|Adam Carr]] 07:22, 28 February 2007 (CST)


:Meanwhile, I do hope that we (and others still to come) will give equal attention to the rest of the article. In that spirit, I've started a few sections summarizing the gospels, and moved this to the beginning (since the subject seems more accessible and logically primary). The major decision is whether to treat the gospels thematically (as I've done here) or to take them gospel-by-gospel. I assure you that I am not wedded to any particular approach, and would in fact be grateful if other people would join me in working on the primary text. [[User:Bei Dawei|Bei Dawei]]
My Christian friends advise me that if the importance of Jesus has to be summarised in a single sentence, it is this: "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." (John 3:16). If a direct quote from Jesus to the same effect is required, it is this: "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die." (John 11:25-26) Either one of these could go in the opening section. [[User:Adam Carr|Adam Carr]] 00:44, 1 March 2007 (CST)


----
:''"a) Jesus as a historical figure, and a discussion of the sources of his biography"'' - Placing this as ''a'' is the problem, and I think that is why it reads to Gareth as it does. I agree that the initial version of the Intro was a better starting point. Adam's contention that the Intro did not from the get-go assume Jesus' non-historicity goes too far, I think.  To make my point by analogy, take the intro to [[anthropology]] which I am working on. It states, "[anthropologists] seek answers to benefit humankind". The article will later re-visit this statement and discuss examples where this was far, far from the case, e.g., [http://www.habermas.org/yanomami01.htm here].  [[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] 01:26, 1 March 2007 (CST)


I feel that the article is messy and biased, though perhaps not for the same reasons stated by others.
I agree with Stephen, and think Adam (and Stephen also) has missed what I was looking for: I found examples on [http://www.anglicannq.org/REGISTRY/Code%20of%20Conduct.pdf] of the sort of elements I was expecting, the elements that summarise the important message of Jesus' life for Christians, and indications of the message that has been so admired too by non-Christians, and a clear statement that Jesus' life is a moral example for Christians and what exactly is meant by that. : "..it is the person and work of Jesus Christ that shapes morals and motivates right behaviour. Through faith, Christians participate in the death and resurrection of Christ, being made new creatures by dying to sin and rising again to righteousness. As new creatures 'in Christ' they are called to imitate Him. Christians are empowered by the Holy Spirit to live in a Christlike manner. Jesus, the Son of Man, came not to be served but to serve. The overruling idea of imitating Christ encompasses a humility and self-abasement before God and a self-giving service toone's neighbours. The New Testament contains numerous moral virtues, the chief of which is love. While 'love fulfils the law' it goes beyond it. It not only refuses to harm others, it counts others greater than self. The Christian ethic is not an ethic of power but an ethic of service. It focuses on what canbe done for others rather than what can be demanded from others as a right. Every Christian is expected to exhibit the attitudes, values and commitment which characterise their new nature in Christ. For those who occupy positions of leadership, an ethic of service means that as leaders they are not only responsible for, but also accountable to,those whom they serve.The Christian ethic is also an ethic of love. Love demands a concern for the spiritual welfare of the offender as well as the offended. Any discipline should include a call to the offender for change and renewal."


An encyclopaedic article concerned with a person should follow certain steps in a certain order. In this case, those should be:
[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 03:15, 1 March 2007 (CST)
# Who Jesus was.
# His life, according to the earliest (credible) sources (first) and later credible sources. This should be a description of his life, as best as it can be traced.
# Why is he important to believers: the system of faith developed around his views and figure, major developments in beliefs, and so on.
# Views by non-believers, in culture, etc.


To explain why this is biased, let's take the opening paragraph:
*'''Comment on the message of Jesus''' - "to redeem the fallen race of mankind and the earth from the [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%203;&version=64; Genesis 3] curse of sin". [[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] 01:51, 1 March 2007 (CST)
:'''Jesus''' (also known as '''Jesus Christ''', or '''Jesus of Nazareth''') was a [[Palestine | Palestinian]] [[Jew]]ish religious figure of the first century AD. He is regarded as the founder of [[Christianity]], and as one of the prophets of [[Islam]].


The problem with this opening paragraph is that it doesn't tell us all the relevant facts, doesn't tell them in the right order, and adds incorrect facts and facts that are irrelevant or less important, thus making them seem more important than they should.
::I see, Gareth, that my above verbiage is more an attempt at encapsulating ''the mission'' of Jesus, as opposed to what you are talking about. [[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] 04:24, 1 March 2007 (CST)


In an opening paragraph, we should learn:
==Problems in the second paragraph==
# His name (we have that partially; missing are the Aramaic, Greek and Hebrew names)
# Years lived (we should get the best approximation).
# Who he was and where: Jew who lived in Palestine -- that's not the same as "Palestinian Jewish."
# Why is he important: because he is considered the central figure in Christianity, regarded as the Saviour and son of God by many(?) Christians. Here he is described as "regarded as the founder of Christianity" which is a dubious definition. Historically that's definitely wrong. Neither Jesus, nor any Christian, nor anyone else view him as such. The addition of the Islamic view is a total aside and should be scrapped.


[[User:Ori Redler|Ori Redler]] 07:13, 26 January 2007 (CST)
I have yet to really closely look at the first and third paragraphs, but as to the second:


:I agree with all of your points except the very last. About 2 billion people on Earth regard Him as the Savior and the Son of God. About a billion others believe that he was the last great prophet before the greatest prophet Muhammad. The Muslim view is extremely relevant here even though the historicity of it is a bit more dubious. --[[User:Clarkbmiller|Clarkbmiller]] 08:08, 26 January 2007 (CST)
*''"The major source of historical knowledge about Jesus is the Christian Gospels, which are based on documents written within living memory of the events described in them."''  I think you are giving too much to the "Q" hypothesis to which it seems you are at least in part referring. Luke claims his account comes from "investigating everything carefully from the very first". Mark was said to be an associate of Peter, an eyewitness who along with Matthew was one of the twelve disciples of Jesus. John, also one of the twelve, claims that his account was from his being an eyewitness. Mark more than any would have relied on any "Q", Luke certainly as well.


::The Muslim view would be very much relevant had Jesus been a figure of significance and importance within the Islam. I see this as proper to mention this only if Jesus was a figure of central, critical importance in the Islamic faith. This is not the case. To compare, we would not mention Jewish, Hindu or Buddhist views about Jesus in the opening paragraph because he is not a central figure in either. [[User:Ori Redler|Ori Redler]] 17:50, 26 January 2007 (CST)
*''"The Letters of St Paul, which are older than the Gospels, also attest to the historical reality of Jesus."'' Yes, but so do the other New Testament letters.


:::Jesus does not appear in lists of figures typically venerated by Hindus or Buddhists (although a few have done so and few would object). Jesus invariably appears on lists of prophets of Islam. [[User:Bei Dawei|Bei Dawei]]
*''"Some writers therefore deny that Jesus was a historical figure at all."'' This is clearly overstating the case. A "small minority" is more accurate.  


I much prefer the version of the introduction most recently approved by Gareth Leng. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 09:07, 26 January 2007 (CST)
*''"Most secular historians, however, accept that Jesus existed, but do not believe that the details of his life can be known from the available evidence."'' This is problematic on account that it is privileging "secular" historians and what does and does not count as "available evidence" to this sub-group among all scholars of Jesus.  It is thus acting as if there is not a vast array of scholars who accept the historicity of the Gospels (and New Testament letters) and accord them as credible "available evidence".


We do not have a policy here that articles are supposed to be "encyclopedic". Citizendium is a compendium of knowledge, but not a traditional encyclopedia. Articles that begin '''Name''' (derived from Greek Name, Latin Name) also called Other Name and Third Name... are not a style that there is any requirement to imitate. There is no absolute style requirement here. [[User:Nancy Sculerati MD|Nancy Sculerati MD]] 09:12, 26 January 2007 (CST)
I favor restoring the prior version of the Intro and taking up from there.


::Perhaps there isn't an absolute style-guide requirement, but in my experience there should be. Otherwise, things will get pretty messy very-very quickly (they already did). There should be standards in writing articles, and we should stick to them, especially with the more 'sensitive' articles. I cannot see a way to write stuff by people of differing views otherwise (and it's not going to be easy anyway). [[User:Ori Redler|Ori Redler]] 18:02, 26 January 2007 (CST)
[[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] 01:13, 1 March 2007 (CST)


----
==Intro - again ==
'''Point of Order'''
'''Here is Adam's version:'''
<BLOCKQUOTE>
'''Jesus''', known as '''Jesus Christ''' or '''Jesus of Nazareth''', is the central figure in [[Christianity]], one of the world’s major religions. Christians believe that Jesus was the son of [[God|God the Father]], one of the three persons of the [[Trinity]], whose death and resurrection brought salvation to humanity, and also that he was a historical figure who lived in the Roman province of [[Judea]] from about 4BC to about 30AD. Christians believe that Jesus, after preaching to the Jews and performing various miracles, was condemned to death and crucified by the Roman authorities, and that three days after his death he rose from the dead.
<BR><BR>
The major source of historical knowledge about Jesus is the Christian [[Gospels]], which are based on documents written within living memory of the events described in them. The Letters of [[St Paul]], which are older than the Gospels, also attest to the historical reality of Jesus. There are no contemporary references to Jesus from non-Christian sources, although there are a few from the following decades, in writers such as [[Tacitus]] and [[Pliny the Younger]]. Some writers therefore deny that Jesus was a historical figure at all. Most secular historians, however, accept that Jesus existed, but do not believe that the details of his life can be known from the available evidence.
<BR><BR>
Most scholars would accept that Jesus was a Jewish preacher, healer and exorcist active in Galilee and Judea in early first century AD. Many accept that he was baptized by [[John the Baptist]], and crucified at the command of Roman governor [[Pontius Pilate]]. Some writers have characterized Jesus as a wisdom teacher, a social reformer, a rabbi, a folk magician or an apocalyptic who expected the world to end. Writers continue to debate whether Jesus intended to found the religion of Christianity and whether he saw himself as the [[Messiah]] of [[Judaism]].
</BLOCKQUOTE>


Reflecting on our interactions over the past week or so, it occurs to me that the oft-touted benefits of CZ viz. Wikipedia are not really in evidence here. Like the crowd on Wikipedia, we are a self-selected group with no special expertise (as far as I know) in Jesus Studies and so on. The crucial tasks of composition and critique are heavily dependent on arbitrary considerations of whoever (often me) happened to have had the time and energy to do something that day, and/or sufficient assertiveness to overwrite the work of others. Such a process, I submit, is unlikely to result in a quality article.
'''February 7 version:'''
<BLOCKQUOTE>
By virtue of the impact of Christianity, Jesus (also known as Jesus Christ or Jesus of Nazareth) is one the most influential people who ever lived. The history of European literature, art and music would be unimaginable without its Christian heritage. Translations of the Christian Bible number among the foundational literature of many languages. Most of the world now follows the Gregorian calendar, based on the number of years since Jesus's birth.
<BR><BR>
The question "Who was Jesus?" seems a simple one, yet the answers which have been proposed defy easy summary. Most people regard him as the founder of Christianity. Christians (with some exceptions) worship him as God incarnate, the Second Person of the Trinity. Muslims recognize Jesus as one of the prophets of Islam, without attributing divinity to him. Even humanists who reject these religious claims, or who doubt the miracles attributed to him, have been known to admire Jesus as a great moral teacher.
<BR><BR>
Among historians, almost every aspect of Jesus's life is either unknown or disputed. Most scholars would accept the description of him as a first-century Palestinian Jew--more specifically, as an itinerate preacher / healer / exorcist active in Galilee and Judea. We may be reasonably confident that he was baptized by John the Baptist in the AD 20's, and crucified at the command of Roman governor Pontius Pilate during the late 20's or early 30's AD. With less certainty, scholars have characterized Jesus as a wisdom teacher; a social reformer; a rabbi; a folk magician; or an apocalyptic who expected the world to end. Especially controversial would be the suggestions that he intended to found the religion of Christianity, or that he believed (or declared) himself to be the Messiah.  
</BLOCKQUOTE>


What to do...?  
'''Version I was trying to hash out:'''
<BLOCKQUOTE>
By virtue of the impact of Christianity, '''Jesus''' (also known as '''Jesus Christ''' or '''Jesus of Nazareth''') is one of the most influential persons who ever lived. The history of European literature, art and music would be unimaginable without its Christian heritage. Translations of the Christian Bible number among the foundational literature of many languages. Most of the world now follows the Gregorian calendar, based on the number of years since Jesus's birth.
<BR><BR>
The question "Who was Jesus?" seems a simple one, yet the answers which have been proposed defy easy summary. Most people regard him as the founder of Christianity. The vast majority of groups calling themselves Christians, including all Catholics and Protestants, worship Jesus as the one and only divine Son of God who died for the sins of the world; others who self-identify as Christians maintain that Jesus is unique in various ways but deny his divinity.
<BR><BR>
Historians and scholars of Jesus range from those who maintain that the Gospel accounts offer an accurate picture of his life, to those who assert that Jesus was not a real person, and many positions in between.  Accordingly, characterizations of Jesus vary widely: the Messiah and deliberate inaugurator of Christianity; a prophet; a wisdom teacher; a social reformer; a rabbi; a folk magician; an apocalyptic who expected the world to end; a fictional persona syncretized from various deities and heroes. Especially controversial to some is that he intended to found Christianity, or that he believed or declared himself the Messiah. Most would concur that Jesus was a first-century Palestinian Jew who was an itinerate preacher, healer, and exorcist in Galilee and Judea; that he was baptized by John the Baptist in the AD 20's; and, was crucified for sedition by command of Roman governor Pontius Pilate during the late 20's or early 30's A.D.
</BLOCKQUOTE>


Perhaps the privilege of composition / revision ought to be reserved for actual experts in some aspect of Jesus Studies, classics, history of Judaism or Christianity, etc.? (Yes, demarcation is problematic--presumably it would be easier when taken section-by-section.) I hasten to add that I would not qualify, and am therefore proposing to exclude myself as well.
'''And a subsequent partial version offered by [[User:Bei Dawei|Bei Dawei]]:
'''
<BLOCKQUOTE>
In addition to his religious and cultural roles, Jesus is also the object of secular historical investigation. Scholars researching the historical Jesus have reached diverse conclusions, which not infrequently diverge from the images presented by Christianity and Islam (though conservative positions are represented in this literature as well). Given the wide disagreement within this field, what can we safely say about Jesus?  
<BR><BR>
That Jesus was a first-century Palestinian Jewish religious figure (more specifically, an itinerate preacher / healer / exorcist active in Galilee and Judea) is all but universally acknowledged. Most scholars would agree that he was baptized by John the Baptist in the AD 20's, and crucified at the command of Roman governor Pontius Pilate during the late 20's or early 30's AD. With less confidence, scholars have characterized Jesus as a wisdom teacher; a social reformer; a rabbi; a folk magician; or an apocalyptic who expected the world to end. Scholars are especially divided as to whether Jesus intended to found something like Christianity, or whether he believed (or declared) himself to be the Messiah.  
</BLOCKQUOTE>


Another difficulty is that the format privileges one version of the proposed text at a time. I think the task would be better served if multiple proposed texts could be compared and critiqued.
Thanks for this extremely instructive comparism of introductions. Let me add to this by quoting the Encyclopedia Britannica introduction. [[User:Matthias Röder|Matthias Röder]] 17:03, 12 August 2007 (CDT)


I wonder if these are basic flaws of CZ as currently conceived, or are capable of being solved within the CZ framework, perhaps as it grows more popular...? [[User:Bei Dawei|Bei Dawei]]
<BLOCKQUOTE>
'''Jesus Christ'''
born c. 6–4 BC, Bethlehem
died c. AD 30, Jerusalem
''also called '''Jesus of Galilee''' or '''Jesus of Nazareth''''' founder of Christianity, one of the world's largest religions, and the incarnation of God according to most Christians. His teachings and deeds are recorded in the New Testament, which is essentially a theological document that makes discovery of the “historical Jesus” difficult. The basic outlines of his career and message, however, can be characterized when considered in the context of 1st-century Judaism and, especially, Jewish eschatology. The history of Christian reflection on the teachings and nature of Jesus is examined in the article Christology.
</BLOCKQUOTE>


:Last night I went through the userpage of ''every'' editor and author currently listed. Whenever someone's bio indicated a level of expertise on this subject, I invited them here. I invited about 6 or 7. A few have come so far. [[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] 21:46, 26 January 2007 (CST)
(Jesus Christ. (2007). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved August 12, 2007, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online: http://www.search.eb.com/eb/article-9106456)


::These are early days for Citizendium, and we should not expect to get a article on such an important topic right without extensive thought and discussion, and with the involvement of many people. We also have to work out how to achieve the ideals that we share for Citizendium, to enable us to produce together an article that is significant in its scholarship, sympathetic in its treatment of a major and controversial subject, and at the same time clearly and engagingly written.
Not so bad, huh? [[User:Matthias Röder|Matthias Röder]] 17:03, 12 August 2007 (CDT)
The lead is obviously attracting concern because~it catches the eye and is presumed to set the tone. However, I think it's more important at this stage to get major elements of the content written - notably the account of Jesus as contained in the canonical gospels, and an account of his teachings and of their impact. The historical details are interesting, and should be part of this article, but their importance should not be overestimated; in a sense it is irrelevant whether Jesus was a historical figure at all to a discussion of the impact of his teachings and the story of his life. He is important not for what he actually did and said, that none of us can ever know for sure, but for what he is believed to have done and said.[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 10:32, 27 January 2007 (CST)


::Stephen, when you say some people here have expertise on "the subject," could you be more specific? For example, is anyone here a specialist on Jesus Studies? [[User:Bei Dawei|Bei Dawei]]
== person who ever lived ==


:::Religious studies, New Testament, Ancient History, Hebrew - those are the ones I found. [[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] 05:20, 28 January 2007 (CST)
It seems that, -as far as content goes- the objection is the phrase:"person who ever lived". Is there a way to change this-such as "names in history" that allows us to replace the pre-Adam Carr version, which had reached a considered consensus, that is agreeable to all? Or is it better to let the original stand for now? [[User:Nancy Sculerati MD|Nancy Sculerati MD]] 05:55, 1 March 2007 (CST)


::::Thanks Stephen. Sounds good--hope they come. [[User:Bei Dawei|Bei Dawei]]
:Got my vote. [[User:D. Matt Innis|Matt Innis]] [[User talk:D. Matt Innis|(Talk)]] 12:37, 1 March 2007 (CST)


== Good faith? Let's discuss edits first. ==
::Very tactful, Nancy. Seconded. [[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] 15:02, 1 March 2007 (CST)
::: I agree[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 05:22, 2 March 2007 (CST)


The issue of different authors rewriting with clashing styles and sympathies is not a new phenomonom with the Jesus article. Believe it or not, it made the first weeks of writing the Biology article full of conflict, and began to happen when an MD, a Ph D and a DC collaborated on the Chiropractic article. In those cases, all authors (most of whom were also editors in the appropriate workgroups) managed to produce good and useful work in which everyone learned and benefitted. How? We asked that the language be discussed FIRST here in discussion. We all worked on it and then transferred it into the article. Bei, you do not appear to fall into the category of being a good faith author, and I'm not interested in arguing with you over that. It's a fact. You may be working in good faith, but you do not give that appearance. For all these reasons, I would like to impose a trial of continuing the work on this article first on the Talk page, and making changes in the actual article only after discussion. [[User:Nancy Sculerati MD|Nancy Sculerati MD]] 10:45, 27 January 2007 (CST)
Let the editors decide that, both versions will do for me - as I have no preference for any what so ever, and not many seem to have complained [[User:Robert Tito|Robert Tito]] | [[User talk:Robert Tito|Talk]]


:Well, yes it worked on chiropractic essentially because there were just 3 people working intensively on it. I'd suggest trying to lower the steam level by getting agreement on a plan and some principles and adding content to the empty sections; I suspect that this article will seed several new ones as it will get ungainly otherwise. It's very easy to see that huge issues may just get neglected or forgotten. I'm quite sure Bei that you did not intend that this article should be offensive to anyone, but I certainly think it is, because of its balance and tone not anything actually said. It's really not an issue of censorship, it's a matter of finding a way to report fully and accurately while in the tone of that reporting respecting all readers, including especially those with a deep religious faith. An article on Jesus that most Christians would not wish their children to read is not what we want hereon Citizendium, in my opinion at least.[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 11:34, 27 January 2007 (CST)
Robert, as far as I can tell, there are no Religion editors actively working on this article--or, more to the point, no experts about Jesus. Hence, the procedure the above contributors engage in, i.e., trying to come to a reasonable consensus, is all that we can employ right now, short of imposing upon one of our Religion editors to make an executive decision. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 15:48, 1 March 2007 (CST)


::Very reasonable and great ideas, Nancy and Gareth. [[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] 13:25, 27 January 2007 (CST)
why not, then, take the talk jesus and jesus page down BOTH and wait till ANY sensible decision has been taken and restore the approved pages? Free for any to go on editing. [[User:Robert Tito|Robert Tito]] | [[User talk:Robert Tito|Talk]] 15:51, 1 March 2007 (CST)


:::If I may be as blunt as Nancy, my impression is that many of the participants here are broadly ignorant of the scholarship on Jesus, and seem to be basing their complaints largely on the anticipated response of modern Christians. (I should think that the purpose of an article is not to please readers, but to inform them.) I offer a short self-diagnostic, given below. [[User:Bei Dawei|Bei Dawei]]
== third paragraph ==


::::1. What were Jesus's last words? (Warning! Trick question)
The third paragraph places too much emphasis on the historicity, or lack thereof, of Jesus. The issue has been raised in the second paragraph; making it the focus of the third is placing undue weight on the controversy. I'd suggest changing the current second and third paras to somehting like:
::::2. What is the meaning and register of "Rabboni"?
<blockquote>
::::3. Is Pilate more accurately described as a prefect, procurator, or governor? Why?
The major source of historical knowledge about Jesus is the Christian Gospels, which are based on documents written within living memory of the events described in them. The Letters of St Paul, which are older than the Gospels, also attest to the historical reality of Jesus. There are no contemporary references to Jesus from non-Christian sources, although there are a few from the following decades, in writers such as Tacitus and Pliny the Younger. Some writers therefore deny that Jesus was a historical figure at all. Most secular historians, however, accept that Jesus existed, but do not believe that the details of his life can be known from independent (non-Christian) evidence. Most scholars would accept that Jesus was a Jewish preacher, healer and exorcist active in Galilee and Judea in early first century AD. Many accept that he was baptized by John the Baptist, and crucified at the command of Roman governor Pontius Pilate.
::::4. Is Kloppenborg's Q1 apocalyptic?
<br /><br />
::::5. Who was "James the son of Zebadee"?
Muslims see Jesus as one of the prophets, though they do not believe that he was divine, nor that he actually died at the crucifixion. Jews do not believe that Jesus was divine, nor that he was the Messiah or a prophet. Mormons believe that Jesus came to North America and preached to the inhabitants after leaving Judea. Some writers have characterized Jesus as a wisdom teacher, a social reformer, a rabbi, a folk magician or an apocalyptic who expected the world to end. Writers continue to debate whether Jesus intended to found the religion of Christianity and whether he saw himself as the Messiah of Judaism.</blockquote>
::::6. Name the major Jewish holidays which Jesus would have observed.
[[User:Anthony Argyriou|Anthony Argyriou]] 16:06, 1 March 2007 (CST)
::::7. What early Christian groups used Tatian's gospel harmony?
::::8. Where is Chenoboskion and why is it important?
::::9. What distinguishes Orthodox from "Nestorian" Christology?
::::10. Explain the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception.


== We need to stop and think ==
To move forward, I've restored the opening section simply because it had been reached after very considerable discussion and consensus, and it's I feel a bad precedent to accept reversion of such agreed text without achieving comparable consensus: I think we have to actively promote editing by co-operation. However, I have adjusted it to take account as above of Adam's uncontested point that it could have been read as asserting his historical existence as established fact, and have added Anthony's reference to Mormons and Jews. The other text from Anthony I've placed at the start of the Sources section, which I think should also accomodate some of Adam's concerns. [[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 08:14, 2 March 2007 (CST)


The article, I'm afraid, is severely harmed by what is going on right now. The facts are getting banished lower and lower, replaced by "appeasement adjectives." We now learn from the first three paragraph that Jesus was "the central figure" and "inspired the foundation of the major world religion of Christianity" and "one of the principal prophets of Islam" and "one the most influential people who ever lived" and that the "history of European literature, art and music would be unimaginable without its Christian heritage" and that "Translations of the Christian Bible number among the foundational literature of many languages" and also "Events in Jesus's life are commemorated through vast public holidays such as Christmas and Easter" and also the interesting fact that "Most of the world now follows the Gregorian calendar, based on the number of years since Jesus's birth" and for those of us who are not yet convinced we are assured that "Examples of his influence could easily be multiplied." We also learn that "the story of Jesus's life" inspires Christians and that the "his teachings, as recounted in the New Testament, are a source of comfort and inspiration, as they have been for Christians for nearly two thousand years" and also that "These ethical values have had a major impact upon the political, legal and social structures of many countries".
I'm having trouble with the word "unimaginable" in the second sentence, mostly because I can imagine all kinds of other possibilities. But I cannot think of a better substitution.  I would welcome a change there.  [[User:D. Matt Innis|Matt Innis]] [[User talk:D. Matt Innis|(Talk)]] 09:01, 2 March 2007 (CST)


And what can the uninitiated learn from this about Jesus? Almost nothing. We do not know where he was born, when, who he was, where he grew up, what he did, how he died, and so on. All we get is a list of meaningless adjectives. It is akin to starting an article about Plato with an endless list of influencees, or an article about Aristotle with four paragraphs praising how so many philosophers were inspired by him.
something like-"nearly entirely different" might work, but unimaginable sounds better in a literary sense, what unimaginable means there is implied: take away the Christian religion and the entire European art/music etc. has to be re-imagined, because the most major common theme is gone.[[User:Nancy Sculerati MD|Nancy Sculerati MD]] 09:08, 2 March 2007 (CST)


We should go back to the basic: First a paragraph, short and sweet, a 120 words long description of who Jesus was, neatly placed in a place, at a time, and a touching one key element: that he is the central figure in Christianity, believed by Christians to be a saviour and the son of God. Next we should get the story of his life, as told in the NT. Third should come the historical debate, and last the influence on western culture. The article should focus on Jesus, and as it is it is anything but. [[User:Ori Redler|Ori Redler]] 13:21, 27 January 2007 (CST)
I agree.  I would even venture to say it would be "entirely different". Especially when we consider the the evolution into other sects and other religions. Certainly the possibilities are endless, so in that sense it is unimaginable (or too many to fathom), isn't it. Maybe they haven't made that word yet. [[User:D. Matt Innis|Matt Innis]] [[User talk:D. Matt Innis|(Talk)]] 09:41, 2 March 2007 (CST)


::And yet Ori,and while I am not a Christian myself, I do feel that your suggested summary just misses almost everything that is important about Jesus not just for Christians, and that is the impact that his teaching and the example of his life has had on individuals, societies, and European culture. I think that what is imortant to Christians is not somuch that he is the Son of God, but his values and example, but maybe I'm wrong.[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 16:25, 27 January 2007 (CST)
Edited "people" in first line to "names", I think that statement is absolutely true and allows the historical reality question to be raised later, without implying any particular view upfront. [[User:Nancy Sculerati MD|Nancy Sculerati MD]] 09:13, 2 March 2007 (CST)


:::I agree with Ori. We need to stop thinking of Christians first, and the real Jesus as an afterthought. [[User:Bei Dawei|Bei Dawei]]
That is better. [[User:D. Matt Innis|Matt Innis]] [[User talk:D. Matt Innis|(Talk)]] 09:41, 2 March 2007 (CST)
== Let's start the work of collaboration [[User:Nancy Sculerati MD|Nancy Sculerati MD]] 14:37, 27 January 2007 (CST)==


'''Please put your proposed first paragraph here: Be sure to sign your work.'''  
I'm wondering about the "some writers" who deny that  Jesus was a historical figure at all.  Having done some informal research into the question on wikipedia as a result of similar, but rather less civil, arguments over there, the conclusion I came to is that it's really hard to find actual academic scholars who are willing to explicitly make the argument that Jesus never lived.  Most such writing has been done by popular writers of various sorts, frequently ones with no clear credentials.  people like G.A. Wells and Earl Doherty seem to be the most respectable of the bunch, but they aren't proper scholars of early Christianity, and I'm not sure that anything on the subject has recently appeared in actual peer-reviewed scholarly journals. As such, I don't really think there's any need to mention or refer to these theories, which are really rather fringe, in the introduction.  On the other hand, over all I much prefer Adam's version  of the intro, which seems clear and straightforward, whereas the other version seems kind of mushy and lacking in clear statements by comparison. [[User:John Kenney|John Kenney]] 01:15, 12 March 2007 (CDT)
*Jesus is recognised as the Son of God by Christians....... --[[User:Rilson Versuri|Versuri]] 15:21, 27 January 2007 (CST)


*'''Jesus''' (or '''Jesus Christ'''; also known as '''Jesus of Nazareth''') is generally regarded as the founder of [[Christianity]], a religion that spread to prominence in the Roman world, and which today has over one billion followers worldwide. By Christians, Jesus is recognised as the [[Son of God]]. Jesus is also a [[prophet]] of [[Islam]], but Moslems do not consider Jesus to be divine. From historical point of view he was a [[Palestine | Palestinian]] [[Jew]]ish religious figure whom [[Roman Empire|Roman]] authorities executed by [[crucifixion]] around AD 30 or 33. (note this was the first paragraph in a previous version.) [[User:Nancy Sculerati MD|Nancy Sculerati MD]] 15:40, 27 January 2007 (CST)
== 4 editors of the Bible ==


Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe in theology class I learned about 4 main editors of the bible, their approximate time of editing, and their approximate location in the world.  Is that addressed in this article?  Also, one thing that I can hear my theology teacher saying (in my head) is that Jesus' message was "the kingdom of God is at hand, repent and believe." [[User:Thomas E Kelly|-Tom Kelly]] [[User talk:Thomas E Kelly|(Talk)]] 13:20, 17 March 2007 (CDT)


'''Please put your article plan below the line: Be sure to sign your work.'''
:I'm  not sure what you mean about 4 main editors of the Bible. Are you perhaps thinking of the Documentary Hypothesis, which deals with the 4 main sources of the Pentateuch?  That only applies to the first five books of the Old Testament (and, to some extent, with some of the later books - Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings are generally considered to be the same redactor as Deuteronomy, and thus form the "Deuteronomic History," I  believe).  It doesn't apply to the New Testament. [[User:John Kenney|John Kenney]] 13:09, 18 March 2007 (CDT)
----
I suggest beginning the article with: '''Jesus''' (or '''Jesus Christ'''; also known as '''Jesus of Nazareth''') is the central figure of [[Christianity]]. It is generally agreed by religious followers and historians that he was a [[Jewish people|Jewish]] teacher from [[Israel]] who was born at or shortly before [[1 BCE]] and died between thirty and forty years later.&mdash;[[User:Nat Krause|Nat Krause]] 19:19, 27 January 2007 (CST)


:::As far as I know the only clues about Jesus's birth year (or age at death) comes from very suspicious "historical" information given in the gospels (about events which apparently didn't happen). I suggest that we focus attention on his death year, which can be narrowed down more reasonably. [[User:Bei Dawei | Dawei]]
:Dealing with Thomas's second point, it is very possible that that was Jesus' message, especially from a Christian point of view. However, in the interest of maintaining a neutral POV, we should probably not assume that Jesus's primary goal was evangelistic and apocalyptic in nature. I would attribute that particular message more to John the Baptist. [[User:Michael Yates|Michael Yates]] 23:17, 22 June 2007 (CDT)


== A comment: "Palestinian Jewish religious figure" ==
== Wikipedia credit ==


The phrasing "Palestinian Jewish religious figure" is awkward. "Jewish religious figure" seems to imply that "Jewish" here refers to the Jewish religion, which I presume was not intended. Jesus was ethnically Jewish but to describe him religiously Jewish is controversial. Also, "Palestinian Jewish" seems perhaps unnecessarily complicated. Those terms are definitely not synonymous in the context of that time, but they overlapped heavily. Perhaps we could substitute something simpler like "Jesus was an Israeli religious figure"?&mdash;[[User:Nat Krause|Nat Krause]] 16:26, 27 January 2007 (CST)
For what it is worth, the two following sentences (out of more than 200) appear in Wikipedia. Shall we credit Wikipedia for that or simply forget? Or just rework?
*  Thomas Jefferson, one of the Founding Fathers that many consider to have been a deist, created a "Jefferson Bible" for the Indians entitled "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth" that included only Jesus' ethical teachings.
*  Thus, for example, Theosophy and its offshoots have Jesus studying esotericism in the Himalayas or Egypt during his "lost years.
--[[User:Aleksander Stos|AlekStos]] 15:21, 28 March 2007 (CDT)


Please come up with a corrected statement, put it above under the first paragraph section- and sign it. If you don't have a whole first paragraph, just quote the line you don't like and give a replacement, or the statemnet that it should be deleted rathder than replaced. [[User:Nancy Sculerati MD|Nancy Sculerati MD]] 16:32, 27 January 2007 (CST)
The first sentence should probably be entirely rewritten - the apositive is kind of awkward. [[User:John Kenney|John Kenney]] 18:46, 28 March 2007 (CDT)


:::Jesus was certainly "Jewish" (both ethnically and religiously) by the standards of Second Temple Judaism. "Palestina" was the name of the Roman province. [[User:Bei Dawei|Dawei]]
Let's rework. Thanks for the data, Alex. --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 18:48, 24 April 2007 (CDT)


== Moving Forward with Collaboration:First Paragraph ==
== Influential name ==


Jesus (or Jesus Christ; also known as Jesus of Nazareth) is central to Christian religion, in which he is worshiped as both the son of God and the savior of mankind.  Jesus is a prophet of the Islam Religion, but is not considered divine by Moslems. Historians and religious followers agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher from the geographic area now known as Israel, who was born around 1 BCE and died between thirty and forty years later.
Recently added "if he really existed" in the first sentence does not make much sense for me. Now it seems to imply "if he existed, the name was influential". Well, the "name" was influential anyway. So, to be neutral we do not really need this conditional "if" added -- as it overloads the sentence and looks just awkward. I'm not really following the development here, but as far as I remember some discussions, there was a consensus to put the relevant perspectives on the issue of existence in the body of the article, not in the opening. If so, let's delete this "if he really existed" from the lead. --[[User:Aleksander Stos|AlekStos]] 10:16, 27 April 2007 (CDT)


What needs to be changed? Is this adequate to be moved over to the article?[[User:Nancy Sculerati MD|Nancy Sculerati MD]] 21:15, 27 January 2007 (CST)
== Many theories ==
I'm not sure about crucifixtion by Romans- is that also generally agreed. Can it be said:..and was crucified as a criminal by the Romans about thirty to forty years later?[[User:Nancy Sculerati MD|Nancy Sculerati MD]] 21:23, 27 January 2007 (CST)


:Please replace "Islam Religion" with simply "Islam" (not an adjective), and "Moslems" with the presently more common "Muslims".&mdash;[[User:Nat Krause|Nat Krause]] 23:04, 27 January 2007 (CST)
The current draft reads "More than one of these may be true (or partly true) simultaneously. Many other theories have been proposed, but have received less scholarly support." This seems a bit dodgy.  It may well be difficult, but some notions of Jesus (such as 'Jesus as Pharisee') require far more laborious conjectures than others.  Why would a man who is attested as condemning the Pharisees in most of the earliest witnesses *be* a Pharisee?  I think some more synthetic assessment needed. [[User:Russell Potter|Russell Potter]] 19:39, 29 April 2007 (CDT)


:::Minor points first: Eliminate gratuitous reference to modern Israel (unless you also plan to mention Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, the Palestinian Territories, and--according to mythology--Egypt).
== Thomas ==


:::Replace "the Islam Religion" with "Islam".  
References to Q here seem to flatten out the Gospel of Thomas with other witnesses, whereas there's a substantial body of scholarly work which sees Thomas as potentially an equally valid witness of Q, and much earlier than any of the other non-Canonical gospels.  I think some way should be found to reference this in the entry. [[User:Russell Potter|Russell Potter]] 19:45, 29 April 2007 (CDT)


:::"Religious followers" is a bit awkward.  
:One problem with giving too much credibility to the Gospel of Thomas is that it was written so late that it would be difficult to consider it as a source for the other Gospels. Thomas himself may have been a contributor to Q, but the Gospel was not likely written by him. Based on my understanding of Q, it is usually compose of the common saying from Matthew and Luke that are excluded by Mark. There are some saying in the Gospel of Thomas among these, but not independent of these. Even if the Gospel of Thomas had more influence on Q than is presently stated, is going in to that much detail over it appropriate for an article on Jesus? Perhaps that should be saved for an article on Q, the Gospels, or the Gospel of Thomas. [[User:Michael Yates|Michael Yates]] 23:12, 22 June 2007 (CDT)


:::"Teacher" obscures Jesus's other roles, such as folk healer and exorcist.
{{inflammatory}}


:::There is absolutely no consensus about "1 BCE" or any other proposed birth year. (For all we know, he might have been fifty when he died.) Better to focus on the death year.


:::Christians generally view Jesus not only as the "Son of God," but also in some sense as God (i.e. the Trinity). I feel this is an important point. [[User:Bei Dawei | Dawei]]
== Influential NAME??!! ==


::::I agree with your last point. Perhaps we can hedge with "the divine Son of God"?
THe opening para is very poor. What does it mean to say that Jesus was an influential name? That his name was continuously "dropped' in social or financial circles since his adulthood and to date? It is obviously a device to escape making the decision whether he was a real-life person or not, but it doesnt work. As far as Christianity is concerned, he is the major figure in that religion and therefore highly influential through that. He is portrayed as real in the New Testament, therefore you can say so. You can also state that there is little historical evidence supporting that, so some people doubt his historical existence. But his '''name''' has nothing to do with it!!!--[[User:Martin Baldwin-Edwards|Martin Baldwin-Edwards]] 12:16, 19 August 2007 (CDT)


::::Also, why can't we just say "Israel" instead of "the geographic area now known as Israel". This is not a term of recent coinage.&mdash;[[User:Nat Krause|Nat Krause]] 23:22, 27 January 2007 (CST)
== The draft looks good on cursory glance...just checking in ==


:::::The gospels record Jesus as having traveled in "Egypt", Tyre, and the Decapolis, none of which fall under any modern understanding of "Israel". For Jesus, the term "Israel" would have referred to a people.
I'm checking in on the talk page because I plan to do some editing of this page, as I had promised long ago on the Religion project page to do, but had gotten sidetracked. Is there anyone who wants to suggest some of the more notable changes desired for the draft as it exists? --[[User:Peter Kirby|Peter Kirby]] 08:39, 11 January 2008 (CST)


:::::Don't hedge about the claims made of Jesus. The details are immensely immportant, though necessarily controversial. [[User:Bei Dawei | Dawei]]
==Neutral historical accounts==
In the historical Jesus section, it says "2.the writers were not setting out to write neutral historical accounts". Luke, who wrote his gospel and Acts asserts that he is writing a neutral historical account. Could we maybe change this to says something that reflects this as the view of some scholars, maybe  "scholars don't believe the writers set out to write a neutral historical account"? [[User:Jonathan Beshears|Jonathan Beshears]] 13:52, 18 January 2008 (CST)


Would it be out of line for me to post the first paragraph from several print Encyclopedias just so we can get an idea of how "our competition" has handled this subject? [[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] 03:54, 28 January 2007 (CST)
: I agree with the above comment by Jonathon Beshears so I edited the text. Cleaned up a few other parts of the section also. [[User:Mark Jones|Mark Jones]] 09:37, 17 May 2008 (CDT)


:See [http://www.britannica.com/ebc/article-9368533 this] (but on-line).--[[User:Rilson Versuri|Versuri]] 04:24, 28 January 2007 (CST)
== On the Virgin Birth ==


::That summarizes the whole very lengthy Brittanica article in one paragraph - not an easy task. AAR, I do have the full version Intro I could paste here, just as a way to get some contrast. I'm just not sure if I should, though. [[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] 04:38, 28 January 2007 (CST)
This bit is misleading: "Mary's virginal conception of Jesus (''not to be confused with the immaculate conception, or the virgin birth''), .."


I would say that copyright must always be respected. Therefore, the way that Versuri put the external link is just fine. Also, quoting a couple of lines or even a paragraph could be fine, but it would have to be quoted exactly, the quoted material contained clearly within quotation marks, and cited as "quotation from:XXX" with the XXX a full citation of the source including publisher. [[User:Nancy Sculerati MD|Nancy Sculerati MD]] 07:35, 28 January 2007 (CST)
1. Non-christians won't know what is being talked about.


::::That paragraph relies on the gospels and Christian theology, with no mention of skeptical criticism of the story thus presented. It also seems to have some of the facts wrong, e.g. the dates for Pilate. [[User:Bei Dawei|Bei Dawei]]
2.  Most Christians think of the doctrine of the Virgin Birth as referring to the virginal conception.  Roman Catholics and many (most?) Orthodox have an additional, separate Doctrine of the Virgin Birth ''separate to'' the Doctrine of the Virgin Conception. Almost every Roman Catholic I have ever met has confused the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception with the Doctrine of the Virginal Conception (despite the fact that the Church's position is clear).


==What about this:==
I suggest that even most Christians, regardless of denomination, won't follow this paragraph, so a little rewrite is needed to make things clear(er).


Jesus (or Jesus Christ; also known as Jesus of Nazareth) is central to Christian religion, in which he is worshiped as the son of God,a facet of the Trinity, and the savior of mankind.  Jesus is a prophet of Islam, but is not considered divine by Muslims. Historians agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher from the geographic area then known as the Roman province of Palestinia.
[[User:Aleta Curry|Aleta Curry]] 23:12, 16 May 2008 (CDT)


I am quite willing to put the healer and excorcist parts in- and a bunch of other stuff- but I would like to do that in a subsequent paragraph for quality of writing issues.  By convention, his birth begins the Christian Era. And I would like a way to put that in. How ould you state the date of death? Actual words? Please write a better version of the sentences above if you care to. Is "facet" ok for the Trinity part? What more needs to go in this first paragraph before we move it over?[[User:Nancy Sculerati MD|Nancy Sculerati MD]] 23:30, 27 January 2007 (CST)
== Sources & evidence ==


:But, now we have "the geographic area then known as the Roman province of Palestinia", which is an even more complicated form. What's wrong with simply "Israel"? Also, I don't think it's necessary to include "exorcist" and "healer"; there's nothing in this version of the intro which says he ''wasn't'' those things, only that he ''was'' a teacher.&mdash;[[User:Nat Krause|Nat Krause]] 23:35, 27 January 2007 (CST)
I think some of what's said is misleading.


Well, Dawei is absolutely right about scholarship issues where I am concerned. And obviously, this will all have to be vetted by scholars before approval- but the term Israel is a modern one and Jesus definately was not born after 1948. We can drop "geographic area" and we can argue about excorcist and healer later- because they are not in this paragraph. I would like to fix some estimate of birth and death dates in the first paragraph, and I would like some agreeable language to work with, please. [[User:Nancy Sculerati MD|Nancy Sculerati MD]] 23:41, 27 January 2007 (CST)
Although Paul certainly asserts the historical existence of Jesus, he nowhere, at least in those letters generally accepted by scholars as being genuine, gives a clear indication of when Jesus lived. That is, he doesn't assert that Jesus was within living memory.


:The term "Israel" seems to have been in use prior to 1948. Wikipedia says, "Thus, according to the Hebrew Bible, when the ancient Children of Israel left Ancient Egypt, and went on to conquer the lands of the Canaanites, they eventually established the united Kingdom of Israel מלכות ישראל (Malchut Yisrael) and lived there as the "Nation of Israel" (Am Yisrael) עם ישראל ... Thus the physical areas and boundaries of the Kingdom of Israel (מלכות ישראל) monarchy that were inhabited by the Children of Israel (בני ישראל), also called the Nation of Israel (עם ישראל), came to be known and indentified during Jewish history as the Land of Israel (ארץ ישראל) until the present time."&mdash;[[User:Nat Krause|Nat Krause]] 23:50, 27 January 2007 (CST)
Most scholars date the gospels to late 1st century, ie within living memory, but this has been questioned on the grounds of lack of mention of them in other Christian literature. Matthew & Mark are first mentioned about 135-140, Luke about 160, John maybe even later (though there's a manuscript of part of what is now John dated about 150).


Nat, the King James Bible is full of references to Isrealites, but the word Israel has a contempory meaning of the modern state of Israel and any other meaning is relatively obscure. Further, it's inflammatory for no good reason. I like using the name of the Ancient Roman province because it is both true and educational. Also, Wikipedia is not a erecognized academic source, I'm going to push you to do better. [[User:Nancy Sculerati MD|Nancy Sculerati MD]] 23:55, 27 January 2007 (CST)
I don't think that Roman governors were in the habit of sending reports of all executions to archives in Rome. Tacitus' statement seems more likely to be simply derived from simply what the Christians at the time said.


Minor point--very puzzling to say that "Israel" is a modern term, since (in some form, I have no idea what) it is obviously an ancient name.  What it has or deserves application to is another question, but it certainly is not a modern term.  In the book of Genesis, "Israel" is the name given by God to Jacob, and the Israelites were so called because they were all supposed to be descendants of Jacob/Israel whom Moses led out of Egypt into the Promised Land. See, I am re-reading the Bible for the first time since I was a child, purely because it's a Great Book, not because of religious feeling in me which I admit is pretty much completely dead.  So I had to show off my paltry knowledge of this simple fact that no doubt used to be common knowledge, and still is for many people...  Also, indeed the name of the country, and its history, is recounted in those boring history books of the Old Testament, you know.  Israel is what David was king of, if I am not mistaken. ;-) --[[User:Larry Sanger|Larry Sanger]] 23:57, 27 January 2007 (CST)
The above points are made by Wells, who also draws the analogy with Faust. The full-blown story of his selling his soul to the devil, raising Helen of Troy from the dead &c was printed in 1587, while contemporary documents show he was alive in 1540. [[User:Peter Jackson|Peter Jackson]] 17:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


:::That is basically right (it's often referred to as the "united monarchy"), but remember that after King Solomon the former Davidic realms divided into a northern kingdom called "Israel," and a southern one called "Judah." Skeptical historians and archeologists doubt the existence of King David on the grounds that the Bible's description of a high culture centered on Jerusalem is contradicted by archeological evidence, which shows a pastoral society for that period. [[User:Bei Dawei | Bei Dawei]]
== Dates & age ==
There's a problematic paragraph in the article:<blockquote>None of the historical sources give the year of Jesus' birth, the year of his death, or his age at death in unambiguous form. Tradition says that he was born towards the end of the reign of Herod the Great, who died in 4 BC. Some of the earliest estimates of his birth are 6-7 BC, and it is widely agreed that Jesus was executed during the governorship of Pontius Pilate (AD 26-36). Biblical scholars believe he lived roughly 33 1/2 years. Recent scholarship has focused on the years AD 29, 30, or 33 as the most likely possibilities of the date of his crucifixion.</blockquote>
# "Tradition says that he was born towards the end of the reign of Herod the Great". The only tradition about this dating is based on Matthew. In Luke Jesus' birth is set at the time of the census of Quirinius, 6-7 CE. John and (more importantly) Mark, the oldest gospel, don't have anything on the date of birth.
# "Biblical scholars believe he lived roughly 33 1/2 years" plus "none of the historical sources give […] his age at death in unambiguous form". (a) First of all: Which historical sources? I only know Biblical and Patristic sources. (b) Secondly: There ''are in fact'' two references to Jesus' age at the beginning of his mission. One is in Luke 3:23, which has a λ for 30. This is not regarded as an admissable source, because it's mentioned in the context of Jesus' genealogy, and the two lines of ancestors given in Luke and Matthew do not correspond. Therefore the passages are unstable and meaningless, and the age reference invalid. Furthermore, Mark neither mentions a genealogy nor any age at the beginning of his mission. The other one is in John 8.57 (after Jesus came from Galilee), where it says πεντηκοντα together with οὔπω, i.e. "not yet fifty". A minority reading in a later codex has τεσσερακοντα, i.e. "not yet forty", which shows that later scribes tried to harmonize John with Luke. [http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iii.xxiii.html Irenaeus] only knew the majority reading (50 years) and accepts the passage in John as true, specifically stating that he was almost 50 and referring to Jesus' "old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify", and also mentioning a longer mission. While the commentary states that "it is most certain that our Lord’s ministry extended but little over three years", John in his gospel mentions at least four Passovers during the mission until the passion account.


I'm not saying that Israel is a modern term, I'm saying that in any contemorary sentence that states "X is from Israel" the first association is the ''modern state'' (of Israel).Meanwhile- give me some laqnguage to work with, please![[User:Nancy Sculerati MD|Nancy Sculerati MD]] 00:02, 28 January 2007 (CST)
In any case, we ''do'' have a valid reference to Jesus' age at the beginning of his mission, i.e. approximately 50 years of age, which is backed up by Irenaeus' commentary. I have yet to find a scientific analysis of John plus Irenaeus which refutes these passages. [[User:Arne Eickenberg|Arne Eickenberg]] 15:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 
:Well, I'm not sure I agree with that. I don't think the pre-modern meaning of the word "Israel" is at all obscure, and it context it should be perfectly clear what we mean. If anything, I would think that using a term resembling "Palestine" might have political implications, although it oughtn't in an ideal world. I'm not totally sure how to settle a disagreement over the connotations of a word, though.&mdash;[[User:Nat Krause|Nat Krause]] 00:09, 28 January 2007 (CST)
 
It's not vital that we do right now. It is vital that we rough out a first draft that is acceptable in broad terms and that we have a workable collaboration. [[User:Nancy Sculerati MD|Nancy Sculerati MD]] 00:15, 28 January 2007 (CST)
 
:::Again, for Jesus "Israel" would have referred to a people. The borders of the "Land of Israel" were murky and would be of no help in establishing Jesus geographically.
 
:::If "Palestine" is too distracting, we could specify Galilee, Judea, and so forth. Or say "the Roman province of Palestine." "Levantine" or "Mediterranean" would also be acceptable, though needlessly vague.
 
:::::'''CORRECTION:''' The name "Syria Palestina" was only used from the second century AD. In Jesus's time it was the "Roman province of Iudaea" (which included Judea, Samaria, and Idumea)--but remember, Jesus was from Galilee, which was governed separately.
 
:::To call Jesus as "facet" of the Trinity is arguably heretical. The usual language is that he is one of the "Persons" of the Trinity. Yes, that's a strange use of language, but there's no help for it.
 
:::Nancy asks about Jesus's death year. Apparently the years 30 and 33 are regarded as the most probable (based on calendrical details relating to Passover) but another year could well be true. At least we can be reasonably sure that it occurred during the period of Pontius Pilatus.
 
:::On reflection, I think it's important to have a line to the effect of "Scholars are deeply divided on the central issues of whether Jesus claimed to be the Messiah, believed in the immanent end of the world, or intended to found Christianity." [[User:Bei Dawei | Dawei]]
 
::::I suggest "Bethlehem in Judea" as best to describe Jesus' birthplace. [[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] 03:37, 28 January 2007 (CST)
 
:::::Many scholars believe that the gospel writers invented his connection with Bethlehem, because of its connection with King David. Apart from the nativity stories, Jesus is usually identified with Nazareth or Galilee. [[User:Bei Dawei | Bei Dawei]]
 
::::::That would more accurately be ''a minority'' of scholars, wouldn't it? And while certainly including minority views, writing from a neutral point of view would not ''privilege'' a view held among a minority of scholars, would it?  [[User:Stephen Ewen|Stephen Ewen]] 04:27, 28 January 2007 (CST)
 
:::::::::Talk of a "minority" presumes some objective way of determining who is or is not a "scholar," and then of systematically surveying their opinions. Let us say that doubt about the Bethlehem story is very much a mainstream view which even those who reject it must address. [[User:Bei Dawei | Bei Dawei]]
 
I am concerned about the potential balance of the article, and this concern is nothing about appeasing Christians, but about objective balance. In this case it's about addressing a subject in a way that is guided appropriately by those things that make a subject notable. I think we'd expect to make the heart of any biographical article a careful explanation of the contribution made by that individual and its impact. What makes Jesus so notable surely, is the impact on the world of the story of his life and what are understood to be his teachings. Fragmentary knowledge of the historical Jesus is interesting but these details are largely incidental, it really doesn't matter much exactly when he was born or died or where or what he looked like Objectively, this article needs to summarise and explain the impact that his life had on society, moral and ethical values, politics and legal systems, and on individuals, and whether that impact was based on truth or myth does not change the impact.[[User:Gareth Leng|Gareth Leng]] 04:41, 28 January 2007 (CST)
 
:::::You are right that the "Christ of faith" is far more influential than the historical Jesus. I think this is less because of the teachings attributed to him in the New Testament (which often go ignored--e.g. oath-taking) than because Christianity has persuaded so many people to worship him as God. In this light, we can't really say that "Jesus" had an impact on ethics, politics, or what have you--this was the doing of the church. [[User:Bei Dawei | Bei Dawei]]
 
== Israel - sourced definitions ==
 
"Israel - 1.the new Name God gave to Jacob (Ge32:28);2.the nation made up of descendents of the 12 sons of Jacob;3.the northern ten tribes after they separated from Judah and Benjamin."
"Israelites - the people of Israel" Reference for the above quotes:  New International version Serendipity Bible: For Personal and Group Study  Copyright 1998 by Serendipity House, Published  by Zondervan, Grand Rapids, Michigan  ISBN O-310-93732-9  page 1797
 
::While I am not thrilled to be guided by something called the "Serendipity Bible" (or anything else from Zondervan), I think your point is to argue against using "Israel" as a geographic term...? [[User:Bei Dawei|Bei Dawei]]
 
My point is that rather than shoot the hot air, we should come up with actual sourced references, so that we can learn. I borrowed this book from a neighbor this morning, whose teenager attends a private high school where this book is the text used in a Theology class. The school is not a "religious" school but an academic "Independant School" and looking at the book, it is written by scholars. It's the best I could come up with. What can you bring us? ;-) Nancy [[User:Nancy Sculerati MD|Nancy Sculerati MD]] 08:11, 28 January 2007 (CST)
 
::About what? What would you like references for? I'll point you to the appropriate Wikipedia pages. ;-) [[User:Bei Dawei|Bei Dawei]]
 
If ''that's'' the most impressive source you can come up with on short notice, I'm sorely disappointed in you. It's more fun to play with the big boys, I've always thought. How about: Birth date, Death Date, Birth place for starters? [[User:Nancy Sculerati MD|Nancy Sculerati MD]] 08:37, 28 January 2007 (CST)
 
:::That was kind of the point of the ;-). But I'll get right on it... [[User:Bei Dawei|Bei Dawei]]
 
:Now, now. Let's all remain civil. Personally, I the above definition of "Israel" seems odd to my ear, but I'm no expert, so I'll gladly go along with it. Let's substitute "Galilee" instead&mdash;more specific.&mdash;[[User:Nat Krause|Nat Krause]] 12:19, 28 January 2007 (CST)
 
:::Oh the definition itself is fine, as long as we're limiting ourselves to ancient uses. [[User:Bei Dawei|Bei Dawei]]
 
I assure you, I am being not only civil-but affectionate. Rather than just go by our ear or gut, let's pull together and really explore and learn. I'm sure that Dawei will come up with some amazing things. I've already learned a lot here, and it comes from scholarship. If he hadn't prodded the discussion, I would not know about the use of the word Israel. [[User:Nancy Sculerati MD|Nancy Sculerati MD]] 13:40, 28 January 2007 (CST)
 
== My suggestion, and various other ==
 
'''My Suggestion''':
 
'''Jesus''' (also known as '''Jesus Christ''' or '''Jesus of Nazareth''') was a 1th century [[Judaism|Jewish]] teacher and prophet, believed by [[Christianity|Christians]] to be the [[Messiah]], the [[Son of God]], and the second person of the holy [[Trinity]]. His life and teachings are recorded in the four [[Gospel|Gospels]] of the [[New Testament]], a theological document written several decades after his death.
 
According to the Gospels Jesus was born in [[Bethlehem]] before the death of [[Herod the Gread|Herod]] the Great in [[4 BC]]. Of his childhood almost nothing is told, except that he once visited [[Jerusalem]] with his parents. He appeared as a preacher, teacher and healer when his was about age 30, active mainly in the Roman province of [[Galilee]]. He gathered a growing group of followers, including the [[12 Apostles]], who believed him to be the promised messiah. On [[Passover]] he came to Jerusalem, where he was arrested and condemned to death as a political agitator by the Roman governor [[Pontius Pilate]] (28-30 AD). After he was crucified and buried, According to the Gospels, his tomb was found empty and he appeared before some of his disciples before ascending into heaven.
 
The why: This description includes the basic facts of his life, time frame, what he did, his importance for christians, the main sources, and what they tell us.
 
 
::1. "1st century" is unnecessarily broad, since he was only alive for the first third of it.
 
::2. "Prophet" is dubious. Do you mean to say that he claimed to be a prophet? That the Bible calls him a prophet? That he was a prophet? (In what sense--sociological, after Wach?) Muslims would agree, but Christians would protest that this suggests a lesser role than that of God incarnate.
 
::3. One gospel (not "Gospels") refers to Herod the Great, but his death date comes from external sources.
 
::4. On what basis do you think Jesus was 30 when he began to preach? I think you are remembering a church tradition to that effect, based on the belief that 30 is the perfect age.
 
::5. Mark suggests that most of the followers were not told about Jesus's messianic claims.
 
::6. I thought Pilate was around until AD 36...?
 
::7. And anyway, it's not right to rely on the New Testament plus Christian tradition for the basics of Jesus's life. There's not even a mention here (at least in paragraph one) that anyone might doubt this story. [[User:Bei Dawei|Bei Dawei]]
 
 
----
'''American Heritage Dictionary''':
 
A teacher and prophet whose life and teachings form the basis of Christianity. Christians believe Jesus to be Son of God and the Christ.
 
----
'''Britannica''':
 
In Christianity, the son of God and the second person of the Holy Trinity.
 
Christian doctrine holds that by his crucifixion and resurrection he paid for the sins of all mankind. His life and ministry are recounted in the four Gospels of the New Testament. He was born a Jew in Bethlehem before the death of Herod the Great in 4 BC, and he died while Pontius Pilate was Roman governor of Judaea (AD 28–30). His mother, Mary, was married to Joseph, a carpenter of Nazareth (see St. Joseph). Of his childhood after the birth narratives in Matthew and Luke, nothing is known, except for one visit to Jerusalem with his parents. He began his ministry about age 30, becoming a preacher, teacher, and healer. He gathered disciples in the region of Galilee, including the 12 Apostles, and preached the imminent arrival of the Kingdom of God. His moral teachings, outlined in the Sermon on the Mount, and his reported miracles won him a growing number of followers, who believed that he was the promised messiah. On Passover he entered Jerusalem on a donkey, where he shared the Last Supper with his disciples and was betrayed to the Roman authorities by Judas Iscariot. Arrested and tried, he was condemned to death as a political agitator and was crucified and buried. Three days later visitors to his tomb found it empty. According to the Gospels, he appeared several times to his disciples before ascending into heaven.
 
----
'''Columbia''':
Jesus or Jesus Christ (jē'zəs krīst, jē'zəz) , 1st-century Jewish teacher and prophet in whom Christians have traditionally seen the Messiah [Heb.,=annointed one, whence ''Christ'' from the Greek] and whom they have characterized as [[Son of God]] and as Word or Wisdom of God incarnate. Muslims acknowledge him as a prophet, and Hindus as an avatar (see [[avatara]]). He was born just before the death of King Herod the Great (37 B.C.–4 B.C.) and was crucified after a brief public ministry during[[ Pontius Pilate]]'s term as prefect of Judaea (A.D. 26–36).
 
That's a help- but please modify those posts with full reference information. As we are writing a new compendium, I think that the styles of Encyclopedia and the way they have handled the subject is really helpful- but for us, we need to go deeper for scholarly sources. So, for example, we need to examine the sources that these encyclopedias drew on, I realize that they may not be explicit. If not, we need to find our own. Actually, even if they give sources, we ''still'' need to find our own - as well as examine those cited by the above references. ''That'' way we come up with something that is authentic scholarship rather than derivative simplification. At least, that- like everything else I write - is my opinion. [[User:Nancy Sculerati MD|Nancy Sculerati MD]] 09:08, 28 January 2007 (CST)

Latest revision as of 10:53, 7 September 2009

This article is developed but not approved.
Main Article
Discussion
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
 
To learn how to update the categories for this article, see here. To update categories, edit the metadata template.
 Definition Traveling preacher in first century CE, foundational figure in Christianity. [d] [e]
Checklist and Archives
 Workgroup category Religion [Categories OK]
 Talk Archive 1, 2  English language variant British English

Archives

Archive 1, January, 2007

Archive 2, February 1-15, 2007

Jesus as historical figure

I open this article and the first sentence I read is "By virtue of the impact of Christianity, Jesus (also known as Jesus Christ or Jesus of Nazareth) is one the most influential people who ever lived." Excuse me? Who says a person called Jesus of Nazareth ever lived? Where is the textual or archaeological evidence for his historicity? We will have to do better than this. Adam Carr 21:02, 23 February 2007 (CST)

See Archive 1. Stephen Ewen 21:49, 23 February 2007 (CST)
While not strictly true, if it were this is hardly an isolated case. There is only one account of the Goth's destruction of Emperor Valens' Roman army at Adrianople (August 9, 378 A.D.). One. It was written by Ammianus Marcellinus who was not even there and was a Greek, not Roman or Goth. That the accounts of Jesus' life were written by people who knew him or knew people who knew him personally and were also followers of his philosophy, believed in his assertions, whatever, is simple ad hominem and hardly grounds for dismissal. Josephus also mentions him. --Thomas Simmons 20:06, 23 June 2007 (CDT)

OK, I have read all that, for my sins. None of it seems to address my point, which is that the statement that Jesus was a person who lived (ie, a historical figure) is not universally accepted, and supported by very slender evidence (texts written by Christians). Placing such a statement in the opening paragraph as though it was an uncontested fact is POV and unacceptable. The Brittanica gets around that by prefacing its description with the phrase "In Christianity,..." In other words, "this is what Christians believe, not necessarily what we believe." That seems to be a fair solution.Adam Carr 22:28, 24 February 2007 (CST)

Adam, I respectfully disagree. There is not more than very slender evidence- in the scheme of things- that any particular named individual from a couple of thousand years ago lived in all but very few parts of the world. Here there are several texts and references. It is not limited to a Christian view. As was made very clear in the full discussion in the archives. Perhaps you missed some of it? Nancy Sculerati MD 22:34, 24 February 2007 (CST)

Oh dear - I had this argument at ENORMOUS length at Wikipedia in 2003 and I don't want to have it all again, but I suppose I must. You are wrong about the textual evidence for the life of Jesus as compared with other figures from the same period. There are NO contemporary sources for Jesus outside the Gospels and the Letters of Paul. What are these "several texts and references?" Kindly name me one. Not the reference in Josephus, please, which is a Christian forgery. In any case Josephus (born 32 AD) was not a contemporary. Pliny, writing in 112 AD, is the oldest reference by a non-Christian source. As a matter of fact, I accept that Jesus was a historical figure, although no more than that. But there are plenty of people who don't, and it can't be stated as an uncontested fact. If I am sufficiently provoked, I will write at length on this, using as my text "Modern Biblical Scholarship and the Quest for the Historical Yeshua", which appears as Appendix D to Donald H Akenson's book Surpassing Wonder: The Invention of the Bible and the Talmuds (Harcourt and Brace 1998). Akenson argues that there is no recoverable evidence at all for a secular life of Jesus. Adam Carr 22:58, 24 February 2007 (CST)

I notice the last paragraph of the lead notes different theoretical existences for Jesus. Is there a problem with noting as the very last sentence that there is a following that doubts that Jesus even existed, or something to that extent. Or are we treading on thin ice (references?) with a statement like that? Just a thought from someone who has no real education in this field. Matt Innis (Talk) 23:13, 24 February 2007 (CST)

My view is that the whole introductory section (the first three paragraphs) are (how shall I put this politely?) ahistorical and tendentious. I will have a go at drafting a replacement. Adam Carr 23:20, 24 February 2007 (CST)

Adam, I could then pull out a shelf of books like F.F. Bruce's The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? (Eerdmans 2003) (Bruce replies with a strong "yes"), dig in my heels, and argue ad infinitum for the contrary view. But we are not here to write personal position papers but an encyclopedia article on the subject "Jesus" (not "Jesus as historical figure") for general use. Stephen Ewen 23:22, 24 February 2007 (CST)

I agree. My simple point is that the opening section cannot simply assert that Jesus was a historical figure as an uncontested fact, when it is in fact contested. An article on "Jesus" must address the question of whether he was a historical figure, and not simply assume that he was or he wasn't. (I haven't read the rest of the article. If it goes on to make assertions about the life and career of Jesus as if these were historically accepted facts, then that will have to be disputed as well.) Adam Carr 23:31, 24 February 2007 (CST)

Jesus, hasn't anybody read Tacitus?  :-) --Larry Sanger 00:08, 25 February 2007 (CST)

Tacitus was writing in the 2nd century, and records no more than the fact that someone called "Christus" was executed in Palestine in the reign of Tiberius.

Here is a suggestion for a new opening section:

Jesus, known as Jesus Christ or Jesus of Nazareth, is the central figure in Christianity, one of the world’s major religions. Christians believe that Jesus was the son of God, one of the three persons of the Trinity, whose death and resurrection brought salvation to humanity, and also that he was a historical figure who lived in the Roman province of Judea from about 4BC to about 35AD. Christians believe that Jesus, after preaching to the Jews and performing various miracles, was condemned to death and crucified by the Roman authorities, and that three days after his death he rose from the dead.
The only source of historical knowledge about Jesus is the Christian Gospels, which are based on documents written within living memory of the events described in them. The Letters of St Paul, which are older than the Gospels, also attest to the historical reality of Jesus. There are however no contemporary references to Jesus from non-Christian sources. Some writers therefore deny that Jesus was a historical figure at all. Most secular historians, however, accept that Jesus existed, but do not believe that the details of his life can be known from the available evidence.

Adam Carr 00:30, 25 February 2007 (CST)

I would actually like to consult a religious scholar or a historian who studies the period to determine the neutrality of the claim, "The only source of historical knowledge about Jesus is the Christian Gospels." Is this generally accepted by the relevant scholars, i.e., is there pretty much universal agreement on that point? I very much doubt that, Adam, in which case the claim needs to be changed somehow. I think you assume, for example, that Tacitus did not have some other source of information, such as a living tradition or "common knowledge" that continued to the time in which he was writing, and that he relied on the Gospels. Otherwise, then, Tacitus too certainly does count as a "source of historical knowledge."
Perhaps this could be handily solved by simply rewording the claim, "The only source of historical knowledge that purports to be based on eyewitness accounts..." But even this might fail to be neutral; to determine whether it is we require the input of the relevant specialists.
As to whether to make the entire second paragraph of the article about doubts about the historical existence of Jesus, this seems to be a nonstarter. The introductory paragraphs of a biography in particular should concern the aspects of the person's life or thought for which he or she is most notable. Jesus is not nearly as notable for being possibly fictional as he is for many other things. --Larry Sanger 12:35, 25 February 2007 (CST)

I strongly disagree that your version is an "improvement". The fact that there are some legitimate doubts about the historical existance of Jesus of course deserves a mention in the article, in the same way (the Jesus Talk archives has this point in depth-as made by Gareth Leng) that there is at least as much doubt over the actual authorship of the plays attributed to Shakespeare. It is just as inappropriate to insert that doubt in the introductory paragraph of Jesus as it would be to insert the authorship issue in the first paragraph of an article on Shakespeare for all the reasons that Gareth so clearly presented in his long reply - now in the Archives. We've covered this ground, Adam, and accept the first paragraph as written. I'm interested in your views, but not a de novo debate. Nancy Sculerati MD 05:58, 25 February 2007 (CST)

Well now, this is where things get interesting. If this were Wikipedia, Nancy, your view would carry as much weight as mine, and we would be deadlocked. But this is Citizendium, and this project, we are told, values the opinions of experts over those of non-experts. I have a doctorate in history, you are an otolaryngologist. I don't claim to be a particular expert in early Christian history, but nevertheless as a trained historian I think I trump you. Larry, if you are still following this thread, what is your view on this? What would happen if I were to install my text and ignore Nancy's objections on the ground that as a non-historian she has no standing? Would you say I was within my rights? Adam Carr 06:09, 25 February 2007 (CST)

There is no "rank" here to "pull." None of us is an expert on the topic, I assume. Hence none of us is an editor with respect to this topic, and we are equal when it comes to making decisions. If we wish an editor to settle this, we should look to the Religion Workgroup, or perhaps to a historian who specializes in early Christianity. --Larry Sanger 12:25, 25 February 2007 (CST)

Indeed I could argue that since Stephen is a chiropractor and you, Larry, are a philosopher, I am the only qualified historian currently editing this article, and that I can do as I please with it until someone with higher qualifications (say, a doctorate in Christian history), comes along. Adam Carr 06:20, 25 February 2007 (CST)

You would be right if the focus of this article were the historical facts relating to the story of Jesus' life, that would place this article exclusively in the History workgroup. The issue that has been gone over extensively is whether such history should indeed be the focus of the article, and the consensus was that it should not be, that the article should describe the story of Jesus, and discuss the importance of the Jesus of Christianity, and its ethical moral cultural and societal implications and consequences as well as the history, and be a gateway into specialised long articles about many things including the history. For many of the issues that this article must cobver, mostly only in outline, the historical facts of Jesus' life are actually irrelevant. The impact of the teachings ascribed to Jesus are there regardless of the truth of Jesus' life. Tracing that impact of course is something we need historians for too.... :-)Gareth Leng 06:22, 25 February 2007 (CST)

Excuse me? The historical facts about the life of Jesus are irrelevant? Dear me. If it were to be established that Jesus never existed, or indeed if it were just to be established that he was an ordinary Jewish agitator who performed no miracles and was not resurrected, the entire Christian religion would collapse in a heap. I rather think these are relevant questions in an article about Jesus. What Christians believe about Jesus is a question of theology, not history, and actually belongs in the Christianity article. This article is about "Jesus," and the first question it must address is whether any such person as jesus ever existed, and the second question is, if he did, what facts can be known about his biography. Adam Carr 06:30, 25 February 2007 (CST)

I'd encourage everyone to be as collegial as possible, please; this isn't Wikipedia. The next instance of "Excuse me? ... Dear me." We will replace with Template:Nocomplaints.
Anyway, I have to support Gareth here. For many of the issues we have to cover in this article, as he said, the actual historical facts are indeed irrelevant, no more relevant than the actual historical facts of the life of Moses are to our recounting of the Biblical story of the flight from Egypt, for example, and no more relevant than whatever Tolstoy's inspiration might have been for our account of Anna Karenina's life. More to the point, Jesus is quite obviously first and foremost a religious topic, not a historical one. Nearly every topic has multiple connections. There are, of course philosophical aspects (concerning the nature of divinity): should "Jesus" thus be a philosophy article too? Of course not. Indeed, due to the importance of the topic, there are anthropological aspects, psychological aspects, artistic aspects, and no doubt many others. We would like to cover those aspects (in this article or in other ancillary ones) but that does not mean that the topic itself belongs to all of the relevant workgroups. --Larry Sanger 13:02, 25 February 2007 (CST)

I much prefer Adam's version for stylistic reasons (it is also my unqualified opinion is that he is right about the significance of the historicity issue). The current version tells us who Jesus was in a rather roundabout way. Adam's version gets to the point immediately, in a logical order and without resorting to wrapping-paper prose like "by virtue of the impact of", "is one the most influential people who ever lived" and "The question 'Who was Jesus?' seems a simple one, yet the answers which have been proposed defy easy summary." Fredrik Johansson 07:07, 25 February 2007 (CST)

Fredrik, the first quote is very precise; the second gives the article a personable tone. "Encyclopedia" need not equate with "sterile". BTW, I am not a chiropractor. I am sure this was just an oversight by Adam. Stephen Ewen 14:49, 25 February 2007 (CST)
I concur. Adam's opening sentence is a big improvement. The current version is not what I would expect when reading an encyclopedia article on Jesus. --Tom Morris 10:34, 17 May 2008 (CDT)

Points arising

  • Sorry Stephen: someone here is a chiropractor, but not you. You have a masters' degree in education.
  • Larry, am I to understand that the use of irony in debate is banned at CZ? I won't last here very long if that's the case, and nor will many other people. I was not making a personal attack on anyone. I think you need to lighten up a little.
  • I thoroughly disagree with the views expressed about the importance of discussing Jesus as a figure in history. He is not a character in a novel, nor a figure like Moses whom many Christians and Jews agree is probably mythological or symbolic, and who in any case is not central to either religion. One can have Judaism without Moses, but not Christianity without Christ. Christians claim that Jesus was a real person, and that the events described in the Gospels actually happened.
  • Any article about Jesus must begin with that proposition, and must then point out that it is a proposition for which there is no evidence beyond the Gospels themselves and the Letters of Paul. In the view of most secular historians, that is sufficient evidence to accept that Jesus is a historical figure, but there are several perfectly respectable historians who maintain that he is a mythical figure. No secular historian accepts that the Gospels are sufficient evidence for events such as the miracles and the resurrection (if they accepted that they wouldn't be secular historians).
Does the entire article need to be a debate on whether or not Jesus existed? Could this issue be addressed in one section of the article, leaving the rest remaining? I would think the article should be mainly about what is believed about Jesus from all perspectives, including, though not solely, whether or not he existed. To make the primary thrust of the article an analysis of his existence would be inappropriate. Michael Yates 21:36, 25 February 2007 (CST)
  • All this other stuff belongs in another article, or at least in a later section of this article. I am not a theologian, but I believe that the correct term for the study of Jesus within the framework of Christian belief is Christology. I suggest that someone with expertise in that field write an appropriate article, and that this article be primarily a historical one. It is not acceptable that the principal article on Jesus be written from within the framework of Christian belief, any more than it would be acceptable that the article on Karl Marx be written from with the framework of Marxist belief. Adam Carr 19:30, 25 February 2007 (CST)
I would agree with your last sentence. However, it should be perfectly acceptable for a portion of the article to be written from within the framework of Christian belief. It is difficult to fully comprehend Jesus' influence on a particular religion without having a great deal of experience in that religion. Therefore, I would think it appropriate for the section of "Jesus in Christianity" to have a great deal of Christian authors and non-Christian authors involved. Likewise "Jesus in Islam" should have a great deal of Muslim authors and non-Muslim authors. A proper view of Jesus is not limited to the secular view of Jesus. Michael Yates 21:36, 25 February 2007 (CST)
As not Christology, so not Historical Jesus. You stated in the section above, "This article is about "Jesus," and the first question it must address is whether any such person as Jesus ever existed, and the second question is, if he did, what facts can be known about his biography." To insist that "secular historians" be given primacy in an article titled Jesus - I find this position simply very peculiar, and editorially unsound. With all due respect, the approach appears much more one of writing a position paper than a general encyclopedia article on the topic. Our job is not to assign a particular set of criteria (certain historians') of what is "knowable" about Jesus and filter everything else through that. It is to neutrally survey human knowledge, whether that is knowledge or "knowledge" in our view. Stephen Ewen 21:05, 25 February 2007 (CST)

Plan and conflict

It's perhaps appropriate to recall the diifferences berween this and Wikipedia. One difference that is not immediately obvious but which is very very important is that nothing written in this article will count for anything unless and until it is approved. We are working on a draft, and contriving a path that will meet defined objectives, and hopefully lead to approval. That requires a plan and clear objectives, that have been proposed and I think agreed for this article: a plan that I repeat again:

I proposed above that this article, the gateway article, be written for lay people, who may have only a very superficial knowledge of Jesus and who may never have read the Gospels. It should be written to summarise

  • a) the Story of Jesus and his teachings as represented by the Church
  • b) the place of Jesus in Christianity
  • c) the impact of his teachings on society culture and ethics
  • d) the historical basis for the Story of Jesus
  • e) Jesus in Islam
  • f) The Jewish view of Jesus
  • Other things that may be just touched on? Jesus the revolutionary, Jesus the communist, Jesus the Cynic, Jesus the feminist, Jesus in the Mormon Church....

I proposed that all issues can be covered in appropriate depth within articles overseen by relevant workgroups. We cannot objectively rank the relative importance to this article of the diverse strands that must contribute to it, but we can have a plan that addresses an anticipated radership, Our job is to allow people to make up their own minds, not to try to make their minds up for them. The plan was conceived as an attempt to identify a potential readership, in order to establish a style and a level, and to anticipate the kinds of questions that those readers might ask or be interested in. I'm a scientist and an atheist so what do I know. But as I understand it, faith gives a knowledge that is different from the knowledge of experience; we may not understand it or accept it, but nor need we denigrate it, certainly not here. The notion that faith based knowledge would be threatened by evidence based knowledge is an interestng one, Is any evidence from history of any religious belief ever having been undermined in this way? I have to say that there are planty of examples of belief in scientific, political, or economic theories surviving long after refutation, but perhaps people who hold strong religious convictions are more rational than others in this respect?Gareth Leng 05:12, 26 February 2007 (CST)

I am neither a philosopher nor a theologian, so those questions are rather over my head. I adhere to a simple proposition. This article is not about the Christian religion, it is about Jesus, who was, most of us believe, a historical person (and who was, by the way, a Jew and not a Christian). Any article about any historical person must begin with the facts of their biography, so far as these are known, and only then move on to consider the impact of their career on their own and subsequent ages. In the case of a person whose historicity is disputed, and where the evidence for their biography is slight and/or in dispute, those issues must be discussed.

I therefore suggest that the scheme of this article should be:

  • a) Jesus as a historical figure, and a discussion of the sources of his biography
  • b) the life and teachings of Jesus as described in the Gospels
  • c) the career of Jesus in the context of Jewish history and thought
  • d) the place of Jesus in Christian theology
  • e) the view of Jesus by other religious traditions
  • f) the impact of Jesus on western culture
  • g) theological and historiographical controversies about Jesus in the modern age

Not being a theologian or a Christologist, I am not especially committed to the order or the wordings of points (b) through (g). I am committed to the wording of and priority of point (a). Adam Carr 05:30, 26 February 2007 (CST)

Adam, I believe the only important thing that you're disagreeing with (most of) the rest of us about is the proposition that the article must begin with a discussion of the historicity of Jesus. It's true that claims regarding the actual (and thus historical) existence of Jesus are of extreme importance for this topic. But it does not logically follow--it doesn't follow at all--from that that we must go into the issue of Jesus' historical existence in detail from the outset.

As I said, for biographical articles, the thing to begin with, in virtually every case, is not the person's life, but what the person is famous for. And, as I said before, he isn't nearly as famous for the details of what can be known through historical methods as a lot of other things, such as that (as Christians say) he died for all our sins, etc., etc. --Larry Sanger 09:36, 26 February 2007 (CST)

Some thoughts about the lead, as giving context to the article.

Having read the archive and this discussion, and the article as it now stands, I am once more struck with how easy it is for persons to misunderstand each other on a wiki, and how difficult synthesis can turn out to be. As a partial solution to one of the ongoing problems, that of the introductory section, may I suggest that a lead is not an abstract, as some seem to think. On the contrary, I think that the Wikipedia tradition of introduction-as-abstract, with the first sentence almost invariably ending up as a definition, is neither necessary, nor good style - and this article originated as a Wikipedia branch. Not requiring that, leaves one free to orientate the reader on what the article is about, rather than to try desperately to give all the relevant information right at the top. This eliminates a large part of the argumentation about the introduction, relegating controversies to the specified sections of the article. The type of lead I am thinking about is along the lines of:

Considering that Christianity has without any doubt been one of the major forces shaping European and Western civilisation in the last two millenia, the biographical facts about the person Jesus - known as Jesus Christ or Jesus of Nazareth, on whose life and teachings the religion is based - are surprisingly unclear.

The difficulty arises because the most contemporaneous records of the events of his life - the New Testament Epistles of Paul, and the canonical gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John - are of a religious nature, and emphasise the spiritual message that the writer wished to convey, rather than the history of Jesus himself. However, the impact of Christianity on history has been so great that the academic study of the life of Jesus, by Christians and non-Christians, has remained active for centuries. As a result the modern reader may discern two distinct histories of Jesus; the one is the rather patchy description of his life story as related in the Gospels, and the other is a group of scholarly argued opinions on what events and actions in Jesus' life are likely to be historically factual.

Most commentators agree that Jesus was a real historical person, a Jew who spent his reported life in the Roman provinces of Galilee and Iudaea - provinces which centuries later were incorporated into the larger area that came to be known as Palestine. He lived between the first decade BCE and the forth decade CE. It is accepted that he was an itinerant Jewish preacher, considered a healer and exorcist, was baptised by John the Baptist before his period of recorded teaching, and was executed by crucifixion on the order Pontius Pilate. Due to the uncertain nature of known documentation about the life of Jesus, many of these claims have been challenged, even to the extent of surmising that Jesus was not a real person at all.

For the purpose of clarity, this biographical article discusses the biblical writings, historical commentaries, and different religious views of Jesus separately.

Sections then: Jesus in the Canonical Gospels, The Historical Jesus, Jesus in Christianity, Jesus in Islam, Jesus in Western culture, etc; or as per other outlines; whatever.

Having described the problem that one has with writing a universal biography of Jesus, it may be possible to rewrite the whole article in a unique (and improved, one hopes) style, illuminating each part of the issue in its own section.

Something of interest to others: Seeing the section on Mandaean Views of Jesus made me recall an article I read recently about the plight of the Mandaeans following all the goings-on in Iraq ([1]). It seems as if what may be current ("M regards...") encyclopedic fact is at risk of becoming historic comment ("M regarded..."). --Christo Muller (Talk) 07:53, 26 February 2007 (CST)

I think Christo makes a good point in the discussion above about the lead "not being an abstract" for the rest of the article. This is certainly a distinction from WP format and I think an important one. However, that lead follows that same format. Combining your comments with Gareth, Larry's and Adams, it seems feasible to create the article and just add a section discussing to the historical aspects of the Jesus that flows with the rest of the article. Whether this is at the beginning or at the end is an editorial workgroup decision that says more about the direction of all of the subjects - whether Jesus, Buddha, Moses, Mohammed, etc. -Matt Innis (Talk) 10:06, 26 February 2007 (CST) (the chiropractor;)

I think Christo here has elegantly made an excellent point. Escaping from the lead as a summary makes excellent sense in many contexts. I have found it often bizarre how intensely people argue about the lead, as though the lead ecapsulates some kind of editorial judgement. I think we should escape the notion of an article as summating a viewpoint, but embrace the idea that a gateway article is an open and interesting essay introducing different viewpoints and varied aspects of the subject. I think the difference between Adam and myself is actually very narrow, my concern is only that promoting the historical facts of Jesus' life seems to set a disparaging tone for the article, in making this probably eternally unresolvable questions appear to be the most important things about Jesus. I'm not sure that I'd begin any scientific article by starting with what we don't know; it would be more common I think to end with the unknowns, for the same reason. We don't know exactly how many medical interventions work, I think we'd begin by describing the interventions and the evidence that they do work before exploring the unknown mechanisms. It may not be a good analogy, but my feeling is similar, starting an article on breast cancer with an account of what we don't know is not what we would choose to do.Gareth Leng 10:39, 26 February 2007 (CST)

Well, generally (probably not always), we should begin articles about general things with definitions; that's far and away the most important piece of information about general topics, it's what users expect, and it's required in many cases to understand what follows. As to articles about particular things (like Jesus, the Taj Mahal, WWII, etc.), I have always been of the opinion that articles should begin with an account of why the thing is notable. You can't define "Jesus" because "Jesus" is a name.

Neither a definition nor an account of why something is notable, however, requires that we not develop an interesting narrative, from the very first sentence. Indeed, I am strongly in favor of regarding the introduction to a longer article as indeed an introduction to (not necessarily, or always, a detailed summary of) the article, and in any case a kick-off of the narrative that the article embodies. I enjoyed Christo's indented narrative above, and I also appreciate his point that it is more important that we create a narrative than that we try to summarize everything about a topic in a few paragraphs; but I also must agree with Gareth that starting the article with an account (however eloquent) of what we don't know about the topic is inappropriate, not just because it's a negative, but for the quite simple reason that the fact that we don't know much about Jesus (or, many of us think we don't) just isn't even close to being the most important thing about Jesus. --Larry Sanger 13:17, 26 February 2007 (CST)

Sometimes it is helpful to take one's basic assumptions and place them prominently in the article. The one I hear in the new intro goes like this: "The assumption we begin with in this article is that the Gospels are unreliable historical documents and that the millions of Christians who disagree with us on the matter are wrong." Thus it is does not achieve the neutrality to which we should strive. Stephen Ewen 15:18, 26 February 2007 (CST)

In conclusion

Since I don't intend spending time on writing or rewriting this article, I think I should probably now withdraw from this argument, having played I hope a useful role in getting people to clarify what this article should say about Jesus as a historical figure. I will however state one more time my disagreement with Larry when he says:

"For biographical articles, the thing to begin with, in virtually every case, is not the person's life, but what the person is famous for. [Jesus] isn't nearly as famous for the details of what can be known through historical methods as a lot of other things, such as that (as Christians say) he died for all our sins, etc."

So what is Jesus "famous for"? He is famous for being the Son of God, as evidenced by the miracles and above all by the resurrection. Not many historical figures get to rise from the dead, so this has ensured Jesus quite a lot of "fame." Since this is the basis for his claim to fame, surely the most fundamental question any article about Jesus must ask (and attempt to answer) is: DID THESE EVENTS IN FACT TAKE PLACE? And that leads directly to the question, what are the sources for the biography of Jesus?

As a historian, I ask about Jesus the same questions I ask about any other historical figure. What are the sources for their biography? How reliable are those sources? What claims can I make about their life based on those sources? If I wrote an article claiming that George Washington walked across the Delaware, and fed the troops at Valley Forge on five loaves and two small fishes, it would rightly be demanded that I produce a verifiable source for these claims. Why is Jesus exempt from this basic historiographical requirement?

This question is fundamental, because all the rest of the commentary about Jesus rests on it. Christians do NOT claim that Jesus was a symbolic, mythical or supernatural figure. This is not like an article about Achilles or Apollo, for example. Christians claim that Jesus was an actual living man, who died on the cross for our sins and rose from the dead. The death and resurrection of Jesus are the very core of Christianity. If this claim were to be falsified, the whole edifice of Christian belief would collapse. This is why this question must be addressed FIRST in any article about Jesus with any claim to intellectual integrity. Adam Carr 20:21, 26 February 2007 (CST)

I'm not sure what your worry is, Adam, so long as we are not actually asserting as facts--as we obviously will not be doing--the various things Jesus is famous for (allegedly) being or (allegedly) having done. I mean, if we aren't saying that all the things Jesus is famous for really happened or really are true, then how on Earth is there any issue of "intellectual integrity" here at all?

Besides, Adam, your argument "proves too much." If your argument were sound, then I could also make an argument that we must begin with the philosophical questions about whether God even exists, because, of course, his divinity is also the basis for Jesus' main claims to fame, and thus we must ask: DOES GOD EVEN EXIST? And that leads directly to the question what the merits of various arguments, for the existence of God and for the coherence of the doctrine of the Trinity, are. Therefore, we must begin with those things.

Nope, so long as our claims are hedged, or we are making it clear that we are engaged in reportage about belief rather than assertion of belief, these are not requirements.

If your argument were simply that it's really important if Jesus didn't exist, I would agree with that. I also think it's really important if God doesn't exist, too, and that, moreover, religion in general might be a great evil to the world. But the importance of these things doesn't have any immediate implications for how much to emphasize such doubts, no matter how well-founded, in the opening paragraphs of the article.

--Larry Sanger 20:32, 26 February 2007 (CST)

Looking at the article as it is now, I don't detect in it any assertion of the story of Jesus as historically established fact, only a reporting of the received accounts of his life; if the article did assert these events as facts then I would share your concerns Adam. Instead as I read the article, I see it made very clear that the actual events are all shrouded in uncertainty as far as the historical evidence goes. Christians claim that he exists, and indeed that he still lives, but these are claims based on faith that transcend evidence of the sort you talk about. The article is not asserting the truth of these faith based claims either. So I don't think that this article is constructed from a Christian perspective or asserting the truth of any claim of fact that is seriously disputed, but is "sympathetic to its subject", as it should be, in my view. Gareth Leng 03:35, 27 February 2007 (CST)

To return to my orginal point, the opening paragraph still asserts that Jesus was a person who lived, as though this was an uncontested fact, which it isn't. I have proposed an alternative introduction, which I think has had one negative comment and one positive comment. I now propose inserting that text in the article. Adam Carr 04:28, 27 February 2007 (CST)

Now I see what everyone is saying. It does look awkward from just the secular historian view. One thing for sure, it makes the neutral view look better. Let's go back to that. Matt Innis (Talk) 20:05, 27 February 2007 (CST)

Question of Dating

On the dates of the birth and death of Jesus one can hardly reach a consensus. If we accept the Biblical record, then his birth can be no later than the death of Herod in 4BC. In Matthew 2:16, Herod ordered the slaughter of all children under 2 years of age in Jerusalem, which would place the birth of Jesus between 6BC-4BC. However, I have never heard a specific date for his death. Based on Luke 3:23, Jesus was "about" 30 years old when he began his ministry. The gospels mention three (separate?) Passovers during his ministry. Therefore, many Biblical scholars believe that he was crucified at age 33-34, which would put his death 26AD-30AD. Currently the intro to the article reads 4BC-35AD. What are your thoughts? Michael Yates 01:06, 28 February 2007 (CST)

Change 35 to 30 if that is a more widely accepted date. But I reverted "late 1st c BC to early 1st c AD" as both obvious and too vague. There seems to be a reasonable scholarly consensus on the dates so they should be used. Adam Carr 01:28, 28 February 2007 (CST)

I will make the change to 30. I understand the changes you made, and posting a specific year does look a lot better than the vague centuries I put up there. Thanks for your help. (To others:) If there is further discussion on an appropriate date, let me know. Michael Yates 10:35, 28 February 2007 (CST)

The most important thing about Jesus

I'm not competent to contribute to this article, but as someone deeply ignorant I am competent to read it. At present it doesn't begin to answer for me what was so important about Jesus, the history doesn't begin to help me understand why he is remembered. Where, in this article, is the answer to the question of why the story of his life was so influential? The former lead, that I preferred and still do, introduced something that is still unwritten - the explanation of the moral and ethical message of his (attributed) teachings and of the example of his (reported) life, and an account of the influence of that message on the world since. This to me seems by far the most important thing about Jesus. However, his message still isn't part of the article, but it surely must be to make sense of anything.Gareth Leng 06:28, 28 February 2007 (CST)

Since I am neither a Christian nor a theologian, I don't intend getting into a debate about what Jesus's message was (or at least the message attributed to him in the Gospels), or how it should be described here. Earlier I proposed the following structure for the article:

  • a) Jesus as a historical figure, and a discussion of the sources of his biography
  • b) the life and teachings of Jesus as described in the Gospels
  • c) the career of Jesus in the context of Jewish history and thought
  • d) the place of Jesus in Christian theology
  • e) the view of Jesus by other religious traditions
  • f) the impact of Jesus on western culture
  • g) theological and historiographical controversies about Jesus in the modern age

It seems to me that the appropriate place to describe his "message" is in section (b). There could be some reference to it in the opening section, but I suspect it will difficult to write a single-sentence (and NPOV) summary of the teachings of someone who said both "I say unto you, love your enemies" and "I come not to bring peace, but a sword." Adam Carr 07:22, 28 February 2007 (CST)

My Christian friends advise me that if the importance of Jesus has to be summarised in a single sentence, it is this: "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." (John 3:16). If a direct quote from Jesus to the same effect is required, it is this: "I am the resurrection and the life. He who believes in me will live, even though he dies; and whoever lives and believes in me will never die." (John 11:25-26) Either one of these could go in the opening section. Adam Carr 00:44, 1 March 2007 (CST)

"a) Jesus as a historical figure, and a discussion of the sources of his biography" - Placing this as a is the problem, and I think that is why it reads to Gareth as it does. I agree that the initial version of the Intro was a better starting point. Adam's contention that the Intro did not from the get-go assume Jesus' non-historicity goes too far, I think. To make my point by analogy, take the intro to anthropology which I am working on. It states, "[anthropologists] seek answers to benefit humankind". The article will later re-visit this statement and discuss examples where this was far, far from the case, e.g., here. Stephen Ewen 01:26, 1 March 2007 (CST)

I agree with Stephen, and think Adam (and Stephen also) has missed what I was looking for: I found examples on [2] of the sort of elements I was expecting, the elements that summarise the important message of Jesus' life for Christians, and indications of the message that has been so admired too by non-Christians, and a clear statement that Jesus' life is a moral example for Christians and what exactly is meant by that. : "..it is the person and work of Jesus Christ that shapes morals and motivates right behaviour. Through faith, Christians participate in the death and resurrection of Christ, being made new creatures by dying to sin and rising again to righteousness. As new creatures 'in Christ' they are called to imitate Him. Christians are empowered by the Holy Spirit to live in a Christlike manner. Jesus, the Son of Man, came not to be served but to serve. The overruling idea of imitating Christ encompasses a humility and self-abasement before God and a self-giving service toone's neighbours. The New Testament contains numerous moral virtues, the chief of which is love. While 'love fulfils the law' it goes beyond it. It not only refuses to harm others, it counts others greater than self. The Christian ethic is not an ethic of power but an ethic of service. It focuses on what canbe done for others rather than what can be demanded from others as a right. Every Christian is expected to exhibit the attitudes, values and commitment which characterise their new nature in Christ. For those who occupy positions of leadership, an ethic of service means that as leaders they are not only responsible for, but also accountable to,those whom they serve.The Christian ethic is also an ethic of love. Love demands a concern for the spiritual welfare of the offender as well as the offended. Any discipline should include a call to the offender for change and renewal."

Gareth Leng 03:15, 1 March 2007 (CST)

  • Comment on the message of Jesus - "to redeem the fallen race of mankind and the earth from the Genesis 3 curse of sin". Stephen Ewen 01:51, 1 March 2007 (CST)
I see, Gareth, that my above verbiage is more an attempt at encapsulating the mission of Jesus, as opposed to what you are talking about. Stephen Ewen 04:24, 1 March 2007 (CST)

Problems in the second paragraph

I have yet to really closely look at the first and third paragraphs, but as to the second:

  • "The major source of historical knowledge about Jesus is the Christian Gospels, which are based on documents written within living memory of the events described in them." I think you are giving too much to the "Q" hypothesis to which it seems you are at least in part referring. Luke claims his account comes from "investigating everything carefully from the very first". Mark was said to be an associate of Peter, an eyewitness who along with Matthew was one of the twelve disciples of Jesus. John, also one of the twelve, claims that his account was from his being an eyewitness. Mark more than any would have relied on any "Q", Luke certainly as well.
  • "The Letters of St Paul, which are older than the Gospels, also attest to the historical reality of Jesus." Yes, but so do the other New Testament letters.
  • "Some writers therefore deny that Jesus was a historical figure at all." This is clearly overstating the case. A "small minority" is more accurate.
  • "Most secular historians, however, accept that Jesus existed, but do not believe that the details of his life can be known from the available evidence." This is problematic on account that it is privileging "secular" historians and what does and does not count as "available evidence" to this sub-group among all scholars of Jesus. It is thus acting as if there is not a vast array of scholars who accept the historicity of the Gospels (and New Testament letters) and accord them as credible "available evidence".

I favor restoring the prior version of the Intro and taking up from there.

Stephen Ewen 01:13, 1 March 2007 (CST)

Intro - again

Here is Adam's version:

Jesus, known as Jesus Christ or Jesus of Nazareth, is the central figure in Christianity, one of the world’s major religions. Christians believe that Jesus was the son of God the Father, one of the three persons of the Trinity, whose death and resurrection brought salvation to humanity, and also that he was a historical figure who lived in the Roman province of Judea from about 4BC to about 30AD. Christians believe that Jesus, after preaching to the Jews and performing various miracles, was condemned to death and crucified by the Roman authorities, and that three days after his death he rose from the dead.

The major source of historical knowledge about Jesus is the Christian Gospels, which are based on documents written within living memory of the events described in them. The Letters of St Paul, which are older than the Gospels, also attest to the historical reality of Jesus. There are no contemporary references to Jesus from non-Christian sources, although there are a few from the following decades, in writers such as Tacitus and Pliny the Younger. Some writers therefore deny that Jesus was a historical figure at all. Most secular historians, however, accept that Jesus existed, but do not believe that the details of his life can be known from the available evidence.

Most scholars would accept that Jesus was a Jewish preacher, healer and exorcist active in Galilee and Judea in early first century AD. Many accept that he was baptized by John the Baptist, and crucified at the command of Roman governor Pontius Pilate. Some writers have characterized Jesus as a wisdom teacher, a social reformer, a rabbi, a folk magician or an apocalyptic who expected the world to end. Writers continue to debate whether Jesus intended to found the religion of Christianity and whether he saw himself as the Messiah of Judaism.

February 7 version:

By virtue of the impact of Christianity, Jesus (also known as Jesus Christ or Jesus of Nazareth) is one the most influential people who ever lived. The history of European literature, art and music would be unimaginable without its Christian heritage. Translations of the Christian Bible number among the foundational literature of many languages. Most of the world now follows the Gregorian calendar, based on the number of years since Jesus's birth.

The question "Who was Jesus?" seems a simple one, yet the answers which have been proposed defy easy summary. Most people regard him as the founder of Christianity. Christians (with some exceptions) worship him as God incarnate, the Second Person of the Trinity. Muslims recognize Jesus as one of the prophets of Islam, without attributing divinity to him. Even humanists who reject these religious claims, or who doubt the miracles attributed to him, have been known to admire Jesus as a great moral teacher.

Among historians, almost every aspect of Jesus's life is either unknown or disputed. Most scholars would accept the description of him as a first-century Palestinian Jew--more specifically, as an itinerate preacher / healer / exorcist active in Galilee and Judea. We may be reasonably confident that he was baptized by John the Baptist in the AD 20's, and crucified at the command of Roman governor Pontius Pilate during the late 20's or early 30's AD. With less certainty, scholars have characterized Jesus as a wisdom teacher; a social reformer; a rabbi; a folk magician; or an apocalyptic who expected the world to end. Especially controversial would be the suggestions that he intended to found the religion of Christianity, or that he believed (or declared) himself to be the Messiah.

Version I was trying to hash out:

By virtue of the impact of Christianity, Jesus (also known as Jesus Christ or Jesus of Nazareth) is one of the most influential persons who ever lived. The history of European literature, art and music would be unimaginable without its Christian heritage. Translations of the Christian Bible number among the foundational literature of many languages. Most of the world now follows the Gregorian calendar, based on the number of years since Jesus's birth.

The question "Who was Jesus?" seems a simple one, yet the answers which have been proposed defy easy summary. Most people regard him as the founder of Christianity. The vast majority of groups calling themselves Christians, including all Catholics and Protestants, worship Jesus as the one and only divine Son of God who died for the sins of the world; others who self-identify as Christians maintain that Jesus is unique in various ways but deny his divinity.

Historians and scholars of Jesus range from those who maintain that the Gospel accounts offer an accurate picture of his life, to those who assert that Jesus was not a real person, and many positions in between. Accordingly, characterizations of Jesus vary widely: the Messiah and deliberate inaugurator of Christianity; a prophet; a wisdom teacher; a social reformer; a rabbi; a folk magician; an apocalyptic who expected the world to end; a fictional persona syncretized from various deities and heroes. Especially controversial to some is that he intended to found Christianity, or that he believed or declared himself the Messiah. Most would concur that Jesus was a first-century Palestinian Jew who was an itinerate preacher, healer, and exorcist in Galilee and Judea; that he was baptized by John the Baptist in the AD 20's; and, was crucified for sedition by command of Roman governor Pontius Pilate during the late 20's or early 30's A.D.

And a subsequent partial version offered by Bei Dawei:

In addition to his religious and cultural roles, Jesus is also the object of secular historical investigation. Scholars researching the historical Jesus have reached diverse conclusions, which not infrequently diverge from the images presented by Christianity and Islam (though conservative positions are represented in this literature as well). Given the wide disagreement within this field, what can we safely say about Jesus?

That Jesus was a first-century Palestinian Jewish religious figure (more specifically, an itinerate preacher / healer / exorcist active in Galilee and Judea) is all but universally acknowledged. Most scholars would agree that he was baptized by John the Baptist in the AD 20's, and crucified at the command of Roman governor Pontius Pilate during the late 20's or early 30's AD. With less confidence, scholars have characterized Jesus as a wisdom teacher; a social reformer; a rabbi; a folk magician; or an apocalyptic who expected the world to end. Scholars are especially divided as to whether Jesus intended to found something like Christianity, or whether he believed (or declared) himself to be the Messiah.

Thanks for this extremely instructive comparism of introductions. Let me add to this by quoting the Encyclopedia Britannica introduction. Matthias Röder 17:03, 12 August 2007 (CDT)

Jesus Christ born c. 6–4 BC, Bethlehem died c. AD 30, Jerusalem also called Jesus of Galilee or Jesus of Nazareth founder of Christianity, one of the world's largest religions, and the incarnation of God according to most Christians. His teachings and deeds are recorded in the New Testament, which is essentially a theological document that makes discovery of the “historical Jesus” difficult. The basic outlines of his career and message, however, can be characterized when considered in the context of 1st-century Judaism and, especially, Jewish eschatology. The history of Christian reflection on the teachings and nature of Jesus is examined in the article Christology.

(Jesus Christ. (2007). In Encyclopædia Britannica. Retrieved August 12, 2007, from Encyclopædia Britannica Online: http://www.search.eb.com/eb/article-9106456)

Not so bad, huh? Matthias Röder 17:03, 12 August 2007 (CDT)

person who ever lived

It seems that, -as far as content goes- the objection is the phrase:"person who ever lived". Is there a way to change this-such as "names in history" that allows us to replace the pre-Adam Carr version, which had reached a considered consensus, that is agreeable to all? Or is it better to let the original stand for now? Nancy Sculerati MD 05:55, 1 March 2007 (CST)

Got my vote. Matt Innis (Talk) 12:37, 1 March 2007 (CST)
Very tactful, Nancy. Seconded. Stephen Ewen 15:02, 1 March 2007 (CST)
I agreeGareth Leng 05:22, 2 March 2007 (CST)

Let the editors decide that, both versions will do for me - as I have no preference for any what so ever, and not many seem to have complained Robert Tito | Talk

Robert, as far as I can tell, there are no Religion editors actively working on this article--or, more to the point, no experts about Jesus. Hence, the procedure the above contributors engage in, i.e., trying to come to a reasonable consensus, is all that we can employ right now, short of imposing upon one of our Religion editors to make an executive decision. --Larry Sanger 15:48, 1 March 2007 (CST)

why not, then, take the talk jesus and jesus page down BOTH and wait till ANY sensible decision has been taken and restore the approved pages? Free for any to go on editing. Robert Tito | Talk 15:51, 1 March 2007 (CST)

third paragraph

The third paragraph places too much emphasis on the historicity, or lack thereof, of Jesus. The issue has been raised in the second paragraph; making it the focus of the third is placing undue weight on the controversy. I'd suggest changing the current second and third paras to somehting like:

The major source of historical knowledge about Jesus is the Christian Gospels, which are based on documents written within living memory of the events described in them. The Letters of St Paul, which are older than the Gospels, also attest to the historical reality of Jesus. There are no contemporary references to Jesus from non-Christian sources, although there are a few from the following decades, in writers such as Tacitus and Pliny the Younger. Some writers therefore deny that Jesus was a historical figure at all. Most secular historians, however, accept that Jesus existed, but do not believe that the details of his life can be known from independent (non-Christian) evidence. Most scholars would accept that Jesus was a Jewish preacher, healer and exorcist active in Galilee and Judea in early first century AD. Many accept that he was baptized by John the Baptist, and crucified at the command of Roman governor Pontius Pilate.

Muslims see Jesus as one of the prophets, though they do not believe that he was divine, nor that he actually died at the crucifixion. Jews do not believe that Jesus was divine, nor that he was the Messiah or a prophet. Mormons believe that Jesus came to North America and preached to the inhabitants after leaving Judea. Some writers have characterized Jesus as a wisdom teacher, a social reformer, a rabbi, a folk magician or an apocalyptic who expected the world to end. Writers continue to debate whether Jesus intended to found the religion of Christianity and whether he saw himself as the Messiah of Judaism.

Anthony Argyriou 16:06, 1 March 2007 (CST)

To move forward, I've restored the opening section simply because it had been reached after very considerable discussion and consensus, and it's I feel a bad precedent to accept reversion of such agreed text without achieving comparable consensus: I think we have to actively promote editing by co-operation. However, I have adjusted it to take account as above of Adam's uncontested point that it could have been read as asserting his historical existence as established fact, and have added Anthony's reference to Mormons and Jews. The other text from Anthony I've placed at the start of the Sources section, which I think should also accomodate some of Adam's concerns. Gareth Leng 08:14, 2 March 2007 (CST)

I'm having trouble with the word "unimaginable" in the second sentence, mostly because I can imagine all kinds of other possibilities. But I cannot think of a better substitution. I would welcome a change there. Matt Innis (Talk) 09:01, 2 March 2007 (CST)

something like-"nearly entirely different" might work, but unimaginable sounds better in a literary sense, what unimaginable means there is implied: take away the Christian religion and the entire European art/music etc. has to be re-imagined, because the most major common theme is gone.Nancy Sculerati MD 09:08, 2 March 2007 (CST)

I agree. I would even venture to say it would be "entirely different". Especially when we consider the the evolution into other sects and other religions. Certainly the possibilities are endless, so in that sense it is unimaginable (or too many to fathom), isn't it. Maybe they haven't made that word yet. Matt Innis (Talk) 09:41, 2 March 2007 (CST)

Edited "people" in first line to "names", I think that statement is absolutely true and allows the historical reality question to be raised later, without implying any particular view upfront. Nancy Sculerati MD 09:13, 2 March 2007 (CST)

That is better. Matt Innis (Talk) 09:41, 2 March 2007 (CST)

I'm wondering about the "some writers" who deny that Jesus was a historical figure at all. Having done some informal research into the question on wikipedia as a result of similar, but rather less civil, arguments over there, the conclusion I came to is that it's really hard to find actual academic scholars who are willing to explicitly make the argument that Jesus never lived. Most such writing has been done by popular writers of various sorts, frequently ones with no clear credentials. people like G.A. Wells and Earl Doherty seem to be the most respectable of the bunch, but they aren't proper scholars of early Christianity, and I'm not sure that anything on the subject has recently appeared in actual peer-reviewed scholarly journals. As such, I don't really think there's any need to mention or refer to these theories, which are really rather fringe, in the introduction. On the other hand, over all I much prefer Adam's version of the intro, which seems clear and straightforward, whereas the other version seems kind of mushy and lacking in clear statements by comparison. John Kenney 01:15, 12 March 2007 (CDT)

4 editors of the Bible

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe in theology class I learned about 4 main editors of the bible, their approximate time of editing, and their approximate location in the world. Is that addressed in this article? Also, one thing that I can hear my theology teacher saying (in my head) is that Jesus' message was "the kingdom of God is at hand, repent and believe." -Tom Kelly (Talk) 13:20, 17 March 2007 (CDT)

I'm not sure what you mean about 4 main editors of the Bible. Are you perhaps thinking of the Documentary Hypothesis, which deals with the 4 main sources of the Pentateuch? That only applies to the first five books of the Old Testament (and, to some extent, with some of the later books - Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings are generally considered to be the same redactor as Deuteronomy, and thus form the "Deuteronomic History," I believe). It doesn't apply to the New Testament. John Kenney 13:09, 18 March 2007 (CDT)
Dealing with Thomas's second point, it is very possible that that was Jesus' message, especially from a Christian point of view. However, in the interest of maintaining a neutral POV, we should probably not assume that Jesus's primary goal was evangelistic and apocalyptic in nature. I would attribute that particular message more to John the Baptist. Michael Yates 23:17, 22 June 2007 (CDT)

Wikipedia credit

For what it is worth, the two following sentences (out of more than 200) appear in Wikipedia. Shall we credit Wikipedia for that or simply forget? Or just rework?

  • Thomas Jefferson, one of the Founding Fathers that many consider to have been a deist, created a "Jefferson Bible" for the Indians entitled "The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth" that included only Jesus' ethical teachings.
  • Thus, for example, Theosophy and its offshoots have Jesus studying esotericism in the Himalayas or Egypt during his "lost years.

--AlekStos 15:21, 28 March 2007 (CDT)

The first sentence should probably be entirely rewritten - the apositive is kind of awkward. John Kenney 18:46, 28 March 2007 (CDT)

Let's rework. Thanks for the data, Alex. --Larry Sanger 18:48, 24 April 2007 (CDT)

Influential name

Recently added "if he really existed" in the first sentence does not make much sense for me. Now it seems to imply "if he existed, the name was influential". Well, the "name" was influential anyway. So, to be neutral we do not really need this conditional "if" added -- as it overloads the sentence and looks just awkward. I'm not really following the development here, but as far as I remember some discussions, there was a consensus to put the relevant perspectives on the issue of existence in the body of the article, not in the opening. If so, let's delete this "if he really existed" from the lead. --AlekStos 10:16, 27 April 2007 (CDT)

Many theories

The current draft reads "More than one of these may be true (or partly true) simultaneously. Many other theories have been proposed, but have received less scholarly support." This seems a bit dodgy. It may well be difficult, but some notions of Jesus (such as 'Jesus as Pharisee') require far more laborious conjectures than others. Why would a man who is attested as condemning the Pharisees in most of the earliest witnesses *be* a Pharisee? I think some more synthetic assessment needed. Russell Potter 19:39, 29 April 2007 (CDT)

Thomas

References to Q here seem to flatten out the Gospel of Thomas with other witnesses, whereas there's a substantial body of scholarly work which sees Thomas as potentially an equally valid witness of Q, and much earlier than any of the other non-Canonical gospels. I think some way should be found to reference this in the entry. Russell Potter 19:45, 29 April 2007 (CDT)

One problem with giving too much credibility to the Gospel of Thomas is that it was written so late that it would be difficult to consider it as a source for the other Gospels. Thomas himself may have been a contributor to Q, but the Gospel was not likely written by him. Based on my understanding of Q, it is usually compose of the common saying from Matthew and Luke that are excluded by Mark. There are some saying in the Gospel of Thomas among these, but not independent of these. Even if the Gospel of Thomas had more influence on Q than is presently stated, is going in to that much detail over it appropriate for an article on Jesus? Perhaps that should be saved for an article on Q, the Gospels, or the Gospel of Thomas. Michael Yates 23:12, 22 June 2007 (CDT)


Text here was removed by the Constabulary on grounds that it is needlessly inflammatory. (The author may replace this template with an edited version of the original remarks.)


Influential NAME??!!

THe opening para is very poor. What does it mean to say that Jesus was an influential name? That his name was continuously "dropped' in social or financial circles since his adulthood and to date? It is obviously a device to escape making the decision whether he was a real-life person or not, but it doesnt work. As far as Christianity is concerned, he is the major figure in that religion and therefore highly influential through that. He is portrayed as real in the New Testament, therefore you can say so. You can also state that there is little historical evidence supporting that, so some people doubt his historical existence. But his name has nothing to do with it!!!--Martin Baldwin-Edwards 12:16, 19 August 2007 (CDT)

The draft looks good on cursory glance...just checking in

I'm checking in on the talk page because I plan to do some editing of this page, as I had promised long ago on the Religion project page to do, but had gotten sidetracked. Is there anyone who wants to suggest some of the more notable changes desired for the draft as it exists? --Peter Kirby 08:39, 11 January 2008 (CST)

Neutral historical accounts

In the historical Jesus section, it says "2.the writers were not setting out to write neutral historical accounts". Luke, who wrote his gospel and Acts asserts that he is writing a neutral historical account. Could we maybe change this to says something that reflects this as the view of some scholars, maybe "scholars don't believe the writers set out to write a neutral historical account"? Jonathan Beshears 13:52, 18 January 2008 (CST)

I agree with the above comment by Jonathon Beshears so I edited the text. Cleaned up a few other parts of the section also. Mark Jones 09:37, 17 May 2008 (CDT)

On the Virgin Birth

This bit is misleading: "Mary's virginal conception of Jesus (not to be confused with the immaculate conception, or the virgin birth), .."

1. Non-christians won't know what is being talked about.

2. Most Christians think of the doctrine of the Virgin Birth as referring to the virginal conception. Roman Catholics and many (most?) Orthodox have an additional, separate Doctrine of the Virgin Birth separate to the Doctrine of the Virgin Conception. Almost every Roman Catholic I have ever met has confused the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception with the Doctrine of the Virginal Conception (despite the fact that the Church's position is clear).

I suggest that even most Christians, regardless of denomination, won't follow this paragraph, so a little rewrite is needed to make things clear(er).

Aleta Curry 23:12, 16 May 2008 (CDT)

Sources & evidence

I think some of what's said is misleading.

Although Paul certainly asserts the historical existence of Jesus, he nowhere, at least in those letters generally accepted by scholars as being genuine, gives a clear indication of when Jesus lived. That is, he doesn't assert that Jesus was within living memory.

Most scholars date the gospels to late 1st century, ie within living memory, but this has been questioned on the grounds of lack of mention of them in other Christian literature. Matthew & Mark are first mentioned about 135-140, Luke about 160, John maybe even later (though there's a manuscript of part of what is now John dated about 150).

I don't think that Roman governors were in the habit of sending reports of all executions to archives in Rome. Tacitus' statement seems more likely to be simply derived from simply what the Christians at the time said.

The above points are made by Wells, who also draws the analogy with Faust. The full-blown story of his selling his soul to the devil, raising Helen of Troy from the dead &c was printed in 1587, while contemporary documents show he was alive in 1540. Peter Jackson 17:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Dates & age

There's a problematic paragraph in the article:

None of the historical sources give the year of Jesus' birth, the year of his death, or his age at death in unambiguous form. Tradition says that he was born towards the end of the reign of Herod the Great, who died in 4 BC. Some of the earliest estimates of his birth are 6-7 BC, and it is widely agreed that Jesus was executed during the governorship of Pontius Pilate (AD 26-36). Biblical scholars believe he lived roughly 33 1/2 years. Recent scholarship has focused on the years AD 29, 30, or 33 as the most likely possibilities of the date of his crucifixion.

  1. "Tradition says that he was born towards the end of the reign of Herod the Great". The only tradition about this dating is based on Matthew. In Luke Jesus' birth is set at the time of the census of Quirinius, 6-7 CE. John and (more importantly) Mark, the oldest gospel, don't have anything on the date of birth.
  2. "Biblical scholars believe he lived roughly 33 1/2 years" plus "none of the historical sources give […] his age at death in unambiguous form". (a) First of all: Which historical sources? I only know Biblical and Patristic sources. (b) Secondly: There are in fact two references to Jesus' age at the beginning of his mission. One is in Luke 3:23, which has a λ for 30. This is not regarded as an admissable source, because it's mentioned in the context of Jesus' genealogy, and the two lines of ancestors given in Luke and Matthew do not correspond. Therefore the passages are unstable and meaningless, and the age reference invalid. Furthermore, Mark neither mentions a genealogy nor any age at the beginning of his mission. The other one is in John 8.57 (after Jesus came from Galilee), where it says πεντηκοντα together with οὔπω, i.e. "not yet fifty". A minority reading in a later codex has τεσσερακοντα, i.e. "not yet forty", which shows that later scribes tried to harmonize John with Luke. Irenaeus only knew the majority reading (50 years) and accepts the passage in John as true, specifically stating that he was almost 50 and referring to Jesus' "old age, which our Lord possessed while He still fulfilled the office of a Teacher, even as the Gospel and all the elders testify", and also mentioning a longer mission. While the commentary states that "it is most certain that our Lord’s ministry extended but little over three years", John in his gospel mentions at least four Passovers during the mission until the passion account.

In any case, we do have a valid reference to Jesus' age at the beginning of his mission, i.e. approximately 50 years of age, which is backed up by Irenaeus' commentary. I have yet to find a scientific analysis of John plus Irenaeus which refutes these passages. —Arne Eickenberg 15:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)