Talk:Jesus/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Gospels not history paragraph

anonymous prefers:

The most detailed historical information about Jesus's birth and death is contained in the Gospels, but they were written to promote a philosophy and religion rather than to teach history...

to:

The most detailed historical information about Jesus's birth and death is contained in the Gospels, but they were written to chronicle Jesus' divinity, miracles, and teachings rather than to teach history...

I propose the following instead:

The most detailed historical information about Jesus's birth and death is contained in the Gospels, but they were written to chronicle Jesus' teachings and the foundation of his church as well as acts which the writers considered to be miracles and evidence of divinity rather than to teach history...

As it is somewhat inaccurate to say that they were promoting a philosophy, since they disagreed with one another on philosophical issues, and they were not written as promotion for a religion, because most of them already had a religion. Jesus founded a church, not a religion, to be accurate. Does the above paragraph suit you?Pedant 22:25, 2004 Oct 29 (UTC)

Heh, I came to complain about the same anon, 81.156.181.197. I really think the original is correct and best. I am not a Christian so don't jump down my throat. Someone should really look over the rest of that user's edits to this (and other pages), I don't have the time. --metta, The Sunborn ☸ 22:30, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

would you please clarify which you are referring to as the 'original' paragraph? Or Write a version that you think is good? I would personally prefer the latter, particularly since you are a non-christian. It might be an even better statement than anon's or my version. If it's inaccurate, we'd all be happy to correct it, but give it a shot, if you don't mind? It's hard for me to be NPOV with Jesus constantly looking over my shoulder, one reason I have written far more on 'talk' than on 'article'Pedant 23:44, 2004 Oct 29 (UTC)

I don't think the New Testament could be considered to chronicle the foundation of the church. I can't see anywhere mention of Papacy or bishops, or church Councils, or the uniformity of faith (as required after 398 AD or something). Doesn't "chronicle" imply that the events actually happened? (i.e. that the bible is true?) I don't think this could be considered Neutral. CheeseDreams 01:24, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Will you stipulate that there is a church at least? I almost think some of you are joking. Where do you think christian doctrine began. In the New Testament, He states his intent to build a church (not the building, but the community of faith), establishes Peter as its foundation, that is why Simon is called Peter (Peter/Petros etc. means 'rock) this is considered by the Catholic church as being the establishment of the papacy, with Peter as Pope. He recognises and confirms the sacrament of baptism, he hosts the first communion, he promses his followers the gift of the holy spirit, etc... I assume you are at least somewhat familiar with this if you are editing this topic.

We've already well addressed the issue that not everyone agrees that the bible is true, no need to poison every sentence with 'Some and only some christians foolishly believe that Jesus existed or that the gospels were even written by the alleged author and if they did write such-and-such, it might not be true' and the like. That's not Neutral. Papcy and bishops, btw, is not what christ taught about, anyway, that's a much later addition/corruption of his teachings. this article isn't about catholicism, it's about Jesus.

'Chronicle' means to write or tell about events in the order they happened, and the Gospels each quite demonstrably are chronicles in that sense.

Please re-read the above, the top of this section, this section is about the wording of one specific paragraph this is a version that was sent to me by one editor:

Christian scholars believe the four Canonical Gospels contain the most detailed historical information about Jesus's birth, life and death. These Gospels chronicle Jesus' divinity, miracles, and teachings. This has lead to various debates of the historicity of many "facts" about Jesus of Nazareth.

I like the last line and the wording, but am sure someone will insist that "these Gospels chronicle Jesus' divinity, miracles, and teachings." needs some sort of disclaimer verbiage.

I propose we put some sort of blanket "not everyone agrees that this is true" text at the top of the article, and try to avoid excessive disclaimer verbiage within the body of the article, unless it's demonstrably necessary, because I think it would decrease the length of this wordy article by maybe 20 percent,and improve the readability without affecting accuracy or NPOV.

if you have something to say about the wording of this particular paragraph, which is already a well-established part of the article, please include your comments here in this section. If you don't think the paragraph belongs in the article at all, or if you want to delete the entire article or the like, please start a new section and discuss it there. Really, that's more appropriate than an off-topic comment here that will be mostly disregarded if it doesn't have a section on the wording of this one small phrase. Thanks for your input though, sorry for my annoyed tone, but, well I am annoyed. It shouldn't take this much typing to produce one sentence, in my opinion, and I'm ready to move on.Pedant 03:20, 2004 Oct 30 (UTC)

The "most detailed historical information"? You should lose the word "historical". It's not NPOV. If I said that Moby-Dick contains the most detailed historical information about Captain Ahab, you would quite correctly point out the same. The gospels might be a true account of real events or a fairy story made up by proponents of a new religion. Otherwise, Pedant's version seems to be quite balanced.Dr Zen 06:48, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The problem here is that some people consider the Gospels to be "fairy stories", while others consider them to be "inspired by God, while possibly containing errors in non-essential matters", and still others consider them to be "inspired by God and inerrant". The majority of scholars (Christian and non-Christian alike, though these scholars themselves are mostly Christians) sees at least some historical value in the accounts, but a vocal minority (whose size remains somewhat uncertain to me) rejects all historical value, and indeed, believes that Jesus the man did not exist at all. How is this:

The only ancient sources claiming to provide detailed information about Jesus's life and death are the canonical Gospels, along with a few other works that were rejected by early Christians as heretical. These Gospels chronicle Jesus' divinity, miracles, and teachings. This has lead to various debates of the historicity of many "facts" about Jesus of Nazareth.

This leaves the whole discussion of historicity/value of the Gospels to the subpages... Better? Worse? Mpolo 08:07, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

I dunno. I think "chronicle" has far too much of the flavour of a historical record on looking at it again. Let's look at what is uncontrovertible and see what we have: The gospels, canonical or apocryphal, are the most detailed information about Jesus, whether he was real or not, whether he was divine or not. They set out to tell the acts and sayings of Jesus. Whether he did do what they said and did say what they said are disputed. The divinity, miracles and teachings part, I think, could profitably be left to a later section. The article adopts the gospel record (which is fair enough) and I believe that rather than interpreting what the gospels are *about*, it's a lot more useful to simply report what they *say*. I have to say, Mpolo, that I don't like the "various debates". A bit weaselly. Who debates it? What do they say? I don't doubt that they do say it and I am not defending the opposite point of view, but I don't think the article is served by loose wording.Dr Zen 11:01, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, those debates are discussed on the subpage I linked to. I'm trying to avoid writing a dissertation as an introductory paragraph... (Actually, the "various debates" part came from above.) The whole page, particularly the most recent changes, desperately needs attribution of arguments. Here's another stab:

The only ancient sources claiming to provide detailed information about Jesus's life and death are the canonical Gospels, along with a few other works that were rejected by early Christians as heretical. These works tell of Jesus' life and death, combined with narratives of his miracles and teachings. As such, the accuracy of the information presented may have been compromised by the desire of the authors to present a message, according to critics like Earl Doherty. The historiography of these accounts is discussed in the entry on Alleged textual evidence for Jesus.

Probably too long winded. (The title of the last-linked article is currently under dispute, I might add. The content may be as well.) Mpolo 11:43, Nov 14, 2004 (UTC)

I think you've made a really good effort. Longwinded is better than POV, don't you think? And you've struck the right note. Thanks for the thought and care that you've put into it.Dr Zen 12:34, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think the Gibson should be under a different category. One other than 'Artistic portrayals' unless I'm not clear on that definiton.

Jews "lived in" the Diaspora??

Moreover, as many Jews lived in the Diaspora, and Judea itself was populated by many Gentiles, Jews had to confront a paradox in their own tradition: their Torah applied only to them, but revealed universal truths.

I can't parse the phrase "many Jews lived in the Diaspora", can someone fix this or remove it or explain to me what this means? The Diaspora doesn't seem to me to be a 'thing in which one could be said to live'.Pedant 00:27, 2004 Oct 30 (UTC)

The Diaspora is the abstract space outside of Palestine that the Jews were dispersed into for various reasons. It consists of every location that a Jew was at. I.e. the phrase "many Jews lived in the Diaspora" can be rendered "many Jews were ex-patriots" CheeseDreams 01:20, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm assuming you mean ex-patriate? I don't really agree that the Diaspora is 'the abstract space' I am familiar with the word, but not as a place. I would understand it better if it referred to the expatriate Hebrew nation, or referred to jews as being the diaspora, or part of the diaspora. Is anyone else familiar with this usage of the word "diaspora" as "an abstract space"? I have never seen it used in this manner. The article Diaspora doesn't lend any support to its use in this sense either. If this is a common usage, it should be edited into the Diaspora article. And regardless of the validity of its use in this sense, I still maintain that it reads awkwardly, and that it would serve the article better if it were more easily understandable. Imagine if you will, that you know nothing of either Jesus/Christianity or the history of the Hebrew nation/israel, and while holding that imagined state in your mind, read the article with fresh eyes. Does that work for you? Once again, thanks for everyone's input. Good to work on a controversial article that doesn't get protected every other day!Pedant 03:33, 2004 Oct 30 (UTC)

I am sorry you find the phrasing uncongenial, but it is simply a commonly used colloquial phrase. Many Jews say they live "in the Diaspora," many Jews distinguish between Jews livien "in the land of Israel" and "in the Diaspora." Thus, examples of the phrase are not expressions of some semi-literate contributor, they express a common English expression you just aren't familiar with. Analogy: Wikipedia is not the place to judge which expression is right -- "stand on line" "stand in line" -- both are used by large groups of Americans in different parts of the country. Why not just say, "living in the Diaspora (meaning, living in exile)" or "living in the diaspora (menaing, living outside of the land of Israel)?" Slrubenstein

thanks for the clarification, I am just ignorant of its use this way. I haven't changed it, you may note. It's not at all surprising to me that I don't know something like that, so if it looks right to everyone else it's certainly fine with me. I just pointed it out because it 'read funny' to me. Would you mind eiting the Diaspora article to somehow reflect that sense of the word, anyone who feels qualified? Thanks for the help CheeseDreams and Slrubenstein

I'm just conforming that "lived in the Diaspora" is indeed the way it is commonly phrase; Google lists over 3,000 hits for "lived in the Diaspora" or "living in the Diaspora", and many ethnic groups (not just Jews) use the phrase this way when referring to their own "Diaspora"s. Jayjg 23:04, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

some sceptics

Obsession

The Rev of Bru is obsessing on one paragraph where I have made stylistic -- not content -- changes. In his/her most recent edit, s/he not only re-introduced bad style but wrong content as well. The opening of the article lists several different points of view, including two points of view ascribed to "sceptics." In the first of these views, it says "some sceptics, including some scholars," which is good style, NPOV, and accurate. RoB's lates version is "Some sceptical scholars and historians" which is bad style because "sholars" includes historians (i.e. historians are a subset of scholars) and is redundant. Moreover, it is bad content because this view is now ascribed only to scholars; it does not include sceptics who are not scholars, as the earlier version did. But of course, there are sceptics who are not scholars but who do hold this view and they should be represented. I changed it to a version "Some sceptics, including some scholars" which is accurate (some sceptics do hold this view, and included in this larger group of sceptics are scholars), and good style because it is not redundant and finally, it parallels the structure of the preceeding paragraph. I have no idea why RoB keeps reverting it but s/he should explain herself and see what other people think. Slrubenstein

Cutting the phrase historians from the text makes it look like there are only a few skeptical people who support the case. Including it shows that relevant scholars hold the position. I.e. that more than just a few people consider it. Cutting historians is therefore POV. CheeseDreams 21:12, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would complain about "some skeptics, including some historians". Slrubenstein's complaint is that when you say "scholars and historians", you are implicitly stating that the historians are not scholars, which is surely not what you want. If you say "Some skeptical historians", then you're implying that everyone who believes this has a degree in history, while some certainly do not. I think the idea would be something like, "some skeptics, including academics such as NAMEOFSKEPTIC, whose book "NAMEOFBOOK" discusses the idea at length, argue..." We really have to go through this article and quantify the "somes" and "others" on both sides of the argument. Mpolo 09:21, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

Mpolo, I agree entirely! --G Rutter 09:24, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thank you, Mpolo, for clarifying my explanation. I thought it was very clear that by saying "and some scholars" I meant to acknowledge that some scholars hold this view. I wonder if CheeseDreams actually read my explanation -- and if so, what POV s/he thinks I am expressing. My point of view is simply this: some people deny that Jesus existed; some of these people are scholars. Seems pretty straightforward to me. Slrubenstein

By the way, I do appreciate Cheese Dreams' willingness to address this issue, wven if we might disagree. Rev of Bru, on the other hand, keeps reverting my chang and not once has explained why or has responded to my explanation. Moreover, he calls my edit "vandalism" which is a real violation of courtesy here. Slrubenstein

Meaning of Scholars

Maybe this is a US vs Rest-of-world English usage thing, but with scholars, when discussing the bible/jesus/ethics is usually taken to mean theologians and philosophers, therefore the phrase scholars and historians simply means those who study the bible texts (scholars) and those who study historic evidence from elsewhere (historians). Only mentioning one group, when both being party to the same view lends it greater credibility, is clearly POV.

If The Rev of Bru is from the UK (as the name suggests - Irn Bru is a remarkably popular soft-drink (more popular than Coca Cola in scotland, and close to being so in Russia)) then this is probably his point of view as well.CheeseDreams 20:30, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I just wanted to note that I have reverted CheeseDreams's restoration of Revof Bru's wording. CheeseDreams, regardless of your perspective, I don't think it was at all Wikiquette to refer to Slr's edit as "vandalism and POV" -- POV I think is understandable (though I disagree), while "vandalism" is a slap in the face. Please avoid that in the future. I reverted to Slr's version because I don't think you or Rev have made it at all clear that "scholars" should be taken to mean anything but what dictionaries take it to mean. In some rare cases, a word's connotations are so great that we must take them into account, but in normal writing, denotation is enough. I don't see that you've established at all that "scholars" has significant connotations in the context of Jesus which would exclude historians as a group. As someone who pursued graduate study in the field of religious history (and I think Slr is in that group also), I can assure you I have never encountered the meaning of scholars you suggest, in spite of having been in a non-US graduate school working with a Cambridge-educated supervising professor. Furthermore, the addition of "Christian" in one line clearly raised the implication that only scholars who believe in the religion of Christianity accept the historicity of Jesus -- a ridiculous claim. Many secular historians and students of philosophy and theology accept that there was a man named Jesus of Nazareth who caused a commotion in first century Palestine, though of course they dispute many of the accounts of his miraculous powers, etc. Overall, I saw and see no justification for the changes, and so I reverted them. Jwrosenzweig 21:06, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As someone who has never heard of a university running a course called "religious history", I am not surprised you haven't heard of the uk rank 1 (i.e. non-ex-polytechnic) university usage of scholars, maybe you were thinking of history of religion or the influence of religion on history, I cannot tell which, since the phrase is ambiguous.

Carol Vorderman is cambridge educated, that doesn't mean she was any good, she got 9 (i.e. consistent) 3rds, a degree so bad that it is very difficult to get. Many of my teachers at school were cambridge educated, but they can't have been any good, otherwise they would still be at cambridge.

The term vandalism is indeed a slap in the face.

The connotation of the term scholars is clearly controversial, there are at least 2 editors who want it in a certain style enough to revert the text, and at least 2 who dont. If it wasn't loaded with significance, why would Slrubenstein bother to revert it to his preferred version? I have removed the term completely and replaced it with something more explicit.

The implication of the inclusion of Christian is that it is a fairly intrinsic part of being Christian to take that point of view. In addition only a minority of non-christian biblical scholars take that POV. To include all scholars (e.g. those who think about the meaning of Art) is POV, as by not qualifying who these scholars are, it seems as if you are implying "almost all the relevant parties consider X to be the case". I have restored the term Christian. CheeseDreams 22:30, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, CheeseDreams, I think it a bit uncharitable of you to snipe so openly at my use of the phrase "religious history", but obviously you feel it worthwhile to do so. The course of study I pursued focused on the politics of prayer in the English Reformation (both how prayer was used to establish Protestant ideas and ideals, and how prayers were used by the state to enforce political perspectives on contemporary events). Is that sufficiently clear, or would the titles of courses I took be preferred?

You seem to have misunderstood my meaning, which I apologize for, as perhaps I was insufficiently clear. I was not mentioning my supervisor's background as an appeal to authority -- far from it. Rather, I wanted to make it clear that my studies had me in close contact with a UK-educated professor (and one from a "rank 1" university, unless I am misinformed as to Cambridge's status), which I thought established that, if "scholars" has the connotations you suggest it does in the UK, I would have had a reasonable chance of knowing it. Furthermore, while you continue to make assertions in my direction about the use of "scholars" in rank 1 universities in Britain, I see no evidence offered to support that assertion. Are you willing to provide it? Surely if its connotations are so well known to you and to all other scholars and historians in the United Kingdom, the request for evidence will not be too onerous a task to complete.

Since you clarify that you mean the comment as a slap in the face, then I have to reply that I find it quite rude. I have not referred to you as a vandal, and I would ask you to do me the same courtesy.

The meaning of "scholars" does not appear to me to be at all controversial -- any dictionary seems to support my use of the term. The only piece of evidence bringing the word's meaning into question is your as yet unsubstantiated assertion that UK rank 1 university scholars use the word with a meaning entirely new to the rest of us. The reason Slr and I have been reverting is because there has not yet been any evidence produced which suggests that Slr's formulation is anything but accurate, whereas the phrase "scholars and historians" is inaccurate according to the information known to us. Are you ready to provide evidence to dispute the accuracy of Slr's version?

If we are going to say "Christian", we will have to add a note that many non-Christian scholars also accept that a man named Jesus of Nazareth actually lived and was at least partially responsible for the religious movement now known as Christianity. I am happy to do so. Your assertion that it is a minority of non-Christian scholars will need some kind of corroboration -- I have seen no evidence to suggest that you are correct. In my experience, many Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, atheist, and agnostic scholars are willing to accept the historicity of Jesus (even if they dispute many of the miraculous accounts of his activity in Palestine). Can you produce a study of any kind that substantiates your assertion? You may well be correct, but I will need more than your personal opinion to be convinced.

Clearly you haven't actually looked at my edits, as each time I have included mention of non-Christian scholars.CheeseDreams 23:12, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I apologize, I'd missed that before. I had noticed it when I went back to look at the article, and in fact I was going to commend you for doing so. Thank you for being willing to include that language: I appreciate it. I do, however, remain unconvinced (as does Jayjg below) that it is a minority of non-Christian scholars. Is there any data you know of to establish your belief that it is a minority? Jwrosenzweig 23:19, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oxymorons

Note also that if Consensus on such an issue is particularly hard to reach how can the majority of scholars acknowledge one side of the argument as being correct? This is an oxymoron. At least one of these sentences must be a POV, they cannot both be true. CheeseDreams 22:30, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't understand your final paragraph (although I can guess at one of several possible meanings), so rather than respond to what I think you're saying, I'll ask if you will kindly rephrase it -- I may well agree with you, but I want to be certain of what you are suggesting. Thank you for replying here -- I appreciate your willingness to discuss these matters. Jwrosenzweig 22:48, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have moved the paragraph in question to just above here, for clarity.

The phrase consensus on such an issue is particularly hard to reach is opposite to the majority of scholars acknowledge [one of the two sides of the argument as being correct]". This is an oxymoron - they cannot both simultaneously be true. The inclusion of (at least) one of them is therefore an attempt to attack the other and as such is POV. CheeseDreams 23:26, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I guess I would argue that consensus and majority are not equivalent terms. I think the majority of scholars are agreed on quite a few things about Jesus, but that there are significant and vocal minorities of scholars whose objections are widely enough held to prevent our being remotely able to pretend that there is "consensus" on anything concerning Jesus. I would define consensus as "in excess of 80%, probably close to 90%" since that's the working definition I generally see in use at the Wikipedia. I may, of course, be misusing "consensus" by accepting this definition -- do you think I am? But if I am wrong and "consensus" should only be used to mean "majority", then I would very much dispute the phrase "consensus...is particularly hard to reach", as I think majority opinions on many issues have not been difficult to reach. Establishing consensus (as I have always used the word and seen it used) is very difficult, by contrast. Jwrosenzweig 23:19, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Existance

I'm fairly certain most non-Christian scholars, historians, etc. believe that Jesus did exist. I know of a handful who do not, almost none of whom are trained historians. Are you aware of some historians that I am not aware of? Jayjg 23:01, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The only relevant historians are biblical historians. Currently, most of these are Christian (for historic reasons), out of those who are not, the majority accept biblical criticism, and the principle of Occam's razor, and rather than assume Jesus existed, start from scratch, and only allow that possibility if there is sufficient evidence from a range of sources, and regard a single source, selected by a church seeking a particular POV, as rather unreliable for anything other than finding out about that church (Textual criticism).

We cannot include all historians, e.g. the views of historians of the early 15th century in Thailand are clearly irrelevant as they are not of academic standing with regard to this issue.

I am sure the vast majority of people not of academic standing on this particular issue, but of academic standing on some other issue on some other thing, assume Jesus exists. In the same way, this is true of Mr Kipling, who does not. CheeseDreams 23:26, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, couldn't make heads or tails of your point. I'll try again; can you name any trained Biblical historians who don't think Jesus existed? Jayjg 04:14, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There are some in the book references at the bottom of the article!!! CheeseDreams 08:31, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'll try again; can you name any trained Biblical historians who don't think Jesus existed? Anyone can put up a website, but I'd like you to name the trained Biblical historians who don't think Jesus existed, and explain why they, in your view, have "academic standing on this particular issue". I doubt you could name five who meet those criteria. Jayjg 11:02, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Please note that the phrase book references contains the word book not the word website. CheeseDreams 20:17, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

By "academic standing on this particular issue" I mean people who are actually academics in the field of Biblical History, rather than (a) academics in the field of Sausage Making in Twelth Century Bavaria or (b) amateurs in the field of Biblical History CheeseDreams 20:20, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It astounds me that CheeseDreams persists in making his claims while refusing to respond to Jayjg's very resonable request to provide an example of a trained Biblical historian who doesn't think Jesus existed. This lack of response suggests ignorance. That CheeseDreams seems to think that most if not all Biblical historians are Christians -- and presumably, that their faith dominates their scholarship (sot hat one cannot be a practicing Christian as well as critical historian) suggests even more ignorance. Geze Vermes is not Christian, nor is Shaye Cohen. I have no reason to know whether Sanders or Fredriksen are Christians or not; certainly their historical scholarship does not rely on a belief in God, miracles, supernatural events, or any Christian doctrine. Slrubenstein

I am responding to Jayjg's request. I have pointed out the references. Quite why Jayjg is insistent on misreading my pointing out of them as pointing out websites instead, I do not know. One reference I could give, as Jayjg is insistent on not noticing the fact that there are BOOK references at the base of the page, is Peter Gandy, who has an MA in the subject.

Here is a link to a website by Peter Gandy. The book on the right of the front page has the image of the amulet I mentioned in the Historicity article that was lost from the Berlin museum. It shows Jesus being crucified. Except its not Jesus.

Further trained Biblical historians who do not believe Jesus existed include R.Eisler, T.Freke, W.K.C.Guthrie, A.Schweitzer, I.Wilson, and G.A.Wells. I believe I was asked for 5, I am afraid I have accidentally listed 7.

My statement that most Biblical historians (though I do not claim All, which would be ridiculous) are Christian, is simply a statement of fact. The subject up until the renaissance was only open, like university in general, to trainee priests. After the renaissance, the church continued to dominate, since all trainee catholic and anglican priests had to study the subject as part of their training, wheras most non-priests at university were far more interested in more recent subjects such as the nascient Science, or in European History, for reasons of study for a political career, or in Medicine. In most countries this centuries old dominance still affects applications to the subject area, and most non-Christians are turned off studying it for this reason, or simply because they see no reason to care, wheras Christians are significantly more likely to care. CheeseDreams 21:53, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I thought Jayjg was referring to contemporary historians -- minimally, University trained and employed. Slrubenstein

As to your list of scholars -- well, Albert Schweitzer was not a Biblical Critic or historian, I don't think Guthrie was either. And are you serious, citing Freke and Eisler? Why not cite Dan Brown? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and when discussing scholarly claims (the question here is not whether there are "sceptics" who deny the existance of Jesus; we all agree that such people exist. We even include "some scholars." But clearly, most critical scholars believe Jesus existed and using Eisler and Freke to support your case only proves Jayjgs -- that it is mostly non scholars who take this view. Eisler and Freke are not trained in critical Biblical scholarship; they work from secondary sources and have done no original archeological, philological, or literary research of their own. Have they published in peer-reviewed academic journals? Do they read Akkadian, Hebrew, and Aramaic? You are better off with the open claim, "some scholars" take this view -- keep providing examples like these, and we will just remove the claim, "some scholars." Look, let's not ask a professor of victorian literature for an authoritative view on particla physics, and lest not ask a physicist for views on 19th century labor history. Let's ask recognized scholars about the field of their recognized scholarship. Slrubenstein

To use your own terminology, most of these people are not "of academic standing on this particular issue." Jayjg 23:39, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes they are. They are academics in the field of this particular issue. Freke, for example, has an MA in the subject. This is, if you don't know, a higher level degree. I fail to see how having studied the subject significantly enough to not only get a BA but an MA as well can be counted as NOT a scholar?

I have not cited Dan Brown because I have no idea who Dan Brown is. To proclaim Freke a non-scholar clearly shows your prejudice and non-NPOV, when he clearly has the paperwork (i.e. his MA) to prove it. Freke has published many academic papers on the subject. Just because he happens to publish "popular books" as well does not mean he is not a scholar. CheeseDreams 00:56, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What does it matter if they read Hebrew, Aramaic, or Akkadian? That is being a linguist not a biblical scholar. Doing that is not studying the text of the bible but learning how to read it. To suggest that this is a requirement to be a biblical scholar is clearly an attempt to cut the field down, and therefore POV CheeseDreams 00:59, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I mention three languages because in history, one who works with primary sources in the original language is a better scholar than one who works with translations and secondary sources. Speiser read Sumerian and Akkadian but this does not make him mearely a "translator," it is one of the skills that made him one of the premier Bible scholars of his generation. An MA does not have the value of a PhD., and Freke has not published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals as Crossan, Vermes, Bartman, Fredriksen and others have. He is simply not an important source on current trends in critical scholarship. Slrubenstein

Not necessarily. A bad scholar could still have learnt early languages, a good scholar may not. One who works with primary sources is indeed better, but that fails to realise that secondary sources also provide information too (about the author of that source, for example). It simply matters that they have a good selection of translations. Bad scholars will spend all their time on producing a translation when there are many already to hand.

In the UK, almost all academics in Arts subjects do not study for a PhD. This is to do with the funding situation for Arts subjects in the UK (i.e. that there is very little compared to the Sciences). Many professors, in Arts subjects, in the UK, in top universities, do not hold PhD's, only having MAs. This is considered quite normal, even at places such as Oxford. The position of these professors is that studying for a PhD is a waste of time that could be spent on better things, such as original research. CheeseDreams 20:12, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Freke has a BA in Philosophy, Gandy an MA in classical civilizations. I have no idea why one would turn to them for good historical research over, say, Fredricksen or Sanders or even the (gasp!) Christian scholar Meier. Slrubenstein

The Levant (Palestine and surrounding areas such as Sinai, and parts of Syria/Lebanon/Jordan) IS a classical civilisation. If you check what Gandy actually studied for his MA, and the papers he wrote, you will discover that they are about biblical events (in the classical civilisation of the Levant). Just because his MA is not in a subject CALLED "biblical history" does not mean that that is not what he studied. His specialism is the Mystery Religions of that timeframe. Likewise, Freke's degree in Philosophy is on the Philosophy subject of Mysticism. In fact, Freke is considered a world authority on the subject, and has more than 20 books which are published internationally. CheeseDreams 20:04, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I am becoming very baffled by your remarks, CheeseDreams. If you come from the position that an MA is as meaningful a degree as an PhD, and argue that a "world authority" historian could simply "rely on good translations" (how would they know how good they are?) rather than read ancient languages, I simply don't know where to begin. Your comments about the MA degree are badly out of date -- while the MA was once a terminal degree, it certainly hasn't been in decades. I know of virtually no important academic historians currently working who fail to hold a PhD (certainly the few who do not hold PhDs are very old and near retirement). My own personal experience tells me how shallow the work on an MA often is. The importance of being able to read primary source documents in their original language is so fundamental to the study of history that I confess myself completely taken aback that it could be questioned. I don't see how we can discuss this reasonably if you won't accept the extreme importance of being able to work independent of a "good translation". That Freke is a "world authority" is not establishable by your continued asertions. Is he quoted as an equal by other serious academic historians? Given that he is not working in the ancient languages themselves, I personally highly doubt it, although evidence would be welcome. I feel as though I have other things to say, but right now I am stuck on these fundamental issues. May I ask what your own training is? I don't ask this in a dismissive way, but honestly your opinions about the study of history seem to me very far from the historical tradition I have studied at both undergraduate and graduate levels. Perhaps you have worked in a similar but separate field? Jwrosenzweig 22:36, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Existance (continued)

I don't really want to get involved here. (My BA was in maths and I haven't yet gotten round to paying the £100 I'd need to to upgrade it to an MA.) Couldn't help but notice this on Freke's own website (under 'Who is Timothy Freke?'):

Well, on the backs of my books it says things like 'Timothy Freke has a BA in philosophy and is an authority on world spirituality'. I remember my shock the first time I was called 'a noted scholar'. The older books say I am 'a teacher of mediation and Tai Chi Chuan', because that was once true. My first book calls me 'a composer', because before I wrote words I made music - everything from rave to modern dance and TV themes. Of course that's just the 'professional me'. The 'personal me' lives in Glastonbury England with my beautiful wife Debbie, my son Beau Brook and my daughter Aya Sophia. But what about the essential me? I have less idea everyday who that is, and that's a feeling I like. I am a mystery to myself. That's the Truth.

I am no historian, and I've never read his books (which may be very interesting for all I know), but he doesn't look like a guy who is into serious research to me. If User:CheeseDreams has evidence to the contrary, he should state it as User:Jwrosenzweig asks. jguk 23:07, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have already stated that he has written over 20 academic books published internationally. He has also written academic papers. In addition to this, like many academics (particularly in Arts subjects), he has written (just 2, or maybe 3 (now)) populist books (i.e. books readable without needing background knowledge, and written in an entertaining style). In addition, I happen to have seen one of his populist books, and it is nethertheless filled with scholarly references and bibliographies - there are over 2000 footnotes, in an otherwise short book, some of which are quite extensive. You can buy it from his website as afore-mentioned if you do not believe me. CheeseDreams 23:43, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Here is a deal- you can have the phrase the way you want it if you can find 6 classical scholars (at proper universities, who have PhDs) who do not believe that Homer existed. CheeseDreams 00:49, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Quite right! You can find serious scholars who believe Homer never existed. But, uh, gee, Cheezey -- this is an article about Jesus. Can you find six scholars of equivalent stature (meaning, they have written original research on Jesus or the NT that has been published in peer-reviewed journals, or at proper Universities with PhD.s, who do not believe Jesus existed? That is the question. Why do you bring up Homer? Did you think you were commenting on another page. Really, we are talking about Jesus here. Slrubenstein

I am offering you a way to win the argument, all you have to do is find 6 people (who match the qualification restrictions you put on those for Jesus' historicity) who DO NOT believe that Homer existed. Should be simple, I mean, what evidence is there? Certainly less than for Jesus.

Alternatively (and this is new) I will concede if you can find 6 people (with the same restrictions as above) that believe that The Scarlet Pimpernel DID exist. There should be quite a lot of evidence for that (compared with Jesus' existance many many years ago, with only tainted(i.e. by POV bias) evidence, the remainder having been burnt, long ago, for heresy, to go on), for example, there is clear evidence both that the French Revolution happened, and that some people escaped it.

I think the phrase you are looking for is "touche" (with an accent on the last e) CheeseDreams 22:04, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I've changed the wording to read "Some skeptics, including some academics". I hope that this meets with everyone's approval. --G Rutter 13:13, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What I object to is the use of the phrase "some" twice, it seeks to belittle the second by making it look something like 10% of skeptics, 10% of whome are academics, i.e. 1%, which is POV. I will change it back to what I put tommorrow evening if no-one removes the second "some", or produces an alternative. CheeseDreams 21:25, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There should be no quarrel with the two "some"s, should there? I mean, after all, most skeptics are not academics (most people aren't academics). Skeptics come from all walks of life. So I would imagine that some skeptics are academics, but not most. I guess I don't see the problem. And are you seriously suggesting that all university employed PhDs in the field of ancient Greek culture and literature believe in Homer's existence? I will dig for that info if you are indeed serious. Jwrosenzweig 22:57, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You can clearly see that there is quarrel with it. It reads to at least some people, as if you are belittling the number of academics. I would rather have something like "some skeptics and scholars" or "some skeptics, and scholars" or "some skeptics, theologians, and historians" (as I had put in myself). CheeseDreams 23:45, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I am more serious about the Scarlet Pimpernel. This seems more equivalent, for you to show that 6 people with restrictions X believe he exists vs. for me to show that 6 people with restrictions X believe that Jesus doesn't. CheeseDreams 23:45, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Though I should like to see you try to find people who do not believe in Homer. Homer is a definition. He is defined to be whoever it was that created the Illiad. CheeseDreams 23:45, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Huh? We are talking about Jesus, not Homer. The fact remains that most academic historians and Bible scholars who focus on 1st century Judea believe that Jesus existed. The fact remains that you have yet to provide an example of such a scholar who does not believe so. The fact is, above you mention A. Schweitzer as a "trained Biblical historian" who did not believe Jesus existed. This is doubly false -- Schweizer was a physician and not a trained Biblical historian, and although he did write a book on Biblical history, he most definitely did not suggest that Jesus never existed (his book argues that the "Jesus" posited by a number of other authors never existed, and provides his own account of Jesus' life and the importance of Jesus for Christians). Slrubenstein

I note you haven't yet even been able to fine 1 scholar relevant to the subject who considers that either

• Homer did not exist
• the scarlet pimpernel did exist

I have listed six who consider Jesus didn't. The fact I can list 6 and you none, shows that proportionally, far more people think Jesus didn't exist than think the scarlet pimpernel did.

The significance of this is something you will only notice if you are able to comprehend subtle points (which requires a degree of intellect). Therefore, if required, I will spell it out if asked. CheeseDreams 00:35, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Genug with the personal attacks. We are not talking about Homer. You say you mention six scholars who say jesus did not exist when the scholarship of a couple of those people is in doubt, and when I just wrote that one of the scholars actually did believe that Jesus existed. In any case, I never questioned the fact that some scholars believe Jesus never existed. You know this because when I wrote in the article "Some sceptics, including some scholars, reject the existence of Jesus" you didn't like my use of the word "scholars." But you clearly knew I believe that some scholars do not believe Jesus existed. My claim is not that "no" scholars thing Jesus never existed, and it is silly of you to keep arguing against a claim I never made. My claim is that many scholars do believe Jesus existed. In addition to Schweitzer, whom you name but erroneously as a scholar who disputes the existence of Jesus, I named Sanders, Crossan, Vermes, Ehrman, and Meier. These are all reputable scholars currently teaching at Universities and whose works are recently published and in print. Slrubenstein

Again you use a rare word uncomprehendable to most. What is "Genug"?

I mention 6 scholars, you mention 6. That is hardly some vs most. Its more half vs half. CheeseDreams 10:49, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

None of the scholars you mentioned are trained scholars, and at least one of them belongs on my side so if you are keeping score it is at least 5-7, maybe even 3 or 2-7 Slrubenstein

I would equally contest that the score is 7-0 to my side. This state of affairs is traditionally called impasse. CheeseDreams 19:58, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Okay, please tell me why you reject Sanders, Vermes, Fredricksen, Meier, and Crossan? Slrubenstein

Simply because you reject the people on my side. It is as easy to change the definition of what counts as a scholar to satisfy disqualification for them as it is to do vice versa as you have done. I can't be bothered in the specifics, but it can be done. There is no less justification to my changing of the meaning of scholar, than to yours earlier when you did so to disqualify the people we had listed. CheeseDreams 08:13, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Marshall M. Gauvin was scholar of what? Can you post any proof? Any link? Anything? Dennis McKinsey is a scholar just because he wrote cheap pamphlets on Biblical errancy? That really makes sense. And you never posted the evidence that J.M. Robertson was a scholar, as I asked you. OneGuy 11:55, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think we're really getting sidetracked here... Everyone agrees that there are some scholars who doubt the existence of the man Jesus. Everyone agrees that there are also people who doubt the existence of the man Jesus who are not scholars. OneGuy found a citation on a skeptical website indicating that those who do believe in the existence of the man Jesus are the majority of all scholars, not just of Christian scholars. So, I am left wondering what would be wrong with the following statement: "Some skeptics, including academics such as XXX and XXX, doubt..." (Pick the "best" two or three scholars to give as examples. You would know which ones better than I, CheeseDreams. Mpolo 15:07, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

I would disagree with this formulation unless the Skeptic School is explained; as already discussed and agreed on other talk pages (Talk:Cultural and historical background of Jesus) the use of "skeptic" is pejorative. - Amgine 15:54, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Most of the persons in this group are self-labeled as skeptics and consider the title a badge of honor, from what I've seen (see "The Skeptic's Dictionary", for instance). If the word is considered perjorative, we can leave it out, of course. What about, "Another group, which includes academics such as XXX and XXX, doubt..."? Mpolo 16:27, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

Slander

CheeseDreams' reason for rejecting the scholars I mention is absurd. It reveals that he does not take this process of writing an encyclopedia seriously, and is a vandal who will reject anything I write, not because doing so improves the article but because he objects in principle to anything I write. The fact is, I and others have explained patiently whad doubts we have about the scholars he mentions, and have asked him to justify their inclusion -- no one has said that the names he mentions don't count simply because he mentioned them. He owes other contributors -- indeed, he owes wikipedia -- the same respect. I explained why I thought the scholars I mention are valid. The fact is, I believe if you went to any major university that had a professor teaching 1st century and early Christianity history, they would recognize and probably use all the authors I mention. That CheeseDreams does not even know who they are (let alone how important they are) reveals his ignorance. Slrubenstein

Let me quote you your own words he calls my edit "vandalism" which is a real violation of courtesy here.

Your comments above are slander and I demand an apology. In combination with the equally offensive comments elsewhere, I will otherwise be making a formal complaint against you. CheeseDreams 20:33, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Rev of Bru

I recommend you review some of the other edits by Rev of Bru.

(The Rev of Bru | talk | contributions)

Its extremely obvious he is a sockpuppet/reincarnation w a POV agenda. I am considering a RfC. Sam [Spade] 18:50, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Having had a look at all of his edits, it seems to me that User:The Rev of Bru is pushing a NPOV agenda. I.e. is trying to make articles as NPOV as possible. This is wikipedia policy.

Having had a look at the talk page for User:Sam Spade, and various other articles refering to this user, it seems clear to me that he is, not only pushing a POV agenda, but has in the past done so to the extent that he has been threatened by an admin.

However, I am not sure this is an appropriate place to discuss this. The user has a talk page. CheeseDreams 21:05, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

IZAK isn't an admin, he's a nutcase, same w SPLEEMAN. What are you talking about? Sam [Spade] 21:19, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't know who IZAK is, but I was referring to Grunt. CheeseDreams 21:46, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

While Sam's career here has been nothing if not controversial, I would tend to agree with him that the evidence Cheese is presenting isn't the strongest stuff. I won't comment, as Sam has, on either IZAK or Spleeman's character, but certainly neither of them are admins. I too am a little confused by CheeseDreams's comments on this. Can we avoid allegations about Sam and Rev here, and stick to the article? (That's directed at both of you -- Sam, no need to bash the fellow here by calling him a sockpuppet or a reincarnation. If you've evidence, do it at RFC -- I don't see any reason to bring it up here.) Jwrosenzweig 21:28, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The reason I bring up Bru here, as well as elsewhere, is to drum up concensus. This is a place where he is being complained about, so I mentioned my concerns. If my concerns fall on deaf ears, I havn't much to make a RfC on.

All of that said, I have no idea what CheeseDreams is refering to, and probably overextended myself in response to what was apparently an innaccurate assumption about his unclear statements. Sam [Spade] 22:37, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't think it is Polite Behaviour to refer to someone as a sock puppet. Please view the pages Personal attack and Wikipedia:Civility.CheeseDreams 23:32, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Rev of Bru has himself (or herself--I'm continuing with masculine pronouns, no offense) suffered some unfortunate accusations of "vandalism" in the edit summaries that probably weren't justified. I did this myself at least once [1] -- though there a large amount of text was removed with little explanation and no discussion. Still "vandalism" probably wasn't the correct word. It should also be noted that the user currently known as The Rev of Bru started his Wikipedia life as anonymous contributor [82.41.97.16] (Or at least that anonymous contributor signed his contributions in Talk:New Testament with "The Rev of Bru".) Mpolo 09:32, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you Mpolo. Masculine pronoun will do. I think its fairly obvious to any impartial or honest observer who the person with the agenda in this case is- and its not me. I dont delete parts of the article I disagree with - I provide the alternative views in a NPOV manner. I dont remove an article I feel is POV - I change it to NPOV. I have discussed any major edits in the talk pages. I do admit that I had been in the habit of putting them at the top of the discussion page rather than the bottom, but now I know better. See the talk section of historicity of Jesus for my comments on my edits to this page. The Rev of Bru

AHistoricity of Jesus

Perhaps nobody noticed in the 5 or 6 times I have mentioned it, but I did, in fact, try to have a discussion on the ahistoricity of jesus, in the 'Ahistoricty of Jesus' section of this discussion page. Sorry if that was confusing. ome Christians seem to object to the fact that there are serious secular Scholars and Historians who doubt the veracity of the Jesus myth. This is a fact; whether they agree with their conclusions or not, there ARE numerous scholars, historians and other researchers in the field who do not believe in a historical christ. This is blatant POV. A short list of these scholars and historians follows, not complete. Name of published articles or books in brackets.

   J.M. Robertson (Pagan Christs)
   Gerald Massey, Egyptologist and historical scholar
   Elaine Pagels, Professor of Religion at Princeton University
   Gerald A. Larue (The Book Your Church Doesn't Want You To Read)
   Alan Albert Snow
   C. Dennis McKinsey, Bible critic (The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy)
   Paula Fredriksen, Professor and historian of early Christianity, Boston University
   Earl Doherty, (The Jesus Puzzle)
   Robert M. Price (Jesus: Fact or Fiction, A Dialogue With Dr. Robert Price and Rev. John Rankin)
   Marshall M. Gauvin

If wanted, there are more, I thought 10 should be enough. There is absolutely no reason for Christians use their bias to stop this information being presented. Some people disagree with a historical Jesus. There are historians and scholars amongst them. How can you argue with that and not be biased? The Rev of Bru 17:45, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC) As Cheesedreams surmised, the problem with changing 'sceptical historians and scholars' to 'Some skeptics' or whatever, is that it is blatant POV. There are Scholars who dispute that a historical Jesus existed. SOME of them are historians. SOME of them are bible scholars. SOME of them are scholars of a different field (eg pagan mythology). The Rev of Bru

There is either a slippage of terms or a serious misunderstanding. If "Christ" means "a divine Messiah" then I would agree that most if not all scholars reject the existence of Christ. However, I thought that the issue was the existence of Jesus. Paula Fredriksen and Elaine Pagels for example believe that Jesus existed or at least that he likeley existed. Slrubenstein

Apologies, yes, the wording should have been 'Jesus' instead of 'Christ'. Again, you seem to have missed the point. No Christian scholar is likely to ever admit or come to the conclusion that there was no Jesus, whatever the evidence against it. The argument was that there are scholars, amongst them historians, theologians etc, who doubt that a historical jesus existed. (which I'm still waiting on evidence for.)The Rev of Bru

Thank you for the clarification. But I am not missing the point. I am not concerned with "Christian" scholars -- like many of the people who have worked on this article I am concerned with modern critical scholarship (usually based in History, Biblical Studies, or Ancient Near Eastern Studies, departments in secular universities). None, in their capacity as scholars, claim that Jesus was the divine messaih. But most do claim that Jesus existed. Slrubenstein

I agree with Slr re: the precise meaning of "Christ". As far as the list of individuals, Rev, I don't believe I ever claimed that no serious scholar doubted the historical existence of Jesus (I apologize if I did). My specific objection was to CheeseDreams's assertion that a majority of non-Christian scholars doubted Jesus' historical existence -- to my knowledge that is incorrect, although I have asked at least once for evidence that suggests otherwise (and I am openminded enough to accept that such evidence may well exist). Is it your contention, Rev, that the majority of non-Christian scholars doubts the historical existence of Jesus? If all you claim is that some non-Christian scholars doubt it, then I agree perfectly and am happy for the article to indicate it. Jwrosenzweig 23:26, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As I discussed, are you looking for a list of non-christian scholars who have studied the actual issue of whether Jesus of Nazareth existed, and come to the conclusion that he did not? Or are you claiming that anyone who studies the bible in general from a non-christian perspective should have a valid opinion on whether or not he existed? IMO, it should be those who have actually researched the topic. Which would mean that yes, most non-christian (and non-muslim) scholars at the very least express doubt that his existence is a historical fact. The Rev of Bru

Whoops, now you've changed the question, haven't you Rev of Bru? We were talking about Biblical scholars who didn't believe in the existence of a historical Jesus. You've got a grab bag of people there, and Fredriksen (one of the few Biblical scholars of the lot) believes that Jesus existed. Jayjg 23:50, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Why are we talking about the Historicity of Jesus on the talk page for a different article, rather than on Talk:Historicity of Jesus? CheeseDreams 00:50, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Because the question is obviously relevant to both articles. Bru and Cheese have established that some non-Christian scholars doubt that Jesus (as a person) existed, but have so far failed to show that a majority (or even sizeable minority) of non-Christian scholars who deal with the topic hold this view. This is obviously relevant to how a number of disputed parts of the article are worded. If you want your wording to remain, then you are going to have to demonstrate that your assertion is correct. --G Rutter 14:52, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Exactly how is this supposed to be demonstrated to your satisfaction? Should we list EVERY non-Christian scholar who attacks the historicity of Jesus and EVERY non-Christian scholar who does not, and then go "Oh look, there are more who attack"? This is silly. Better suggestions please. CheeseDreams 19:50, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No, you provide references to well-respected scholars, or widely used textbooks which say something along the lines of "However, most non-Christian scholars do not think that Jesus actually existed". --G Rutter 20:17, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

J.M. Robertson in Pagan Christs, G. Massey (Egyptologist and historical scholar) in Gerald Massey's Lectures: Gnostic and Historic Christianity, G.A. Larue in (the non-Academic) The Book Your Church Doesn't Want You To Read, C.D.McKinsey in The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy, E.Doherty in The Jesus Puzzle, R.M. Price (professor of biblical criticism) in Jesus: Fact or Fiction, I think I should stop here (as this will become a ridiculously sized paragraph otherwise). Again, I think I was only asked for 5. And I forgot to mention Freke (considered a world authority on the subject). CheeseDreams 22:27, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Re: Freke, se Jwrosenzweig's comments in the section above (some sceptics) which pretty much deflates Freke's credibility in this discussion (unless CheeseDream is Freke?) Slrubenstein

What is the criteria for "Bible Scholar?" It seems like we get caught up in circles because we have among us different understandings, sometimes contradictory understandings, of what a bible scholar is. Each person should be clear about what they mean. Here is what I mean, but I propose it as a working definition for all of us: PhD.s from accredited universities with liberal arts programs whose dissertations presented original research on the Bible or Biblical history, or who have published original research on the Bible or Biblical history in a peer-reviewed academic journal. Slrubenstein

That seems a very POV description, specifically to discount the people I have mentioned. And actually most of the list I gave have published in a peer reviewed journal. At least one is a professor.

What is an accredited university? I have never heard the term before. There is only 1 non-state university in the UK, and it doesn't do biblical criticism.

Accredited is a term used in the US. If you have a UK equivalent we can use it of course.Slrubenstein

But what does it mean? CheeseDreams 00:39, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Requiring PhD's will cut out most academics in the UK in Arts fields. Including professors at Oxford. As I stated above, it is standard practice to skip the PhD in the UK in Arts subjects, partly for funding reasons. To require it is deliberately POV.

It also cuts out ALL academics from Oxford University which DOES NOT award any PhD's at all!!.

I know for a fact that there are professors at Oxford who have PhD.s and publish. Slrubenstein

I took this more as a somewhat misleading reference to Oxford awarding DPhils rather than PhDs. (Though, of course, not all Oxford professors, by any means, did their doctorates at Oxford, which accounts for many being PhDs rather than DPhils.) This point of CheeseDream's is pure semantics (and a rather pointless diversion as well). Mind you, your definition is too narrow. jguk 00:17, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Actually it was a subtle point (superficially demonstrated by Oxford) that not all geographic locations or countries have PhDs. Some have sort-of parallel things, and some others have nothing comparable at all. Likewise some subjects consider PhDs important (such as Science, in the UK), others do not (such as Theology (which just give out PhDs to anglican bishops for the sake of it - it comes with the post of bishop, and doesnt evidence academic ability at all), English Literature (where on their way to becoming professors, academics skip the PhD all together), in the UK). Freke is of a subject where (in the UK, which is where he is from) PhDs are regarded as rather irrelevant to academic ability, and are thus often skipped. CheeseDreams 00:39, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What is a liberal arts programme? I have never heard the term before. Is this the same as what the UK calls Arts, in which case it refers to all Universities in the UK?

You seem to be continuously moving the goalposts so that you do not have to concede defeat. The original statement was "bet you cant name 5 biblical scholars who do not believe Jesus existed". I have already done that. In fact I named at least 6. CheeseDreams 23:36, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As I said, they are not -- or not all -- Bible scholars. Slrubenstein

Exactly by what judgement do you qualify this slur on their name? All I can see is an attempt to redefine Biblical Scholarship so as not to include them. CheeseDreams 00:39, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ultimately, it has never been disputed that "some scholars" hold the position that Jesus didn't exist. You and Bru, however, are constantly making changes to indicate that this is divided on the lines of "Christians believe that Jesus exists", but "practically no serious scholars believe this". This is patently false. A large number, in fact, as far as I can tell, the overwhelming majority, of Christians and skeptics alike hold that Jesus the man existed. The article has long stated that beyond his existence, nothing has been agreed upon so universally. We don't want to overstate your case, because that would be POV, the same way we don't want to silence the skeptical argument, because that would be POV as well.

As to the whole thing on credentials, I'd say that while in the English-speaking world, normally a doctorate of some sort is the qualification of a serious scholar (especially from Oxford, since a Master's is issued for 100 pounds five years after graduation with no additional study required), it should be noted that the Pontifical Biblical degree of "license" is approximately equivalent to a doctorate in other fields -- persons with a license have to study some 6-7 years beyond a bachelor's degree and publish original research -- and a "doctorate" is another 5-6 years beyond that. Just in case we start questioning credentials on those scholars... Mpolo 10:09, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

Mpolo has made the point I was trying to make in my earlier post. I didn't want a list of books, I wanted a quote from a recognised scholar saying that "Most non-Christian scholars do not think that Jesus actually existed". Have you got such a statment? --G Rutter 14:30, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Have you any idea how long it will take to track down works by people and then read the whole of them? This will take a long while....

In the meantime, "Recognised" scholar is a POV phrase. It seems you are only willing to "Recognise" scholars who support your POV, despite our listing of scholars who do not.

---

Dennis McKinsey is not a scholar. Just because he wrote pamphlets on Biblical errancy and latter collected them in a book doesn't make him a scholar. Marshall M. Gauvin was not a scholar of anything. And J.M. Robertson was a scholar? Can you post evidence of that?

Anyway, yes, there are some "scholars" who doubt the existence of Jesus, just like there are some nuts (including people with Ph.Ds) who doubt evolution. You can find all kinds of "scholars" who say all kinds of stupid things. But what's the consensus among scholars on historicity of Jesus (or, just as an example, consensus among biologists on say evolution?). I don't think there is any doubt about what the consensus is OneGuy 20:46, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Exactly what do you mean by that? Are you proclaiming that doubting the existence of Jesus makes one a "nut"? In which case I would like you to retract that immediately or I shall make a petty complaint against you for Incivility (see Personal attack). CheeseDreams 22:35, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Jesus: The most famous person in history?

It is simply a fact. There is no point of view in the statement. He is simply the most famous person to have ever lived and has effected humanity much more than any other person who has ever lived. Please use this section to discuss it. 172.191.30.97 06:46, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Even if it is a fact, which many people would disagree with, that doesn't mean he ever existed as anything other than a myth.The Rev of Bru

There is definitely not agreement on who is the most influential person in history. See The 100. A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History. Obviously that guy disagrees with you, huh? OneGuy 10:19, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

How is this a fact? Where is the source for this information? Stating something doesn't make it true. Back it up. Opticon 06:48, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)Opticon

Name me anyone in history more famous than Jesus, or anyone in history that has had a more profound effect on history and humanity than Jesus. The source for this information is right infront of you, everyday life, it has been affected by Jesus' legacy in some form or another.

I sincerely doubt that that is good enough for an encyclopedia article. Opticon 06:57, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)Opticon

Why do you doubt it when it's a fact? Jesus is unquestionably the most famous person to have ever lived and he has had the most profound effect on humanity than any other figure in history. Anyhow, I'd like to see some more views on this matter.

Not convinced it is a fact. Nothing is unquestionable. Opticon 07:03, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)Opticon

I'd probably agree that it is a fact, but don't see a whole lot of point in it being in an encyclopedia. Because that statement is a fact, anyone coming to the article already knows that Jesus is famous. Why do we have to say it? Especially if it offends other editors? This debated style guide suggests letting the reader make up his own mind about who is important or famous. Mpolo 09:26, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)

I don't think it's established fact. Anyway, the original person wrote that Jesus is not only the most famous but also the most influential. That claim is disputed by some people, like The 100. A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History. OneGuy 10:26, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

To say that "Jesus is the most famous person ever to have lived" is POV. This is because Jesus having been real is disputed. See Historicity of Jesus.

Many scholars consider Zarathustra to have been more influential, ultimately shaping not only Jesus, but Hinduism, Judaism, AND greek philosophy (such as Plato) as well, he may even have been Confucius or the Buddha (though these last two views are marginal). In addition, Zarathustra has even influenced atheists (see Nietzsche), and classical history (see Xerxes). However, his name is little known now, since the religion he founded has become very small indeed (though it was once a major world religion, it was mainly wiped out by the spread of Islam).

Others consider Mohammed to have been more influential, since, without him, there would neither have been Crusades, nor Islamic Empires (such as Turkey, or Spain), which would have had a profound impact on history, neither would there be conflict in the Middle East or Iran (where Zoroastrianism originated).

CheeseDreams 11:41, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Further to my comments above, why are we discussing this? It isn't relevant to the article. The statement is extremely POV, and should not be part of it. CheeseDreams 11:48, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Regardless of whether it is true or not, I don't see why it should go in the article. It doesn't add anything. The article is already full of details of Christ's influence and indications of how well-known Christ has become. Not only that, whether there are, or are not, others who are more influential and well-known is not really a statement about Christ anyway - it's a statement about others not discussed in the article. Keep 172.191.30.97's suggested phrasing out of the article. jguk 11:54, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I won't have a problem with it if this claim is stated in this way, "Many have seen him as one of the most influential people in history." Like the page on Muhammad does at the end, instead of "Jesus is the most famous person in history and has had a more profound effect on humanity than any other figure in history." OneGuy 16:16, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to such a claim, but I really don't see what it adds to the article. I'd say leave it out and let the reader make that decision. Mpolo 16:42, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)

I would object to such a claim. It is not necessary - were it to be necessary, there would be something wrong with the article. Doesn't the article already show that Christ has influenced very large numbers of people? Let the reader judge for himself and let's avoid weasel terms. (Oops, this bit was me. jguk)

Could whoever wrote the above please sign it?

I would object to the claim. It is POV. CheeseDreams 17:37, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You guys are missing the point. "Many see him as one of the most influential people in history", is just a fact. It's like saying many see Jesus as divine. Or many see Jesus as Christ. Doesn't make him devine or god. There is nothing wrong with the statement OneGuy 17:42, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. But a question: Are the "many" you refer to mostly Christians? If so, why not just write "Many Christians see him ..." -- this is more specific which is always a good thing in an encyclopedia. If "Many" is not mostly Christians, is there some other way you can characterize who it is that make ands support this claim? Slrubenstein

Do only Christians see Jesus as influential or famous figure? I am not sure about that. Anyway, there is a difference between saying "Many see Jesus as one of the most influential person in history" and the unequivocal "Jesus is the most influential person in history."

Many see Newton as one of the most influential physicist. Saying that is not POV. That's just a fact that should be mentioned. POV would be "Newton is the most influential scientist ever." OneGuy 18:33, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

Now this is funny. After I mentioned that Muhammad article (rightly) has the statement, "Many see him as one of the most influential people in history." Someone went there and removed it. Oh really? In the article Genghis Khan, there is a statement: "in the East, he is considered one of the greatest military leaders"

Now are you going to go there and "remove" that, too? I am sure I can find many more examples after you do that. There is nothing POV about saying people think Muhammad is one of the most influential person in history, or that people think Genghis Khan is the greatest military leader. Get over it, dude OneGuy 18:49, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

For me, it's not a question of whether it's POV or not. The statement is pointless. The article already makes it clear that he is one of the most influential men in history. There's no need to say it again. Read Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms. The same is true for the Muhammad article, Genghis Khan article and any other article that contains similarly sloppy and meaningless phrases. There's a lot of bad writing about, let's not encourage it here. (I'll desist from changing any other articles until we have reached a conclusion to this discussion here.) However, should we move this discussion to Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms? User:Jongarrettuk|jguk]] 18:56, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Why is it weasel to say that people in the East consider Genghis Khan as one of the greatest military leaders? Not mentioning that would make the article incomplete. It would omit an important fact about what people in the East think about Genghis Khan.

By the way, the article on Genghis Khan ends with "He was one of the most charismatic leaders in the world." Now you can say that is POV (but I won't even remove that), but certainly it's not POV to mention what people think about Ghengiz Khan. Not mentioning that will make the article incomplete.

Do you want me to find examples from 1911 Encyclopedia or other online Encyclopedias? OneGuy 19:10, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I guess the real issue is, what is the point of adding this sentence to the article? Since this is English language encyclopedia, I can see the point to saying "many consider Genghis Khan to have been th world's, or certainly Asia's, greatest military leader" or something like that -- it is possible that many English speakers have never even heard of Gengis khan and such a statement would help explain to such an audience why he is important and worth an encyclopedia article. But virtually every English speaker in the world knows who Jesus is and would understand why an encyclopedia would have an article on him in it. So why put in a sentence justifying the article? Slrubenstein

---

Ok, britannica.com on Genghis Khan begins with http://www.britannica.com/ebi/article?tocId=9274521

"From the high, windswept Gobi came one of history's most famous warriors"

Gee! Even britannica is full of POV, according to Jongarrettuk :))

I don't think some of this stuff is really POV. Probably saying that Genghis Khan is the most famous warrior is POV, but the statement he is one of the most famous warrior is probably a fact (so britannica is correct). Also, it would be POV to remove the line that many (including some historians and even some anti-Islamic authors) consider Muhammad as one of the most influential person in history (influential in a negative way for anti-Islamic authors). Removing that info would make the article incomplete. OneGuy 19:33, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Whoa, I never even commented on whether this proposed phrasing is POV or not. I don't think it's relevant as to whether it is POV or not and have said as such. For what it's worth, I think your proposed statement is true. For the record, I have consistently argued that the statement is unnecessary. jguk 21:00, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

Having said everything above, what I really objected to was the unequivocal wording used by the user 172.191.30.97. "Jesus is the most famous person in history and has had a more profound effect on humanity than any other figure in history."

There was no qualification there, such as one of the most famous, or (since unlike Genghis Khan and even to a degree Muhammad, even historicity of Jesus is questioned), something like "many people think he is one of the ..... etc. OneGuy 19:57, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Whether true or not, the phrase "Jesus is the most famous person in history and has had a more profound effect on humanity than any other figure in history." is a Peacock Term, which wikipedia considers POV. It, and varients of it, should not be used. I object to the sentance in any of its various mutations, particularly as the only people pushing it are those who, from the above, seem to share a single POV. CheeseDreams 23:03, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Of course the phrase "Jesus is the most famous person in history and has had a more profound effect on humanity than any other figure in history" is POV. You need to read everything I wrote above carefully before replying. You didn't answer anything I wrote above. Why are you replying to me then? OneGuy 07:18, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If you cannot understand why the phrase is weasel, please actually read Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms] and think about it for a while. CheeseDreams 00:03, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I understand what the term weasel means. You din't asnwer anything above what I said about the article on Genghiz Khan and Muhammad and how this is NOT POV, as you claimed it is. Do you even understand POV? OneGuy 06:58, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You have NOT read the article. If you had, you will notice that "most famous" is EXPLICITELY to be avoided. As for Genghiz Khan, etc, this page is NOT about them. Discussing them, and whether they are NPOV or not, belongs on their page. I have no particular interest in them, so will not contribute there. If YOU think it is POV then go and comment on their talk pages.. CheeseDreams 08:32, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have. You have not read what I wrote above. I never suggested anything like that. Read carefully everything before you reply. By the way, you initially claimed it was POV (not weasel) but as I showed it wasn't POV. So you are back tracking on that now? OneGuy 09:02, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have never said it was not POV. I am not backtracking, I am stating that it is POV because it is weasel. CheeseDreams 22:20, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The phrase you are stating is ".... is the most famous ....". If you read the weasel article you will see that this is weasel. CheeseDreams 22:20, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There seems little point in continuing this discussion if you are unwilling to listen to or consider the consensus that it should not be put in.

If you put the claim into the article. It will be removed. Not necessarily by me. CheeseDreams 22:41, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It should be obvious by now that this guy CheeseDreams doesn't read or comprehend what is being posted. I never suggested that the phrase Jesus is the most famous and influential should be inserted in the article. In fact, it was me who posted the evidence (and put an end to the debate), such as The 100, that proves beyond doubt that not everyone agrees that Jesus is the most influential. Latter, as I side note, I pointed out that if this phrase must be inserted in the article, it should be toned down and made NPOV, as I showed and proved above how it could be made NPOV. Apparently CheeseDreams has failed to comprehend everything I wrote above and continues to claim that I want to insert this phrase in the article. He continues to post irrelevant responses. You do that every time, dude? OneGuy 01:24, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

WikiProject Jesus

In order to try to work out the relationship between all the various pages and hopefully get some consensus, I have opened a WikiProject to centralize discussion and debate. We've got several "conflicted" pages at the moment, and without centralizing discussion, it's going to get very confusing. Please join the project, if you're interested in the topic, and start discussions on the talk page. (We need to create a to-do list, but I think the current state is too conflicted to decide even that.) Mpolo 10:49, Nov 8, 2004 (UTC)

ToDo list

The to do list on this page has never been updated, and has points of discussion rather than article tasks. Would someone interested in improving this article be willing to map what needs to be done to improve it? - Amgine 07:05, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A list of potential citations

Here are excerpted authors/titles of works from a doctoral thesis regarding the historicity of the resurection (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jesus_resurrection/index.shtml):

Urm (to whoever wrote the above), there is quite a lot of information about the historicity of the resurrection on the resurrection article. CheeseDreams 20:39, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A list of critiques potentially disputing the historicity of Jesus

(to whoever wrote the below) this really belongs on the historicity talk page and or the discussion a long way above about how many scholars who doubt jesus' historicity can fit on the head of a pin CheeseDreams 20:39, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

• Barker, Dan. Losing Faith in Faith: From Preacher to Atheist. Madison, WI: Freedom From Religion Foundation, 1992.
• Bruce, F. F. The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? 5th ed. Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity, 1960.
• Fox, Robin Lane. The Unauthorized Version: Truth and Fiction in the Bible. New York: Vintage, 1991.
• Keller, James A. "Contemporary Doubts About the Resurrection." Faith and Philosophy 5 (1988): 40-60.
• Lippard, James J. Critique of Maisel's "Is Jesus God?" Pamphlet. Unpublished manuscript. 1993.
• Mackie, J.L The Miracle of Theism: Arguments for and against the Existence of God. New York: Oxford University Press, 1982.
• Martin, Michael. The Case Against Christianity. Philadelphia: Temple University, 1991.
  • "The Case Against Christianity Revisited." Reply to Stephen Parrish's review "A Summary Critique: The Case Against Christianity." Christian Research Journal. Fall 1994: 49-50.
• McCabe, Joseph. The Myth of the Resurrection and Other Essays. 1925. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus, 1993.
• Miller, Glenn. "Christian `bias' in the NT Writers: Does it render the NT unreliable or inadmissable as evidence?" 23 Feb. 1995. World Wide Web URL: "http://www.webcom.com:80/~ctt/Hbias.html".
• O'Hair, Madalyn. "Fundamentalism." Memphis State University. Memphis, TN, 22 Oct. 1986. World Wide Web URL: "http://www.infidels.org/org/aa/christianity/fundie.html".
  • Why I Am An Atheist. Second Revised Edition. Austin, TX: American Atheist Press, 1991.
• Ranke-Heinemann, Ute. Putting Away Childish Things: the Virgin Birth, the Empty Tomb, and Other Fairy Tales You Don't Need to Believe to Have a Living Faith. Translated by Peter Heinegg. 1992. San Fransisco: Harper Collins, 1994.
• Russell, Bertrand. The Basic Writings of Bertrand Russell. Edited by Robert E. Egner and Lester E. Denonn. New York: Touchstone, 1961.
  • Bertrand Russell on God and Religion. Edited by Al Seckel. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 1986.
  • Why I Am Not a Christian. New York: Touchstone, 1957.
• Spong, John Shelby. Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism: A Bishop Rethinks the Meaning of Scripture. San Francisco: Harper Collins, 1991.
• Stamos, David N. "Why I Am Not a New Apostolic" Leaving the Fold: Testimonies of Former Fundamentalists. Edited by Ed Babinski. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus, 1995.
• Stein, Gordon Ed. An Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus, 1980.
  • The Encyclopedia of Unbelief. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus, 1985.
  • Freethought in the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1981.
  • God Pro and Con: A Bibliography of Atheism. New York: Garland, 1990.
  • Robert Ingersoll: A Checklist. Kent, OH: Kent State University Press, 1969.
  • ed. Second Anthology of Atheism and Rationalism. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus, 1986.
• Stein, Gordon and Marshall Brown. Freethought in the United States: A Descriptive Bibliography. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1978.
• Swinburne, Richard. "For the Possibility of Miracles" To Believe or Not to Believe: Readings in the Philosophy of Religion. Edited by E.D. Klemke. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1992.
• Taylor, Larry. "MessiahGate - A Tale of Murder and Deception." Humsig. August 1987: 1-7.
• Till, Farrell. "Did They Tarry in the City?" The Skeptical Review. Volume 3, Number 2.
• Watts, Charles. The Claims of Christianity Examined from a Rationalist Standpoint. London: Watts & Co., 1895.
• Wheless, Joseph. Forgery in Christianity: A Documented Record of the Foundations of the Christian Religion. Moscow, ID: Psychiana, 1930.
  • Is It God's Word? Kila, MT: Kessinger, 1925.
• Zindler, Frank R. "Biography." Leaving the Fold: Testimonies of Former Fundamentalists. Ed. Ed Babinski. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus, 1995.
  • Dial an Atheist: Greatest Hits from Ohio. Austin, TX: American Atheist Press, 1991.

-Amgine 17:32, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What is the purpose of this list? To my knowledge no one here has questioned the fact that many scholars reject the existence of Jesus or at least reject his divine nature, miracles, and resurrection. The issue I think most of us have been debating is whether there is a group of important non-religious scholars who believe that Jesus did exist. What exactly is in question? What needs to be proved? Slrubenstein

"As I said above, yes, there are some "scholars" who doubt the existence of Jesus, just like there are some nuts (including people with Ph.Ds) who doubt evolution." - OneGuy

"Neither I nor anyone else (that I know of) has contended that no (i.e., zero) recognized scholars doubt the existence of Jesus. We have contended that the number is few, and that some (if not the majority) of your examples of scholars who doubt the historical existence of Jesus are not, in fact, scholars, but rather popular authors with insufficient training or academic standing to allow their opinions to be seen as significant academic perspectives." - Jwrosenzweig

&c. This was a very brief search of only a single dissertation about a related but separate question. I'm sure I could turn up enough to qualify as "many", thus disputing the general assumption that an extreme minority of scholars question the historicity of Jesus. Note the disparagement of both comments (including the admin's), implying disbelief is not academically based or foolish. This list was intended to balance that percieved bias in the discussion. - Amgine 19:59, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And? How does that laundry list answers my statement? Most scholars accept that someone called Jesus existed, even if they reject miracles and resurrection. How is your laundry list a response to me? How many on this list only reject miracles and resurrection but accept Jesus as a historical figure? And these people are scholars? Was Bertrand Russell a scholar of history, Bible, or Christianity? Is Farrell Till (retired English teacher and great debater -- at least in written debates) a scholar? Robert Ingersoll (great speaker) was a scholar? How? Come on, dude. Don't play games. I am atheist and have read all these people. What I said was a fact. Most scholars accept that Jesus existed, even if they deny resurrection and miracles. OneGuy 21:06, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You continuously state you are an atheist as if that somehow makes your position more plausible. The only people I know to have done so have been fundamentalists lying to attempt to win an argument. And I find it amusing that you are resorting to questioning Bertrand Russell's qualifications.CheeseDreams 23:06, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Of course I continuously state I am atheist. Your argument is that only Christians would believe Jesus existed or admit most scholars agree that Jesus existed. My response makes sense, and even James Still clearly states that most scholars agree Jesus existed as I proved. And Bertrand Russell was a mathematicians and a philosopher but certainly not a scholar of Christian history or the Bible. If you don't even know that, then no wonder you are so confused.OneGuy 05:30, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, why not put Voltaire on the list? No one ever said that the number of scholars who disbelieve in Jesus is an "extreme minority" -- although I would contend that the number of academic historians and critical bible scholars who believe Jesus never existed is a minority (your list includes many people who had no special expertise in the Bible as a literary text, or in first century history). I truly do not understnad the sentence "Note the disparagement of both comments (including the admin's), implying disbelief is not academically based or foolish." Does "is not academically based ..." modify the noun disparagement, or the noun disbelief? Do you mean "not academically based and not follish? OR do you mean "not academically based, and foolish?" What do you mean by "admin's)? This is not grammatical. Slrubenstein

Ooh, can we put Nietzche (Also Sprake Zarathustra) (there's the mysterious Zoroastrians again) on as well? CheeseDreams 20:39, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Don't know. We know he rejected religion and Christianity, but did he ever claim the man Jesus never existed? Slrubenstein

I seem to remember him considering the whole Jesus thing as a conspiracy of some sort. CheeseDreams 23:06, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Okay, Nietzsche at least studied Greek and Latin, but I am not sure he agrees with you though. Anyway, the above laundry list included English teachers, mathematicians, and poets. How are those people scholars on this topic? A scholar who doubts Jesus existed would be someone like Robert Price, Ph.D, New Testament. Or someone who is a trained historian (Ph.D in ancient history). You are posting laundry lists of well known atheists and skeptics and claiming they are "scholars" of NT or Christian history. OneGuy 06:04, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And earlier your laundry list even included Dennis McKinsey, just an ordinary nobody (not a scholar) who became famous by publishing cheap pamphlets on inerrancy. Even other skeptics, like Jeffery Lowder, reject historicity arguments of people like Dennis McKinsey. See for example:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/mckinsey.html

OneGuy 08:28, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree that "scholars" should refer to scholars whose field of expertise is the NT, early Christianity, 1st century Jewish/Roman history -- i.e. relevant topics. Russell was an expert on symbolic logic who rejected Christianity -- but he was by no means an expert on religion or history. Einstein was a genious and what he says about gravity is worth mentioning in any article on physics -- but just because this brilliant physicist believed in God doesn't mean he is an expert in religion and an authority on God. Slrubenstein

For those who don't know, Einstein was a Pacifist, who betrayed his pacisfism to argue for the support of Zionism, and to create the Nuclear Bomb. In addition, his major works Special Theory of Relativity and General Theory of Relativity are just re-workings of theories already known before him such as those of Lorentz whose contractions and dilations of time were re-worded into the special theory, and of Reimann and Christoffel whose theories of non-Euclidean geometry and its consequences form the basis of the General Theory. In today's world, Einstein would work in PR. CheeseDreams 21:13, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What Name Should This Article be Under?

In the most recent nomination for featured article status, someone objected to the article being under "Jesus" as that is ambiguous as that is used as a fairly common first name in many countries. The person who objected suggested "Jesus Christ", but that means "Jesus the Lord", and therfore this would not be NPOV, as calling him such in the article's title supports the interpertation of Jesus as divine. How about "Jesus of Nazereth", which is specific, but NPOV. Just a suggestion. --L33tminion | (talk) 19:43, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

The discussion has gone on and on about this. The only name we have been able to get any consensus for at all has been the current one, Jesus. This probably means that the page will never be featured, because someone will object to any name we put on it. We have created Jesus (disambiguation) to answer the criticism of it being a common name. The current name has the advantage of being short, and only having someone come and randomly move it to another name every 2-3 months, and having a chance that someone would type it in as a "first guess" in the search box. Mpolo 19:57, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)

That seems fair. I will admit that this Jesus is by far the most notable Jesus. --L33tminion | (talk) 15:18, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

Looking at both the disambig page and the main article, it looks like a truly NPOV solution has been achieved on this point. --L33tminion | (talk) 15:50, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

Justification

What is the justification for changing all the Jesus names (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Jesus&oldid=7430228) to Joshua names? - Amgine 22:13, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The Hebrew for these names is yehoshuah, which is conventionally translated into English as Joshua (thus, the book of the Bible in English is Joshua). "Jesus" is a Latinization and I can't change the world from calling him Jesus rather than his Hebrew name. But Jews who study their own history or the Talmud never call these people Jesus -- there is no convention of calling them anything but the hebrew transliterated (Yehoshua) or the conventional English translation (Joshua) in English. Given that this is the normal, conventional way to call them in English, the question is, why would anyone (speaking English, I mean) call them anything else? IF someone wants to claim some similarity with the Jesus of this article -- well, that seems strange and POV. No one disputes that Joshua was then, as it is now, a pretty common name. I don't think ANYONE ever confused Jesus with any of these three guys. Slrubenstein

I can accept this justification. I would (personally) prefer they be changed to the Yehoshua transliteration, as they are not historically significant except in their context whereas Jesus is more significant outside his specific context. - Amgine 22:42, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Whew!" I have no objection to your changing them to Yehoshua, if you feel strongly. Since this is an English language encyclopedia I have no problem with Joshua. I leave it up to you. Slrubenstein

<grin> Frankly, it looked like you were trying to hide something. But I like the expansion - great information! - Amgine 23:31, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

This is an English language encyclopaedia. We should use English language names. The common English language name is Joshua, and so Joshua should be used. It would be einappropriate to do anything else. There is, of course, nothing wrong in referring to the Hebrew version of his name. Anyway, didn't they all speak Aramaic rather than Hebrew? jguk 21:57, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

What is an English name? Sorry, don't mean to be flip. I don't feel particularly strongly on this issue; I suspect more references will be found under Yehoshua than Yeshua or Joshua, but that would be a question for the historians. - Amgine 23:15, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The tradition in English has been to use "Joshua" if the name comes to us through Hebrew, and "Jesus" if it comes to us through Greek. (The difference between Jacob and James seems to be similar, but the Greek is "Iakobos" as well...) "Yehoshua" is a Hebrew transliteration, and "Yeshua" is a reconstructed Aramaic transliteration -- that is, there is no evidence of its use in the first century. I'm not sure what the academic consensus is on all the "Jesus/Yehoshua" figures, though. Mpolo 09:24, Nov 15, 2004 (UTC)

I have removed several instances of "according to the gospel" or "according to the bible". This is not an attempt to turn these assertions into statements of fact, but all of these removals are within the section titled "Life and teaching according to the New Testament. Since the entire section is one large "according to", saying it over and over felt redundant. -CrucifiedChrist

Proposed Change

I hope this is the write way to propose changes

Quote: The Evangelists do not describe much of Jesus' life between the ages of 12 and 32

I was wondering why this says 'Evangelists' and not 'Gospels'

I propose it be changed to Gospels, as the heading is 'Life and teaching according to the New Testament'

Sounds like a good change to me! - Amgine 23:46, 21 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Two points: the list of names in the introduction is a little much, I think. Should this be moved into the body of the article somewhere? But if we're going to hang the laundry list of names out there, shouldn't there also be a mention that Yehoshua was a fairly common name, usually translated into english as Joshua? (And it's not as if the bible isn't replete with examples of Joshuas.)

I took out the scholarly reconstruction of the Aramaic name from the introduction (as was decided by consensus months ago, see archive). This, and the transliteration "Joshua" are below in the "Names and Titles of Jesus" section. Mpolo 09:19, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks! I hadn't known about that section in the archive, so I'm glad I asked! - Amgine 21:52, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Revert Rule Enforcement

I should like to inform the contributors to this article of the passage of Wikipedia:Three revert rule enforcement, which allows admins to ban users if they violate the 3RR. - Amgine 03:36, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Indeed. Could you people PLEASE make an attempt to discuss the matter (triviality?) on this page, and before committing edits, rather than in your revert summaries? Fredrik | talk 03:44, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And please note "the mere incidental fact of one side outnumbering the other does not, alone, make the majority right, each side of an argument should be limited to 3 reverts per day" CheeseDreams 17:47, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A new section

Essentially, the current discussion in the sections "Rev of Bru" and "Some skeptics" are about the same thing. As these sections are getting rather long, and pointlessly seperate, I thought I would open a new one.

The question is Are there any real scholars who doubt the existance of Jesus? I, and the Rev of Bru think that there are. Elsewhere we have demonstrated why, e.g. lack of sources for Jesus. CheeseDreams 23:48, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

CheeseDreams, thanks for doing this. For one thing, it helps clarify the issue -- there has been a misunderstanding. Neither I nor anyone else (that I know of) has contended that no (i.e., zero) recognized scholars doubt the existence of Jesus. We have contended that the number is few, and that some (if not the majority) of your examples of scholars who doubt the historical existence of Jesus are not, in fact, scholars, but rather popular authors with insufficient training or academic standing to allow their opinions to be seen as significant academic perspectives. I believe that is the case, at least. I certainly don't doubt that G. A. Wells exists, but I also have little doubt that there are only a few others like him. Jwrosenzweig 23:52, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I was asked to name 6 to satisfy demands, so that my use of phrasing would be permitted. I seem to remember doing that. I then seem to remember Slrubenstein completely moving the goalposts on what counts as a recognised scholar, which I consider cheating, and a demonstration of unwillingness to accept that I had easily managed the task that he (and others) percieved as difficult, if not impossible. CheeseDreams 01:20, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Those two sections were set up to make points about two sets of edits that Cheese and Bru were making. These were:

1.Changing "Some skeptics, including some scholars" to "Some skeptics, scholars and historians".

In favour of the change, it was argued that this was more precise, especially as some people think scholar is a sub-set of academic, not a synomyn. Against, it was argued that the original was clearer and showed that the skeptics included some scholars/academics.

NO IT WASN'T

Mpolo and I had a discussion on the matter much earlier and the alternative to "Some skeptics, including some scholars" was actually "Some skeptics, historians and theologians".

2.Adding "Christian" before the word "scholar" at various places in the article.

In favour, it was argued that most of the scholars in question were actually Christians, so this was more NPOV. Against, it was argued that this was more POV, as it implied all the scholars were Christians, when a minority were not.

I hope that this is an accurate summary of the arguments- we then got side-tracked into how many scholars believed in the non-existance of Jesus. So, can I propose a vote on these two issues to stop these arguments (please?). --G Rutter 15:55, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

NO IT ISNT, see below CheeseDreams 17:35, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Votes

I have edited Vote 1 (including adding option 4), in the light of CheeseDream's objections. I hope to be editing Vote 2 once I work out what CD wants. I hope that this is OK. If there are further objections I'll just abandon this as a mistake. --G Rutter 19:30, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have included Vote 2a which I hope covers the criticisms over Vote 2. --G Rutter 23:01, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Some Skeptics

Vote 1: In the section "Basic views of Jesus", should the section read:

1."Some skeptics, including some scholars" (the orginal wording).

2."Some skeptics, historians and theologians" (the proposed change).

1. Support CheeseDreams 00:48, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

3."Some skeptics, including some academics" (an attempted compromise, taking account the argument over the meaning of the word "scholar").

1. Support G Rutter 15:55, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
2. Support Mpolo 16:41, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)
3. support -- I prefer "scholars" but academics is fine Slrubenstein 05:52, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

4."Some skeptics, including academics" (a new compromise).

1. G Rutter 19:30, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
2. tolerate (I would still prefer "and" rather than "including" CheeseDreams 00:48, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
3. OK. Mpolo 07:32, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)

None of the above. 'Including some' implies that the majority are not academics: which the majority of skeptics who doubt a historical Jesus are. The Rev of Bru

1. I vote : "Some academics and skeptics." The Rev of Bru
2. I support "Some academics and skeptics" CheeseDreams 22:49, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

First, I think most skeptics are not academics, which in no way disparages them. Most people in the world are not Christian and doubt the literal historicity or truth of the NT, and most people in the world are not academics. Moreover, the purpose of the phrase "some academcis" is to signal "not all academics." How would you suggest we signal this, then? Slrubenstein

You have already used the "Some" in "some skeptics" it isnt "Some skeptics and all academics". I fail to see why you do not support "Some academics and skeptics." as the Rev of Bru suggests. CheeseDreams 22:49, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The phrases "Some academics and skeptics" and "Some skeptics, historians and theologians" imply that the academics/historians and theologians are not skeptics, which they clearly are, as that's the point of the sentence. The changes are not meant to diminish the importance of these critics, they're just meant to make the sentence read better. I also dispute Bru's assertion that the majority of people who believe that Jesus didn't exist are academics. If you can show this, then I suppose "Some academics and other skeptics" might be another possible compromise. --G Rutter 16:49, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If you see it that way then we could have "Some skeptical academics". CheeseDreams 22:24, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

5."Some skeptical academics"

1. CheeseDreams 22:24, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

or we could have "Some academics and other skeptics" CheeseDreams 22:27, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

6."Some academics and other skeptics"

1. CheeseDreams 22:27, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

ACTUALLY THE QUESTION IS "Should the phrase including some be included or is it POV (because "some" has already been used at the start of the sentence)?CheeseDreams 17:35, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

1. It is POV CheeseDreams 17:35, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

(The question above has been added to by FT2 to take this into account (choice 4))CheeseDreams 22:49, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

Christian to qualify Scholar

Vote 2: Use of the word "Christian" to qualify "scholar" at various points in the article, to show that the majority of Biblical scholars are Christians.

Support.

1. Amgine 07:00, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
2. CheeseDreams 08:09, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Reject.

1. G Rutter 15:55, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)
2. Mpolo 16:41, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)
3. Slrubenstein 05:52, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
4. Sam [Spade] 01:42, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

New sentence

Vote 2a: Include a sentence at the beginning of the historicity section saying something like "The majority of scholars who consider these issues are Christian. Inevitably this affects their consideration of certain key points, including whether Jesus existed."

Support.

Support first sentence only.

1. CheeseDreams 22:29, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Reject.

1. G Rutter 23:01, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)
2. Sam [Spade] 01:44, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, theres a surprise; Christians who don't like that. Most biblical scholars are Christian. They are, therefore, biased. They are also, therefore, supremely unlikely to dispute the existence of a historical Jesus, whatever the evidence. But you don't want to present that because it interferes with your worldview? How about a statement somewhere near the start of the article which makes it clear that the vast majority of Bible Scholars are Christian, and the neutrality of their views are therefore suspect? The Rev of Bru

You are wrong. There are many Bible scholars who are not Christian, or who bracket their religious beliefs (as do many Christian physicians, biologists, physicists, and lawyers) in order to study the Bible critically. You display only your ignorance here. Slrubenstein

Exactly. The problem I see is that "Christians say" or "Christian scholars say" implies that is is only Christians who say these things, and for the type of things we're talking about, that is not true. (No problem with "Christians say that Jesus rose from the dead" or the like.) Mpolo 20:44, Nov 7, 2004 (UTC)

I fail to see that a Christian scholar wouldn't do all they could to avoid coming to the conclusion "Jesus did not exist". The vested interest in not reaching this conclusion should be obvious, Mpolo (I don't expect Slrubenstein to comprehend it though). CheeseDreams 22:49, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

ACTUALLY THE QUESTION IS "Should an introductory paragraph not mention historicity in it, or proclaim that the majority of Christian Scholars have the academic opinion of it, or claim that the majority of all Scholars have the academic opinion that of it"?

1. Either Christian Scholars, or avoid mention alltogether CheeseDreams 17:35, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't understand your question and certainly don't understand how we're going to avoid mentioning the word "scholars" (or equivalent) in the article. Are you suggesting that you'd like a disclaimer near the start of the article saying something like "It should be noted that the majority of scholars discussed in this article are Christians. This inevitably affects how they view certain crucial issues about Jesus' life (including his historicity)."? --G Rutter 19:30, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

(question 2 redefined)

Sorry, I was thinking of a different article.

Question 2 is about (on the summary of historicity issues) (the issue is historicity) "Consensus on such an issue is particularly hard to reach, given that the subject touches on deeply held beliefs." being followed by "The majority of Christian theologians and historians and some non-Christian theologians and historians acknowledge that a person named Jesus did exist in the first century. "

I would not put theologian and historian in the same clause. Most theologians believe in God, and most of the historians in question are agnostic or, when it comes to their historical research, bracket their beliefs about God and exclude them from their work. In an article on a figure important in religion, I think this is an important distinction. Slrubenstein

Yes, that is why I seperated "theologians and historians". Not all theologians believe in god blindly. Biblical criticism is a part of Theology (or at least it is in the UK). Anyone who is a biblical criticist is a theologian. Anyone who uses other evidence and not primarily the bible, e.g. arcaeology, knowledge of other classical civilisations/culture, etc. is a historian. The phrase "theologians and historians" means "those who use textual criticism of the bible, and those who use archaeology, details about culture in biblical times, extra-biblican non-christian sources, etc." CheeseDreams 10:55, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Is this really the official distinction in the UK? Well, I appreciate the clarification -- but if this is what you mean by the terms I have to object in that they do not at all apply to the US or Israel, where many Biblical critics are not theologians, are not religious, and study the Bible as any other literary/historical source in the context of non-Biblical literature and archeology. In fact, I don't know of any American Biblical critic who does not rely on archeological and extra-Biblical texts. Maybe my objection is that you are distinguishing between "Christian" and "non-Christian." Non-Christian is too broad a category, because it conflates people who ascribe to other relgions (e.g. Jewish) and people who are secular. Since you are opposing "non-Christian" to "Christian," which is a religion, I fear many people will interpret "non-Christian" to mean people of other religions. What is crucial is to call attention to the views of people who are not religious at all. Slrubenstein

Biblical criticism is considered a part of Theology in the UK. I find it rather odd that the US does not consider it so. I take it then that Theology in the US is a non-Critical subject (i.e. starts from a non NPOV point of view, and maintains that lack of NPOV, and doesn't check or even consider alternative views). CheeseDreams 22:49, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Should "Christian" be mentioned or not?

It should CheeseDreams 00:48, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No, "Christian" should not be mentioned on issues such as existence of Jesus. As I said above, yes, there are some "scholars" who doubt the existence of Jesus, just like there are some nuts (including people with Ph.Ds) who doubt evolution. You can find all kinds of "scholars" who say all kinds of stupid things. But what's the consensus among scholars on historicity of Jesus (or, just as an example, consensus among biologists on say evolution?). I don't think there is any doubt about the consensus OneGuy 20:57, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As I said above, the implication in your statement is that the people who doubt Jesus existed are "nuts". I regard this as incivility.

How is there concensus when one of us disagrees, and one of us agrees, and there are only two of us answering the question? I find this a strange (and rather POV) view. CheeseDreams 22:54, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No, the majority of scholars accept that someone named Jesus existed, even if they reject miracles and resurrection, just like majority of biologists accept evolution. This is just a plain fact and easy to check. There is no need to say "Christian" scholars when talking about the existence of Jesus. You posted a laundry list of "scholars" who doubt the existence of Jesus, but as I showed three of them are not scholars of anything. Why did you do that? OneGuy 09:14, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Is that in the same way that it is a plain fact that "Jesus is the most famous person in history"? I.e. totally disputed. CheeseDreams 22:31, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Or is that in the same way that the majority of scholars accept that someone named Jesus existed, such as in Spain? CheeseDreams 22:33, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Read my response below. I never said Jesus is the most influential. In fact I ended the debate by posting proof that disproves the claim. If you can't even comprehend what is being posted here, then I can understand why you are not aware that most scholars accept Jesus was a historical figure, even if they reject miracles and resurrection. This is just a plain fact and easy to check. By the way, I am an atheist if you don't know OneGuy 01:38, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Just to put an end to this debate, here is a quote by James Still from the Secular Web, hardly a pro-Christian source

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/james_still/jesus_search.html

Most scholars believe that a real, flesh and blood Jewish peasant whom we call Jesus lived and taught in first-century Galilee.

This should put an end to this debate. Most scholars indeed do believe that Jesus was historical figure. CheeseDreams has his own personal belief held by a handful of scholars, but he wants to impose that view on the article, just like creationist do to evolution. This should not be allowed OneGuy 03:51, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks OneGuy. I think that this discussion has shown that only Cheese and Bru disagree with the status quo over these points. I therefore think that there's no need to make the proposed changes. --G Rutter 09:33, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I could also end it by finding another website which said the opposite. It isn't exactly conclusive proof. The famed Jesus Seminar (of Christian academics) concluded that only 20% of what is claimed in the Bible that Jesus is supposed to have said or done could even *possibly* be true, and that there is no historical proof for his existence. CheeseDreams 20:05, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You could find another site but you didn't. There is no question that most (almost all) scholars believe that Jesus existed, even if they reject miracles and resurrection, as even very reliable James Still admits in the above quote. OneGuy 00:29, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Uhm... as I understand it the argument that Paul might have created Jesus as an allegorical character has been kicking around since 800ce, primarily within the bibilical scholars of the christian church. The fact so much has been written on this specific subject, here and on the bookshelves, is a strong argument that consensus on this specific point has not been reached by the scholars. There fore, the potential bias "Christian" should be mentioned. - Amgine 06:54, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Koans

To make a claim, you must have references ready. It is not my duty to sort through the entire NT to look for the passage which you claim is a koan. As I learned in Policy Debate, "the burden of proof rests upon the affirmative." Please do not keep inserting the claim that JC utilizied Buddhist methods of teachings until you back up your claim.--Josiah 17:07, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You are the one who took the word "koan" out of the article. It has been there previously for a while. It is your burden of proof.

Nethertheless, I have already cited the 5000 vs 4000 comment in mark "you remember the feeding of the 5000.....you remember the feeding of the 4000...and you still don't understand", for example. Mark is particularly notable for the presence of koans.

Just because Buddhists use koans doesn't mean that they are exclusive to, or have to derive from, Buddhism. CheeseDreams 17:52, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That is in contradiction to the Koan page. Additionally, you have still yet to provide a reference for your source. A quote without reference means nothing.--Josiah 18:30, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)

MARK. MARK. MARK. You can read can't you?

And I still fail to see why you think an article is more accurate than a dictionary. CheeseDreams 18:39, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but a koan is supposed to be a "nonsensical or paradoxical question posed to a Zen student as a subject for meditation, intended to help the student break free of reason and develop intuition in order to achieve enlightenment" (Random House Webster's College Dictionary). Which parts of the definition are satisfied by your example?

The use of the word "Zen" in the above is a fallacy. Cut it from the sentence and you will get the genuine meaning of Koan. E.g. "french fries only exist in america" is a fallacy of this kind.

It is true that Zen does use koans. But so do hackers. And many other people besides. Zen merely happens to be the place that they are most popular. CheeseDreams 19:46, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

1. Nonsensical or paradoxical? Not really. The disciples were afraid that Jesus was complaining that they had no bread, and he says, don't you remember that I can feed lots of people? Like, maybe bread isn't the point here?

For example "you must die in order to live". CheeseDreams 19:46, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, not that its relevant, but they had no bread, not some. You can't divide nothing up.

And the "feeding X000" stories are generally considered to be metaphors not reality, the usual interpretation being, for example, that the 5000 represents "Jews", and the 5 loaves represent the Torah, and 7 baskets is something (which I have forgotten) to do with candles in the Temple (I.e. that Torah->Jews -> Temple worship).

Now consider a more literal interpretation - the disciples had witnessed Jesus show 5000 and 4000 people 12 loaves in total, and still got more back in scraps (n.b. in Mark (thought to be the origin of the story, copied from Mark in the other gospels - Markan priority) it never says that the people were fed with the loaves, merely that they were presented with them - i.e. "here, look, some loaves"). I.e. public generosity is great.

Now consider the literal translation - the disciples had witnessed over 3999 people being fed with less than 8 loaves, twice, and they still don't know, even after being reminded, where they are going to get any food from. I.e. the disciples are completely thick.

Which of these is it to be?

P.s. Jesus isn't made to say "don't you remember that I can feed loads of people" but actually is made to say "and you still don't understand".CheeseDreams 19:46, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

1. Posed to a Zen student? Nope.

See above.

1. as a subject for meditation? Nope. The subject gets dropped altogether in the next verse.
2. to help the student break free of reason? No evidence of this
3. to develop intuition in order to achieve enlightenment? No evidence of this.

By the reader, the gospels are directed at the reader. Even if they report actual events, there is no point reporting everything (e.g. "Jesus got up at 7.30 today and went for a morning walk, getting a stone in his left sandle, before heading off to have breakfast - which was an egg and a bowl of gruel"). What is reported is for the benefit of the reader not those in the report. Whether a subject dissappears or not is irrelevant - the fact it has been mentioned at all is enough to consider it was thought worthy to be meditated on.

And what is the purpose of the gospels? Well it couldn't be in order for the reader to achieve enlightenment could it, I mean, there is no evidence of that (except for the whole history of Christianity, of course).CheeseDreams 19:46, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thus, based on this dictionary definition, you're batting 0 for 5. Mpolo 15:50, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Koans - Poll

Resolved: The mention of "Koans" should not be included in this article.

Agree

1. --Josiah 18:35, Nov 28, 2004 (UTC)
2. scc 03:35, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)
3. Koans do not occur in the Bible. --[[User:Eequor|ᓛᖁᑐ]] 20:45, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Disapprove of a poll

1. popularity is no indicator of factual accuracy CheeseDreams 18:38, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)
2. seconded. --Rebroad 11:58, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
3. I too disagree with the poll. weide 15:10, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Definitions of "koan"

Here are the definitions of "koan" from all the dictionaries listed on this website that I could find an entry to. Apologies for the length of this, but this does show that the word "koan" is used properly only in the context of Zen Buddhism, and not in the context of Jesus' sayings:

• See Talk:Koan.

• In Zen Buddhism: a nonsensical question given to students as a subject for meditation in order to demonstrate the uselessness of logical thinking. [2]

• A puzzling, often paradoxical statement or story, used in Zen Buddhism as an aid to meditation and a means of gaining spiritual awakening. [3]

• a paradoxical anecdote or riddle, used in Zen Buddhism to show the inadequacy of logical reasoning and provoke enlightenment. [4]

• a paradoxical annecdote or a riddle that has no solution; used in Zen Buddhism to show the inadequacy of logical reasoning [5]

• A Zen teaching riddle. Classically, koans are attractive paradoxes to be meditated on; their purpose is to help one to enlightenment by temporarily jamming normal cognitive processing so that something more interesting can happen (this practice is associated with Rinzai Zen Buddhism). Defined here because hackers are very fond of the koan form and compose their own koans for humorous and/or enlightening effect [6]

• A puzzling, often paradoxical statement or story, used in Zen Buddhism as an aid to meditation and a means of gaining spiritual awakening. [7]

• Zen Buddhist riddle: a Zen Buddhist riddle used to focus the mind during meditation and to develop intuitive thinking [8]

• a paradox to be meditated upon that is used to train Zen Buddhist monks to abandon ultimate dependence on reason and to force them into gaining sudden intuitive enlightenment [9]

• in Zen Buddhism, a nonsense question or paradox used as an aid to meditation in order to encourage a greater awareness of reality. [10]

• —n., —pl. -ans, -an. Zen. a nonsensical or paradoxical question to a student for which an answer is demanded, the stress of meditation on the question often being illuminating. Cf. mondo. [11]

• a subject for meditation in Ch’an or Zen Buddhism, usually one of the sayings of a great Zen master of the past. In the formative period of Ch’an in China, masters tested the enlightenment of their students and of each other through statements and dialogue that expressed spiritual intuition in nonrational, paradoxical language. In later generations records of such conversations began to be used for teaching, and the first collections of subjects, or koans, were made in the 11th cent. Koan practice was transmitted to Japan as part of Zen in the 13th cent., and it remains one of the main practices of the Rinzai sect. The most famous koan collections are the Wu-men-kuan (Jap. Mu-mon-kan) or “Gateless Gate” and the Pi-yen-lu (Jap. Heki-gan-roku) or “Blue Cliff Records.” A well-known koan is: “What is the sound of one hand clapping?” 1

See D. T. Suzuki, Zen Buddhism (1956); I. Miura and R. F. Sasaki, Zen Dust (1966); H. Dumoulin, A History of Zen Buddhism (1989). [12]

• puzzle with no logical solution used in Zen Buddhism to develop intuitive thought. [13]

• nonsensical question given to Buddhist students for contemplation [14]

• a term in ZEN BUDDHISM meaning an exercise given by a ZEN MASTER to a Disciple designed to break their intellectual limitations and produce a sudden flash of ENLIGHTENMENT. [15]

Again, apologies for the length - but it seemed important to stress that the word "koan" is applicable to Zen Buddhism, and not to Jesus' sayings. jguk 19:24, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Note that they state that "koan" is used in Zen Buddhism rather than used exclusively.

Koan is just a word. Just because "bungalow" is predominantly used in English Suburbs does not mean that "bungalow" automatically means such a thing in an English Suburb. I could build a bungalow in Tibet, and it would still be a bungalow.

Koan means: "koans are attractive paradoxes to be meditated on; their purpose is to help one to enlightenment by temporarily jamming normal cognitive processing so that something more interesting can happen" Just because there is no other word for them, does not mean that they do not exist outside of Buddhism. CheeseDreams 21:02, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

But enlightenment as used here is also a term peculiar to Buddhism, and maybe some derivatives of Buddhism. It really doesn't apply here. Wesley 15:44, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I happen to agree with Welsely. Nevertheless, the fact remains that if a historian of religion, scholar of comparative religion, or theologian has argued that Jesus used koans, we should mention this in the article. Of course, if no scholar or theologian or cleric has argued this, it is a mute point. CheeseDreams, just provide the verification. IF you can't let's drop this subject we have wasted too much time on it as is. Slrubenstein

In part I agree with Slrubenstein, but I would increase the numbers of scholars above "one". There are many scholars who have studied Jesus, we can't explore the thoughts of all of them in this article. jguk 22:03, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Although koan is just a word, it has a very specific meaning which has no exact translation in Western languages without reference to Asian philosophy, particularly Taoism. There is no record of Western cultures developing a koan tradition on their own without Eastern influences. The Bible simply does not contain koans. --[[User:Eequor|ᓛᖁᑐ]] 21:01, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

more blah blah blah

This whole debate over koans is silly. What Bible critic, historian, or theologian has said that Jesus used Koans (and used the word "koan" specifically)? If a published scholar made this claim, we simply add a sentence "X has argued that Jesus' questions are Koans" or "X has suggested a connection between Jesus and Buddhism" or whatever it was that X claimed. Of course, if it is merely CheeseDreams' opinion that Jesus used koans, we can ignore the entire debate. Wikipedia is not for original research or personal essays; CheeseDream's opinion has no place at all in an article. If CheeseDreams has done research and has found a scholar who has made this claim, then again there is no debate -- we include the claim, but provide the attribution. Slrubenstein

I seem to remember that the Wikipedia:Assume good faith policy points out that those who resort to asking for published scholars are on a weak argument. Appealing for more, and more, and more, and more, evidence, is pathetic. It is also standard practice for fundamentalists. This one in particular. CheeseDreams 21:04, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You remember incorrectly. It says, and has never said, any such things. If you're going to make a comparison to a koan (and I can't think why the article needs it), you'll need to back it up with a reputable published source. To be honest, even if you did find a reputable published source, I can't see a need to expand what has to be a short article into a discussion on the point. jguk 21:25, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

yeah, honestly the whole koan thing...the standard, normative, "encyclopedic" way to describe Jesus' teachings is the word "parable". He used other techniques to be sure, but parable should really be listed first--not koan. ---john johnson

The above user is demonstrably a sock puppet - see his (very very short and recent) edit history, and the difficult-to-come-accross-as-the-first-article-to-comment-on nature of the first article he edited. (and he only uses an IP address not an account)CheeseDreams 00:45, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

CheeseDreams, your claims must be verifiable. If they are, verify them; if not, do not incorporate them into articles. Slrubenstein

Darling reader, be aware of attempts at obfuscation.

"Verifiable" not "verified". CheeseDreams 23:33, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Suggestion

I've been watching this revert war this morning, with some exasperation. CheeseDreams, instead of just baldly inserting the word koan into the article, which of course will be reverted, you could at least attempt to explain what you mean by it.

In my opinion, many of Jesus' teachings are reminiscent of the technique of the koan, but are NOT themselves koans. Here is a possible compromise for the paragraph in question:

Jesus used a variety of methods in his teaching, such as paradox, metaphor and parable, leaving it unclear how literally he wished to be taken and precisely what he meant. Sometimes the paradoxical or counter-intuitive character of his teachings is reminiscent of the koan used in Zen Buddhism (for example, "he who loses his life will save it.") Jesus also performed various miracles in the course of his ministry, ranging from cures to exorcisms, with several others that show a dominion over nature. Scholars in mainstream Christian traditions as well as many secular scholars view these as claims of supernatural power. However, some consider the stories to be allegory, for example he made the blind to see, and the deaf to hear is taken by some to mean that he opened the eyes of people to the truth, and made the people that refused to listen do so.

Hope this helps. Antandrus 21:00, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Something like that would be acceptable. However, it should state that metaphor is also something which the teachings are reminiscent of, rather than what they actually are, likewise, parable. Which leaves the paragraph actually, when taking into account fair play,

Jesus used a variety of methods in his teaching, leaving it unclear how literally he wished to be taken and precisely what he meant. Sometimes the paradoxical or counter-intuitive character of his teachings is reminiscent of the koan, at other times, it is reminiscent of paradox, still others of metaphor or parable. According to a literal reading, Jesus also performed various miracles in the course of his ministry, ranging from cures to exorcisms, with several others that show a dominion over nature. Scholars in mainstream Christian traditions as well as many secular scholars view these as claims of supernatural power. However, some consider the stories to be allegory, for example he made the blind to see, and the deaf to hear is taken by some to mean that he opened the eyes of people to the truth, and made the people that refused to listen do so.

CheeseDreams 21:09, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Request for comment:

I have been asked to comment on this particular discussion by CheeseDreams.

Although some of the biblical examples of teachings by Jesus are characterized by elements similar to eastern Koans, the styles are far more precisely those of near-eastern teachings, especially those of Jewish and Greek philosophers. Furthermore, the use of the term Koan is contextual; that of a method of instruction designed to develop immediate enlightenment. It is fairly clear this is not the context of the biblical literature.

Therefore it is my opinion that Koan is inappropriate for use in this specific article to describe the general teaching methods of Jesus. A specific teaching might reasonably be compared, but that is not the disputed case. - Amgine 00:21, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Matthew 13:34 uses the word "parable" (KJV) or "illustration" (NWT) regarding Jesus' teaching method. Perhaps these terms might be useful in reaching a text which everyone can live with. --DannyMuse 06:17, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Whi is it that claims that Jesus' questions are like Koans? Again, articles must be verifiable. Slrubenstein

Realizing a Koan is merely a literary style of puzzle or paradox, 16,800 Google hits suggest it is a notable correlation. Author Kim Michaels has written "The Jesus Koans" ISBN 0963256440. Marcus J. Borg, Michael J. Wilkins, James Porter Moreland, Beatrice Bruteau, Robert Walter Funk, John P. Meier, Jennifer Michael Hecht, and Philip Jenkins all have written books which discuss Jesus Koans. Would you like the titles and ISBNs? Shall I also search the literary indexes?

However, it is still my opinion the use of the term is inappropriate in this specific article. - Amgine 19:01, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Amgine, thank you for verifying. This is more than satisfactory. Other editors can continue to discuss whether the word should be used or not. I withdraw my objection. Slrubenstein

This is a short article on Jesus. We don't have the space in the article to discuss in any detail whether his sayings are like koans or not. Let's keep the article simple rather than introducing Buddhist terms, which most readers will need explaining. "Parable" is the most common term - let's stick with that. If CheeseDreams or Amgine want to start an article based on the authors Amgine has cited discussing whether Jesus' sayings were comparable koans - let them, and let the article have a link to the page in the "See also" section. jguk 19:56, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

So, now that evidence has been presented, you are trying to use another excuse. Its 1 word, not 1000. Evidence of its validity has been presented. What is your problem? CheeseDreams

Just in case Jongarrettuk or Slrubenstein were unable to understand my comment above, I will reiterate a third time. I do not believe the term koan is appropriate in this article, as I have now said for the third time. For explanation, see above. - Amgine 20:59, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Unfortunately, fundamentalists don't work like that. They assume anyone who opposes them anywhere is the same as any other person who opposes them in that location. Therefore I am afraid you will suffer from many people treating you as if you are me. CheeseDreams 23:37, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If you think I am some Christian fundamentalist, you've got another thing coming. I'm a Counter-Missionary. The issue here is inserting things into articles which obviously do not belong. However, I do not object to Antandrus' suggested compromise.--Josiah 00:27, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

Since when was fundamentalism limited to Christianity?CheeseDreams 01:00, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It isn't. In fact, it's not even limited to Theists.--Josiah 01:04, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

I looked at the link Amgine helpfully provided to a review of The Jesus Koans by Kim Michaels. According to the review (presumably a publisher's review), Michaels only claims that many of Jesus' sayings are a little bit like koans, and then proceeds to propose a lot of "koans" that Jesus might have said if he had actually used koans or known about them. Based on the samples given, I don't they are representative of even good Zen Buddhist philosophy, much less of Christianity; it's just a cute idea trying to appeal to the mass market, as far as I can tell. Without taking more time to research, I don't know whether any of the other books or google hits are any more serious than this one, or just as trivial. Wesley 04:54, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Dear reader, the above discussion ignores the fact that a source has been cited and the evidence of vast numbers of google hits provided. Attempts by the cabal who follow me around to ignore this strike me simply as obstinacy in the face of the facts. CheeseDreams 00:20, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wesley, Amgine mentioned several other names besides, included the well-respected John Meier. I understand your hesitation but if Amgine's other sources are valid, I suggest this: a separate paragraph on parables (they are important enough to say a bit more about how they work/to what effect) and then a clause or sentence saying that "some people have suggested that Jesus' parables in some ways may have functioned like Zen koans"? Slrubenstein

Curious, all this arguing over a word to describe one of Jesus' teaching method and precious little discussion over their meaning. Seems a bit like "... straining out the gnat but gulping down the camel!" (Matthew 23:24) Is that a koan or hyperbole? --DannyMuse 03:57, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

CheeseDreams, I'm not ignoring the sources, I'm questioning whether they really support the point being made. The single example I checked, selected based on the ease of checking via the ISBN link, did not. I'll try to take some time to look up some of the other sources Amgine cited. SLR, your suggested text might be acceptable, if any of the sources really suggest that. Do you know whether John Meier does, for instance? The only reason I can think of to include the word is to make Jesus sound Buddhist. I would note that "parable" is less controversial chiefly because it's the word repeatedly used by the gospel writers themselves, as in "Jesus told them the following parable..." Wesley 18:06, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I have not actually examined each of the cited works; I simply did a quick database search to find if authors specifically addressed the comparison. For all I know each of the cited authors may refute the argument. However, that such a discussion is even necessary suggests a surface correlation between parables and koans can be made. My opinion on the matter is the use of koan is not specifically justified, especially when describing the general teaching methods presented in the NT. I also think this has become much ado about nothing much; the use or not of this single word is neither greatly detrimental to the article nor worth so many excellent contributors devoting so much of their time which could likely be more profitably spent expanding/researching/developing articles. - Amgine 20:54, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wesley, I have not read these books -- I just wanted to suggest a compromise that acknowledged Amgine's research. Amgine's point that it still isn't worth discussing makes sense to me, I just wanted to suggest a compromise. I still believe a paragraph on "parables" how they work, what distinguishes them, why they are important, is a good idea. If anyone has time to read what Meier and others wrote about koans, then perhaps we could add something. I thought my original point was clear: nothing that isn't verified. Slrubenstein

Comment

The suggestion made by CheeseDreams on 21:09, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC) seems to me to be the most satisfactory. The suggestion made by Antandrus shortly before that also seems acceptable. CheeseDreams, you cannot say Jesus used koans, any more than you could describe the list of demands in the Communist Manifesto as a catechism. However, you can certainly say they are like koans, and those who are demanding "evidence", "verification", blah de blah are not trying to find a compromise but are trying to browbeat CheeseDreams. Votes, I think it should be noted, are only really a good means to find a consensus if both sides agree to accept their outcome. Simply imposing a vote and counting on your outnumbering the person you disagree with are simply divisive. Taking the crusade to ViP and RfC does make one question the good faith of some involved. There's no evidence that CheeseDreams' accusers have really tried to resolve the dispute fairly (and none that CD him/herself has either, of course; he/she is far from blameless). I call on the participants on this discussion to accept one of the compromises. It doesn't greatly hurt or help the article, as Amgine points out, to include the word "koan", and if the article merely says that Jesus's teachings are reminiscent of them, well, that's not really anything that anyone can dispute. Whether it's interesting to note is a different matter. CheeseDreams, I ask you to withdraw your RfA on these guys. Yes, I feel you have merit in your argument, but you're just fuelling the fire. At the same time, I ask CheeseDreams' detractors to cease their war with him/her and try to find a consensual outcome that is acceptable to all. Dr Zen 00:17, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

WWJD?

Saying that Jesus' remarks are reminiscent of koans is not a solution because it raises two questions: reminiscent in what way, and who claims this similarity? In principle, I have no objection to mentioning koans, as long as these two questions are answered. But Antandrus' example in fact seems to me to show why we shouldn't call Jesus' word even "like koans." The line about having to die in order to live I think is usually read metaphorically and in a way that gives it a stable meaning koans lack. But I leave it to Christians and Buddhists to explore this and tell us who is right, me or Antandrus. Slrubenstein

Leave the word out of this article. It would take too much explaining here. If someone is eager to go around arguing (using recognised sources) that some of Jesus' sayings were in some way like koans they can write a separate article on the subject. jguk 19:13, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Just getting back from a vacation... I think that "koan" being a Japanese (Chinese?) word that is specifically attached to a style of teaching in Zen Buddhism, it is not appropriate here. Outside of its cultural context it has no meaning. I could live with "similar to koans", but even this is probably too much. The term used by scholars in the field is "parable". Mpolo 20:25, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

Parables are stories not brief comments like "you must die in order to live". Just because Koans are frequent in Zen does not mean that no-one else has ever used them, or is unable to do so. CheeseDreams 21:40, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

While I think there is a similarity between some of the teachings of Jesus and the koan as used in Zen Buddhism, both of which I have some familiarity with, I do not think it is a close relation. "Reminiscent of" was the best compromise I could think of earlier when I wanted to find a way to end this edit war. Slrubenstein's comment above is to the point though: at least one of the "koanic" utterances of Jesus has a "stable meaning that koans lack." For this reason I now think that koans should not be mentioned in the article, although an article on the similarities of Christian and Buddhist teachings could be interesting indeed--but somewhere else, not in the Jesus article. It seems to me that community consensus is to keep koans out of the Jesus article, and I'd be agreeable to that point of view. Any other thoughts? Antandrus 03:24, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Life and teaching according to the New Testament

One user persists in inserting Buddhist terminology into this section. The words "according to the New Testament" seem unambiguous to me. And the New Testament, unsurprisingly enough, does not use Buddhist terminology. Is it too much to ask reason to prevail on this one? jguk 00:31, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)