Talk:Jesus/Historical Jesus

message: There are currently eight proposals at the Talk:Jesus/2nd Paragraph Debate subpage, which is currently on its ninth (!) subpage. A different solution, first suggested by CTSWyneken but which makes a lot of sense to me, is to create a FAQ to answer common objections. I find this to be a better idea than burying the lead in a bunch of qualifications.
Another thing is that while we keep saying that we can explain things in more detail in the body of the article, we really haven't done so. We really should explain in the historicity section how there were other healers, miracle workers, prophets and messiahs running around at the time. (This doesn't challenge my faith, because Jesus warned us about the others. However, it does help to provide context.) Another thing that can be explained further in the historicity section is the charge of sedition. Finally, we might say a little more about how, since the Gospels are religious documents, critical scholars find some details more historically plausible than others. Frankly, there is a selection bias at work since the early Christians were the ones who cared the most about preserving the accounts of Jesus. Guided by the Holy Spirit, IMHO, but still the documentary evidence comes largely from an early Christian POV. This does not, however, mean that Jesus did not exist. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 07:07, 14 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Further discussion 

message: Sorry if I'm late to the game, but I'd start by proposing:
historicity of the texts:
1) a cite for the first sentence. Probably Davies and Allison, though I'll have to think about it. Redaction and form crit has too much to say here.
2) "Paul's letters, which are usually dated from the mid-1st century." Could we say from 53-63 CE, though some would place Galatians as early as 48 CE? I can find cites.
3) "while others were suppressed because they contradicted what had become the Christian orthodoxy." -- I'd question the POV here. Source, other than Pagels or King? Many, many, scholars believe an orthodox canon came about not as an attempt to crush diversity, but as a natural consensus based on what Christians found authentic. Its a question of some complexity, but the weight of the academy still seems solidly on the side of the latter.
Aside: I don't want to hear complaints of Christian bias. I'm not Christian. Neither are a large number of people who research in this field.
4) "chief amongst them, heavily suppressed by the Church as heresy and only rediscovered in the 20th Century, is the Gospel of Thomas" -- See point 3. chief according to whom? Suppressed is a loaded word: there is still an onus on Gnostic supporters to prove it. This guy, starting on pg. 61, certainly doesn't agree they were suppressed. Notice also the 19th century dating of Thomas' publication!
Possible earlier texts:
1) In regard to the two-source theory, should it also be mentioned that Q has come under some recent fire? I know at least one NT scholar who believes the Gospels (particularly Matt) worked as a narrative framework onto which common oral rememberance of Jesus' words and deeds could be hooked when being read in worship. I'll have to dig for sourcing.
External influences on gospel development:
1) I'd like to, if I may, rework this to emphasise most contemporary academics feel Jesus is best understood in his Jewish context. As it stands, it sounds as if the mythicist position is better represented (or represented at all) in the academy. At the least, I'd want to add to cites to some of the following authors: Barclay, Sweet, Allison, Meier, Sanders, Fredriksen, Vermes, Theissen, Bornkamm, Betz, Davies, Luz, Stanton, Brown, Kasemann, Dunn, Meeks and Wright. Dunn's work on Judaic influences on early Christology alone is enough to show the Jewish tradition was far more prevalent in Gospel writing than anything else. And Sanders and Meeks are meticulous in showing the archeology of the early Pauline Church arising from a Jewish setting.
2) Though I don't really believe it, is it appropriate to talk about Pagels's and King's work on Gnosticism here? Possibly vis a vis Bultmann on John?
I general, might I also suggest Barton and Muddimann's Oxford Bible Commentary? It's a tremendous general source. (Disclosure, one of those men was my advisor...)
Much to do here, but that's a start.
--Mrdarcey 16:02, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Welcome to the Jesus page, it's good to hear from you! This is just the sort of feedback I was hoping to receive from the Peer Review request and AID drive. Unfortunately, we've barely heard any response from the Peer Review request. I agree that we need more about the Jewish background in this article. Check out Cultural and historical background of Jesus. Grigory Deepdelver of BrockenboringTalkTCF 16:38, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Hey Mrdarcey, all those suggestions look good to me. john k 17:01, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Good stuff. » MonkeeSage « 17:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historicity section