Talk:Jesus/2nd Paragraph Debate/5

message: The main sources of information regarding Jesus' life and teachings are the four canonical Gospels of the New Testament, which are generally agreed to have been written in the decades after his death. Most scholars in the fields of Biblical Studies and history agree that Jesus was a Jewish Galilean teacher and healer who was sentenced to death by crucifixion outside of Jerusalem on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate,Shaye J.D. Cohen, From the Maccabees to the Mishnah, Westminster Press, 1987, p. 78, 93, 105, 108; John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant, HarperCollins, 1991, p. xi-xiii; Michael Grant, p. 34-35, 78, 166, 200; Paula Fredriksen, Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews, Alfred A. Knopf, 1999, p. 6-7, 105-110, 232-234, 266; John P. Meier, vol. 1:68, 146, 199, 278, 386, 2:726; E.P. Sanders, pp. 12-13; Geza Vermes; D. A. Carson; Paul L. Maier, In the Fullness of Time, Kregel, 1991, pp. 1, 99, 121, 171; N. T. Wright, The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions, HarperCollins, 1998, pp. 32, 83, 100-102, 222; Ben Witherington III, pp. 12-20. for claiming to be the "King of the Judeans," a crime of rebellion against Rome.Raymond E. Brown, The Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grave (New York: Doubleday, Anchor Bible Reference Library 1994), p. 964. "'The King of Israel' is not a political title as is 'the King of the Jews'", p. 976; Geza Vermes, Jesus the Jew (Philadelphia: Fortress Press 1973), p. 37.  A small minority of scholars from other disciplines question the historical existence of Jesus, citing a lack of extant contemporaneous documents making reference to him.Bruno Bauer; Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy. The Jesus Mysteries: Was the 'Original Jesus' a Pagan God? London: HarperCollins Publishers, 1999, pp. 133, 158; Michael Martin; John Mackinnon Robertson; G.A. Wells. The Jesus Legend, Chicago: Open Court, 1996, p xii.
=== Discussion of #1 ===
:Looks good, only think I'd change is "Biblical studies or history" to "biblical studies ANDS history".--Andrew c 16:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest we just cut the part about "King of the Jews."  It is controversial enough - and complicated enough (even in the Gospels Jesus answers the questions at times evasively or ambivilantly.  I am not saying Christians think he was evading or ambivalent, only that I suspect that there is a fair amont of discussion by Christian theologians and Bible scholars as to how to interpret these passages) that it should be discussed in the body of the article.  In the paragraph on what most Bible scholars and historians think, I believe that we could say this, with confidence: "that Jesus preached that the kingdom of God was at hand, and that in the context of 1st century roman occupied Judea, this act was considered by roman authorities to be seditious" - or something like this. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can I get you to hold that thought a moment -- someone monkeyed with the text -- I think I'll have to go back and guard it again. Give me time to dredge it out of the histories. --CTSWyneken 16:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There! Thanks! --CTSWyneken 17:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Hey, I am not going to make any changes, certainly if I think you may disagree.  Take your time and mull it over.  More than anything else, I just don't think anything is lost by removing "king of the Jews" from the introduction, especially as all scholars (who bracket their personal beliefs) do, I think, agree that Jesus preached that the kingdom was at hand and that this was seen by Romans as seditious.  Why not leave "King of the Jews" for the body of the article?  i just don't see any big downside to this. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally feel more comfortable being more general than specific when we are trying to convey what most scholars in the appropriate field think. And then we get into the dispute about do all scholars think Jesus actually preacehd the coming kingdom? I believe Marcus Borg might disagree with that phrasing. But if he is in the minority, we don't necessarily need to change the wording just to account for one person. On the other hand, I believe it's practically unanimous that the actual charges against Jesus had something to do with rebelion or sedition against Rome. I hope my suggestion to generalize more doesn't water down the reading. Finally, if we add too much to this sentence, we should probably split it up into multiple sentences.--Andrew c 17:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I appreciate your research, and would never want to simply remove a section that is sourced. However, keep in mind we are trying to convey what ALL scholars on this topic basically agree to, and you have only cited 2 people for this claim. This is why I am cautious and urge a more generalize wording for the intro (and welcome the specifics under the historical persepective section). --Andrew c 17:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I appreciate the sentiments of both of you here. Sedition is certainly possible, although to use it means I have to go back and look at the sources again. This is not a huge deal, but I get very frustrated that I cannot even complete the first set of documentation before we're on to a second, third, and forth. Right now, I have to check dates of Jesus' birth and death, that he was a teacher, that he was a healer, that he died sub Pontio Pilato, that he was called "King of the Jews," as a capital charge, whether the scholor is a historian or not and if they support the non-existence hypothesis. It would be nice to get that all done. --CTSWyneken 17:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have access to a university library. Is there anything I can do to help? I was thumbing through Meier's A Marginal Jew (not sure what volume) and noticed a chapter on chronoloogy that seemed like it had good info on the dating of Jesus' birth and death. Don't know if you have access to that book or not, but thought I'd share that and offer my help.-Andrew c 21:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  YES! You would be an enourmous help! How about catching me up with the birth and death dates and the charge of sedition, a.k.a. King of the Jews? If you can find the works I cited in note 2, check to see when the scholar thinks Jesus was born and died. There's a talk subpage for gathering such opinions. Put the data there and cite the work and page number in note one. Now, check to see what they think of the king of the jews thing. If they agree with our statement, put the info in note four. If we find the same names in note three and note four after all is said and done, we can merge the notes! Thanks! 8-) *snoopy dance of joy* (-8 --CTSWyneken 01:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad to help. I'll see what I can do. It is spring break, so the library has shorter hours. Hopefully, they will be open tomorrow. What is the link to the talk subpage? I figure the goal of all this is to have one (or multiple) sources say the 3 or 4 major points of that sentence, so the flow of the sentence isn't disrupted by the footnote numbers, right? I'll check the library catalogue online to make sure I have access to all of these sources (I looked at the R. Brown book today.)--Andrew c 03:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, here are the books that are not in the library: E. P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus, John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus,  Paula Fredriksen, Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews, and Geza Vermes; D. A. Carson; Paul L. Maier, In the Fullness of Time.  4 our of 11 isn't that bad, eh? I'll get back to you later tomorrow.--Andrew c 05:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK. Subpages are at: Talk:Jesus/Cited Authors Bios, Talk:Jesus/Dates of Birth and Death, Talk:Jesus/Languages Spoken by Jesus. Also, if you'd like, you could email and I'd be happy to find a copy of other works within borrowing distance for your library. We librarians have our ways... --CTSWyneken 11:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Library was closed today due to spring break, but normal hours resume tomorrow (open till 2am!) My userpage has the info on my location and university. I'll post my findings tomorrow night. BTW, the public library system here has the Fredriksen book as well.--Andrew c 22:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

text: It does look very encylopedic - my only comment is there is alot of "agreeing". SophiaTalkTCF 17:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The way it's phrased, the general agreement about when the Gospels were written avoids the debates over "lack of extant contemporaneous documents": what this phrase means, what it refers to, and what it implies. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 18:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anyone say the Gospels were written during Jesus' lifetime? The way it reads it's ambivalent as to whether the "generally agreed" applies to the dates or the documents. SophiaTalkTCF 18:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: AFAIK no one says the Gospels were written during Jesus' lifetime, but this point was lost when people were arguing over "contemporaneous." I'm not sure of the distinction you're making between the dates and the documents; "generally agreed to have been written in the decades after his death" refers to the dates of the documents, which both the majority and minority agree to. The details in the documents themselves are agreed to by "most scholars in the fields of Biblical Studies and history," but obviously not by "a small minority of scholars from other disciplines." Arch O. LaTalkTCF 18:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The gospels themselves, no. But quite a few people claim that portions of what are in them go back to the mouth of Jesus himself. So, even the Jesus Seminar assert 12% of the words reported to be Jesus' own actually came out of his mouth. Naturally, traditional scholars think that most, if not all, of the words reported by the Gospel, are his very own. So, in that sense, portions of the words were actually spoken between 30 and 36 AD/CE. --CTSWyneken 19:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought we had said that the Jesus Seminar accepted 20% of his words? As for the rest, I agree completely. They are Jesus' word as carried by oral tradition until people bothered to write them down. However, some are skeptical of this oral tradition. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 21:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But it doesn't say "spoken" it says "written" - it reads as if there is some scholarly thought that the Gospels were written before jesus' death. It says "generally agreed" that implies that there is some slight disagreement with this. SophiaTalkTCF 23:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm a little concerned at the lack of editor's - either they've all discovered there's a "real" world out there or they haven't got this page on their watch list. SophiaTalkTCF 00:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It comes from having an active subpage ;{ Arch O. LaTalkTCF 01:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure about this subpage business - is it standard practise on topics like this? SophiaTalkTCF 01:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really know what "common practise" is. What I do know is that people don't always check subpages, especially editors who are new to this page. I prefer to keep live discussions on the main page and only archive them after a day or three. However, CTSWyneken has a different methodology that apparently others agree with. Whatever works. If it were up to me, then I would post your concern to Talk:Jesus and see what kind of response you get there. However, it's not up to me. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 03:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not sure about other pages, but it has worked so far here. Notice how the "healer" debate brought all work on the main page to a standstill. We've made good progress here and the effect on the page itself was a lot more work being done. The disadvantage, of course, is that a lot of folk do not know the page is here or do not watch list it. So, if we come to some sort of conclusion, we need to let people on the main page know briefly what's going on over here. When we revert changes, we politely point here. --CTSWyneken 11:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CTSWyneken Proposal #1 

message: :Looks good, only think I'd change is "Biblical studies or history" to "biblical studies ANDS history".--Andrew c 16:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest we just cut the part about "King of the Jews."  It is controversial enough - and complicated enough (even in the Gospels Jesus answers the questions at times evasively or ambivilantly.  I am not saying Christians think he was evading or ambivalent, only that I suspect that there is a fair amont of discussion by Christian theologians and Bible scholars as to how to interpret these passages) that it should be discussed in the body of the article.  In the paragraph on what most Bible scholars and historians think, I believe that we could say this, with confidence: "that Jesus preached that the kingdom of God was at hand, and that in the context of 1st century roman occupied Judea, this act was considered by roman authorities to be seditious" - or something like this. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 16:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can I get you to hold that thought a moment -- someone monkeyed with the text -- I think I'll have to go back and guard it again. Give me time to dredge it out of the histories. --CTSWyneken 16:59, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  There! Thanks! --CTSWyneken 17:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Hey, I am not going to make any changes, certainly if I think you may disagree.  Take your time and mull it over.  More than anything else, I just don't think anything is lost by removing "king of the Jews" from the introduction, especially as all scholars (who bracket their personal beliefs) do, I think, agree that Jesus preached that the kingdom was at hand and that this was seen by Romans as seditious.  Why not leave "King of the Jews" for the body of the article?  i just don't see any big downside to this. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:15, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally feel more comfortable being more general than specific when we are trying to convey what most scholars in the appropriate field think. And then we get into the dispute about do all scholars think Jesus actually preacehd the coming kingdom? I believe Marcus Borg might disagree with that phrasing. But if he is in the minority, we don't necessarily need to change the wording just to account for one person. On the other hand, I believe it's practically unanimous that the actual charges against Jesus had something to do with rebelion or sedition against Rome. I hope my suggestion to generalize more doesn't water down the reading. Finally, if we add too much to this sentence, we should probably split it up into multiple sentences.--Andrew c 17:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I appreciate your research, and would never want to simply remove a section that is sourced. However, keep in mind we are trying to convey what ALL scholars on this topic basically agree to, and you have only cited 2 people for this claim. This is why I am cautious and urge a more generalize wording for the intro (and welcome the specifics under the historical persepective section). --Andrew c 17:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I appreciate the sentiments of both of you here. Sedition is certainly possible, although to use it means I have to go back and look at the sources again. This is not a huge deal, but I get very frustrated that I cannot even complete the first set of documentation before we're on to a second, third, and forth. Right now, I have to check dates of Jesus' birth and death, that he was a teacher, that he was a healer, that he died sub Pontio Pilato, that he was called "King of the Jews," as a capital charge, whether the scholor is a historian or not and if they support the non-existence hypothesis. It would be nice to get that all done. --CTSWyneken 17:39, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have access to a university library. Is there anything I can do to help? I was thumbing through Meier's A Marginal Jew (not sure what volume) and noticed a chapter on chronoloogy that seemed like it had good info on the dating of Jesus' birth and death. Don't know if you have access to that book or not, but thought I'd share that and offer my help.-Andrew c 21:47, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  YES! You would be an enourmous help! How about catching me up with the birth and death dates and the charge of sedition, a.k.a. King of the Jews? If you can find the works I cited in note 2, check to see when the scholar thinks Jesus was born and died. There's a talk subpage for gathering such opinions. Put the data there and cite the work and page number in note one. Now, check to see what they think of the king of the jews thing. If they agree with our statement, put the info in note four. If we find the same names in note three and note four after all is said and done, we can merge the notes! Thanks! 8-) *snoopy dance of joy* (-8 --CTSWyneken 01:23, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad to help. I'll see what I can do. It is spring break, so the library has shorter hours. Hopefully, they will be open tomorrow. What is the link to the talk subpage? I figure the goal of all this is to have one (or multiple) sources say the 3 or 4 major points of that sentence, so the flow of the sentence isn't disrupted by the footnote numbers, right? I'll check the library catalogue online to make sure I have access to all of these sources (I looked at the R. Brown book today.)--Andrew c 03:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, here are the books that are not in the library: E. P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus, John Dominic Crossan, The Historical Jesus,  Paula Fredriksen, Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews, and Geza Vermes; D. A. Carson; Paul L. Maier, In the Fullness of Time.  4 our of 11 isn't that bad, eh? I'll get back to you later tomorrow.--Andrew c 05:16, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK. Subpages are at: Talk:Jesus/Cited Authors Bios, Talk:Jesus/Dates of Birth and Death, Talk:Jesus/Languages Spoken by Jesus. Also, if you'd like, you could email and I'd be happy to find a copy of other works within borrowing distance for your library. We librarians have our ways... --CTSWyneken 11:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Library was closed today due to spring break, but normal hours resume tomorrow (open till 2am!) My userpage has the info on my location and university. I'll post my findings tomorrow night. BTW, the public library system here has the Fredriksen book as well.--Andrew c 22:53, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

text: It does look very encylopedic - my only comment is there is alot of "agreeing". SophiaTalkTCF 17:52, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The way it's phrased, the general agreement about when the Gospels were written avoids the debates over "lack of extant contemporaneous documents": what this phrase means, what it refers to, and what it implies. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 18:04, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anyone say the Gospels were written during Jesus' lifetime? The way it reads it's ambivalent as to whether the "generally agreed" applies to the dates or the documents. SophiaTalkTCF 18:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: AFAIK no one says the Gospels were written during Jesus' lifetime, but this point was lost when people were arguing over "contemporaneous." I'm not sure of the distinction you're making between the dates and the documents; "generally agreed to have been written in the decades after his death" refers to the dates of the documents, which both the majority and minority agree to. The details in the documents themselves are agreed to by "most scholars in the fields of Biblical Studies and history," but obviously not by "a small minority of scholars from other disciplines." Arch O. LaTalkTCF 18:22, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The gospels themselves, no. But quite a few people claim that portions of what are in them go back to the mouth of Jesus himself. So, even the Jesus Seminar assert 12% of the words reported to be Jesus' own actually came out of his mouth. Naturally, traditional scholars think that most, if not all, of the words reported by the Gospel, are his very own. So, in that sense, portions of the words were actually spoken between 30 and 36 AD/CE. --CTSWyneken 19:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought we had said that the Jesus Seminar accepted 20% of his words? As for the rest, I agree completely. They are Jesus' word as carried by oral tradition until people bothered to write them down. However, some are skeptical of this oral tradition. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 21:40, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But it doesn't say "spoken" it says "written" - it reads as if there is some scholarly thought that the Gospels were written before jesus' death. It says "generally agreed" that implies that there is some slight disagreement with this. SophiaTalkTCF 23:13, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm a little concerned at the lack of editor's - either they've all discovered there's a "real" world out there or they haven't got this page on their watch list. SophiaTalkTCF 00:20, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It comes from having an active subpage ;{ Arch O. LaTalkTCF 01:05, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure about this subpage business - is it standard practise on topics like this? SophiaTalkTCF 01:08, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really know what "common practise" is. What I do know is that people don't always check subpages, especially editors who are new to this page. I prefer to keep live discussions on the main page and only archive them after a day or three. However, CTSWyneken has a different methodology that apparently others agree with. Whatever works. If it were up to me, then I would post your concern to Talk:Jesus and see what kind of response you get there. However, it's not up to me. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 03:54, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not sure about other pages, but it has worked so far here. Notice how the "healer" debate brought all work on the main page to a standstill. We've made good progress here and the effect on the page itself was a lot more work being done. The disadvantage, of course, is that a lot of folk do not know the page is here or do not watch list it. So, if we come to some sort of conclusion, we need to let people on the main page know briefly what's going on over here. When we revert changes, we politely point here. --CTSWyneken 11:34, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion of #1 

message: :The main sources of information about Jesus' life and teachings, the four canonical Gospels of the New Testament, describe him as a Jewish Galilean teacher and healer who was sentenced to death by crucifixion on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate,[2] for claiming to be the "King of the Judeans" a crime of rebellion against Rome.[3] As the Gospels were written in the decades after his death a small minority of scholars question the historical existence of Jesus.[4]
===Discussion===
I'm being wiki bold! Throw it out if you wish but it puts the sources first and only says what they say about Jesus so they can say he walked on the moon if we can reference it without it ever being a POV. As the late writing of the Gospels is explicitly tied to the non existence quote we don't need to say again our famous "extant...." awkward sentence. SophiaTalkTCF 17:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmm... hmmm... do you have room under that desk? ;-) --CTSWyneken 17:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What do you think that our small minority will say when we assume the text to say what the "vast majority" thinks it says. 8-) --CTSWyneken 17:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the issue with this is that this reads like a plot summary of the gospels, where the original wording was trying to name facts that most scholars agree in regards to a historical Jesus. The gospels also describe Jesus in a number of ways that most scholars do not agree on. Is it important to note that scholars, using the Gospels and the historical method, have found specific claims within the Gospels to be almost certainly historical?  I believe that isn't exactly conveyed in your wording. That said, maybe it isn't important to make this distinction--Andrew c 17:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Seeing that we are arguing over virtually every word in this paragraph I tried to reduce it to knowns. The NT does describe Jesus in all the ways above - even I can check that (yes I do have a bible!) - it does lots more but we stick to the generally agreed ones. As we tie the dating of the gospels to the nonexistence view we have the chance to do away with our "extant"  horrid sentence. As I said - it was just an attempt - let's move swifly on......SophiaTalkTCF 18:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All true, but you lose the in-text citation for who is generally agreeing to these NT details (ie, the majority of scholars in the fields of Biblical scholarship and history). Yes, we have footnotes, but not everybody reads those. I think it's best to provide a general citation in the text and more specific citations (author x, in published work y, on page z) in the footnotes. Frankly, some find the historical reconstructionists more credible, and some find the historical miminalists more credible. I hope no one is offended by my use of the words "reconstructionists" and "minimalists": what I mean is that some accept some details as describing the historical Jesus, while others reject any details for which there is no direct physical evidence. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 18:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

text: See CTSWyneken's comment about the written gospels vs. the words attributed to Jesus in the Gospels. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 21:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As an "outsider" to this discussion, I think Sophia's proposal is excellent. It is simple, factual and reads better than the others — the slightly awkward or convoluted sentence structure of some proposals leaves the reader with the impression that they are stepping around something or trying not to say something. This one also neatly avoids the "healer" issue. ntennis 08:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You do have a point about "healer": there's a slight difference between what the NT says about Jesus as a healer, and what critical scholars say about how this represents the historical context of early first-century Roman-occupied Palestine. SOPHIA's proposal does make this clearer. My main issue is what I said before: it doesn't make clear who is not in the small minority (ie, who is in the majority). Why do the majority agree that there probably was a historical Jesus? Because, despite the fact that the NT was written by people who worship the guy, there are some details that do make sense in the historical context. Also, it seems unlikely that such a complex story would develop so quickly unless it was based at least in part on historical events ("in part" being those details used in the historical reconstruction.)Arch O. LaTalkTCF 19:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sophia proposal #2

message: I'm being wiki bold! Throw it out if you wish but it puts the sources first and only says what they say about Jesus so they can say he walked on the moon if we can reference it without it ever being a POV. As the late writing of the Gospels is explicitly tied to the non existence quote we don't need to say again our famous "extant...." awkward sentence. SophiaTalkTCF 17:18, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hmm... hmmm... do you have room under that desk? ;-) --CTSWyneken 17:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What do you think that our small minority will say when we assume the text to say what the "vast majority" thinks it says. 8-) --CTSWyneken 17:24, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I think the issue with this is that this reads like a plot summary of the gospels, where the original wording was trying to name facts that most scholars agree in regards to a historical Jesus. The gospels also describe Jesus in a number of ways that most scholars do not agree on. Is it important to note that scholars, using the Gospels and the historical method, have found specific claims within the Gospels to be almost certainly historical?  I believe that isn't exactly conveyed in your wording. That said, maybe it isn't important to make this distinction--Andrew c 17:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Seeing that we are arguing over virtually every word in this paragraph I tried to reduce it to knowns. The NT does describe Jesus in all the ways above - even I can check that (yes I do have a bible!) - it does lots more but we stick to the generally agreed ones. As we tie the dating of the gospels to the nonexistence view we have the chance to do away with our "extant"  horrid sentence. As I said - it was just an attempt - let's move swifly on......SophiaTalkTCF 18:02, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All true, but you lose the in-text citation for who is generally agreeing to these NT details (ie, the majority of scholars in the fields of Biblical scholarship and history). Yes, we have footnotes, but not everybody reads those. I think it's best to provide a general citation in the text and more specific citations (author x, in published work y, on page z) in the footnotes. Frankly, some find the historical reconstructionists more credible, and some find the historical miminalists more credible. I hope no one is offended by my use of the words "reconstructionists" and "minimalists": what I mean is that some accept some details as describing the historical Jesus, while others reject any details for which there is no direct physical evidence. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 18:11, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

text: See CTSWyneken's comment about the written gospels vs. the words attributed to Jesus in the Gospels. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 21:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As an "outsider" to this discussion, I think Sophia's proposal is excellent. It is simple, factual and reads better than the others — the slightly awkward or convoluted sentence structure of some proposals leaves the reader with the impression that they are stepping around something or trying not to say something. This one also neatly avoids the "healer" issue. ntennis 08:46, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You do have a point about "healer": there's a slight difference between what the NT says about Jesus as a healer, and what critical scholars say about how this represents the historical context of early first-century Roman-occupied Palestine. SOPHIA's proposal does make this clearer. My main issue is what I said before: it doesn't make clear who is not in the small minority (ie, who is in the majority). Why do the majority agree that there probably was a historical Jesus? Because, despite the fact that the NT was written by people who worship the guy, there are some details that do make sense in the historical context. Also, it seems unlikely that such a complex story would develop so quickly unless it was based at least in part on historical events ("in part" being those details used in the historical reconstruction.)Arch O. LaTalkTCF 19:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: :The main sources of information about Jesus' life and teachings are the four canonical Gospels of the New Testament. Most scholars in the fields of Biblical Studies and history agree that Jesus was a Jewish Galilean teacher and healer who was sentenced to death by crucifixion on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate,[1] for claiming to be the "King of the Judeans," which was a crime of rebellion against Rome.[2] Because the Gospels were not written immediately after his death and there is little external documentation, a small minority of scholars question the historical existence of Jesus.[3]
===Discussion===
An attempt at synthesizing the previous proposals. Please don't cane me, but bamboo shoots under my fingernails or make me listen to Yoko Ono for this! ;) Just trying to find the "happy medium" here. --MonkeeSage 15:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: MonkeeSage Proposal #3

message: An attempt at synthesizing the previous proposals. Please don't cane me, but bamboo shoots under my fingernails or make me listen to Yoko Ono for this! ;) Just trying to find the "happy medium" here. --MonkeeSage 15:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Can we move all discussion of the 2nd paragraph to the subpage? We're inhibiting progress on the article as a whole by going on and on here. I'm going to make a new proposal on the scholars language there and rearrange the sentences as we discussed above so that we can all see what it looks like. --CTSWyneken 16:41, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm in the process of archiving, bur I have a habit of leaving things on the main page if they're less than two or three days old. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 07:46, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yet Another Invitation to [[talk:Jesus/2nd Paragraph Debate]] 

message: Here is now the controversial sentence now reads:
"Most scholars of either Biblical criticism or history agree that Jesus was a Jewish Galilean teacher and healer who was sentenced to death by crucifixion outside of Jerusalem on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate,[2] for being acclaimed the "King of the Judeans", a crime of rebellion against the Roman Empire.[3]"
Since this purports to state what "most scholars...agree", it should be a sentence on which most scholars agree, yes?  Most of the objections are to the "healer", and I don't think the torturous explanations via a link -- that a "healer" does not necessarily mean "one who heals" -- satisfy anybody.  Looking for something that, in fact "most scholars...agree" I suggest the following:
"Most scholars of either Biblical criticism or history agree that Jesus was a Jewish Galilean teacher with a reputation as a healer, who was ..."
Can we agree on this?   (If not, then after the first two or three protests, please let this suggestion drop and we'll try something else.  I'm looking for something that is acceptable to everyone.  I do not want to start another firestorm of controversy.) Rick Norwood 17:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Reputation as a healer" is factually accurate. A reputation can be either true or false. As a Christian, I believe this was a true reputation, but of course those who are not Christians will disagree with me. My only concern is that, right or wrong, some will view the phrase "reputation as a healer" as equivication. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 19:07, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Fine by me. They only mean that he had a certain social position, not that he actually worked miracles (some of may believe that, but that is not how they are using the term "healer" if I understand them), and your wording does make it more explicit that they are refering to the specific social structure at the time. ". . .teacher regarded as a healer" would work also, but I like you wording better. Of course, I believe Jesus was God and did all kinds of miracles, so I don't have a problem with any wording, heh, but for the sake of NPOV and clarity/accuracy, I think your proposal is good. --MonkeeSage 20:03, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paragraph 2, sentence 2 

message: The article is misrepresenting the side that claims that Jesus didn't' exist when it says they are not historians or scholars of biblical critism.  Scholars like Archaya S (undergraduate degree in Classics, Greek Civilization, from Franklin & Marshall College) who wrote a book claiming Jesus didn't exist, have just as much right to be called "historians" as E. P. Sanders (Th.d. from Union Seminary (NY) 1966.) or Vermes (doctorate in theology). We have already established on this talk page that "historian" does not mean "Ph.D Professor of History". Drogo Underburrow 01:56, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If these are their credentials, then I would say that Sanders and Vermes are Biblical scholars, but not historians. The critique against Archaya may be that Archaya is not a specialist in the history of Israel/Palestine or of the New Testament. Or, I may be wrong. You are cordially invited to join the discussion at Talk:Jesus/2nd Paragraph Debate. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 02:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mis-representing who is a "historian" or biblical scholar

message: Friends, we have three proposals on the table which are much better than our current paragraph. We can, and will, debate other issues, but can we agree on one?
I will investigate Wills on the subject and report back later.
But I really would like to finish work on this paragraph and now I've been delayed even further by another source to check... --CTSWyneken 12:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm okay with any of the proposals, though I obviously like mine best. ;) --MonkeeSage 13:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I've said, I also like yours the best. We should pick one and then work on debating the rest. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 13:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sophia weighs in with Monkee's text, too. (see above) Shall we go with it and then come back to other issues? --CTSWyneken 13:59, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep - go with it - well done MonkeeSage! SophiaTalkTCF 15:25, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  In short, yes. I'll fetch one of the books... eventually. I do have a day job. Please feel free to beat me to the tomes. --CTSWyneken 17:15, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  How about Jewish scholar (and Rabbi) Shaye Cohen (From the Maccabees, 78):
Jesus spent much of his time healing the sick and performing miracles. In fact, many Jews in the first centuries of our era had a deserved reputation in the magical arts." --CTSWyneken 19:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: It's not so much a matter of qualification as it is a matter of reading the text differently (ie, as the source of one's faith, or as a cultural document similiar to The Illiad or The Epic of Gilgamesh.) What's not clear in our paragraph is that critical scholars view the text differently than Christians do. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 16:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Quotes about healer. "During his lifetime, Jesus was considered a healer." Robert Funk and the Jesus Seminar, The Acts of Jesus, p. 531. "Jesus was not only a teacher, however; he was also a prophet and a healer, and the traditions about him clearly derive in part from the biblical record about Elijah and his disciple Elisha." Shaye Cohen, From the Maccabees to the Mishnah, p. 122 "Jesus, the famous popular healer, is also a much sought-after exorcist, according to the Synoptic Gospels" Geza Vermes, The Changing Faces of Jesus, p. 171 "The most prominent features of the Synoptic portrait of Jesus, those of a charismatic healer and exorcist, teacher, and champion of the Kingdom of God, are essentially dependent on the historical figure which other authors of the New Testament progressively disguised." abid p. 237--Andrew c 19:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

text: "Crucifixion was a public exectuion; it was intended to warn others about certain offenses. It was the Roman custom to parade the convict around with a wooden placard around his neck, specifying the crime. On the ground that the use of a placard was Roman practice, teh Fellows granted the possibility that Jesus may have been similarly treated (v. 26). The Seminar was dubios, however, that the proclaiming himself "king of the Judeans" was actually Jesus' crime. A gray vote was the result."
and  Geza Vermes, The Changing Faces of Jesus, p. 194 (don't have time to type it out) after examining the details of the charge as described by Luke, comes to the conclusion "The whole political charge sounds hollow." While the placard and charge are historically possible, I do not think it is one of the top 5 defining characteristics of Jesus agreed upon by all scholars. I would change the wording to "sedition against Rome" or something similar.--Andrew c 19:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Let's post what we have and then come back to this and other issues. On the "King of the Judeans" remark, note we have only begun to look at what the scholars have said. Right now, what we have is some sign of disagreement. If it is wider than just these two sources, we can consider dropping it. What do our other scholars say? --CTSWyneken 19:33, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we have a working consensus, CTS. The form of the paragraph appears the be settled, the specifics can be worked out in due time. --MonkeeSage 20:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have put the text in place. Be prepared to guard it -- politely. --CTSWyneken 23:57, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coming to a Conclusion 

message: Discussion moved to Talk: Jesus/2nd Paragraph Debate. A summary of motions follows:
#Agreement achieved on modifications. Archived. Current form left on subpage for further discussion. 
## Clearer explanation of majority opinion
## Clearer explanation of nonexistence hypothesis. (previous discussion at Talk:Jesus/Historicity Reference) --CTSWyneken 15:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[talk:Jesus/2nd Paragraph Debate]]