Talk:Jesus/2nd Paragraph Debate/6

message: Seems to me we have two issues:
==Claimed==
Do our scholars believe Jesus claimed to be King? 
: we've seen a little evidence going both ways on this. --CTSWyneken 00:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Doing an informal survey of Biblical Scholars here, the consensus seems to be that Jesus never called himself, King of the Jews. I'd be comforable with finding some language that says Pilate charged Jesus with this crime. --CTSWyneken 11:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

text: My sense is, all historians agree Jesus was executed for sedition.  What he actually did that constituted the crime of sedition, however, is a matter of debate.  Fredriksen, for one, argues that Jesus's actions constituted sedition even if he never claimed to be king or messiah - indeed, she makes much of the fact that he often answered questions, "are you the messiah" etc. equivocally. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Claiming" to be King of th Judeans 

message: Do our scholars believe Jesus claimed to be King? 
: we've seen a little evidence going both ways on this. --CTSWyneken 00:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Doing an informal survey of Biblical Scholars here, the consensus seems to be that Jesus never called himself, King of the Jews. I'd be comforable with finding some language that says Pilate charged Jesus with this crime. --CTSWyneken 11:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Claimed

message: Do they believe Pilate charged him with this crime? --CTSWyneken 00:04, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My sense is, all historians agree Jesus was executed for sedition.  What he actually did that constituted the crime of sedition, however, is a matter of debate.  Fredriksen, for one, argues that Jesus's actions constituted sedition even if he never claimed to be king or messiah - indeed, she makes much of the fact that he often answered questions, "are you the messiah" etc. equivocally. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:47, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: King of the Judeans

message: :::Hmmmmm...let's see here...it kind of masters the run-on sentence and doesn't make the scholars distinction any clearer, but it shows the logical connection of the first sentence with the rest.
:::The scholarship thing could always be elaborated in a subsection further down...just a thought. --MonkeeSage 07:17, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments on MonkeySage version

message: My composition teacher told me that a sentence is not a paragraph. We need to split this up. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 07:25, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the Gospels have him going all over Galilee, Perea, Iudea and Samaria. As I understand it, it was quite a scandal for a Jew to be passing through Samaria. He was indeed from many places. However, if they accept that he was from Nazareth, then they accept that he is from Galilee. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 07:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The statement about the minority position is also intended to summarize a wide variety of views of those committed to the nonexistence hypothesis. It is not just the Jesus myth folk. Just as the majority includes those who judge the gospels to be from basically reliable to completely reliable, so there are nonexistence folk who do not buy into the myth angle. We need to keep the statement down to what almost all of them agree upon. --CTSWyneken 11:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually, it doesn't matter whether or not the majority has to agree he was from Galilee; they do. In fact, they are much more agreed on this than his birth in Bethlehem. --CTSWyneken 11:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments on Archola version

message: The four canonical Gospels of the New Testament are the main sources scholars use when reconstructing the life of Jesus. Scholars argue from them that Jesus was a Jewish teacher from Galilee who was regarded as a healer. They surmise that Roman Governor Pontius Pilate ordered Jesus to be sentenced to death by crucifixion for commiting the crime of sedition against Rome.[1][2] A small minority of scholars believe that Jesus never existed, while others believe that apart from faith we know nothing about him. Drogo Underburrow 07:59, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Drogo version

message: :I think the second paragraph should state that some people doubt whether Jesus existed at all; but I do not  think it should go into detail why they believe that; not unless you want the entire paragraph to be about that subject. The paragraph can state that some doubt, and still be about another topic. But when you start getting into reasons, it starts muddying things up. 
:I still don't like the above version because it is still limiting the views to two sides, when there are many sides. Drogo Underburrow 08:09, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A while ago an editor was insisting on "lack of extant contemporaneous documents." We tried to come up with a better phrase, but the idea was still there. An idea that I wasn't too sure of to begin with. Arch O. LaTalkTCF 08:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Others believe that apart from faith" certainly sounds familiar. We just need to be sure that we are representing the views of the authors we cite (or find new ones). Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. LaTalkTCF 08:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I like Drogo's version the best. I think that the delineation between the different kinds of scholars and their various views can go in a subsection further on (perhaps wherever the Jesus Seminar stuff ends up?), but that looks good for a summary, imo. --Olo Cotton AKA MonkeeSage 08:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's what Jesus#Historicity is for. The majority view is in Jesus#Forensic reconstructions of Jesus's life. There also seems to be an oblique mention of the minority view in History#External influences on gospel development. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. LaTalkTCF 09:10, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm still not satisfied, myself. The paragraph is still POV. Its pushing the "Historical Jesus" POV. -- Drogo Underburrow 09:07, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

text: This version makes the "historical Jesus" as the article's POV. That's not right.  I think that a radical change is needed. Drogo Underburrow 09:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we need to figure out what the general scope and purpose of the article is going to be, then summarize that in the opening. I know Archie has been trying to do that in various ways, but it seems we keep coming back to specifics in the existing summary and never get to the bigger picture. Maybe we should try it the other direction -- construct an outline / plot of how the article should be, then work getting the sections in line with that? --MonkeeSage 10:14, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That makes sense. And if people can't agree, better that they fight about big things than this non-productive fighting over a few words. Drogo Underburrow 10:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See Talk:Jesus/Related articles for my outline. However, this is an outline of all the Jesus articles, which I believe the main Jesus article should be a summary of. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. LaTalkTCF 20:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

text:  It is our task to represent the views of scholarship on Jesus. This version suggest that there is some doubt in the minds of the scholars on these points there is not. There is plenty of disagreement on the other details, to be sure, but not on these. As far as the nonexistence hypothesis is concerned, all versions give it more weight than it is due. Consider that six of seven encyclopedias do not consider it significant enough to even mention. I have some stuff to do today, but, if time permits, I'll let you know which of the other two new proposals I prefer. Let me be on record, however, that the one we had agreed upon last evening was about the best I think we'll get, barring what I just wrote above. --CTSWyneken 11:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What do you think of my version? It's just MonkeeSage's version with shorter sentences. You responded to my comments, but not my proposal itself. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. LaTalkTCF 20:15, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I still like the MonkeeSage version best, and it was a version that most found at least acceptable.  Let's put it in place and move on.  Rick Norwood 13:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just did, although I restored the date reference. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. LaTalkTCF 20:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

text: You people fight too much of semantics and sacrifice the readability of the article. The previous version was better and I honestly think Sophia's or my suggestions should be implemented over these versions with so many abritrary and unnecessary qualifiers. We dont need "they agree" at the beginning of ever sentence when the first sentence states these beliefs are those of scholars. The previous version acheived through real consensus was fine in terms of readability and neutrality. —Aiden 21:46, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My version has "they agree" because I was breaking up a long sentence for the sake of readability, "they" of course referring back to most scholars of Biblical Studies and history. Also, when have we not fought over semantics? This paragraph has been challenged over semantics from day 1. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. LaTalkTCF 22:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like Archie's version too. I'm just not very good at grammar. I can make a sentence go on for ever, if you just give me enough commas and enough space. :) --Olo Cotton AKA MonkeeSage 22:31, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My version is just your version with shorter sentences. Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. LaTalkTCF 23:13, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments on Drogo version

message: # Second sentence (Critical...Rome) is a run-on sentence.
# Again with the "lack of extant" phrasing?
# Looks good otherwise.
Grigory Deepdelver AKA Arch O. LaTalkTCF 23:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment on Aiden's version