Talk:Jesus/2nd Paragraph Debate/Archive 1

message: == Scribes, Pharisees and Saducees Subpage Created ==
I've created a subpage to keep track of our research on this subject. See Talk:Jesus/Scribes Pharisees and Saducees --CTSWyneken 14:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Subpages and Reorgs

message: I've created a subpage to keep track of our research on this subject. See Talk:Jesus/Scribes Pharisees and Saducees --CTSWyneken 14:36, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scribes, Pharisees and Saducees Subpage Created 

message: Ditto for scholarship on the dates of birth and death. Talk:Jesus/Dates of Birth and Death --CTSWyneken 14:43, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates of Birth and Death Subpage Created 

message: I've reorganized the page for ease of reference and added N. T. Wright. --CTSWyneken 15:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cited Authors Bios Subpage Reorganized 

message: Ok, I've reorganized the page a bit...but all this hellacious voting is still a mess. I tried to work around it. Arch O. La 06:51, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reorg

message: Once again, I have avoided posting anything here for quite a while, but it really seems like that dead horse you guys are beating is about to turn to dust. It seems that the biggest difficulty that this debate is undertaking is the consideration of a specific set of words in a specific sentence. Why not just write an entirely new sentence?
"However, citing the view that historical research has not yet uncovered contemporaneous sources that reference him, some scholars question the historicity of Jesus."
Notes on terminology:
*View - used as opposed to "fact" or other similar terms. By stating view, it neither promotes nor condemns the veracity of Josephus as has been debated here, nor do I use the term "opinion" which could make the reader think it was automatically untrue.
*Yet - used to designate the "lack" of sources but not discount the possibility that they may eventually be found.
*Sources - several historical figures are verified by, if not only by, pieces of information other than writings, such as statues, engravings, etc.
*Reference - again, no source plainly states, "Jesus, son of Mary, born X, died X, roman crucifixion style, etc. etc. etc." Some historical sources may say something to the effect of, "This statue given by Nero in honor of..." or whatever else, providing a reference to but not a direct record of a name which might be associated with a specific historical figure.
Feel free to revise or edit the above statement, but please remember: You have now spent over one month debating the use of about three words in one paragraph on a page that has sixty more paragraphs to consider. Maybe there are bigger fish to fry. --Avery W. Krouse 21:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a bad suggestion.  Has a good beat...I can dance to it...I give it a 9.  KHM03 21:20, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A bad suggestion because it implies there MIGHT be documents - we have no eviodence of that. It is implying a POV and therefore should not be used. Verifiable and accurate not POV pushing. Robsteadman 21:31, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I can live with it. --CTSWyneken 21:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

text: "However, noting that all known documents that mention Jesus were written at least one decade after his death, some scholars question the historicity of Jesus."--JimWae 21:45, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is such bullshit. I studied New Testament for 7 years. I've read books on Jesus by fundamentalists, antheists, agnostics, queer theologians and feminists. I've read theories that have questioned the accuracy of everything in the gospels. I've encountered reconstructions of Jesus the revolutionary leader, Jesus the cynic philosopher, Jesus the loyal Jew, Jesus as gay, but never a serious scholar questioning his existence. Until I came to wikipedia - where it seems every mention of Jesus needs to state 'who may or may not have existed'. Now, no doubt among the millions (and I means millions) of books published on Jesus, someone has sugegsted he didn't exist (I read once a book suggesting he was an extra-terestrial). But this is simply not a theory any mainstream scholarship takes seriously, mainstream secular scholars don't even find the theory worthy of debate. Is there  'proof' Jesus exist? - Do we have his social security number? - no. Is Josephus' testimony egnuine? I think not.  But we have diverse Jesus-movements, evidenced only two-three decades after his death, that are otherwise are inexplicable. --Doc ask? 22:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They might be recognised by YOU but they are largely POV scholars proving their "faith". Remember WP should be verifiable and factual. Robsteadman 07:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Rob, I think you fail to see just how lenient we as editors are being here. According to WP:NPOV#Undue_weight, we are not even obligated to mention a fringe view such as the Jesus-myth, but do so because we feel the article benefits from it. That said, we have clearly explained that the vast majority of scholarly research and critical historical and Biblical academics conclude Jesus, as a historical figure, did in fact exist. Now what you're suggesting is that we put each scholar through a litmus test to determine if they are "neutral." What exactly you mean by this is not clear. Do you mean only atheist or non-Christian scholars? Do you mean only adherents to the Jesus-myth view? Basically, Rob, we are trying to accommodate a lot of views in this article when we technically don't have to, but this game of give-and-take is certainly not beneficial to our efforts. —Aiden 23:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A different suggestion

message: Please use this time to work on a consensus. · Katefan0(scribble)/poll 22:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Working on a consensus is all well and good, if you forget the people here who simply ignore consensus if it suits them. Deskana (talk) 22:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As I have said before, consensus is pointless and meaningless if it is not accurate. Even if the "christian" POV pushers call there quorum/cabl (as there is clear evidence of) and vote to have something THEIR way it must be changed if it is incorrect or POV.We must be encyclopdeic, verifiable and factual. Robsteadman 22:34, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Thank you so much for assuming bad faith. Alienus 23:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I guess you're right, I did assume bad faith. But I have to say, I was also realistic. Deskana (talk) 22:01, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be really useful if everyone restricted their comments here to how we can progress the article. Save "observations" for talk pages - or better yet don't bother and help get this article back on track. SOPHIA 22:21, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I've got a simpler suggestion: Does ANYONE oppose this change?  If not, then what's the vote about? Consensus by unanmity beats any vote. Alienus 00:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Now that the issue appears to be settled, I'm all for archiving this bloated talk page. Alienus 00:45, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Considering that this latest tempest has been fought, I insist on a vote. Would someone please post the suggested text here, please. --CTSWyneken 00:49, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected 

message: However, a small minority of others consider the lack of extant contemporaneous documents making a reference to him significant and therefore question the historicity of Jesus 
(I reinserted the word "therefore", which I had suggested and SOPHIA agreed to.  It makes the text flow better.  I doubt it would convince Homestarmy or CTSWyneken to be more positive, but I wanted to make it clear for the record that I fixed the text and why. Alienus 01:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed Text

message: #Alienus 01:28, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Accept

message: #   Conditional Reject Homestarmy 01:02, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reject

message: #Neutral Either of the two previous versions are fine by me. I would prefer, however, omit the reason why the minority comes to their conclusion, since we do not explain why the majority comes to its conclusion. This is an introduction, and should be short. The reasons for both points of view can be more fully explained below and/or in the historicity article. --CTSWyneken 11:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutral

message: I think that see also section is too big. Someone should make a template. I would but I don't know how. A Clown in the Dark 22:40, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: See also

message: ::Please read through the above instructions before voting. (AWK)
However, citing a lack of extant contemporaneous documents making reference to him, a small minority question the historicity of Jesus. (current form and Feb 20th consensus)
#Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:25, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Table of Suggested Lines

message: Whoever moved these comments here, isolating them from specific vote' has made a nonsense of these comments - Stop trying to dictate what others CAN and CAN'T do. Robsteadman 19:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments on Votes

message: Here is what I explained to our dear Archola when asked a very similar question:
The point that we have been missing all alone with these random votes is definition. We have said "Okay! Let's Vote! ... um ... okay ... now what ..." What I have done is given a definite system with a definite start and end date and a definite length of moratorium on editing that line. What some of you fail to realize is that it's just one sentence on a really large page, and there is easily a lot more work to be done. The editors that thrive on conflict will have more conflict, just give it time, but at least let us be in conflict about a new set of words that we haven't beaten to death.
That said, those of you who are protesting the vote can do so, but those who have voted have agreed to participate in the concensus, and that means that you will be reverted. And again, you've got an option to vote against the vote. I have placed that in there for a reason.
And once more, REMOVE DUPLICATE VOTES! The point is to see which text the editors themselves can live with for the sake of moving on. Not to stack the votes, otherwise we could all just vote twice and defeat the whole thing. Thank you. --Avery W. Krouse 16:39, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If by duplicate votes you mean one person voting several times for one option, that is indeed stacking the vote and wrong. But if by duplicate votes you mean one person voting for two options, that is by no means stacking the voted. I have voted twice, and I have explained why, and I will not change my vote. Avery, I know you are well-intentioned and trying to be constructive, but you can't be a "voting dictator." All editors have a right to express their views. If someone finds two different choices acceptable, they have a right to communicate that by voting for two choices. I explain why this is a good thing in greater detail above. But either way, it isn't up to you to enforce your own set of rules for voting. I say this with respect because while I do believe your rule (if I understand it accurately) is a very bad one, I honor your intentions. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

text: I am asking that duplicate votes be removed because if one person votes for multiple options, how will that provide a clear majority success for any one line? If thirty people vote three times on three lines then no line wins and we end up back where we started. Once we have run offs, will you vote again for two different candidates? At some point, people just have to pick one and move on! --Avery W. Krouse 21:27, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, I was wondering why some people had voted for two different versions. Deskana (talk) 18:04, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There are two encyclopedic options and one which is attempting to remove the lack of extant contemporaneous evidence from the intro - it is a way of manipulating the article and support a clear POV. I have voted for the two genuine WP-friendly options - the reaosn there are two is clearly an attempt to split the votes and allow the pro"chrsitian" vote to win. However as the vote is clearly invalid it doesn;t matter. Robsteadman 19:37, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Since you keep stating this Rob, would you please quote and link to wikipedia policy that says this? --CTSWyneken 19:45, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did I mention policy? You;re putting words into my mouth - but operatoing a cabal to achieve a POV is contrary to the vasic principles on which WP is founded - as there has been clear evdience of this in the past 24 hours I would hope the activity will stop. I fear it won;t but, once again, thanks for the evdeince. Most useful. Robsteadman 19:49, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The point is that a claim that a vote of this nature is "clearly invalid" cannot be sustained. There is no definition in wiki rules I know of as to when a vote is valid or invalid. You should cease making charges and veiled threats unless you can cite the rules to back them up. --CTSWyneken 21:06, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Rob please look up the definition of vote. If you can vote as many times as you want, what's the point? Give me a break. —Aiden 20:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe you nee to understand that there are many types of votes not simply selecting one option. Both of the first two options are very similar - it would have been better to have had only one of them. Have a break whenever you want... particularly if it means the rest of us can get on with NPOV and verifiable facts only. Robsteadman 20:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please see the note above the balloting, where the user who proposed this vote asked that this be done in two stages; this vote and then a run off. --CTSWyneken 21:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Irrelevant if people don't want to abide by those rules, don't want a quorum/cabal fixing the result and don't want to be told what to do when there is a clear attempt to push a POV rather than be encyclopedic. Robsteadman 21:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Is it even worth the effort? Sigh... —Aiden 01:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Why this should work

message: Just wanted to remind everyone that we will finish the first round of formalized voting tonight. As it stands right now, only the two largest categories meet the quota to move on. If that happens, we will archive this main discussion and start once more with a final run-off vote. The vote which takes majority in that will be placed in the page and held under a thirty-day moratorium.
That said, I want to reiterate, perhaps more appropriately now, the concept of one vote. With only two candidates on the field, voting twice will nullify your own vote. Even if you want to show that you'll accept either option as a possible candidate, by voting for both, you do not change the percentage either way and do not cause your vote to affect the final outcome. For those of you who expressed a preference in the above voting, tonight please vote for just your first preference. If you wish to express support for both options in case the one you didn't choose passes, you can easily do so in a comment below the vote table.
Again, if your current selection does not proceed, please choose the remaining option that you could live with for the sake of ending the war over this one line. In about 60 hours, we will have a finished product and be able to move on for the next thirty days.
That said, there will be some of you whose selection is either not added to the final ballot or does not pass the final vote. If this is the case, I beg of you, be civil! Engaging in a revert war is not the solution. This issue is being monitored by at least three administrators, so please be aware of your revert counts, though hopefully we won't have to worry about that at all. We will move any and all discussion of this matter to the appropriate archive and we invite editors that still wish to work on that line to set up shop in that archive and continue the discussion.
I truly believe that this will prove Wikipedia's ability to recover from grinding to a standstill under an edit war. It will also show the true colors of every editor as we make our choice whether to work for or against progress. I am confident that this process will succeed where previous voting has failed because we have agreed to abide by the concensus and have set boundaries and guidelines to ensure this progress. 
Let us use the events of January and February 2006 as an example of what happens when we forsake civility and integrity for the sake of personal opinion or retaliation. I do not question the fact that much of what has happened on this page has occured because of editor vs. editor conflict, not because of the content of the debated text. We must pledge to work together and work past our differences. We must not attack one another. We must not bicker with one another. We must not refuse anyone who is genuinely trying to make a positive effort but we must stand together against anyone who is trying to impact Wikipedia for the worse.
Let us take the next two and a half days to reflect on our own contribution to Wikipedia. What have you accomplished? What could you have accomplished if this war had never started? What will you accomplish once it is over? --Avery W. Krouse 16:18, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Preliminary Vote Closure Tonight

message: == I think the article should mention that no historians say Jesus did not exist ==
I think the article should mention that no historians say Jesus did not exist. Raisinman 00:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? Historians tend not to assert things that cannot be proven or documented; to do so is the realm of religion. Historians can say that no contemporaneous documents exist that prove the existance of Jesus; they can not say that this demonstrates Jesus didn't exist, since the vast majority of living people (of that period, certainly, and I imagine of most periods) left no contemporaneous record. At best they can say "case unproven" until they find the secret scrolls that record the conspiracy to invent Jesus. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But, for the record, their "best guess" (an educated guess, based on the available evidence) has been that Jesus did exist (though obviously they can say little regarding miracles, divinity, etc.).  KHM03 01:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Jpgordon.  Arguing from the negative (no historians think ...) is always a bad idea.  For one thing, has Raisinman surveyed all historians to see what they believe?  How can we know whether or not an article will come out tomorrow by a major historian stating that Jesus did not exist?  This is not a joke - few if any of us read all of the history journals and it is common for encyclopedias to lag behind the fields they represent - especially if something is a matter of ongoing discussion.  All major historians I know of believe Jesus existed, and I feel confident saying this because I have done considerable research on the topic.  But even having done this research, I cannot say that there are no historians who believe he did not exist.  How could one prove such a statement? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Hm, I don't think Josephus is positive about the non-existence of Brian son of Naughtius. A close tie between the historicity of Jesus vs. Brian, then :p dab (ᛏ) 13:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, everyone knows Brian existed.  Haven't you seen the movie with your own eyes?  Guettarda 16:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, but did Josephus exist? ;-) --CTSWyneken 16:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't remember - was he in the movie?  Guettarda 17:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anybody exist? I think, therefore I am...I think. But what is "real"? How do we define "real"? Should I take the red pill or the blue pill? Arch O. La 19:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If we're debating the meaning of life, go | here :D. Homestarmy 20:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Eh, it's early evening here. Good commentary, though ;) Arch O. La 01:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Rick Norwood, a previous poster, said there have been historians who said Jesus never existed yet he didn't mention any.  I would like to see a historian quote saying Jesus did not exist from Rick Norwood. Raisinman 02:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And make that modern historians, otherwise it doesn't belong in the intro. rossnixon 10:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  It's a good lead, but we'll have to check it. Do you have a title? --CTSWyneken 17:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  Thanks! We don't own a copy here, but I'll send for it from one of the other 180+ libraries that own a copy. A look at the version in books.google.com did not yield enough info to say one way or the other. The author does do, however, a rather thorough historiography of the study of Jesus. Reading about 15 pages from the book, I did not run into his opinion once. --CTSWyneken 19:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that the encyclopedia quote is enough, because historians who accept Jesus' existence (Vermes, Fredricksen, Sanders) seem to think the same thing abou the NT.  Rick Norwood's quote is a good one, but it illustrates the critical approach to NT studies in general and does not, as Rick points out, necessarily mean that Jesus did not exist, or that the critical scholar does not believe Jesus existed.  The whole point of the scholarship on the historical jesus is to distinguish between jesus the man, who really lived, and Jesus the myth, as he came to be represented in Christianity.  (Of course, this view does not require one to believe Jesus existed; I am just saying that we have two separate things here: views of the NT as historical document, and views of Jesus as a historical person)Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Again with the Jesus-Myth

message: I think the article should mention that no historians say Jesus did not exist. Raisinman 00:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why? Historians tend not to assert things that cannot be proven or documented; to do so is the realm of religion. Historians can say that no contemporaneous documents exist that prove the existance of Jesus; they can not say that this demonstrates Jesus didn't exist, since the vast majority of living people (of that period, certainly, and I imagine of most periods) left no contemporaneous record. At best they can say "case unproven" until they find the secret scrolls that record the conspiracy to invent Jesus. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 01:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: But, for the record, their "best guess" (an educated guess, based on the available evidence) has been that Jesus did exist (though obviously they can say little regarding miracles, divinity, etc.).  KHM03 01:05, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Jpgordon.  Arguing from the negative (no historians think ...) is always a bad idea.  For one thing, has Raisinman surveyed all historians to see what they believe?  How can we know whether or not an article will come out tomorrow by a major historian stating that Jesus did not exist?  This is not a joke - few if any of us read all of the history journals and it is common for encyclopedias to lag behind the fields they represent - especially if something is a matter of ongoing discussion.  All major historians I know of believe Jesus existed, and I feel confident saying this because I have done considerable research on the topic.  But even having done this research, I cannot say that there are no historians who believe he did not exist.  How could one prove such a statement? Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:40, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Hm, I don't think Josephus is positive about the non-existence of Brian son of Naughtius. A close tie between the historicity of Jesus vs. Brian, then :p dab (ᛏ) 13:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, everyone knows Brian existed.  Haven't you seen the movie with your own eyes?  Guettarda 16:25, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, but did Josephus exist? ;-) --CTSWyneken 16:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't remember - was he in the movie?  Guettarda 17:23, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anybody exist? I think, therefore I am...I think. But what is "real"? How do we define "real"? Should I take the red pill or the blue pill? Arch O. La 19:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If we're debating the meaning of life, go | here :D. Homestarmy 20:04, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think the article should mention that no historians say Jesus did not exist 

message: I think the article should say that all the Jesus mythers are non historians. Raisinman 01:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh, it's early evening here. Good commentary, though ;) Arch O. La 01:33, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Rick Norwood, a previous poster, said there have been historians who said Jesus never existed yet he didn't mention any.  I would like to see a historian quote saying Jesus did not exist from Rick Norwood. Raisinman 02:34, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And make that modern historians, otherwise it doesn't belong in the intro. rossnixon 10:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  It's a good lead, but we'll have to check it. Do you have a title? --CTSWyneken 17:21, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

text:  Thanks! We don't own a copy here, but I'll send for it from one of the other 180+ libraries that own a copy. A look at the version in books.google.com did not yield enough info to say one way or the other. The author does do, however, a rather thorough historiography of the study of Jesus. Reading about 15 pages from the book, I did not run into his opinion once. --CTSWyneken 19:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that the encyclopedia quote is enough, because historians who accept Jesus' existence (Vermes, Fredricksen, Sanders) seem to think the same thing abou the NT.  Rick Norwood's quote is a good one, but it illustrates the critical approach to NT studies in general and does not, as Rick points out, necessarily mean that Jesus did not exist, or that the critical scholar does not believe Jesus existed.  The whole point of the scholarship on the historical jesus is to distinguish between jesus the man, who really lived, and Jesus the myth, as he came to be represented in Christianity.  (Of course, this view does not require one to believe Jesus existed; I am just saying that we have two separate things here: views of the NT as historical document, and views of Jesus as a historical person)Slrubenstein   |  Talk 17:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revised idea: I think the article should say that all the Jesus mythers are non historians 

message: Fellow editors: 
Before the article was blocked, I finished documentation for all but two of the listed historians and Bible scholars who support the majority position. I was only able to verify one of the persons supporting the minority position. Left to do are: Geza Vermes; D. A. Carson; Bruno Bauer; Michael Martin; John Mackinnon Robertson.
From the vague discussions we've had during our ... vigorous ... debate, I recall one or two more we might want to add. Please help me by listing them here. If they are not in the talk:Jesus/Cited Authors Bios subpage, please add them. No matter how the vote comes out, please list only historians and Bible scholars for the majority (the way we have the position described, Voltaire and Bertrand Russell don't count). I'll check Will Durant to see if he has formal historian's credentials. For the second, anyone with scholarly credentials will do, as long as they support the nonexistence hypothesis.
In the spirit of collaboration I hope can prevail here, I am, of course, open to modification of the above, providing it takes into account that these notes are for providing evidence of the majority and minority views.
Also unfinished on the documentary front, are the subpages on Jesus and the Jewish Authorities and the date range for the life of Jesus. This is the hard work, folks. Help us establish what scholarship says. --CTSWyneken 12:41, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  1st and 2nd Paragraph Documentation Report