Talk:Historicity of Jesus/Archive 12

message: Caesar, I don't think the info about Acts' "we" sections belongs in the section on Paul's epistles, as Acts isn't one of them.  This info bears on Luke's sources in his writings, and so I think it belongs under the discussion about the Gospels, as it is already stated that the "traditional" view was that Luke knew Paul, which this is evidence for, and should go in there.  So I'm adding it back to that section as well as changing the majority view of dating about Mark, as the majority view, according to that cite, does not have it written that late. Roy Brumback 10:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I changed the date based on what Andrew said in the talk page, so I will leave that edit up to him since I am a thrid party to it.  As for the we sections, I don't think they belong with Paul's letters either, so we agree, but I think the section on the Gospels is a worse place for them.  I will leave it a little while and see if someone else can sort it out, or if one of us gets a better idea.  Lostcaesar 12:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know some people argue for that late date, but as is was written it has that date tied to that cite, which was a fallacy.  And maybe a seperate paragraph or section on Acts? Roy Brumback 06:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Luke and Paul 

message: I think the early church fathers writings should be mentioned (for example, Polycarp was a disciple of the Apostle John and Polycarp has some writings. ken 08:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My advice is to slow down, discuss all changes here first and reach a consensus, and to support all of your assertions with evidence.  Secondly, I don't think anthropologists or sociologists are relevant scholars here.  The article's terminology is intended to accurately reflect the field of relevant scholarship.  Perhaps your contributions would be more profitable in Jesus as myth.  Lostcaesar 08:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the advice. I did discuss intended changes previously, and was unaware that I needed consensus to make changes. It seems to me that there are two main pages discussing both Historical Jesus and Jesus as myth and that the purpose of this page, titled "Historicity of Jesus Christ" is not an overview of Biblical Scholarship but an overview of the whole debate - history v. myth. I suggest that if sociologists, non-theological historians and anthropologists, like Pagels and Campbell (support for which I'll get to if my contributions aren't summarily reverted), are not suitable experts, then the title of the article be changed to biblical scholar and avoid objective claims of historicity since it would be refusing to address legitimate criticisms. This is a topic of international and interdisciplinary significance: to limit the discussion to the expertise of the biblical scholar who relies on a intra- and inter-disciplinarily disputed primary source, without addressing that fact, is academically dishonest. Additionally, speaking of style, an intro shouldn't necessarily jump into one side of the debate, it should provide an overview and does not need support as support is provided throughout the body. There are appropriate headings, the info you reverted makes more sense placed under the headings. Zero-sum reversions are rather discouraging, I would appreciate it if you would supply more of a rational for dismissing the number of changes I made. Would it be better if I made them individually? Also, there are tons of weasel words in this article, and while this appropriate in an intro, it is inappropriate in the body of the article. These need to be addressed. How does one reach a consensus among users, who constitutes the acceptable authorities, and how does one determine that a consensus has been reached? I'm always open to constructive criticism, but I'm not quite sure about this consensus thing - which consensus did you reach when you reverted my contribution? I see no discussion on this page between you and any other member regarding such an action. Is there something I'm missing? Phyesalis 11:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV/BIAS tag 

message: Will Durant affirmed that Jesus existed - I deleted the Will Durant info that was uncited.  Here is what Durant wrote in in Caesar and Christ: 
The Christian evidence for Christ begins with the letters ascribed to Saint Paul. Some of these are of uncertain authorship; several, antedating A.D. 64, are almost universally accounted as substantially genuine. No one has questioned the existence of Paul, or his repeated meetings with Peter, James, and John; and Paul enviously admits that these men had known Christ in his flesh. The accepted epistles frequently refer to the Last Supper and the Crucifixion.... The contradictions are of minutiae, not substance; in essentials the synoptic gospels agree remarkably well, and form a consistent portrait of Christ. In the enthusiasm of its discoveries the Higher Criticism has applied to the New Testament tests of authenticity so severe that by them a hundred ancient worthies, for example Hammurabi, David, Socrates would fade into legend. Despite the prejudices and theological preconceptions of the evangelists, they record many incidents that mere inventors would have concealed the competition of the apostles for high places in the Kingdom, their flight after Jesus' arrest, Peter's denial, the failure of Christ to work miracles in Galilee, the references of some auditors to his possible insanity, his early uncertainty as to his mission, his confessions of ignorance as to the future, his moments of bitterness, his despairing cry on the cross; no one reading these scenes can doubt the reality of the figure behind them. That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so loft an ethic and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospel. After two centuries of Higher Criticism the outlines of the life, character, and teaching of Christ, remain reasonably clear, and constitute the most fascinating feature of the history of Western man.     ken 02:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article never said that he denied Jesus's existence, just that he summarised the arguments of those who did. Paul B 10:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Will Durant affirmed that Jesus existed - I deleted the Will Durant Jesus myth claim in relation to Durant that was uncited 

message: I see someone has added the following:
:There is contention over the conclusions raised by the mainstream scholars, however, as most scholars who study in this field are committed Christians. As their personal religion means that they already believe in 'Jesus Christ', critics of Christianity often assert they may not be able to maintain the proper degree of detachment and neutrality.
Let's leave aside the fact that some of these scholars are Jewish, or non-Christian - a fact which is alone sufficient to dispose of this claim.  Let's pick the example of Sanders who is Christian.  I take very strong exception to this for two reasons.  First, it is an insult to serious scholarship.  Doherty is a dilitant who relies on Wells, another dilitant.  I believe very very strongly that Wikipedia should strive to acknowledge and incorporate the best of mainstream scholarship.  To me, this means looking at scholars who have relevant graduate degrees and who have published in relevant peer-reviewed journals, or who have published books through well-respected academic presses.  For example, in the article on physics, I would respect the work of a physicist trained at MIT or Cal Tech (or many other similar institutions) who has published in Science or Nature.  When it comes to Jesus, I have a high regard for the scholarship of E.P Sanders because he received a doctorate Union Theological Seminary which is a well-known seat of critical scholarship on religion (an he later received a degree from Oxford), is a member of the British Academy, teaches at Duke University (one of the top ten or at least top 15 universities in the US), has a book published by Cambridge University Press.  More importantly, Sanders employs the tools of the modern historian or scholar of comparative literature.  Regardless of his credentials, his scholarly writing holds up to academy-wide standards of critical scholarship, by which I mean (1) his conclusions are not determined by his personal beliefs and (2) his conclusions are supported by appropriate (in this case, linguistic, literary, and archeological) evidence, and (3) he holds his work accountable to other scholars in his field. Sanders may be a Christian, but non-Christians, including Jews and atheists, respect his work because it is not based on Christian theology but rather the highest standards of academic research.  Compared to Sanders, Doherty and Wells are as much experts in New Testament or 1st century Roman Palestine history as they are experts in physics or biology.  I would not draw on them in an article on physics or biology, and I wouldn't draw on them in an article concerning Jesus.  To do so is to disrespect the entire tradition of post-Enlightenment Western science and academia.  Second, it is an insult to Christians because the implication is Christians cannot be scientists.  I realize that some Christians believe the world was created in six days and that God created all species, but this does not change the fact that there are many Christian astrophysicists, geologists, and evolutionary biologists and we do not dismiss their work because they are Christians.  There is no need for me to discuss the many works by Christian intellectuals about how they can be both Christian and accept post-Enlightenment science; this is well-established.  What is true for astrophysics, geology, and evolutionary biology is true for the study of history and comparative literature. 
NPOV means that we must represent diverse views.  But it also means that we must represent views accurately.  Sanders is a man, he was born in Texas, and for all I know he plays golf and the violin.  My point is that, like any man or woman, he is many things.  This does not mean that when he writes about Jesus he is expressing the point of view of violinists or golfers, or Texans or men.  Neither does it mean that he is expressing the point of view of a Christian.  How do I know?  I have read his books along with other words of comparative literature and history.  He does not claim to write as a cleric or as a theologian; he does not claim to be addressing issues central to the Christian faith.  He does claim to address issues of importance to a historian, and he frames and answers these questions as any trained historian does.  Now, I can sort of see how someone might think that if he is Christian, and writing about Jesus, his faith must bias his research.  But it takes me less than a second to dismiss this reasoning as naive or ignorant.  It does not surprise us that most people who are extablish scholars of US history are American, or that most people who are scholars of German literature are German - but this in no way means that these scholars are nationalists whose research is driven by a nationalist agenda.  That a Christian may be drawn to learn more about Paul or jesus is not surprising.  But it should be no less surprising that in the process they want to be as objective, and draw on as many modern critical methods, as possible.  Anyone who finds this surprising must either know only a small range of Christians, or nothing about academia. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 11:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  scholarship versus slander 

message: It has been called to my attention that I have reverted the article at a frequency in violation of wikipedia policy.  Let me take the opportunity to apologize to my fellow editors for the difficulties that this has caused, whatever they may be.  I will abjure from this article for 36 hours, beginning with this edit (3:51GMT 19 Oct), in the interest of respecting the policies that we work under.  Lostcaesar 14:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, but please feel free to weigh in here on talk on these matters. Your perspective is definately appreciated. (or if you need time to cool down, have a cup of tea, whatever. That's fine. You will be missed).--Andrew c 15:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  3RR 

message: It may be useful for whenever the phrase "some scholars" is used with citation to differentiate between Conservative and Liberal scholars. The obvious difference being Conservative scholarship's approach tends to use the text of the Bible as inherrent truth in arriving at thier conclusions whereas the Liberal scholarship approaches text as insight into the cirumstances of it's creation with an open mind as to how interpretations of history and alternative sources might give equal or more accurate clues.
I don't see this as being much of a problem, most Liberal scholars appreciate the term Liberal and haev no problems understanding the conservative viewpoint while disagreeing with the foundation on how the conclusions were obtained. Simmilarly conservatives, also appreciating the title conservative, see Liberal conclusions as erroneous dur to missing key elements from the scripture. Most scholars have no problems at all (and in fact are proud of) identifying which school of thought they operate in. 
I think it would be important to this article due to it possibly being a main line of separation between the varying theories. And also this would alleviate nPOV issues. While some may argue that scholars agree or what the majority is, no one is going to argue what Liberal scholarship or Conservative scholarship teaches when the citations are in place, leaving the POV to the notable experts and us simply citing them. Peace --Home Computer 15:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Differentiation of Scholarship