Talk:Jesus/Archive 24

This is an archive of past discussions about Jesus. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

→

Pop Culture Mention

Why is there nothing about Jesus in Pop culture in this article?.--ikiroid | (talk) 21:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Probably because there is a dearth of evidence that Jesus is a movie star or rock guitarist or the like. Ruby 22:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

No but Jesus is portrayed in movies, cartoons, musicals, rock operas, and so on. It seems there should be some reference in there. I don't want to do it, but someone should. pookster11 23:18, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Jesus in Islam

There is no mention in the article that Muslims consider Jesus to be the promised Messiah.

The sentence :

"In Islam, Jesus (known as Isa), is considered one of God's most-beloved and important prophets."

is better to be changed to

"In Islam, Jesus (known as Isa), is considered one of God's most-beloved and important prophets and the long awaited Messiah."

How is that?

It is wrong, Muslims do not identify Isa with the coming Mahdi. Ruby 01:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

No they don't, but the Mahdi is not the Messiah. Jesus is repeatedly called the Messiah in the Quran. The proposed sentence is perfectly accurate. Paul B 01:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I'm seeing things, but the paragraph in the intro states that Muslims believe Jesus to be the Messiah twice already. --Oscillate 02:27, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Gosh, then you better capitalize the word "messiah" used in the intro so we know that Muslims believe Jesus is THE Messiah. Ruby 02:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm? I can't personally say if Muslims usually capitalize it or not. In Messiah#In_Islam it is lowercase, but I see that in quotations here and there of the Qur'an it is written as "Messiah". It's lowercase in the paragraph here, and in Isa, it's capitalized. I certainly can't make a judgment on it. But I don't understand the tone of your reply, I'm afraid. --Oscillate 02:40, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

The title of Messiah is only used for Jesus in Quran and Hadith; Mahdi is never called with the title of Messiah in Hadith. So it is justified to use the Messiah instead of messiah. Also, Although intro says that muslims consider Jesus to be Messiah, but it is better to include this in the part about islam as well. Why not?

Also Another suggestion:

The sentence: “However, unlike Christians, Muslims do not consider Jesus to have been the son of God, and do not believe that he died on the cross”

To

“However, unlike Christians, Muslims do not consider Jesus to have been the son of God by nature, and do not believe that he died on the cross”

The reason is that everywhere the Quran denies that Jesus is the son of God, clearly uses “son of God” in this sense and therefore considers it blasphemy. Jesus is considered as one the closest to God and Abraham was considered as a friend of God in Quran. I think the following verse makes the matter clear:

How could it be that (Allah) should have a child without there ever having been a mate for Him -since it is He who has created everything, and He alone knows everything? - Qur'an 6:101

OK, to clarify things, according to the Koran, there are two saviours - Jesus and the Mahdi, a person that will emerge from Mecca. Jesus will return AFTER Mahdi emerges from Mecca.

Any comments?

ever since this article became a candidate for feature article status & then failed, the article has become increasingly biased. I have seen no disagreement (except by me) to repeated comments that this is "a Christian article". There are NO Christian articles on wikipedia, though some have "Christian perspectives on...." in the title. This article does not. This is NOT wikiChristian --JimWae 02:07, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

You'll have to elaborate on what you're driving at here. Clearly and calmly point out the parts you think are biased, and what leads you to say it is "a Christian article" or it's going to be difficult for there to be a constructive discussion about this. --Oscillate 02:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Many biographical articles have a legacy section. The Barabbas incident, and Jesus' harsh words about Jews & Jewish leaders very much contributed to a legacy of anti-Semitism. AND why are discussions only 2 days old archived already? --JimWae 21:51, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Everything on the Talk page was archived recently, including recent discussions since there is a lot of activity here. --Oscillate 02:25, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Right now the intro presents ONLY religious views of Jesus and makes NO mention of that which even most non-believers hold to be true about him - while the article itself DOES present some of that - which it most definitely must to be of any historical and encyclopedic value. As such, the intro does NOT represent the rest of the article. While I agree that extensive mention of the names of non-believing scholars names is not called for in the intro, a summary of their views IS needed - their names can come later in the main body--JimWae 20:50, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I would think that readers, whether they be believers or not, would want to know from the intro whether they are about to encounter ONLY religious views or not. I would also think that believing scholars would be interested in hearing what non-believing scholars had to say about Jesus--JimWae 20:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Currently, the intro makes absolutely NO mention of any sources for information on Jesus - something the 1st para of 1st sub-section clearly does. Something very much like that paragraph - perhaps without all the scholars names - needs to be included in the intro --JimWae 21:47, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

No, the article should not be "a Christian article". What would that mean anyway?
Jesus did not have harsh words about "Jews", but about Pharisees.
There's no reason why non-believer's views should not be included, but the problem is that it's difficult to characterise non-belief in other than negativities ('non-believers do not accept that he was God...'). It's bit like stating the obvious to add this, rather as if the Muhammad article stated "non-believers do not consider him to have been God's final prophet". As it stands the Muhammad article says "Non-Muslims generally consider him to be the founder of Islam." But it's not even possible to say that about Jesus, because his actual life and beliefs are profoundly disputed. Some people would say Paul of Tarsus was the real founder of Christianity.
Maybe a non-believer's position could be added in these terms "Most secular scholars are skeptical of the accounts in the Gospels, but accept that a Jesus was a preacher with a distinctive message who was executed by the authorities of Roman Judea." --Paul B 02:32, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not advocating putting in what people are skeptical about, but rather what even secular people would agree on -- This is a biography article, after all.

Most scholars, even those who are not members of religions that hold Jesus in high regard, agree that Jesus lived from about 8-4 BC/BCE to 29-36 AD/CE. Most scholars, both Christian and not, also agree that Jesus preached to the Jewish people, was often at odds with the Jewish religious authorities, and was crucified outside of Jerusalem during the rule of the Roman governor Pontius Pilate.
The main sources regarding his life and teachings are the four canonical Gospels from the New Testament, which were written by followers some decades after his death. Scholars also rely on other contemporary sources about Hellenic Judaism and Roman politics to provide a context for interpreting these gospels.
According to these gospels, Jesus also could heal the sick and perform other miracles, forgive sins, ...--JimWae 05:44, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we can put in "what even secular peole would agree on", because there isn't any thing they agree on. By definition secular scolars are skeptical about the content of the gospels. If they were not, they'd bve believers. (Imoved you signature to clarify where your contribution ends and Rob's begins. Paul B 10:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I have put in point form above 2 paragraphs about which nearly everyone (skeptical or not) can agree --JimWae 18:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

This article is meant to be biographical not biased to any opinion. In a biography it is important that the sources are verifiable and accurate. The intro SHOULD mention that there are no extant contemporary documents which refer to his existence and that there is no mention of him for over a generation. Robsteadman 09:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

A suggested new intro

Jesus, Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus the Nazarene (circa 4 BCE – 30 CE), is mentioend in several religions but is the central figure of Christianity, in which context he is known as Jesus Christ (from Greek Ιησούς Χριστός) with "Christ" being a title meaning "Anointed One" or "Messiah".

The main sources regarding his life and teachings are the four canonical Gospels from the New Testament, which were written several decades after his death. There are no extant contemporary documents which has led a minority of scholars to hold that Jesus did not exist at all (see Historicity of Jesus).

How about:

The primary sources regarding his life and teachings are the four canonical Gospels from the New Testament, which were written in the final half of the first century. Later books in the New Testament add some additional information. While mention of Jesus is made by some non-Christian writers of the first and second centuries, the lack of extant contemporary documents has led a minority of scholars to doubt the existance of Jesus.

--Oscillate 20:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Christians generally believe Jesus was born of a virgin, crucified and buried, resurrected on the third day of death, and ascended into Heaven where he resides at the "right hand" of God the Father until the Second Coming.

How about:

Christian viewpoints on Jesus (known as Christology) are both diverse and complex. Christians generally believe Jesus was born of a virgin, crucified and buried, resurrected on the third day of death, and ascended into Heaven where he resides at the "right hand" of God the Father until the Second Coming.

With all appropriate wikilinks, of course. --Oscillate 20:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

In Islam, Jesus (called Isa) is considered one of God's most beloved and important prophets, a bringer of divine scripture, and also the messiah. Muslims however do not share the Christian belief in the divinity of Jesus. Jesus is also considered a manifestation of God in the Bahá'í Faith.

everything else should then be moved to the body of the article not in the intro. Just a suggestion..... Robsteadman 18:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll keep going and do the rest if the article if you want ;-) Robsteadman 19:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's not get carried away. --Oscillate 20:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I was trying to simplify the intro, make it all verifiable and factual and allow it to lead on! Robsteadman 20:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I hate to be picky but there are no undisputed mentions of Jesus in the 1st century from non-Christian sources. There are only the Testimonium Flavianum and a mention of "James the brother of Jesus" both by Josephus written in 93 AD and both of which are generally but not universally accepted.

In the 2nd century there are mentions of "Christ" "Chrestus" and "Christians" but not Jesus by non Christian writers.

Maybe something like "Whilst most scholars agree there are references to Jesus and Christians by 1st and 2nd century writers, the lack of extant contemporary documents has led a minority of scholars to doubt the existance of Jesus." or something like that? SOPHIA 23:21, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

(Darn edit conflict!) I notice that this eliminates part of my Nicene compromise, which may resurrect some of the disputes that this compromise helped to settle. (The compromise included placing the info in the intro rather than the Background section, as well as explicity mentioning that not all Christians agree). I'd like to hear how others who were influenced by this compromise feel. Otherwise, Oscillate's modifications of Robsteadman's revision look fine to me at first glance. The intro was starting to get too long again... archola 23:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

The introduction as it stands does a very good job of illustrating the majority view of Jesus in a NPOV way. I understand, however, the need to represent secular views of Jesus in a historical context. But in accordance with Wikipedia's NPOV policy, these minority views should not be given unfair weight and prominence in the article. I feel that the section on the historicity of Jesus as well as the extensive linkage to concerning articles very well represents this view accordingly. That said, I am not against a few (note: few) sentences in the introduction making note of this view. This would belong at the end of the introduction as it would not be the primary focus of the introduction or the article and would not entail removal of any existing material. (Drawing on some of the previous suggestions,) what I feel would do the trick:

The main sources of information regarding Jesus' life and teachings are the four canonical Gospels of the New Testament. However, scholarly views relating to existence and life of Jesus vary widely. While most scholars hold that Jesus probably lived from about 8-4 BC/BCE to 29-36 AD/CE and played the key role in the establishment of Christianity, a minority of scholars, citing a lack of extant contemporary documents, question the historicity of Jesus. Aiden 01:16, January 30, 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that even the secular, scholarly view aknowledges the historical existence of Jesus.pookster11 07:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Have a care. There are none who question the historicity of the trans-Alpine advance by Hannibal with elephants, yet there are only two extant contemporary documents certifying that it happened. This is possibly because no one has a vested interest in the non-existence of an elephant attack. Ruby 02:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

What two are you talking about? There's Plutarch, Livy... um... my brain just went to mush. But yeah, what two sources are you thinking of contemporary with the Second Punic War?pookster11 06:58, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Two about Hannibal is two more than about "jesus" Robsteadman 06:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Both the Romans and Jews had plenty of reasons to destroy such documents, if they existed. ^ross ^nixon 08:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Care to elaborate on what reasons the Jews and Romans would have for destroying contemporary documents about a minor Jewish religious figure? pookster11 08:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I've seen Rob told that Wiki is not the place for maybe's. We have to report what is (or isn't in this case). My preference is at the end of the intro but if it's going to cause grief I will be Ok with a mention and link in both the backgound and history sections. SOPHIA 08:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

This discussion is entirely off-track. NOR is a core Wikipedia policy. It is not the place of editors to weigh the evidence the supports or raises doubts about the existence of Jesus. Any sentence in this or the preceeding sections asserting that there are or are no contemporary documents attesting to Jesus' life are irrelevant because they can play no role in how we edit the article, as they represent original research. What we are supposed to be doing is discussing the current state of research on Jesus and the New Testament from a variety of views, and make sure those views are respresented in the article. We also need to identify the source of those views (i.e, is is important to know if the source is a Catholic cleric, a Rabbi, or a critical Bible scholar). It does not matter whether I or anyone else here agrees or disagrees with these views, or believes that there is or is no evidence to support those views. That violates NOR. Our task is not to debate whether or not Jesus existed. Our task is not to decide on "the truth." Or task is to write a well-researched article that complies with our core policies. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Well said. pookster11 11:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Very well said...and also quite correct. KHM03 12:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I've not taken this as original research. We all come from different backgrounds and POVs. Somehow we need to blend those to write an article that fairly reflects the current summed views of society on this topic. As Joe Public can go into any book store and buy books that speculate on the existence of Jesus as a true historical figure these views must be included in this article. The position of these facts is always POV. I (because I'm like that) will want to know why something is so - what supports this theory - who says so - what is their data etc. But others are not like this and will want a run down of the basic assumed mainstream facts. What makes Wiki interesting (and why I'm bothering to edit at all) is that we have the opportunity to cover both camps. We can give a comprehensive mainstream run down but include links off for those interested to get a deeper picture. To mention there are no contemporary documents is an important fact in a biography. Why is this a problem? It doesn't change anything but the reader knows that secondary sources are being solely relied upon. Most won't care but why should I, as an interested reader who does care, not be allowed to know this?

If you want Encarta or the Catholic Encyclopedia then go there for your info. It maybe my misguided POV but I thought Wiki was more than that. I thought it was supposed to be the sum of all the distributed knowledge on a subject with links for easy reference - which is all we are trying to achieve. SOPHIA 13:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Now, that is well said. archola 14:11, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Briliant post SOPHIA. I really don;t see what was wrong with my suggested new intro.... concise, covered verifiable fact and clearly stated Christian (and other religion) views. Isn;t that NPOV??? Robsteadman 14:41, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

And Slrubenstein is wrong - the article is about "jesus" not the state of research into him -though if that were the case we would have to state even more strongly that there are no contemporary documents because that is fundamental to the research. Robsteadman 14:49, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

How does the lack of documents constitute original research? NOR? It is verifiable FACT that there are none. Unless you know better? the page needs to be unprotected and I suggest my new intro is a good balanced NPOV start to a complete re-qwrite of a poor article.Robsteadman 14:52, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Robsteadman is wrong. When I said we should be discussing the current state of researchon Jesus, i thought it was clear from the context that I mean on this talk page as I go on to say that we should then make sure that the various views on Jesus are appropriately represented in the article. Robsteadman's statement, "the article is about "jesus" not the state of research into him" is a non-sequiter. An article about Jesus has to be based on research. There has indeed been a good deal of research on Jesus and the New Testament, and we should draw on this research. I stand by what I said: it is not for us to say that "Sanders is wrong" or "Crossan is right." Our job is to present the result of their (and others') research, and whatever context is appropriate for people to know the perspective or approach of the source (e.g. a theologian or a critical scholar etc.) "The lack of documents" is original research if you Robsteadman use it to make your own interpretation, synthetic or analytic claim, and add it to the article. This is our policy. If your claim that there are no documents concerning Jesus contemporary with his life, then it should be very easy to provide a source for this claim. In any event, my point was not about asserting the fact that there are no sources concerning Jesus that are generally believed to date to the time Jesus lived. I do not object to adding this to the article. What I object to is using it to argue a point. This is uncontroverably a violation of Wikipedia policy. Articles are not venues for editors to argue their own views. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:22, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I have posted this link several times, though it has now been mpoved to the archive: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08375a.htm - a "chrsitian" source making it clear that there are no extant contemporary documents that refer to "jesus". I am not suggesting it is used to make any "claim" just that it needs to be stated taht this is a verifiable fact - one of the few verifiable facts about "jesus" life. It is also verifiable fact that, as a result of this several scholars do not believe he ever existed - FACT. If the intro does not state this verifiable fact it remains a poorly written, factually inaccurate biased POV aintro to an article which is also highly contentious in its lack of verifiablilty and POV. Slrubenstein please be careful with your accusations - I await your retraction and apology. Robsteadman 17:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

To repeat:

Robsteadman, Wikipedia edits are not judged based on facticity, but rather verifiability. While it may or may not be 'fact', in a restricted sense of the word, that no 'contemporary' accounts of Christ exist, it doesn't matter in terms of Wikipedia acceptability. Cite a verifiable and reputable source that claims this and explains why it matters.

Here's what I would consider NPOV, Robsteadman -- a sentence with the structure, "<Source X> claims that, since there are no contemporaneous references to Jesus Christ<footnote-style link here for no contemporaneous reference claim>, then <explain significance here><footnote-style link source X here>." Once you've been able to structure your intended addition in this manner, the rest of us will be able to understand where you're trying to go with this, and we'll hopefully be able to come to a consensus on the best location for your insertion.Jpers36 18:08, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Yet again I have provided a source for the info - and I can provide many more - unless someone has some documents secretly hidden there are none http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08375a.htm - It is a simple statement of verifiable fact - There are no extent contemporary documents that mention "jesus".

You don't need to source that fact. That fact is not in dispute. It is the significance of it that is disputed. It has already been pointed out ad nauseam that there are no contemporary records for many figures in ancient history, and yet we don't have that fact prominently placed in articles on them unless there is a reason to doubt their existence. We don't say it of Plato, we do say it of Romulus. It would be astonishing - dare I say almost a miracle - if contemporary documents were to survive referring to Jesus. The question is whether there is a good reason to take this absence of contemporary evidence as an argument for doubting Jesus's existence. If so, what is that argument and who has put it forward - that is, which reputable source has done so? Paul B 18:34, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Do what you like on the other articles you mention. The point is that a minority of scholars do dispute the existence of Jesus and why should this verifiable fact and a link be left out of the article? There is an awful lot invested in the Historicity of Jesus, the authority of the church rests upon it so of course all the availible research becomes more important.

To the "it doesn't matter what we believe or don't believe" comment above I would add "it doesn't matter what you percieive as a threat to what you believe" what matters is what is verifiable. SOPHIA 19:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

So then, the insertion would look like "<Source X> claims that, since there are no contemporaneous references to Jesus Christ<footnote-style link here for no contemporaneous reference claim>, then Jesus Christ does not exist<footnote-style link source X here>." Would SOPHIA or Robsteadman be able to provide such a sentence on the talk page? Jpers36 19:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

If WIKI is to be credible it must highlight the verifiable not the doubtful unverifiable fictitious or completely nonsensical. Robsteadman 19:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you'll get much agreement to anything, even if there is a completely valid point, if you continue to throw things out like this - you are showing your POV and agenda way too much. It has already been decided that such a statement can go into the article, I don't think anyone is saying at all that such a statement, with references, that the primary documents date after his death and there have been found no documents dating from his lifetime cannot be included even in the intro. You don't have to keep repeating it over and over and over. You're just dragging this out so much longer than it ever needed. --Oscillate 20:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're responding to or what point you're trying to make, Robsteadman. Jpers36 19:37, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Plato was an interesting choice as an example. He left manuscripts and accounts by people who knew him. He reported on externally verifiable events such as the trial of Socrates. There are no parallels to his life in older myths.

If he left 4 different accounts of his life written not by him but by 4 anonymous authors. If they gave 2 completely different lineages for him and referred to events that should have been recorded elsewhere such as the census (of a type never performed before or since) and the slaughter of the innocents, but which are never mentioned anywhere (other than by a fiddle of the dates for the census). If he referred to places such as Bethlehem in Galilee where there is no archeological evidence that it existed at the time - then yes I think a note in the intro of his article mentioning that he may not have existed would be very justified (references for all of this cheerfully provided on request - none of this is OR). SOPHIA 19:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

No disrespect User:Jpers36 but I think you need to do a bit more reading. A five minute scoot round my book shelves provided these refs:

George Albert Wells

Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy in The Jesus Mysteries - we can quibble on the academic nature of this one but a lot of people have read it.

John Marco Allegro in The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Christian Myth

If you want I can find more but my point is that it's not just one scholar there is a minority view among scholars that that Jesus never existed. If we put in all the refs we will overshadow the main consensus view which is not what we are trying to do. All that is required for NPOV is a mention of the controversy and a link to the page where there is room to give the details.

Why are readers not allowed to know that the Historicity of Jesus is not universally accepted? Let them make up their own minds whether the controversy is ill founded from the info on the other pages (which by the way are currently written from a very Christian POV so should cause you no worries). If they never get the link they will never get that chance - or is that the point of this? We are not asking them to do OR - the reader should be presented with all the perspectives currently available. What they make of them is up to them. What gives you the right to preselect the data? SOPHIA 20:14, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Before we start on this again - the statement is already in the Background section and no one here has objected to it being moved to the Introduction, in fact that has been stated as being fine multiple times. No one is 'disallowing' anyone to know there are these views/skeptics. Dramatics are really not necessary. --Oscillate 20:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry you're right - not helpful but my patience deserted me for a moment. However before we get too cozy about this there are a few key objectors to inclusion anywhere at all in the article such as Slrubenstein who have not commented for a while. We'll only know if we've got anywhere when they come back on line. The statement is only in the background because I put there after it was removed several times from the intro and got it in just before the article was locked and it hasn't made it to the Historicity section yet where it is most relevent. So the fun hasn't finished yet I fear. SOPHIA 21:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not claiming any right to preselect any data, SOPHIA. Your response mostly satisfies my questions -- which, believe it or not, were not intended to be rhetorical or sarcastic. I would continue to follow this discussion around my proposed structure, but it looks like the editors are moving toward a consensus below. Jpers36 21:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry again - lesson learned - never edit when you're tired and hungry. I always try to AGF but I slipped at this point. Seriously - if you want more info I have it.SOPHIA 21:47, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

No - this is what I asked to be included:

"Jesus, Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus the Nazarene (circa 4 BCE – 30 CE), is mentioend in several religions but is the central figure of Christianity, in which context he is known as Jesus Christ (from Greek Ιησούς Χριστός) with "Christ" being a title meaning "Anointed One" or "Messiah".

The main sources regarding his life and teachings are the four canonical Gospels from the New Testament, which were written several decades after his death. There are no extant contemporary documents which has led a minority of scholars to hold that Jesus did not exist at all (see Historicity of Jesus).

Christians generally believe Jesus was born of a virgin, crucified and buried, resurrected on the third day of death, and ascended into Heaven where he resides at the "right hand" of God the Father until the Second Coming.

In Islam, Jesus (called Isa) is considered one of God's most beloved and important prophets, a bringer of divine scripture, and also the messiah. Muslims however do not share the Christian belief in the divinity of Jesus. Jesus is also considered a manifestation of God in the Bahá'í Faith.

That's all! - it is all verifiable and factual. It gives a NPOV intro to the article.

Something wrong with the modifications I made to it above? --Oscillate 20:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Got my vote.Gator (talk) 20:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me too.SOPHIA 20:18, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

So time to unprotect? Robsteadman 20:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Definately not. Oscillate's suggestion is not NPOV as it does not accurately weight the prominence of Christian and Islamic views respectively, followed by minority views such as those of scholars. The intro in its current state is however NPOV. The minority view, in this case concerning contemporary evidence, is well-developed and explained in subsequent sections of the article. No more is needed. Please review:

Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View

"NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints, in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification. Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority). We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by only a small minority of people deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. If we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties. None of this, however, is to say that tiny-minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can possibly give them on pages specifically devoted to those views. There is no size limit to Wikipedia. But even on such pages, though a view is spelled out possibly in great detail, we still make sure that the view is not represented as the truth." Aiden 21:24, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I was just trying to balance out what Rob had written, not as a final version, but to get it looking better. Honestly, I'd be fine with just adding into the current Intro a reasonable statement about the doubters and moving on at last. Equal weight should be given to the majority views, with a nod to the minority ones. Just move the statement similar to what's in Background up to the end of the Intro? --Oscillate 21:28, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Any chance of an agreement having been reached? I don't have time to read every single post here, but this talk page does look a little calmer than it did yesterday. AnnH ^(talk) 22:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Compromise Part 2

I got fed up with scrolling to the bottom all the time so I started a new section.

So where are we now?

If it get's the article unlocked I'm happy with the sentence at the bottom of the Background section and a mention and a link in the Historicity section. This I feel does not give undue weight to the minority view but gives info and a link for the interested reader. Sorry Rob but we're back to the snowball in hell with trying to get it in the intro. Any comments? SOPHIA 21:54, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see such resistance to it being placed in the bottom of the Intro. Maybe I'm missing it? --Oscillate 22:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The introduction should reflect the fact that non-religious views will also be discussed. THe "mainstream argument" will not overcome the fact that Christians & Muslims & ... are in the minority in the world --JimWae 03:22, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Religious people the minority? Have references? The CIA Factbook says "non-religious 12.03%, atheists 2.36%", adherents.com estimates "16% non-religious", Wikipedia's own List of religious populations says 17% (1.1 billion out of ~6.49 billion) with Christians & Muslims alone comprising 55% of the world. --Oscillate 04:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Those who are Christian, Muslim, or Bahai are less than 50% of the world pop. Neither article nor intro should not be written strictly from a perspective of what believers believe --JimWae 05:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Ok...? I don't think anyone is saying it has to be strictly "what believers believe". And again, the links I provided show that just Christians and Muslims alone are estimated to be over 50% of the world. Not that it matters anyway. Since Jesus is primarily associated with religion and "what believers believe", that should be expected to take up the majority, but of course not necessarily the entire, article. Why are you bringing this? What are you proposing to add? --Oscillate 05:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Jim, have you got an idea of how to introduce non-religious views to the article? Let's not attempt to dispute who gets to be identified as the minority or majority; it is not germaine tot he topic. The topic of this article is Jesus; all edits should apply to the topic. If you think something is missing, let's talk about it or add it and then we can talk about it. Storm Rider 07:17, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't know where you get your figures but they're not correct, Jim. Christians and Muslims alone compromise some 55% of the world's population, with the ability to gauge true Christian populations in Muslim countries or those such as China severely limited; so that is a conservative estimate at best. Secondly, the article is concerning the central figure of Christianity, thus we can expect that due to Jesus' prominence in said religion, it will be given the most weight, followed by Islam, and finally minority religious views and scholarly views. If you read the NPOV policy, weight is not determined simply by population, but by prominence. The dissenting views are well-developed and included in the Historicity of Jesus section in the article, with links to articles that explore the subject in great depth. No more is needed in a biographical article such as this. A lot of people are simply agressively POV-pushing here, such as Robsteadman, who for some reason needs to place quotes around the name Jesus. There's very little evidence of many historical stories or individuals, so what's your point? Aiden 18:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Just to move on, can't we agree to move the statement from Background to somewhere later in the Intro? I'm really getting tired of hearing the same arguments over and over, personally. A simple statement about the primary sources, the Gospels, being written in the latter half of the first century, which leads a minority to doubt the historicity of Jesus. That way, all views can be presented in the introduction, ordered by expected prominance. --Oscillate 20:56, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

It needs to say when the gosepls were written plus the fact there are no documents from within his life time. Robsteadman 21:40, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

No, it really doesn't need to go that far to be NPOV and proper. You need to compromise a little. Oscillate's language is more than fine and I support it. Enough already, you're not gong to get everything you want, so you need to compromise here or we'll never get this unprotected.Gator (talk) 21:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Fine, it's ok with me - "primary sources written in latter half of first century, lack of contemporary documents lead a minority to..." Which is a repeat from what was written before. Round and round... --Oscillate 21:46, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I still don;t see what was wrong with the NPOV totally verifiable version I suggested. What Os is suggesting is hinting at a POV. Robsteadman 21:48, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Why are we still discussing opinions and percantages of people who believe certain things? That is irrelevant - WIKI should be presenting the v erifiable fact irrespective of whether lots believe or don;t believe it. Without verifiable fact wikipedia is meaningless. It's also not about religious or non-religious - but a biographical article about a person. I would like a straight answer from those opposing it - what is wrong with my suggestion new introduction (above)? Robsteadman 20:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Please - tell me how this is problematic to anyone:

"Jesus, Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus the Nazarene (circa 4 BCE – 30 CE), is mentioend in several religions but is the central figure of Christianity, in which context he is known as Jesus Christ (from Greek Ιησούς Χριστός) with "Christ" being a title meaning "Anointed One" or "Messiah". The main sources regarding his life and teachings are the four canonical Gospels from the New Testament, which were written several decades after his death. There are no extant contemporary documents which has led a minority of scholars to hold that Jesus did not exist at all (see Historicity of Jesus). Christians generally believe Jesus was born of a virgin, crucified and buried, resurrected on the third day of death, and ascended into Heaven where he resides at the "right hand" of God the Father until the Second Coming. In Islam, Jesus (called Isa) is considered one of God's most beloved and important prophets, a bringer of divine scripture, and also the messiah. Muslims however do not share the Christian belief in the divinity of Jesus. Jesus is also considered a manifestation of God in the Bahá'í Faith.

Robsteadman 21:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Can we please make this the last place you copy that, and the last place we have to suggest changes to it? Could you actually use those changes that people agree with?

Instead of "several decades", why simply state: "the latter half of the first century". Saying "several decades" sounds to me like you're trying to make a point. Also, how about we use SOPHIA's suggestion of "Whilst (or While) most scholars agree there are references to Jesus and Christians by 1st and 2nd century writers, the lack of extant contemporary documents has led a minority of scholars to doubt the existance of Jesus."

There was much discussion surrounding what is currently the Intro, so I suggest the starting point be the current intro with SOPHIA's statement added (with all appropriate wikilinks, just as there are now):

Jesus, Jesus of Nazareth or Jesus the Nazarene (circa 4 BC/BCE – 30 AD/CE), is the central figure of Christianity, in which context he is known as Jesus Christ (from Greek Ιησούς Χριστός) with "Christ" being a title meaning "Anointed One" or "Messiah".

The main sources regarding his life and teachings are the four canonical Gospels from the New Testament, which were written in the latter half of the first century. While most scholars agree there are references to Jesus and Christians by 1st and 2nd century writers, the lack of extant contemporary documents has led a minority of scholars to doubt the existance of Jesus.

Christian viewpoints on Jesus (known as Christology) are both diverse and complex. Most Christians, affirming the Nicene Creed, believe Jesus is both the Son of God and God made incarnate, sent to provide reconciliation with God by atoning for humanity's sins, and acceptance of Jesus as Savior saves one from sin (John 3:16). Christians generally believe Jesus was born of a virgin, crucified and buried, resurrected on the third day of death, and ascended into Heaven where he resides at the "right hand" of God the Father until the Second Coming. Other Christians do not recognize the Nicene Creed as correctly interpreting scripture.

In Islam, Jesus (called Isa) is considered one of God's most beloved and important prophets, a bringer of divine scripture, and also the messiah. Muslims however do not share the Christian belief in the divinity of Jesus. The Qur'an states that the crucifixion was a divinely-created illusion and that Jesus was not killed, is alive in heaven and will return to the earth as messiah in the company of the Mahdi once it has become full of sin and injustice.

Jesus is also considered a manifestation of God in the Bahá'í Faith. Other religions also have different perspectives on Jesus, but do not place importance on his life and teachings.

As a better starting point. --Oscillate 23:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Put the sentence you've added at the end of the intro and I'll sign on. Aiden 00:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Skeptics sentence should be shorter. I suggest "A minority of scholars doubt the existance of Jesus." ^ross ^nixon 00:51, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

OK - let;s use SOPHIA's version - either will do - they are boith NPOV statements based on verifiable fact. Now let's get the page open and things rolling. Perhaps now we can aress someof the POV statements in the rest of the varticle? Robsteadman 07:10, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Go ahead...like what? --Oscillate 14:55, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

We are not adding in skeptic content at the expense of other more prominent information in the intro. Give it a rest, Rob. —Aiden 18:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Aiden - for making your position quite clear. You only want a "faith" position, you don;t want verifiable fact and anyone who disagrees is a skeptic. That position s contrary to the principles of Wikipedia. I find your approach unencyclopedic and, to be honest, dangerous in that it is suppressing the facts in favour of mysticism and the supernatural. Shameful. Robsteadman 20:04, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but I feel you may be reading too much into Aiden's comment. He said he didn't want skeptic content at the expense of the faith-based position. He earlier said that he'd sign on with the sentence at the end of the intro. As long the article isn't slanted, I don't think there will be a problem. However, supression of the fact that there are religous views is also unencyclopedic, dangerous and shameful. archola 23:47, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. Thank you, archola. —Aiden 01:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. archola 04:27, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Aiden's comments make it clear he doesn;t want any "religious" comment removed. That means the article would stay POV and biased. Robsteadman 07:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

We've got to stop viewing this as a "for" and "against" issue. As I've said before people will interpret the available data in different ways and the current mainstream religious view should make up the bulk of the page (remember the kid doing his homework). All that is required for balance are links and references to the minority historicity questions to allow people to examine the basis of the current view if they wish. To be honest as long as the article doesn't claim Christianity to be the one and only true faith which it doesn't, and the Christian editors are very good at removing the vandalism that places those sort of comments, then I won't make changes other than those currently under discussion. Religion is a POV so the article will always seem slanted to those on the "outside". For me (because I'm like that) if the basis of a faith system seems unproven then the rest of it just stories built on sand and therefore not interesting. Other people will feel I'm placing too much weight on historical data without a proper understanding of the context of that data and am expecting unrealistic levels of proof for events that happened 2000 years ago. Who ever is right I claim the right to have access to all the facts and make up my own mind.

One possible way forward is to place in the opening paragraph the phrase "This article assumes the Historicity of Jesus which a minority of scholars dispute. Then no other comments would be needed in the article. SOPHIA 08:15, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that sidelines the issue rather. The intro, as with the rest of the article, needs to be based on verifiable FACT. As has been stated before - this should make it clear that there are no extant contemporary documents which mention anyone called "jesus" and that none exist for quite some time (more than a generation) after his supposed death. After that its fine to say that despite this some choose to believe x and some choose to believe y - this article is about "jesus" and the important thing is to show where the information about him and his life has come from. The most important fact is that there is no mention of him during his lifetime or for many decades afterwards. Robsteadman 18:22, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

But stating it in such a way really is not acceptable, "rob" - it should simply state "the earliest documents are from the latter half of the first century...". It's more specific and has less of a tone to it. Saying "quite some time" and all such things you continually write, sounds clearly like an agenda - especially that "despite this, some choose..." part. For you, the most important part of this article is the lack of contemporary documents? What people believe is most certainly verifiable. I quote from WP:NPOV: Wikipedia articles on history and religion draw from a religion's sacred texts. But Wikipedia articles on history and religion also draw from modern archaeological, historical and scientific sources. There has to be a balance of both. The lack of contemporary documents does not prove lack of existance, nor does it detract from what a great number of people hold as belief. For some people, they might be more interested to see what historical scholars say about his existance, whether they think he did or did not, and other people will be more interested to see what the different beliefs are around the world and why people believe what they do.

This is becoming a very annoying looping discussion that is going no where. Whether this article becomes a disambiguation page linking to both the pure historical/critic articles and the Biblical history/belief article or whatever, for the time being, can we all please agree to just put the line in the Intro, at the appripriate place, saying: While most scholars agree there are references to Jesus and Christians by 1st and 2nd century writers, the lack of extant contemporary documents has led a minority of scholars to doubt the existance of Jesus so we can at least stop going around and around about this one sentence? --Oscillate 19:40, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the content of your sentence though suggest it is the wrong way around - it needs to state there are no contemporary documents first and then say there are references decades later. Robsteadman 20:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Rob, your second sentence is a non sequitur. The intro, without any religious content, would also be POV and biased, especially when the subject is such an important religious figure. This is true whether or not you share the religious beliefs. The fact is that many people do, and this fact should be treated fairly. Including religious beliefs is not POV. Including only religious beliefs would be, but I don't see anyone arguing from a religion-only perspective. Let's not supress any religious or historical data. archola 13:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Rob, your proposal above is decidely POV IMHO. Your comment would seem more appropriate for the Historicity section and not the title. The article is about Jesus of Nazareth and is told from that perspective. WIKI seeks to be balanced; your edit would not result in a balanced article, but rather only meet your specific concept of "facts". You might want to consider that a great deal of history is recorded and written years after the incident takes place. As an aside, it is always surprising to me when "man" thinks he knows the facts about things. It does not take long before those things we thought were factual were really false. Facts seem to have changed alot in human history. Storm Rider 19:21, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Wiki is, and should remain, to be about verifiable FACTS. The current article is and intro is POV. The intro must state, preferably before anything else, that there is no contemportary evidence of an historical "jesus" - FACT. Then it can go on to discuss the various veresions and beliefs including the view that he never existed. Would love to know what FACTS you feel have changed and how that has any relevance to the article. An encyclopedia must presnt the latest and most honest facts - verifiable. To want to sideline the truth seems very unwiki! Robsteadman 19:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Repeat: What people believe is a verifiable fact. Perhaps the only real solution, since you clearly will not work with others here, is to make Jesus be a disambiguation page, linking to all the articles we have about him. --Oscillate 19:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

What people believe is only verifiable as to what they believe it does not make the reality verifiable. The only verifiable historical detail is that there is no contemporary documents and, therefore, no contemporary evidence that "jesus" existed. Robsteadman 20:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

It is never Wikipedia's goal to judge what people believe as "reality" or not. And again, saying "therefore no contemporary evidence" is a postulation. Can you, "rob", prove the primary documents were not written based on first-hand "contemporary evidence"? I'm not claiming it can be definitively proved, but you're making personal judgements here. If the people who wrote the Gospels lived at the same time, and just finished the writing after Jesus' death, then what? The events they saw would be "contemporary evidence", but the document itself would still not be contemporary. If you want to point to some scholar that says he believes such and such, fine, but there are other scholars who will hold the opposite, and their opinion would be noted as well. --Oscillate 21:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh and the article is JESUS - not Jesus of Nazareth, Jesus Christ - it should be bhiographical and, as with any biography, the lack of evidence is vital to a balanced understanding of the story. Robsteadman 19:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

You mean "lack of contemporary documents". Saying "lack of evidence" is a postulation. Let's be "verifiable" here, there are many scholars who see evidence. --Oscillate 19:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

OK - wrong phrase - though it would be correct and verifiable to state there is no extent contemporary evidence of any sort! Robsteadman 20:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Like I said above, I think you're better off sticking with "document" instead of leaping to "evidence". --Oscillate 21:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Rob that "the latter half of the 1st century" sounds deliberately vague and is actually less informative than "several decades after" which is factually correct. To see this as a problem is I'm afraid POV on the part of the reader. Also I've never seen the documents referred in that way - I've only seen approx dates (60 AD approx for Mark I think) or the term "several decades". I'll dig out refs if required.

My suggested compromise is I agree avoiding the issue but at the moment there is no issue to avoid as while we stay like this the article stays locked - not that I understand why because I've seen worse edit wars elsewhere.

I read a good description of the historical method (I think the wiki page on that is obscure and written with a definite agenda). It said you start with data, from that you get analysis and then you get interpretation. Each step is more subjective than the last but it does not make them wrong. As long as it's clear which step is which then the reader is free to accept or explore further the statements made in the article. I don't want to lace the article with the subliminal message that this is all fantasy, I genuinely just want people to have all the information available to them. Some of the people dearest to me look at things completely differently and my kids actually sing in a church choir even though none of us are Christians so I'm not anti or for anything other than the right to decide for yourself what you accept as "true".

There are no contemporary written sources for Jesus and it's interesting to read what some of the Christian websites have to say about the erroneous hearsay evidence that has gone down the ages as facts in the Galileo trial. A decade or two in the Middle Ages seems to be enough to completely distort the picture so one wonders what a decade ot two did 2000 years ago. The point I'm trying to make is that "he who lives by the sword dies by the sword". Any comment that is posted and is viewed as anti Christian is (rightly) subjected to micro scruntiny for references, reliability of sources, verifiability etc and yet foggy phrases such as "the latter half of the 1st century" are suggested as acceptable. That's why I (and I think Rob - correct me if I'm wrong) get a bit fed up sometimes. We seem to be working from a different rule book.SOPHIA 23:18, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

... Why don't we just enumerate the est dates then? or give a range of the earliest est date and the latest est dates of the Gospels? That's even better. I suggested "latter half" because they were all written from ~60 (Mark) - ~90 (John). So you think "latter half", which would be 50-99 is biased and foggy, but "several decades" is more informative and "factually correct"? How is "latter half" not factually correct? It's a very minor thing. I was suggesting "latter half" because it was more stable and encompassed the estimated timeline, rather than what "rob" was writing: quite some time and more than a generation later. And honestly, in the context of his writing things like that, the usage of "several decades later" sounds biased. That's why I suggested what I did. But the best way, really is to say something like: "...the Gospels, the earliest of which was written in 60-80, and the latest in 75-90." Real facts and no agenda either way; No different rule book. --Oscillate 23:35, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree - I'd prefer real dates as it looks better and is more factual. As long as it states they are estimated dates (maybe with references) then it's NPOV and factual and informative - just like wiki should be. SOPHIA 23:43, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, "rob" clearly has a different agenda. Currently, because of him, it reads: "which were written some decades after his death - between about 68 CE and 110 CE (Raymond E. Brown, An Introduction to the New Testament)" Now what do we do about this? Including his favorite scholar's statements isn't the right way to do it, especially since there is debate about this. The only way to come to a consensus on this, I believe, is to include the earliest and the latest and mention that it's debated by scholars. For example, John A. T. Robinson (Redating the New Testament) puts the dates at ~40 - ~65, and there are many other scholars who date John at about 90 or so. This is something that needs to be changed. --Oscillate 16:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

The article has been unprotected but I've been warned that at the sign of another edit war it will be protected again - let's take things slowly and not try to change too much at once. Bearing in mind that this is a short precis are we all happy to add to the intro:

Most scholars accept there are references to Jesus and Christians by 1st and 2nd century writers, however due to the lack of extant documents a minority of scholars question the Historicity of Jesus

Let's leave it a day or so before adding it to give people a chance to squeak if not happy. SOPHIA 00:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Absense of evidence is not evidence of absense. —Aiden 00:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

This is begining to sound like a UFO debate. Is that an objection or are you explaining your reasoning process? SOPHIA 07:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)