Talk:Jesus: Difference between revisions

Complete archive key

• Talk:Jesus/Archive 97 Removal of spurious representations of Jesus' appearance, trilemma, Mandaean views,scripture removed from historical Jesus section, Vanadalism, Pictures of Jesus, The Truths About Yeshua, Ehrman on harmonies
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 98 Proposal, Possible NPOV Violation in the Geneology Section, first paragraph, at least three years in Jesus' Ministry, this article is too big.
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 99 Literature to be mentioned, Timeline of birth, four gospels, lead; nontrinitarianism, historical Jesus, Jesus as myth, Manichaeism, year of jesus's birth, Edit at top of Jesus page, Colored Yeshua, Image of Jesus which currently exists, Proposal
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 100 Historical Jesus, The To-Do Section, commenting out instead of deleting, 2008 Islamic movie on Jesus, Historical section/Christian views section, Laundry list of non-history scholars and works (alternative proposal), Its latin, isnt it?, this page may display a horizontal scroll bar in some browsers, Proposal on archives, First Section, The historical Jesus
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 101 Edit war over capitalization, Historical Evidence for Jesus' Homosexuality, Carlaude's Majority view, What exactly did Jesus save us from and how?; Carlaude's Majority view part two., Title, PRJS, Dazed and Confused, Why was Jesus baptised?, Dates, Infobox vs. the historical Jesus
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 102 religion founder, Other parameters, He is not God But rather a Demigod, Heavily christian-centric article, Jesus' Birthdate, Jesus in Scientology, Jesus name - Yeshua in Hebrew, means "Salvation" in English
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 103 Writing clean-up, Jesus name in Sanskrit, Reforem Judaism, Jesus and Manichaeism, Bertrand Russell and Friedrich Nietzsche, Recent removal, NPOV, Detail about Buddhist views of Jesus that does not make sense, The Religious perspectives section
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 104 Black Jesus, "Autobiography" of Jesus, Genealogy - Via What Father?, Addition to "Genealogy & Family", Resurrection, according to whom?, Bhavishya Purana, Christian history category, Quick Comment, BC/BCE?, The Truth, Was he any good at his day job?, In Popular Culture, jesus picture, views on Jesus and Muhamma, Occupation, New Dead Sea Discovery- Gabriel's Revelation, Some comments
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 105 Genealogy "reloaded", Place of birth, Which religions?, was jesus ever bar miztvahed?, Bot report : Found duplicate references !, Jesus and the lost tomb, Some believe that Jesus was of middle eastern ethnicity, and not a caucasian, Mispelled cat at the bottom of this talk page, Harmony, Dating system, "Transliteration"
• Talk:Jesus/Archive 106 8 B.C., ref name="HC13", Cause of death, Renewed Discussion Concerning AD/CE debate

In the article it is stated that Jesus' religion was Judiasm. But does that not contrast with other religions like Islam, Bahá'í Faith and Ahmadiyya? The same with his cause of death. According to Islam and Ahmadiyya he was not killed by crucifiction. This is a neutral article, wich explains Jesus in general. Those elements should be replaced to the Jesus in Christianity article. Thank you. Runehelmet (talk) 19:09, 28 January 2012 (UTC) Reply

The flat out denial of any crucifixion didn't appear until after Islam appeared (Docetism claimed that Jesus switched places with someone else and that another crucifixion occured, but these accounts are still of too late a date and too fantastic a nature to be taken seriously). The idea that Jesus was a Muslim didn't appear until after Islam appeared, and the Bible generally records Jesus as trying to be an observant Jew for the period. For about 500 years, it was accepted that Jesus was crucified. WP:GEVAL applies here. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:16, 28 January 2012 (UTC) Reply

Virtually all historians who specialize in the period still believe he was crucified. That does not mean we should exclude other views. The article has room for the views of Jews, Christians, Muslims and others as well as historians. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:23, 28 January 2012 (UTC) Reply

Yes, and regarding the first point, Jesus' religion being Judaism was discussed on this talk page some time ago and the conclusion was Judaism. And as stated a couple of sections above on this talk page, his cause of death being crucifixion is one of the 3 "historical elements " the other two being existence and baptism, in contrast to items such as "Ascension" etc. It is not even a Muslim issue, but a scholarly consensus issue about historicity. History2007 (talk) 19:24, 28 January 2012 (UTC) Reply

According to Islamic believes; Islam existed since beginning of time. So you can't say that it was appeared after Muhammed. His crucification is not a historical element, but more a religious one. Some historians even deny the existince of Jesus. And it's better to add by his religion the views of other faiths. Runehelmet (talk) 13:42, 29 January 2012 (UTC) Reply

Ok, but we can not have a three way choice here between what came first: Islam, John 1:1 or Big Bang. So it really does not matter to "this article" if Islam came first, John 1:1 is right, or the Big bang combined the two, etc. - although a self-published book on that 3 way merger of those 3 ideas would probably sell well to the lunatic fringe - would even sell well at the gift shop in Shingō, Aomori... Anyway "who existed first" is really an "interfaith debate on theology" and does not pertain here. As for the crucifixion not being historical, most scholars regard it a historical event, as supported by many WP:RS references. Some of the scholars who consider the crucifixion historical separately make it clear that they consider the Christian gospels as mostly fiction - so that is a general scholarly opinion. History2007 (talk) 14:04, 29 January 2012 (UTC) Reply

We don't give the Islamic view, the Christian view, the Buddhist view, etc unless it is called for by the situation. Hinduism claims to have come first, so do a variety of religions. Islam claiming to come first is not a unique claim, and a claim is not evidence for that claim at any rate. Again, read WP:GEVAL, which explains that we give due weight for reliable sources, not equal weight for all sources. The Islamic view of Jesus is covered in the last paragraph of the introduction, in the religious views section, and in its own article, Jesus in Islam. That is where the view that Jesus was not crucified belongs, as it is not in line with secular academia. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC) Reply

I had forgotten about Hinduism. But I now see a best seller in the making here: "How ancient religions sprang from the Big Bang"... Look for it on Amazon in 6 months. But seriously, you are right, and I think we should leave the article as is. History2007 (talk) 16:21, 29 January 2012 (UTC) Reply

You are twisting my words. I did not say that it came first so it must be added. I responded to Ian.Thomson, he stated;"The idea that Jesus was a Muslim didn't appear until after Islam appeared, and the Bible generally records Jesus as trying to be an observant Jew for the period. For about 500 years, it was accepted that Jesus was crucified". Thus i responded with that. But can it be possible to add by his religion and death the views of other faiths. Just like his parrents, according to Christianity it was God but in Islam he had no father. In this case we can add the other faiths views in the religion and death bar. Runehelmet (talk) 19:37, 29 January 2012 (UTC) Reply

Sorry, no intention to twist, but I see no need to change. But let us wait and get further opinions to see if a change is necessary. History2007 (talk) 19:40, 29 January 2012 (UTC) Reply

:While some Muslims claim Islam is older than 1500 years old, that doesn't objectively mean that before then there was a religious movement called Islam which believed that yet-unborn Muhammad was the seal of the prophets, or that zakat was offered in the name of this religion, or that there was any sharia before then. A number of Hindus claim that Jesus studied Hinduism as a teenager, but we exclude those claims from the majority of the article for the same reason: all records indicate he was Jewish. Religions' claims (even Christian claims) that Jesus belonged to their religion are not considered because they are historical revisionism, not history.

The parentage issue is already covered: there are three entries for "father" in the parents section of the infobox, one for the Biblical view, one for Islamic view, and one for other views. The birth issue is a different case from the death issue, because noone agreed on who Jesus's father was from the beginning, but everyone between the 1st and 7th centuries (except for a minority of Gnostics (who also thought that the universe was created by Satan)) accepted that Jesus was crucified. The only secular scholars who doubt the crucifixion go on to doubt Jesus's entire existence, and they're far from mainstream. Ian.thomson (talk) 20:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC) Reply

You are going way to far from the main discussion. I just suggested that it could be possible to add the views of other faiths. And the parentage issue was an example. So let me get this straight. You don't want that in the 'cause of death' bar, other faiths views added? Actually only the Islamic faith denies that there was a crucification. So a other view added next to the Christian one, can do no harm. As we know this is a general article about Jesus and not the Christian view alone. Runehelmet (talk) 21:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC) Reply

There is a difference. There is absolutely no agreement among historians about the birth of Jesus, where it was, how it was, etc. However, there is agreement among historians about the cause of death. Hence the item on that sidebar is not a religious item, but a historical item. It is not selected based on religion but historicity. History2007 (talk) 22:15, 29 January 2012 (UTC) Reply

There is always room for a religious item, as we know Jesus was a religious man. Islam states that Jesus was not crucified, but the man who betrayed him. So we can add that in Islamic view;that Jesus was not crucified but the man who betrayed him. Just a suggestion. Runehelmet (talk) 10:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC) Reply

Runehelmet - the following text (Islam rejects the Christian view that Jesus was God incarnate or the son of God, that he was ever crucified or resurrected, or that he ever atoned for the sins of mankind.) is already in the text under the heading Islamic Views. So what exactly are you asking to be added? Maybe if you simply wrote up your requested edit change, it would be easier to review rather than putting in a general suggestion about what you want someone else to do. Ckruschke (talk) 16:18, 30 January 2012 (UTC)CkruschkeReply

I asked it to be added in the template. To be specific to you; the 'cause of death' line. Runehelmet (talk) 18:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC) Reply

Ok. I agree with the majority - I don't think it's appropriate in the template. Ckruschke (talk) 19:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)CkruschkeReply

As this is a non-denominational encyclopedia, I think that the template should provide information that is the mainstream view of historians. The article itself is the appropriate place to survey all other significant views. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:31, 30 January 2012 (UTC) Reply

But the article of the ecylopedia is about a religious subject. And the mainstream view of historians use religion as their advocacy. It is quite hard to investigate religious matters for the historians. But I won't discuss about that subject. 86.80.208.136 (talk) 20:45, 30 January 2012 (UTC) Reply

Not quite. Non-Christian sources before th 7th century affirmed that Jesus was crucified, seeing it as a problem with the religion. Historians don't just look at the Bible and call it a day. The crucifixion is one of the few things in the Bible historians readily accept, because:

• non-Christians accepted it as well
• those sympathetic to Jesus (Christian and otherwise) only had reason to deny that Jesus was executed like a common criminal, but none did until much later.

Ian.thomson (talk) 22:47, 30 January 2012 (UTC) Reply

Yes, you are right that those are some of the "reasons" historians think that way. Yet the summary of majority historical view itself is already well established by WP:RS regardless of the specific lines of reasoning, which include the ones you mentioned, as well as others. I have a feeling we need to call it a day on this issue. History2007 (talk) 22:51, 30 January 2012 (UTC) Reply

Yes historians also accepted that Muhammed existed but for some he is still a hoax. It is possible to add that the Islamic faith accepted that there was a crucification but the person was not Jesus. But then it can be writen in a single line. Runehelmet (talk) 17:03, 31 January 2012 (UTC) Reply

I'm not sure you need to setup a strawman argument to further the argument. I've heard of no reputable historian who argues that Muhammed never existed.

It remains that Islam's view of Jesus' death doesn't really belong in the template. At some point you should simply accept the preponderance of opinion. Ckruschke (talk) 19:00, 31 January 2012 (UTC)CkruschkeReply

Calm down, First of all there are some scholars who deny the existince of Muhammed, but I won't disccus of that. So you think that the Islamic view does not have the 'value' to be in the template? Jesus is important in the Islamic faith. But I don't know why you are switching to Islam only, I mentioned the Bahá'í Faith and the Ahmadiyya too. Every religion deserves to be mentioned, if Jesus has an important place in the corresponding faith. Runehelmet (talk) 22:34, 31 January 2012 (UTC) Reply

Please... I'm "calmly" trying to point out the obvious that everyone disagrees with your stance. However, it appears that this has gotten way beyond the WP:DEADHORSE stage. Ckruschke (talk) 20:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)CkruschkeReply

Could you maybe try actually reading what people are saying some time so it looks like you are paying attention? Jesus's crucifixion is not a religious belief, it is something that everyone (including atheists, pagans, Buddhists, Hindus, and Jews) accepts as a historical fact, except Muslims, Ahmadiyya Muslims, and Baha'is (which is derived from Islam). No reputable scholar denies the existence of Muhammad, because all the sources for the following six centuries accept his existence as a fact, just as all the sources for the following six centuries after the crucifixion of Jesus accept that event as a historical fact. 74.236.132.45 (talk) 02:34, 1 February 2012 (UTC) Reply

Invoking WP:CLOSE to end discussion. History2007 (talk) 03:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC) Reply

First of all Jesus's crucifixion is a religious belief. In the Christian faith his death was to atone for the sins of humanity. And yes it happend. And You say it well, Muslims, Ahmadiyya followers and the followers of the Bah'ai faith don't accept it. Therefore it can be added. That is the main reason, to show the reader other perspective's. Runehelmet (talk) 15:10, 1 February 2012 (UTC) Reply

WP:IDHT seems to be applying here. Accepting that Jesus was crucified and believing that it saved humanity are two different things. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:19, 1 February 2012 (UTC) Reply

Also, Runehemet's statement that Baha'is don't believe Jesus was crucified is incorrect; they believe he was crucified, but see the resurrection as symbolic. Regardless, the Baha'i view shouldn't cause any change in the current consensus because of undue weight. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 15:49, 1 February 2012 (UTC) Reply

This is silly. As usual this article is a magnet for people with strong views who have not read the article past the first couple of paragraphs and have not looked at the citations. None of these POV-pushers have suggested an actual edit supported by policy including WEIGHT and V and RS. I believe that there is no point in responding to any such comment. Talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article, not for discussing beliefs about Jesus. If anyone who posts here expects me to respond to them, they had better suggest an edit, provide a reliable source, and explain how the edit would be an improvement over what we currently have. If it is not presumptuous, I recommend other people who watch this page to apply the same standard. Otherwise we will just go on chasing our tails and wasting time. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:54, 1 February 2012 (UTC) Reply

You are right, of course: this is silly. But I have a feeling that we may have to dance the same dance 3 months after this thread gets archived and an IP happens to ask the same question. Given that people with strong views can buy modems at will (sigh) we should probably clarify this issue within the page with refs, etc. I will do that. History2007 (talk) 21:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC) Reply

I would usually write Jesus's, [for 'belonging to Jesus'] like with any other word. But, there seems to be some disagreement on using apostrophes. Is Jesus' correct? Steve (talk) 03:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC) Reply

Traditionally, posessive apostrophes where the word ends in an "s", particularly with a "z" sound would omit the second "s" after the apostrophe. See [] Supt. of Printing (talk) 10:48, 7 February 2012 (UTC) Reply

Jesus is only referred to as "Christ" (χριστος, the anointed one) by those who have identified him as the Messiah (the anointed one), and by those who erroneously think "Christ" is a name. Can this flawed statement be remove from the lead? ♆ CUSH ♆ 23:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC) Reply

First point is partially right, in that in Islam Jesus is a prophet, but not Christ, although dictionaries make the common use case in English, e.g. see this. The second item is not erroneous, since as reference 51 by Pannenberg in this article points out in post-biblical usage it became a name. History2007 (talk) 23:19, 18 February 2012 (UTC) Reply

"Christ" is a title specifically used to denote that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah. Of course it is erroneous to use it as if it were a part of the name. This is an encyclopedia committed to accuracy and not some Christian platform.

My objection is against the word "commonly". Is there a reliable source that says what percentage of the world population actually calls Jesus "the Christ" ? ♆ CUSH ♆ 10:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC) Reply

Yes, I had heard the "committed to accuracy" rumor before. Anyway, this is a trivial discussion, and I made a suggestion below. But for the record Pannenberg disagrees with you on the name/title issue, butt then what does he know? Enough said. History2007 (talk) 11:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC) Reply

Pannenberg can disagree all he likes (he is not a scientist but a religious homophobic nutjob who thinks that truth can be determined in prayer, definitely not a reliable source). If in 2000 years somebody thinks that in "President Ronald Reagan" the "President" is part of the name then it is still erroneous, no matter how wide-spread such usage may be. A name is a name and a title is a title. No need to deliberately dumbing it down for certain believers. ♆ CUSH ♆ 19:27, 19 February 2012 (UTC) Reply

I do think the "or simply as Jesus or Christ" is superfluous - we get it by then that people's names (&/or titles) can be shortened. We don't say anything like "St Paul of Tarsus, or simply, St Paul, or Paul of Tarsus, or Paul". --JimWae (talk) 23:38, 18 February 2012 (UTC) Reply

Makes no major difference to the article, so let us do whatever those who happen to be present now think it should be. In 6 months, someone new will suggest something else anyway... History2007 (talk) 23:43, 18 February 2012 (UTC) Reply

just put "also" instead of "commonly" Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:45, 18 February 2012 (UTC) Reply

Obviously only Christians are going to use the name Jesus Christ, and then only the fraction of those who are actively practicing Christians, rather than just "adherents" or cultural Christians, getting themselves counted for religious claims here. That would not be large proportion of the world's population. I'm not sure if it's enough to justify "commonly". HiLo48 (talk) 03:52, 19 February 2012 (UTC) Reply

How about going the simple route, given that this is a minor issue. Let us try:

Jesus of Nazareth (/[invalid input: 'icon']ˈdʒiːzəs/ ; 7–2 BC/BCE to 30–36 AD/CE) is the central figure of Christianity, where he is referred to as Jesus Christ, and is also regarded as an important prophet of God in Islam.

This makes no difference to the encyclopedic issues, and if no one objects, can someone else just use it, so we can move on? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 12:03, 19 February 2012 (UTC) Reply

I like that wording because not only does it hopefully address CUSH's concerns, it also adds an additional piece of useful information about why he is commonly referred to as "Christ": it is a title signifying his role in Christianity. I went ahead and made the change. -- LWG ^talk 14:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC) Reply

There has been a mini-discussion on edit summary between LordShard and Slrubenstein about two issues:

• 1. Are the views about Jesus being a as a Galilean Jewish Rabbi who was regarded as a teacher etc. expressed only by "Biblical scholars" or also by other scholars such as historians.

• 2. Do most of said scholars consider him a "healer", or is that label just applied by some scholars.

I think Slrubenstein is correct that the views regarding Jesus are also expressed by scholars who are mainly historians and not just Biblical-types, although the lede reference does not clearly support that, as LordShard cmmented. But the body of the article does list scholars such as Vermes who are primarily historians, etc. Such references may get added to the lede, but per WP:LEDE are not necessary, although may be useful.

I think LordShard is correct that the healer label is only applied by "some scholars". Pages 124 and 125 or of Koestenberger's book have a good (and humorous) summary of the approaches scholars take in their "Portrayal of Jesus" - he points out that in many cases scholars end up "seeing themselves in Jesus" and are doing autobiography when doing biography.... By the way the same has been said of personality theory where each major theory often reflects the life of the psychologist proposing it.... And "healer" is certainly one label applied to Jesus, but so are philosopher, social reformer, etc. etc. So "healer" is true, but not universally applied by scholars. Teacher may be more widely acceptable among scholars, and although not totally universal, I think it can be used since we say "most scholars" etc.

I think LordShard and Slrubenstein should agree on a middle ground and say:

• Most critical historians and biblical scholars agree that Jesus was a Galilean Jewish Rabbi in Judaea who was regarded as a teacher, that he was baptized by John the Baptist, and that he was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman Prefect, Pontius Pilate, on the charge of sedition against the Roman Empire.

That may settle the issue if the word healer is not insisted upon, given Koestenberger's characterization, as well as the fact that historians are listed in the body of the article as well as biblical scholars. History2007 (talk) 05:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC) Reply

Slrubenstein I saw that you reverted LordShard without responding here Please discuss instead of doing a revert ping-pong. I will not revert you now, but I do think you have not addressed LordShard's issue. Do you have a W:RS source that says the "healer view" of Jesus is the predominant view among most scholars? I doubt that given the Koestenberger overall analysis. As Koestenberger states the charismatic healer view is supported by Borg and Vermes, the philosopher view is supported by Crossan and Downing, the prophet view is supported by Sanders and Casey, the social reformer view by Theissen and Hrsely, etc. etc. So the healer is one of many views. Now why do you state the healer as the "key view" when there are multiple scholarly perspectives. Of course, reliance on the grandfather rule that a talk page discussion during the Eisenhower administration said so, may be a weak argument, but in view of LordShard's very valid statement, you have shown no WP:RS source that "most scholars view Jesus as a faith healer". Indeed Koestenberger's table invalidates your claim. History2007 (talk) 16:35, 22 February 2012 (UTC) Reply

Sorry, there was an edit conflict, my computer keeps timing out. The main issue for me is not a compromise with me, it is that we should not change stable consensus versions without discussion first. The paragraph in question was carefully crafted by several editors who had taken the time to do considerable research - and this after a very contentious year when compromise seemed impossible. There used to be a note to this effect which was accidentally deleted when more recently Jesus myth stuff was added; I have restored the note. My main point is that a long-standing stable consensus should not be changed without discussion first.

As to the specifics: first, concerning "historians," the point is not that this is a view of historians as well as Bible scholars; the point is that many Bible scholars are historians. When the modern university system emerged at the end of the 19th century, historians who worked with sources in modern languages or European states with origins in the Middle Ages were trained and employed by history departments, and historians who worked with sources in dead languages (e.g. ancient Greek, Latin, Akadian, Sumerian, Biblical Hebrew), on states that no longer exist, were trained and employed by Classics Department, Bibliecal Studies Departments, or Ancient Near Eastern Studies Departments - these specific departments reflect the fact that the historical sources are more limited and require specific skills - but the scholars are nevertheless "historians;" they make the same assumptions and use the same methods as other historians (eht exception is archeologists, but none of the sources cited are archeologists). As for "healer," there are many sources at the end of the sentence that identify Jesus as a healer including the most notable historians of Jesus today like Fredricksen, Sanders and Vermes. The table you refer to is misleading, because the views of Jesus do not so neatly divide into these mutually exclusive categories - for many scholars, Jesus was a healer and a prophet and a reformer. Different books often emphasize different aspects of his career, but this is because authors of scholarly books and articles usually seek to advance an original argument by calling atttention to a view or dimension of their object of study that they feel have been downplayed or insufficiently explored - but this does not mean that views so neatly divide into Jesus is x or Jesus is y rather than x and y. I am not basing my claim on primary sources by the way but rather secondary sources that are still in print and published within the past twenty years or so. We discussed this, and the sources are all at the end of the sentence.

If there is any term here that is controversial and I think should be changed (but only after discussion!) it is the word "rabbi." Many English translations of the NT use the word "rabbi" but many scholars consider this anachronistic. Rabbi comes from the Aramaic word meaning "my master" but English NTs are using Rabbi where the Greek word is "diskalos" which means teacher. I note that the first sentence of the paragraph includes the word "teacher" so saying "teacher" and "rabi" for the same word, diskalos, is redundant. I acknowledge that a small number of scholars do identify Jesus as "rabbi" and I would not objct to a separate sentence providing the specific sources, but many consider the term anachronistic because the word "rabbi" as it is understood today did not develop until the Tannaitic period. We shoud make clear that there is no consensus about this term. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:01, 22 February 2012 (UTC) Reply

I have been trying very hard not to work on that lede... But now that LordShard started it, let me say:

• I think your change back to historians is not subject to major contention, given the contents of the article. So let us leave that aside.

• The three remaining qualifiers are healer, Rabbi and teacher. So we need to address those.

I think neither healer or Rabbi is accepted by "most scholars" and there is no support for those in the article, hence per WP:LEDE can not be claimed in the lede, if not supported in the body by references. Yes, there is no mutually exclusive determination, but you have not established that healer is more predominant than philosopher, etc. I see no source for that claim. Hence we may have to just say nothing, until sources are found a,d just say he was Jewish, was from Galillee and was regarded as a teacher - the qualification everyone accepts. History2007 (talk) 17:10, 22 February 2012 (UTC) Reply

Really? According to Theissen and Mertz 1998, "Just as the kingdom of God stands at the centre of Jesus' preaching, so healings and exorcisms orm the centre of his activity." They cite Ebeling, Held, Hogan, E and ML Keller, Meier, Twelftree, and Weeden in addition to themselves to support this claim. Sanders says Jesus was a healer (1993: 159-168). Fredriksen says he was a healer (1998: 98) and Crossan says he was a healer as well (1991: 334; his total analysis is 304-332). All of these sources agree that as far as the best reading of the sources in their historical context goes, Jesus healed. The differences between them is their interpretation of his healing. Some people specify "faith healing" or :charismatic healing" or "miracle worker" and Crossan goes much further with his interpretation of the political significance of healing. Perhaps this article needs a more detailed section on "healing" although I suspect this belongs in the "historical Jesus" article instead. One reason for the multiple interpretations has to do with our own beliefs about healing: we believe that most illness is caused by germs and that healing occurs through drugs like antibiotics. We believe in this so much, that we just call it "healing" without qualification - and this means that many of us, when we look at beliefs about healing in other culures, must add modifiers to distinguish what they do from what we do. This is understandable but not really very good history, because historians start of by not assuming that people in the past shared our beliefs ("the past is another country.") Jews in the first century believed that most illnesses had specific causes that called for specific forms of healing. from our perspective this was "miracle working" or "exorcisms" or the like, but my point is it is our need to add modifiers - for Jews at the time (just as for us in our time) people were sick and were healed, the underlying theory did not need to be stated because everyone shared it. So Crossan and Fredricksen have diferent interpretations of the significanc of Jesus' healing and characterize it in different ways. This is a debate or diference that can be explaind in the body of the appropriate article. In the lead of this article we should just mention what most historians agree on and they all agree that he healed the sick. We have had this discussion before. There are plenty of sources. To say that Crossan takes "the philosopher view" and Theissen takes the "social reformer view" as if this meant that they do not think Jesus was a healer is really disingenuous, it flatly contradicts what they themselves wrote, and I have provided the sources for you. I thought we mentioned Theissen and Sanders and Fredricksen and Crossan (as well as Vermes) in the notes to this sentence. Are we missing one of them? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC) Reply

Well, I would try not to bring antibiotics into it, but although you list some scholars that call him a healer, I see no source that does a summary review that says: "most scholars view Jesus as primarily a healer above his other characterizations". That was the heart of LordShard's argument. No source that summarizes that. The only summary source I have seen (and I could look more) is teh Koestenberger table. And I do not think we can just call a table in a WP:RS source confused at will. But let us wait for other comments. History2007 (talk) 17:37, 22 February 2012 (UTC) Reply

Do you really think I called the table confused "at will?" I tried to provide specific page references for in-print and recently published books by scholars who call Jesus a healer, and who are not identified as such by the table. This is not willful, this is informed and carefully considered.

And I am not saying that the table is "wrong," I am saying that it is being used inmproperly, that it is being misinterpreted. The most important work of scholarship is not to provide information (although many undergraduates and non-scholars think so), it is to interpret that information. All scholars might agree that Jesus was a healer, but they might interpret the reasons why he was, or is remembered as, a healer - interpretations that are parts of larger arguments about why Jesus is important. Crossan definitely does not think Jesus was important because he was a healer. Crossan has a different reason, and all of these scholars have different reasons, and I think that this is what the table is trying to capture. The fact that Crossan does not think that Jesus was important because he was a healer (i.e. there is another reason) however does not mean that Crossan did not say Jesus was a healer. To interpret the table as saying this is ignorant. I am sorry if I am hurting your feelings, but just because WP is the article anyone can edit does not mean that any edit is appropriate. The most basic rule that anyone working on an encyclopedia ought to understand - so basic that it is implicit in the project of writing an encyclopedia and shouldn't need its own policy (although this rule is provided in various policies) is: do not quote out of context." To use a quote or a reliable source in context requires editors who are not just mechanical copiests, it requires editors who can read and understand the scholarship on an issue. I do not see this standard as opening the door to original research, on the contrary, we need it to prevent original research. One has to understand the views one is representing, which reuires one to read more than just a table on a page. Sometimes one has to read a whole book to properly understand a page. Sometimes one has to read several books to understand a page. I am certain that anyone who has read the books mentioned in that table would acknowledge that the view being represented in the table has to do with arguments about why Jesus was important, or analytical frameworks for interpreting the specifics of Jesus's life and work. To say Jesus was a philosopher surely doesn't mean he was not crucified To say he was a social reformer doesn't mean he wasn't crucified! These approaches however suggest different ways of interpreting why he was crucified. If you can understand this, surely you can understand how these approaches suggest different ways for interpreting why Jesus was a healer, too. haven't you read Crossan? Aren't you aware of his explanation for the importance of Jesus' work as a healer? If we cannot answer this question, then we are misrepresenting a view. The table is not about how many scholars think Jesus was a healer, it is about something else. To interpret it as claiming that only a minority of scholars thought Jesus was a healer is to misrepresent it. This is not the proper way to use reliable sources. We should not take things out of context in order to push our own POV at the expense of the views of published scholars. I named scholars and provided citations from reliable sources where they say Jesus was a healer. This does not mean that this is the principal argument of each of these books. Scholarly books say many things in the course of building an argument and these books make different arguments. But as to the simple question of, was Jesus a healer, they all agree. Just read the pages I cite.

Finally, when it comes to scholars, I think we should also be guided by WEIGHT. I do not actually have a survey of all University teachers of NT or Jesus related courses to use as a basis for saying "most" - but to be fare, I think many WP articles say "most" when they mean "most of the sources we know of." I do not think this is a bad idea. I just think it is important for us to look for the most significant or notable sources. Along with Ehrmann and Maier (whose relevant books I - sadly - do not own), Sanders, Fredricksen and Vermes are to my knowledge (I asked some college professors) the most frequently assigned books in college courses. I would never argue against the notability of Theissen or Crossan either, by the way. Maybe you think we should changed the word "most scholars" to "the most notable scholars" or something to that efect, fine. But I do not think we should make this a flat out matter of votes or a survey. It is not always easy to agree about who is the best scholar, but the very idea of WEIGHT is that we can agree about who are the most notable or significant scholars. We can use citation indexes for example, if there is serious doubt about this. But I sincerely believe that anyone who has done university-level research on Jesus will know that the people I name in this paragraph are all among the most notable scholars in their field. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC) Reply

But the simplest way to resolve this is: Can anhyone provide a reliable source expressing a significant view that says that the historical Jesus was not a healer? So far all we have is the table, which does not actually say that Crossan or Theissen do not say that he was a healer. When I keep providing sources that say he was a healer, I think that before demaning a source that says "most scholars say he was a scholar" it is reasonable to ask you to provide one major source that says he was not a healer. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC) Reply

That is not how it works. To establish that Jesus was a healer you need RS that provide evidence for Jesus' existence in the first place and then RS that provide evidence what the historical person actually was and did, especially whether he in fact healed anybody. And the Bible is not a RS here for obvious reasons. ♆ CUSH ♆ 19:16, 22 February 2012 (UTC) Reply

@Cush I do not understand what you mean, "That is not how it works." When you wite, "The Bible is not a RS source here for obvious reasons," why do you say this? To whom are you speaking? Are you replying to anyone? Should we refactor your comment and put it in another section? Slrubenstein | Talk 21:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC) Reply

I am replying to you. You ask for a RS that says he was NOT a healer. That is not how it works. Being a healer is not the default position and not something that would be automatically assigned to some historical Jesus. What you have to come up with are RS for Jesus' existence and then with RS for his actions. That's how it works. This is an encyclopedia, and not some Christian platform. ♆ CUSH ♆ 07:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC) Reply

Then please stop misrepresenting me. Where did I ever say that being a healer is a "default position?" Wher did I ever say that it would be "automatically added" - or anything to that effect? Please provide the date stamp. What have I written that has ever even suggested that this is a Christian platform? Where have I ever written that we should favor Christian views over the views of critical historians? Again, please provide the timestamp. You can't just show up and spout nonsense misrepresenting other editors because you prefer to soapbox rather than improve articles. Do not misrepresent me. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:55, 23 February 2012 (UTC) Reply

18:06, 22 February 2012 (UTC) You wrote "But the simplest way to resolve this is: Can anhyone provide a reliable source expressing a significant view that says that the historical Jesus was not a healer?", to which I replied that it is not necessary to demonstrate that he was not a healer. However it is necessary to demonstrate that he was a healer, which is the statement you requested counter-sources for. Such a request is a stereotypically religionist statement. ♆ CUSH ♆ 19:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC) Reply

By the way, I have no objection to removing "rabbi" but I think it is very likely someone sooner or later will add it (if only because the read an English translation of the NT that uses this term) so if we remove it maybe after "teacher" we need a note on the different translations of "dyskalos" and the different meanings of "rabbi" (i.e. as an honorific - "You're great!" - versus as the title of a particular authority, specifically on Jewish law, that emerged as a title during the Tannaitic period) Slrubenstein | Talk 18:02, 22 February 2012 (UTC) Reply

That was pretty long. Let me just say that per WP:RS/AC: "the statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view" and "most scholars we know of" can not be used as you suggested it, per policy. History2007 (talk) 18:16, 22 February 2012 (UTC) Reply

It was pretty long. But all of it aimed at improving the page. Policies are descriptive and should never trump the good sense of editors working on a page. I still would like to see anyone provide a significant source that says Jesus was not a healer. I also think we should take it for granted that "most" means most of the significant sources we rely on in writing the article. But we could just cut the word "most" if you want. Until we have an example of a notable significant scholar who says Jesus was not a healer I see no cause to disregard all the sources we have. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC) Reply

No, sorry I must differ on that. WP:RS/AC is specific, there is no ambiguity on that and it say it does trump the selection made by the editors. If you remove "most" that would immediately imply all scholars, and can not be used. And your requirement that X can be stated unless there is a source that says not(X) clearly runsagainst WP:RS. Sorry, but policy is policy. History2007 (talk) 18:49, 22 February 2012 (UTC) Reply

No, sorry I must differ on that. WP:Ignore all rules makes it very clear that no rule is binding. I actually do not think we shoud ignore all rules absolutely, if this makes you feel any better. I think we should consider the spirit of the policies, and take them into consideration in our good faith discussion about how best to improve the article. We give a great deal of weight to consensus, and here we are discussing a paragraph that has expressed a very stable consensus for several years, and I do not think we should change it lightly or, as Lordshard did, without explanation and time for discussion. Wikipedia never claims to present all views. We do not have to provide fringe views or the views of non-experts. We atrive to provide all significant views. When distniguish between majority and minority views among significant views. The use of the word "most" signifies that among significant views this is a majority view. If you or Lordshard cannot provide an example of a significant view that says Jesus was not a healer, I just do not see any reasonable well-considered basis for suggesting that this is a minority view. That is disingenuous and misleading. Policies are not machines that autonatically dictate the right decision. We editors are responsible for reading the research, and discussing among ourselves which views are fringe, which are minority, which are majority, which are mainstream. Let's discuss who are the significant scholars and what their views are before making any changes, shall we? Slrubenstein | Talk 19:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC) Reply

So let me get this straight. Now you know that the statement your prefer "runs against WP:RS/AC" but are suggesting that WP:RS/AC is not binding and "should be ignored" based on WP:Ignore all rules? Wow... Is that what I am hearing now? And I am not at all prepared to ignore WP:RS/AC. It was the heart of LordShard's argument that started this. What is the use of policy if one is to ignore it as desired? I think policy must be followed, not ignored. History2007 (talk) 19:11, 22 February 2012 (UTC) Reply

Well, to "get this straight" I would ask you to read and comment on my entire comment and not just the first sentence. The reliable source you ant to follow is Koestenberger and I explained why you were misrepresenting Koestenberger as well as the other scholars you mentioned. I am sorry that you took this personally, I did not mean to offend you. But if your idea of WP/RS is to misrepresent sources, I just do not know how to move past this. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:29, 22 February 2012 (UTC) Reply

No, it is not that way at all. And I do not take talk pages seriously. It will be forgotten tomorrow. Bu I do not even want to add Koestenberger, nor do I need to. What I say is what LordShard said and what Cush said above: "you have no source" for the statement that "most scholars say Jesus was a healer". Per WP:RS/AC the absence of a source seals the fate of your desired statement. Simple. History2007 (talk) 19:34, 22 February 2012 (UTC) Reply

There used to be a source with a far more explicit quote regarding "healer". I do not see that source any more. Sometimes the sources get moved to the wrong part of the sentence or paragraph.--JimWae (talk) 23:59, 22 February 2012 (UTC) Reply

Ok, but I guess that was before my days. However, again without having to use this, I would remark that Chilton and Evans say that assigning major importance to paranormal acts performed by Jesus is not common within the historical Jesus discipline. And in fact in general the "only two" events considered historical by scholars in the life of Jesus are his baptism and crucifixion under Pilate, as the rest of the sentence says, as well as review articles in the body of the page. That is for sure. History2007 (talk) 00:14, 23 February 2012 (UTC) Reply

The missing source did not say he was a healer, but that he was regarded as one. Wonder why he never said something about the germ theory of disease instead of perpetuating the view that disease was punishment/trial--JimWae (talk) 00:19, 23 February 2012 (UTC) Reply

I am not sure if I follow this germ story and its significance. Is that somehow some fundamental issue I am unaware of? But in any case, I do not see that as a key bullet point that should show up in the lede, in view of WP:Undue in any case and in view of the issue of historicity being a key element of the start of the lede. History2007 (talk) 00:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC) Reply

I thought I posted before, but I must have messed up somehow. Regardless it appears the consensus is to go with the proposed changes. LordShard (talk) 06:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC) Reply

Let us wait another day or so to provide time for other user comments, then we can suggest something. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 08:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC) Reply

I have provided a great many reliable sources saying that Jesus was a healer. You have a source saying that his "paranormal" activity was not of major significance (I am not sure that the paranormal activity refers specifically to his being a healer). If they actually say "healer," I have no objection to saying somewhere that some scholars do not consider his work as a healer to be of major importance. My point is only that a lare number of the most notable historians writing about Jesus say that he was a healer. Do not delete content from reliable sources, and do not misrepresent reliable sources. These sources are provided in the sentence in question. The paragraph in question reflects a longstanding stable consensus and two editors who wish to make a change do not equal a consensus. Moreover, a consensus must be based on reasoned discussion. I still have yet to see any reason for disregarding the views of Crossan, Ebeling, Fredricksen, Held, Hogan, E and ML Keller, Meier, Sanders, Theissen and Mertz, Twelftree, Vermes, and Weeden. Are you saying that they are not notable scholars? Slrubenstein | Talk 15:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC) Reply

e/c What I said was quote: 'What I say is what LordShard said and what Cush said above: "you have no source" for the statement that "most scholars say Jesus was a healer". Per WP:RS/AC the absence of a source seals the fate of your desired statement. Simple.' And I still say that. Now, FYI, page 105 of Powell's book Jesus as a figure in history says, quote: "Parting company with the majority of his colleagues in the Jesus Seminar (but in agreement with Crossan) Borg regarded the assertion that Jesus was a healer and an excorcist as virtually indisputable". So your desired statement is not only unsourced but runs against Powell. But again, I do not even need to use Powell, but I would remind you that you have no source for your desired statement, and it needs to be marked as "uncited" as the next step. History2007 (talk) 15:23, 23 February 2012 (UTC) Reply

This is an assessment only of the Jesus Seminar, not most scholars of Jesus. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC) Reply

Just skimming over this discussion, would the phrasing "many scholars seeing a third role as healer" instead of "most scholars" work? We have sources that show it's a pretty common idea. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:17, 23 February 2012 (UTC) Reply

It is the case that a number of scholars see a "role as a healer", but not clear if it is the 3rd role or the 5th role or the 7th. There are roles as sage, philosopher, movement builder, etc. and I could also drop 1,000 scholar names,but will not. History2007 (talk) 15:26, 23 February 2012 (UTC) Reply

You need to distinguish between things Jesus did, and the meaning of those things. You seem to think that these roles are competing rather than closely related. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC) Reply

Also skimmining through this LONG discussion - maybe "many scholars see another of his roles as healer".

I know words matter, but this really appears to be a "splitting hairs" discussion... Ckruschke (talk) 15:41, 23 February 2012 (UTC)CkruschkeReply

I think it is getting clear that "most scholars say Jesus was a healer" statement is on its way out, given that it has no source. The question will then be what will replace it, if any. History2007 (talk) 15:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC) Reply

"Many" would work fine. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:50, 23 February 2012 (UTC) Reply

That is called progress. Now, given that the one of the two points that the two of us agreed on was that the Rabbi characterization is a NT item, and probably not subject to the quantification it receives in the lede, now that this issue is being discussed, I think we should deal with that too. My preference would be to either not mention it, or relegate it to a "many" qualifier, or even a "some" qualifier. Let us get opinions on that as well, and see. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 22:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC) Reply

I am glad we are making progress. I understand your policy concerns but (and I say this because i actually do believe that talk on talk pages is important) I think that one of your concerns is to distinguish the view that Jesus was baptized by John and crucified for sedition under orders of Pontius Pilate as two elements of the narrative that by far have the most support from critical historians, and I have no objection to this.

Concerning "rabbi," my preference would be to remove it entirely from the lead. We could add a note following the word "teacher" that explains that dyskalos is generally understood to mean teacher but is often translated as "rabbi" in contemporary editions of the New Testament. Or, we could add a paragraph to the section on Jesus according to the Gospels, where we explain this. Or both. I do not know of any critical historians who claim that Jesus was a "rabbi" but if you have read a thousand works on Jesus I will defer to your knowledge on this issue - I just want to distinguish between a word that is chosen by NT translators, versus a claim that has actually been made by historians or scholars in books or journal articles. This is why I am uncomfortable with the "many" qualifier - I do not know of many or even any historians who claim he was a rabbi, to my knowledge this is only a translation decision and we should distinguish between the choices of translators and the arguments of historians. But if you know of historians who do say he was (among other things) a rabbi, then we can say some or many and provide the citations.

If there are any historians who say that one of his roles or titles was rabbi, then I think it is important to add (in the main text or in a note) what they actually understand the word to mean, because whatever it meant in the year 30, I think it came to mean something else between 200 - 600, and this needs to be acknowledged somewhere. From what I know, there may have been a time when "rabbi" was a colloquial expression of respect - but it also meant a legal authority within Pharisaic/Rabbinic Judaism, a legal authority recognized by other legal authorities (rather than one's disciples or students) and today it is the second meaning that is the primary meaning among Jews. So it is not just a matter of how many people hold this view, and who (e.g. translator or etymologist or historian or some other kind of scholar) holds this view, it is also a question of what they mean by "rabbi." Slrubenstein | Talk 15:21, 24 February 2012 (UTC) Reply

Ok, but we are going to have a "heated agreement" on that one now. I also think Rabbi does not fit, and moreover we have no source that says it does as it is in the lede now. But before moving on it, let us get another opinion at least. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 15:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC) Reply