Talk:Historical Jesus

Untitled

Related subpage: Sources
Related talkpage: Jesus/Historical_Jesus

Removed undocumented, original research regarding the primary source of the NT

I removed undocumented, original research regarding the primary source of the NT.

The statement "For example, Mark, the first of the canonical gospels, is the primary source for information about Jesus" is in debate. And certain ancient writers state that it was Matthew that was the first.

One or more writers state that Mark was a compilation of things that Peter taught, collected as Mark followed him around, and finally organized somewhat.

The idea that Mark was "the primary source" is due not only to speculation regarding its early appearance, but to its shortness. The assumption that no one would make a later but shorter account is simply an assumption. And that assumption is not terribly logical in the face of the early writers' witness that it was a compilation of Peter's sayings (Peter being an eyewitness to many events), or that Matthew came first.

There are also events in Mark that other, longer gospel accounts do not include. If Mark were the primary source, and fully trusted, and one were to make a much longer account (which all the others are), we might think that all or practically all of Mark would be included, even verbatim; but this is not really the case.

That Mark is thought by many to have been A primary source for some of the other accounts is true (though not all agree). (And this would be a salient point to the article, one which would need documenting.)

But to state such as if it were a known fact is not appropriate to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Misty MH (talk • contribs) 04:55, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Misty MH (talk) 22:24, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Ehrman, Bart D. (2011). "7. False Attributions, Fabrications, and Falsifications: Phenomena Related to Forgery. Fabrications Within the Canon. Plagiarism.". Forged: Writing in the Name of God—Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are (First Edition. EPub Edition. ed.). New York: HarperCollins e-books. p. 275. ISBN 978-0-06-207863-6. In fact, it is everywhere recognized today that one of them was a source for the other two. Almost all scholars think that Mark was used by Matthew and Luke. Some scholars continue to hold to the view that Matthew was the source for Mark and Luke, but that is very much a minority position. In either case, we have one document that is taken over by others, frequently verbatim. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); |format= requires |url= (help); External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Therefore, the scientific consensus is: Mark was the first gospel. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Essay article recreated

here ..this was removed by the author after discussion with other editors about its "stand alone" and duplication and WP:POVFORK problems. Now it's back. Merge into here? In ictu oculi (talk) 21:14, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Dawkins?

Why is Richard Dawkins' opinion included in the article? It seems to me that his opinion doesn't have any special weight, as he is well outside his area of expertise when commenting on this subject. Carinae986 (talk) 11:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Dawkins views are relevant because he is an important figure in the New Atheism movement and as a counterweight to the apologetical bias of the article. Martijn Meijering (talk) 12:23, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Surely there's an atheist historian or two out there who can counterbalance the apologetic bias of the article? I realize Dawkins has a certain amount of star-power, as a sort of evangelist for atheism, but his opinions are really just beside the point. It's an article about what historians think about jesus, not about what evolutionary biologists think about jesus. Carinae986 (talk) 14:01, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

We wouldn't, for instance, quote Dr. Dobson on this page, just because he's important to certain people, and has expressed a view about Jesus.... right? Carinae986 (talk) 14:03, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Hardly any of the authorities quoted are actual historians, they are biblical scholars engaging in historical (or pseudo-historical) research. They like to claim the mantle of science of course, but I've seen no convincing evidence they are taken seriously by the wider scientific community. Dawkins on the other hand is an undisputed scientists and he casts doubts on some of the claims made. In any case the reception of HJ research should be on topic for this page. I wouldn't be against renaming the page to Historical Jesus research, because it would then describe a community of researchers with a common purpose and common assumptions. Martijn Meijering (talk) 14:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

hmmmm... I looked into some of the names that appear in the footnotes section, and I'm afraid you're right. I found about 1 historian to every 3 theologians. This is really too bad. I suppose Richard Dawkins has just as much a right to express an opinion about the historicity of Jesus as any divinity student. Really the ideal thing is for the discussion to be grounded with references to historians, but I don't see how that could be done without deleting 90% of these footnotes.... which seems drastic. Well, thanks for pointing that out. Question answered. Carinae986 (talk) 14:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's probably inevitable since most people who study the subject were trained at a department of theology or of religious studies and most are Christians. There still needs to be a Wikipedia page on the subject. Martijn Meijering (talk) 15:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

If I remember well, Dawkins stated he had no objections to the existence of a flesh and blood Jesus, he only attacked the Jesus-as-God view. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:10, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

The God Delusion, pp. 92-93: "Ever since the nineteenth century, scholarly theologians have made an overwhelming case that the gospels are not reliable accounts of what happened in the history of the real world." Here Dawkins implies that such theologians are reliable: they can be trusted to write reliable history, although they're Christians and theologians. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:37, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Dawkins's stance (p. 97): "Although Jesus probably existed, reputable biblical scholars do not in general regard the New Testament (and obviously not the Old Testament) as a reliable record of what actually happened in history, and I shall not consider the Bible further as evidence for any kind of deity." So, he thinks that Jesus probably existed. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Well I was just pointing out that Dawkins isn't any kind of expert on this subject. He's a scientist and a popular author, with no formal training in historical research. Worse, it's well known that he has an axe to grind against religion, so it seems to me he isn't really a trustworthy guide to this subject. But as Meijeri pointed out, the page references alot of equally uninformed people on the other side, so it seems like it would be unfair to take Dawkins out while leaving all of them in. I think the page does a real disservice to its purported topic. I just don't see any way to fix it without committing to some really extensive edits, which I can't really participate in. Carinae986 (talk) 22:21, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Biased statements of opinion can only be presented with attribution. For instance, "John Doe is the best baseball player" expresses an opinion and cannot be asserted in Wikipedia as if it were a fact. It can be included as a factual statement about the opinion: "John Doe's baseball skills have been praised by baseball insiders such as Al Kaline and Joe Torre."

— WP:NPOV

Well, he has an axe to grind against religion, so he is even more reliable when he testifies that scholarly theologians are reliable. The same applies to his view that the case that Jesus did not exist is a minority view. Kind of criterion of embarrassment applied to atheists. Surely, Dawkins is not a historian and has no scientific works on the historical Jesus. But he is notable enough in respect to the views of atheists. When speaking of religion, atheism is one of the possibilities (options), it is notable enough so it is not a violation of NPOV to include Dawkins's view as Dawkins's view, i.e. instead of Dawkins's view as a fact. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. Maybe there would be a section on "atheist perspectives" or "christian perspectives," with those sections clearly differentiated from the perspective of academic historians. I'm not really proposing any edits to the page based on Dawkins... since I'm not willing to undertake the major project that would, in my opinion, be necessary to really fix the issue I brought up earlier, I'm content to let it go. Carinae986 (talk) 00:01, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Faky Jesus

"[...]the obvious case that Jesus faked the remaining miracles." Although the context of that passage might let you believe that Jesus performed all the miracle tricks that other preachers of his time applied, it is yet a strong and courageous assumption that needs at least one proof. If we use "obvious", we owe the reader, where and why it is obvious. Please explain in more detail.
Inawe 10:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

lots of work deleted in a single edit

I have recently added a lot of new information and valuable tables with many references, all of which has been deleted by a single edit. Since I have now completed all my editing of this page, I suggest that my contributions be restored as there are too many to lose. Anyone can then delete specific sentences as required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spread knowledge not ignorance (talk • contribs) 20:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

No, that's not how it works. The process is Bold, Revert, Discuss. You made a bold edit, someone reverted it and now we have to discuss it before it can be added back, probably in modified form. It doesn't matter how much time you spent entering the new text. If anything this should be a lesson not to add too much information in one go. Martijn Meijering (talk) 22:11, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Spread, your edits are not gone; they're still there in the history. Take a look here and here. The full history is here. The current article represents consensus of editors frequenting this page. To add new information which is contentious, the first step is to gain consensus for the change, and then we can update the article. It would be helpful if you could explain what problems you were trying to address in the article, and how your edits serve that end. Thanks for coming to the talk page, btw! If we can talk this out a bit, we might be able to isolate some of the good parts of your contributions and integrate those in the article. Thanks.   — Jess· Δ♥ 23:53, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that. The edits were not made all at one session. They were done over a period of time but deleted in a single edit.

Some of the problems on the page before I edited are:

1) the miracle section has only a few random comments unquoted and has no proper structure.

2) the resurrection section is in the same situation and also suffers from having an anti historical statement on a page which is supposed to be historical. One of the quotes given to support it actually contradicts it. On a historical page there is no mention of the purely historical explanation of the resurrection. No pro and cons of the different theories are given. For examples the vision theory needs two explanations one that all appearances were visions and two that it does not explain the empty tomb.

3) the divinity section lacks a proper time dimension. There is no framework of historical development nor of the variation of attitudes to the event which made Jesus divine, or remain human. This is an essential framework for the reader. As it stands the text appears to be discussing the divinity of Jesus a factual statement rather than as an analysis of a created text in an historical environment.

I have given a range of quotes to back up all my information and other interested people will be able to find more. The charts I have given are standard in courses on the historical Jesus so anyone can add more references as they please. The resurrection stuff I gave is fairly new because until recently it was such a red herring that scholars towed the line. Kersten is good until the India section.