Talk:Jesus - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Humanpublic (talk | contribs) at 16:09, 30 December 2012 (→"Existed" The article tries very hard to prove that). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 16:09, 30 December 2012 by Humanpublic (talk | contribs) (→"Existed" The article tries very hard to prove that)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) The answer to your question may already be in the FAQ.The FAQ provides links to archived talk page discussions.
Please read the FAQ.

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jesus article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137Auto-archiving period: 3 days

The answer to your question may already be in the FAQ. Please read the FAQ first.

Jesus was one of the Philosophy and religion good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 17, 2004	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
June 2, 2004	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
August 3, 2004	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
November 2, 2004	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
May 3, 2005	Articles for deletion	Kept
October 6, 2005	Peer review	Reviewed
December 12, 2005	Good article nominee	Listed
December 15, 2005	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
April 14, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed
November 27, 2006	Peer review	Reviewed
April 21, 2007	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
August 21, 2007	WikiProject A-class review	Approved
July 12, 2009	Good article reassessment	Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Religion Top‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Christianity: Bible / Jesus / Theology / Saints / Catholicism / Eastern O. / Oriental O. / Jewish / Anglicanism / Latter Day Saints Top‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity

Top

This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Bible portal This article is supported by WikiProject Bible (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article is within the scope of the Jesus work group, a task force which is currently considered to be inactive.
	This article is supported by theology work group (assessed as Top-importance).
	Saints portal This article is supported by WikiProject Saints (assessed as Top-importance).
	Catholic Church portal This article is supported by WikiProject Catholicism (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Eastern Orthodoxy.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Oriental Orthodoxy (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Jewish Christianity (assessed as Top-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Anglicanism (assessed as Top-importance).
	Latter Day Saints portal This article is supported by WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement (assessed as Top-importance).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Islam Mid‑importance

	Islam portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Islam, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Islam-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IslamWikipedia:WikiProject IslamTemplate:WikiProject IslamIslam-related
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Biography: Core

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is listed on the project's core biographies page.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Bahá'í Faith High‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bahá'í Faith, a coordinated attempt to increase the quality and quantity of information about the Baháʼí Faith on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. If you are new to editing Misplaced Pages visit the welcome page to become familiar with the guidelines.Bahá'í FaithWikipedia:WikiProject Bahá'í FaithTemplate:WikiProject Bahá'í FaithBahá'í Faith
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Bible Top‑importance

	Bible portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Religion Top‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:WP1.0

Template:Controversial (history) Template:Pbneutral

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Jesus. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Jesus at the Reference desk.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Discussions on this page often lead to previous arguments being restated. Please read recent comments, look in the archives, and review the FAQ before commenting.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Jesus article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

view · edit Frequently asked questions Q1: What should this article be named? A1: To balance all religious denominations this was discussed on this talk page and it was accepted as early as 2004 that "Jesus", rather than "Jesus Christ", is acceptable as the article title. The title Christ for Jesus is used by Christians, but not by Jews and Muslims. Hence it should not be used in this general, overview article. Similarly in English usage the Arabic Isa and Hebrew Yeshua are less general than Jesus, and cannot be used as titles for this article per WP:Commonname. Q2: Why does this article use the BC/AD format for dates? A2: The use of AD, CE or AD/CE was discussed on the article talk page for a few years. The article started out with BC/AD but the combined format AD/CE was then used for some time as a compromise, but was the subject of ongoing discussion, e.g. see the 2008 discussion, the 2011 discussion and the 2012 discussion, among others. In April 2013 a formal request for comment was issued and a number of users commented. In May 2013 the discussion ended and the consensus of the request for comment was to use the BC/AD format. Q3: Did Jesus exist? A3: Based on a preponderance of sources, this article is generally written as if he did. A more thorough discussion of the evidence establishing Jesus' historicity can be found at Historicity of Jesus and detailed criticism of the non-historicity position can be found at Christ myth theory. See the policy on the issue for more information.

Q3a: Is "virtually all scholars" a phrase that can be used in Misplaced Pages?

The issue was discussed on the talk page:

Based on this Misplaced Pages search the phrase is widely used in Misplaced Pages.
The definition of the term virtually is shown by the Merriam-Webster dictionary in clear terms.
The term is directly used by the source in the article, and is used per the WP:RS/AC guideline to reflect the academic consensus.

Q3b: What about asking on the reliability noticeboard?

Yes, people involved in the page can discuss matters, but an independent opinion from the reliable source noticeboard can further clarify and confirm the sources. An outside opinion was requested on the noticeboard. The outside opinion there (by user:DGG) stated that the issue has been discussed there many times and that the statement in the article (that virtually all scholars of antiquity hold that Jesus existed) represents the academic consensus.

Q3c: What about the books that claim Jesus never existed?

The internet includes some such lists, and they have been discussed at length on the talk page, e.g. a list of over 20 such books was addressed in this talk page discussion. The list came from a non-WP:RS website and once it was analyzed it became clear that:

Most of the authors on the list were not scholars in the field, and included an attorney, an accountant, a land surveyor, a film-maker, as well as a number of amateurs whose actual profession was less than clear, whose books were self-published and failed the WP:RS requirements. Some of the non-self-published authors on the list were found to just write popular books, have no academic position and not scholars, e.g. Christopher Hitchens.
Some of the books on the list did not even deny the existence of Jesus, e.g. Burton Mack (who is a scholar) holds that Jesus existed but his death was not due to his challenge to Jewish authority, etc. Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman's work is about the Old Testament and not really related to Jesus. Tom Harpur holds that Jesus existed but mythical stories were later added to the gospel narratives about him.

The analysis of the list thus indirectly shed light on the scarcity of scholars who deny the existence of Jesus.

Q3d: Do we have to survey the scholars ourselves?

The formal Misplaced Pages guidelines require us not to do our own survey. The Misplaced Pages guideline WP:RS/AC specifically states: "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." Given that the guideline then states: "statement in Misplaced Pages that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors." we should not rely on our own surveys but quote a scholar who states the "academic consensus".

Q3e: Why even mention the existence of Jesus in the article lead?

A: This was discussed on the talk page. Although scholars at large see existence as a given, there are some self-published, non-scholarly books which question it, and hence non-scholars who read this article need to to have that issue clarified. And note that the statements regarding existence and other attributes need to be kept separate and stating that "Virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus was from Galilee" would not be accurate, because scholarly agreement on existence is much stronger than on other items.

Q4: Are the scholars who study Jesus all Christian? A4: No. According to Bart D. Ehrman in How Jesus Became God (2014, ISBN 978-0-06-177818-6, p. 187), "most New Testament scholars are themselves Christian". However, scholars of many faiths have studied Jesus. There are three aspects to this question:

Some of the most respected late-20th-century scholars involved in the study of the historical Jesus (e.g. Amy-Jill Levine, Geza Vermes, Paula Fredriksen) are Jewish. This trend is discussed in the 2012 book Soundings in the Religion of Jesus, by Bruce Chilton, Anthony Le Donne, and Jacob Neusner (ISBN 978-0-8006-9801-0, p. 132). While much of the older research in the 1950–1970 time frame may have involved Christian scholars (mostly in Europe) the 1980s saw an international effect and since then Jewish scholars have brought their knowledge of the field and made significant contributions. And one should note that the book is coauthored by the likes of Chilton and Neusner with quite different backgrounds. Similarly one of the main books in the field, The Historical Jesus in Context, by Amy-Jill Levine, Dale C. Allison Jr., and John Dominic Crossan (2006, ISBN 978-0-691-00992-6), is jointly edited by scholars with quite different backgrounds. In the late 20th and the 21st century Jewish, Christian and secular agnostic scholars have widely cooperated in research. The Muslim Reza Aslan wrote the number-one bestseller Zealot (2013).
Regarding the existence of a historical Jesus, the article lead quotes Ehrman who is an agnostic and Price who is an atheist. Moreover, G. A. Wells who was widely accepted as the leader of the non-existence movement in the 20th century, abandoned that position and now accepts that the Q source refers to "a preacher" on whom parts of the gospels were based – although he believes that the supernatural claims were just stories that were then attributed to that preacher. That is reflected in his 2004 book Can We Trust the New Testament (pp. 49–50). While scholars continue to debate the historicity of specific gospel narratives, the agreement on the existence of Jesus is quite global.
It is misleading to assume that Christian scholars will be biblical literalists who cannot engage in critical scholarship. Catholic and non-Evangelical Protestant scholars have long favoured the historical-critical method, which accepts that not all of the Bible can be taken literally. For example, the Christian clerics and scholars Michael Ramsey, C. F. D. Moule and James Dunn all argued in their scholarship that Jesus did not claim to be divine, Conrad Hyers, a Presbyterian minister, criticizes biblical literalism: "Literal clarity and simplicity, to be sure, offer a kind of security in a world (or Bible) where otherwise issues seem incorrigibly complex, ambiguous and muddy. But it is a false security, a temporary bastion, maintained by dogmatism and misguided loyalty."
Finally, Misplaced Pages policies do not prohibit Buddhist scholars as sources on the history of Buddhism, Jewish scholars on Judaism, or Muslim scholars as sources on the history of Islam provided they are respected scholars whose works meet the general WP:RS requirements in terms of publisher reputation, etc.

Q5: Why are some historical facts stated to be less certain than others? A5: The difference is "historically certain" versus "historically probable" and "historically plausible". There are a number of subtle issues and this is a somewhat complicated topic, although it may seem simple at first:

Hardly any scholars dispute the existence of Jesus or his crucifixion.
A large majority of scholars agree that he debated the authorities and had "followers" – some scholars say there was a hierarchy among the followers, a few think it was a flat organization.
More scholars think he performed some healings (given that Rabbinic sources criticize him for that etc., among other reasons) than those who say he never did, but less agreement on than the debates with authorities, etc.

As the article states, Amy-Jill Levine summarized the situation by stating: "Most scholars agree that Jesus was baptized by John, debated with fellow Jews on how best to live according to God's will, engaged in healings and exorcisms, taught in parables, gathered male and female followers in Galilee, went to Jerusalem, and was crucified by Roman soldiers during the governorship of Pontius Pilate." In that statement Levine chose her words very carefully. If she had said "disciples" instead of followers there would have been serious objections from other scholars, if she had said "called" instead of "gathered", there would have also been objections in that some scholars hold that Jesus preached equally to all, never imposed a hierarchy among his followers, etc. Scholars have very specific positions and the strength of the consensus among them can vary by changing just one word, e.g. follower to disciple or apostle, etc. Q6: Why is the infobox so brief? A6: The infobox is intended to give a summary of the essential pieces of information, and not be a place to discuss issues in any detail. So it has been kept brief, and to the point, based on the issues discussed below.

Q6a: Was Jesus Jewish?: Yes, as mentioned in the article, but not in the infobox. An RfC at the Village Pump says to include religion in the infobox only if it's directly related to the subject's notability and there's consensus. Some editors want to include his religion in the infobox and others do not. With no consensus, the default is to leave the religion out of the box.
Q6b: Why is the birthplace not mentioned in the infobox?: The question came up in this discussion and there is no solid scholarly agreement on Bethlehem, so the infobox does not address that.

Q7: Why is there no discussion of the legacy/impact of Jesus? A7: That issue is inherently controversial, and has been discussed on the talk page for many years (see, e.g., the 2006 discussion, the June 2010 discussion, the November 2010 discussion). One user commented that it would turn out to be a discussion of the "impact of Christianity" in the end; because all impact was through the spread of Christianity in any case. So it has been left out due to those discussions. Q8: Why is there no discussion of Christian denominational differences? A8: Christianity includes a large number of denominations, and their differences can be diverse. Some denominations do not have a central teaching office and it is quite hard to characterize and categorize these issues without a long discussion that will exceed the length limits imposed by WP:Length on articles. The discussion of the theological variations among the multitude of Christian denominations is beyond the scope of this article, as in this talk page discussion. Hence the majority and common views are briefly sketched and links are provided to other articles that deal with the theological differences among Christians. Q9: What is the correct possessive of Jesus? A9: This article uses the apostrophe-only possessive: Jesus', not Jesus's. Do not change usage within quotes. That was decided in this discussion. Q10: Why does the article state "ost Christians believe Jesus to be the incarnation of God the Son and the awaited messiah ...?" Don't all Christians believe this? A10: Misplaced Pages requires a neutral point of view written utilizing reliable scholarly sources. It does not take a position on religious tenets. In this case, the sources cited clearly state "most", not "all", Christians hold the stated beliefs, as some sects and persons who describe themselves as "Christian", such as Unitarians, nevertheless do not hold these beliefs. This was agreed upon multiple times, including in this discussion.

References

R.Kendall Soulen, Handbook of Biblical Criticism, Westminster John Knox Press (2001), p. 49
Hick, John (2006). The Metaphor of God Incarnate: Christology in a Pluralistic Age. Presbyterian Publishing Corporation. p. 27. ISBN 978-0-664-23037-1. Retrieved 5 January 2024.
Hyers, Conrad (Spring 2000). "Comparing biblical and scientific maps of origins". Directions: A Mennonite Brethren Forum. 29 (1): 16–26.
Hyers, Conrad (August 4–11, 1982). "Biblical Literalism: Constricting the Cosmic Dance". Christian Century. p. 823. Archived from the original on June 4, 2011. Retrieved 9 November 2012.

To-do list for Jesus: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2013-06-02

Talk:Jesus/archivebox

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

"Existed" The article tries very hard to prove that

Yet it fails to mention most of those "scholars" are Christians or Christian influenced. --62.1.89.106 (talk) 19:05, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

IP: FAQ question 3c discusses the issue of who writes books that say otherwise. Please read that. History2007 (talk) 18:12, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

He didn't ask about books that say otherwise. The perception is correct, as far as the sources of this article go: the majority of sources saying Jesus existed have a Christian background and training. Humanpublic (talk) 16:05, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I fail to see why that is relevant if they meet WP:RS ReformedArsenal (talk) 16:07, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

In Misplaced Pages Buddhist scholars can write about Buddah, Jewish scholars about Moses and Islamic scholars about Islam. There is no policy that prohibits the use of WP:RS sources based on the beliefs of the author. That is how Misplaced Pages works. And in any case, for the N-th time, no opposing WP:RS sources have been offered. And this has been said so many times now, as you well know. History2007 (talk) 16:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Nobody said otherwise. You just keep not listening. Nobody has said Christian scholars can't be used. Nobody has said there are opposing views. For the N-th time, the refutation of "all scholars agree" includes "many scholars take no position." It is not "many scholars oppose." For the millionth time, nobody has said Christian scholars are prohibited. Every single time, I say I am not arguing that Christian scholars are prohibited, and every single time you reply with the strawman that Christian scholars are allowed. Yes, Christian scholars are allowed. But if you say "all scholars" then you should be able to cite broad cross-section of scholars--in fact, the cross section cited here is very narrow. And, for the millionth time, being a professor of religion does not make anyone an expert on what ALL scholars believe. In evolution, there are polls and statements from national organizations of scientists. Ditto for global warming. There are peer-reviewed articles. There is none of that here, and yet you want the same level of authority. Humanpublic (talk) 17:09, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

No, I do not agree at all. Your self-assumed concept of poll is your personal view. In Misplaced Pages WP:RS/AC states that what a WP:RS source states may be used, and the source used states: "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees". The source is just getting quoted, as it states it. So attempting to change what the source states based on your self-reasoned concept of how polling is done runs against WP:OR and WP:RS/AC, of course, as stated before. And your discussion is getting somewhat confused now, switching from "Christian background and training" to other angles, etc. The thread was about Christian background and you have now accepted that not to be an issue. So that was the topic of this thread. History2007 (talk) 17:20, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Christian background is an issue. No, it is not an issue because it means anyone is automatically disqualified. Humanpublic (talk) 17:45, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, you seem to think it is an issue but not an issue.... That does not sound like logical reasoning to me, so I think I should stop on this now. History2007 (talk) 17:52, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Getting back to a previous statement by Humanpublic, do you have any evidence that many scholars in the field take no position on the historicity of Jesus? From what I've seen the vast majority of academic scholars of that era think Jesus existed (though also agreeing that the NT contains a lot of accretion). --Erp (talk) 01:17, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I continue to believe that many editors are confusing two separate concepts - A) most scholars believe that some sort of historical Jesus-person did exist in that time period, vs B) many scholars believe that the bulk of the gospel-stories about that Jesus-person are fiction. I am slowly wading through the plethora of Jesus-articles, adding that distinction into each of them. However some editors in some of the articles like to word this statement in a way which seems to mean something different, which I think is perhaps why other editors get confused. If every Jesus-article clearly stated in simple words that "A real Jesus-person almost certainly did exist but a lot of the gospel stories about him are not true", then I think a lot of this contention would evaporate. Wdford (talk) 05:50, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

That is a correct reading of the scholarly opinion: they agree that he walked the streets of Jerusalem and was crucified but there is no agreement on the details of what happened on the streets as he walked them. But we must accept that whatever Misplaced Pages says on this subject someone will be unhappy when reading it. Misplaced Pages makes no assumption about the ability of the reader to process logic - or that the reader is rational and sober when reading or writing. Over a decade ago, the same readers would read Encyclopædia Britannica and disagree with it, but had no way of responding. But here they do.

So comments will arrive, and all that can be done is having FAQ answers so the effort in clarification goes down. And wording must be selected carefully, e.g. your paraphrase that "A real Jesus-person almost certainly did exist but a lot of the gospel stories about him are not true" will be objected to due to the last part, in that there is no agreement on being true or not, so the way to say that "A real Jesus-person almost certainly did exist but there is no agreement on the historicity of the gospel accounts", side-stepping the word "true" which opens another Pandoras box. And in any case, the article states that in definite terms, as do the historicity article, and the historical article. And again, given the 400k views a month, the situation is quite stable. If you take a look at some of the other articles around, you will see huge multi-year debates.

But that is the nature of Misplaced Pages - anyone can type anything any time, and that brings in good content, as well as less than rational statements. There was a user (banned now) who used to argue on this talk page that the scholarly consensus exists, but "there are no reliable historians" anyway so what the scholars say matters not. There was another user (also banned) who argued here that "facts must be stated" not the "opinions of scholars" with PhDs. An observant user classified that as the Dunning-Kruger effect - which I had not heard of before. So whatever is stated in this article, some comments should be expected due to the nature of the subject, but we have answers to most of them now - although new ones may yet arrive. But I have seen worse. On the page for Son of man some user was arguing that cyborgs are the Son of man! Welcome to Misplaced Pages. History2007 (talk) 08:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The evidence that not all scholars agree is that 1) only a very narrow cross-section of "all scholars" can be found saying so, 2) the sources saying so are barely reliable. The vast majority of sources have a Christian background and training. The majority of "all scholars" do not. Why the discrepancy. The vast majority of sources are not historians, yet it is a historical question. Why the discrepancy? In evolution and global warming, there are polls and statements from major associations of scientists. THose are reliable sources for what "all scholars" believe in those fields. This subject has no such sources. There is not a single peer-reviewed work saying "all scholars agree" here, nor is there a single statement from reputable association of historians. The sources are opinions expressed in popular books. Humanpublic (talk) 16:09, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Existence

Why are you hitting people over the head with the non-issue of existence? It's a) not an issue and b) does not need to be explained in the lead. It can be assumed, as there is no scholarly issue. To put a statement in the lead is undue WEIGHT to the issue which few ever though about. It doesn't belong there. B——C_ritical 23:37, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

So do I understand that you think the historical existence of Jesus is so widely accepted that "it can be assumed" and does not need to be mentioned? Is that what I am to understand from your comment? History2007 (talk) 00:02, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. B——C_ritical 00:10, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Becritical, your edit conflated two separate points; whether or not Jesus existed, and exactly what happened to him during his lifetime. I would also recommend reviewing our Christ myth theory article, and in particular that it is a separate topic from Historical Jesus. Jayjg 00:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Becritical's point is refreshing indeed. On the scholarly front I totally agree with him. Scholars at large now see existence as a given. But please see this. There are a number of self-published books by accountants and land surveyors, etc. out there and members of the non-scholarly crowd do need to have that clarified, as a look through the archives of this talk page indicates. And as Jayjg said, while scholars agree that he existed, there is hardly any agreement on the details, e.g. even names of his apostles. In fact the 3rd quest for the historical Jesus has confirmed existence, but increased discord on the details. See historical Jesus on that. So those issues do need to be there and clarified for the average, non scholarly reader. History2007 (talk) 00:18, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

It didn't actually conflate them so far as I can see, rather it didn't address a non-issue. It just assumed the existence, which given that there is no general scholarly controversy, is appropriate. That's not conflation, it's just taking the scholarly perspective, which is NPOV, correct for WP. "Virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher from Galilee in Roman Judaea, who was was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman Prefect, Pontius Pilate." Perhaps if there is need for clarification in the lead itself it could be less prominent. But you know it's the lead, can't we assume the scholarly consensus there and give the footnote now-settled dispute later? B——C_ritical 00:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

This page gets over 400,000 views a month, and given the diverse views of those who read it, "assuming things" will be asking for debate and talk page clarification. By the way "Virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher from Galilee in Roman Judaea who was was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman Prefect, Pontius Pilate." is incorrect, because the agreement on existence is much stronger than the other elements such as being from Galilee. If we change to that, we will get objections within a day or two. And rightly so. But that point deserves to be in the FAQ. By the way, I will be off line for a while, so please do not assume I am ignoring your next comment. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 00:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

I was just about to say the same, but History2007 does it better. Mentioning the existence issue in the lead seems appropriate because there's quite a bit of dissent in non-scholarly sources. Huon (talk) 00:43, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Okay, looks like the current text is necessary as a ward against drama, basically a way for the regulars on this article to get some rest. I know how it is :P B——C_ritical 01:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 December 2012

I would recommend the following addition to be located after section 4.8:

4.9 Medical perspective Psychiatric conditions associated with psychotic spectrum symptoms have been proposed as possible explanations for Jesus's experiences and activities.

Reference: ^ Murray, ED.; Cunningham MG, Price BH. (1). "The role of psychotic disorders in religious history considered". J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neuroscience 24 (4): 410–26. doi:10.1176/appi.neuropsych.11090214. PMID 23224447.

Newthoughts34 (talk) 18:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Do you want us to add a single sentence as a whole section? ReformedArsenal (talk) 19:12, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

It seems that those authors are equal opportunity claimants, they think all four of Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and St. Paul were psycho. Are there any other mainstream scholars who support that paper? It seems to have just been published, and has not gathered any support or criticism. In any case, it is no just a Jesus issue but also a Moses issue. So if it gets an article, then can be discussed. My guess is that it will not make it as an article per WP:Fringe unless there are other mainstream publications that support it. Note that these one-off items appear once in a while, e.g. The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross that suggested narcotic effects and John Allegro lost his job after he wrote it etc. I saw that you asked there to do it just for Jesus and were sent here, but the responder there did not realize it was a multi-religion issue. The basic idea in that paper is that: "persons with primary and mood disorder-associated psychotic symptoms have had a monumental influence on the shaping of Western civilization." It is a much more general claim than just Jesus. In any case, the way I see it, first it is a more general issue than Jesus, and secondly seems to be newly minted WP:Fringe, unless you have other mainstream sources that support it. In any case, the Litmus test whether this item is going to make it to Misplaced Pages will be for you to go back to ask for an article to be created on the general premise of the paper, namely that "The prophets Abraham, Moses and Jesus had psychotic disorders", and see if that gets created in a more general setting. If that article is created and survives a potential Afd, then it will not be WP:Fringe and a reference to it can be made here. History2007 (talk) 19:55, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I think seeing visions would ipso facto qualify as psychotic or some other medicalized and pathologized term, but that's a bias of modern psychology which seeks to normalize. In fact such symptoms may not necessarily be disorders, especially if the society surrounding does not portray them as such. In this light such a paper could not be history, could not be objective, but a modern interpretation, seeing history through a modern lens. Just my 2 cents. B——C_ritical 19:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually that would be our own reasoning, and per WP:OR we can not discuss it among ourselves here. The question is really whether the item makes it as a Wiki-article, and the only way to know that is to request it and see what happens. My guess is that it will quickly fail WP:NOTE as well as WP:Fringe. But only time will tell. History2007 (talk) 20:03, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

You mean we can only discuss it among ourselves. And possibly we could, if we wished, pull up some literature on how interpreting historical societies by current ideas has its dangers. So that's a good reason for discussing it. B——C_ritical 23:42, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually I could talk to you about that for hours over a few drinks and it would be fun - but per WP:Forum the talking should be done in a bar somewhere not here, since our discussion can not affect the article per WP:OR, unless we find supporting references for building a page for it. So if you do have supporting references to build a page that passes WP:NOTE, by all means, please do. But I will leave that to you. History2007 (talk) 23:58, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

The process here is that we do use our own knowledge, we just have to find sources for it. So if we're discussing something which can lead to sourced text, it's perfectly valid to discuss whatever we want. We aren't barred from discussing the article subject by saying "here is what I heard and think and if there are sources we need a section on that." B——C_ritical 00:45, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, if the purpose of the discussion is sourcing, you are right of course. History2007 (talk) 05:30, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

In an effort to support accuracy about the proposed addition there is no mention in the referenced, peer reviewed journal of the term "psycho". Since the journal has taken on the responsibility of peer reviewing and publishing the substance of the article and the originality of its content then Misplaced Pages is not being used as a forum for new data or research. As I understand (perhaps incorrectly) Misplaced Pages presents information that others have researched, had peer reviewed and published.

The authors state:

"We suggest that some of civilization’s most significant religious figures may have had psychotic symptoms that contributed inspiration for their revelations. It is hoped that this analysis will engender scholarly dialogue about the rational limits of human experience and serve to educate the general public, persons living with mental illness, and healthcare providers about the possibility that persons with primary and mood disorder-associated psychotic-spectrum disorders have had a monumental influence on civilization."

As above, the authors don't make definitive diagnoses. Discussion about the article would best be accomplished after reading it. I agree that the article covers material beyond Jesus. The authors work at medical facilities that are widely regarded as top notch. They each can be looked up and each author currently holds or has held leadership roles in local or national organizations that pertain to the fields in which they are writing. Their previous publications are also available and are in very well referenced, peer reviewed text books and journals. Nothing in the medical facilities at which they work(McLean Hospital, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School), local and national leadership positions or nature of prior publications would mark them as fringe. Newthoughts34 (talk) 04:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Given that this theory is not just about Jesus but also about Moses, why is it getting applied only to this article? It is a general theory about mental problems for a number of religious people, and its absorption into society. This theory is "not about Jesus" but about a more general proposed phenomenon. So it should be discussed as a more general theory and is not just a Jesus issue. As for psycho, that was of course a joke I could not resist.... The theory is really far fetched of course, given that it is based on details of biblical narratives whose historicity is far from certain as the discussions on this page indicate. Given the 3rd quest for the historical Jesus has resulted in discord on the gospel details, the underlying data they work with is not the subject of general scholarly agreement. As for being fringe, the author's qualifications do not just determine that, it is a question of that general theory having support from other scholars beyond a single article. There is peer-reviewed literature that states that the Resurrection was an actual historical event, but Misplaced Pages does not present that as such. In any case, you really need to see if the page for the "prophets with mental problems" theory flies or not. Why don't you ask for its creation again and see if it flies. That is the way to go about it. History2007 (talk) 05:10, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

And it ought to fly really, given that I've been hearing for decades that Paul's road to Damascus vision might have been epilepsy. This isn't really so very fringe I think. It's already in this article . B——C_ritical 05:50, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Fine, if it flies it will fly. So let us see what happens when he asks for a page on its own with Moses and Paul bundled in. History2007 (talk) 05:53, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Categories: