A large majority of critical Bible scholars and historians hold that Jesus was a Jewish Galilean teacher and healer who debated with the Pharisees and other authorities. [1] The Roman Governor, Pontius Pilate ordered that Jesus be executed outside of Jerusalem by crucifixion for claiming to be the "King of the Judeans", a crime of rebellion against Rome. [2] However, citing a lack of extant contemporaneous documents making reference to him, a small minority question the historicity of Jesus. [3]
The majority of critical Bible scholars and historians generally agree that Jesus was a Jewish Galilean teacher and healer who debated with the Pharisees and other authorities. [4] The Roman Governor, Pontius Pilate ordered that Jesus be executed outside of Jerusalem by crucifixion for claiming to be the "King of the Judeans", a crime of rebellion against Rome. [5] However, citing a lack of extant contemporaneous documents making reference to him, a small minority question the historicity of Jesus. [6]
I like Aiden's recent rewording, which CTSWyneken reverted. It made the paragraph flow better, and also got rid of one of those annoying ordinal measurements. Arch O. La Talk TCF 19:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
1-- Our footnotes demostrate its accuracy.
2-- We say this to underline that the position is likely untrue and not maintained by any historian we know of.
3-- We need to counterbalance the explanation of the reason given for the nonexistence hypothesis.
Don't want to derail the FA drive but the term "healer" is a religious POV. Any non religious scholars would describe him as "regarded as a healer" or some variant. I appreciate that the listed scholars all say this but the comment in the intro paragraph implies more general accetance than just those who subscribe to supernatural intervention of one type or another. Sophia Talk TCF 19:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
This sounds familiar.
"The King of the Jews (INRI)"
Arch O. La Talk TCF 20:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
This article doesn't clear when its talking about Christian POV. Can I please ask people make this a lot more clear while working on making this a featured article? Take this as an example. ems 16:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I totally dispute this part to being accurate A large majority of critical Bible scholars and historians hold that Jesus was a Jewish Galilean teacher and healer who debated with the Pharisees and other authorities. It totally does not take in account the POV of people who only believe in the Torah. ems 03:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
The paragraph is about what critical scholars believe. It's better to include alternative views in separate paragraphs. -- Haldrik 05:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
The second paragraph starts with: Most scholars and historians agree that Jesus was a Jewish Galilean teacher and healer who was sentenced to death by crucifixion outside of Jerusalem on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate, for claiming to be the "King of the Judeans," a crime of rebellion against Rome.
I object to "scholars and historians" and want to simplify this sentence by using just "scholars". The phrase is bad English; all historians referenced by this article, though un-named, are all scholars. Scholars is the correct term for this sentence. While editors to this article are probably used to the phrase because they have read it a thousand times, to a fresh reader the redundancy is clear and makes the article illiterate. At worst, it suggests to some readers that the article thinks that historians are not scholars. Since all historians are scholars, eliminating the word makes no change at all to the logical meaning of the sentence. Drogo Underburrow 02:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I guess, Homes. From here I have to direct Drogo to the keepers of the list: CTSWyneken and Slrubenstein. I just looked at the list and I could have sworn that some were listed as professors of history. Of course, others were professors of religious studies or theologians.
Here's another way to go about it: Drogo, who would you recommend? We could always use more sources ;) Arch O. La Talk TCF 03:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I recommend that the sentence reflect the list of authorities being cited: "Most bible scholars agree that Jesus was a ..." This is supported by the list. Drogo Underburrow 04:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I am of course open to changing the wording, but I am adamantly opposed to changing it to "Most Bible scholars" for two reasons: first, there is in fact a tremendous rift between people whose scholarship operates within an explicitly Christian context, and those whose scholarship employs critical methods; the views in this paragraph are those of specifically critical historians. Second, I think that it is very important for the lead article on Jesus to summarize the view of critical historians in the introduction - this being an NPOV encyclopedia. As to whether these people are historians or Bible scholars - this is a meaningless distinction because all historians writing about Jesus and early Christianity are Biblical "scholars." But it is precisely the fact that they employ the critical tools of modern historians that distinguishes them from other (including religious) Bible scholars.
Drogo Underburrow is correct as far as I know that the list presented is of people with PhD.s and/or who teachin Biblical studies or religion departments. But to infer from this that they are not historians reflects a misunderstanding of academia and the organization of universities. Traditionally, history departments (at least in the English speaking world) focus on the history of modern Europe, although many departments may have a few historians who research ancient Western societies and non-Western socieites. Many historians researching non-Western socieites receive their training and teach in interdisciplinary programs (e.g. African Studies, East Asian Studies). And, for the most part, historians working with texts not written in a modern language receive their training in specialized programs e.g. Classics (Greek and Roman history), or Ancient Near Eastern or Biblical Studies (ancient Israel, Egypt, Babylon, Assyria, Sumeria). The main justification for this division of labor is that a critical historian who is writing about Greek history must be fluent in koine Greek and in many cases other non-modern languages; a critical historian writing about the NT must be fluent in koine Greek and Aramaic, and perhaps other non-modern languages; a critical historian writing abou the Hebrew Bible needs to know not only Biblical Hebrew but usually another ancient Near Eastern language like Akkadian or Ugaritic. Most history departments, even large ones at top universities, do not have enough adequately trained faculty to be able to train graduate students in these areas - thus, graduate students are more likely to study in Classics or Biblical studies deparmtnes, and, for similar reasons, look for jobs in these departments when they graduate.
All one has to do is actually read the books cited, and it will be clear that the authors are historians and the books are studies of history. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
MonkeeSage, you misread me. I wrote "people whose scholarship operates within an explicitly Christian context, and those whose scholarship employs critical methods." This sentence makes no claims at all about who is a Christian and who is not. When Sanders writes his history books, he is not writing within a Christian context. This does not mean he is not a Christian, only that his religious beliefs are distinct from his work as a historian. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Saying "scholars and historians" is redundant and bad English. Drogo Underburrow 11:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
But I never claimed that all Bible scholars are historians. And this is an important distinction that the article must convey. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
-- CTSWyneken 12:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Proposal: Most scholars agree that Jesus was a Jewish Galilean teacher and healer who was sentenced to death by crucifixion outside of Jerusalem on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate, for claiming to be the "King of the Judeans," a crime of rebellion against Rome. Drogo Underburrow 13:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
All of the critical scholars I have read (admitedly, not the same as all critical scholars) say that if anything in the Gospels actually happened, the crucifixion is one of them, and from this they conclude that Jesus was executed for sedition. That is, based on everything historians know about 1st century Roman occupied Judea, if Jesus was executed, it could only have been for sedition. NB: this does not mean that Jesus preached violent rebellion. fredreksen emphasizes that at the time, especially among the Jews, there was no clear boundary between the religious and the political. For Jesus to insist that God's kingdom was at hand consititued insurrection, especially if he did this publically and had a significant following.
Slrubenstein |
Talk 17:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Would you please all stop for a moment! No one seems to be looking at the footnotes I've spent countless hours assembling. On this list are historians, Michael Grant who is one of the most respected historians of the ancient world, Will Durant, a historian who is known for a wide range of work across periods, Shaye Cohen who is a historian of ancient Judaism, who writes a fair bit on the intersection betweem Judaism and infant Christianity. Only Cohen is close to being described as a Biblical scholar. Paul Maier is also a historian of ancient Rome, translator of Josephus and Eusebius, but has done enough work on Biblical issues to be classed a Biblical scholar as well.
Beyond these are critical scholars, Crossan and Fredrikson, for example, and non-critical, traditional scholars, such as Wright and D. A. Carson.
This list can grow if we find it useful...
Here's the point: the paragraph lists what nearly every scholar in Biblical studies and every historian who has studied the life of Jesus agrees upon. In a field that is marked by so many different interpretations of evidence, it is important that we make this clear and that we are describing the near unianimous opinion of scholars is the disciplines of History and Biblical studies.
I'm at a loss as to how else we can describe it. Suggestions? -- CTSWyneken 11:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
The point has been made that "scholars" is too broad and "historians" is too narrow. How about something like, "historians and other critical Bible scholars"? Arch O. La Talk TCF 15:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC) I am sorry for any misunderstanding I caused. I certainly understand that many Christians use the same tools as non-Christian historians. My point is that when someone like Sanders does so, he is bracketing his religious beliefs and his religious beliefs do not enter into his critical scholarship. With all due respect, MonkeeSage's string theory/science argument misses my point entirely. It would be better to say that some string theorists may be Christians, but their Christianity does not enter into the models of the universe they are developing. I would not quibble over "scholar" versus "historian." Drogo is right that I claimed that all historians relevant to this discussion are in one way or another "Bible scholars." But the converse is not true: "Bible scholars" to me is more inclusive - it would include non-historians and people not taking a critical approach. Let me try to be crystal clear about what is at stake here. While CTSWyneken may be correct that all scholars agree that Jesus existed, I do not think this is the crucial point. To my mind, the crucial point is that this is what critical scholars say. My point is not that critical scholars are not Christians, my point is that a critical scholar is not writing as a Christian - s/he writes for an audience that includes non-Christians and not because they wish to convert non-Christians to a "Christian" point of view. When Sanders accepts the existence of Jesus he does not justify this through his faith. Cohen and Sanders both believe that Jesus existed as historians. That Sanders may have other reasons for believing Jesus existed does not enter into his work as a historian, just as Cohen's being Jewish does not enter into it. It is essential that we distinguish between critical scholars and non-critical scholars. I do not care whether we use "scholar" of "historian," although historian is more precise and applies to the sources in the footnote. The crucial distinction is critical versus non-critical. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Your question is inappropriate because it does not matter whom I believe to be "important." I find most scholars of the NT to be unimportant, but this is my personal opinion and irrelevant to this article. What is important is that I acknowledge that there are Bible scholars whom others - in this case, believing Christians - consider important. It doesn't matter whether I can name them or not. What matters is that some scholars are critical and others are not. Maybe Hal Taussig's Jesus Before God? CTSWyneken, can you suggest some books about Jesus that reflect a profound knowledge of the New Testament and considerable thought, but that come from an explicitly Christian point of view? I cannot believe that none exist. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Drogo wrote: "Well, you went out of your way to emphasize that there are these non-critical "scholars" and its very important that they be distinguished from the critical ones" - thanks Drogo, I now understand what you were getting at. My point is not that there are important Christian (meaning, writing as Christians) historians, although I don't doubt it. My point is that the difference between people writing as Christians versus people who, whatever their personal views, bracket them and write from a critical point of view, is an important difference. All you need to do is look to the discussion from last week or the last several weeks and you will see some people arguing that if a historian is Christian, he or she is necessarily biased towards presenting a Christian point of view. This is a claim that most secular and non-Christian critical scholars would reject - critical scholars bracket their personal feelings, views, and commitments all the time. Many people reading this article are going to suppose that Bible scholars or historians are Christians and, more than that, writing from an explicitly Christian point of view or in one way or another betraying their Christian agenda. Whatever else you may think about Sanders, for example, I think that is attitude is untrue and unfair. Not only is it unfair to Sanders, it is unfair to secular and non-Christian historians too, because it reflects an ignorance and lack of respect for critical scholarship.
One way an article is NPOV compliant is by including multiple views. Obviously most contributors here acknowledge that the article should not present the Christian point of view as the truthful or only important point of view. But it is not enough to identify points of view as "Muslim," "Jewish," or "atheist." There is a view held by critical scholars and to say that their religion or whether they believe in God or not trumps their disciplinary training is simply to reject that point of view. I insist that this point of view be included.
It is for this reason that I think it is important to distinguish between critical and non-critical historians.
By the way, I urge people to consider removing Durant. Perhaps there is a place for his views, and those of thoughtful and knowledgable authors in general. But I continue to believe that what is important is not how many people believe Jesus existed, but rather which groups have different views on Jesus. I think scholars who have advanced training in Biblical history, who know Koine Greek and Aramaic and publish for academic journals, represent a particular group that prepresents a particular perspective. Durant is not part of this group. When he voices his own view of Jesus, he is speaking as a popular and thoughtful author, but not as anyone who claims to have special knowledge of 1st century Roman Palestine history. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be an issue of what "critical" means. Some seem to use it in a negative way, as in "he is quite critical of ..." - however, the proper usage here should be "critical sholars" - those you use the methods of critical historiography, e.g. Mommsen as opposed to Herodotus. All academic historians are critical historians - a different usage would again be pigeon-holing scholars. Str1977 (smile back) 14:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Can I get a word in edgewise here? The point has been made that "scholars" is too broad and "historians" is too narrow. "Scholars" includes philosophers, professors of German, and the other people we list under a "small minority." How about something like, "historians and other critical Bible scholars"? Oh, and there are critical Bible scholars that don't use the historical method. Textual ("low") critics just analyze the text. You could make the case that higher Bible critics are also historians, but there are also some historians who are not, strictly speaking, Bible critics. Arch O. La Talk TCF 15:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I still like Drogo's "Most scholars..." Simple, to the point, accurate. And people who think to themselves "Nuh-uh! Not historians (or fill in the blank)..." will see the footnotes and go "Oh, Bork, they did cover historians (or whatever)...guess I'll go weave some tapestries..." -- MonkeeSage 16:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I suggest just saying "scholars" and leave it at that. Some are Bible critics, others are historians, others might be something else. "Scholars" can encompass all of them. KHM03 (talk) 17:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
KHM03 is correct, but just using the word "scholars" doesn't distingish the majority of scholars from the minority of scholars. I also agree with Slrubenstein. Would a Venn diagram help?
A: Bible critics B:Historians C: Other scholars. The majority is in color and the minority is in white. Note that this isn't to scale. Arch O. La Talk TCF 17:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I have one (only one!) objection to the current phrasing. I do not think that we should privilege the views of historians who are not experts on this particular period in history. What is important is not what "lots of people" think, what is important is what scholars who have extensive training and have written recognized scholarly works on the period. I think we should delete the Will Durant footnote, for example - who cares what Will Durant thought? I would grant him some authority as a philosopher, but his historical work was all popular and based on secondary sources - why should we care about what he thought of 1st century Judea, any more than what anyone else thought? We should stick to recognized scholars of this period. By the way, as far as I know all or most of the people in footnote 2 believe Jesus was executed for sedition. Why not just delete footnote three, and move footnote two to the end of the sentence? Slrubenstein | Talk 11:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps people missed my comment above. The second paragraph currently states:
Most scholars and historians agree that Jesus was a Jewish Galilean teacher and healer who was sentenced to death by crucifixion outside of Jerusalem on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate, [1] for claiming to be the "King of the Judeans," a crime of rebellion against Rome. [2] The main sources of information regarding Jesus' life and teachings are the four canonical Gospels of the New Testament, which are generally agreed to have been written in the decades after his death. A small minority question the historicity of Jesus, citing a lack of extant contemporaneous documents making reference to him. [3]
The problem with the current order of sentences is that we now do not know what the "small minority" is referring to; is it "scholars and historians", or is it "four canonical gospels"? In order for the paragraph to read comprehensibly, we first need to state what the source documents are, then give the majority and minority opinions about what their import is. Jayjg (talk) 18:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I think part of the controversy is that we're not making a clear distinction between the Jesus-Myth and the nonexistence hypothesis. I asked some time ago if they are one and the same; CTSWyneken and Paul B. explained the difference.
I've tried to point out that we Christians have our own version of the Jesus-Myth; we just call it apocrypha. Among academics, the Jesus-Myth refers to those who argue that some or all of the NT is also apocryphal. The non-existence hypothesis argues that the NT is entirely apocryphal, but there are others who accept some details of the Gospel account more readily than others. Obviously the miracles, virgin birth, and ressurection are considered mythical by non-Christians. Even liberal Christians will ask, for example, why Luke dates Jesus birth to a Quinirian census that took place long after Herod the Great was dead.
This is why I think we should rephrase " A small minority question the historicity of Jesus" to something like "A small minority question the historical existence of Jesus." Strictly speaking, historicity is broader than existence. There are many who accept the historical existence of Jesus, but question the historicity of other details. The majority agree that "Jesus was a Jewish Galilean teacher and healer who was sentenced to death by crucifixion outside of Jerusalem on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate,[1] for claiming to be the "King of the Judeans," a crime of rebellion against Rome," but many among the majority question the historicity of other details. Arch O. La Talk TCF 21:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I raised this issue further up and in my proposal above. Slrubenstein seemed to agree with me. Do all scholars claim the exact reason for Jesus' crucifixion is the claim to be "King of the Judeans" or can we generalize some and say he was executed for 'for alleged rebellion against Rome.?-- Andrew c 03:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)'
Um, I don't think the issue is really how well I or anyone else understands the field of factions in Roman Judea or Galilee at that time. I think the issue is our knowledge of the scholarly literature on this matter. Personally, I have no reason to doubt the claim that Jesus presented himself or was believed by others to be the "King of the Jews" and as far as I know, most historians would say it is likely — it is in all four gospels, it is entirely consistent with what historians know about first century Judea, and with the handful of other things about Jesus they feel confident about, and this claim is in conflict with Christian theology/would have been embarrasing to early Church leaders in the late first/second century. So I am afraid I do not agree with Andrew C. To be clear: I am not saying that jesus was the King of the Jews or even that some people believed he was king of the Jews. I am saying that most critical scholars I have read accept this element of the gospel account.
By the way, one thing that all these historians feel very certain about is that jesus was baptized by John the baptist. Would anyone object to adding it? Slrubenstein | Talk 11:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
A large majority of critical Bible scholars and historians hold that Jesus was a Jewish Galilean teacher and healer who debated with the Pharisees and other authorities. [1] The Roman Governor, Pontius Pilate ordered that Jesus be executed outside of Jerusalem by crucifixion for claiming to be the "King of the Judeans", a crime of rebellion against Rome. [2] However, citing a lack of extant contemporaneous documents making reference to him, a small minority question the historicity of Jesus. [3]
The majority of critical Bible scholars and historians generally agree that Jesus was a Jewish Galilean teacher and healer who debated with the Pharisees and other authorities. [4] The Roman Governor, Pontius Pilate ordered that Jesus be executed outside of Jerusalem by crucifixion for claiming to be the "King of the Judeans", a crime of rebellion against Rome. [5] However, citing a lack of extant contemporaneous documents making reference to him, a small minority question the historicity of Jesus. [6]
I like Aiden's recent rewording, which CTSWyneken reverted. It made the paragraph flow better, and also got rid of one of those annoying ordinal measurements. Arch O. La Talk TCF 19:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
1-- Our footnotes demostrate its accuracy.
2-- We say this to underline that the position is likely untrue and not maintained by any historian we know of.
3-- We need to counterbalance the explanation of the reason given for the nonexistence hypothesis.
Don't want to derail the FA drive but the term "healer" is a religious POV. Any non religious scholars would describe him as "regarded as a healer" or some variant. I appreciate that the listed scholars all say this but the comment in the intro paragraph implies more general accetance than just those who subscribe to supernatural intervention of one type or another. Sophia Talk TCF 19:14, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
This sounds familiar.
"The King of the Jews (INRI)"
Arch O. La Talk TCF 20:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
This article doesn't clear when its talking about Christian POV. Can I please ask people make this a lot more clear while working on making this a featured article? Take this as an example. ems 16:28, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
I totally dispute this part to being accurate A large majority of critical Bible scholars and historians hold that Jesus was a Jewish Galilean teacher and healer who debated with the Pharisees and other authorities. It totally does not take in account the POV of people who only believe in the Torah. ems 03:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
The paragraph is about what critical scholars believe. It's better to include alternative views in separate paragraphs. -- Haldrik 05:28, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
The second paragraph starts with: Most scholars and historians agree that Jesus was a Jewish Galilean teacher and healer who was sentenced to death by crucifixion outside of Jerusalem on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate, for claiming to be the "King of the Judeans," a crime of rebellion against Rome.
I object to "scholars and historians" and want to simplify this sentence by using just "scholars". The phrase is bad English; all historians referenced by this article, though un-named, are all scholars. Scholars is the correct term for this sentence. While editors to this article are probably used to the phrase because they have read it a thousand times, to a fresh reader the redundancy is clear and makes the article illiterate. At worst, it suggests to some readers that the article thinks that historians are not scholars. Since all historians are scholars, eliminating the word makes no change at all to the logical meaning of the sentence. Drogo Underburrow 02:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I guess, Homes. From here I have to direct Drogo to the keepers of the list: CTSWyneken and Slrubenstein. I just looked at the list and I could have sworn that some were listed as professors of history. Of course, others were professors of religious studies or theologians.
Here's another way to go about it: Drogo, who would you recommend? We could always use more sources ;) Arch O. La Talk TCF 03:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I recommend that the sentence reflect the list of authorities being cited: "Most bible scholars agree that Jesus was a ..." This is supported by the list. Drogo Underburrow 04:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I am of course open to changing the wording, but I am adamantly opposed to changing it to "Most Bible scholars" for two reasons: first, there is in fact a tremendous rift between people whose scholarship operates within an explicitly Christian context, and those whose scholarship employs critical methods; the views in this paragraph are those of specifically critical historians. Second, I think that it is very important for the lead article on Jesus to summarize the view of critical historians in the introduction - this being an NPOV encyclopedia. As to whether these people are historians or Bible scholars - this is a meaningless distinction because all historians writing about Jesus and early Christianity are Biblical "scholars." But it is precisely the fact that they employ the critical tools of modern historians that distinguishes them from other (including religious) Bible scholars.
Drogo Underburrow is correct as far as I know that the list presented is of people with PhD.s and/or who teachin Biblical studies or religion departments. But to infer from this that they are not historians reflects a misunderstanding of academia and the organization of universities. Traditionally, history departments (at least in the English speaking world) focus on the history of modern Europe, although many departments may have a few historians who research ancient Western societies and non-Western socieites. Many historians researching non-Western socieites receive their training and teach in interdisciplinary programs (e.g. African Studies, East Asian Studies). And, for the most part, historians working with texts not written in a modern language receive their training in specialized programs e.g. Classics (Greek and Roman history), or Ancient Near Eastern or Biblical Studies (ancient Israel, Egypt, Babylon, Assyria, Sumeria). The main justification for this division of labor is that a critical historian who is writing about Greek history must be fluent in koine Greek and in many cases other non-modern languages; a critical historian writing about the NT must be fluent in koine Greek and Aramaic, and perhaps other non-modern languages; a critical historian writing abou the Hebrew Bible needs to know not only Biblical Hebrew but usually another ancient Near Eastern language like Akkadian or Ugaritic. Most history departments, even large ones at top universities, do not have enough adequately trained faculty to be able to train graduate students in these areas - thus, graduate students are more likely to study in Classics or Biblical studies deparmtnes, and, for similar reasons, look for jobs in these departments when they graduate.
All one has to do is actually read the books cited, and it will be clear that the authors are historians and the books are studies of history. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
MonkeeSage, you misread me. I wrote "people whose scholarship operates within an explicitly Christian context, and those whose scholarship employs critical methods." This sentence makes no claims at all about who is a Christian and who is not. When Sanders writes his history books, he is not writing within a Christian context. This does not mean he is not a Christian, only that his religious beliefs are distinct from his work as a historian. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:38, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Saying "scholars and historians" is redundant and bad English. Drogo Underburrow 11:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
But I never claimed that all Bible scholars are historians. And this is an important distinction that the article must convey. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
-- CTSWyneken 12:09, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Proposal: Most scholars agree that Jesus was a Jewish Galilean teacher and healer who was sentenced to death by crucifixion outside of Jerusalem on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate, for claiming to be the "King of the Judeans," a crime of rebellion against Rome. Drogo Underburrow 13:22, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
All of the critical scholars I have read (admitedly, not the same as all critical scholars) say that if anything in the Gospels actually happened, the crucifixion is one of them, and from this they conclude that Jesus was executed for sedition. That is, based on everything historians know about 1st century Roman occupied Judea, if Jesus was executed, it could only have been for sedition. NB: this does not mean that Jesus preached violent rebellion. fredreksen emphasizes that at the time, especially among the Jews, there was no clear boundary between the religious and the political. For Jesus to insist that God's kingdom was at hand consititued insurrection, especially if he did this publically and had a significant following.
Slrubenstein |
Talk 17:49, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Would you please all stop for a moment! No one seems to be looking at the footnotes I've spent countless hours assembling. On this list are historians, Michael Grant who is one of the most respected historians of the ancient world, Will Durant, a historian who is known for a wide range of work across periods, Shaye Cohen who is a historian of ancient Judaism, who writes a fair bit on the intersection betweem Judaism and infant Christianity. Only Cohen is close to being described as a Biblical scholar. Paul Maier is also a historian of ancient Rome, translator of Josephus and Eusebius, but has done enough work on Biblical issues to be classed a Biblical scholar as well.
Beyond these are critical scholars, Crossan and Fredrikson, for example, and non-critical, traditional scholars, such as Wright and D. A. Carson.
This list can grow if we find it useful...
Here's the point: the paragraph lists what nearly every scholar in Biblical studies and every historian who has studied the life of Jesus agrees upon. In a field that is marked by so many different interpretations of evidence, it is important that we make this clear and that we are describing the near unianimous opinion of scholars is the disciplines of History and Biblical studies.
I'm at a loss as to how else we can describe it. Suggestions? -- CTSWyneken 11:03, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
The point has been made that "scholars" is too broad and "historians" is too narrow. How about something like, "historians and other critical Bible scholars"? Arch O. La Talk TCF 15:06, 16 March 2006 (UTC) I am sorry for any misunderstanding I caused. I certainly understand that many Christians use the same tools as non-Christian historians. My point is that when someone like Sanders does so, he is bracketing his religious beliefs and his religious beliefs do not enter into his critical scholarship. With all due respect, MonkeeSage's string theory/science argument misses my point entirely. It would be better to say that some string theorists may be Christians, but their Christianity does not enter into the models of the universe they are developing. I would not quibble over "scholar" versus "historian." Drogo is right that I claimed that all historians relevant to this discussion are in one way or another "Bible scholars." But the converse is not true: "Bible scholars" to me is more inclusive - it would include non-historians and people not taking a critical approach. Let me try to be crystal clear about what is at stake here. While CTSWyneken may be correct that all scholars agree that Jesus existed, I do not think this is the crucial point. To my mind, the crucial point is that this is what critical scholars say. My point is not that critical scholars are not Christians, my point is that a critical scholar is not writing as a Christian - s/he writes for an audience that includes non-Christians and not because they wish to convert non-Christians to a "Christian" point of view. When Sanders accepts the existence of Jesus he does not justify this through his faith. Cohen and Sanders both believe that Jesus existed as historians. That Sanders may have other reasons for believing Jesus existed does not enter into his work as a historian, just as Cohen's being Jewish does not enter into it. It is essential that we distinguish between critical scholars and non-critical scholars. I do not care whether we use "scholar" of "historian," although historian is more precise and applies to the sources in the footnote. The crucial distinction is critical versus non-critical. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Your question is inappropriate because it does not matter whom I believe to be "important." I find most scholars of the NT to be unimportant, but this is my personal opinion and irrelevant to this article. What is important is that I acknowledge that there are Bible scholars whom others - in this case, believing Christians - consider important. It doesn't matter whether I can name them or not. What matters is that some scholars are critical and others are not. Maybe Hal Taussig's Jesus Before God? CTSWyneken, can you suggest some books about Jesus that reflect a profound knowledge of the New Testament and considerable thought, but that come from an explicitly Christian point of view? I cannot believe that none exist. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:57, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Drogo wrote: "Well, you went out of your way to emphasize that there are these non-critical "scholars" and its very important that they be distinguished from the critical ones" - thanks Drogo, I now understand what you were getting at. My point is not that there are important Christian (meaning, writing as Christians) historians, although I don't doubt it. My point is that the difference between people writing as Christians versus people who, whatever their personal views, bracket them and write from a critical point of view, is an important difference. All you need to do is look to the discussion from last week or the last several weeks and you will see some people arguing that if a historian is Christian, he or she is necessarily biased towards presenting a Christian point of view. This is a claim that most secular and non-Christian critical scholars would reject - critical scholars bracket their personal feelings, views, and commitments all the time. Many people reading this article are going to suppose that Bible scholars or historians are Christians and, more than that, writing from an explicitly Christian point of view or in one way or another betraying their Christian agenda. Whatever else you may think about Sanders, for example, I think that is attitude is untrue and unfair. Not only is it unfair to Sanders, it is unfair to secular and non-Christian historians too, because it reflects an ignorance and lack of respect for critical scholarship.
One way an article is NPOV compliant is by including multiple views. Obviously most contributors here acknowledge that the article should not present the Christian point of view as the truthful or only important point of view. But it is not enough to identify points of view as "Muslim," "Jewish," or "atheist." There is a view held by critical scholars and to say that their religion or whether they believe in God or not trumps their disciplinary training is simply to reject that point of view. I insist that this point of view be included.
It is for this reason that I think it is important to distinguish between critical and non-critical historians.
By the way, I urge people to consider removing Durant. Perhaps there is a place for his views, and those of thoughtful and knowledgable authors in general. But I continue to believe that what is important is not how many people believe Jesus existed, but rather which groups have different views on Jesus. I think scholars who have advanced training in Biblical history, who know Koine Greek and Aramaic and publish for academic journals, represent a particular group that prepresents a particular perspective. Durant is not part of this group. When he voices his own view of Jesus, he is speaking as a popular and thoughtful author, but not as anyone who claims to have special knowledge of 1st century Roman Palestine history. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:02, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be an issue of what "critical" means. Some seem to use it in a negative way, as in "he is quite critical of ..." - however, the proper usage here should be "critical sholars" - those you use the methods of critical historiography, e.g. Mommsen as opposed to Herodotus. All academic historians are critical historians - a different usage would again be pigeon-holing scholars. Str1977 (smile back) 14:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Can I get a word in edgewise here? The point has been made that "scholars" is too broad and "historians" is too narrow. "Scholars" includes philosophers, professors of German, and the other people we list under a "small minority." How about something like, "historians and other critical Bible scholars"? Oh, and there are critical Bible scholars that don't use the historical method. Textual ("low") critics just analyze the text. You could make the case that higher Bible critics are also historians, but there are also some historians who are not, strictly speaking, Bible critics. Arch O. La Talk TCF 15:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I still like Drogo's "Most scholars..." Simple, to the point, accurate. And people who think to themselves "Nuh-uh! Not historians (or fill in the blank)..." will see the footnotes and go "Oh, Bork, they did cover historians (or whatever)...guess I'll go weave some tapestries..." -- MonkeeSage 16:35, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I suggest just saying "scholars" and leave it at that. Some are Bible critics, others are historians, others might be something else. "Scholars" can encompass all of them. KHM03 (talk) 17:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
KHM03 is correct, but just using the word "scholars" doesn't distingish the majority of scholars from the minority of scholars. I also agree with Slrubenstein. Would a Venn diagram help?
A: Bible critics B:Historians C: Other scholars. The majority is in color and the minority is in white. Note that this isn't to scale. Arch O. La Talk TCF 17:56, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I have one (only one!) objection to the current phrasing. I do not think that we should privilege the views of historians who are not experts on this particular period in history. What is important is not what "lots of people" think, what is important is what scholars who have extensive training and have written recognized scholarly works on the period. I think we should delete the Will Durant footnote, for example - who cares what Will Durant thought? I would grant him some authority as a philosopher, but his historical work was all popular and based on secondary sources - why should we care about what he thought of 1st century Judea, any more than what anyone else thought? We should stick to recognized scholars of this period. By the way, as far as I know all or most of the people in footnote 2 believe Jesus was executed for sedition. Why not just delete footnote three, and move footnote two to the end of the sentence? Slrubenstein | Talk 11:26, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps people missed my comment above. The second paragraph currently states:
Most scholars and historians agree that Jesus was a Jewish Galilean teacher and healer who was sentenced to death by crucifixion outside of Jerusalem on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate, [1] for claiming to be the "King of the Judeans," a crime of rebellion against Rome. [2] The main sources of information regarding Jesus' life and teachings are the four canonical Gospels of the New Testament, which are generally agreed to have been written in the decades after his death. A small minority question the historicity of Jesus, citing a lack of extant contemporaneous documents making reference to him. [3]
The problem with the current order of sentences is that we now do not know what the "small minority" is referring to; is it "scholars and historians", or is it "four canonical gospels"? In order for the paragraph to read comprehensibly, we first need to state what the source documents are, then give the majority and minority opinions about what their import is. Jayjg (talk) 18:27, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I think part of the controversy is that we're not making a clear distinction between the Jesus-Myth and the nonexistence hypothesis. I asked some time ago if they are one and the same; CTSWyneken and Paul B. explained the difference.
I've tried to point out that we Christians have our own version of the Jesus-Myth; we just call it apocrypha. Among academics, the Jesus-Myth refers to those who argue that some or all of the NT is also apocryphal. The non-existence hypothesis argues that the NT is entirely apocryphal, but there are others who accept some details of the Gospel account more readily than others. Obviously the miracles, virgin birth, and ressurection are considered mythical by non-Christians. Even liberal Christians will ask, for example, why Luke dates Jesus birth to a Quinirian census that took place long after Herod the Great was dead.
This is why I think we should rephrase " A small minority question the historicity of Jesus" to something like "A small minority question the historical existence of Jesus." Strictly speaking, historicity is broader than existence. There are many who accept the historical existence of Jesus, but question the historicity of other details. The majority agree that "Jesus was a Jewish Galilean teacher and healer who was sentenced to death by crucifixion outside of Jerusalem on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate,[1] for claiming to be the "King of the Judeans," a crime of rebellion against Rome," but many among the majority question the historicity of other details. Arch O. La Talk TCF 21:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
I raised this issue further up and in my proposal above. Slrubenstein seemed to agree with me. Do all scholars claim the exact reason for Jesus' crucifixion is the claim to be "King of the Judeans" or can we generalize some and say he was executed for 'for alleged rebellion against Rome.?-- Andrew c 03:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)'
Um, I don't think the issue is really how well I or anyone else understands the field of factions in Roman Judea or Galilee at that time. I think the issue is our knowledge of the scholarly literature on this matter. Personally, I have no reason to doubt the claim that Jesus presented himself or was believed by others to be the "King of the Jews" and as far as I know, most historians would say it is likely — it is in all four gospels, it is entirely consistent with what historians know about first century Judea, and with the handful of other things about Jesus they feel confident about, and this claim is in conflict with Christian theology/would have been embarrasing to early Church leaders in the late first/second century. So I am afraid I do not agree with Andrew C. To be clear: I am not saying that jesus was the King of the Jews or even that some people believed he was king of the Jews. I am saying that most critical scholars I have read accept this element of the gospel account.
By the way, one thing that all these historians feel very certain about is that jesus was baptized by John the baptist. Would anyone object to adding it? Slrubenstein | Talk 11:19, 17 March 2006 (UTC)