Talk:Gospel/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gospel. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080608014638/http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html to http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/TCG/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080619001437/http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/GNT/books.html to http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/GNT/books.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:11, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: move. This is certainly a difficult decision as numbers are split down the middle, and WP:PLURAL seems readable either way. What seems to tip the scales, though, is the recent move at The gospel. The distinction mentioned in the original request seems increasingly needed. I would redirect Gospel to The gospel, but there are many double redirects that need to be fixed first (and so I'll wait for a bot to take care of those). -- tariqabjotu 16:05, 28 September 2013 (UTC) no consensus. I don't normally revert moves when a participant complains about the result. However, the more I re-read the discussion, the more I see that a number of supporting remarks were predicated on the idea that this article is about the Books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, when it is not solely about that. There seems to be some issue with this article vs. the gospel, and I suggest another discussion or move request start about how to deal with that (or maybe this still is the primary topic, who knows?), but there's no consensus for another name at this point. -- tariqabjotu 16:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

---

Gospel → Gospels – This article long ago stopped being about both the Good News and the gospels as particular written documents. Since it is about those particular written documents, per WP:PLURAL, a plural article name is acceptable here because it is clearly an article on a class of specific things, just as articles on the Synoptic Gospels, Jewish-Christian gospels, and Gnostic Gospels are on a classes of specific things and are named in plural. It also serves as a NATURAL disambiguator from the Good_News_(Christianity) / The Gospel. Please note the current requested move also at that page. Relisted bd2412 T 00:09, 17 September 2013 (UTC) tahc ^chat 21:54, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

• Strong support as per WP:PLURAL; we're talking about a class of four specific books. Red Slash 00:45, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
• Comment a related move request is occurring at Talk:Good_News_(Christianity)#Requested_move -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 03:36, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose as per WP:PLURAL, or as I understand this policy anyway. The article is not only about certain gospels - if it is about only the canonical gospels then it ought to be renamed to a more specific title. In which case of course a new 'Gospel' article may be necessary, a split of the current article would make more sense. Imc (talk) 10:23, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose. The article covers all works commonly known as gospels, both canonical and noncanonical—thus treating a particular type or category of written works. Like Imc's, my reading of WP:PLURAL is that titles of such articles should be in the singular, witness Idyll, Tall tale, Proverb, Epistle, and the like. That this particular class is more or less closed to expansion doesn't, as far as I can see, make any difference. Deor (talk) 15:56, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

So would you want Wikipedia to make Synoptic Gospels, Jewish-Christian gospels, and Gnostic Gospels singular then? tahc ^chat 00:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I would be inclined to say that usage should be either for the singular term Synoptic Gospel (for instance) or for the collection as The Synoptic Gospels. Imc (talk) 06:11, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose as a matter of article scope. The "Gospels" would mean a particular collection of gospels, whereas "gospel" is an article that should answer the question "what is a gospel?" or "what makes something a gospel?" as distinguished from whatever else (some other form of Christian literature, for instance). Cynwolfe (talk) 16:10, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

So what do you want. Do you want Wikipedia to have articles for both Gospel and Gospels? Do you want Gospel to cover both the particular collection of all ancient gospels and also cover the question "what is a gospel?" If so, how is that better that Gospels covering both? tahc ^chat 23:59, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't understand your question. We have articles that cover specific collections of gospels, and we have gospel as an overview article on what a gospel is. And for instance we have a summary section here on Synoptic Gospels, and we have a section on the canonical Gospels. A plural title implies that the article is about the Gospels as a particular collection. This common meaning is included, but the article has a broader scope than that, and explains what a gospel is. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:12, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Or to put it more simply, a plural title is for a topic for which it would be hard or counterintuitive to write a topic sentence in the singular. Roman roads is an example: it would be hard to construct a useful first sentence to an encyclopedia article that began "A Roman road is ... ". If constructing a first sentence in the singular poses no particular difficulties and seems natural, as is the case here, then there's no reason to depart from the usual convention of titles in the singular. Cynwolfe (talk) 00:27, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose per Cynwolfe. The rule of thumb:

“ a plural title is for a topic for which it would be hard or counterintuitive to write a topic sentence in the singular ”

ought to be included in WP:PLURAL. By the way, that "guideline" is clear as mud, poorly documents the actual practices, and has same quite odd-looking sections, like "Grammatical nicety". It needs a good overhaul. No such user (talk) 15:20, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support. There is a definite difference in meaning. The singular refers to the general concept of a doctrinal truth. ("don't take this is gospel"). The plural refers to a specific four books. The article is clearly about specific gospels. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:51, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

You might want to read the first paragraph, which explains that there are also apocryphal gospels, the non-canonical gospels, the Jewish-Christian gospels and the gnostic gospels. So article scope is in fact stated quite clearly not to be confined to the four canonical NT gospels commonly called "The Gospels". It's about what a "gospel" is as a kind of Christian literature, just as novel or poem is about a kind of secular literature. The sense of "gospel" you give is a colloquial meaning that wouldn't have an encyclopedia article: it's a mere lexical item. Cynwolfe (talk) 23:40, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Surely you must have noticed in typing this response that all those other examples have plural titles (well, the two that aren't redirects, at any rate). WP:AT says titles should be consistent with those of similar articles. --BDD (talk) 23:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Surely you must have noticed that those articles are about collections or groups of gospels, not an overview of what a gospel is. This article describes a genre of Christian literature. The title is analogous to novel, or epic poem, or satire, or hymn. It's a genre. Cynwolfe (talk) 02:29, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Cynwolf, yes, I read and understand. I understand that non-canonical gospels are not gospel. It is therefore illogical to discuss non-canonical gospels under "gospel", they should be found under "gospels". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

• Support Now that Good News (Christianity) has been moved to The gospel, this is an important distinction. While this article is about more than just the four canonical gospels, it's still about a group or class of specific things, as specified in WP:PLURAL as an exception to the usual convention of singular titles. --BDD (talk) 23:30, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support as a less bad alternative to the status quo. I don't think the genre is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "gospel". I think it's at least as likely that someone is looking for the gospel when they search for "gospel". I think the best title for this page is Gospel (genre). I don't really think WP:PLURAL lends support to Gospels, but I'm supporting anyway because there needs to be some meaningful disambiguation from the gospel. --JFH (talk) 02:00, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree that there's a confusion of scope with that article, but confess I'm unclear what that other article is about. Cynwolfe (talk) 02:34, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

At the risk of being accused of proselytization, let me tell you. The gospel is the Church's basic proclamation, the message of Jesus' death and resurrection. It is not the same thing as a narrative, though the two are obviously related. It includes gospel proclamation in the Epistles and the Church's proclamation through the rest of history. The gospel is also considered to have been proclaimed to Adam and Eve and through prophesy and typology in the Old Testament. --JFH (talk) 03:43, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

So gospel (this article) is about what a gospel is as a genre of Christian literature, and should answer the question "why is a piece of Christian literature called a gospel" instead of sermon, apologetics, homily, etc. The other article now called "The gospel" is about the content of a particular kind of message, irrespective of whether it's communicated in the form of a written literature or delivered orally. Is that a way to distinguish scope? Cynwolfe (talk) 15:10, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

That sounds right. --JFH (talk) 18:55, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose, per Deor and Cynwolfe. Given that the lede makes it clear that the article addresses a broader meaning of the term than just the four books of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John (which are the Gospels), it seems appropriate to title the article accordingly by retaining the more generic singular form. This is consistent with Wikipedia's titling of other classes of literature. ╠╣uw [talk] 09:48, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

---

I'm sorry, but I object to the rationale in the close, which seems to have treated this as a vote rather than looking at the arguments. For instance, JFH and I agreed on scope, but one of us supported and the other opposed. Those who wanted a move to the plural did not explain the scope of the article accurately, and did not counter the view that the singular "gospel" represented a genre of Christian literature, like homily, sermon, etc. In fact, the discussion ended with a trend toward agreement that "gospel", singular, represented a genre. Could the closer explain why he rejected that view of the scope of the article, or what he thinks the article is about instead? Cynwolfe (talk) 16:20, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Responded in new closing decision. -- tariqabjotu 16:38, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Dubious citations

About [1]: some sources are dubious (e.g. Lulu.com is WP:SPS, the claim that the gospels are historically trustworthy is WP:FRINGE, for Orville Daniel's book no page is given for verifying the claims made, also the book has been published in 1937, for us it is when dinosaurs ruled the Earth). See also WP:RS/AC and WP:RNPOV. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:23, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Serious Problems with the Objectivity of this Article

This article is written from a subjective perspective that assumes that a religious/mythological figure is a real person when there is no historical evidence to support the claim. Other religious/mythological characters are not written about from this perspective on Wikipedia. The article also uses vague, subjective language such as referring to "our" only source of information without specifying who the "our" refers to.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.194.19 (talk) 16:31, 26 October 2017‎ (UTC)

See WP:FRINGE. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:33, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree with the first poster. The article should at least have one reference to the question of historicity, preferably early in the text. PhS (talk) 14:33, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Christ myth theory is WP:FRINGE/PS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:40, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

They did not know the Hebrew text

How do scholars know that the authors of the gospels did not know the Hebrew text? Their mistakes are telling it: "the virgin will give birth to a son" isn't in the Hebrew text (it is "the teenager will give birth to a son", the teenager being Isaiah's wife or the king's wife). "Riding on two donkeys" is a misreading of the Hebrew text: the donkey is itself the offspring of a donkey, Jesus did not have to ride on a donkey and its foal in order to fulfill the prophecy, so we know that the author of the gospel made an error. This is not a matter of speculation. These mistakes are a result of following the Greek translation instead of the Hebrew text. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:50, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Barnabas

In reference to the Gospel of Barnabas, this article calls Barnabas "one of the Twelve Apostles." This is false and should be edited out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.29.245.4 (talk) 03:57, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

"Named an apostle in Acts 14:14" see Barnabas. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:38, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

That's fair, but my point was that the article called Barnabas, "one of the twelve apostles," referring to the twelve disciples of Jesus. But someone took "twelve" out of the article, so it's correct now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.29.245.4 (talk) 20:29, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Non-canonical gospels -- gospel harmonies

I would like to see some small changes in the discussion of "gospel harmonies," which are the subject of the next-to-last paragraph in the subsection on "non-canonical gospels."

Harmonies are consolidated versions of the gospels, editing the four accounts together into a single narrative in chronological order. I have written such a harmony myself. I don't know that this constitutes a conflict of interest, but to be on the safe side I thought I'd run my thoughts through this forum first.

It seems to me that the current paragraph, while solid, has three shortcomings. (1) It implies that harmonies are used solely to demonstrate the complete consistency of the gospels; it does not mention that they can also be used for other purposes, such as to produce a readable, accessible narrative or study guide for the general public. (2) It does not spell out why harmonies are non-canonical; the new reader might wonder why they are not more authoritative, given that they use all the words and only the words of the four recognized accounts. (3) The final paragraph in this subsection (on Marcion of Sinope) refers to a single document, and should logically come about two paragraphs earlier, before the discussion of the two multi-document genres.

In light of the above, I'd propose that the discussion of gospel harmonies be amended to read as follows:

"Another genre is that of gospel harmonies, in which the four canonical gospels are combined into a single narrative, either to present a consistent text or to produce a more accessible account of Jesus' life. The oldest known harmony, the Diatessaron, was compiled by Tatian around 175, and may have been intended to replace the separate gospels as an authoritative text. It was popular for at least two centuries in Syria, but eventually fell into disuse. Subsequent harmonies were written with the more limited aim of being study guides or explanatory texts. They still generally use all words and only the words of the four gospels, but the possibility of editorial error, and the loss of the individual viewpoints of the separate gospels, keeps the harmony from being canonical."

Neilaveritt (talk) 00:48, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Gospel harmony is off topic for this article and should be a "See also" link. Editor2020

(talk) 02:07, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Oh, it's already there. Editor2020 (talk) 02:10, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure. Editor2020 states a defensible position. On the other hand, Tatian's harmony was accepted for a long time (in some churches) as canonical, and then condemned as non-canonical. It seems to me that this kind of back-and-forth makes it useful to give at least a brief mention of the gospel harmony genre to explain its status. Neilaveritt (talk) 06:00, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Neilaveritt, I favour keeping the entry. But can you find a source to support it? - plenty of books listed in the bibliography. Congratulations on your own book by the way, you have my respect.PiCo (talk) 08:40, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

References

I've now gone forward and have introduced a variant of my proposed paragraph into the published article. The proposal has been up on the talk page for two or three weeks, which is, I hope, long enough to have garnered any comments that other editors wish to make. I've responded to the two that came in. I responded to the suggestion from PiCo by adding some additional citations. I (partially) responded to Editor2020 by amending the text to show how the Diatessaron was first accepted as canonical and then later rejected; this shows how the canonical status of harmonies is complex and worth at least a brief explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neilaveritt (talk • contribs) 00:44, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

TR is superior

The view that Textus Receptus would be superior is WP:FRINGE. Promotion of such view is WP:PROFRINGE. Tgeorgescu (talk) 03:52, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: Why is it WP:FRINGE? Minority view != fringe. Even then, this is not a minority view. How is

...he worked with in his location in Alexandria, Egypt during his lifetime

Not true? I mean, those are the documents he worked with. Ehrman does not provide a complete picture on the quote and it is taken without context. This secondary source does the synthesis for us, which is acceptable according to guidelines, WP:OR is not. P151 of Ehrman and Metzger's 1991 publication indicates that Origen was referring to the copies he had available to him in Alexandria as corrupted, that is his view and not a Textus Receptus view.

Cheers!

Dr. Ryan E. (talk) 07:12, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu is one of our most respected and experienced editors on biblical subjects, and I tend to respect his judgements. However, if you want to make a case to the contrary, please provide sources rather than simply making statements.PiCo (talk) 08:15, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, theologians have agreed to disagree, so this view isn't fringe theologically, but academically. [2] does not seem to be a WP:RS, e.g. does not say who wrote it. Also, the way it got quoted served to push the POV that TR (or Gospel manuscripts not available to Origen) were somehow superior, i.e. that Origen was biased due to having lower-quality manuscripts. E.g., the website it links to, [3], says that the critical text is to be deplored since it is thoroughly an academic enterprise, instead of being a matter of their own (non-ecumenical) church, which would have made theological decisions instead of merely ones based upon the historical method. That website also does not say who wrote its articles. You see, Nestle-Aland is to be distrusted since their own clergy does not have the final word about its decisions. Such view is fine and dandy for preaching it to the choir, but it is off-topic inside a WP:RNPOV and WP:RS based encyclopedia. If it is a belief of say the Seventh-Day Adventists, then it would be appropriate in an article about SDA beliefs, not inside an article about NT Gospels. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:17, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand how you believe stating where he got the manuscripts from is a POV push. It isn't. I didn't write "therefore he is discredited because he did not access to higher quality documents" I'm also going to say that by leaving out the context you are implying he is referring to all the papyruses or manuscript copies in general. @PiCo: are you implying WP:OWN? Because I hope you are not. Yes, I have read the guidelines, and yes I know editors hate change. But this a big POV push to leave out context. Are you also telling me that Ehrman is not reliable? The secondary source is pulling from Ehrman and Metzger 1991. Dr. Ryan E. (talk) 14:14, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Ehrman's point was that all manuscripts were corrupted. You make it sound like only the manuscripts from Alexandria were corrupted. The citation from Metzger is, unfortunately, only the spine of a book (it does not mention any page). Also it seems quite odd to cite Metzger's book as proof of the influence that very book had on historians and theologians; another third-party reference should have been used. The citation from that website is written by a nobody from nowhere and has been fact-checked by another nobody from nowhere. Besides making WP:PROMO for "TR is superior", there is nothing notable about that website, it is not WP:RS in any sense we mean here. So, the way you have presented it, making it applicable only to some manuscripts from Alexandria, quoting just a spine of a book written by a reputable scholar and going into a wild tangent with a propaganda website written by anonymous persons implies the conclusion that you have been pushing a POV if not against WP:FRINGE, then against WP:DUE. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:25, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Recent edits to "genre and reliability" section

A new editor has recently made some extensive edits to the second paragraph of this section, and is (perhaps understandably) angry that they have been reverted. I'll explain why. First, the original text (please see the article for the full sources):

As Luke's attempt to link the birth of Jesus to the census of Quirinius demonstrates, there is no guarantee that the gospels are historically accurate.[4] Matthew and Luke have frequently edited Mark to suit their own ends, and the contradictions and discrepancies between John and the synoptics make it impossible to accept both as reliable.[3] In addition the gospels we read today have been edited and corrupted over time, leading Origen to complain in the 3rd century that "the differences among manuscripts have become great, ... [because copyists] either neglect to check over what they have transcribed, or, in the process of checking, they make additions or deletions as they please."[47] For these reasons modern scholars are cautious of relying on the gospels uncritically, but nevertheless they do provide a good idea of the public career of Jesus, and critical study can attempt to distinguish the original ideas of Jesus from those of the later authors.[4][5]

Now the proposed new version:

The Gospel writers wrote what they understood to be historically accurate. The author of The Gopsel of Luke's linking of the birth of Jesus to the census of Quirinius demonstrates some uncertainty on historical accuracy, as the author seems to imply that Jesus was born within a year of the death of Herod the Great, presenting this as historical fact and what was understood to be accurate.[4] Matthew and Luke have frequently edited Mark to suit their own ends.[47][48][49] 3rd century Christian scholar, Origen, referring to the copies of the Gospels, remarked that "the differences among manuscripts have become great" because copyists, "either neglect to check over what they have transcribed, or, in the process of checking, they make additions or deletions as they please."[50] For these reasons modern scholars are cautious of relying on the gospels uncritically, but nevertheless they do provide a good idea of the public career of Jesus, and critical study can attempt to distinguish the original ideas of Jesus from those of the later authors.[4][5]

Now to point out the problems with this version:

1. "The Gospel writers wrote what they understood to be historically accurate." As another editor has pointed out when deleting this sentence, it isn't sourced and would be highly questionable. It contradicts the scholarly consensus on what the gospel writers were doing, as described in the first paragraph of the section: "Ancient biographies were concerned with providing examples for readers to emulate while preserving and promoting the subject's reputation and memory."
2. "The author of The Gopsel of Luke's linking of the birth of Jesus to the census of Quirinius demonstrates some uncertainty on historical accuracy." This isn't an uncertainty, it's quite simply an error, and almost universally recognised as such by scholars (see the article Census of Quirinius).
3. You've deleted this sentence: "[T]he contradictions and discrepancies between John and the synoptics make it impossible to accept both as reliable." The sentence is sourced and can't be removed without explanation.
4. "3rd century Christian scholar, Origen, referring to the copies of the Gospels, remarked that "the differences among manuscripts have become great" because copyists, "either neglect to check over what they have transcribed, or, in the process of checking, they make additions or deletions as they please." This obscures the point made by Ehrman (the source), which is that manuscripts were being deliberately and accidentally corrupted.

I hope this explains what has happened: the edits tend to produce a weaker, less well sourced article.PiCo (talk) 08:13, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Let's look at the analysis.

1. This first sentence is based on the following quote found in Reddish 2011
   • "Thus even though the Gospel writers may have written what they supposed to be historically accurate..."
   • The scholarly view here is that it is they certainly understood it as historically accurate
2. This isn't an uncertainty, it's quite simply an error
   • Well the source does not say that, and there are scholarly views (not WP:FRINGE) that regard it as not an error.
   • Reddish again describes it as "Luke implies Jesus was born...during Herod the Great"
   • Reddish also says "there is no guarantee that events...are in actuality historically correct". Nowhere does this say "error". It describes uncertainty here, much less guarantee. Your bias is overwhelming against what the source is saying.
3. The "demonstrates, there is no guarantee that the gospels are historically accurate."
   • The bolded word is the problem I have, you are drawing conclusions for the reader, that the source does not say.
4. "[T]he contradictions and discrepancies between"
   • The source Tuckett absolutely does not say that. There are theologians, who are scholars, who find the "contradiction" claim to be over-exaggerated again and again. Tuckett wouldn't use this language, therefore.
5. "This does not mean that any quest for the historical Jesus is impossible"
   • Tuckett source does say this, so unfortunately there is no basis to where it is impossible to accept complete unreliability. Even so, there is a majority view represented by Craig Bloomberg here that you should definitely take the time to read. We have to present an unbiased academic view, not a biased academic view.
6. "This obscures the point made by Ehrman "
   • Uhhh, no! The source I used for more context WAS Ehrman. The secondary source pulled from Ehrman. Ehrman pulled the quote out of context in Misquoting Jesus. And here it seems to imply they are forever corrupted. Because 1. No they were not 2. They are theologically minor 3. Many errors were corrected 4. They are otherwise footnoted if there was difficulty in correction. and 5. Origen was was talking about the manuscripts he had AVAILABLE to him. Did you read Misquoting Jesus? How about Ehrman and Metzger 1991? Please do.

Dr. Ryan E. (talk) 14:20, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

We don't present a "balanced view" between those who believe the holocaust never happened and those who do. We don't present a "balanced view" between those who believe that the earth is flat and those who think it is a sphere. And we don't present a "balanced view" between those who believe that parapsychology is a science and those who think that it is pseudoscience. As Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ clearly states, "Wikipedia's neutrality policy certainly does not state, or imply, that we should or must "give equal validity" to minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) views. It does state that we must not take a stand on them as encyclopedia writers, but that does not stop us from describing the majority views as such and using the words of reliable sources to present strong criticisms. Fairly explaining the arguments against a pseudoscientific theory or verifiably describing the moral repugnance that people feel toward a notion is fully permitted by NPOV." --Guy Macon (talk) 23:35, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:27, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

So, these being said, Bloomberg is professor at an inerrantist faculty. Biblical inerrancy is academically WP:FRINGE: the historical method is by default against inerrancy. The very idea that sources would be inerrant is alien to historians. So the whole view that the Bible would be inerrant is epistemological bunk. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:58, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

That's a terrible analogy, false equivalence. The flat earth has NO academic support whereas "total error" is also not accepted unless you are part of the Christ Myth Theories. That's WP:FRINGE and also has no (except Carrier) academic support. I certainly disagree with inerrancy, as a professor. But I also do not think minority views are in any way fringe, as they are supported by evidence. For example the Documentary Hypothesis was strong a majority view at one point, but no longer. Also the Hittites were considered only existent in the Bible, but no more.

Furthermore, you did not address my above concerns above dismissing them as defending inerrancy, they do no such thing. I don't know how you can write off respectable scholars as "epistemological bunk". I would not want my own works being written off as such if I was in their field. I also never implied simply a balanced view. I would support a balanced academic view. One that does not ignore inerrantists just because we don't agree with it. There are many more professors that support inerrant views. Yet somehow they are all dismissed as fringe like the Christ Myth Theory. They are all dismissed as not truly academic for some reason, even though there is more support than fringe theories. Calling Bloomberg as academically fringe is not only misrepresentative, but rude to a fellow in the academia. He's certainly published more than you and me. His views are also supported by textual evidence. Have you ever read his works to provide an un-biased reason for dismissing him? Dr. Ryan E. (talk) 00:22, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Inerrantism is fine and dandy as theology; it does not fly well with historians. The reasons for this are quite obvious from Historical method#Source criticism: historians critically analyze their sources, inerrant means uncritical, therefore it means unhistorical. Of course, inerrantists have gotten this point already, so they all claim that they would be "critical" historians. But time after time they invariably rubber stamp the conclusion that the Bible is inerrant in every respect. So, they being "critical" historians is only facade. But, yes, if they stay out of the turf which requires assent to the assumptions of higher criticism, then they can do good scholarship. According to Ehrman, there are two avenues for doing that: lower criticism and purely theological exegesis. The assumptions about inerrancy have no bearing on lower criticism and theology is free to ignore the historical method. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:24, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Some observations.

• ""The Gospel writers wrote what they understood to be historically accurate." " We don't know that. We are not certain which details they pulled out of sources available, and which details they fabricated themselves. Take a look at the two contradictory accounts for the Nativity of Jesus. "The two accounts agree that Jesus was born in Bethlehem in the time of Herod the Great, that his mother Mary was married to Joseph, who was of Davidic descent and was not his biological father, and that his birth was effected by divine intervention, but the two gospels agree on little else. Matthew does not mention the census, annunciation to the shepherds or presentation in the Temple, and does not give the name of the angel that appeared to Joseph to foretell the birth. In Luke there is no mention of Magi, no flight into Egypt, or Massacre of the Innocents, and the angel who announces the coming birth to Mary is named (as Gabriel)." ... "Scholars consider the accounts in Luke and Matthew as explaining the birth in Bethlehem in different ways, giving separate genealogies of Jesus and probably not historical. While Géza Vermes and E. P. Sanders dismiss the accounts as pious fiction, Raymond E. Brown sees them as having been constructed from historical traditions which predate the Gospels. According to Brown, there is no uniform agreement among scholars on the historicity of the accounts, e.g., most of those scholars who reject the historicity of the birth at Bethlehem argue for a birth at Nazareth, a few suggest Capernaum, and other have hypothesized locations as far away as Chorazin. Bruce Chilton and archaeologist Aviram Oshri have proposed a birth at Bethlehem of Galilee, a site located seven miles from Nazareth at which remains dating to the time of Herod the Great have been excavated."
• ""The author of The Gopsel of Luke's linking of the birth of Jesus to the census of Quirinius demonstrates some uncertainty on historical accuracy." This isn't an uncertainty, it's quite simply an error, and almost universally recognised as such by scholars (see the article Census of Quirinus)." In Luke's narrative, Jesus has nothing to do with Herod the Great, and Herod himself is not one of the characters. It is not entirely clear if the "error" is actualy a different conception of Jesus' early life. Luke's depiction of Jesus' early years is largely a peaceful one. No persecutions, no massacres, no forced migration. Details unique to Matthew.
• You've deleted this sentence: "[T]he contradictions and discrepancies between John and the synoptics make it impossible to accept both as reliable." The sentence is sourced and can't be removed without explanation." John has an entirely different theology than the other Gospel writers, and his narrative actually has elements unique to this gospel. From a chronological perspective, the main disrepancy is that John depicts Jesus as preaching for far longer than how the other gospels depict him.: "In the Synoptics, the ministry of Jesus takes a single year, but in John it takes three, as evidenced by references to three Passovers. Events are not all in the same order: the date of the crucifixion is different, as is the time of Jesus' anointing in Bethany and the cleansing of the temple occurs in the beginning of Jesus' ministry rather than near its end."
  • Dismissing John's historicity entirely, however, is an error. In some ways, his narrative is viewed as more realistic than the other gospels.: "The Pharisees, portrayed as more uniformly legalistic and opposed to Jesus in the synoptic gospels, are instead portrayed as sharply divided; they debate frequently in John's accounts. Some, such as Nicodemus, even go so far as to be at least partially sympathetic to Jesus. This is believed to be a more accurate historical depiction of the Pharisees, who made debate one of the tenets of their system of belief." ... "By the same token, scholars usually agree that John is not entirely without historical value: certain sayings in John are as old or older than their synoptic counterparts, his representation of the topography around Jerusalem is often superior to that of the synoptics, his testimony that Jesus was executed before, rather than on, Passover, might well be more accurate, and his presentation of Jesus in the garden and the prior meeting held by the Jewish authorities are possibly more historically plausible than their synoptic parallels." Dimadick (talk) 16:39, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

As other scholars have even pointed out, not mentioning 2 of the three Passovers does not make Jesus's ministry in any way shorter. Quite simply, the 3rd passover was the most important one, the one talked about, and the one included. Dr. Ryan E. (talk) 02:40, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I have modified the article based on our discussion. I have enclosed Origen's context (as that is based on a scholarly source) I have removed the whole contradictions between John and the gospels, because that is unsourced, and certainly does not conform to scholarly views as evidenced by Dimadick, et al. Dr. Ryan E. (talk) 02:53, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

...and I reverted you. Let's go through this sentence by sentence:

You added: "The Gospel writers wrote what they understood to be historically accurate(Reddish 2011|pp=21). Reddish on page 21 does not say this. That page does, however, say that fiction was expected in ancient biographies.

"Luke's attempt to link the birth of Jesus to the census of Quirinius" edited to read "Luke's linking the birth of Jesus to the census of Quirinius". The source is Reddish, pages 21-22, and he says "Luke implies that Jesus was born" during the reign of Herod, which is equivalent to an attempt to link the two. The point being made is that the gospels are not necessarily historically accurate.

"Matthew and Luke have frequently edited Mark to suit their own ends, and the contradictions and discrepancies between John and the synoptics make it impossible to accept both as reliable (Tuckett 2000, p=523)" has been altered to read "Matthew and Luke include more details than Mark each writing their own perspectives and with their own emphasis" (same source). Tuckett says: "The evangelists evidently did feel free to alter their tradition at times". (Tradition" means source - in other words, Matthew and Luke altered Mark, their source). On the same page Tuckett says, "It is widely accepted that one cannot accept both John's account and the Synoptic accounts of Jesus' teaching as equally authentic," and "All four (gospels) have imposed their own ideas and beliefs on the tradition.

"In addition the gospels we read today have been edited and corrupted over time, leading Origen to complain in the 3rd century that 'the differences among manuscripts have become great'..." (Ehrman 2005, pp.7,52), has been altered to read "3rd century Christian scholar, Origen, referring to copies of the Gospels he worked with in his location in Alexandria, Egypt during his lifetime..". This gives the misleading impression that only the texts used by Origen were corrupted. You've introduced Metzger's "The Text of the New Testament" as a source, but without a page number and in case it's difficult to see what the relevance would be - are you trying to substantiate the claim that Origen worked in Alexandria? Metzger's book is subtitled "Transmission, Corruption and Restoration," and he makes it quite clear that texts were continually corrupted.

I'm beginning to lose patience with these amateurish edits, and so are others, hence the many reverts you've received. Please discuss any future proposals on this page first.PiCo (talk) 06:34, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I have informed him at #TR is superior that putting on our article the spin that only manuscripts from Alexandria were corrupted fails WP:DUE (against, as I told him, Ehrman's point and, as you say, Metzger's point) and that it is not done to cite as a reference only the spine of a book. He obviously did not learn anything for what I told him. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:12, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

@Tgeorgescu: Am I detecting some WP:OWN? on our article. Your constant pointing out to TR is ignoring all my other points. Also please read WP:KOOLAID, speaking out against consensus is not disruptive. Furthermore, there are other editors here that agree with me including Dimadick.

@PiCo:

1. You are failing to read Reddish page 22:
   • "Thus even though the Gospel writers may have written what they supposed to be historically accurate..."
2. "Matthew and Luke have frequently edited Mark to suit their own ends"
   • Well the source does not say this
   • It also does not use " contradictions and discrepancies" and as Dimadick said above, most scholars do not dismiss it outright. The language used here are WP:WEASEL and so is "impossible to accept". The source is simply saying they MAY not be equally reliable, although Gospel of John says that it could be an eyewitness as there are many details in John. You cannot just dismiss the whole thing.
3. " Matthew and Luke include more details than Mark each writing their own perspectives and with their own emphasis"
   • That is exactly what the source is sailing, they added their own perspectives and emphasis, that's better than the vague "
4. "This gives the misleading impression that only the texts used by Origen were corrupted"
   • What? That adds information to Origen's quote. You see, you're trying to make it sound like all manuscripts are corrupted and that it is impossible to know what the originals say. However, there are many sources (including Richard Bauckham) who disagree. Origen wouldn't know they were corrupted unless he had less corrupted manuscripts to compare to. You are taking the quote out of context, and so was Ehrman.
   • here is another source and from Origen himself. You guys are promoting a theory that is not in the text. Origen is definitely referring to the text in his possession.
   • Also where is the source that says TR is WP:FRINGE? Ehrman supports that the original texts are less corrupted than Origen...

Dr. Ryan E. (talk) 23:50, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

First, Ehrman piled during a debate large book upon large book (written by other eminent scholars) which all say that even speaking of the originals of the Bible is patent nonsense. So much for "original manuscripts". WP:RS 101: Origen did not write WP:RS, Ehrman did write WP:RS and Metzger did write WP:RS. Ehrman uses Origen as an example of a Christian who admitted this problem (although Ehrman has stated that Origen vehemently denied that the NT gospels were corrupted, but that was when Origen was addressing outsiders). In case you have any doubt: we follow Metzger and we follow Ehrman, we do not follow Origen. Ehrman, Bart (2005). "The Copyists of the Early Christian Writings". MISQUOTING JESUS. The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why (First ed.). New York: HarperSanFrancisco. p. 52. ISBN 9780060738174. What is striking in this particular instance is that Origen, when confronted with an outsider's allegation of poor copying practices among Christians, actually denies that Christians changed the text, despite the fact that he himself decried the circumstance in his other writings. And, yes, "TR is superior to NA" is WP:FRINGE. From Ivy Plus to US state universities, everybody favors NA above TR, since NA28 is a thoroughly researched academic work by generations of scholars, while TR is a jumble (Erasmus did not even have manuscripts for all the Greek verses he published). A lower critic who says "TR is the best" is actually saying "My work makes no difference, I have chosen the wrong job." See about original texts (piled books): Video on YouTube from 1:17:00 to 1:19:30. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:33, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Again, that's fine but why not include the information to the context of where Origen is speaking? Dr. Ryan E. (talk) 20:16, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Origen isn't a modern scholar. We do not follow Ancient authors, we follow modern scholars. So, yeah, Ehrman trumps Origen. As told on your talk page:

• Material must be proportionate to what is found in the source cited. If a source makes a small claim and presents two larger counter claims, the material it supports should present one claim and two counter claims instead of presenting the one claim as extremely large while excluding or downplaying the counter claims.

So, your claim would create the patently false impression that Ehrman's view was that only the manuscripts from Alexandria were corrupted. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:45, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

This article outright denies Jesus' resurrection

There is a significant number of people who both deny and accept the written accounts of Jesus' resurrection. Shouldn't Wikipedia take a neutral stance on the resurrection of Jesus, and not categorically describe it as a myth?

Yet this article outright denies the resurrection stating, "In the immediate aftermath of Jesus' death his followers expected him to return at any moment…"

This sentence is in total contradiction with what the Bible says and what Christians believe: that after Jesus died, he was buried, was dead for 3 days, then he rose from the dead, came back to life, and continued his ministry on earth for a further several weeks, appearing to hundreds of people and doing many miraculous things, before ascending to Heaven, physically flying up through the clouds. Thus, according to both the Bible, and all Christians, Jesus' death was by no means the end of his story. The last physical event of Jesus' time on earth was his ascension to Heaven, not his death.

In the interest of neutrality I changed the article from "aftermath of Jesus' death" to "aftermath of Jesus' life on earth" which is neutral wording. But someone has changed it back.

Currently, this article denies the Bible as being true, claiming that Jesus was not raised from the dead, and that his death was the end of his story. Not only is this biased, but as a Christian I find it quite offensive, especially considering that this article is about a Christian subject, and it is most likely to be read by Christians, since it does not concern people of any other religion.

I have seen Wikipedia articles about other religions which deny the Christian Bible, and I suppose that there is some leeway for them to do so, since those articles are concerned with their own religion, written for believers of that religion. But an article on a Christian topic should not outright deny the Bible. Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral, and people here apparently know that. So how can they allow the article to contain a statement which categorically says the Bible is false?

Grand Dizzy (talk) 12:54, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

The resurrection of Jesus ain't an objective fact.

Marcus Borg has suggested that "the details of Strauss's argument, his use of Hegelian philosophy, and even his definition of myth, have not had a lasting impact. Yet his basic claims—that many of the gospel narratives are mythical in character, and that 'myth' is not simply to be equated with 'falsehood'—have become part of mainstream scholarship. What was wildly controversial in Strauss's time has now become one of the standard tools of biblical scholars."<ref>[http://www.westarinstitute.org/resources/the-fourth-r/david-friedrich-strauss/ Marcus Borg, David Friedrich Strauss:Miracles and Myth.]</ref>

— from David Strauss

So "myth" does not mean "false", it simply means "unproven". Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:09, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

The germane policy: WP:RNPOV. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Firstly, your arguments over semantics are irrelevant to the issue I raised. Seconfly, I did not say the Resurrection was an objective fact (though it certainly is to those of us who have met the risen Jesus ourselves), I said that a Wikipedia article should be neutral, and calling the Bible untrue is far from neutral. (For the record, The Bible is provably true but Wikipedia is under the control of evolutionists who put their superstitions and religion before actual science and reason.) Grand Dizzy (talk) 10:47, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Grand Dizzy, the sentence you quote ("In the immediate aftermath of Jesus' death his followers expected him to return at any moment…") is concerned with establishing the conditions under which the Gospels were written, more specifically that the immediate followers of Jesus had no motivation to write accounts because they believed he would return in their own lifetimes. (See the first few sentences at the top of page 17 of Reddish's book, in the bibliography). It is not about the resurrection, and does not deny it: the death of Jesus was the fact to which these early Christ-followers were reacting. And then there was the resurrection. The very earliest reports seem to be contained in an epistle of Paul, in the form of what appears to be a very early "credal statement" to the effect that Jesus had appeared to various people and groups after his death. Paul doesn't say much about those appearances, but he does say that Jesus Christ also appeared to him, and it's clear that his was a visionary appearance (it's repeated in Acts). As he says that his vision was equivalent to those of the first apostles, it seems that those earliest appearances were also visionary. In other words, not a bodily resurrection. The bodily resurrection appears in the gospels (the subject of this article). It's not in the earliest gospel, the Gospel of Mark, which in the original form breaks off with a promise of an appearance in Galilee but no actual appearance. The other three gospels are very conflicted but all have a bodily appearance of sequence of appearances, as does Acts. Dating all these is notoriously difficult, but the "credal statement" would date from Paul's meetings with the apostles and disciples in Jerusalem in the late 30s, and his vision from about the same time. The letters in which he describes them are somewhat later, probably the 50s. Mark dates from around 70, and the other three gospels from the last three decades of the 1st century, roughly 80 to 90 AD. You see a development: visions of Christ for Paul and the early disciples, then later a bodily resurrection. So to sum up: our article reflects Reddish when it says that the earliest Christians expected Jesus to return at any moment, certainly within their own lifetimes (Reddish, page 17). It's not the business of Wikipedia to say if their visions were true, we merely reflect our sources, which is what the sentence you quote is doing. PiCo (talk) 01:18, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

You are fully entitled to your opinion that the Apostles and early Christians were lying, but your opinion should not be stated as fact in a Wikipedia article. For there are billions of people who believe that Paul was telling the truth when he wrote:

"For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, ​and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. ​Then he appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. ​Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles. ​Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me." 1 Corinthians 15:3-8

Grand Dizzy (talk) 10:47, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

The point is not the appearance, but the manner of the appearance: Paul seems to say that the way in which Jesus appeared to him was exactly the same way he appeared to all these: as a vision, not as a tangible, touchable bodily man. That's the experience conveyed in Acts, and also in Paul's own account of his visit to heaven.PiCo (talk) 11:42, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

As stated by PiCo, the fact that Jesus died isn't controversial. Historians cannot report miracles as historical facts, since they work with methodological naturalism. So, there is no problem with stating that Jesus died as a historical fact. Whether that would deny the resurrection is not what our article does, but only your impression. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:44, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

"You are fully entitled to your opinion": our personal opinion is not what matters, we must report what scholars wrote on the subject. We can also cite Biblical primary material where appropriate but only when we can then discuss their interpretation using secondary or tertiary sources (not our own interpretation). — PaleoNeonate — 13:03, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

• The disputed section is fine as it stands; it neither affirms nor denies the resurrection, which is a complicated thing to discuss and is handled in its own article. It was written to discuss the production of the gospels and trying to load other issues into that discussion isn't helpful. Jytdog (talk) 01:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

To all: There seems to be a consensus amongst you that this article is perfectly fine as it is - completely denying that the Apostles ever physically met Jesus again after his death. This of course makes liars of the Apostles, who wrote that 3 days after Jesus died, he physically came back to life, ate food with them at every appearance, and they put their finger in his wounds, and after 40 days, Jesus physically ascended up to heaven, flying through the clouds. If you still think it is acceptable for the article to deny this, then so be it. I am not going to waste any more time discussing this. But I want to put it on record that I think the article completely fails to be neutral, and I wish you could see that this is disrespectful to the Christian faith and offensive to Christians, to whom the article is of primary relevance. Grand Dizzy (talk) 13:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

We do not cater to true believers. We simply render scholarship according to WP:UNDUE. I have explained this point at WP:ABIAS: what is good enough for top universities is good enough for Wikipedia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Also explained at WP:NOTNEUTRAL. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:42, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the links, very informative, and quite appalling! I was already aware there was a strong religious bias on Wikipedia but did not realize until now that the enforcement of this bias was official policy. According to these articles, Wikipedia does not believe in true neutrality, intellectual honesty, or even presenting an objective view of scientific fact - instead its policy is to blindly adopt, and affirm as true, whatever religious view happens to be currently taught by the controlling scientific majority in Western society.

So if America happened to be Islamic, according to these articles, Wikipedia would affirm the 'truth' that Allah was God, merely on the basis that the major scientific institutions happened to be controlled by Islam, and thus Islam would have the most credibility in society.

Right now, the majority western religion currently happens to be Evolution - a collection of outlandish speculations about 'magical' events which run contrary to all rational thought, reason, mathematics, and scientific evidence. However, since this religion is believed and taught as fact by the majority (in pure faith), Wikipedia reports this religion as being actually true, based on its "credibility".

I find this tragic. In my firm opinion, an encyclopedia should NOT present controversial beliefs as true fact, it should be TRULY neutral. The prevalence of a major religious view should determine how much significance and importance the encyclopedia ascribes to it, but should never determine whether the religion is reported as true or false. Since I do not own Wikipedia, there's nothing I can do about that, but I will say that I have lost all respect for Wikipedia because its policies bear no relation to the normal sense of the word "neutrality". In fact, I find it to be evil. Ascribing truth to a view, merely because it is the majority view, is a terrible thing to do. Grand Dizzy (talk) 12:58, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

We go by the major views of worldwide academia. We do not speculate about Absolute Truth. Evolution is uncontroversial in the scientific community and "miracles cannot be reported as historical facts" isn't controversial among post-Enlightenment historians. So, we only state that falsifiable religious claims have been busted when this isn't controversial for mainstream academics. Of course, these being said, see:

Like any Christian (and indeed any theist), I believe that the world has been created by God, and hence "intelligently designed". The hallmark of intelligent design, however, is the claim that this can be shown scientifically; I'm dubious about that.

...As far as I can see, God certainly could have used Darwinian processes to create the living world and direct it as he wanted to go; hence evolution as such does not imply that there is no direction in the history of life. What does have that implication is not evolutionary theory itself, but unguided evolution, the idea that neither God nor any other person has taken a hand in guiding, directing or orchestrating the course of evolution. But the scientific theory of evolution, sensibly enough, says nothing one way or the other about divine guidance. It doesn't say that evolution is divinely guided; it also doesn't say that it isn't. Like almost any theist, I reject unguided evolution; but the contemporary scientific theory of evolution just as such—apart from philosophical or theological add-ons—doesn't say that evolution is unguided. Like science in general, it makes no pronouncements on the existence or activity of God.<ref> {{cite news | url=http://chronicle.com/article/Evolution-Shibboleths-and/64990/ | title=Evolution, Shibboleths, and Philosophers |publisher=[[The Chronicle of Higher Education]] | date=April 11, 2010 | first= | last= | accessdate = 2010-04-28}}</ref>

Quoted from Alvin Plantinga. The gist is that science can bust some miracles but it cannot bust all miracle claims. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:44, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

If Wikipedia had been available around the sixth century B.C., it would have reported the view that the Earth is flat as a fact and without qualification. And it would have reported the views of Eratosthenes (who correctly determined the earth's circumference in 240BC) either as controversial, or a fringe view. Similarly if available in Galileo's time, it would have reported the view that the sun goes round the earth as a fact, and if Galileo had been a Vicipaedia editor, his view would have been rejected as 'originale investigationis'.

— WP:FLAT

Quoted by Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

It seems that the issue here is not that the statement directly denies the resurrection, but that it makes an inaccurate claim (that just so happens to depend on the Resurrection not being true). The only source we have on how the Apostles reacted to the death of Jesus is ancient Christian literature (including the New Testament), and they are in general agreement that the Apostles' first reaction to Jesus' death was disbelief. They hardly believed he would actually die (violently) at all, virtually until the moment it occurred, and thereafter seemed reserved to their fate as followers of a failed Messianic claimant. In the literature, it is only after the Resurrection (and really, after the Ascension and Pentecost) that the Apostles begin to interpret certain sayings of Jesus (and Old Testament passages) as pertaining to his Messianic sufferings, Resurrection, and imminent return. In fact, the first direct mention of Jesus' bodily second coming may have been at the Ascension, where the accompanying angels note that he'll return in the same way that he ascended (visibly, bodily, etc). So, after Jesus' death the Apostles expected nothing, and between his alleged Resurrection and Ascension there was no return to speak of, since he was alive and those he appeared to were not necessarily aware he was going to leave (with the exception of Mary Magdalene, whom at the empty tomb Jesus told not to touch him since he had not yet ascended to heaven). All this is to say that the statement in question in the article is not only biased but totally unsupported by extant ancient literature. It should really say that immediately after Jesus' (alleged?) *Ascension*, they began to expect his imminent return. It does not change the point that New Testament literature probably didn't start for another couple decades; it just avoids a silly and unfounded POV statement. natemup (talk) 18:08, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

@Natemup: Historians can neither prove nor disprove ancient miracles. Therefore miracles can never be objective historical facts. Please state what you would like to change into what. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't think I made any claims above about proving miracles. And I did state what I wanted changed. To be specific, we should change "In the immediate aftermath of Jesus' death his followers expected him to return at any moment, certainly within their own lifetimes, and in consequence there was little motivation to write anything down for future generations" to "In the immediate aftermath of the Ascension of Jesus, his followers likely began to interpret certain sayings of his and certain Old Testament passages as pertaining to his imminent return, perhaps even during some of their lifetimes. A few passages in the letters of Paul, Peter, and John appear to bolster this thought. The meaning of these passages is disputed, however, and there is no way to be sure of what the first Christians actually made of them, if there was a consensus at all." natemup (talk) 19:32, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

That Jesus told them that he will return during their generation is the consensus view; many Bible translations render it like that. You need very strong WP:RS to overturn the consensus view. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:43, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Not looking to overturn it. We can agree that Jesus literally said those words, but my change addresses what he meant and what the disciples made of them. What kind of return might they expect, especially since the consensus view is also that they were not yet convinced he was going to really be murdered and rise again? In what sense did Jesus mean for them to understand his words, since "come" and not "return" is the word used by Jesus in the relevant (mostly Matthean) passages? We don't and probably can't fully know the answers to these questions, My change allows for precision without bias.natemup (talk) 03:13, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Visionary appearances (an old thread resurrects)

The theory that the resurrection appearances were merely visionary is beset with problems. First, the most formidable obstacle for the visionary theory to overcome is its failure to explain appearances to groups of people. Since a vision exists only in this subjective, personal sense, it is obvious that others cannot witness it. And yet, Jesus not only appeared to numerous individuals but to groups, as well—and on numerous occasions. Still more problems remain. Jesus not only appeared to His disciples but to skeptics, such as his brother James, as well as to Saul of Tarsus (later to become the apostle Paul), a self-professed enemy of the Christian faith. How likely is it that these two would also have individual visions of a resurrected Jesus to whom they had no previous commitment? Even if all of these obstacles could be overcome, a further problem remains for the theory: the empty tomb. If all of the disciples of Jesus had simply been the victims of numerous individual and group visions, the body of Jesus of Nazareth would have remained where it was, interred in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea. How likely is it for the disciples of Jesus to have gained converts—after preaching a bodily resurrection in the very area where Jesus was buried—if His tomb were in fact occupied with a recently crucified man? The critic who appeals to visions must then combine this theory with another hypothesis to explain why Jesus' tomb was found to be empty. Visions, by themselves, cannot begin to explain all the data. When all of these factors are taken into account, the visionary theory crumbles under the weight of the facts. Pure Facts (talk) 15:46, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Bart Ehrman has an answer for these objections: Protestant scholars call Marianic apparitions "hallucinations", although it is clearly documented that thousands of people have relatively recently experienced such visions, so they agree that there are mass hallucinations. Skepticism was written into text, all we have are documents that seek to convince their reader that Jesus is the awaited Messiah, i.e. their authors are biased, they have an agenda. About the grave of Jesus, Ehrman claims that Jesus was left on the cross and eaten by scavengers, this happened to all crucified people, it was part of the punishment, since every person in the Antiquity wanted a decent burial for himself/herself. Besides, Bart Ehrman writes WP:RS, Pure Facts doesn't. Suppose an Ancient document would be discovered stating that Antiochus Epiphanes was raised from the dead and appeared to several thousand people. Would that constitute historical evidence of Antiochus's resurrection? Obviously not, so the case of Jesus is just special pleading and WP:FRINGE/PS (pseudohistory). Tgeorgescu (talk) 07:07, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Marian apparitions are not comparable, for many reasons. I might agree they were hallucinations, but perhaps better yet were bald-faced lies, strategic machinations involving a strange mix of devout but gullible people and power-hungry leaders. They were largely not at the same time, widespread, or readily accepted by anyone outside of the region in question (likely due to specious evidence; to this day, the Catholic Church is still reviewing apparitions from years and years ago to determine their veracity). The Resurrection, on the other hand, is said to have involved hundreds of people over the course of 40 days in a large region, and apparently verifiable in such a way that people from afar believed based on compelling eyewitness testimony (which of course came alongside otherwise proofs such as miracles, as is alleged with Marian apparitions as well). Not to mention the fact that the ancient Christian literature making Resurrection claim (nay, even the original claims themselves) arose, unlike Marian apparitions, at a time when there was no material benefit to converting people or being converted to Christianity; it was a ticket to suffering in many cases during the first few AD centuries, and yet people were accepting the Resurrection claim as a fact; that's most likely because it had good evidence being communicated by eyewitnesses. Also, the apologetic that denies a mass hallucination does not hinge on the fact that such a thing isn't possible. That's not the point. It's that it is so unlikely that it is not a reasonable argument against the Resurrection claim. Moreover, that apologetic is not the sum total of our reasons for believing the Resurrection; it is only a fraction of the reasons, moreso a reactive argument than an catechetical sticking point. Given the myriad reasons we affirm the resurrection of Jesus, a document concerning the resurrection of Antiochus would obviously be irrelevant unless a movement with substantial, suffering-embracing membership had developed as a result, based on empirical evidence and a long line of established prophecies over thousands of years. For starters. natemup (talk) 18:37, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

As stated, Bart Ehrman writes WP:RS, you don't. No historian worth his salt would agree that Jesus's resurrection is an objective historical fact. No one teaching from Ivy Plus to state universities, whatever they may believe about it as private persons. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:43, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not pushing for my argument to be included in the Wiki. I'm just responding to to the argument concerning Marian apparitions. natemup (talk) 19:03, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

The word "resurrection" appears twice in the article. What do you want to change into what? This isn't clear from what you write inside the talk page. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:07, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Section on Johannine authorship is a bit skewed

There is a POV claim near the end of the "Composition" section about who wrote the Gospel of John and the Johannine letters. While it's perfectly neutral to state that John probably originated as a "signs source", to say that the "Johannine community" "produced [the Gospel of] John and the three epistles associated with the name" is to rule out the possibility John actually wrote what Christian tradition and many scholars say he did. Or at least it seems to rule it out. It would be good to either make this single claim more neutral or to include it as a position of some scholars (and include the position of other scholars and make clear it is a debated issue).

If not, at least change the wikilink for "Johannine community" to the page for "Johannine Christianity" (which I think deals primarily with the community in question) rather than its current link to the page for "Johannine literature" (which obviously is not the same thing as the community itself). natemup (talk) 17:39, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

The article Authorship of the Johannine works goes into this in some depth - Epinoia (talk) 17:54, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Yup, we follow WP:RS/AC. If we want to know why read WP:ABIAS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:19, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. That wiki is very neutral, not making a hardline claim either way:

"There may have been a single author for the gospel and the three epistles. Tradition attributes all the books to John the Apostle. Most scholars agree that all three letters are written by the same author, although there is debate on who that author is. Although some scholars conclude the author of the epistles was different from that of the gospel, all four works probably originated from the same community..."

This "Gospel" wiki, however, states the community claim in such a way that (at least semantically) rules out the possibility of John having authored the works attributed to his name. The community claim is a theory among many. natemup (talk) 18:46, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

John who? The academic consensus is that it wasn't John the Apostle. For the rest all bets are off. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:48, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't see that claim or source there. It says there could have been one author for all, that one theory/tradition says it was John, and that scholars debate who wrote the letters. It is impossible to square that paragraph with the bald claim that "a community produced all four documents". I understand that it could be true that all four originated from a community in one way or another, but it should be made clear this doesn't rule out a single author or that possibility that it was John. natemup (talk) 18:56, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Again, we don't go by what you say, we go by WP:RS. Ehrman's view is that John the Apostle was an illiterate lowly peon. Did he go to evening school, learned to write, then learned a foreign language, the he got very good at that foreign language, then learned rhetoric and composition? Highly unlikely. Only a tiny elite could write like that, and he wasn't elite. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:00, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm well aware of Ehrman's hardline views on a number of issues concerning Christianity, but to prop him up as an especially reliable source that puts the burden of proof on all other positions seems a bit pedantic. He is one of the single most controversial figures in his field and often shown to be biased, learned though he may be. A source he is; incontrovertible proof he is not. My proposed change does not contradict any source cited on the page, it agrees with the Johannine Authorship wiki, and the idea that a Torah-educated Jew may very well have produced a Jewish religious document should not cause you or Dr. Ehrman so much consternation. There is certainly no consensus view against John's authorship, a fact that the quote from the Johannine Authorship wiki betrays quite clearly. This "Gospel" wiki should line up more with that wiki's statement for obvious reasons.natemup (talk) 03:13, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Everything we say in the article has to be drawn from reliable sources - hence the tags identifying those sources all through the article. For John we say: "There is a near-consensus that this gospel had its origins as a "signs" source (or gospel) that circulated within the Johannine community (the community that produced John and the three epistles associated with the name), later expanded with a Passion narrative and a series of discourses." This is sourced to Burge 2014, page 309. Burge is Gary Burge, who wrote the entry "Gospel of John" in the Routledge Encyclopedia of the Historical Jesus, which is a reliable source. The encyclopedia was published in 2014, which means it reflects current scholarly thinking, and being an encyclopedia means it reflects general thinking rather than the views of the individual author, which is the role of monographs. Unfortunately, the relevant page (page 309) has fallen foul of the google-hole, by which the number of pages that can be accessed is reduced each time you look. I tried looking on a different browser but it was even worse - no google books version at all. In other words, I can't check that our article accurately reflects Burge without going to an old-fashioned library.
You're quite right that Burge implies that the apostle John did not write the gospel of John. This also is the scholarly consensus, as we imply in an earlier sentence: "All four [gospels] are anonymous ... and none were written by eyewitnesses." That's sourced to Mitchell Reddish's "Introduction to the Gospels", published 2011, and also a reliable source. Reddish does say that all four are anonymous, but not that none were by eyewitnesses - the article is not accurately reporting the source (or more exactly, the second half of the statement is not sourced).
That same source, however (Reddish 2011, page 42) does say that "most scholars" believe that the Johannine works were produced by a Johannine community. This is equivalent to Burge's "near-consensus".
(I'll do something to fix the lack of sourcing for the "eyewitnesses" claim).PiCo (talk) 03:00, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Ok, about Ehrman: he is only controversial for Bible-believers who don't know what major US universities teach about the Bible. He does not claim to be inerrant/infallible, but in general he has a very good idea of what most Bible scholars from US universities say about the Bible. He also stated that consensus isn't evidence, but as far as we are concerned, we, as Wikipedians, work with WP:RS/AC, not with "evidence". A scholarly complaint about Ehrman is that he is "too mainstream". Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:36, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Meaning

Gospel: "Glad tidings" or "good news, " from Anglo-Saxon godspell. Source: Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Biblical Theology. https://www.biblestudytools.com/dictionary/gospel/ -Inowen (nlfte) 00:52, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

- see the article The gospel and the section Etymology - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 01:43, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

Its the same word, uppercase or lowercase, why is the etymology not included in this article?Inowen (nlfte) 06:14, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

- if you look at the first word of the opening sentence, you will see [Note 1] beside it - the etymology is given in the note - cheers - Epinoia (talk) 16:05, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Ancient biography and 'the real Jesus'

The lead says

...the books in which the message was set out [...] The four canonical gospels [...] are the main source of information on the life of Jesus.

while "Genre and historical reliability" says

The consensus among modern scholars is that the gospels are a subset of the ancient genre of bios, or biography. Ancient biographies were concerned with providing examples for readers to emulate while preserving and promoting the subject's reputation and memory, and so they included both propaganda and kerygma (preaching) in their works [..] Despite this, scholars are confident that the gospels do provide a good idea of the public career of Jesus, and that critical study can attempt to distinguish the ideas of Jesus from those of later authors and editors.

If the Gospels are ancient biography, why then is the emphasis on a modern understanding which tries to extract a 'real' Jesus from these writings, and not on what those writings where meant to be by their authors, namely media to spread 'the message' mentioned in the first line, and elaborated in the "Contents"-section? It means that not the Gospels are the main topic of this article, but the modern reading of those writings, c.q. a concern with a 'real Jesus', which was not the concern of the authors of the Gospels. That's a serious bias, which at least should be adressed: "since the late 18th century scholars have postulated that the Gospels are based on an older, oral tradition, and have tried to identify the oldest layers of the texts, whih they regard to be the 'authentic' sayings and deeds of Jesus." There are unacknowledged concerns, assumptions and methodologies behind the lines quoted above, which were not the concerns of the authors of the Gospels. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:38, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Do you have a concrete proposal for the article?PiCo (talk) 09:18, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Reddish Source

@PiCo: I agree with all your up until this point. There are issues here as phrasing something differently from what Reddish does. I kindly request you to reread the quoted pages on Reddish. In fact he uses the word "apparently". You cannot just leave off the modifier for convenience or whether you and I agree or disagree. Changing the source's wording, in fact, does not summarize it but alters the original meaning. Dr. Ryan E. (talk) 06:55, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

I like to keep close to sources, to express statements in sentences, and to source every sentence. In your version, this sentence is unsourced:

• In the immediate aftermath of Jesus' death and resurrection as described in the Gospels, his followers apparently expected him to return at any moment, as a completion of the "coming reign of God".

Of course, you mean Reddish as your source, but as it stands this is an unsourced sentence, and it's followed by another:

• As eyewitnesses for verification and authenticity began to die, and as the missionary needs of the church grew, there was an increasing demand and need for a more authoritative record of the founder's life and teachings.
  

The close use of sourcing matters, because this article attracts a lot of editors and a lot of editorial activity, and it's important that we hold ourselves (and editors) to what the experts say.

Those two are followed by another sentence:

• Other factors include the growth of the Christian movement and broader missionary work spread throughout the Mediterranean region.
  

This is sourced to Reddish, and is fine in that regard (I understand Reddish to be saying this in the first para of page 17), but I have some problems just the same. They relate to what can be called style. First, by cutting the original single sentence into three and adding so much material, you run the risk that the reader will lose track of your point: "other factors" in what? Second, I think you've unintentionally altered Reddish's meaning and made it seem that the shift from oral to written tradition occurred in the immediate aftermath of the Crucifixion - I know you didn't intend that, but that's the reading I take away.

In short, I think the original single sentence, while saying pretty much the same thing, is clearer in its meaning: Jesus died and was seen in resurrected form, his followers talked about that and his return, then as those eyewitnesses died there other people started writing things down. The summary from Burkett which follows sets out the process.

I have no problem with adding the word "apparently" ("his followers apparently expected..."), but I think splitting the single sentence is not a good idea stylistically, and I think you add too much. PiCo (talk) 08:15, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

The Canonical Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony

It is insufficient to say that "none of the gospels was written by an eyewitness." The gospels do claim to be based on eyewitness testimony (e.g., in Luke 1:1-4), and regardless of whether this is the case or not, it is seriously considered by many modern scholars (e.g., Riesner, Gerhardsson, Byrskog, Bauckham). Most scholars believe that at least some degree of eyewitness testimony underlies the canonical gospels. What is disputed is how much of the material is directly based on eyewitness testimony. Its best to state the current status of research clearly (such as "this is what the gospels claim for themselves, although modern scholars continue to debate the issue") and let the reader come to their own conclusions. I have cited appropriate, scholarly monographs that discuss the issue. comment added by Ancientinterests (talk • contribs) 07:23, 2 August 2019‎ (UTC)

Seek WP:CONSENSUS for your edits. As the hidden text says Do not change without first discussing on Talk page. Imho, Riesner's claim of verbatim memorization seems pretty WP:FRINGE, seen the work of Elizabeth Loftus and some anthropologists of oral transmission.

You state that Riesner's claim is fringe, "imho." But IMHO is not sufficient for academic discussion. Hence, I'm citing sources. My understanding of the Wikipedia terms of use is that there is a desire to be academic, refer to books and articles that support stated views, and not merely base statements on "opinion" as in your "imhO". The idea behind referring to Riesner, Gerhardsson, Byrskog, Bauckham, etc. is that these sources are a. Independent and b. Reliable, both per Wikipedia's definition of WP:FRINGE. comment added by Ancientinterests

As I have stated below, it is WP:FRINGE according to WP:RS/AC. The question if people from oral cultures could memorize texts verbatim can and was researched empirically. The academic consensus is that verbatim accuracy is only a concern for written cultures, and the consensus is that the vast majority of people from Ancient Palestine could neither write nor read. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:39, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

A review of Richard Bauckham's book Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony states "The common wisdom in the academy is that stories and sayings of Jesus circulated for decades, undergoing countless retellings and embellishments before being finally set down in writing."

You are probably familiar with the old birthday party game "telephone." A group of kids sits in a circle, the first tells a brief story to the one sitting next to her, who tells it to the next, and to the next, and so on, until it comes back full circle to the one who started it. Invariably, the story has changed so much in the process of retelling that everyone gets a good laugh. Imagine this same activity taking place, not in a solitary living room with ten kids on one afternoon, but over the expanse of the Roman Empire (some 2,500 miles across), with thousands of participants—from different backgrounds, with different concerns, and in different contexts—some of whom have to translate the stories into different languages.

— Bart D. Ehrman, The New Testament. A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings.

Copy/paste from Oral gospel traditions. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:10, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Ehrman's POV is well-known. As above, to find a contradictory opinion neither falsifies nor verifies a given perspective, it merely points out that there is an ongoing debate, a point that I am interested to put before Wiki readers. comment added by Ancientinterests

If only him would have such POV, I would have fought against including his POV in the article. See e.g. https://robertcargill.com/2011/02/18/i-stand-with-bart-ehrman/ Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:43, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

- the article states that "it is almost certain that none were written by an eyewitness" - this is different than claiming that they were "based on eyewitness testimony" - even if they were based on eyewitness testimony, which is debatable, they were not written by eyewitnesses - Epinoia (talk) 15:22, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

No doubt, there is a difference in how the two sentences are phrased. However, unlike the original sentence, my updated version 1) clarifies the language to give the reader a picture of the status quaestionis in academia, and 2) cites sources relevant to larger issue. To simply cite Reddish and consider it done obscures the bigger issues from interested readers. In keeping with the original request to discuss before changing, I would appreciate if you would state reasons, not merely disagreement, before changing back. Debate is a great way to clarify your thoughts and challenge some of the assumptions by comparing them with the broader academy! comment added by Ancientinterests

Many reviews of Bauckham's work are available, with as many judgments (positive and negative) as there are reviewers. For instance, Jonathan Bernier writes, "Bauckham's primary training is as a historian, and it is as a historian that he writes. As is the case with probably most New Testament scholars, many of his critics received primary training in the analysis and interpretation of texts, but as much as such work might constitute a necessary antecedent to history, it remains something that is not quite history. ... By rehearsing and reinforcing [in the second edition of this book] the argument that the authors of these gospels were either in personal contact with an eyewitness (in the case of Mark's Gospel) or were an eyewitness (in the case of John's), Bauckham can argue in chapter 21 that form criticism's view of an extended process of transmission is unnecessary to account for the relevant data." }} To find a negative review is hardly disqualifying evidence for the validity of a source. (It is interesting in that regard that I could not find any scholarly reviews of the Reddish book, so heavily relied upon above, which is much stronger evidence of the lack of scholarly interest in it.) Ancientinterests (talk) 17:18, 2 August 2019 (UTC) AncientInterests

You should read WP:RS/AC. E.g. see that "common wisdom in the academy" reflects the academic consensus. The WP:ONUS is upon those who push minority WP:POVs. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:33, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

"Bauckham's primary training is as a historian...." I don't think this is true, actually. His training is is biblical studies and theology, not history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.45.209.79 (talk • contribs) 04:20, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

References

Eyewitness in John

What this means, then, is that the Gospel of John does discuss this shadowy figure, the unnamed “Beloved Disciple, but he does not identify himself with him or speak of him using the first person pronoun. When the author DOES use the first person pronoun, it is precisely to differentiate himself from the beloved disciple. So once again, we have a completely anonymous book.

— Bart Ehrman, Did the Beloved Disciple Write the Gospel of John?

Quoted by Tgeorgescu. See also Loftus, John W. (10 October 2012). Why I Became an Atheist: A Former Preacher Rejects Christianity (Revised & Expanded). Prometheus Books. p. PT410. ISBN 978-1-61614-578-1. With the Gospel of John it is equally clear that John was not the author, for at the end of it he speaks of the "Beloved Disciple" (John 21:24). The author of this gospel clearly distinguished between that disciple ("the one who testifies") and himself ("we know that his testimony is true"). The other Gospels do not fare any better. Tgeorgescu (talk) 01:15, 31 October 2019 (UTC)