Talk:Quest for the historical Jesus/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Why no mention of the Italian School?

There is no mention of Marcello Craveri and his "Vita di Gesu". For Craveri, Christ's message is a focus on this world, particularly on the relationship of the Christian to the poor. The 'kingdom of heaven,' if it was to occur, was to occur in this world, where all men and women would be brothers and sisters. Paul, the outsider, one who never was close to Christ, altered this vision to a "kingdom of heaven' that was in some other world. It was very influential in the Spanish and Italian speaking world. John D. Croft (talk) 15:08, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Feel free to "Be Bold" and make that edit. Ckruschke (talk) 17:00, 2 October 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

How about a survey of the scholarship?

Why not an overview of the Quest for the Historical Jesus?

That is what I expected to find here. I am willing to write it, if I can get another person who also thinks it would be a good idea. --Peter Kirby 05:14, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Would be an excellent idea - I was rather shocked to see this as disambiguation page. See also below. Irmgard 07:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Okay, I will return to this later. --Peter Kirby 03:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Name should be moved to Quest for the Historical Jesus without the "The". --Haldrik 04:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

List from Jesus as understood by influential leaders

The article Jesus as understood by influential leaders is up for deletion, but this part of the list contains some key people of the Quest of the Historical Jesus in the last two centuries so I copied it here for reference. I left the list as is, though it is pretty evident that e.g. Left Behind is not part of a Quest of the Historical Jesus ;-) Irmgard 07:36, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Jesus Seminar

"Conversely others, such as the Jesus Seminar, have attempted to work around the eschatalogical Jesus and have been left with virtually nothing!" That's a little POV. How about "Conversely others, such as the Jesus Seminar, have denied the authenticity of Jesus' eschatological message, describing Jesus as nothing more than a clever, provocative, wandering sage." Jonathan Tweet 23:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Altered sentance (based on your suggestion) to read: "Conversely others, such as the Jesus Seminar, have denied the authenticity of Jesus' eschatological message, describing Jesus as a wandering sage." Vassyana 11:33, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Section 2-b?

The whole idea of a section-2b seems POV. It strains to place living researchers (John Dom Crossan, et al.) in a dead-end of research history. I would like to see if I could write something better as a whole for this page of Wikipedia. Unrepresented also are the views of those scholars who think there have been no well-defined eras of research history. --Peter Kirby 01:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I deleted reference to this guy's criticism [1]. No one cares what he thinks about Borg, et al. The rest also seems POV and doesn't seem to match my reading of the Jesus Seminar, etc. Jonathan Tweet 03:30, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

quest structure after Schweitzer

What's the source for the stages of the quest after Schweitzer? Are these stages generally recognized? If we want to check whether this article represents these stages accurately, where do we look? Jonathan Tweet 14:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I think these could be found in standard textbooks. I will have a rummage around and add some references. Generally there is very little referencing in this article, although more details are probably in the links Slackbuie 16:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I would tend to divide it as First Quest, No Quest, New Quest (or second quest(, Third Quest following NT Wright. I've not seen the breaking down to 2b etc before so some referencing could be helpful. Also (IMHO) New Quest is more normal that 2nd Quest. I would probably put Dunn in the Third Quest as a New Perspective man with Sanders and Wright. Jesus Seminar -I think there is a debate and can sometimes end up in both camps -but as they are as per Bultmann essentially form criticism with a belief that the NT tells you more about early church than Jesus are probably more New Quest than 3rdQuest which on the whole tends o be much more positive towards the posibility of developing an accurate portrait of Jesus from the Gospels. (Be Dave 22:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC))


Cleanup

New Quest should be removed, with the little useful information added to Second Quest. Second Quest should be condensed into a single section detailing the two opposed schools of thought. Both parts of that section have a strong need to be rewritten for NPOV. Complete lack of citations throughout the article. Thoughts? Vassyana 11:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard of a "No Quest". My understanding is that Bultmann is the end of the first quest, Kasemann and Bornkamm are the beginning of the second and the third (somewhat debated) didn't start until the 1970's. There is no 2b quest. And, the Jesus Seminar, if is to be included, is to be included in the third quest. My understanding is that the prevailing academic attitude towards a number of those listed in the 3rd quest is one of polite disdain (as quoted in a course outline on the Historical Quests for Jesus, for point of reference):
Excluding the Jesus Seminar as part of this latest quest of the historical Jesus, G. Boyd claims that the third quest has five characteristics (Cynic Sage or Son of God, 47-49). (He classifies the Jesus Seminar as a continuation of the "Post-Bultmannian Quest.") First, unlike the previous two quests, there is an openness to the supernatural in historical explanation. Second, those involved in the "third quest" agree that the critieria of authenticity were too stringently applied by the second questers, in particular the criterion of double dissimilarity (that a saying or meaning-laden action of Jesus must be dissimilar to Judaism and the early Christian movement). Third, those in the third quest have much more confidence in the historical reliability of oral tradition, contrary to the form critics (see the work of B. Gerhardsson), and, fourth, they put greater emphasis of the Jewishness of Jesus, his continuity with first-century Judaism. Finally, there is no "one set of controlling theological and/or philosophical presuppositions" influencing the methodology and results of those involved in the third quest. What Boyd says is true, but agreement on these five issues hardly constitutes a unified movement. It seems impossible that a movement that lumps evangelical scholars in with E. P. Sanders can be described as part of the same movement.

http://www.abu.nb.ca/Courses/NTIntro/LifeJ/HistoryQuest.htm#HQ3

The article could use some mention of form criticism and Bruno Bauer (first quest), since Schweitzer found him to be far more important that Strauss. I'm going to change the sections to reflect the prevailing grouping of quest scholars. Phyesalis 07:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Rearranged questers and quests. Removed some of the more inflammatory POV. I know it looks like a hatchet job, esp. the third quest - what a mess - but I'll come back to it tomorrow to clean it up and start on the sources. Phyesalis 09:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Outdated and inconsistent article

Pretty outdated (I guess unwatched) article that misses key issues, e.g. the formation of the 2nd quest and discusses Bultman in the 3rd, etc. And the lede was no lede, it predated the first quest! I fixed that now, but the rest is an utter mess.

Needs a rewrite and a good source for fixing it would be the first 20 pages of

The Jesus Quest: The Third Search for the Jew of Nazareth by Ben Witherington (May 8, 1997) ISBN 0830815449

Needs a rewrite by someone excluding myself. History2007 (talk) 23:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Why does this article exist?

Historicity of Jesus is more than enough, I would say.CharlesMartel (talk) 14:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)CharlesMartel

I disagree. History is itself a theoretically and methodologically complex field, and what is considered good method in one decade is often considered problematic decades later. This is especially so with a contentions subject like Jesus. A major problem with an article on "the historical Jesus" is that multiple views can be provided - like Schweitzer, Funk, and Fredriksen - and I have no idea why these historians have different views, or how much weight to give them. To fully assess the article on the historical Jesus, we need to know more about the historians who study Jesus and how the study of Jesus has changed over the past three hundred years. NPOV is not enough because historians themselves do not just distinguish between mainstream and minority views - they evaluate the historian's conclusions based on what they know of his or her methods and theoretical engagements. The problem with this article (and I saw this with respect and thanks for those who have worked on it) is that it is not enough. I find it very interesting and valuable! But I would like to learn more about what historians today still value from the first quest, and why the first quest ended; how exactly did historians of the second quest see themselves as different from the first quest? What do historians today find of value from the second quest, and why did the second quest end? And all the same questions for the third quest. Moreover, I would like to know more about what historians of the first quest debated, what issues or questions divided them? Same question for the second quest, and third. Adding all this information would turn this into an excellent article! Alas, I know nothing about these matters - I found this essay which may be useful to people working on this article, and maybe there are other Wikipedians who could answer my question. But I think this article should be built up, and not deleted or merged! Slrubenstein | Talk 19:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I might agree with you SLR, but this article appears to be practically orphaned with respect to the main articles - Historicity, myth hypothesis, etc. If its orphaned, its relevance is limited. -Stevertigo 05:34, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
I do not understand what you mean by "orphaned," could you please explain? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:02, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

This might be a bit of a dead discussion, but for what it's worth; In my view, the rationale for keeping this as a seperate article would be because this and Historicity of Jesus are of interest to two quite different groups and relate to two quite different areas of discussion. The Historicity of Jesus article is more about whether Jesus existed and how that can be proven. And it appeals mainly to those interested in Christian apologetics (pro or con). The Quest for the Historical Jesus is pretty significant area of study in Christian theology/biblical studies and whilst it overlaps with the study of the historicity of Jesus, the field really deals heavily with the consequences for Christian theology/biblical scholarship. This article will largely attract people whose primary interest is in the history of Christian thought - particularly the question of how theologians/biblical scholars have responded to the findings of historical research. This distinction of interest can be shown in that there are dozens of book length treatments on both the historicity question and on the Quest for the Historical Jesus which simply don't overlap. Curiously enough, the fact that this article is orphaned from the historicity article is pretty much evidence of how separate the two subjects are. In any case, my prediction would be that if this article were merged, and the new sub-section were expanded to provide decent coverage of the subject, then people would soon be crying out for it to have it's own page back (or raising "due weight" complaints!). I'll only add that I have a background in this stuff, so I'd be happy to take this article under my wing and seek to build it up to a decent "stand-alone" quality. I really do think the subject merits its own article. -- Muzhogg (talk) 06:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

A cause of the major mess that is our assorted Jesus and history articles seems to be the idea that if a topic is "complex", we should write as many articles as possible about it (instead of a single clean article). Maintaining multiple articles with overlapping scope of course only aggravates the difficulty of presenting a complex topic. I don't see Britannica carry a dozen articles about Jesus and history. --dab (𒁳) 10:30, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

That comment was about 2 years ago. Now those other articles have been mostly cleaned up. The reason this one needs to "exist" is that the history of the field will be far too long to present in the Historical Jesus article. A summary already appears there, but the methods used, their development etc. deserves a separate article given the level of detail. Not that this article has even started to address those issues, but as of Oct 2012 it needs a 90% reduction in the existing rummage sale, then a 500% expansion with correct and sourced material, as I stated just in the next thraed here. History2007 (talk) 23:17, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Now, the article has been mostly cleaned up, WP:RS sources added, and is in pretty good shape. I thought of an apt analogy, in that this article is about the "academic process" while the Historical Jesus article is about the "material/end product", i.e. the portraits. The analogy is this:

  • The article Coffeemaker discusses a "device and a process" for making coffee.
  • The article on Coffee discusses material involved in and produced by the process.

Of course, the Coffee and Coffeemaker pages refer to each other, but they are separate concepts and separate articles. So this article (which is about the process) and the Historical Jesus article (which is about the material/product) refer to each other, but are distinct concepts and articles. History2007 (talk) 13:41, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Recent changes

The article no longer contains the title in the first sentence as is usual for ALL articles on Wikipedia.Theroadislong (talk) 13:30, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Right. But mostly a plural problem. Will try... Content will need t get fixed as well... will do. History2007 (talk) 13:33, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing that. I am going to try to get the body of the article cleaned up in the next few days, now that no one responded to the offer to do it since Oct. Hope to finish before the end of next week. History2007 (talk) 22:41, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Merge from Oral gospel traditions

Closed after one week. See #Merge strategy for outcome. While it would have been preferable for all parties who had previously been involved to have either had a chance to support, oppose, or comment on the new merge proposal -- a closure seems not unquestionable considering the drop off in activity. That said, should this merge proposal be contested some time in the near future, the discussion should be re-opened for an additional week; consider this a soft close. Mkdwtalk 23:21, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The page Oral gospel traditions discusses issues that relate to early 20th century ideas supported by Bultmann, etc. The ideas are still floating around and may have a few breaths left, but would fit in the section here where Bultmann is discussed, so the merge makes sense. There is not much well sourced content there anyway, and if and when that subject develops further, it may separate out again, but for now the merge makes sense.History2007 (talk) 06:36, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

NOTE - The above statement is incorrect. Please see Bart Ehrman, Did Jesus Exist?, HarperCollins, 2012. pp 83 - 93 and 98-101 Thanks - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:49, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
I had not seen Oral transmission (synoptic problem). Thought of drinking a strong Scotch after I saw it... Should become a section in Synoptic Gospels. It is a piece of that story. But Oral transmission (synoptic problem) is a truck load of haphazard text, and only some of that makes any sense anyway. Will tag as such. History2007 (talk) 08:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Strong Oppose: There was a talk page consensus - a discussion in which both of you took part - to reduce the article to a stub and build it up from there. That is exactly what Huon did. This latest stunt is nothing more than an attempt at railroading by redirect. If you want to delete it, do it with an AfD or make your merge proposal there in a public forum. Ignocrates (talk) 13:21, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
That is interesting.... I did take part in that discussion back in Jan 2013 and now did not even recognize the article looking at it. Either my memory is going or was a case of Freudian rejection of those memories... they could not have been great.. Anyway, I should say that before you blow an artery here. So if there was a long discussion that may make a difference... So let us see what people say there, etc. Or let us hear suggestions for what to do. Continue with the merge discussion or not... I am not going to push for a merge in view of that now, so consider it a suggestion now. History2007 (talk) 14:38, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the good will and not pushing for a merge! I'm even older than Ignocrates and would not like to blow an artery. Please check out Ehrman above. The oral tradition is now a hot topic! Thanks again! - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:57, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
PiCo is proving himself to be a genius at these reclamation projects. I would give him, and any other interested editors, more time to develop the stub into something useful. Blood pressure back to normal. Ignocrates (talk) 15:05, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree and as has been pointed out Dunn's The Oral Gospel Tradition is coming out later this summer! Therefore I agree that we allow interested editors, more time to develop the stub into something useful. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:19, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
I am now getting a Freudian block that stops me from reading long discussions. Let me say that I am not going to look into this any further, comment any further, and will just let you guys talk it over for the next decade or two... have fun. History2007 (talk) 16:00, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Ignocrates "This latest stunt is nothing more than an attempt at railroading by redirect" - no it's not, it was based on an understanding that exactly what is happening now wouldn't happen. That hasn't been honoured so the idea of a merge is back on the table. It's pretty evident the intention is to regrow the WP:OR in the same shape and size that has already been cut back to the root repeatedly. Again and again and again. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge, as a newcomer to the article. But if the current stub content is not in this article, maybe it should be, while leaving the other to, with luck, regain something like its previous size. The other surely has a subject that deserves its own article. Johnbod (talk) 16:32, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Johnbod, any suggestions, in which article is this subject partly covered at the moment? i.e. what is it a breakout from? From where should incoming links come. In ictu oculi (talk) 10:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, no, it's not an area I know well here, but it is neither covered adequately here, nor does it fall within the scope of the article as it currently is. Johnbod (talk) 13:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
@In ictu oculi...A good question. The topic has always been notable. However with Dunn's book it has become a hot topic in Biblical Circles. I believe the rush to delete Oral gospel traditions by redirect is a big mistake. In any event I will prepare a list "From where should incoming links come". Also a note of thanks for all the good work you do. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:56, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose the merge, for the reasons given by Johnbod and Ignocrates. - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:52, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose - While I strongly believe that the topic is notable enough on its own, the article in question lacks significant detail. However, as Prof points out above, Ehrman (and probably a number of sources I can' recall off-hand) make use of the idea in multiple publications. We don't merge articles just because they're bad, or just because, like this one, they're really, really stubby. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 16:58, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree that Oral gospel traditions is really, really stubby. Yet because of strong concerns about the reliability of Bart Ehrman etc. there has been consensus we expand the stub slowly! Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:11, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Well, that's rather what I'd gathered. I like Ehrman myself, though I can see how he might be considered a little too "pop history" for those who favor more academic sources. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 17:14, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Just above here back in 2009 someone asked why does this article exist. And in April 2013 I gave the example of the separate articles on coffee and coffee maker. These are two separate topics in that Historical Jesus is the portraits (coffee) the other the process (coffee maker) just above on this talk page. That describes "how people see Jesus" this is about the research methods, criteria used, etc. Another analogy is teh difference between "automobile" and "automobile manufacturing". Most people have more interest in cars than in the manufacturing processes. And given the sizes, they will get too hard to read and manage. Hypertext is there for that purpose. Oral transmission (synoptic problem) is not just a historical item but could be a purely theological issue to settle differences among theologs. You are right that the quest for the historical Jesus is not limited to oral transmission issues and goes beyond those. So the quest is a much larger superset of the oral transmission issues. The question will be if the oral transmission issues need to be a separate page or not. But as we all know, in Wikiland that truth will be determined by chance. History2007 (talk) 18:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
OK, love your analogy of the coffee maker, chuckled at it, and understand the distinction completely—but now must ask why this is called a "quest". We have, for instance, a methodological article on Homeric Question, but not quest for the historical Homer. If we had an article on sorting out "Alexander romance", as our article is somewhat boneheadedly titled, from the historical Alexander the Great, we wouldn't call it quest for the historical Alexander. Dare I hope there's an appliance to explain this? This is not quite off-topic, as it bears on the merge. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:18, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
It is called "Quest" because Schweitzer called it that, and it stuck. If he had called his book "search for Jesus" that may have become the topic name. But the whole field now calls it that. So the same reason New York is called New York I guess. The fact that people use the terms "second quest" and "third quest" is an indication that the term has been crazy-glued to the topic now. History2007 (talk) 20:25, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for your patience. It just sounds a bit History Channelish to me. I'm afraid I still oppose the merge, and (no doubt out of ignorance) still see the two oral transmission articles as better merge candidates. I appreciate your time. Cynwolfe (talk) 20:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
No worries - and it does sound unusual, as you said. And as I said, I am not pushing hard for the merge - I had forgotten that it had a long story when I suggested it. And you should also see my comment on the Wikiproj Christianity page. I think this Quest for Historical Jesus topic is clear cut enough (i.e. boring enough) to remain a stable article. The oral gospel traditions issue will be a roller-coaster ride for long - and the edit histories show that. Back in Oct 2012 I said I was hoping someone would work on this article because it was dormant for about 2 years. So it has not been a hot topic - and I fixed it last month - it is in good shape now. The other article has been, and will likely remain that way. In fact merging them will probably just add chaos here with no benefit after all... History2007 (talk) 20:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Cynewolfe & others might want to comment at Talk:Synoptic_Gospels#Merge_of_Oral_transmission_.28synoptic_problem.29 too. Johnbod (talk) 20:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that is a good suggestion. But I have self-exiled from that discussion due to its troubled past. History2007 (talk) 21:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- to put it most succinctly: "oral gospel tradition" is NOT only about "finding the historical jesus"; it's about other things as well. those other topics do not fit as sub-topics here, & they DO belong in the article about oral gospel tradition (which could be improved & expanded on considerably). therefore, that article shouldn't be merged in here.
(as discussed by other editors above)
i'm not even sure that we've chosen the best title for THIS article ("quest...") Lx 121 (talk) 23:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
-did some minor revisions on my comment (mostly to fix the broken "oppose"), went to get a snack & found an edit conflict. hopefully my alterations won't alter the views of the commentor below Lx 121 (talk) 23:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
I agree with your first comment in that the oral traditions also have a theological component, as discussed here. But regarding the title of this article see FAQ item 2, and the discussion just above. You can be sure that is the title in widest use (WP:Commonname) if you do some research on it; or read the article in detail. History2007 (talk) 23:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the link to the other convo. i understand about the name, but sometimes "the most common name" isn't the best choice (wp: ignore the rules, be bold, etc.). (btw, it would be nice if someone could turn the faq into a "collapsed section" instead of a separate page. i'm not going to attempt it; lack of skill, lack of time, & i'm trying not to spend time on that sort of task. it uses up time my time & i'd rather spend it on other work.) Lx 121 (talk) 23:40, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
It is also a collapsed section, just below there. But those usually don't get noticed. History2007 (talk) 01:02, 15 May 2013 (UTC)
User:Lx 121 hi. When working out whether a NT related article is really a notable subject I have to confess to looking at what de.wp does, well at least this article has Dansk Deutsch Esperanto Français Italiano Српски / srpski Srpskohrvatski / српскохрватски.. which leads me to think that this article is probably more standalone-notable than these two essay stubs above, neither of which have any de.wp counterpart. At the moment these are two orphans looking for integration with the rest of wp Christianity's coverage. But where? In ictu oculi (talk) 09:15, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Your logic is correct, but reality at times trumps logic. The heart of the problem is, of course, a content issue: "objection to the stubby nature of those articles". A possible solution may be to merge Oral transmission (synoptic problem) with Oral gospel traditions so you get a more localized effect. And the other point is that the jury is out whether Dunn will manage to resurrect the topic of Oral gospel traditions. I know this is frustrating, but that is how these discussions work... In many cases persistence rules and discussions go on for years. So as a temporary solution can try suggesting a merge of Oral transmission (synoptic problem) with Oral gospel traditions until more content appears. Apart from heartache there is no other way now, it seems. History2007 (talk) 09:29, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
I hope you can appreciate the irony of the community reducing a much more comprehensive article to a stub as an alternative to deletion by redirect and then proposing that it be deleted by redirect because it is a stub. Am I the only one who sees the humor in this Catch 22? Ignocrates (talk) 18:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
please remind me why the article was redacted in the first place? Lx 121 (talk) 08:43, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
There are no pleasant memories there... It was so bad I seem to have blanked my own mind about them. Pretty contentious arguments and plenty of OR gathered over time, some by various IPs. It was a spring clean by and large, hoping for a fresh start. Now it may just get that. History2007 (talk) 08:49, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Alternative proposal

In view of the last comment above, how about combining Oral gospel traditions and Oral transmission (synoptic problem), the eventual title being "Oral gospel traditions". That may reduce some of the issues being debated and it can be argued that Oral transmission (synoptic problem) is a subtopic of the oral traditions and transmissions anyway. And that way the Oral transmission (synoptic problem) page that everyone agrees needs help and trimming will get looked at. History2007 (talk) 11:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I do not buy the finest type talk, but if you agree, that may help reduce headaches all around, and more material can come together in one place. The oral synoptic problem issues may be seen as a subset of the oral tradition discussions anyway. History2007 (talk) 12:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Ok, so let us see if In Ictu agrees with that. To be upfront, I think the challenge here is concern about future WP:OR coming in either from the Oral transmission (synoptic problem) page or elsewhere. But that is a future issue. So if you guys can agree to 200% source things before adding them, there will be less future heartache all around. History2007 (talk) 16:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
I think it goes without saying that everyone involved needs to strive to be impeccable with their own edits. I can't imagine doing otherwise. Ignocrates (talk) 16:43, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. Overlapping topics with shared methodologies. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:41, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

General discussion

I think voting/consensus can take place above, but let me briefly say what I think the eventual article needs to explain to a reader. A typical thinking reader who has not looked at the scholarship would say:

  • Were there oral traditions before the gospels were written? Of course there were. That is certain given that according to the gospels themselves only John may have been present at the crucifixion along with some women followers. And it is pretty certain that John did not have his iPhone with him that day (some say he left it at the last supper room) and did not take photos. So those stories were oral traditions. That is the first stage.
  • Were the gospels written? Of course. So that is the last stage.
  • Was there any intermediate form between the start and the end? Given the widespread Q source discussions, most probably.

So now the discussion will be about the existence and number of the intermediate forms in between the first oral traditions and the final written items. Was there one intermediate stage or two? So the real issue is explaining the stages 2 and 3 ideas and how that would tie into the synoptic problem, Q, etc. And those issues together will probably an article make. History2007 (talk) 13:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

There is more to it than the theoretical musings of modern scholars, (see Skarsaune (2007) Jewish Believers in Jesus pp.326-33). Skarsaune quotes from Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History about the oral tradition reported by Papias. Eusebius quotes a specific example from Papias' Interpretation of the Sayings of the Lord about the eschatological bounty, which Papias says he received as oral tradition from associates of John the Elder. Papias states in the same commentary that he regards oral tradition to be more reliable than written records because it is the first-hand testimony of eye-witnesses or their immediate followers: "For not in those who have much to say did I delight, as do the many, but in those who teach what is true, ... For I assumed that what is derived from books does not profit me so much as what is derived from a living and abiding voice." (H.e. 3.39.3-4). Ignocrates (talk) 16:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
I know, I was just giving the common sense version of the events. The underlying issue is that Dunn and others are running out of things to write about, so they will write on these for a while... But 99.9999% of the planet shrugs their shoulders regardless of what will eventually go in the page... History2007 (talk) 16:27, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Agreed. There is no doubt this is a specialized topic which requires a fair amount of in-depth study to write about intelligently, and it will be relevant to only a small number of readers. Ignocrates (talk) 16:39, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
I will stop before we get into a heated agreement here. History2007 (talk) 16:45, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Ok. :0D Ignocrates (talk) 16:51, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
But I saw that after the Ok above, you typed a somewhat longer lecture on Papias in the midst of previous comments. I will not respond to them, for that is a debate for the future article. History2007 (talk) 20:35, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Sorry. I tried to clarify a few points and thought the additional details were rather interesting. I completely agree "that is a debate for the future article". Ignocrates (talk) 23:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
I will stop before we get into a heated agreement here. History2007 (talk) 23:22, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Merge strategy

Given that we have opposition to the one merge, and support for the other merge, I would suggest the following:

  • Given the low level of new player traffic in this discussion, we can wait for the weekend. By Monday, a week after proposing a merge, I will withdraw my original merge proposal, and can hence close the discussion.
  • I will comment out the bulk of the Oral transmission (synoptic problem) without deleting the text, but it will look like are direct, with the text still there.
  • You guys can gradually move that text to the Oral gospel tradition page, as you check it for copy vio, source it, etc. I will not be able to do any of that.

That may smoothly end this phase of the oral tradition discussions. History2007 (talk) 17:12, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

A very sensible solution! Practically speaking, one decent article might be an improvement on two low quality ones. Formally, the whole question of oral tradition is a subject in its own right which goes far wider that the "Quest(s) for the historical Jesus" and could be developed into a major article of its own. Hence it is better to keep it apart. Jpacobb (talk) 18:02, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Ok, great. Given that you know more about the topic than myself, once it happens, you can add/change the one paragraph that I will just move there. History2007 (talk) 18:04, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Comment: This is acceptable with one caveat, have someone else close the proposal to merge, preferably an uninvolved admin, with a consensus of No Merge on the talk page. This proposal had way too much discussion to just withdraw it, and it's also good practice not to close your own proposals. Ignocrates (talk) 18:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
I will call John G. over the weekend to see if he will... kidding. But this is a small little item in the greater scheme of things. But anyway, will just post a request for closure on Sunday and any uninvolved ed can do it. But even if I just close it this is not going to Arbcom or John G. It is a just little article discussion anyway. History2007 (talk) 18:26, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
"Little article discussion"s tend to become much bigger discussions on this topic. I'm fine with posting a request for closure. Ignocrates (talk) 18:30, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Ok, I will just post for closure then so we can be done with it. History2007 (talk) 18:52, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk page tags concluding merge proposals

I assume the proposers are going to remove the "proposal to merge" tags from the articles and replace them with the appropriate talk page tags indicating the disposition of the merge discussions. Thank you. Ignocrates (talk) 23:37, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Also, keep in mind that this discussion was closed with a soft close. It can be reopened in the near future if someone wants to challenge the decision as a WP:local consensus. Ignocrates (talk) 23:54, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
I already removed the tags, and moved the paragraph. And given that you agreed above, you are not going to oppose. And if someone opposes, I will give you a full refund. Promise... History2007 (talk) 23:59, 19 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for taking care of it. I assume the closer meant someone who was a part of the original discussion but didn't weigh in on the solution. I'm good to go. Ignocrates (talk) 00:07, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I have taken care of the talk page tags concluding the three merge proposals. Ignocrates (talk) 02:25, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Quest_for_the_historical_Jesus/Archive_1&oldid=985638340"