Talk:Gospel

Lead

@Silverfish2024: the WP:LEAD summarizes the article, which is not what you are doing; you are pushing a specific pov. The statement

...they provide a good idea of the public career of Jesus, and most scholars tend to view the Synoptic Gospels as the useful primary sources or even reliable for Jesus.

is problematic for several reasons:

• "they provide a good idea of the public career of Jesus" - to my best knowledge, there is very little reliable knowledge about Jesus that scholars can extract from the Gospels;
• "most scholars tend to view the Synoptic Gospels as the useful primary sources [...] for Jesus" - Sanders, EB: "The Synoptic Gospels, then, are the primary sources for knowledge of the historical Jesus" - that's a subtle difference;
• "or even reliable" - the pov of Dunn cannot be generalized to "most scholars."

Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 20:14, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

See my comment above. Your claim that very little is known about Jesus does not seem to be what most scholars tend to think. My edit said 'useful or reliable', with Dunn's view being the latter, so I would not think I was claiming Dunn's view to be the absolute majority. Silverfish2024 (talk) 20:18, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

The claim the Gospels provide a good idea of the public career of Jesus has been on this page for a long time now (I don't know who first put it in).

Where did you get the idea almost nothing about Jesus is known? Silverfish2024 (talk) 20:20, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

It is what we consequently have argued on Wikipedia against the Christ Myth theory supporters, that very lityle seems to be sure, except his existence, baptism, and crucifixion; see the lead of Historical reliability of the Gospels.

Your quote from Sanders, EB, is WP:CHERRYPICKED; a fuller quote is

John, however, is so different that it cannot be reconciled with the Synoptics except in very general ways [...] Scholars have unanimously chosen the Synoptic Gospels’ version of Jesus’ teaching [...] The Synoptic Gospels, then, are the primary sources for knowledge of the historical Jesus. They are not, however, the equivalent of an academic biography of a recent historical figure. Instead, the Synoptic Gospels are theological documents that provide information the authors regarded as necessary for the religious development of the Christian communities in which they worked.

You should seriously consider if Wikipedia is the best place for you to vent your convictions; I don't think so. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 20:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that the Synoptic Gospels, not John, are the primary sources for Jesus, and it is good that you specified as such.

I still disagree with your first point. According to Casey, "the attestation of Jesus' ministry of exorcism and healing is so strong that the majority of New Testament scholars have argued that the tradition had a historical kernel." Jesus of Nazareth: An Independent Historian's Account- page 237

Sanders has argued for 11 statements about Jesus almost beyond dispute. Of course there is not too much certain about Jesus, but I think there is a lot likely to be true. Silverfish2024 (talk) 22:58, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I have tried my best to provide mainstream, high-quality sources and wish not to misrepresent them in any way. I would like to say I have an open mind about this subject, and if you feel I have misused any of my sources, feel free to object. Silverfish2024 (talk) 23:08, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

"providing a good idea of the public career of Jesus"

You re-added diff "providing a good idea of the public career of Jesus" to the lead, with the argument EP Sanders is probably as mainstream as it gets, and his claim has been on this page for years. No reason to delete it now. It's still there, in Gospel#Genre and historical reliability, sourced to Reddish (2011) p.21-22, and Sanders (1995) p.4-5. Reddish doesn't say so, on tbe contrary. Sanders does say so indeed, but cannot be generalized, certainly not in the lead. You're messing-up, just to push through your convictions. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 21:17, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Indeed; I believe Reddish was the source for the claim that scholarship could distinguish between authentic material and later Church tradition before you deleted it and updated it with Keith's view (an action I support- I think he and Le Donne are rising stars in the field). I did not mean to mislead readers about my source for "a good idea of the public career of Jesus".

Thank you for keeping Sanders and Dunn's views; they are definitely some of the best scholars of Jesus this generation, and their views have arguably held up to this day. Thanks also for including Keith's work. It is important to be aware of trends in scholarship and to keep Wikipedia updated. And thank you once again for reaching out and bearing with me through our disagreement about this page. I hope there is no ill will between us and wish you the best. Silverfish2024 (talk) 23:05, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Eyewitnesses

I added that many, perhaps most scholars, view the author of Luke-Acts as an eyewitness to the Apostle Paul, presumably via the "we passages". I did not touch the claim that the Gospels are not eyewitnesses, though I specified that this was referring to Jesus. Silverfish2024 (talk) 04:36, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

“Made to convince people” NO!

The gospels were not created to convince people Jesus was the son of God and the word charismatic is unneeded and feels disrespectful.

The Bible, in the eyes of the followers of Jesus, is the word of God. It was made to SPREAD the word, translated so that as many people could read it to spread Jesus’ message as Jesus told his apostles that that was their mission after he passed. The gospels are the good news that Jesus has saved us.

There is a massive difference in sharing news and convincing. One allows for your own brain to think and choose, one may be deceptive. The gospels were written so that God’s free will always remains.

Which means take it or leave it but it’s not a tool TO convince someone. The Bible is NOT there to convince you, it is there to teach, spread the word, and share the gospel, the good word that we are saved.. It’s not some con job attempt.

please do better and do not choose a side, be neutral. This is not neutral, this is all atheist perspective. 108.53.6.160 (talk) 08:02, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Most of the editors aren't atheists. Do not conflate mainstream Bible scholarship with atheism. tgeorgescu (talk) 11:55, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

apocrypha

@Joshua Jonathan Some scholars think that the "Odes of Solomon" and the "Ascension of Isaiah", which are older than the "Gospel of Mary", include the concept of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary. I'm not exactly sure of the best wording for conveying that the "Gospel of Mary" includes the concept first in the view of some scholars but not in the view of others. I think this phrase might even be best left out, as accurately wording it could result in a difficult and confusing sentence to read and I don't know what benefit mentioning it brings to the article. 987123123Adjective (talk) 19:10, 11 December 2024 (UTC)