Jump to content

Talk:Gospel

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Silverfish2024 (talk | contribs) at 22:58, 5 September 2024 (→Lead: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Anonymous NT gospels

See User:Tgeorgescu/sandbox3. tgeorgescu (talk) 07:28, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Robyn Faith Walsh

What's the relevance of Robyn Faith Walsh (2021), The Origins of Early Christian Literature: Contextualizing the New Testament? Being published by CUP does not establish its relevance; impact does. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:02, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Texts published highly regarded sources like CUP, OUP, or the like are generally inherently impactful. Unless you can find explicit reason to exclude that information, the current dissatisfaction with its inclusion seems to be one of dismay that it disagrees with some older academic writings. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:12, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But to, answer your question, @Joshua Jonathan:
"Even if I am unpersuaded by some of Walsh’s arguments about authorship and book culture in Roman antiquity, these chapters make for stimulating reading. The book is highly provocative and should elicit spirited debate among New Testament scholars." "The origins of early Christian literature: contextualizing the New Testament within Greco-Roman literary culture". Bryn Mawr Classical Review Review. September 11, 2021.
Other reviews are paywalled (such as this from Tilburg University and this from Klio). I really don't see an argument for exclusion here. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:22, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wanted to link this in my first message, but please read WP:RSUW for a good explanation of why a CUP-published text from 2021 (and one that has already enjoyed thoughtful review by academic journals) is almost certainly worth inclusion free of undue weight concerns. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:48, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, sources published by CUP and the like are not "inherently impactful." Where's the "spirited debate"? Zero citations at Google Scholar, as far as I can see. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:23, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshua Jonathan: I do not see this standard being supported by UNDUE. The policy states Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources. The text was published by a reliable source. Other scholars have reviewed the text and readily accepted that its positions are well within bounds and worthy of discussion. Looking at the other passages in the same section, there are two other CUP sources dating to 2002 and 1998. The spirited debate is already happening in the sources. I see no policy argument for exclusion. ~ Pbritti (talk) 12:02, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A standpoint held by one author is not a significant view. A review is not the same as debate of a viewpoint in a regular scholarly article, of which I see no evidence. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 12:47, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshua Jonathan: Your concerns seem be around the idea that it would be against WP:BALANCE to include Walsh. Per BALANCE: However, when reputable sources contradict one another and [bolding original] are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance. This involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint. Walsh is a regularly published author on the subject, with secondary source reviews that reliably describe the contrasting viewpoints. Altering the passage to reflect the critiques of Walsh's perspective would not only ensure we have the most recent, reliably sourced scholarship but that we also have substantive critiques of said perspective. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:00, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Note "relatively equal in prominence." When one author comes with an alternative to a broad consensus, and is not referenced in any other publication, then that author's view is not "relatively equal in prominence." Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 19:18, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be rather convinced that this material is unsuited for inclusion on this article. However, what do you think of this edit to Oral gospel traditions? ~ Pbritti (talk) 21:46, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:BURDEN. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:42, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BURDEN means providing a policy-based rationale for inclusion, which I did. Despite policy indicating a strong basis for inclusion and opposition to inclusion being based on sourcing preexisting this reliable source publication, I have alternatively proposed the edit I made to another article as a temporary solution. Please feel welcome to respond to that. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:23, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, see WP:ONUS Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 06:26, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am very aware of this policy. Singular opposition (the other editor who removed this content not engaging in discussion) is not consensus. Per WP:NOCON: When discussions of proposals to add, modify, or remove material in articles end without consensus, the common result is to retain the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit. Since that material had stood for over a month, with several other editors actively working on the article in-between, that would mean restoring the passage. ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:38, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop pushing this undue pov; see also WP:DONTGETIT. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 14:14, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus, as I pointed out. If you want a consensus, get one. You could also look at the alternative solution I offered you. Also, let's not cast aspersions regarding POV-pushing, given I have provided reliable sourcing and policy-based points from the get-go. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:20, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ONUS: "The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." you're ignoring basic policies: we don't give undue weight to minority positions. Walsh's pov is such a minority pov; it's only endorsed by herself. That's a tiny grain of sand on a beach of scholarly consensus, not worth of mentioning. Maybe that changes when her ideas are being discussed by other scholars, that is endorsed or rejected with arguments; at the moment, that's not the case. And if you want Achar Sva's opinion again, you could ask them, imstead of implying that two days without editing means they have changed their opinion. We can also ask Tgeorgescu, if you like, another regular contributor. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 14:29, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, a more extensive answer! Given that two separate editors favor inclusion, there's actually an even split at present. Also, ONUS gives way to NOCON, given that the material survived uncontested for so long. You have no consensus for the BOLD deletion of the passage. Don't accuse me ignoring policy when I've explained my policy basis for everything—that's uncivil. Please also see Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion, as it is unusual that you didn't ping the editor who originally included the material. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:45, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, I have all sympathy for Walsh's POV, but if Achar Sva says it's a one man show, he is right in 95% of the cases. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:38, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One month is not a long time; and you still haven't established the significance of this pov. There are so many publicayions in this field, that just being published is not enough to establish the relevance of a single publication. The book is an adaptation of a PhD-thesis; Robyn Faith Walsh is a beginning scholar. Her view may be relevant, but then, it needs more than just one publication~which has not been referenced by any other author. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 16:40, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Robyn Faith Walsh #2

I first heard of Robyn Faith Walsh on Reddit earlier in the year. From what it looked like, most serious scholars appear to take her work seriously (Including Bart Ehrman). The multiple reviews written means that it meets WP:BKCRIT and WP:NB. I was stunned to find that no mention of her work appeared on Wikipedia when I last checked despite her being so prolific these past couple years. Heck, the book itself doesn't even have an article. There is no question in my mind that this book is not a WP:FRINGE take. Scorpions1325 (talk) 00:01, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would take this to WP:FTN just to be safe. I have no reason to defend her views. Scorpions1325 (talk) 00:09, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That the book meets the standards for a notable book does not mean it should also be included in an overview-article; see WP:ONUS. Apart from reviews, there is not a single reference to it in scholarly publicatiins. And "Ehrman appears" is useless here; where does he do that? Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:37, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I was referring to. It is at around the 18:00 mark. It does appear that the person interviewing him might not be a reliable source of information though. If the book legitimately does not appear in any other scholarly publications, I stand corrected. I just find it hard to believe that such a popular book among intellectuals wouldn't even have a rebuttal published. Scorpions1325 (talk) 04:44, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Bart Ehrman, Remembering Columbus, remembering Christ, may 7, 2023: "I’m not convinced at all — but it’s a terrific book and she’s a fine scholar. (I think it’s very hard to think of the Gospel authors as writing for elites, but I’m open to the idea)." Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:46, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lol. I guess I do stand corrected. I don't know how I didn't find that myself. I guess I don't have anything more to contribute to this discussion as my knowledge of mainstream bible scholarship is pretty spotty. Scorpions1325 (talk) 04:50, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Writing an article about the book may be a good idea anyway, given the attention it has received. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 04:53, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can take up that task. I already have a dozen tabs on the book open so I probably can manage it the best from the start. Once I have it up and running, I'll tag you two on its talk. Thanks ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:02, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Review by Matthias Becker:
  • "Die These, es habe im 1. Jahrhundert zwar „Jesus people“ (133), aber keine kohäsiven christlichen Gruppen gegeben, ist haltlos"
  • "W. ist darin zuzustimmen, dass die Exegese sich selbst viel zu lange durch Textfragmentierung und Spekulationen über Schichten, Überlieferungs(vor)stufen und Gemeindebildungen den Blick auf die Literarizität der Evv. verstellt hat. Selten hat ein Buch mit einer solchen Vehemenz dazu aufgerufen, die Evv. als kunstvolle Literatur und die Evangelisten als literarisch gebildete Schriftsteller im Kontext der griechisch-römischen Kultur ernst zu nehmen."
In English:
  • the idea that, in the 1st century, there were Jesus-people, but no cohesive Chtistian groups, is untenable;
  • Walsh has a point that the text-cr itical analysis has lost sight of the literary value of the gospels. She makes a worthfull call to view the gospels as artfully crafted literature, and to see them in the context of Greek-Roman culture.
That, in a nutshell, may be the scholarly view: she's a serious scholar, not a fringe-author; her view on the origins of the gospels is untenable; but viewing the gospels as art, and contextualizing them in Greek-Roman art, is a good idea. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:26, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshua Jonathan: Sorry for not responding more thoroughly the last couple days–I happily had family in town. In any case, I thought I should mention that I have found some fairly substantive references to the Walsh text in recent academic literature outside of reviews. Citations found using CUP's own website and accessed mostly through the Wikipedia Library:
  • Trax, Kenneth (January 2023). "Happy Reading: Textual Self-Consciousness and Human Flourishing in the Macarisms of Lk 11.28, Gos. Thom. 79.2, and Rev. 1.3". Journal for the Study of the New Testament. 45 (3). Cites Walsh's book to claim "we should not posit discrete reading communities centered on different Christian documents".
  • Eberhart, Zechariah Preston (August 2023). "Shifting Gears or Splitting Hairs? Performance Criticism's Object of Study". Religion. Uses Walsh's book as an example of modern alternative scholarship supporting elite authorship of the Gospels (comes with the baggage associated with all MDPI literature).
  • Hansen, Christopher M. (2022). "Re-examining the Pre-Christian Jesus". Journal of Early Christian History. 12. Cites Walsh to demonstrate that some modern scholarship now finds a greater number of syncretic elements in early Christian writings, lending added credence to those in the mythological Jesus camp. Hansen stops short of directly claiming that Walsh argues the mythological Jesus thesis. (My reading of Walsh, even after reading the glowing review by the noted FRINGE Carrier, is that Walsh is not making a definitive statement on this.)
There is no doubt in my mind that Walsh's theories are kinda "out there", so to speak, but they're being discussed and are repeatedly referenced to reflect an existing strand of modern scholarship. I feel like these references (and the other four that I found but didn't have time to read) provide a strong basis towards inclusion of the Walsh material with appropriate inline attribution. I apologize if pinging you repeatedly is annoying. I don't know if you're watching this, but let me know if that's the case. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:17, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging is okay, and obviously Google Scholar needs an update on it's algorhytms; outstanding job you've done, in the best of the Wiki-spirit! Eberhart seems most relevant, with your comment "an example of modern alternative scholarship supporting elite authorship of the gospels." There are other instances of such scholarship? Otherwise, it would still be a single voice against a long-standing consensus; any mention of Walsh would easily give her thesis too much weight. Marc Goodacre's comment should be a warning-sign: "The Origins of Early Christian Literature turns a century of New Testament scholarship on its head." Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:04, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Joshua Jonathan: Excellent! I'll get back to you Soon™ on the particular phrasing we could use for this article. I have some really, really long hours coming up, but some of them will be "hurrying up and waiting" and I may get a chance to do some real editing work. I'm almost done with the draft for the book article, which can be found here. Just fleshing out the critical reception section and will add a fair-use image of the cover. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:13, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Checking Eberhart; they mention Walsh in a note; that's not exactly 'establishing notewothiness'... Eberhart writes:

More recently, however, the notion that the gospel authors are writing for a “more common” audience has been challenged. For an argument in favor of the Gospels as products by and for the literary for elite, see Walsh (2020).

Just a mentio, not an argument pro or contra. But, also, feeding curiosity on Walsh thesis: the gospels are not only written by an elite (makes sense), but also for an elite. Looking forward to your article. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 05:29, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

@IP: You're dumbing down the article. tgeorgescu (talk) 06:05, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

eyewitnesses

Richard Bauckham, a very renowned Bible scholar, has written a book, "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses," an extremely scholarly tome, 2017, 679 pages long, in which he argues that the Gospels were to a large extent based upon the testimony of eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus. It would be nice to see a few quotes from the book in the article. Edittingforfun (talk) 14:37, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that Bauckham's book got much traction among mainstream Bible scholars. tgeorgescu (talk) 15:48, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
N. T. Wright
"The question of whether the Gospels are based on eyewitness accounts has long been controversial. Richard Bauckham, in a characteristic tour de force, draws on his unparalleled knowledge of the world of the first Christians to argue not only that the Gospels do indeed contain eyewitness testimony but that their first readers would certainly have recognized them as such. This book is a remarkable piece of detective work, resulting in a fresh and vivid approach to dozens, perhaps hundreds, of well-known problems and passages."
James D. G. Dunn
"Another blockbuster from the productive pen of Richard Bauckham. . . . Not to be missed!"
Graham Stanton
"Shakes the foundations of a century of scholarly study of the Gospels. There are surprises on every page. A wealth of new insights will provoke lively discussion for a long time to come. Readers at all levels will be grateful for Bauckham's detective work that uncovers clues missed by so many."
Martin Hengel
"Fascinating! . . . This book ought to be read by all theologians and historians working in the field of early Christianity. Further, Bauckham's convincing historical method and broad learning will also help pastors and students to overcome widespread modern Jesus fantasies."
Bolding is my own. Seems like this would be a really great resource based on these quotes about it. Am I not evaluating this correctly? ViolanteMD 16:10, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BDEhrman September 10, 2020 at 4:13 pmLog in to Reply

He’s a bit of both; the main problem I have is when he claims he’s doing history when he appears to have an apologetic agenda. I would say Jesus and the Eyewitnesses is indeed a historical study and that a large part of it is indeed driven by an apologetic agenda. He is best in his work on early Christian apocrypha (the later apocalpyses), where he does not have a theological stake in the matter. His scholarship gets very different there, and is spot on.

— ehrmanblog.org
Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 16:49, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is Ehrman someone people respect in this space? Hengel's article says he was, "recognized as one of the greatest theological scholars of his time". Is Ehrman someone people would put on the same shelf as Hengel? If so, then seems like we should consider the text itself since there are opposing ideas from respected scholars on both sides? ViolanteMD 16:52, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I get attacked by both sides, rather vigorously, and my personal view of it is that I'm not actually against Christianity at all, I'm against certain forms of fundamentalism and, and, so virtually everything I say in my book are things that Christian scholars of the New Testament readily agree with, it's just that they are not hard-core evangelicals who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. If you believe in the inerrancy of the Bible then I suppose I'd be the enemy, but there are lot of Christian forms of belief that have nothing to do with inerrancy.

— Bart Ehrman, Bart Ehrman vs Tim McGrew - Round 1 at YouTube

Bart, if anything, is academically conservative. Most of his (non-text crit) positions are academic orthodoxy from the 1980s. [...] Virtually all of his positions were mainstream in the 1980s and have a substantial following today.

— BombadilEatsTheRing, Reddit
Ehrman is not as original as you might think. To a great deal he is simply repeating what he learned at the Princeton Theological Seminary. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:07, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I ever get around to reading the book, I'll be sure to come back to this conversation! ViolanteMD 17:21, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Craig A. Evans

@Silverfish2024: some comments:

  • A statement from 1993 from Craig A. Evans, a conservative scholar, which says (emphasis mine) "are now viewed as useful" is not a good summary of the state of research on the historical Jesus or the historical reliability of the Gospels; not in the body of the article, and even less in the lead, which is supposed to summarize the article;
  • Sanders is an excellent scholar, but an article on the Gospels is not the place to higlight the view of one unattributed author on Sanders;
  • Nor is it the appropriate place to delve deep into the problems with the criteria of authenticity ("On the other hand [...] more successful when reaching the Historical Jesus").

Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 17:46, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand displaying Evans as prominently on the page as I did might not have been the best idea.
However, I disagree with your more recent claim "serious? The general conclusion seems to be that we know close to nothing about Jesus" you made when reverting my edit. EP Sanders (at least according to Angela Tilby and Tom Holmen, the latter of whom is cited on the Wikipedia page of the Historical Jesus) claimed we know 'quite a lot' about the historical Jesus. The claim that the Gospels are at least generally reliable (Allison) is not too 'grandiose' for this article, though some might say Dunn's level of confidence could be pushing it.
Holmén, Tom (2008). Evans, Craig A. (ed.). The Routledge Encyclopedia of the Historical Jesus. New York: Routledge. ISBN 978-0-415-97569-8.
Angela Tilby: E. P. Sanders shone light on Jesus and Paul (churchtimes.co.uk) Silverfish2024 (talk) 20:14, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think Allison also implied or said the Gospels are reliable on the big picture, though not in the details. I could find some links if you want. Ehrman also claimed the Gospels are historical documents rather than myth or fabrications, though I think he is noticeably more skeptical than the other two. Silverfish2024 (talk) 20:26, 5 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gospel&oldid=1244249046"