Talk:Resurrection of Jesus/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Habermas

I can't help it, I just have to make some comments on Habermas & Bergeron (2015), The Resurrection of Jesus: A Clinical Review of Psychiatric hypotheses for the Biblical Story of Easter:

• They put the emphasis on 'hallucinations," which is a rhetorical device; most scholar speak about "visionary experiences";
• They sum up clinical investigations of bereavement, and conclude that the vision-theoretics are making assumptions which are not supported by clinical facts; yet they take the Biblical accounts as accurate, factual descriptions of what the disciples experienced:

It is noteworthy that hallucinations are private experiences. Hallucination hypotheses, therefore, are unable to explain the disciples’ simultaneous group encounters with the resurrected Jesus. While some may consider the disciples’ post-crucifixion group encounters with the resurrected Jesus as collective simultaneous hallucinations, such an explanation is far outside mainstream clinical thought. What are the odds that separate individuals in a group could experience simultaneous and identical psychological phenomena mixed with hallucinations? This is a non sequitur. Concordantly, the concept of collective-hallucination is not found in peer reviewed medical and psychological literature.

• They misunderstand the interpretation of Jesus resurrection as first from the dead (dead, not death):

Another matter concerns the first-century Hebrew culture, where many Jews had a concept of resurrection at the end of time, but it was unheard of to imagine a near-term resurrection from death to physical life.61 The disciples, therefore, would not have naturally interpreted bereavement experiences as physical encounters with a resurrected Jesus. The premise that bereavement experiences formed the basis for the disciples’ belief in Jesus’ resurrection is indefensible.

That's exactly what the disciples thought: the endtime had started with Jesus' resurrection! Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:21, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

• • Joshua Jonathan They sum up clinical investigations of bereavement, and conclude that the vision-theoretics are making assumptions which are not supported by clinical facts; This is valid and unaffected by whatever they think about Bible texts. People believe both true and false things every day. Believing a false thing does not prove that everything you believe is false. Nor does believing one true thing prove that everything you believe is true. These things are separate ideas, and the validity of one is not dependent on the other. This is actually a logic fallacy. What causes "visions" is pertinent to the claim of visions. If you want to get into discussing the historicity of the Gospel accounts, do that, but do recognize it is a separate issue from a medical assessment of visions. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:23, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Two observations:

• "yet they take the Biblical accounts as accurate, factual descriptions of what the disciples experienced" They must have missed the point that neither the Gospels nor the Acts are eyewitness account, and that their historicity is in doubt. I often wish that the surviving sources provided more information on the disciples themselves, who seem to be rather shadowy figures in the New Testament.
• "the endtime had started with Jesus' resurrection" More accurately, the group was an apocalyptic cult, and their eschatology may have included beliefs vastly different than the Jewish mainstream. Dimadick (talk) 11:32, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

These seem to be just your personal opinions; I would like to remark my issues with them:

• The fact that some scholars prefer to use a more euphemistic term ("visionary experiences") to refer to what others would perfectly describe as "hallucinations" does not change anything about the validity of Habermas' arguments in this regard.
• The pre-pauline creed of 1 Corinthians 15:3–8 reports that Jesus appeared to Peter (1 Corinthians 15:5), to the Twelve Apostles (1 Corinthians 15:5), to five hundred disciples (1 Corinthians 15:6), to James and other disciples (1 Corinthians 15:7), and finally to Paul himself (1 Corinthians 15:8). Since this report is universally considered to be of early date, I think he is justified in regarding this description as accurate.
• Do you know about any NT text which supports your assertion that "the endtime had started with Jesus' resurrection!"? This seems to be just your personal view.

Potatín5 (talk) 13:29, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the 'accuracy' of the pre-Pauline creed: the four Gospels and Cts give five different accounts of the appearance experiences. Apart from that, it iz utterly naive to think that religious texts like the Gospels are historical records of historical events.

Regarding "The endtime had started with Jesus' resurrection," see Ehrman (2014), How Jesus became God, p.99, "the resurrection of the dead had begun," and p.108, "he was the first to be raised, and all others were to be raised soon as well. In that sense his resurrection was the beginning of the general resurrection." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:03, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

You seem to be misinterpreting Habermas's argument. What he simply claims is that many disciples had 'experiences' of seeing Jesus resurrected after his dead (a fact which is reported by the pre-Pauline creed), not about the details of the 'appearance experiences' or the historicity of the Gospels' descriptions.

As of Ehrman's view on the eschatological significance of the resurrection of Jesus, this seems to be just his personal opinion (unless you have any source indicating that this is a consensus view, which I haven't seen yet). In my opinion, I think that when Paul referred to Jesus as "firstborn from the dead", he was not specifying the moment at which the latter resurrections would happen (note: this is probably Habermas' view too). Potatín5 (talk) 21:58, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

• James Dunn (2006), The Theology of Pual the Apostle, p.240: "...the resurrection of Jesus was understood by Paul (as those before him) as ushering in a new age, even the last days."
• Paula Fredriksen (2018), When Christians Were Jews, p.86-87: "The Kingdom truly was at hand. Jesus' own resurrection was for them meaningful as the first of a cascade of anticipated Endtime events."

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 09:02, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Even Wright: "He [Paul] believed himself to be living at a new stage in the eschatological timetable: the 'age to come' had already begun, precisely with the Messiah's resurrection" (Wright 2003, p.272). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:04, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Joshua, that's perfectly okay. It's responsible editing to vet sources. You are mistaken in both these comments, but I understand why. Hardyplants removed the medical research from the article, making it impossible to see that pretty much all the medical literature does in fact use the term hallucination. This misunderstanding will persist for our readers of course.

• Please note that everyone of these medical articles uses the term hallucination.
• Castelnovo, Anna, et al. "Post-bereavement hallucinatory experiences: A critical overview of population and clinical studies." Journal of affective disorders 186 (2015): 266-274.;
• Grimby, Agneta. "Bereavement among elderly people: Grief reactions, post‐bereavement hallucinations and quality of life." Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 87.1 (1993): 72-80.;
• Sabucedo, Pablo, Chris Evans, and Jacqueline Hayes. "Perceiving those who are gone: Cultural research on post-bereavement perception or hallucination of the deceased." Transcultural Psychiatry (2020): 1363461520962887.;
• Grimby, Agneta. "Hallucinations following the loss of a spouse: Common and normal events among the elderly." Journal of Clinical Geropsychology (1998).

While Habermas is biased, his terminology reflects the medical literature. It is the historians who came up with the term "visionary experiences" and their various definitions of what that means often do not coincide with any medical description of what and how and why humans actually experience "visions". That is factual. That seems important, and very much like something you would mention if it were someone like Habermas doing it.

Habermas and Bergeron do not take for granted the Biblical accounts as accurate, factual descriptions of what the disciples experienced: It is unnecessary. Their argument doesn't depend on proving or disproving the accuracy of either the resurrection or the historicity of the Gospels. It's the disciple's belief in what they had seen that forms the basis of their argument, and it is factual to say that is generally accepted. As Vermes says, it makes history much more difficult and complicated if one tries to assume the Apostles did not actually believe they had seen the risen Jesus, therefore Vermes takes the genuineness of their belief as a given, while still disagreeing that they were right in that belief. Sanders says basically the same thing - which was also removed. The majority of scholars support that view of the Apostle's faith. That is just true Joshua.

But we had this discussion already and I see that you removed that sourced statement anyway. Perhaps that is too nuanced for most of the people here, since they keep arguing about accuracy, but the scholarship is nuanced in that way. Scholars accept the Apostles believed. Debate centers on valid explanations for that faith if the resurrection did not actually happen.

I think we establish at the beginning of this article that bodily resurrection was a departure from Jewish teachings on resurrection.

Joshua, I genuinely tried to represent both the majority and minority view and accurately represent the state of the ongoing debate. Perhaps I failed, but I don't see that here anymore. In your effort to counter what you see as bias, you might want to consider that an alternate bias has been created.

References

Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:02, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

@Potatin: where does the creed state that those apostles and followers saw Jesus? The creed states that Jesus appeared to them. Note that the appearance to Paul was not a visual experience.

@Potat8n & Jenhawks777: a critical discussion of the nature of Bible-texts is missing from Habermas

@Jenhawks777: we're discussing here what Biblical scholars write; they mostly argue about visions, not hallucinations.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:13, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I am going to politely overlook your first statement since the definitions of those words - saw and appeared - are self-explanatory.

Ah, I see. It's bias if Habermas changes the term, though he didn't, but it is perfectly okay if "Biblical scholars" - who may not actually define or even know what they are asserting - do so. So much for concerns about accuracy.

A critical discussion of the nature of Bible texts is missing from Habermas, yes, because that would be off topic for this particular article. The article from Habermas and Bergeron is about the who, why and what causes "visions". If one claims someone was healed of a broken leg, some evidence of a broken leg should be offered. If one claims the disciples had visions, some parameters of what that means should be included from the field of study that actually knows about visions. That would be psychiatry. That's all that article is. If you desire a critical discussion of Bible texts, Habermas does that in other works, just not this one. It would be irrelevant here.

Joshua, I say again that there is no longer both a majority and minority view and accurate representation of the state of the ongoing debate in this article. Look at the article itself from a critical perspective. There is no longer a section on historicity at all. How does that serve the best interests of our readers or the encyclopedia? Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:55, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Joshua, why do you think scholars find it necessary to come up with alternative explanations for the resurrection? Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:00, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I took a look at your original series of edits; I think I understand what you intended to communicate. Let me note that I think that the 'alternative explanations' are less, or not, relevant, to the theological and soteriological implications of the (belief in) the resurrection; but since those 'discussions' do occupy quite a number of people, almost since the beginning of Christianity, it does have some relevance. Let me also note that the vision-approach is extensively treated in the "Significance"-section. That being said, Wright provides a neat summary of 'objections':

1) that the Jewish context is unclear and therefore not definitive;

2) that Paul believed in spiritual resurrection not bodily resurrection;

3) that early Christians did not believe in bodily resurrection either, and only came to use resurrection language at a secondary stage of belief;

4) that the resurrection stories in the gospels are late inventions;

5) that the early Christians' visions of Jesus were an internal subjective religious experience;

6) that something other than what's in the gospels happened to Jesus body.

With this list in mind:

• The article should open with the section on Biblical accounts;
• Somehow, Wright's list should then be mentioned, whereafter

• follows the section on"Jewish-Hellenistic background;
• then the section on physical or spiritual resurrection;
• then the section on "Significance in Christianity," as this also contains the discussion on early and late High Christology;
• thereafter, a short discussion of the vision-approach, although this is already treated then in the previous section (Habermas could be mentioned here);
• last, the swoon hypothesis etc.

• the section on the Biblical accounts could have a subsection on "Scepticism with regard to the resurrection narratives," stating that early on there was scepticism about those narratives.

I'll give this a try. Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:07, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

The empty tomb scepsis fits naturally into the section on the empty tomb, while the short overview of the vision-approach fits into the subsection on "Foundation of Christian faith." Regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 11:09, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for such a reasoned response. I support your efforts. I will wait to see what results, but it sounds balanced and fair. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:40, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Skepticism

Hey Joshua Jonathan! Above you say the section on the Biblical accounts could have a subsection on "Scepticism with regard to the resurrection narratives," stating that early on there was scepticism about those narratives. and I just wanted to let you know that in my opinion that's a perfect idea. I like the pro/con juxtaposition, it will make it easier for readers to follow what is connected with what, and it would be the perfect placement for Wright's list. This is exactly the approach I took in a couple other articles I redid - which proves, of course, that you are quite brilliant... . The subject is controversial enough this kind of construction - traditional view with the skeptical response immediately after - could be continued throughout the entire article. Just wanted you to know I like your ideas. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:47, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

I already added a few lines to the section on the empty tomb. I've also changed theheader of that section, as no author in that section seems to make a case for a purely "spiritual" resurrection. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:27, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

There are some that do however, we just have to find them. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:49, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

"Scholarly accounts" and the structure of the article

It strikes me that, having alerted readers to the dominant scholarly paradigm and its six constituent parts, the same reader will then expect some discussion of these. I suggest that next six sections or subsections of the article should do this. Achar Sva (talk) 22:14, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, if I read him correctly Joshua Jonathan has already suggested an outline - toward the end of this section [1] - that pretty much advocates for what you suggest here. Since my opinion is also that a failure to include the scholarly debate on this topic would be less than our readers and the encyclopedia deserve, one might be led to conclude we have a kind of consensus here. Imagine.

Joshua suggests opening with the "Biblical accounts" section and adding a discussion of Wright's #4 there. I don't think it matters if we follow Wright's exact order, but I do agree that if we mention the list, following through on discussing the different points would be good writing and proper scholarship - in whatever order we choose.

Wright's #1 would be included in the following section on "Jewish-Hellenistic background"; the section on physical or spiritual resurrection would naturally include a discussion of Wright's second point; since the section on "Significance in Christianity," also contains the discussion on early and late High Christology, Wright's #3 might fit better there, but it could also go in with #2; #5 needs its own section, and #6 fits nicely in the empty tomb section.

We must treat all views with respect. We must avoid advocating. We must include both sides and minority views. We must do so in an organized and orderly manner - and Wright gives us a convenient hanger to drape it all on. I agree. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:13, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Wright's six points are more or less treated in the article, but I can think we can do without it. It was added as an explication of Wright's admission of the 'subjective stance' as the dominant stance, but it may not be the best intro. So, I've just removed it. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:25, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

I thought we had reached some consensus here. :-( You're right, it was offered as support to his assertion, but why does that disqualify it for use here as a basic outline? You're right again, that these points are already in the article for the most part, but this organization would make them more easily accessible and I think, understandable. I really do like this pro/con structure using Wright's points. It provides for full and fully neutral coverage of the topic imo. Please reconsider. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:56, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

The gospels and the post-resurrection appearances

The section of the gospels seems far too long; it would be better to note the post-crucifixion resurrection appearances. The following might be a guide:

Caption text

Incident and place	Mark	Matthew	Luke	John
At the tomb	None, but an angelic instruction to meet Jesus in Galilee	A single appearance to Mary Magdalene and "the other Mary", with an instruction to meet in Galilee	No appearances	A single appearance to Mary Magdalene, informing her that he is ascending to God
In Galilee	None, although an appearance in Galilee is promised by the angel at the tomb	A single appearance on an unnamed mountain in Galilee	None	Following the appearances in Jerusalem, for "the third time Jesus appeared to his disciples after he was raised from the dead", at the the Sea of Galilee.
In Jerusalem	None	None	On the day of the resurrection Jesus appears (1) to Peter (2) To two followers on the road to Emmaeus (3) to the eleven disciples; in Luke the Ascension takes place on the same day, in Acts it is forty days later	To the twelve without Thomas; one week later, to the Twelve including Thomas; with a subsequent and final appearance in Galilee

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Achar Sva (talk • contribs) 16 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't agree. Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:02, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Don't agree with what? Achar Sva (talk) 14:15, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't agree to abridging this section down to a chart. WP is supposed to offer summaries. This comparison might fit in another section, but not this section which is an appropriate summary of the gospel's accounts. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:13, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

We can't use that table in the article, because it's not sourced (and sourcing it from various bible verses isn't permitted). As you say, we need to summarise the gospel accounts of resurrection appearances. The chart analyses what those accounts are and where they are to found, but it cannot be used in any section of the article. The section should, however, contain the information, since it is summarises the gospels.Achar Sva (talk) 00:35, 18 December 2022 (UTC) I've amended the table slightly to clarify it. Achar Sva (talk) 00:38, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Moved content to under a better suited subsection

Moved subsection "empty tomb" from under "Resurrection of a transformed body" to "Scholarly approaches" as the subject matter contains info on scholarly approaches that suits better the latter subheading than the former. If you think this is erroneous, kindly reason here. Thanks! Solatido 12:21, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree that's where it belongs. I am doing nothing while I wait to see if the balanced neutrality that was lauded as superior actually appears. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:30, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

It belongs a little bit lower, after the background-section; that's a mofe chronological order. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:16, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

A more chronological order? Based on what? Jenhawk777 (talk) 08:59, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Intro (scholarly opinions), background, entombment and empty tomb. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 16:14, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

In the empty tomb section, there are 5 paragraphs of skepticism, and one of support; the next section has 3 on skepticism and one - again Wright as if he is all there is - in support of the traditional view. You give some pretty good explanations of the arguments of skeptics, and one sentence with a non-specific response from Wright - then reassert visions again. Surely you are not claiming this as a neutral presentation. Put yourself in the other position and evaluate this as if you didn't have a personal opinion to justify. Joshua, what if a Christian came along and wrote something like this from their point of view? Wouldn't you say it was non neutral - justifiably? Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:35, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Wright is not my addition; he's been used to much, surely to push a faith-based pov. There's more nuance, also from Christian authors; the mainstream Christian view, at least in the west, does not seem to be that the resurrection was a concrete, literal event. I can't recall the last time I heard someone defend this position - and I speak a lot of people on religious topics.

The empty tomb, and the nature of the appearances, are most relevant for evangelicals and the like; but the section on the meaning of the resurrection for the early ekklesia is much larger, since this is what matters: how did the early church come to be? Wikipedia is a platform for scholarship, not for apologists; we should not give them undue weight. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:30, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Andrew Loke on the empty tomb

User:Salitado added some views of Andrew Loke on the empty tomb, referring to Craig Evans and L. Eisenberg diff:

However, as pointed out by Andrew Loke, both Craig Evans and L. Eisenberg have argued against the unburied hypothesis by demonstrating, on the basis of Roman practice, "the probability that the Romans would allow a crucified victim to be buried during peace time" as not unlikely; also, an archaeological finding of a crucified first century man's remains with a nail in the heel suggests that his body was removed soon after his death, probably owing to his wealthy and influential background.

References

I see multiple problems here:

• Editorializing: "however," "demonstrating"; Loke uses the terms (link) "points out" and "argues";
• Andrew Loke is a Christian apologist; not the best source, and undue in comparison to Ehrman;
• Loke uses Evans (2005, 2014) to argue against Crossan's "unburied hypothesis," and then let's Ehrman (2014) object against Evans; the edits scramble this line of argument;
• Leonard Irwin Eisenberg is a geologist see here, who argues in A New Natural Interpretation of the Empty Tomb that

(1) Jesus survives his short stay on the cross, and (2) is discovered to be barely alive by the few followers who retrieve him. (3) Fearful because they have illegally retrieved a condemned man, they carry out a decoy burial in a tomb. (4) Jesus expires soon after, and is buried quietly in an anonymous grave, but (5) rumor of his survival reaches his followers, as well as the Romans, who (6) open the tomb and find it empty, except for burial linen used in the decoy. (7) To sooth their grief the disciples seize on the rumor of Jesus’ survival and encourage each other to hear the voice and see the image of their master in others. Although the probability of the scenario proposed herein is low, it is surely far larger than the supernatural one. It also is arguably more likely than other non-supernatural hypotheses.

Ergo, irrelevant.

I'll make some appropriate changes to these additons. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:56, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

How about putting back in my paragraph that included the medical assessment? Including all of this - which is way more than I had and is really not the best discussion as Eisenberg's last sentence indicates he is just as biased as Loke - seems to be going down a rabbit hole imo - why not just put back the three sentence version and leave it at that instead? This isn't a class on theology and its compatibility with the scientific view. This all seems like a digression to me. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:25, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the edit! Looks like the section prefers mainly negative-middle-affirmative positions per paragraph. However, with regard to "Andrew Loke is a Christian apologist....undue in comparison to Ehrman", I disagree. Andrew Loke is a tenured associate professor based in a public university and he has published a monograph with Cambridge University Press (in the SNTSMS series, one of the most well-respected academic peer reviewed series on historical critical studies of the New Testament) criticizing Ehrman (who is an apologist for his worldview); moreover, the present citation is from a book published by Routledge, a leading peer-reviewed academic publisher, not a Christian apologetics press. Solatido 05:34, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

I think that extended arguments on the empty tomb belong to the Empty tomb page. I've just copied some of the information in this article to Empty tomb#Scepsis about the empty tomb-narrative. It had a similar section before (see here), but that's been removed since then. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:00, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Regarding "apologist": Loke (2020) p.199 (Conclusion): "In this monograph, it has been shown that the case for the resurrection of Jesus has not been disproved; on the contrary, there are good reasons for thinking that the best explanation for (1) [crucifixion], (2) [appearences], and (3) [missing body] is that God has revealed himself through miraculously raising Jesus from the dead, thus vindicating his claims to be divine and confiming the salvific work that he has accomplished on the cross." Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:11, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

"that God has revealed himself" That is a leap in logic. How could a couple of visions and hallucinations be considered evidence for the existence of a deity? Dimadick (talk) 08:43, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Jodi Magness, Ossuaries and the Burials of Jesus and James, seems to be much more interesting with regard to the empty tomb. Ehrman esteems her highly ("My colleague Jodi Magness is the real thing"), yet, as Greg Monette notes:

Probably most surprising of all is that he does not once draw from the work of Jodi Magness, one of the world’s leading archaeologists and experts on Jewish burial in the time of Jesus–who Bart Ehrman hired to teach at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Intriguing. See also here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 19:59, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
PS: tombs were used to let a body decay; after a year, the bones were collected in an ossuary. Surely Joseph of Arimathea wouldn't have intended to leave Jesus' body there for a year. Ehrman (if I remember correctly) notes that there was no grave to be visited or worshipped, ergo there was no grave. The alternative, of course, is that Jesus' body was taken out after Pesach and buried in a trench grave, and that the empty tomb tradition developed to explain why the disciples left Jeruzalem. But surely, someone sometime has already proposed this somewhere. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:12, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

This is all speculation, again, Joshua, speculation of one type and one pov. Why wouldn't Joseph of Arimethea have intended to leave Jesus in the tomb he is supposed to have given him? In Judaism, it would have been exceedingly odd to have moved a dead body after burial. The women were heading somewhere on Sunday morning, if not the tomb, as it says, where are you contemplating sending them? Of the totality of scholars in this field, how many agree with Ehrman? Are you actually representing the majority view? It's good to include contrary views as long as you represent all the points of view with emphasis on the majority view. It is not neutral when you don't. It is non-neutral to decide for yourself that because other scholars have a belief system you dismiss that you can also fairly dismiss their scholarship from inclusion in this article. Is this article still representing majority view Joshua? It's a fair question that you should be asking yourself at this point. Jenhawk777 (talk) 09:18, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

"In the end, Ehrman simply ignores any evidence that proves his theory to be incorrect ... He doesn’t cite any authorities on the subject of Jewish burial practices in antiquity, and appears to have selectively side-stepped any information which might undermine his provocative claim." Greg Monette [2] Jenhawk777 (talk) 09:39, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

What makes you think that the Gospel-stories are objective accounts of historical facts? Where do they state that Joseph gave a tomb to Jesus? He put him in a tomb. With what intention? How would your sources know what Joseph's intentions were, if these stories are objective accounts at all? How would you even know that Jesus was put in a tomb? Because a number of stories, which are copied from each other and contradict each other, say so?

Regarding "majority view," Magness states with regard to Hengel's views (a conservative Christian himself, I read), that his take on Jesus' burial is "now widely accepted and has become entrenched in scholarly literature."

Monette seems to be wrong. Ehrman read drafts of Magness' article; she explicitly thanks him for providing usefull suggestions. Magness simply states that she believes Joseph of Arimathea put Jesus in a familytomb; she does not explain why she finds it likely that a Sanhedrin-member would put an executed man, condemned by him, in his family-tomb - the place where the bones of his parents and other relatives are resting (imagine, only for a split second: you've got a familygrave, where your parents and grantparents are resting. You are a respected member of your society; therefore, you're a local judge on the local court for religious issues. You condemn a man to death, and hand him ovdr to the Romans; then you put his dead body in your family-grave. What would the neighbours say? Your wife, your cousins? They would be outraged). She also ignores the conclusions of McCane, who she frequently refers to, yet in such a way that she suggests he's actually supporting her. In contrast, Ehrman explains why it is unlikely that a Sanhedrin-member would put the body of an executed criminal into a (his)(family)tomb. He's not ignoring "any evidence that proves his theory to be incorrect" - which, by the way, is that we do not know what happened to Jesus' body. But that point seems to be missed by Ehrman's critics. Instead, they focus, again, on the Gospel-accounts, since this is what they know, and this is what they belief in. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:09, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

"a Sanhedrin-member would put an executed man, condemned by him" Where did you conclude that Joseph condemned Jesus? The all-too brief narrative about Joseph of Arimathea states: "Joseph of Arimathea was "a respected member of the council, who was also himself looking for the kingdom of God"; Luke 23:50–56 adds that he "had not consented to their decision and action". "Dimadick (talk) 12:31, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Ehrman (2014), How Jesus Became God:

Joseph’s identification as a respected member of the Sanhedrin should immediately raise questions. Mark himself said that at Jesus’s trial, which took place the previous evening, the “whole council” of the Sanhedrin (not just some or most of them—but all of them) tried to find evidence “against Jesus to put him to death” (14:55). At the end of this trial, because of Jesus’s statement that he was the Son of God (14:62), “they all condemned him as deserving death"(14:64). In other words, according to Mark, this unknown person, Joseph, was one of the people who had called for Jesus’s death just the night before he was crucified.

Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:24, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Joshua, shall I quote other apologists back in turn? No, because we must not fall into the trap of arguing over what we believe is true. That is pov and not valid for determining what goes into this article. Move past confirmation bias. It's the only way to produce a genuinely neutral text. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:06, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Undue emphasis on scepticism

I do not see any answers to my questions concerning neutrality. On my user page is a short essay on 6 steps that I personally take to neutralize bias. I don't see evidence of such effort here. Do you claim these sections represent your best efforts at neutrality? Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:49, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

"there are 5 paragraphs of skepticism, and one of support; the next section has 3 on skepticism and one - again Wright as if he is all there is - in support of the traditional view." We could extend the text on the skepticism, but I don't see why we devote some much space to the fringe "traditional" view. It has little to no credibility, and little notable support. Dimadick (talk) 12:35, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I have to be fair: there's more from the (Protestant) sceptics (former believers) then from the (Protestant) believers. But then, what do you call "majority"? What about WP:UNDUE? How many apologists are we going to summarize? How representative are Gary Gabermas and Craig Evans? Habermas is a pseudo-scholar, according to Price. Evans has repeatedly argued for the reliability of the entombment & empty tomb stories; how representative is he? (Ehrman regards him highly!) Some of his writings:

• Jewish Burial Traditions and the Resurrection of Jesus (2005)
• Getting the Burial Traditions and Evidences Right (2014), in Michael F. Bird et al. How God Became Jesus; Ehrman has responded to thos essay specifically;
• The Resurrection of Jesus in the Light of Jewish Burial Practices (2016)

I'll read this, with the question in mind: how does Evans explain the likelihood of a Sanhedrin-member placing the body of a convicted person in a tomb? NB: responses from Ehrman. Be also aware what the apologetics are arguing against: Jesus' body not being buried at all (Cossan), or Jesus' body not being entombed, but put in a common grave (Hengel, McCane, Ehrman). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 08:05, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

"How many apologists are we going to summarize?" Preferrably none. Since when are apologists reliable sources with a reputation for fact-checking? Dimadick (talk) 12:38, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

"Habermas is a pseudo-scholar, according to Price." No surprise there. Gary Habermas is part of the faculty in Liberty University, whose mission statement is "training Champions for Christ". "Liberty University is a conservative Evangelical college which is reflected in its honor code and other policies. The university teaches creationism alongside the science of evolutionary biology." The university has had a history involving nepotism, racism, and sex scandals. Typical of Christian organizations. Dimadick (talk) 12:46, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Dimadick This doesn't present much of an argument for your neutrality does it? Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:58, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan Yes please, do be fair. That's all I am actually asking. Robert Price is fringe. Using him to discredit anyone else is anything but fair. He is a biased source. So is Habermas - have I ever said otherwise? But Christian apologists are not the only apologists in this article. By definition, an apologist is someone who offers an argument in defense of something controversial. That is Ehrman - and Price - and others in this article. They offer a defense of a point of view. They do not simply assess historical sources. Yet you keep referencing them as if you don't recognize them as apologists. Dimadick asks How many apologists are we going to summarize?" Preferrably none. and I agree. Neutrality requires removing all the apologists - not just the Christian ones.

Joshua, you and the others responding here keep evaluating these theories and what you think is true or not, writing that into the article using apologists that agree with you as support. This article has become a soapbox for your views. That is not WP policy and you know that. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:57, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

You are not new to Wikipedia. We never use "neutral sources", per the policy that biased or opinionated sources are both allowed and necessary. But our job as editors requires us to keep in mind the policy on Fringe theories. Any idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in their particular field is defined as "fringe", and should not be given prominence in an article. Saying "x idea" was supported by professor Smith or archaeologist Jones is never enough for inclusion in an article. First, we have to determine the background and qualifications of these people, and the support which these ideas have in their field. We even cite examples of "scholarly" journals which should be avoided, including fundamentalist publications by the Creation Research Society. That a pseudo-scholar like Habermas supports biblical literalism should invalidate him as a source. And anyone working for Liberty University is tainted by association with the former president of that university, Jerry Falwell Jr.. Dimadick (talk) 20:28, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Reading Evans now (2016, see above; a blog post), in which he writes "Josephus also states that those executed by crucifixion were 'buried before sunset' [...] what we have here is fully consistent with what we see in the Gospels: The Romans crucify Jesus and two other men and the Jews bury them" - after sunset... Not what I call "fully consistent." In the same post Evsnz writes "the remains of most of those crucified were from the lower classes and so would not have been placed in ossuaries." This begs the question why this would not have happened with Jesus. Evans ignores the Bible-texts, and evades the questions which are answered by the authors he opposes. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 21:05, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Evans refers to Josephus; so does Casey, but to quite different quotes, about criminals buried at night here. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:48, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan This is just more evaluation of what you think truth is, and that has no place and no value here. Do you really think you are qualified to determine anything about "truth" beyond a personal belief? Do you really think you have studied enough to evaluate a PhD's work in their own fields? Have you read the original texts, in Greek, do you understand the difficulties of translation and the nuances of Aramaic influences and Hebrew ones? Do you know the historical documents, their philology, graphology, and archaeology, and are you up on all the recent studies on oral history that contribute to understanding these writings as ancient documents? Do you really think your analytical skills, logical reasoning, and your understanding of causation, context and argumentation are up to more than just another personal opinion based on someone else's work?

We read the people who do these things. We don't do them.

We don't evaluate the truth of their work. We publish what they say, and what others say about the quality of their work, but we don't publish our own evaluations.

We can sit here and write back and forth evaluating what we think of Evans and Habermas, and what we think of Ehrman and Price. We can bring references that argue with one and against another and it all has no value at all. It's a complete waste of time. None of it has any place on WP.

All of this, the totality of your responses here, all prove what I have said: this article has become a soapbox for personal opinion of what you personally think is true. It is not neutral. You can never claim true neutrality until you are willing to give equal space to critics. It isn't scholarly. It's apologetic. It isn't a good article. It's one of the worst things I've run across on WP and I spend all my time redoing badly done articles. This one just keeps getting worse. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:41, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Biased sources are allowed as long as they share your bias? Any idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in their particular field is defined as "fringe", and should not be given prominence in an article. I agree 100%. Please do follow that. There are several of those being put forth in this article.

Yes, do vet the authors here. Habermas got his Doctor of Philosophy degree from Michigan State University after getting his master's from the University of Detroit. He is no pseudo-scholar. Yes, he works at Liberty now, and no I don't like them either, but the whole idea of being "tainted by association" is Victorian. Associating with straight people doesn't prove I am straight; associating with LGBTQ doesn't prove I'm gay. Habermas has specialized in cataloging trends among scholars who study topics pertaining to the historical Jesus and New Testament studies. He is not a biblical literalist. He does support a literal resurrection. He doesn't think that because he believes in literal interpretation, he thinks it because he genuinely thinks the history supports it. I can have no more than a personal opinion on whether or not he is right - nor can you.

But I am happy to exclude him from this article completely, just because you object, in an effort to establish good faith. I would like to see a good faith gesture in response. Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:02, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I think I'm qualified to evaluate the value of Evans assertions. I don't need a PhD to understand that Josephus is writing about burials before sunset, whereas Mark and Matthew clearly state that Joseph went to Pilatus after sunset. I also don't need a PhD to understand that Evans is selectively qouting Josephus, when Casey quotes other passages from josephus:

The general situation was sufficient for Josephus to comment on the end of a biblical thief, 'And after being immediately put to death, he was given at night thr dishonourable burial proper to the condemned' (Jos. Ant. V, 44). Somewhat similarly, he says of anyone who has been stoned to death for blaspheming God, 'let him be hung during the day, and let him be buried dishonourably and secretly (Jos. Ant. IV, 202).'

We're having this discussion because the tomb-narratives are widely doubted by scholars. That may be "controversial" for Evangelicals, but it is a widely held scholarly opinion, as acknowledged by Magness. It's not a new discussion either; Brown, writing in 1973, already refers to authors who argue that Jesus was buried in a common grave (unfortunately, he does not give sources), so Hengel obviously wasn't new or oroginal in his assertions.

From the few things I've read now, I see the following views emerge:

• The Gospel-stories are problematic, and

• Jesus was buried in a common grave;
• Jesus was entombed by Joseph/a servant of Joseph/the Sanhedrin/the Jerusalem Jewish community in a tomb reserved for criminals;
• Jesus' body was left on the cross to rot away; his bodily remains were thrown at a yunkyard;
• We don't know what happened to Jesus' body (Ehrman);

• The Gospel-stories are in line with archaeological and textual evidence, and Jesus was entombed by Josephus, either in a new tomb, his familytomb (Magness), or a tomb for criminals.

Basically, most of these options are mentioned in the article. I think that Evans can be mentioned, but with care and in context. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 07:24, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

From what I know, I'll agree that New Testament scholars may "often train as historians", but the problem is that some of the stuff you can get published as an NT scholar (in theological journals) would basically be laughed or booed off the stage if presented to a roomful of historians. That you even have such a thing as inerrantism in NT scholarship is indicative of the difference (because inerrantism is a downright anti-historical concept). I agree that not all of NT scholarship necessarily suffers from this problem, but it needs to be factored in when questions of "scholarly consensus" among NT scholars is cited. It simply has to be remembered that a consensus among NT scholars has at least some aspects of a consensus among theologians and is thus not directly equivalent to a consensus among historians, archaeologists or other academic fields. The problem is that such an adjustment would probably run counter to both Wikipedia policy on neutrality and fringe views, because the overwhelming majority of NT scholars are theologians and professing Christians (as the minority who aren't will be quick to point out). This is again a rather unsurprising consequence of both the nature of the field of study (believers are basically more likely to take up the study of their faith) and its tight connection to theology (I can't think of that many NT studies institutions which aren't run by Theology departments). Being that closely connected to theology also means that issues of controversy quickly becomes issues of faith and orthodoxy to a degree rarely found in other academic disciplines. Mojowiha (talk) 20:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Quoted by tgeorgescu (talk) 07:28, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Well tgeorgescu I don't know who Mojowiha is, and I don't know why he should be referenced as any kind of an authority, but allow me to reference a book from an actual PhD: ...sometimes the historian is rightly suspicious of sources. But this suspicion must be balanced by suspicion of the historian towards their own biases. A source may see things wrongly because of bias, but it is also possible that a source sees things rightly, but the historian may be blocked from realizing this because of their own bias. Assuming that anyone with faith is unable to set biases aside - while also assuming that secular people are automatically more unbiased - demonstrates bias. Men are not automatically more unbiased than women just because there is such a thing as a feminist perspective. Whites are not inherently more unbiased than blacks or native Americans just because blacks and native Americans have a perspective white's don't. I personally have 6 practices for neutralizing bias that have become habits. I have written them out on my user page. I am not seeing evidence of the same kind of commitment from anything that has been written here so far. I see POV being reinforced by more POV.

In his book, Marsden argues against Christian scholars using anything but the standards of argument and evidence used by everyone with a variety of viewpoints. Otherwise, he says social location - religion, gender, ethnicity - will affect perspective. First, he says, it's important to acknowledge that these social standings will not impact everything, but there are at least three ways in which a Christian perspective may impact conclusions. There is no Christian mathematics or Jewish photosynthesis, but when it comes to interpreting significance, a Christian perspective will matter. For example, there is no Catholic economics, but there is a Catholic view of economic justice. Second, Christian views are not unique and are often shared by others. Third there are many types of Christians. I, for example, am not an evangelical. The above polemic does not apply to me. Nor does it apply to many Christian historians.

References

Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:08, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Actually, what Mark 15:42 says is that it was evening, and the problem here is that you are giving that a modern definition. In Greek, it is the genitive feminine singular form of the adjective opsias. It means afternoon, or late in the day, as in after 3. In the Second Commonwealth when the calendar became a lunar-solar, the year began with the autumn and the day began with the sunset... in the tannaitic literature the evening precedes the day. If it had already been after dark, it would have been the next day, the Sabbath and the start of Passover, and they would have been required to go home and rest. Mark says it was preparation day for the Sabbath. Matthew 27:57 uses the same Greek adjective. Luke 23:54 says it was Preparation (Paraskeuēs) Day - the day before the Sabbath. That means they all say it was before sunset.

Your statement that Mark and Matthew clearly state that Joseph went to Pilatus after sunset is simply wrong. It demonstrates the lack of qualification. But even if you were fully qualified, it is not WP policy for you to write what you think is "truth".

If Josephus is correct in his picture of all first century crucifixions as criminal/political, which seems likely, it is not evidence of what was done with Jesus' body. Provincial officials had choices. Many bodies were left to rot on their crosses. Animals no doubt ate them. However, there are no texts from the ancient world stating that the crucified were ever buried in shallow graves. There are texts that mention mass graves, but they contain no indication of carelessness in their burial that would lead to those bodies being dug up by animals. There is no mention of an open pit in any Roman text. It is an extremely unlikely scenario considering Jewish sensibilities of the time. There are a number of texts showing the bodies of the dead were buried by family or friends. The archaeological evidence from Yehohanan proves that crucified men were occasionally buried. Those texts show that the narrative of Joseph of Arimethaea's burial of Jesus would be perfectly comprehensible to a Greco-Roman reader of the gospels and historically credible.

Is any of this mentioned in the article?

References

Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:07, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

"The archaeological evidence from Yehohanan..." What is this. Never heard of such a place?? Thank you, warshy ^(¥¥) 18:33, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Not a place, a person that was crucified and afterwards buried in a tomb. ; ; Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:24, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

References

"This begs the question why this would not have happened with Jesus." Why do you assume that Jesus was part of the lower class? While the gospels do not describe his economic status, his genealogy describes him as a member of the Davidic line, which seemed to have been part of the upper classes. His father Joseph is described as a Tektōn in the Gospels, an artisan or craftsman of some type. Dimadick (talk) 12:11, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

You'd suggest that Jesus'family had the means to afford a burial tomb? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 17:56, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

I do not assume Jesus was poor, but growing up in Nazareth implies it. Nazareth was very small and exceedingly poor. Even if, as a descendent of David, he might have been considered "upper class" at one time, by the first century the only royalty recognized was the Hasmonean dynasty established by the Romans. Yes, Jesus' father was probably a stone mason or a carpenter, but they were not well off generally, and then Joseph disappears from the record, indicating he probably died, leaving his family economically challenged. But this has nothing to do with whether or not Joseph of Arimethaea offered his tomb. Economic status would not have been a factor in that. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:19, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for enlightening me; I was unaware of this peculiarity of the use of the term "evening" in the Bible. Obviously Bible-translations can't be taken on face-value, as I did here, though it doesn't take a PhD-research to find this out.

The Josephus-before-sunset argument is used by quite a lot of authors, as is Yehohanan. It could be mentioned as such: "A number of authors argue, contra Crossan ...." (and other authors; this idea seems to go back to at least 1847). Likewise the option that Jesus was put in a common tomb for criminals; the option that the burial/entombment and the empty tomb stories are two independent narratives, which developed over time, apart from the appearance-to-Peter tradition; and Ehrman's conclusion that we simply don't know what happened to Jesus' body. In condensed form; an extensive treatment is better suited for Burial and empty tomb of Jesus. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:47, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

Joshua, translation of anything from any language to another is always filled with difficulties, but that is not a peculiarity of the Bible. It is a peculiarity of language. In this case, though, it isn't translation so much as how the Jewish people created their calendars that's caused this issue for you. That the Jewish people of the first century had a lunar calendar where the day began at sunset isn't really an 'argument' people use. It's a simple fact.

I agree about not having an extensive treatment, and I think that means cutting your five paragraphs down and adding in some discussion of actual evidence. Maybe reference someone who is not an apologist for your pov. Reference those "real historians". Jenhawk777 (talk) 07:26, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

DO not merge Empty Tomb of Jesus and Burial of Jesus!

Will whoever merged these two articles please demerge them - there was no discussion that I'm aware of for this major move.Achar Sva (talk) 13:04, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Already done. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:06, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Thanks mate :) Achar Sva (talk) 00:36, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Let's use WP standards

I have appealed to good faith editing on this talk page repeatedly. I have endeavored not to engage, and to engage, and three times we have simply ground to a halt. This article is not neutral. It has become a soapbox for one point of view. It does not meet WP standards.

Entombment and empty tomb Burial

1. Early on, the stories about the empty tomb were met with scepcis. is a half truth. The other half should be mentioned for neutrality, or this statement should be removed.
2. Already in the first century AD, critics of the early Christian community asserted that Jesus had not really died on the cross. Other suggestions are that the body was stolen from the grave, or was lost due to naturally causes. First, none of this is cited. I do agree the theories mentioned should be included as critiques of the traditional view, but for neutrality, it should include two sentences with the critique of the critique. Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints ... the majority view should be explained sufficiently to let the reader understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained. This has not been done here.
3. Critical scholars have argued that there are historical discrepancies in the stories of the burial and the empty tomb. This is a rabbit hole that would be a digression in this article, which I guess you know, since it isn't explained. But WP says don't raise a topic then fail to explain it. That's a good way to confuse the reader.
4. Martin Hengel argued that Jesus was buried in disgrace as an executed criminal who died a shameful death This reference has no page number, making this uncheckable, and I think it is not a fully accurate summary of what is a view which is "now widely accepted and has become entrenched in scholarly literature. which also has no page number. This is full of [3] which should be removed according to summary style.
5. John Dominic Crossan famously stated that Jesus' body was thrown into a shallow grave and eaten by dogs, the bones scattered. Puffery [4] and no critique. There should at least be a nod to historical evidence somewhere, since there are no Roman texts supporting this.
6. The entire next paragraph is Ehrman. Presenting this requires that how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding aspects of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained. They aren't.
7. British New Testament scholar Maurice Casey took a middle position on the matter: he argues that Jesus was indeed buried by Joseph of Arimathea, but in a tomb for criminals owned by the Sanhedrin. He therefore rejects the empty tomb narrative as legendary. A middle position on what? Only one position has been presented. This also has no page number.
8. A number of Christian authors have rejected the criticisms, taking the Gospel-accounts to be historically reliable. Raymond E. Brown, writing in 1973,... This has contentious labels - other writers are not characterized by their beliefs: [5]; it contains editorializing saying that their position is based on their belief in the gospel accounts rather than historical evidence: [6]; no dates are referenced for any other writer, so this stands out, as if it is an attempt to convey doubt: [7] Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:56, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

You misunderstand WP:NPOV; it's not about finding a compromise between academia and religion. It is about accurately representing what academics say about religion. Jeppiz (talk) 18:07, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

The more serious problem in your arguments above is that you continously imply we should find some middle road between faith and scholarship. We should not, as that would be the opposite of WP:NPOV. I know many people misunderstand NPOV and think it's about meeting halfway. It is not; it's about representing the most reliable sources as accurately as possible. Jeppiz (talk) 09:52, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Jeppiz This is so off the wall it almost doesn't deserve answering. Where did I suggest any such thing as a compromise between academia and religion? I have done nothing but argue continuously for a better representation of the academics. I have asked repeatedly that all of the most reliable sources be represented accurately according to WP policies. Are you assuming that all Christian academics, and anything published by a Christian publishing house, are by definition unreliable sources that deserve to be excluded? Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:45, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

The Bibles, both the Hebrew one and the Greek one, are, in my view, largely a collection of religious myths. However, these two collections of religious myths have been also fundamental for the development of Western civilization. They have been in fact so fundamental, that they have been considered factual historical truth for most of the history of this Western civilization. Up to the so-called modern Enlightenment period (roughly from the second half of the 17th century and up to the great French Revolution of 1789), no one ever dared to even start to question the historical truth of these religious narratives or myths. Wikipedia tries to continue in the digital age the rationalistic traditions of the Encyclopedists of the Enlightenment period, who did question the historical truth of these myths. By the second half of the 20th century, Western thought and philosophy got close to almost completely denying there was any historical truth in them. These are the sources that open this article. However, this rationalistic turn of civilization never struck any deep roots in the popular minds of the countries in the Western world. The majority of the populations in these countries, including in the United States, are still fundamentally religious. They are still brought up to think that the Bible they read and study in their own native language is the absolute, final truth in the world. As such, by and large they are still definitely believed to contain the the factual historical truth of the ancient periods in which they were collected and put together. And so, the thin veneer of rationalism achieved by Western civilization by the second half of the 20th century is about to be wiped out by a new wave of religious fundamentalism. This current discussion here is just one of the harbingers of this new wave that is surging and is about to overwhelm Western civilization as we know it, I feel. warshy ^(¥¥) 23:14, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia's neutrality is often misunderstood as giving equal validity to mainstream and fringe views Quoted from WP:NOTNEUTRAL. tgeorgescu (talk) 00:05, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

tgeorgescu I don't mean to be rude, but I don't care what your personal views are. They shouldn't matter to a WP article, and an article's talk page is a really inappropriate place to be discussing them. I only care if you can't keep your beliefs out of a Wikipedia article. I am not a fundamentalist, and this sad romanticized fairy tale of the threat to rationalism posed by religious faith is really only a threat to the neutrality of this article. Jenhawk777 (talk) 04:45, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

To reply to some of your specific points instead of arguing about methodology:

• • • "The other half should be mentioned for neutrality" For anything to be mentioned, there should be sources about it. Do you have anything specific in mind?
    • "it should include two sentences with the critique of the critique" I am far from certain that the article should present different viewpoints in the style of a debate. But if you can source different arguments, go ahead with the changes.
    • "There should at least be a nod to historical evidence somewhere, since there are no Roman texts supporting this." Sure, as long as you can find a modern source analyzing the burial practices of this era.
    • "This has contentious labels - other writers are not characterized by their beliefs" If you want to argue about policy, keep in mind that the policy on biased or opinionated sources requires us to use these "contentious" labels.: "Bias may make in-text attribution appropriate, as in "The feminist Betty Friedan wrote that..."; "According to the Marxist economist Harry Magdoff..."; or "The conservative Republican presidential candidate Barry Goldwater believed that..."." In other words, sources with a pro-Christian bias should be identified in the text. Dimadick (talk) 05:09, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

    • Thank you for a reasoned response. Yes, of course there should be sources. I am off-line for about a week due to RL, but I will come back with those edits.
    • Assuming you can establish a Christian bias, then I agree. Some are, some aren't. That should mean that secular apologists are also described accordingly, right? Jenhawk777 (talk) 05:50, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Response by JJ:

• 1: what is "the other half" which is not mentioned? Note that we have a long section with a summary of the Bible-stories, without critical remarks; these are provided later.

• That it was also met with belief. A summary of the stories is background. But critical remarks should probably be moved there. Critical remarks should be kept together with what they are being critical of. Expecting sophomores to keep straight what goes with what is apparently unreasonable. That's why responses should also be included in the same places.

• 2: no, it's not sourced; it's a simple summary, with links. Do you doubt the existence of these 'theories'? The "critique of the critique" can be found at the respective articles.

• Summaries are what we do and they all need sources. If the critique is in the respective articles, it should be in the summary here. I do not doubt the existence of these theories I doubt the accuracy of your summary of them. That Jesus's crucifixion was political/criminal - as a troublemaker - is generally accepted, but "buried in disgrace" and "died a shameful death" are over the top non-neutral claims I do not think are universally agreed upon.

• 3: this sentence introduces the criticisms, which are the explainrd.

• No it doesn't. There are no historical discrepancies discussed or even mentioned, there are only theories with no reference to their possible historicity at all. As one example, the fact that there are no Roman texts supporting Crossan's suggestion should be mentioned if "historical discrepancies" are going to be discussed.

• 4: Hengel's argument is probably indeed summarized inadequately, and may need improvement; a pagenumber could be added, but since it is a direct quote, it is easy verifiable.

• I don't doubt it's a quote, but it's a quote that shouldn't be quoted on WP because of the bias it contains. It should be summarized as one part of the discussion of how Jesus was buried.

• 5: "famously" is not puffery; his remarks have made an impression, to which many authors have responded. This is a summary, and work in progress.

• I suggest you reread WP guidelines.

• 6: Ehrman possibly occupies too much space.
• 7: "Middle position" is unclear indeed; it could be removed.
• 8: when a person is writing in defense of his faith, it is relevant to know this. Though I must say thatCraig Evans does not seem to offer anything that's not also mentioned by other scholars. 1973 is mentioned for Brown because he refers to theories on Jesus being buried in a common grave, which means that Crossan's statements were not novel. That part has to be elaborated; Allison (if I remember correctly) mentions a number of sources, the earliest being from 1847. That Brown s responding to such theories was not mentioned in the original sentence. And he seems to have changed his mind on this, arguing for a common grave in the 1980s or 1990s. This is also not mentioned.

• Who is writing in defense of their faith? You? I think so. That's the problem here. You mean Evans though don't you? So exclude him, I don't care. There are certainly plenty of scholars out there who don't reflect a bias of either kind.

The basic point still is that the stories (plural) of the entombment of Jesus raise questions, and that his entombment, or burial, was not a honourable burial with the normal mourning procedures and rituals, but a disgracefull one. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:50, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

• The stories do raise questions and those questions should all be mentioned and examined in the light of what good sources say about historical facts. Please. Do that. It was certainly not a normal burial - though what a normal burial for a crucified man was is the debate, isn't it? I don't find majority support for the idea that his burial was disgraceful.

• For the last month I have left you to work on this article without interference. I have never reverted you once. I have dealt with everyone here in good faith, and with good manners, but the requirements of the encyclopedia are beginning to outweigh all my other concerns. It seems to me as if you have a divided mind on this, that part of you wants to measure up to WP standards and the other part just wants to preach. I suggest squelching your inner preacher. I think you are capable of producing a quality text here if you will do that. I have duties in RL right now, but I am hoping to come back to an article that reflects your true abilities and no longer needs input from me. I have enough on my plate elsewhere. Please just fix this to meet WP standards. For the good of the encyclopedia. That's why we're here. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:37, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Jenhawk777, let me get this right: You dig up comments I wrote almost two years ago merely to comment it "almost doesn't deserve answering". Then you go on to write you have enough on your plate and don't want this article to need your input. Good news, it doesn't. Move on.
As for the article, it makes it very clear already what the Christian belief about the resurrection is, so that aspect is not missing. Jeppiz (talk) 10:33, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

I didn't dig up anything. Your comments were posted yesterday, but I see now that you must have been being quoted by tgeorgescu who is the one who posted them. Why he feels the need to quote others, I don't know, but I apologize for misunderstanding and thinking it was you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 16:58, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Jenhawk777, my apologies in return, I didn't see my old comments had been cited earlier yesterday. Jeppiz (talk) 17:09, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

No problem. Jenhawk777 (talk) 18:41, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Joshua Jonathan I think your changes to the burial section are really well done. I fixed a few typos, added a short paragraph on historical texts, and one to the empty tomb section, and otherwise, I think it's good. Thank you for your work and for your commitment to a quality encyclopedia. Bravo. Jenhawk777 (talk) 14:17, 27 December 2022 (UTC)