Peter Kirby

While an understanding of what I believe could contribute to a good ol' hermeneutic of suspicion along your lines (or indeed my "refusal" to make what I believe the point), what should be written here does not depend on the writer's beliefs. It is no fallacy to keep the focus on the subject rather than the personalities involved.

kind regards,
Peter Kirby

No Robots

I would still assert that your beliefs condition your synthesis of the material.

Peter Kirby

Probably. But you're looking for just one source of bias, when there are many. The desire to make the encyclopedia look good is another, the desire to be clear and understandable is a third, and the desire to produce a document that passes muster with widely disparate groups is a fourth. I am riddled with biases, yet you think that this one (a desire to let my beliefs shine through) is trump.

kind regards,
Peter Kirby

Koyaanisqatsi

Then you, like anyone, will be able to critique it accordingly, once it's written. Fair enough?

Peter, I would only add (or like to see added) some historical juxtaposition of Roman "norms" at the alleged time of Jesus' passion narrative; such things as whether or not they allowed for the Sanhedrin to handle "jewish" concerns on their own (the much ballyhooed notion that they couldn't have just stoned Jesus to death as they supposedly tried twice before according to Gospel accounts); how such a local popular Rabbi would likely be processed if, indeed, he had committed some sort of Roman crime; etc. The day to day occupation under Pilate, in essence.

This is not just a "jewish" or "christian" story, after all; there are many errant exonerations of the Romans (particularly Pilate) that would be integral toward a synthesis of what is myth and what is possibly "true," IMO, both in light of the dating of Mark (the creator of the passion narrative) and in the more general sense of "the victors write the history" under Constantine, or the like.

Perhaps some general reflection on Sanhedrin allowances and "governing" practices as well would put a better perspective on the whole "feel" of that time, considering there were many other non-orthodox sects in the region?

My .02

No Robots

Indeed. Content is king.

Peter Kirby

Suppose everything about "historical Jesus" is split out to a page of that name, including the questions of the existence of such a creature, his diet, habitat, ethnography, linguistics, provenance, chronology, etc.

What's left to go on the Jesus article?

kind regards,
Peter Kirby

Vorkosigan

Methodology. Presuppositions. History of HJ research. Concepts of the HJ. Well-known HJ scholars.

Peter Kirby

Hmmm...that would be beautiful for the "Historical Jesus" page, but what about the page on Jesus itself?

Remember, the "historical Jesus" did not exist until the 18th century at the earliest...that means we have 17 centuries of just Jesus to represent on the Jesus page...

Or, are you saying that the Jesus page should be primarily coloured by the researches of HJ scholars?

kind regards,
Peter Kirby

No Robots

Um, the mythical Jesus?

No Robots

And remember that the "heliocentric solar system" has only been around for about the same length of time, so an article on "solar system" would only cover up to that time, unless the article were primarily coloured by the researches of heliocentric scholars.