Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:12, 28 July 2010

Christianity: Jesus B‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is within the scope of the Jesus work group, a task force which is currently considered to be inactive.

Historicity of Jesus received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

The contents of Talk:Historicity of Jesus/Merged content 2005 were merged into Historicity of Jesus in 2005. The page is now a redirect to here. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history.

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Talk:Historicity of Jesus

Pauline Epistles

Alvar Ellegård finds the existence of Jesus, as described by the Church, disproved by the fact that Paul the Apostle, by many regarded as the founder of the Church, knew nothing of the existence of Jesus as his contemporary.

The paragraph above was deleted by Roy Brumback with this comment: A very weak argument from silence, if that, as Paul also says Jesus was killed in "this age" the age Paul lived in. Plus this guy's a quack if he used argument Paul wasn't aware of written gospels.

The evidence suggests that there were no written gospels when Paul was writing! Where did you get that idea John D. Croft (talk) 16:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It is a common idea, based on that Paul does not use text from the gospels in his letters. Would the other way round be more logical? Why? St.Trond (talk) 17:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

At the time Paul was writing, eyewitness accounts held an oral tradition. It was only when these eyewitnesses started dying and that rival versions of of Jesus teachings started circulating that "authoritative acccounts" started to be documented. Mark's gospel for instance seems to have been written from the point of view of reconciling the Jewish Nazarenes and the Pauline Christians. Matthew. written in Aramaic, was originally a Jewish Nazarene text, with later Greek additions. These additiions are in clear response to Yochanan ben Zakkai's teachings on Christ not being Messiah. John D. Croft (talk) 14:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

According to the same Bible, Paul also claimed that God was god of "this age". According to Martin Luther's Bible "this age" is "dieser Welt", i.e. this world which is the opposite of the afterlife. If no better arguments can be provided, then the paragraph on top here should be returned to the article. St.Trond (talk) 11:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was already established that we weren't going to include every non-specialist Jesus mythicist in this article? Anyway, the quote removed from the article doesn't make very much sense. The Church describes Jesus more so on the Gospels (which in many cases are independent witnesses from Paul) as opposed to Paul's references. How then would it follow that Paul's distance from the historical Jesus would render the Gospels "disproved"? Secondly, on what argument did Paul know "nothing of the existence of Jesus as hist contemporary"? Paul shows a continuity with Jesus' contemporary apostles (e.g. 1 Corinthians 15 or his disputes with Peter in Galatians and Acts, etc) as well as Jesus' family including James the brother of Jesus (see Matthew 13:55, Mark 6:3, Galatians 1:19, James 1:1, Josephus' Jewish Antiquities (20.9.1)). Finally, Ellegard's statement is based on an idiosyncratic thesis regarding Paul and the DSS (probably just as outrageous as that of Barbara Thiering.--Ari89 (talk) 14:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

It's also false. Paul clearly considers Jesus to have been a real historical figure, "born of a woman, born under the law." The quoted statement betrays ignorance on the part of the one saying it. Carlo (talk) 19:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Alvar Ellegård only found it disproved that Jesus and Paul were contemporaries. "Born of a woman" (what do you quote?) indicates that some may have considered Jesus being a myth at that time. There is no continuity, as is claimed by Ari89 with the apostles, with Jesus. Galatians 1:19: In the biblical context the "Lord's brother" is likely to be the "Lord's friar". St.Trond (talk) 15:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

No, the continuity is there - multiply attested to by Christian and non-Christian sources. You are going to have to do better than pleading ignorance to include every obscure and implausible Christ-myth argument.--Ari89 (talk) 16:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Alvar Ellegård also points to the title of the contemporaries of Jesus: "disciples" or pupils. The contemporaries of Paul are "apostles" or missionaries. How do you prove a continuity? St.Trond (talk) 17:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Non-experts say a lot of stupid things, don't they? --Ari89 (talk) 11:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Galatians 4:4. And with all due respect, I'm not sure that someone who doesn't recognize such a well-known and familiar Pauline statement should be holding forth on the subject of Paul's understanding of Jesus. Carlo (talk) 18:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Since it is Paul who said it, and the gospels were written only after Paul, we can agree upon that the "Jesus is a myth" tradition is as old as the tradition of the Church. Thus "Jesus is a myth" deserves the same amount of attention by for example this forum as the Church's tradition. St.Trond (talk) 20:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

How in the world do you get "Jesus is a myth" from "Born of a woman" which proves that Paul believed in the existence of a real human being called "Jesus" and contradicts the Jesus-mythists? Carlo (talk) 22:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

How do you get contemporary from "born of a woman"? St.Trond (talk) 05:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, aside from the problems of his arguments as far as I can tell the dude is an English professor and not a historian or Bible scholar. We already allow Wells and Doherty just to be fair to the mythicists, but other than them we should not be including the opinions of every non historian myther. Christopher Hitchens is for instance also a myther I believe but citing his opinions or arguments for his case would be equally as silly as citing some random English professor because neither one is a historian and this article is about the historical question of Jesus's existence. Other than the few amateur mythers we already cite the only non historians we cite are usually theologians saying what historians believe about the issue in general.Roy Brumback (talk) 17:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Roy, I think you are right. The "historicity" of Jesus, needs be needs to be written mainly from a historical perspective. Ret.Prof (talk) 19:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Would it help to have one article written purely from Biblical source material, and a separate article written purely from non-Biblical source material (secular stuff, not the old Church Fathers) and then simply cross-reference the two? Wdford (talk) 13:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

No because historians use both the "secular" materiel (although calling Josephus a secular historian is a laugh and Tacitus clearly included several religious stories and topics in his works, as did pretty much all ancient historians, so the term secular as it is currently used would probably not really apply to almost all ancient historians) and Biblical documents together in their research on the subject.Roy Brumback (talk) 18:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Does that mean there is no reliable evidence for the existence of Jesus, or for the work he is reported to have undertaken, other than the Bible itself? Wdford (talk) 08:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Not sure how you came to that conclusion. "historians use both the "secular" material and Biblical documents" What you said is basically the opposite of what Roy said. Additionally the term "bible" is semi-arbitrary, as canons vary from sect to sect, and didn't exist when the authors of the gospels were writing. Just because a text ended up being listed in a Cannon centuries later does not mean we should be suspicious of it any more than we should be of other ancient texts. -Andrew c  17:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Andrew. The word "secular" can be a relative term. Scholars need to study critically all material both canonical and non canonical. Please note that canon is not spelled cannon (unless you are talking about a very big gun) - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

"Just because a text ended up being listed in a Cannon centuries later does not mean we should be suspicious of it any more than we should be of other ancient texts"

Any text - modern or ancient - that speak about a man born from a virign and a holly spirit that died and resurected three days after is suspicious to any rational person. Guillermo ,Montevideo,UY (2010-01-19) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.40.169.18 (talk) 20:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

FORMAT

I have been reading this article and found it wanting. The material is good, but the format is terrible. It reads like a hodge podge of different ideas. Does anyone have any ideas on how to improve it? - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Objectivity

This article is greatly in need of an objective (if that is possible) edit. The second paragraph about the supposedly widely held notion that Jesus existed is not only biased but factually inaccurate. In fact, this is one of the most hotly debated topics in Biblical hermeneutics and ought to be addressed immediately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.92.57.11 (talk) 22:09, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

No, it's completely accurate, and if the article is biased, the bias is on the other side, since it names pretty much every scholar who questions Jesus' existence individually, and even those few terribly credentialed. It's a dead issue as far as scholars are concerned. If you can find actual scholars who aren't mentioned, do so. Carlo (talk) 23:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

"this is one of the most hotly debated topics in Biblical hermeneutics" Maybe on Misplaced Pages talk walls, but not in the field of Biblical scholarship. Check the archive talk pages. --Ari89 (talk) 04:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Biblical hermeneutics is not objective at all. It is the interpretation of the Bible alone. St.Trond (talk) 07:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but this article is crap. The last section "Jesus as a Myth" is, as far as I have looked, absolutely horrible. The citations are simply pulp paperback "why you should believe in jesus" kind of books. Jesus as a myth has been held by many well known people, including Richard Dawkins. 128.189.143.20 (talk) 16:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Well known =/= qualified.--60.241.229.55 (talk) 16:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Dawkins was a Professor For The Understanding Of Science at Oxford University, Fellow of New College, as well as a Fellow of the Royal Society--the same society Isaac Newton was president of in the 18th Century! The way you are stating it its like you are implying he is on par with some popular writer whose knowledge of science came off the back of a cereal box.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

No, he is simply saying he isn't an expert in the subject. I'm not sure how much of a myther Dawkins is anyway. Here is an article of his with him arguing Jesus would be an atheist today (snicker), and he seems to implicitly accept him as historical, but even if he's a total myther, so what? I believe Voltaire was partially a myther, but we don't cite him, any more than we cite say Isaac Newton or Einstein, who were not Jesus mythers, or any other non historian or bible scholar. Theologians are cited, but only when asserting what historians think, not what theologians think.Roy Brumback (talk) 01:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

This argument incorrectly assumes there is a clear definition for "Christ Myth Theorist" something that I proven is NOT the case:

Among them were groups which had relations with the Jewish religion, and some of these last came to identify their Saviour-god with the Jewish Messiah, and "created for him a mythical embodiment in a figure bearing, the cult-name "Jesus", derived from a Hebrew word meaning "salvation". Or alternatively, they seized on the reports of an obscure Jewish Holy man bearing this name and arbitrarily attached the "Cult-myth" to him." (Dodd, C. H. (1938) under the heading "Christ-myth Theory" History and the Gospel Manchester University Press pg 17)

"Christ-myth theorists like George A. Wells have argued that, if we ignore the Gospels, which were not yet written at the time of the Epistles of Paul, we can detect in the latter a prior, more transparently mythic concept of Jesus, The Gospels, Wells argued, have left this raw-mythic Jesus behind, making him a half-plausible historical figure of a recent era." (Price, Robert M (1999) "Of Myth and Men A closer look at the originators of the major religions-what did they really say and do?" Free Inquiry magazine Winter, 1999/ 2000 Volume 20, Number 1)

"The theory that Jesus Christ was not a historical character, and that the Gospel records of his life are mainly, if not entirely, of mythological origin." (Pike, Royston (1951) Encyclopaedia of Religion and Religions)

"When Bertrand Russell and Lowes Dickinson toyed with the Christ-myth theory and alternatively suggested that, even if Christ were a historic person, the gospels give us no reliable information about him, they were not representing the direction and outcome of historical inquiry into Christian origins." (Wood, Herbert George (1955) Belief and Unbelief since 1850 Cambridge University Press)

"While all Freethinkers are agreed that the Christ of the New Testament is a myth they are not, as we have seen, and perhaps never will be, fully agreed as to the nature of this myth. Some believe that he is a historical myth; others that he is a pure myth. Some believe that Jesus, a real person, was the germ of this Christ whom subsequent generations gradually evolved; others contend that the man Jesus, as well as the Christ, is wholly a creation of the human imagination." (Remburg, John (1903)The Christ Chapter 9-The Christ a Myth)

As this shows there are different definitions for Christ-myth and even Christ-myth Theory so who fits into that category varies on what definition is used.--BruceGrubb (talk) 13:31, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

But as far as this article goes, the definition of a myther is someone who completely denies the historical existence of Jesus, not someone who thinks he lived but stories about him have become mythologized. The question of who the historical Jesus really was is taken up in the Historical Jesus article, not this one. And what does any of that have to do with whether we should be citing non historians or people talking about what historians conclude? Roy Brumback (talk) 00:22, 4 November 2009 (UTC) '

The definition of "myther" has to be supported by reliable sources and as they say there is the rub--the reliable sources are all over the map and I have two University Presses, Price who has published in many peer reviewed journals on the New Testament, and notable author Remsburg who all have a definition pf "myther" at odds with the "completely denies" one. The reality is by WP:RS you cannot push one definition over another and the reliable sources just do NOT support one definition of "myther" not matter how much we wish they did. Trying to force one definition on the term "myther" when the reliable source do not uniformly support such a definition is POV pushing.--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Just wondering, in what "Peer reviewed journals on the New Testament" does Price publish his Christ myth thesis in? I went on a search this morning totally unrelated to the discussion here and I couldn't find anything in standards such as JBL, Novum Testamentum, JSNT, CBQ, etc. Similarly, they don't seem to be published by anyone reputable. E.g. self-published (Lulu), Amer Atheist Press; Prometheus, etc.Ari89 (talk) 13:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

The comment on Price publishing in "Peer reviewed journals on the New Testament" is to show he is a expert in the field per the WP:RS.

But his thesis hasn't been presented in any peer reviewed journals as far as I can tell.--Ari89 (talk) 02:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

But his position has: "There is not a shred of evidence that a historical character Jesus lived, to give an example, and Christianity is based on narrative fiction of high literary and cathartic quality. On the other hand Christianity is concerned with the narration of things that actually take place in human life." (synopsis) "It is not possible to compare the above with what we have, namely, that there is not a shred of evidence that a historical character Jesus lived." (Fischer, Roland (1994) "On The Story-Telling Imperative That We Have In Mind" Anthropology of Consciousness Dec 1994, Vol. 5, No. 4: 16) That is to date the only peer reviewed journal referenced that makes a direct comment on the issue. It's in the synopsis and the main body and given Drews himself talked about a "Christian conscious" totally relevant.--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

So is it your suggestion Bruce that we include arguments about who Jesus really was, accepting he existed but the story of his life has been mythologized. How then would that be any different from the Historical Jesus article? Notice we don't say the overwhelming majority of scholars conclude the New Testament picture of Jesus is historically correct, only that he really existed and is not completely mythological. I know some of the scholars who conclude he existed also conclude his life story has been mythologized (Crossan for instance). However they would not be consider part of the myther school. Roy Brumback (talk) 21:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Again your statement is based on the false concept that "myther" has a clear definition--something I have shown it does not. Gerrish, B. A. (1975) "Jesus, Myth, and History: Troeltsch's Stand in the "Christ-Myth" Debate" The Journal of Religion, Vol. 55, No. 1 (Jan., 1975), pp. 13-35 expressly states "Should anyone assert that there must have been a historical figure being the gospel, it could only be replied: "We know nothing of this Jesus" (Die Christusmythe 1910 Burns translation pg 19; for another summary of the thesis see pp 285-86)" Here we have a peer reviewed journal effectively stating that Drews did not exclude the possibility of there being a historical Jesus but like his contemporary Remburg felt that the Gospel account was a mythical account that told us nothing of that Jesus. But even here there are conflicts as Haber, Edythe C. (1999) "The Mythic Bulgakov: The Master and Margarita and Arthur Drews's The Christ Myth" The Slavic and East European Journal, Vol. 43, No. 2 (Summer, 1999), pp. 347-360 says the exact opposite. So, even the journal articles have problems.

Melito, Ignatius M. (1964) "The Literary Myth-Makers" The English Journal, Vol. 53, No. 3 (Mar., 1964), pp. 165-169 deals with the very term "Christ Myth" in detail reaffirming that myth in this context is broader than the way the average layman uses it.

John Yungblut in his "Quakerism Of The Future" article shows the problem quite well: "But I also believe that our only recently acquired evolutionary and depth-psychological perspectives, representing highly important continuing revelation, require that I henceforth distinguish between the Jesus of history and the evolving Christ myth. I am using the word “myth” here not in the connotations of legend or poetic fiction, but in a third sense defined by the Webster Dictionary of 1960: “a fabulous narrative founded on some event, especially in the early existence of a people, and embodying their ideas as to their origin, their gods, natural phenomena, etc.”"

This is just a sampling of how the term "myther" and even "Christ Myther" varies. The whole position of "Christ Myth Theory" as Jesus never existed is a WP:SYN with Cherry picking being used to go get around WP:NPOV. The fact is there is nothing to show the concept is even defined consistently even among WP:RS and certainly not by non-scholars.--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I didn't state anything, I asked you a question. What do you want to put in the article? Should it be about whether Jesus existed at all, the current topic, or something closer or identical to the historical Jesus article. Roy Brumback (talk) 00:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Irenaeus for one. The reason that was removed was total nonsense and a violation of WP:NPOV so I am putting it back in.--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I removed the Irenaeus thing for a couple of reasons: 1) It's odd to cite a scholar telling you what Irenaeus said when you can just cite Irenaeus directly. Is there any reason for citing Grant instead of Irenaeus directly? 2) I don't see what the cite has to do with the extra-bible citations of a historical Jesus, since Irenaeus entirely bases his statement on the Gospels, where they say to Jesus "You are not yet fifty years old." Carlo (talk) 14:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I restored it because 1) It's not strange as a scholar (ie reliable source) is required for interpretation per "Characterizing opinions of people's work" in WP:NPOV and 2) it shows that Church fathers were not very careful about checking their facts.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

You're still not answering the question Bruce. As of now this article is about whether Jesus existed or not, not whether stories about him became mythologized. Should we change the focus of the article or not? Irenaeus's reasoning would only be about how old Jesus really was when he died and the time line of this life, not whether he existed or not. Roy Brumback (talk) 18:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually Irenaeus is a problem because there is no way you can fit a 49 year old Jesus in Matthew's born c4 BCE died c36 CE timeline much less Luke's c6 CE to c36 CE timeline. You can't even fit a 40 year old Jesus in that because given there is no year 0 there are only 39 years between c4 BCE and c36 CE. Worse to make Jesus fit Irenaeus happily makes Pontius Pilate governor under Claudius Caesar (41-54) and claiming that this is supported but the gospel and the elders. Yet Luke in 3:1 is quite specific about when Jesus began his ministry around the age of 30: "Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of Ituraea and of the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene" a passage Irenaeus himself references to!

Now Tiberius Caesar started his reign in c14 CE so the 15th year would be c29 CE and as Irenaeus himself points out in Against Heresies Book 2 Chapter 22 paragraph 6:

"Your father Abraham rejoiced to see My day; and he saw it, and was glad," they answered Him, "You are not yet fifty years old, and have You seen Abraham?" Now, such language is fittingly applied to one who has already passed the age of forty, without having as yet reached his fiftieth year, yet is not far from this latter period. But to one who is only thirty years old it would unquestionably be said, "You are not yet forty years old." (the first quote is from John 8:56-57)

Even if we fudge things assuming Luke's age is an approximation and assume 33 years we still have a problem with getting Jesus to 49 something that even Irenaeus must have saw--why else put Pontius Pilate under the wrong Caesar even though Luke is quite specific on the matter? We are left with two conclusions--Irenaeus was lying or he was quoting from variants of the Gospels now lost to us. Yet how many Church father's pointed out this continuity problem and why do they largely ignore it?--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:49, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

It is clear that you have spent a lot of time analyzing these sources and pondering over them; nevertheless, this is all original research. Have you got a reference that connects these apparent inconsistencies and then concludes that Jesus must not have existed?Jstanierm (talk) 18:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

BruceGrubb I think you are assuming too much with a simple statement and your argument is noticeably week. There's no evidence that the Jews who made the statement new Jesus's actual age for instance. Rather than assuming their were variant copies of the New testament or assuming that Irenaeus lied, or that Ireneus miscalculated his age, wouldn't it be simpler to accept the interpretation that the Jews where awe struck that Jesus's wisdom had come to him at such an early age? Most of the wise men at the time probably lived to be a noticealbe ripe old age that Jesus also noticeably was not. Visually, you can tell the difference between a 30 something and a 50 something relatively easily. That could easily expalin the quote in context. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.200.172.227 (talk) 06:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Theologian Vs. Historian

Many times in this article are theologians described as historians(wantonly or not). I have always understood that a Theologian was trained not in the science of history, but rather as an interpreter...TalonX84.152.201.87 (talk) 22:50, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is very misleading. I found myself confused when reading that paragraph and checked up on the author of one of the given sources- http://en.wikipedia.org/F._F._Bruce It says he is a biblical scholar, not a historian. I don't have an account here but I think this part needs editing; I'll leave it to other people as this is likely an important article and I don't know all the rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.119.141 (talk) 00:13, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

No, F._F._Bruce is a historian, note the topics many of his works cover, and the fact that many other historians cite him in their works also. Hardyplants (talk) 08:03, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The theologians cited are simply claiming something about what historians conclude on the issue, not what they themselves conclude. And the historians cited agree with the claim. Roy Brumback (talk) 04:38, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

From the article on F.F. Bruce: "His work New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? is considered a classic in the discipline of Christian apologetics.". That does not sound like a historian to me. Also, theologians indirectly citing historians is not good enough. We need the claims of the historians in question. Despite AGF a reassurance on this talk page by an editor that "the historians cited agree with the claim" is not enough. We need cited sources in the article. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:04, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Your only understand of the subject comes from a short[REDACTED] article on him? Thats rich indeed. Here are two links to look at: and Hardyplants (talk) 09:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I realise that Biblical scholars are granted more leeway in their studies regarding bias than secular historians, and I guess that that is not for Misplaced Pages to change. But my second point still stands regarding the answer to Roy Brumback: Wiki editor assurance that "historians agree with the claim" is not enough, it needs to be sourced. --Saddhiyama (talk) 11:05, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

F.F. Bruce, as well as many other Biblical Scholars, were formally educated classicists and ancient historians. HardyPlants presented a great example above with Macquarie University which plays a very important research role in Biblical studies, yet through the discipline of Ancient History. Similarly, historical Jesus scholars who are generally seen as theologians in many cases are probably the most critical historians you would ever come across.--Ari89 (talk) 17:53, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem with this claim is this point I had which was removed for totally BS reasons: Irenaeus, according to Robert McQueen Grant (Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity, The University of Chicago), not only claimed that Jesus was at least 49 years old when he was crucified in Book 2 Chapter 22 paragraph 6 of Against Heresies but expressly made Pontius Pilate governor under Claudius Caesar (41-54) in paragraph 74 of his Demonstration (Grant, Robert McQueen (1998). Irenaeus of Lyons. Routledge. p. 33. ISBN 0415118379.)(Grant, Robert McQueen (1990). Jesus After the Gospels: The Christ of the Second Century. Westminster John Knox Press. p. 107. ISBN 0664221882.) Grant points out "if he lived to be forty or fifty, the crucifixion had to have take place under Caligula(37-41) or Claudius (41-54)" but explains that "Irenaeus is unduly concerned with his speculative point about ages"Grant, Robert McQueen (1990). Jesus After the Gospels: The Christ of the Second Century. Westminster John Knox Press. p. 107. ISBN 0664221882. (section ends)

Here we see the totally non scientific tactic of ad-hoc speculation to try and salvage data that clearly is at odds with the theory instead of reworking the theory to fit the data. Worst many Theologians and Biblical Scholars do this type of non scientific song and dance all the time to salvage the idea that Jesus as recorded in the Gospels was historical. It is piss poor science! And yet this key point is kept out for total BS reasons because it shows just how sloppy or desperate some of these people are!--BruceGrubb (talk) 13:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

If you don't believe the cites we have, will you believe it from a professionally composed encyclopedia Roy Brumback (talk) 05:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't mean anything. Here is a direct quote from a peer reviewed journal published by no less than than the American Anthropological Association from its synopsis and the main text:

"There is not a shred of evidence that a historical character Jesus lived, to give an example, and Christianity is based on narrative fiction of high literary and cathartic quality. On the other hand Christianity is concerned with the narration of things that actually take place in human life." (synopsis)

"It is not possible to compare the above with what we have, namely, that there is not a shred of evidence that a historical character Jesus lived." (Fischer, Roland (1994) "On The Story-Telling Imperative That We Have In Mind" Anthropology of Consciousness Dec 1994, Vol. 5, No. 4: 16)

Since Drews himself in the Der evangelische Jesus chapter of his book stated “The Gospels are no historical sources in the ordinary sense of the word, but writings of believers, edifying books, literary sources of the community's Christian consciousness.” Fischer's comment is total relevant despite him not being a historian, theologian, or historical anthropologist.

Oh just in case there is some song and dance about that id not what Drews says here is the passage in the original German: “Wie weit auch die Ansichten auf dem Gebiete der Evangelienkritik noch immer auseinandergehen mögen: in einem stimmen doch gegenwärtig alle wirklich kompetenten Beurteiler mit seltener Einmütigkeit überein: die Evangelien sind keine Geschichtsurkunden im gewöhnlichen Sinne des Wortes, sondern Glaubensschriften, Erbauungsbücher, literarische Urkunden des christlichen Gemeindebewußtseins.” If you are interested the babblefish translation of that is as follows: “As far also the opinions on that areas of the gospel criticism still apart-go like: in one all really competent critics agree nevertheless present with rare concord: the gospels are not stories documents in the usual sense of the word, but faith writings, building books, literary documents of Christian municipality consciousness.”--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

And what does that have to do with the discussion about whether the cited claims are accurate or not about what the general historical consensus on the issue is.

And have you actually read that article? It doesn't seem to be about the historicity of Jesus, but about how religious stories affect people's minds, but I only gather that from the abstract, and that quote just seems to be the author's opinion thrown in, not some actual position he is taking and defending as the point of the article. And again, is he a historian arguing his case to other historians, as most would disagree with that assertion. Roy Brumback (talk) 00:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

You are side stepping the issue. Richard Cevantis Carrier who has a Ph.D in Ancient History in "Kooks and Quacks of the Roman Empire: A Look into the World of the Gospels (1997)" similarly showed "how religious stories affect people's minds" though he did it in far more detail than Fischer did. Your reasoning on the context of the Fischer article is flawed because the whole purpose of an abstract is to give a summery of the actual article; so why have this point about Jesus in both the abstract and main text body? Furthermore, why did both Anthropology of Consciousness and the American Anthropological Association accept such line in an abstract if it wasn't really relevant to the paper? Remember this is not a tabloid but a peer reviewed paper and abstract being published by a major institution that has a reputation to uphold. Finally, given Carrier's comments on the same subject there is the burden of showing Fischer's article is not relevant.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:57, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The Fischer article has been discussed in great detail over in the archives of Talk:Christ myth theory; I don't think Bruce has read the article (still!) because on p. 17, Fischer draws on Geza Vermes to answer the question "Who was then 'Jesus the Jew'?" In other words, Fischer has no doubt that there was a historical Jesus. I've pointed this out to Bruce many times; it seems he has an advanced case on WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:34, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Akhilleus has shown a preference for a POV definition for "Christ Myth Theory" not supported by the reliable sources and he has to date not shown a single source that explains why definitions used by Dodd and Pike differ from those of Horbury and Wiseman. When the very definition of what "Christ Myth Theory" even is is clearly variable but someone doesn't want to admit it POV issues come up. I have shown in the past that Akhilleus readings are some times questionable and his interpretations are iffy; his long defense of a "quote" of Michael Grant which was in reality mainly him quoting two other people using very questionable publishers especially when the general consensus was to throw it out was really bad. Why defend something like that when better sources were available? His defense of the James Charlesworth quote despite the fact that Charlesworth's qualifications as an archeologist are unknown and his attempt to say Price is not a scholar simply because he doesn't work for an accredited institution despite many journal article in the relevant area are another examples. If you go through the archives on the Talk:Christ_myth_theory you will see many editors complaining of POV pushing and attempts to own that article by Akhilleus.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

But have you actually read the article Bruce? Roy Brumback (talk) 00:17, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Given Akhilleus claimed I hadn't read Michel Grant even after I had posted a link to an online version of the text in question (Attitudes to the Evidence), what do you think? While we are at it where is the article I have repeatedly asked for that shows "Christ Myth Theory" is always defined the way Akhilleus has it? Where is the proof that Bromiley's story of with examples of Lucian, Wells, and Bertrand Russell does not refer to just that--the story of Jesus rather than saying the man himself never existed? The things Akhilleus reads into Bromiley's are clearly OR with nothing to back them up and he had missed key details in articles he himself has read (the infamous comment about Santa Claus actually being a paper he himself supposedly read case in point). The sad fact is that thanks to past actions it is hard if not impossible for me to WP:AGF with regards to Akhilleus and a trip through the archives will show I am not the only editor to have misgivings. Take a look at Talk:Christ_myth_theory/Archive_17 and see all the problems with James Charlesworth I point out and yet Akhilleus continues to defend a source that has even more problems then he claims the Fischer article has. It borders on hypocrisy to allow a blurb from James Charlesworth but disallow one from Fischer.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:26, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

A simple "yes" (or "no") would be an adequate response to Roy's question. Normally it's not necessary to ask questions like this, of course, but the fact of the matter is that Fischer's article doesn't say what you claim it does, and that should be apparent to anyone who's read the entire article. (That's also the case with most of the sources you mention in your last post.) --Akhilleus (talk) 14:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Akhilleus, do you have the reliable source that shows how or even why the varies different definitions of "Christ Myth theory" we have form a uniform definition? That gauntlet in a slightly different form was thrown down over three years ago and we have not heard a simple "yes" or "no" from you! I would also ask how can you defend Charlesworth's comment despite no proof what so ever he even has a degree in archeology and yet on nearly identical grounds that I presented Fischer's it kept out. Also Akhilleus, it has been shown in the past your interpretation of that people say and what they really say has been wonky to say the least.--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:36, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Pauline Epistles: Jesus' brother

The link in the article from "Jesus' brothers", were corrected by me to "Jesus' later relative". The basis for this is the wikipage which it is referred to: "Desposyni". In the first paragraph of the article desposyni is explained as a blood relative, not as "brothers", according to the same source these were still around early in the third century CE. Thus the existence of "desposyni" does not imply that they were brothers of Jesus. I will now correct it to "Jesus' later relatives". St.Trond (talk) 09:15, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Your confusing two different issues - the bible verse is talking about brothers, while Desposyni is about later relatives. So to change the article to say "later relatives" seems to indicate some confusion on your part about both topics. The bible never talks about Desposyni, since the term is after the composition on the new testament books, which do not even mention any children of Jesus relatives. Hardyplants (talk) 09:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

As is apparent from the above, linking "Jesus' brother" to Desposyni is misleading, without linking what is actually used in the text. According to this source, the members of the Church of Paul "addressed each other as brethren". Double checking reveals that "brother" meant also kinship in nation or kinship in covenant. As there is no contemporary source for James being Jesus' brother (or half-brother) "in flesh", this paragraph renders a misleading impression of the basis for the Catholic Church and should be rewritten. St.Trond (talk) 12:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

No the Catholic Church doesn't consider them brothers in the flesh, only cousins or step brothers, and almost all scholars, Christian and non Christian, hold Paul is talking about a relative (biological or legal) of Jesus, not just a member of the Church. Notice he doesn't call Peter a brother of the Lord. If he considered them both just members of the Church he would have said Peter and James the Lord's brothers, or even his brothers as he would also be a member of the Church. Roy Brumback (talk) 21:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Is there any proof that "almost all scholars" say this? What do these same scholars say about the First Apocalypse of James or do they even admit this throws their view out the window? "I have given you a sign of these things, James, my brother. For not without reason have I called you my brother, although you are not my brother materially."--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:01, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Roy: The question could just as well be: Why didn't Paul call James an apostle. A logical answer would be that James was still a private member of the church, not that James was the brother in flesh of Jesus. St.Trond (talk) 11:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Only a small number of disciples (followers) were apostles (( held the "office" -(Luke 6:13; cf Acts 1:2)), the early church replaces one after the crucifixion, and later Paul becomes one because of his revelatory knowledge of Jesus, (note 1 Corinthians 15 - it even mentions James) the title is only used for a small number of believers in the NT. But any way, Paul does call James an apostles, "I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord's brother." Gal 1:19 The only apostle he sees is James the Lord's brother. For a fuller understanding of the brother issue see: , there is some good material in this source that can be incorporated into this article. Hardyplants (talk) 19:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I've read that in books before. I'll find a cite if you wish. No serious scholar uses the Apocalypse of James in regard to the historicity of Jesus, and of course if they did it would only bolster the historicity of Jesus as it clearly claims Jesus really exited. And James wasn't an Apostle, Peter was. From all indications James didn't follow Jesus's movement before his vision of the resurrected Jesus. And I don't really follow you. How would James not being an Apostle show brother doesn't mean familial brother? Roy Brumback (talk) 18:51, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Roy: According to this source the members of the church of Paul addressed each other as "brethren".

Yes, but it was not used as a "brothers of Jesus" but "brothers in the Lord" or of each other, see new birth and born again teaching of the NT. The problem seems to be that those that are making these arguments do not know the biblical languages very well and are making their arguments from translations into other languages. Hardyplants (talk) 20:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Hardyplant: Thanks for supporting Ellegard's (see top of page) view that Paul and Jesus were not contemporaries. If they were contemporaries, a disciple with real life knowledge of Jesus had been preferred before Paul as the new apostle. St.Trond (talk) 19:56, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, the logic of that argument escapes me. So your arguing that every one that was contemporary with Jesus was a disciple of Jesus? Hardyplants (talk) 20:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

The logic is: If Paul and Jesus were contemporaries, Paul and the disciples were contemporaries too. If Paul and the disciples were contemporaries, one of the disciples - with real life experience with Jesus, had been preferred before Paul as the new apostle. Conclusion: Jesus was not a contemporary of Paul, but Jesus predated Paul. St.Trond (talk) 20:24, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I understand the argument, but Paul is clearly contemporaries with the apostles but not a believer before the crucification and thus not part of the group that meet after the resurrection and drew lots to fill the 12th position to replace Judas (note the first believers desire to limit apostleship to a narrow group of believers) thus the last statement in your argument does not make logical sense to me. But we are now drifting into discussion of the topic and away from improving the article. Hardyplants (talk) 21:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

But what do you mean by "not contemporaries"? Are you saying that Saul of Tarsus wasn't alive in AD 30? Carlo (talk) 21:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

According to Alvar Ellegard: "Jesus – One Hundred Years Before Christ: A Study In Creative Mythology", (London 1999) Paul was very much alive at 30 CE. Jesus however, lived a century earlier than taught by the Church. At 30 CE, Paul only knew Jesus through visions, which have been claimed to be epilepsy. St.Trond (talk) 21:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I should mention Wells currently takes the tack that there were two Jesuses: Paul's and a later one that inspired the Gospels and this is called a "myther" position.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Hardyplants: According to wikipage Apostles Judas was not replaced by Paul but by Matthias. After a century of replacements however, Paul would be interesting as a replacement, when all real life witnesses were gone. St.Trond (talk) 07:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

That is nonsense, if that is what the article says, then I would dismiss it at as clueless. Read Galatians chapter two to find out why that kite can't fly. 08:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

No kite comprising "theological constructs" will ever fly. St.Trond (talk) 08:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

1) St. Trond has to study more about Paul to continue with this "talk"

2) James was Jesus brother "in the flesh" and this is out of question

3) Paul didn´t had any "revelatory knowledge of Jesus" nor was epileptic, he invented all the story, by torturating Christians (the ones who really beleived, not Peter and James and the rest of the gang that were a mob of killers , remeber Ananias and Safira in Acts-) he realized that to become an apostle was a better bussiness than persecute them, so he invented the story (the story of the revelation ) and went to the West to start his own church. Read his letters, are really authentic, read with an open mind and you will discover the kind of monster Paul was.

Geranoaetus melanoleucus. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.40.169.18 (talk) 21:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

The Irenaeus issue

"For disputes about the existence of Jesus and reliability of ancient texts relating to him, see Historicity of Jesus."

Historicity of Jesus: "This article is about the evidence regarding Jesus' existence."

It is quite clear from both Historical Jesus article and the clarification lead in to this article that this is the proper article for the part on Irenaeus.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree and given the weasel word edit (in direct violation of WP:AWW I might add) by the editor who removed the point I have to wonder if the is POV pushing going on here. To quote from that page

"Who says that? When do they say it? Now? At the time of writing? How many people think it? How many is some? What kind of people think it? Where are they? What kind of bias might they have? Why is this of any significance?

Weasel words do not really give a neutral point of view; they just spread hearsay, or couch personal opinion in vague, indirect syntax. It is better to put a name to an opinion than it is to assign it to an anonymous or vague-to-the-point-of-being-meaningless source."

No reference to who these "many scholars" are or what reliable reference even makes this claim. Saying "read the article" is not a justifiable claim. Claims must be referred in the article in which they appear.--67.42.65.214 (talk) 09:59, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how the Irenaeus material is relevant to this article. The material Bruce inserted has two citations to Robert McQueen Grant--and neither one of them explains how Irenaeus is relevant to this article. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:22, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

According to Ellegård, Jesus - one hundred years before Christ, p 242-243, Irenaeus included the Gospel of John in the canon, so Irenaeus cannot be automatically disqualified as an influential source. St.Trond (talk) 21:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I don't really see how that answers my post. Perhaps I should have said that the citations don't explain how the material that Bruce inserted is relevant to this article. Neither does your post. I would point out that Ellegard isn't a good source for mainstream views on Jesus' historicity. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

While I agree the logic St.Trond presents needs better explanation the reason Irenaeus should be in the article is that church father as early as c180 could make up anything they liked and no one would call them on the carpet for it! This creates all kinds of logical headaches--like if the Gospels as we know them were as widely distributed as scholars claim why didn't anyone c180 CE point out the clear flaws with Irenaeus argument? It also shows that perhaps that some of these scholars are not being fully honest about the quality of the material they work with. What is wrong with the idea that Irenaeus might have worked with versions of Gospels different from our own other than it would throw the long held (and unproven) dogma that the Gospels didn't evolve over time as some claim.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It is probably safe to count Buddhists and Hindus among the mythers, even if they don't care to study the historicity of Jesus academically. St.Trond (talk) 15:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It isn't our place to create logical headaches, or point things out like this to the reader on our own volition. We need to cite scholars to avoid original research. Who are the scholars that point to Irenaeus to demonstrate the lack of self-criticism in the early Christian movement? We need scholars to draw these points together to avoid original synthesis. Sources, sources, sources! -Andrew c  16:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

An example of an early church story which is today classified as a legend. St.Trond (talk) 17:18, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

We don't that I can see have a specific article dealing exclusively with the variant texts of various extant or otherwise known early copies of the NT, although the book Misquoting Jesus discusses some of the more important ones fairly thoroughly. I can and do see that there would be a good case for the creation of such an article on textual variations in the New Testament or what have you. But I have no particular reason to believe that this specific variantion is so uniquely clearly notable that including it in this article wouldn't violate WP:UNDUE. If sources establishing this specific notability were produced, that might change things. John Carter (talk) 17:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Few, numbers and comparison

"With Few exceptions" - that is NOT, I repeat NOT an unbiased opinion. I am reverting this. 16 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.211.213 (talk)

Ditto I have an issue with every negative being framed as insignificant - the historicity of Jesus is a contentious issue, and I am even doubtful that quoting Biblical Scholars counts as reasonable, given this is a question of history,. All numbers based arguments should be removed and replaced with more neutral language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Projectphp (talk • contribs)

A major point of NPOV is the idea of "undue weight". We must present views in accordance to their dominance. If we portrayed the mythers as equal with those who accept a historical Jesus, then we would be giving undue weight to the mythic view. We cite a number of sources that say clear as day that it is virtually, universally agreed among scholars that Jesus existed. The mythers are a very, small (but perhaps vocal) group of people who aren't even scholars in relevant areas. Please understand that it would be against Misplaced Pages policy to portray the views as equal, because of the undue weight portion of NPOV.-Andrew c  04:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

No, that is not true at all about NPOV. "Few" is biased and has a POV, because it implies that there exists a threshold after which "few" becomes "enough". So what is that? 8 opinions? 50? Also, there is the fact that many of the opinions are biased. Biblical scholars are hardly unbiased, and even if there are 100,000 of them, and just 1 dissenter, "few" is not a valid adjective. I am changing this back, and if you could explain to me what the threshold to move from "few" to "enough", I'll be happy to be informed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Projectphp (talk • contribs) 02:06, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

"Biblical scholars are hardly unbiased, and even if there are 100,000 of them, and just 1 dissenter, "few" is not a valid adjective." Sounds like someone's pushing a POV, alright... --Akhilleus (talk) 02:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

"Biblical scholars are hardly unbiased.." - you missed the key part. But I agree 100% - lets do the numbers. If you can prove to me that over 50% of any sample agree, I'll agree to "few" 13:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

If you take issue with the word few, how would you describe the majority position of anthropomorphic global warming vs the minority global warming deniers? How would you describe the majority view of a German holocaust of the Jews vs. the holocaust deniers? How would you describe the majority who argue for an old earth and evolution vs. young earth creationists? If "few" is off limits, please throw out some suggestions on how to describe a clearly majority view versus a clearly minority view to convey appropriate (and due) "weight". Please read WP:WEIGHT, and come back with any serious proposals. If, on the other hand, you are denying what is or isn't a majority view to begin with, I'm not sure I can in good faith continue down that path. -Andrew c  02:30, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

"If you take issue with the word few, how would you describe the majority position of anthropomorphic global warming vs the minority global warming deniers?" Not with few :) Few, I'm labouring point here, implies "not enough". It is undue weight to say "few" when you don't know the numbers. "Few climate change scientists think Global Warming is fake" is as bad, but it can be solved WITH NUMBERS. With numbers, I can accept few. If 8 of 100 believe, that may be "few". But an unknown number of an unknown sample? Not "few" in my book. projectphp (talk) 13:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I just looked at Projectphp's changes, and it's ironic that "few" is problematic for POV concerns, but not "many". Really now?-Andrew c  02:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

If "really now" is a serious question, and not a rhetorical statement, allow me to explain. Who knows, it may be educational! "Many" is any number above one. I have one cup, two cups, three cups, many cups. "Few" is a judgment that implies short of ideal. I have a million dollars, I have 100,000 dollars, I have $30, I have three dollars, I have few dollars. A closer word to few, that is equally invalid, is "most", because "most" implies a survey was taken, with the results verified with more than half holding one opinion (although I'd argue most is more like 80%). So, "few" is bad (really now), because it JUDGES (POV) the numbers to be inadequate. Summing up, "few" is bad because it is a judgment (not enough), many, whilst short of ideal and not as good as "a number" or other neutral language, is not so bad, although if I had more time, and wasn't in a frickin' edit war about the historicity of Jesus Chrst (yeh, I take on easy topics) I'd rewrite the whole damned article with better language! projectphp (talk) 13:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to fall into a semantic argument with you. The general idea that the non-historical view is a clearly minority view is backed by our sources. Do you have contrary sources? If there are other sources that argue the view is more prominent, we may want to consider what you have to say. But without those new sources, we should follow what we are already citing. Why do you think the non-historical view is more prominent than what we make it out to be? -Andrew c  17:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

A potential problem here is that the sentence isn't simply about existence vs. non-existence. It reads, "With few exceptions (such as Robert M. Price), scholars in the fields of biblical studies and history agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher from Galilee who was regarded as a healer, was baptized by John the Baptist, was accused of sedition against the Roman Empire, and on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate was sentenced to death by crucifixion." It might be good to split this up a bit: have one sentence that says the overwhelming majority of scholars agree that he was historical, and another sentence giving the other characteristics. Just so we can all be clear whether people are arguing about basic historicity, or whether someone's arguing that there's serious doubt about whether Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, etc. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:35, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Overwhelming? The overwhelming majority of BIBLICAL Scholars, sure, but that is not "scholars" in a rigorous sense. And certainly, the specifics are not agreed upon. (Do all agree with all the other points you raise? I think you'd find that "overwhelming majority" is a bit strong for all the points raised) projectphp (talk) 13:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

It would also help to have the reverences listed separately; having them all together like that makes one wonder if WP:SYN is going on. It also makes it confusing as to who goes with what reference.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The sentence and references should be divided, agreed. John Carter (talk) 16:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

There are several other places that need division of references. There are whole sections of this that are a mess because you have four or even five references strung together like some run on sentence.--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I've broken up the run on references so we can better edit them. Other than breaking them up I have left them the way they were and most of them will have to be cleaned up.--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if I like having 12 or so footnotes in a row like that. The content, and the references, at one point in time, were simply copied and pasted from the lead of the parent article, Jesus. When we were constructing the lead there, we sat down and scanned the literature to come up with the major points that virtually all scholars of the historical Jesus agreed upon. There is a subpage (if I recall correctly) at Talk:Jesus where we gave page numbers and quotes from these sources. Anyway, we ended up with a fairly prominent, yet diverse list of scholars, and those few points of agreement. I'd just like to say that there is no synthesis going on, and it shouldn't be confusing about what goes with what, because we tried to make sure that all cited scholars agreed on those few points. Hopefully that will address some of BruceGrubb's concerns. Making it more readable, working on grammar, and other improvements are clearly encouraged as well. But I'm wondering how problematic this section really is. -Andrew c  00:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I just looked at the Jesus article and it has strings of references there as well. Also Misplaced Pages:Citing_sources#When_to_cite_sources points out that it is "To ensure that the content of articles can be checked by any reader or editor." and "To help users find additional information on the topic." Having many reference strung together as one reference makes those goals. This does show that we do have a bit of reference bloat and perhaps a little trimming is order especially as your statement of "we sat down and scanned the literature to come up with the major points that virtually all scholars of the historical Jesus agreed upon." is EXACTLY what WP:SYN FORBIDS: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. The key words here are explicitly stated; sure you may have found 12 sources that agree that "Jesus was a Jewish teacher from Galilee who was regarded as a healer, was baptized by John the Baptist, was accused of sedition against the Roman Empire, and on the orders of Roman Governor Pontius Pilate was sentenced to death by crucifixion" but that in no way, shape, or form supports the "With few exceptions (such as Robert M. Price), scholars in the fields of biblical studies and history agree" part.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:43, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

We did not combine material from different sources. The material was found in all the sources, That said, I've checked how the text in the lead at Jesus has evolved over the years vs. how the text evolved here. I'd prefer the text we have now in the lead of Jesus than the text we have here, and would propose simply copying that text (and sources) here. It removes the "with few exceptions (such as Robert M. Price) clause, which was added here alone somepoint in the past, and hopefully with that removal, will address your concerns that we are using all these sources to prove Robert M Price is wrong or whatever. (BTW, I've been bold, and tried out that suggestion). -Andrew c  13:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

That looks and flows a lot better while getting rid of that annoying POV stuff about Price.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:32, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why you removed ALL of my comments as many were no different then the arguments seen above. Do you only remove anything that shows evidence of Jesus as being a Historical figure? If yes, what is the use of the article in the first place? Maybe scolars would consider Wikepedia to be a credible site if you did include the appropriate references, but they don't because you don't and from what I've seen, even refuse to.--Angela.D.G (talk) 14:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)Angela

I guess you are the IP editor User:24.203.121.98? I removed your comments because it seemed to me as if you were trying to argue and make the case that Jesus was a historical figure. That isn't what talk pages are for. We aren't here to convince others of personal opinions. Do you have specific issues with the article content? Do you disagree with including the "Jesus as myth" section, or any of the content in that (or any other) section? It was not clear to me that you were discussing article content. Furthermore, you were simply adding quotes from a number of sources that we already currently cite in the article. I apologize if the removal seemed rash. You can view the page history, and restore any content you feel is in line with a Misplaced Pages talk page discussion. Have you reviewed WP:TALK? Feel free to start discussing article improvements and proposals dealing with specific article content. Thanks. -Andrew c  15:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Deleting my contribution

User:Rossnixon has deleted my contribution saying it cannot be found in Ehrman's lectures. By saying this, he is calling me a liar, since I have said this quote is to be found precisely where I said it is to be found. I do not appreciate such deletion and I demand an explanation. I have recovered my contribution, providing a long quote from Ehrman's lecture for proper verification. To deny such quote will be calling me a liar for a second time, adding injury to the insult. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I know it can be frustrating to be reverted, but it's always good to be calm, and assume good faith. I presume this is an accident. Likely, Ross thought your source was the link your provided, and didn't realize you were referencing content found within the DVD lecture available through your link. But he can easily defend himself. With that said, I believe your quote may be a bit too long, in that it isn't really encyclopedic to quote so much in a note like that, and if the quote is too extensive, it may be exceeding fair use. -Andrew c  23:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, ok, I can grant Ross the benefit of doubt. I think I did not breach the fair use requirements listed on http://www.umuc.edu/library/copy.shtml Anyway, I have reproduced the text of three minutes from a course which takes many hours. If it is not an encyclopedic quote, you could trim it. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The main problem with your insertion is this as I see it. You wrote "Summarizing the scientific consensus on such evidence, Bart D. Ehrman, MDiv, PhD says: 'we have no reference of any kind, whatsoever, even to Jesus' name, in any Pagan source of the first century A.D.'". However the sources in the section all, except for possibly the Sarapion reference, come from the second century, so Ehrman's statement can't be about any kind of consensus regarding them except of course that they are all from the second century. All he's saying is that there are no pagan references to Jesus in the first century, not stating some kind of scholarly consensus on the references in that section as your insertion seemed to imply.Roy Brumback (talk) 00:34, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

First century means first century. There no confusion possible with the second century. "Such evidence" meant pagan sources about Jesus. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Overhaul

Misplaced Pages has articles on the historical Jesus, the quest for the historical Jesus, and the belief that there was no historical Jesus (the Christ myth theory). Given all this it seems that this article should have a very narrow focus so as to avoid charges of content-forking. I propose that the article be overhauled so that it focus exclusively on examining the documents (and other evidences) utilized to establish the mere historicity of Jesus. Discussions of historical attempts to establish Jesus' historicity, details of the possible biographical reconstructions these sources might enable, and so on should be largely excised or integrate into more relevant articles. I've no problem taking the lead, but before I start I want to see if there are any major objections. So, are any major objections? Eugene (talk) 00:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

What specifically do you want to remove? Roy Brumback (talk) 20:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to shorten the lead to eliminate general discussions of the character of Jesus' life and ministry (that's historical Jesus), cut the section on "History of research" (thats quest for the historical Jesus), shorten the discussion of Josephus and Tacitus relative to Jesus (they already have dedicated articles), drastically shorten the "Jesus as a historical person" and "Jesus as myth" to very little more than links to the fuller articles on those topics, and I'd like to throw a couple more picture into the page. Eugene (talk) 20:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. Anyone else?Roy Brumback (talk) 21:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy with the concept. Wdford (talk) 21:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I approve. There is too much overlap here. I was about to start a thread about my reverted edits in "Myth" when I noticed there was a whole separate article dedicated to that. Sersun (talk) 09:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

More credible scientists please

Too many of the critics have something to gain from false claims here. Perhaps those arguments belong elsewhere? Still seeing no actual contemporary proof of the existance of the myth. -Sparky (talk) 00:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

This Claim: "Nevertheless, the historicity of Jesus is accepted by almost all Biblical scholars and classical historians." Strikes me as NPOV. The sources don't seem to prove this. Is there any empirical evidence, polls or surveys done, that show an overwhelming consensus on the historicity of Jesus? Chudogg (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:32, 1 April 2010 (UTC).

Read the Christ Myth Theory article. The Chryst Myth Theory and nonhistoricity has never gained mainstream credibility. Historians throw it into the pile with the "Moon Landing Hoax" theories and the "Newton was hit by an apple" categories. A good line, with a source on that article, states: "The scholarly mainstream routinely notes that while many versions of the Christ myth theory assume that Christianity had obscure beginnings, such views fail to notice that early Christians appealed to historical events already known by the general public." 98.198.83.12 (talk) 10:27, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Paul the Jews

An IP editor has twice now attempted to add a statemen to the article to the effect that Paul never actually said he was a Jew. I've reverted him twice and given a reference. If this continues, please, someone else revert and report it to the ANI board. Eugene (talk) 18:46, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Gnomic rather than Gnostic

I was going to apply a {{cn}} tag to the recent addition "The reason for composition of the Gospels is given in the scriptural material itself, as being due to the death of a number of eyewitnesses...", but on second thoughts I should first try to understand what it means. Anyone help me out?--Old Moonraker (talk) 17:32, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, two days later I think I've got it: something like "the Gospels were written to record the memories of eyewitnesses to the events they described, who were beginning to die off". It needs to be more elegant than that, of course. Reflecting my struggle to get the point of the sentence, I've added a {{Clarify}} tag. It needs referencing as well. --Old Moonraker (talk) 06:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Mark Allan Powell

A pair of editors are trying to WP:CENSOR a statement from Mark Allan Powell in his book Jesus as a Figure in History (Westminster John Knox, 1998). The book is used as a text book in a variety of colleges and seminaries and Powell is the Historical Jesus section chairman of the Society of Biblical Literature. Please replace the text. I fear that if I do so too often I'll be dinged for edit warring.

Here it is: "A hundred and fifty years ago a fairly well respected scholar named Bruno Bauer maintained that the historical person Jesus never existed. Anyone who says that today—in the academic world at least—gets grouped with the skinheads who say there was no Holocaust and the scientific holdouts who want to believe the world is flat." Mark Allan Powell, Jesus as a Figure in History: How Modern Historians View the Man from Galilee, Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1998, p. 168 Eugene (talk) 21:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

This comparison was thoroughly rejected on the talk page, at FAC, and on AN/I, where Eugene was explicitly asked to stop raising it. See the Slanderous Accusations of Anti-Semitism thread, and click on show. SlimVirgin 21:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Neither FAC not AN/I are part of the DR ladder. As for the talk page, well, this is a different page, isn't it? Eugene (talk) 22:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

When you have several experienced editors and admins on AN/I asking you explicitly to stop making the comparison, that is very much part of DR and it would make sense to heed it. SlimVirgin 22:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I remember when you didn't mind the quote, so long as it was properly attributed. "You've changed, man!" What made you change your mind? And how is you new position not a violation of WP:CENSOR? Eugene (talk) 22:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

SV, can you please quote Wiki rules that say that AN/I is part of the content dispute resolution process? On the very page itself, it says that it's not. Or am I missing something? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 22:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

This is part of a long-running dispute over at Christ myth theory. It got howled out of there, so now Eugene, Bill and (if he hasn't yet he will soon) Ari are thinking "this is a different article, so it's okay here." Anthony (talk) 22:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Right on cue, Ari just reverted. Anthony (talk) 22:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Four different editors have now reinserted the material in question. Instead of just precipitating an edit war, try to build consensus for it's removal. Eugene (talk) 22:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that is nonsense. Contentious new material always needs consensus, not the other way around. WP:BRD You can't force new disputed material into an article. Is there consensus for this new material here currently? Clearly no. Please discuss it further and see if you can reach a compromise, or change minds on the talk page before re-instating. (and this business about possible forum shopping, or moving articles is a little concerning). -Andrew c  22:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Being bold is nonsense? (You probably didn't mean that, but that is how it came across.) New material that is contentious for emotional reasons does not require consensus - it requires reliable sources which, in this case, has been provided. If anyone disagrees with those RS's, then they MUST provide other RS's that counter them. Eugene and I (as well as others) are willing to discuss the differences we have with other editors, but if those opposing editors want to throw emotional arguments into the mix, then how seriously should they be taken and what do you suggest is the appropriate response? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who is right. Avoiding an edit war is more important the The Truth. In a dispute, the longstanding version, before the contentious material was added takes precedent. Being bold is one thing. It is encouraged. However, re-instating a bold edit after it was reverted is NEVER, ever appropriate. WP:BRD (again). -Andrew c  01:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

An RFC would be quicker. Anthony (talk) 22:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I find it interesting that you said, "It got howled out of there". Is that what we've come down to, then? Howling away highly trained, and respected reliable sources, because they get some editors emotionally overwrought so as to avoid hurt feelings (and done so in the guise of neutrality)? Anthony, the CMT is not simply a minority position - it is ridiculed and treated with utter contempt by mainstream scholars.

Can you please give us an example of how this contempt can be communicated in a Wiki article without using direct quotes from, as I said above, highly trained and respected scholars? If you have an alternative, I give you my word that I'm willing to seriously consider other options, but right now, I just don't see any. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 22:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

"Can you please give us an example of how this contempt can be communicated in a Wiki article." You don't. This is an encyclopedia. A good encyclopedia says "It has little or no support in mainstream scholarship" or words to that effect. Provided, of course, you can get consensus for that view. Anthony (talk) 23:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

So, what you are saying is that if mainstream scholars ridicule and hold the CMT in contempt, then we are not to mention it? Is that correct? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Yep. I've been saying it from the second day I was at CMT Anthony (talk) 00:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

So, what is your reasoning for censoring the position of mainstream scholarship? Are you trying to portray the CMT as a legitimate, minority opinion? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 01:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I am criticising your argument for it being pseudo (which I take to mean not employing recognised historical method, or employing fraud). Anthony (talk) 10:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Who are you calling emotional, Bill? Anthony (talk) 23:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Just check out this thread (click on "Show"). Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

JBolden1517? Anthony (talk) 00:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The debate so far:
Eugene reverts existing para' and inserts contentious one copied from Christ myth theory where he couldn't get consensus.
Anthony restores reverted consensus paragraph, deletes "tendentious" one.
Eugene reverts.
Anthony restores.
Paul Barlow reverts with "the mainstream view is hardly tendentious"
Anthony restores with "You miss the point. It is not the view; it is the language. See Talk:Christ myth theory"
Bill reverts
SlimVirgin restores
Bill reverts
SlimVirgin restores
Eugene reverts
Anthony restores
(As predicted by Anthony half an hour before,) Ari reverts
^^James^^ restores
Bill reverts
Anthony goes to bed. Anthony (talk) 00:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Anthony, that is not the "debate so far". It's just an indication of a content disagreement. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 01:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Holocaust denial is a comparison generally upsetting to the people who are being compared with holocaust deniers. Therefore we shouldn't mention it unless there's a more important benefit to our readers. What is the overriding benefit from including a quote about it in this article? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:24, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The "benefit" is that is portrays the CMT in its true light. Right now, the CMT is simply made out to be just a minority position. It's not. In non-technical language, it's crazy talk. Therefore, I ask you, and others, how can we present this current mainstream position without including direct quotes by highly trained and respected scholars?

Please keep in mind, however, that we are ONLY talking about the mere historical existence of a particular person. This has NOTHING to do with the miraculous claims of the New Testament, which is why I think that such a position is meeting so much resistence. That is, I think that some editors automatically assume that if Jesus existed in an historical sense, then that means that his miraculous deeds (as presented in the NT) are therefore true. Nothing could be further from the truth. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 01:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

In answer to your question, I thought the sentence Nevertheless, the historicity of Jesus is accepted by almost all Biblical scholars and classical historians, with its slew of sources, did the job quite well, with the added feature of not being offensive. I agree that a fringe position should not be presented as a minority position. In order to avoid that problem, comparisons with holocaust deniers don't apper to be necessary. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Exactly! As non-historicity seems to be one traditional Jewish reaction to Jesus, quoting Christian scholars that compare it to holocaust denial is extremely poor taste, to say the least. Vesal (talk) 11:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Bart Ehrman is not a Christian scholar. Also, mainstream Judaism views JoN as an historical person (as represented in the Talmud) so those Jews who don't accept his historicity are in the same basic camp as those who promote the CMT.

JWB, I have no problem with the sentence you quoted above if it was to appear in the lead - it is succinct and to the point. However, just how crazy the CMT is should be detailed in the Against the theory section of the article by direct quotes of highly trained and respected scholars. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

No, Bill. Misplaced Pages isn't here to show how crazy anything is. We're here to describe and explain, because Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox. And do so without unnecessarily hurting others. You're not showing necessity. You do want to avoid hurting others, right? Do you think this Holocaust comparison is not hurting others? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's take that principle to its logical conclusion: Should Misplaced Pages not call holocaust deniers "holocuast deniers", for fear of hurting the feelings of holocaust deniers? I think that the Institute for Historical Review has objected to having its members feelings thus hurt. Should Misplaced Pages really take such concerns seriously? Eugene (talk) 22:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

"You're not showing necessity." You're evading my point by focusing on only one aspect of it, Eugene. I've readily conceded that necessity would overrule hurt feelings. Now, Eugene, is it necessary to make the point by bringing up the Holocaust? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

JWB, I agree that it is not the job of Misplaced Pages to show how crazy something is because of an editor's POV. However, mainstream scholars view the CMT as crazy talk and it is our job to portray that scholarship accurately. So, to censor what mainstream scholars have said over and over again goes against WP:Fringe. Specifically (Bold-italic added for emphasis):

Ideas that have been rejected, are widely considered to be absurd or pseudoscientific, only of historical interest, or primarily the realm of science fiction, should be documented as such, using reliable sources. (See Misplaced Pages:Fringe#Notability_versus_acceptance.)

and,

Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community. (See Misplaced Pages:Fringe#Notability_versus_acceptance.)

Therefore, if we don't include rather strong statements about the "craziness" of the CMT, it ends up being elevated from an almost universally ridiculed, contemptible, rejected theory to one of a minority, but historically legitimate, position.

Necessity. The point is that we do not want to offend people gratuitously. Is there anything that these holocaust comparisons really add of encyclopedic and pedagogic value? Vesal (talk) 22:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

No, of course we don't want to offend people gratuitously. But if such "offended people" are simply operating on emotions, then those emotions can be discounted in a Misplaced Pages article. After all, there are many Muslims who are offended at visual portrayals of Muhammad, but Misplaced Pages includes such portrayals for historical reasons. Check out FAQ # 2 about Muhammad (bold-italic and underline added for emphasis):

Might the images offend Muslims?

Yes, it might offend Muslims. Misplaced Pages recognizes that among many groups of Muslims, the depiction of Muhammad and other prophets is forbidden, and that some Muslims are offended when this prohibition is violated....

However, Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia that strives to represent all topics from a neutral point of view, and therefore Misplaced Pages is not censored for the benefit of any particular group. So long as they are relevant to the article and do not violate any of Misplaced Pages's existing policies, nor the law of the U.S. state of Florida, where most of Misplaced Pages's servers are hosted, no content or images will be removed from Misplaced Pages because people find them objectionable or offensive.

Isn't that approach reasonable? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 00:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Too cute by half, Bill. (For anyone else following this, I've recently been heavily involved at Everybody Draw Mohammed Day and its AfD.) I would oppose gratuitous images of Muhammad on Misplaced Pages and support those that are necessary to illustrate a point. Bringing up Holocaust denial is not necessary for the point being made. The principle is the same: Hurt no one if you can reasonably avoid doing so. I detest the idea of offending so many Muslims who sincerely believe the images are forbidden. I detest terrorizing and trying to kill cartoonists. Depending on how someone weighs both of those detestable things, and whether or not that person thinks having lots of people draw Muhammad will make it difficult for terrorists to target any particular cartoonists (along with a few other issues), that person will come down on one side or the other on whether "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" is a good idea.

But that's a discussion for a user talk page. The subject here is whether or not comparing CMT advocates to Holocaust deniers is necessary to make the point that their view is considered by many to be fringe, and whether the benefit of making the comparison outweighs the harm it does. "You're not showing necessity", Bill. Making comparisons to other topics isn't a substitute for that. Please either show it's necessary or drop it. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

JWB, let me ask you a straight forward question. Do you think that the CMT is a legitimate minority position? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 05:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, "legitimate" is not all that straightforward. I take it by "legitimate" you mean "could a reasonable, well-informed person honestly believe it"? I don't see how. But I don't think I'm required to do the research it would take to determine the exact reasons why someone with that belief is necessarily ignorant or unreasonable. Misplaced Pages only concerns itself with reporting on what the mainstream opinion is on a fringe theory. I think this is a fringe theory that, where it involves reasoning, involves faulty reasoning, and where it involves information, involves ignorance of some facts. I think it's entirely possible for an honest person to fall into either of those snares. I'm certain that comparing these people to Holocaust deniers isn't the best way to help them climb out -- the best way is to reduce the emotional content. Conveniently enough, Misplaced Pages policies and practices encourage that.

Now Bill, let me ask you -- yet again -- a more straightforward question: Why is it necessary to use the Holocaust-denial example? How many times have I asked it now? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Bill, I take it this is your comment above (no timestamp on it), and it does look like an effort to respond to my question, so I don't want to ignore it: "if we don't include rather strong statements about the "craziness" of the CMT, it ends up being elevated from an almost universally ridiculed, contemptible, rejected theory to one of a minority, but historically legitimate, position." It doesn't follow from that that we need to use the Holocaust-denial sample when there are other ways of making the point you want to make. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Bill that such a strongly worded (though particularly attributed) quote is necessary to demonstrate the level of fringiness involved. Despite the fact that essentially 0% of historians and New Testament scholars disbelieve in the historical existence of Jesus, studies indicate that a shockingly high percentage of the general public disagrees with the academic consensus. Members of that general public are likely to examine pages like this, and were they to see Dunn's quote that non-historicity is a "thoroughly dead hypothesis" they may be inclined to wonder, "Well, how dead is dead?" The Powell quote leaves no ambiguity. Eugene (talk) 06:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Once we get to the point where a reader is asking "Well, how dead is dead?" there is extremely little additional value in saying "It's so dead that some mainstream scholars make the following analogy that many find offensive ". It isn't the encyclopedia's job to add emotional emphasis. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

You should also consider how effectively your point gets across. When you make an analogy that sensitive. People tend to focus more on the disanalogies than the actual point. The talk pages are full with people asking how you can compare something happening 2000 years ago with something 60 years ago with photographic evidence. That's missing the point of the analogy, right? But when so many people keep missing the point as in the AN/I, one has to wonder that perhaps the problem is with the analogy. A good analogy should be such that the reader isn't distracted in this way and really understands the message being conveyed. Vesal (talk) 09:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone actually misunderstands the message being conveyed by this quote. I think certain editors are upset that the scholarly mainstream is this dismissive of the CMT and have feigned confusion to suppress it. (Not you, Vesal, but others.) Eugene (talk) 13:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Even so, the best way would be to have a matter of fact statement like: "the scholarly mainstream not only reject the thesis, but identify serious methodological deficiencies in the approach.(cite Herbert, CUP) For this reason, many eminent scholars consider engaging proponents of myth theory a waste of time, comparing it to a professional astronomer having to debate whether the moon is made of cheese.(cite Wright, OUP)" Or something like that. I don't think this is any less effective in conveying how marginal the theory is. Vesal (talk) 14:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think the Powell quote is punchier, but I could be happy with what you suggest. Eugene (talk) 14:27, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Good! Now that Eugene is fine with an alternative, I see a consensus to keep the Holocaust comparison out of the article. I support Vesal's alternative idea. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

As long as the craziness of the CMT is spelled out (as in CMT = Cheese Moon) than I'm ok with Vesal's idea. Now, are we four the only ones that are ok with that? Vesal, put your suggestion on the CMT talk page and let's see what happens. Also, can someone formalize the exact text that we are to use in this article? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Eugene, Bill, why don't you just explain the nature of Wells', Doherty's and the rest's fraud? That is, explain what makes their work fake, not actual history. So far, all you've said is they attribute probability differently to their opponents, which makes this fringe, not pseudo. That would be much more useful. Anthony (talk) 10:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Because that would be WP:UNDUE in this article. The specific problems with the views of men like Wells and Doherty should be detailed in the Christ myth theory article--which they are, in the "against the theory" section. Eugene (talk) 13:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. But that section you pointed to does not explain the nature of their fraud, why their work is not history. It is just a litany of people who disagree with them. Work. Don't just quote their opponents "It's pseudohistory! It's pseudohistory!" You're happy to believe them. Obviously. I and most open-minded readers am not. Show me the fraudulent, non-historical method. Anthony (talk) 14:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

If you think the CMT article does a poor job of this then add it to Bill's list. Eugene (talk) 14:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

It's already there: 2. Is the CMT pseudo-x? Anthony (talk) 14:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Whether the CMT is pseduoscholarship and how such should be explained in-text are two distinct issues. But let's discuss that on that article's talk page. Eugene (talk) 14:57, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

External Links

"External links in an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article." Since Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not an internet link directory, very high standards should be met by a link to qualify as germane. May I suggest that the following links, all save one promoting the opinion that Jesus never existed (ahistoricity not historicity of Jesus), belong more properly on the Christ myth theory page? Since this article already contains (as no doubt it should) a link to that article, these external links are not necessary. Indeed, the links in question are 'up and running' on the Christ myth page.

• Dan Barker. Debunking the Historical Jesus
• Doherty, Earl. The Jesus Puzzle, accessed April 16, 2010.
• Holding, James Patrick. Did Jesus Exist?, accessed April 16, 2010.
• www.JesusNeverExisted.com a Christ Myth advocacy website by Kenneth Humphreys, author of the book Jesus Never Existed.
• The God Who Wasn't There official website of the movie, The God Who Wasn't There

-- JALatimer 00:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I do not see anything in the External Links article that would justify censoring these links.

These external links are relevant to the ongoing debate over the reliability of the evidence for an historical Jesus.

Ostensibly, this article is supposed to be about the historicity of Jesus. If one came across this article without any knowledge of the current debate over the veracity of the sources that are used to make the claim that the accounts of Jesus are all based upon a single historical figure, one would think there is no debate whatsoever.

Despite the POV of the article itself (which sadly violates the Misplaced Pages standard of NPOV) it is worthwhile to provide the reader with websites that explore both sides of the debate over the historicity of the Jesus figure.

Dan Barker is a well-regarded expert whose book "Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America's Leading Atheists" does an excellent job of presenting the case against the historicity of Jesus. The link to this article provides a good summary of the arguments against the historicity of Jesus. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 01:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Please reread my comment and the External links policy page. I am not suggesting we "censor" these links, nor am I impugning the "expert" status of Mr. Barker, nor am I expressing an opinion about the truth or falsehood of the Christ myth theory. I am simply proposing that since the above-mentioned links do not "explore both sides of the debate over the historicity of the Jesus figure," but rather push one-sidedly the view that Jesus never existed, they be relegated to the article about that view. Since this article directly links to the Christ myth article, the information is still freely available. This online encyclopedia is not a link repository; it is also not a Fox News-style "we report, you decide" debate platform; it is an encyclopedia. The links I did not mention appear to be actual debates about the historicity of Jesus, thus grounding themselves in the scholarly context this article concerns. The links I did mention (save one) were just Christ-as-myth apologetics sites.

I am suggesting that 'germane' and 'minimal' are better standards than 'anything that is related' for link inclusion. Do you think we should include links to several 'birther' sites on the Barack Obama page? or should we fill the bottom of the Jehovah's Witnesses page with links to Christian sites defending belief in the divinity of Jesus? We just don't need these links. -- JALatimer 02:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with the Misplaced Pages standard, and you do make a good point that external links should be evaluated by that standard. The criteria are "minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article."

• Minimal - Four or five links seems pretty minimal to me. The total list stands at nine, a single digit number.
• Meritable - Each of these links is to a site that presents a viewpoint that is based on facts and evidence and meet the Misplaced Pages standard for notability.
• Directly relevant to the article. The article is very specifically about the historicity of Jesus. Each of the links is very specifically about the historicity of Jesus. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 03:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Considering that the external links section is visibly weighted towards the minority viewpoint, the burden of proof lies squarely on you to show how this article would be harmed in any way by the removal of the links in question, in other words, why these links should be included. There is no pressing reason to include them; rather, there are some good reasons to remove them. Right now, the bottom of the page looks like a attempt to 'guide' the ignorant masses to the 'truth.' You, no doubt, will lament the passing of these links as the passing of an opportunity to subtly proselytize for your POV, but I doubt the majority of readers will share your sorrow and anguish over my heinous 'censorship', especially since as I have already pointed out twice, the links in question are already on the Christ myth page.

On articles with multiple points of view, avoid providing links too great in number or weight to one point of view, or that give undue weight to minority views. Add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view.

I am going to remove the links now. Remember that the burden of proof is on you: unless consensus develops to include these links, please refrain from re-including them. -- JALatimer 04:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I was just about to remove them so I agree. This is about the Historicity of Jesus (probably a sub cat of Historical Jesus) and not an argument for the fringe Christ Myth Theory. Yet the external links were majority related to advocacy of the fringe theory????? --Ari (talk) 04:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree with the removal. -Andrew c  04:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Removing these links makes this article less informative, but at the moment the opposition to them has the consensus, so that's fine. (Nice sarcasm BTW JALatimer. ;^))

Labeling those who question the historicity of Jesus due to the total lack of contemporaneous historical documentation and the questionable veracity of non-Christian sources in the 1st century C. E. as proponents of a "fringe theory" is really a misuse of the Misplaced Pages standard of fringe theory. The Misplaced Pages article on Fringe Theory is specifically about pseudoscience and theories that contradict the scientific mainstream not theories that offend a particular group of scholars with degrees in religion-related-fields from religious institutions. The standard of what is a "fringe theory" is evidence-based, not faith-based. For further explanation, please see what I wrote here: Misplaced Pages:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard Christ myth theory redux.

Thanks. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 04:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I am fine with labelling Christ mythicists fringe theorists, pseudo-historians and what not. That there are no academic historians arguing the hypothesis in any peer-reviewed academic sources, and those dealing with the historicity of Jesus dismiss it as pseudoscholarship is my own personal justification. That this opinion is verifiable in multiple mainstream sources is why I have no qualms about labelling the theory how it is labelled in the academy. But I guess when someone like Dan Barker with no historical or academic expertise is what you call a "well-regarded expert" I shouldn't expect your opinion to fall within that of actual well-regarded experts. I have to say, I do love your romanticised view of the CMT. Just objective evidenced based free thinkers going against blind religious bigots. If only that were the case.... --Ari (talk) 06:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

These links belong on the CMT page, as sources for the various viewpoints espoused therein. They do not belong here. NJMauthor (talk) 20:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Lack of Evidence

The very fact that it is debated whether Jesus historically existed is itself proof that the historicity of Jesus lacks evidence. Think why we don't debate on the historical existence of Alexander the Great or Julius Caesar who lived even before the time of the alleged Jesus! --Roland 23:55, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

But there isn't a lack of evidence as historians and NT scholars will tell you. Similarly, just like with Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great, there is no academic debate among scholars as to whether Jesus existed. I don't understand what your erroneous comment has to do with the article. --Ari (talk) 01:25, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

If you intend to promote Christianity, your best bet is to delete this article from Misplaced Pages. Because it is like the proverbial thief Jack who stole his neighbor's hammer and left a note there, "Jack did not steal your hammer." --Roland 08:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Title move?

Given the focus of the article, I feel that could be better to move this to Historical sources on Jesus or something on these lines. This would clarify better the focus and avoid redundancy between sections with the Historical Jesus article. --Cyclopia 13:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Identifying active Christian sources

Sources that are actively Christian need to be identified as such. It should be obvious that Christians are biased on the question of whether Jesus existed, and that potential conflict of interest is relevant to our readers. Noloop (talk) 05:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Facts are not attributed, only opinions are. Flash 05:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Factual claims made by biased sources should be identified as such. The claim in question is this: "essentially all scholars in the relevant fields agree that the mere historical existence of Jesus can be established using documentary and other evidence" The sole source for the claim that the existence of Jesus is undisputed is a theologian, and that is something the reader should know. Noloop (talk) 05:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

So according to you, no source can make a statement of fact in terms of religious matters? Per your logic, every source would be biased. Flash 06:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

That's not what I said.

No, that is not accurate, Noloop. Here is a nice list, including some atheists, establishing the facts:

That list needs to be collapsed somehow, as it makes the page hard to read. Is it intended to be a list of atheists who think there was a historic Jesus? If so, the first scholar is a mistake. GA Wells concludes that the evidence supporting a real Jesus anything like the Biblical version is weak. I'm afraid I'm not going to peruse the whole list--which you haven't done either, since you misrepresented the facts right off the bat--but you are certainly welcome to work non-religous sources into the article. Noloop (talk) 19:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I've replaced that list with a link to its source, as it made the page difficult to read: http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Bill_the_Cat_7/CMT_FAQ

I hope that settles the issue. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 06:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

This is wonderful, Bill. What do you think about adding all your post to Wikiquote? --Cyclopia 09:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I hate to disappoint you, but Bill the Cat 7 is not a reliable source of what the majority of scholars think. And, being in a minority is not the same as being fringe, particularly in the context of religion. If you can provide neutral and reliable evidence that the non-existence of a historical jesus is a fringe theory, then do so. By "neutral" and "reliable" I do not mean your interpretation of your research as found on your Talk page. Noloop (talk) 20:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

You talk about neutrality and reliable sources. Could you please provide truly neutral, unbiased and reliable sources proving that Jesus never existed? Antique Rose — Drop me a line 21:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Those sources don't exist, because you cannot prove a negative. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 21:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

So, then do you agree that Noloops claim that

The sole source for the claim that the existence of Jesus is undisputed is a theologian, and that is something the reader should know.

is wrong and that we don't need to identify the background of the sources? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 09:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I still think that identifying the background is very helpful, in this specific case exactly because it can stop people to think that there is a bias. If multiple academics with different religious/philosophical backgrounds all agree on the basis of facts, this is something that the reader should know, for the purpose of putting at rest any bias suspicion. --Cyclopia 11:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed it seems logical to provide the view from a broad range of scholars - because if even theologically divided authors agree then it must be a solid consensus :) --Errant Tmorton166 11:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

So you are proposing that sources from ANY single religious background cannot be trusted to make a statement of fact, and that they cannot be trusted to be non-biased in factual statements solely because of their religion?

Therefore, we must find atheist/non-religious sources which confirms every factual detail about Christian/Jewish scholarship in the last few hundred years?

Should we apply the same to history? Must we find Russian, Chinese and German sources which confirms every detail of American history? Flash 11:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

So you are proposing that sources from ANY single religious background; I'm sorry if you got that idea. If I was silly enough to say that then I retract it, there was no intention to say so.... you call this a fact, I am sure that it is - however it is not something easily verified by an individual without reasonable research, we have to rely on someone within the field to explain that a consensus exist. Someone saying "there is a broad consensus" is mostly opinion. Someone saying "there is a broad consensus because XYZ people all say ABC" is better. Several people saying the latter is best of all. If non-christian writers disagree on the consensus (I am assuming they don't) that needs to be addressed also :) --Errant Tmorton166 11:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Errant said, it is not something easily verified by an individual without reasonable research. Errant, all that needs to be done to make it easily verified is to cut the vast amount of quotes I listed above and paste them into a FAQ. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 12:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

No, that would be dangerous (misquotes, selective quoting etc.). BUT a selection of those sources seem absolutely fine to add as references for the statement.... I'm not sure why that would be/is being resisted? --Errant Tmorton166 12:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Dangerous? Do you think there are any misquotes above? When you have well-known scholars, such as the atheist Bart Ehrman, saying that they personally know thousands of scholars and yet not one of them subscribes to any part of the CMT, then what do you make of that? We also have academics here on Misplaced Pages, such as Ari who confirms that CMT proponents can't even get their position peer-reviewed because of the contempt that is held for the CMT. What else is needed to convince you (that can also be applied to other ancient historical figures)? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 12:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, if you meant that only a few quotes should be placed in the article, then that is certainly reasonable. But for a FAQ, which would be on the Talk page, the more quotes the better. There are lot of uninformed people that believe the CMT is a reasonable possibility. It isn't, and sometimes they need to see a bunch of quotes to convince them. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 12:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

An FAQ on the talk page is something I would consider overkill. It is dangerous because it is not the direct source and because quotes could be cherry picked (I'm 100% certain that is not the case because I have read many of those authors! but it means WP is acting as a direct source - which is problematic). I see no issue with using one or two of the sources you highlighted above in the article (not as quotes, again seems overkill/undue weight) in the article to support the "contentious" statement. --Errant Tmorton166 12:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Facepalm I must have the supernatural gift to be unable to be understood.

I have repeated several times that it's not a matter of "trust" or "reliability". I have repeated several times that an atheist source on the subject is no less prone to bias than a Christian or Jewish or Muslim one.

What I propose is that on a delicate issue as the one of the historical facts concerning Jesus, clarifying the background of scholars in cases in which (a)a statement is considered controversial (if not academically, by some section of the public) or (b)the scholar has a strong, explicit religious POV (e.g. is a prominent atheist spokesman; a bishop; a rabbi) , it provides context to the reader to know the background. Example: Bertrand Russell sympathized with the Jesus myth theory. Bertrand Russell was also a prominent atheist. To understand his sympathy in context, his background is a useful information.

In any case, I don't see what we gain by hiding such backgrounds. To write a sentence like (say) "Academic consensus from Christian,Jewish and secular sources is firm in establishing the historicity of Jesus" looks much more informative and gives much less space to climb for fringe theorists than "Academic consensus is firm in establishing the historicity of Jesus" citing a single source. --Cyclopia 11:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

So the vast amount of quotes I listed above was not enough to convince you that stating backgrounds was unnecessary? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 12:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what the mere number of quotes has to do with stating their background, and I find also difficult to understand such resistance to merely stating a relevant contextual background. --Cyclopia 14:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

If a consensus cannot be determined by numbers, then please explain how to determine if there is a consensus? There are a whole lot of quotes above that say that there is indeed a vast, vast consensus among scholars. Why is that so hard to accept? And since that is demonstrably the case, then inserting a "contextual background" is superfluous. I mean, why not just state "Scholars affirm such and such"? One's religious or non-religious background is irrelevant when the consensus is so huge (which includes both religious and non-religious scholars) and the object of that consensus is historical (non-religious) in nature. Isn't that reasonable? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 15:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Consensus is not only a matter of numbers. There is quality, not only quantity. The other factor is the composition of the sample. Obvious example: about half of Americans refuse the theory of evolution, yet it is overwhelmingly consensual in the scientific community, and that's why we assume that scientific consensus is there. Other example: In theory, one could cherry-pick quotes only from Christ myth theory literature and give the false impression that there is a consensus on their side. But yes, you are right, there is a vast consensus among scholars: and it is a consensus especially because, as you point, it includes both religious (of different backgrounds) and non-religious scholars. This is important: it means that despite the differences in the starting beliefs, all they acknowledge independently something very crucial. This has strong positive implications on the quality of such consensus, given that, yes, the object of the consensus is historical, but with enormous implications for several religions. So it is appropriate to add this, to make it clear to people that no matter what is your starting potential bias, they all arrive at the same conclusion, and as such we reassure the reader that it is not matter of editorial bias, it is not matter of cherrypicking, it is instead a real, solid consensus. With the bonus that any future Noloop can be pointed at that and reassured that everything is OK. --Cyclopia 15:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem including such an explanation in a FAQ. For example, check out old FAQ #4 from the Christ myth theory page. But to put it in the actual article is problematic, as stated by RF, Griswaldo, et al. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 16:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't seem problematic, because nobody pointed out any problem with it: all this discussion is a defensive "but we don't need that!" more than a "it is a problem because..." --Cyclopia 16:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Please reread Griswaldo and RF's comments. They state the problems clearly. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

At the cost of looking dumb, I read their comments and I can't find these dangling problems. --Cyclopia 19:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I can honestly say I do not like labels such as "atheist", "Christian" or "Jewish". When I read scholarly opinions, I want all notable opinions, and don't want such labels attached to scholars which implies that a person's religion dictates his/her opinion. Likewise, I don't want to see the label "American", "English" or "American-born" in history articles or labels such as "Blue Jays fan", "Former American League Player" attached to sports opinions. Frankly, people or organizations rarely write or make a statement on something they don't care about, so you could argue there is a bias in every source, and labelling every source, which can be done many different ways to imply different things, is counterproductive and POV. Flash 12:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

If you feel that dictates his/her opinion, that's your problem. I don't feel that it "dictates" anything, I feel it is a relevant contextual information because it may have a bearing on their opinion, for sure. Find me a Communist who thinks Communism is not a viable economical model. It is obvious that the belief/cultural background of a scholar is relevant when the subject of the studies is inextricably connected to such beliefs/background. To "care about" is different than "having strong beliefs". A gardener cares about roses, but (usually) doesn't think that roses are his Lord and Saviour. A Jesus scholar cares about Jesus, and may also think that Jesus is his Lord and Saviour, and to say that this is irrelevant to his Jesus studies is naive at best. --Cyclopia 14:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it is reasonable to say consensus is across a broad span of theological differences. There is a non-academic tendency to see religious history as biased by an authors beliefs - or the circle of authors/academics he/she associates with. I'm not altogether unconvinced that such biases exist when we get to the actual nitty gritty of this subject :) - but I doubt it exists for this broad statement. As the article is written for non-academic readers I'd support the idea of clarifying where the consensus rests (i.e. with everyone). The sources could be from anyone - just so long as there are a two or three from well respected academics it seems fine --Errant Tmorton166 12:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

@Cyclopia. There are a million different attributes we could identify any given human being by -- nationality, religious belief, gender, age, etc. It is not meaningful to mention any of these unless they are correlated with something else. If all Christ Mythers are atheists that is indeed meaningful information, though meaningful does not necessarily mean we should include it. When not being a Christ myther has no meaningful correlation with a specific religious affiliation then it is misleading to point to any specifically. Even if you identify a large group of affiliations. Why no Hindus? Why no Buddhists? Those are the questions one naturally asks because you've all of a sudden made religious affiliation significant by identifying it along with the mainstream POV. Suggesting we do so is simply bad science, if you believe the social sciences are so aptly named.Griswaldo (talk) 12:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

See above. There are a million different attributes, yes, but I am talking of ones which are inextricably linked with the subject study. See above reply to Flash. --Cyclopia 14:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

And that makes it good science how? Are we to assume bias in research that relates to gender conducted by men and/or by women? You claim to be a scientist but you operate in the realm of assumption when these are questions we can actually test empirically. For shame my friend.Griswaldo (talk) 14:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Are we to assume bias in research that relates to gender conducted by men and/or by women? : Well, this is simplifying the matter a lot, but, to also be simple in answering, yes. Have you ever heard of gender bias? --Cyclopia 14:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Not exactly. I asked if we are to "assume bias", and what you pointed us to in your link are conclusions about bias drawn from empirical studies that have tested gender bias. This is exactly my point, so thanks for making it real by way of example. Where are the conclusions drawn from empirical studies that have tested religious bias? You have none, you simply have your assumptions about it.Griswaldo (talk) 14:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you want sources about the obvious? Here we go: : "Indeed, these types of study are done best by those scholars who can bracket their own religious commitments or have none to bracket, as the whole sorry history of religious bias in biblical studies amply demonstrates. Practicing Jews and Christians will differ from uncompromising historicists, however..." --Cyclopia 14:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Also: "Jewish scholars uncovered Christian bias in supposedly objective scholarship", . --Cyclopia 14:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Funny enough given your example: "If male bias has been exposed by feminist readings of the Bible, Christian bias has appeared in sharp relief against the background of re-emergent Jewish scholarship" . --Cyclopia 14:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Lets not get too sidetracked over this. From an academic perspective the nitty gritty of historical research into Jesus is often weighted with religious (or anti-religious) bias. That's not a charge for every scholar in the field; but it is a common issue. However what we are discussing here is not the nitty gritty, it is a broad statement about the consensus on the existence of a historical figure in the role of Jesus. I'll say it now that from my experience of the field this consensus does exist. To me it seems a relevant point from the perspective of an article aimed at non-scholars/academics to clarify that this consensus is held by the full spectrum of scholarship as relevant to this field. Any wider discussion than that seems just discussing our perspectives (which is fascinating/interesting and I could do it all day - but seems off topic). As I see it:

• We need to discuss if such a distinction should be made explicitly in the article
• How many and what sort of sourcing is required for non-academics to be happy with the statement in whatever form.

My personal support is to include the spectrum and several sources (max 3) from reputable scholars preferably from across the spectrum. --Errant Tmorton166 15:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

@Cyclopedia (edit conflict)What exactly is Levenson referring to as the "whole sorry history of religious bias in biblical studies" because that remains entirely unclear -- is he really referring to the modern era of biblical criticism? Also please note that the matter at hand is not confined to "biblical criticism" ... since it relates to ancient history. The second quote refers to something that happened in the 1960s according to the author, who then goes on to point out that the result has been an increasing number of approaches and less "certitude" in biblical criticism. Less certitude meaning what? If there is less certitude but scholars still agree that one thing is certain ... that there was a Jesus of Nazareth, then what does that mean? The third books speaks of two overarching hegemonies that have been countered in recent years in biblical criticism, one patriarchal and the other Christian. None of these quotes actually address the issue at hand, which is not a matter of the "history of bias in biblical criticism" but whether or not there is a religious bias that influences ones views on the historicity of Jesus. Also, not to be nitpicky, but none of these are actually "empirical studies" of the contemporary field, but reflections by knowledgeable experts on the history of their field. It's not particularly informative to Google search for key words and then to throw in out of context quotes like this from google books. They do not address the lack of evidence that I've pointed to.Griswaldo (talk) 15:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Cyclopia, not Cyclopedia Oh please. There is ample explicit evidence above that religious bias is a problem in the scholarship of Biblical subjects. It is enough to admit that the field is not the shiny ivory tower of disinterested souls you seem to depict. Which is not surprising, since it is pretty obvious that, for example, if you are a Christian, you should be much more likely to suggest as historical things like the Resurrection (and viceversa, if you're not, you're probably less likely to accept it). --Cyclopia 16:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

"There is ample explicit evidence above that religious bias is a problem in the scholarship of Biblical subjects." No, that's your opinion. You basically want this article to reflect YOUR OPINION that the 99% who disagree with are all driven by bias. No - YOU are driven by bias. The article reflects scholarship. Carlo (talk) 19:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

You haven't read the above, havent' you? See sources linked above before saying that it is "my opinion". And I don't want the article to reflect "my opinion" (whatever it is -which opinion do you talk about?), I just want 1)source background to be properly identified and 2)a full spectrum of sources is given. --Cyclopia 19:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I made an edit to the lead and then came to the talk page to find this discussion. Have to say I agree with Cyclopia. It provides context to the references, and doesn't detract from them, so I really dont see the fuss on this at all. It's simple and expands the information provided to the reader in a meaningful way, one of the hallmarks of encyclopedic content. -- ۩ Mask 23:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Since both Christian and non-Christian scholars are in agreement, there is no reason to state "Christian". Also, using "Christian" implies a POV agenda on the part of Christians and therefore implies that they are not to be trusted. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 01:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

That seems very much in dispute on this talk page. Regardless of that issue however, I took the liberty of looking up the source for the lead edit at the college library here. It really is simply his assertion that its not, not any real evidence for that. Seeing as how the source doesn't actually show what is being alleged by the statement perhaps the compromise would be to simply delete his religious affiliation from the attribution? Im reverting back to the full version seeing as how there is some controversy about the way to handle this shown on this page, but i would not reflexively revert the mere deletion of his faith, should consensus show us that's the way to go. -- ۩ Mask 02:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source which contradicts the lead source? Flash 03:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

As mentioned I took the time at uni today to look up the source in the lead having waded into this from an ANI thread. Im not that engaged on the subject, nor particularly hung up on it, so no I dont but that doesn't change the fact that the source does not show what was being claimed. I see we've let the compromise sit for a minute, and thats fine with me. My main problem with the source is it amounts to the author of the book waving his hand and blindly asserting said thing. The work doesn't dive into what the shape of the consensus is, and indeed a few pages later talking about how secular history is predictably less rigid in its belief but still supported by a majority. Language like that implies a conflict of interest to my ear (as in he's weighting secular history less). -- ۩ Mask 03:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Contrary to what someone else said on this page, this is not my POV. Please read these quotes, which includes both Christians and non-Christians, and you'll see what scholars have to say. And keep in mind that NPOV is a core Wiki policy—consensus cannot override it. Therefore, if both Christians and non-Christians say the say the same thing, there is no point in adding "Christian" into the text and doing do is POV-pushing. Finally, if anyone is sincerely interested in what a well-known atheist scholar (Bart Ehrman) has to say about it, listen to this. It's worth your time. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 03:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

As mentioned in edit summary, thats covered by WP:SYNTH. You use what a source says, not combining multiple sources in an offshoot of WP:OR to form new information. -- ۩ Mask 03:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm walking away from this for the night, but unless the source for the statement gets changed I do think the compromise wording seems fine for the next 24 hours or so... I'll have access to the extensive library again tomorrow morning, there may in fact be a source that makes sense to use and allows the original wording to be kept. Will enjoy helping out :) - ۩ Mask 03:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Please be more specific. I'm not sure what you are talking about, since virtually all scholars agree that Jesus was a real, historical person. Note that we are talking about only his historicity—we are not talking about any claims of miracles, etc. Just a simple human being like all of us here. At any rate, have a good night (and please make an effort to listen to the Bart Ehrman interview link above. Have a good night. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 03:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Name Change

Shouldn't this be Historicity of Jesus Theory?

To take an unbiased approach shouldn't both this and the Christ Myth Theory have the same allocation of a theory?--Iankap99 (talk) 21:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

As I read it this page documents Christ Myth Theory, Historical Jesus and everything in between - including the relative acceptance of the various theories. It doesn't present any one actual theory. Or in other words, Christ Myth Theory is a sub-topic of this. --Errant Tmorton166 21:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikifaith?

Such religiously biased entries should go to Wikifaith.

So there aren't enough atheists to use them as sources that J exists?

"Why don't you use atheist scholars who say that it's obvious that J exists?" "There's no need, becuase these 30 scholars all agree that he did exist." Repeat, rinse, and wash. I'm getting the feeling that although no one wants to admit it, religious scholars are needed to source the main statement. If I'm wrong, add it to the actual article (not here). If I'm right, then the sources probably still meet our sourcing requirements, but at least we can get it out in the open. Again, add sources to article, then comment. Else, you cannot add sources, or don't want to, which is about the same to me. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

hear hear! athiest sources almost universally take the agnostic view that so little evidence exists we cant say one way or another. evangelicals cheer things like the ossuary of james then quietly stop talking about it after it was shown as a forgery. the look for evidence to support a conclusion, not look what the evidence leads them too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.229.204.47 (talk) 03:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about all that, but again, let's put whatever info there is in the actual article. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

You fundamentally misunderstand the consensus process of WP. The bold edit to the previous consensus edit was objected to by immediately being reverted by three editors. Evidently, it does not have consensus - so we follow consensus building as per the diagram. You do not repeatedly revert to the non-consensus version hoping to edit war it in. Regarding the rant, I honestly have no idea what you are talking about so I will withhold my comments.--Ari (talk) 04:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I mean let's use atheist scholars as sources for the overwhelming scholarly consensus that J existed in some form. If that's not possible, lets acknowledge that and move the discussion forward. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Why use atheist scholars? Are you saying that Christians, Jews, Hindus and agnostics are no longer reliable sources because you personally don't share their worldview? There is no WP policy to the effect that prejudices reliable scholars in reliable sources because of their religious/non-religious background. Editors are meant to adhere to wp:NPOV. --Ari (talk) 05:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying any of that, and I know that WP's rules say a Christian scholar is just as reliable on the existence of J as an atheist scholar. But, this is a frequent talk page issue, so if atheist scholars don't think J existed, we can move on according to the letter of WP's rules, and not pretend that everyone agrees. Anyways, still waiting for something that can be added to the actual article. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

But Atheist scholars do agree Jesus did exist - that is why atheists such as Michael Grant, James Crossley and Maurice Casey can write books and journal articles about what Jesus said and did. That is why reliable scholars in reliable sources can make consensus statements about the state of play in Jesus research. Do you have a reliable source that makes statements contrary to the consensus statements? Do you (or these other editors) have a reliable source on historicity of Jesus stating "essentially all scholars - but atheists - in the relevant fields agree that the existence of Jesus as a historical figure can be established using documentary and other evidence."? If not, the debate is nothing but an editorial creation. --Ari (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Can we add citation to the article showing that atheist scholars agree that Jesus existed? If we can (and do), then my problem will be resolved. As far as WPs policies forbidding that, it's well within editorial discression, and attribution is a good thing. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

There is editorial discretion in creating debates that have no basis in any reliable sources? Atheist scholars are part of the academy so consensus statements apply just as much to them as they do to their Christian, Jewish or agnostic colleagues. So we do have a source that states atheist scholars agree. Check out Bill the Cat 7's FAQ which is packed full of many reliable sources that make statements that include atheists. --Ari (talk) 05:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The reason it's a frequent talk page issue is that there is a great degree of ignorance regarding historical methodology as well as what it means to say that Jesus was an historical figure. Most people think that if they concede the historicity of Jesus, then that means that they must also concede his miracles and claims of divinity. Nothing could be further from the truth. There are plenty of atheists that can be quoted in order to convince the typical village atheist that scholars are extremely sure of Jesus' historicity. However, that sets up a dangerous precedent (as well as being un-Wiki regarding reliable sources) that says only non-Christians can be trusted to be unbiased.

So, providing a source and labeling it Christian/atheist/Hindu/etc is not the way to go. It would be far better IMHO (as well as following Wiki procedures) to simply create a fax explaining that ALL groups of scholars and virtually every single scholar in each group believes in the simple existence of Jesus. Then, when someone makes bogus claims, we won't have to start yet another long thread—we just point them to the FAQ. Thus, PF, I think this would satisfy your concerns. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 05:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I kinda mention it becuase of your FAQ. That things a wall of text (TLDR), hence it doesn't show what atheist scholars believe, or at least not in a useful way. Nice work on the DnD articles, by the way. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

FAQ #3 on my page actually addresses that. It says:

Question: Isn't the 'academic consensus' cited in the article just a lot of Christians pushing their religious POV?

Response: While many people who study the New Testament and ancient history are Christians, there are other scholars in these fields who are not. Special effort has been made in this article to include non-Christian sources in the demonstration of the academic consensus regarding the Christ Myth theory. Specifically, of the people cited in support of the scholarly consensus, Bart Ehrman, Michael Grant, Will Durant, Alan F. Segal, James Frazer, Morton Smith, Samuel Sandmel, and Joseph Klausner are not Christians. Other cited authors, such as John Dominic Crossan, Robert Funk, Marcus Borg, and Albert Schweitzer, while claiming a vaguely Christian identity, clearly fall well outside conventional Christian orthodoxy.

And just for the record, I'm not the one who compiled the list. I mean, I'm pretty familiar with the topic because I studied it informally about 20 years ago, but those FAQS required someone who was formally trained. At any rate, I'm not really inclined to create the FAQ for this page because 1) The next few weeks I will be very busy, and 2) I'd much rather edit D&D articles at this point. Gamers are much nicer people to deal with. And thanks for the complement. By the way, have you seen the movie The Gamers: Dorkness Rising. If not, watch it. It's hilarious. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 06:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: Bill's Response. So cite those and only those to support the academic consensus. They are reliable sources, and it will shut down this perennial "Christians would say that" chorus. Please. Anthony (talk) 10:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Look. Lets look at this from the point of view of policy. There is no reason for us to undermine the opinion/consensus of scholars solely due to their religion. I have argued in the past that citing a cross section of sources would be preferable because it shows how broad the consensus is. But it is not necessary. To make the statement all scholars in the relevant fields agree that the existence of Jesus as a historical figure can be established using documentary and other evidence we need more than one source passing WP:RS to support it - we have those, take your pick. It is impossible to claim that we cannot state it because currently all that is cited in support is a Christian source - if it passes WP:RS it is verified and we judge on that, not truth. To claim we need Atheist or Agnostic sources is dangerously close to a POV - it is most definitely preferable, but not mandatory. The only thing that would change that is if a large number (or even just a few particularly respected) non-Christian scholars in the relevant fields heavily disagreed in WP:RS's. If we can cite that disagreement then the sentence would require changing --Errant Tmorton166 13:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

We use attribution all the time, as policy recommends it when a source is reliable but possibly biased. I think we could do that here if they exist. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 14:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

So, if you're citing Hindu, atheist or agnostic scholars there is no need to attribute, because their religious orientation does not mandate the historical existence of Jesus. I know that Christian scholars can be rigorous, that of course they may be cited. But why, when you have equally solid non-Christian sources for the consensus view, insist on citing only Christian sources for consensus in the article, knowing it stokes this constant dispute? Nothing at all gained, much time wasted. Anthony (talk) 14:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Citing peer reviewed sources (as opposed to published books etc.) should remove the problem of source bias. Citing a broad range of sources will also remove this problem. So such sources should be preferred. --Errant Tmorton166 15:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment Please see WP:ASF regarding this kind of attribution. Mainstream scholarly point of views should not be attributed in this manner. This is exactly an example of how attribution is abused to suggest that something is not a mainstream POV, or to suggest that it is not a netural POV. Attributing statements that fall withing the scholarly consensus to a certain type of scholar should be avoided at all costs.Griswaldo (talk) 15:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, here we are again, at the same place we always end up. I just want it to be clear that regardless of numerous and constant concerns by tons of editors, editors prefer hiding behind the letter of WP's rules than to resolve this issue. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 17:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Here's a good way to do it. Global_warming#cnote_B - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 18:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't that help things enormously. Has one scholarly body published a consensus statement regarding the historicity of Jesus? Anthony (talk) 18:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

There's the Jesus Seminar, which isn't perfect at all. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

When even those in the Jesus Seminar reject the non-historicity of Jesus, that's saying a lot. Regarding Anthony's question about scholarly body, Ari would likely know. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

It will sound silly, but maybe we can say "Jesus existed got 95% red beads at the Jesus Seminar". I saw a lot of votes on specific sayings, but none on the big question. Also, Ari, are you following this? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 00:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The only people who think the Jesus Seminar as a group represent consensus are the Jesus Seminar. The fact that they can attribute a single saying to Jesus is evidence that through their stringent use of the historical critical method they have determined that Jesus didn't just exist, but he most likely said X, Y and Z. --Ari (talk) 04:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

(redent) What about "Regarding Anthony's question about scholarly body, Ari would likely know."? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The role of a scholarly body is to facilitate scholarship not tell scholars what to believe. Reliable sources have made consensus statements to the basic fact that mainstream scholarship believes Jesus existed. We have no reliable source that states the consensus is any different . Ergo, we follow WP policy and the sources, not string together wp:OR arguments such as here.

Short version: no reliable source says anything contrary, editors do not invent qualifications of these consensus statements. --Ari (talk) 05:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

RfC

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following lists: Religion and philosophy History and geography When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

I posted notice I was going to be opening this up 3 days ago to Griswaldo and Bill's talkpages, because they seemed most active in the opposing camp and neither seems to have drafted a response and I'm not going to hold off indefinitely, so I'm opening this up and posting links in the appropriate places (RfC lists, Village Pump). Since neither stepped up to write an opposing side, I welcome any editor who takes that position to draw up the response. We seem to have several (Myself, Cyclopia, Peregrine) editors stating that attribution should be required, and several (Gris, Bill, Ari) Saying it should not. The appropriate course now is to open it up to the wider community to determine consensus. -- ۩ Mask 17:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The view that the lede should note the source

The language in the lede cites a evangelical Christian blanket asserting that the view Jesus existed is held universally without revealing possible bias from the source. Furthermore, the source does not provide any evidence that that is the case, but simply asserts it. A look deeper reveals an Agnostic position from many theologians and historians:

Reasons

Robert M. Price, a theologian with a PhD in The New Testament and a second PhD in Systematic Theology, explains that view well: "And in the case of Jesus Christ, where virtually every detail of the story fits the mythic hero archetype, with nothing left over, no "secular," biographical data, so to speak, it becomes arbitrary to assert that there must have been a historical figure lying back of the myth. There may have been, but it can no longer be considered particularly probable, and that's all the historian can deal with: probabilities"

Even Christian scholars acknowledge that all sources for the life of Jesus came generations after he lived. The Gospels were written, according to mainline theologians from the Christian faith, up to as late as 150 CE. And the Gospels are the closest any writings get, secular sources are all centuries after. This led David Noel Freedman, a Christian thologian writing in Bible Review magazine, December 1993 to remark "We have to accept somewhat looser standards. In the legal profession, to convict the defendant of a crime, you need proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In civil cases, a preponderance of the evidence is sufficient. When dealing with the Bible or any ancient source, we have to loosen up a little; otherwise, we can't really say anything." followed by "When it comes to the historical question about the Gospels, I adopt a mediating position-- that is, these are religious records, close to the sources, but they are not in accordance with modern historiographic requirements or professional standards."

Bertrand Russell, a historian in addition to being one of the most influential philosophers of the 20th century, laid it out quite plainly in his book 'Why I am not a Christian': "Historically, it is quite doubtful whether Christ ever existed at all, and if He did we do not know anything about Him."

Taking a look at another historian, rather then theologian, Earl Doherty pieces together early Christian culture to show a mythical beginning for Jesus, a work well regarded by many in the field. Religious Historian R. Joseph Hoffmann called it plausible, but that there is reason to hold the view. Richard Carrier, who holds a PhD in Ancient History, praised it in his review. Even those who do not support the view, such as Hector Avalos, called the work plausible, but pointed out it lacks the same hard evidence that the hypothesis Jesus was a real person does. A quote that sums up the text nicely for our purposes rests on page 141: 'Before the Gospels were adopted as history, no record exists that he was ever in the city of Jerusalem at all-- or anywhere else on earth.'

George A Larue, a Biblical Archeologist at USC and the first head of the Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion, wrote that "We can recreate dimensions of the world in which he lived, but outside of the Christian scriptures, we cannot locate him historically within that world." in the compilation 'The Book Your Church Doesn't Want You To Read'.

Conclusion

In secular histories of Religion, there is a strong current, of not disbelief in the Historical Jesus, but agnosticism, that the evidence is not present to support the claim. I haven't even touched on prominent secular scientists who hold the view such as Dawkins, because this is out of their field, but I will throw that out there because those in such fields are well acquainted with standards of evidence and burden of proof. All in all, if the lede is going to place a simple, bare assertion that the view is universally held, the reader should be informed of possible bias in the source, through the simple attribution of the quote, eg: 'According to Christian Theologian xxx'

Discussion (2)

• This is utter nonsense. There are very, very few ancient historians or critical biblical scholars (you know, the people who went to school to specialize in scholarly methods related studying the New Testament times and location) who support this "agnostic" or non-history view of Jesus. You sure wrote a lot, but cherry picked basically the only people who have written about this topic in the manner you support (and many of them simply are not scholars or specialize in a relevant field). It's like citing a couple MDs who disagree with evolution, or an engineer or physicist who disagrees with Global Warming. If you look at the university level text books on this matter, or write to just about any other published scholars who teach undergraduate courses on this topic at secular universities, you won't find people that support this view. We site a source which says as much (or points out the near unanimity of scholars supporting a historical Jesus). There is absolutely no reason at all to not believe this source. Saying the source comes from an "evangelical Christian" is religious prejudice. Unless we have other sources accusing that source of bias, criticism from that angle is only representative of some anonymous Wikipedian's personal prejudices, nothing more. We have no reason to think that someone who is trained in a field of study, published in that field, is somehow magically unable to be professional simply because they are Christian. That sort of prejudice disgusts me, and I find attempts to push the POV that question the historicity of Jesus is akin to creationism, global warming denial, AIDS denial, (dare I say holocaust denial?) -Andrew c  17:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Comparing it to holocaust denial? Laugh. And I left out quite a few names (Elaine Pagels, for one, the Harrington Spear Paine Professor of Religion at Princeton University) who hold a 'we can't know, there arent enough sources from the time period' view just to keep it concise and avoid a TLDR. -- ۩ Mask 18:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

RFC Comment The language used in the lead section is a little ambiguous, and perhaps that's what's causing some of the debate. It says that "essentially all scholars in the relevant fields" agree that Jesus existed. What is a relevant field? If the relevant field is Christian theologians, then it seems to be almost a self-evident truth. I would deprecate this sentence solely on these terms, and seek a better quote, ideally one that less ambiguously qualifies what kind of scholars believe what. Given that counterexamples of unbelieving, credible scholars have been produced by editors here, some actual evidence would be useful. A poll, however informal, would be preferable to Stanton's unsubstantiated declaration. (Is it unsubstantiated? I'm guessing, not having the source in front of me.) And if no such evidence exists, why not just do away with that phrase entirely? The lead section will look just fine without a declaration of how many people believe there's evidence for his existence. --RSLxii 21:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Another RFC Comment I've had a quick look at the article and the troublesome sentences, and I must agree with RSLxii. The sentence ""essentially all scholars in the relevant fields" is a little bald, but it may reflect current thinking by scholars. However, I think the Lead does only introduce the article, and doesn't do a thorough job of summarising it (as per WP:LEAD). A bit more context taken from the article would improve it, and a statement that mentioned the consensus (assuming there is one) which relevant scholars have should go after brief discussion of the sources and analysis. It may be useful to mention the nay-sayers, even if it were only to say that they were in a minority (bearing in mind WP:UNDUE) My only further comment is that if notable figures have at some time in the past had a view (you mention Bertrand Russell) , even if that view was subsequently shown to be invalid, I think that is notablility enough to be included; although the weight given to it in the article should reflect their impact on the Historicity issue. Major Bloodnok (talk) 22:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment @AKMask Actually, you might want to listen to this. Ehrman basically says that if one ignores evidence, then even the Holocaust can be denied. That's how sure scholars are about the historicity of Jesus. Therefore, Andrew C is correct in his assessment. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment @Bloodnok. To say "essentially all scholars" is accurate and, more importantly, verifiable. Even proponents of the CMT acknowledge it. And when both sides of the issue agree that that is the case, then hiding that fact is a violation of WP:NPOV as well as WP:Fringe. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I decided to take search around and see if there were any polls regarding the issue. The most promising lead I found was this:

http://www.youngausskeptics.com/bbpress/topic.php?id=96

Does anyone want to try and track down more information about this survey?

Other than this, all I found were internet surveys, which are clearly not up to snuff:

http://www.answerbag.com/debates/jesus-historical-figure_1855544

http://atheism.about.com/gi/pages/poll.htm?poll_id=6793870036&linkback=

http://talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=7923

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/atheism-dir/69002-atheist-poll-there-historical-yeshua-2.html

http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TAAT95C1MK0DAHR4E

If actual polls can be cited, I feel they would be better sources than those listed in Bill the Cat's CMT FAQ page, which, though voluminous, seems to lack anything published in peer-reviewed or academic journals, and none of which are based any anything more substantial than "based on all the historians I personally know..." (correct me if I'm wrong, I didn't read every single quote word for word) --RSLxii 23:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• long version. Short version:

1. Do any reliable sources explicitly challenge the consensus statement regarding mainstream scholarship? No.
2. Does original research and synthesis (e.g. misusing references to Freedman and Larue to advance a theory neither hold) take precedent over reliably sourced consensus statements? No.
3. Does the personal belief on the topic by philosopher Bertrand Russell in 1927 replace reliable consensus statements on the state of scholarship? No.
4. Do mainstream reliable sources from a wide range of religious and non-religious perspectives agree that there is a clear consensus within scholarship that Jesus existed as a historical figure? Yes. --Ari (talk) 01:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

What is the single best source ever for the consensus, and why? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The quick answer is, Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources when available. The longer answers can be found here and here. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 04:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

That didn't answer my question at all. I've been here for over five years (written FAs, GAs, answered hundreds of WP:RSN questions, etc.), so I know those policies. Can you give me a non-TLDR that will easily convince me per those policies? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I guess I misunderstood. Can you please be more specific about what you are looking for? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 04:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe Peregrine Fisher wasn't talking in the abstract, but wants you to provide a specific source for a consensus statement regarding the historical Jesus. -Andrew c  04:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

(EC) Sorry for that last comment, it wasn't super helpful. Anyways, what is the very best single source that there is a scholarly consensus that Jesus existed? Is it "Graham Stanton, The Gospels and Jesus (2nd ed.), (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002) p. xxiii" (which is used right now in the lead)? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Ari would probably be the best person to ask. But, in my opinion, the statements by the CMT proponents themselves are pretty compelling. You can find them here. They even say that the CMT is dismissed with "amused contempt", "universal disdain", and held in "contempt". If that doesn't convince a person what the consensus is, then I really don't know what will. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 04:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

While perhaps convincing in arguments, I don't think citing fringe/controversial scholars in the lead (which arguably aren't reliable in terms of the topic of ancient history) is a good idea. -Andrew c  04:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. But I was just talking about a consensus, not what should be in the lead. Of course, no amount of evidence and facts will dissuade those who have there minds set on pushing a POV. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 05:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

NPOV tag

Please don't remove the NPOV tag again - it simply states that we are debating the POV (something that seems to be, indeed, still unsolved). --Cyclopia 19:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll remove the tag unless there is a specific reason stated for its inclusion. Can you please concisely state the reason? I mean, I don't see any POV discussion going on above that is not based on the claim that Christian scholars are unreliable sources. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

What is the claim and how well grounded it is, is not important -the claim could even be that Jesus comes really from Mars, or whatever silliness. But this claim is indeed being debated between editors continuously in the last week, in this talk page and elsewhere, by several editors. And your wording is misleading -I think nobody in this quarrel thinks that Christian scholars are unreliable, only that they are biased sources (a not-so-subtle distinction). Given that there is an unresolved NPOV dispute ongoing, regardless of what I, you, or anyone thinks of it, the NPOV tag is only appropriate. --Cyclopia 19:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Please cite some articles in peer-reviewed, secular journals that say it's a fact that Jesus existed. Noloop (talk) 05:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't recall any part of WP:RS requiring the sources be "peer-reviewed." Can you point to where that might be? I vaguely recall that some wikiprojects (like WP:MEDICINE) set higher standards, but I don't believe this article falls under any such criteria (and, I'll add Wikiproject criteria aren't actually binding in any event). As for secular...I'm not even 100% certain we could define what that means...Qwyrxian (talk) 05:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It just depends on the context. Peer-reviewed, secular sources are high-quality, which is what high controversy requires. In this case, the claim is being made that it is a fact that Jesus existed. That every expert says so, and to say otherwise is comparable to saying there was no moon landing or Holocaust. It is trivial to back up those facts with hundreds of peer-reviewed sources. If the existence of Jesus is as factual as the the existence of a moon landing, it should be equally trivial to back it up with a peer-reviewed secular source. Yet, nobody can. Instead, we get a lot of sources that essentially are theologians saying their religion is right. Not reliable. Noloop (talk) 06:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

No, like the moon landing or the Holocaust, sources PRESUPPOSE it's existence, and it isn't argued in peer-reviewed journals because there is no argument. You won't find peer-reviewed journals actually arguing that the holocaust occurred - it's a given. The alternative point of view is for nuts. Same for the existence of Jesus. The scholarly sources presuppose Jesus' existence, and don't even bother to address the other point of view, because it's fringe conspiracy stuff, and not even on the radar screen of real scholarship. Carlo (talk) 11:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I said nothing about "arguing." If you search google/scholar, you will find thousands of scholarly articles referring to the fact of the Holocaust, e.g. . You will find thousands of academic articles referring to various NASA projects, such as the moon landing. If you can find millions of people who saw Jesus existing on TV, I would accept that. Noloop (talk) 13:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Peer review, check. Secular, check. This took like 3 seconds worth of searching on JSTOR: John P. Meier "The Historical Jesus and the Historical Herodians" Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 119, No. 4 (Winter, 2000), pp. 740-746 -Andrew c  15:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

"Secular, check" huh? From Misplaced Pages: "John Paul Meier is a Biblical scholar and Catholic priest. " A Catholic priest...very secular. "The Journal of Biblical Literature (JBL) is one of three theological journals published by the Society of Biblical Literature (SBL).". Noloop (talk) 15:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC) P.S. For future reference: 1) just citing an article with term "Historical Jesus" in the title won't cut it, 2) what you really need to produce is a secular peer-reviewed statement that there is a consensus about it.

You are just moving the goal posts around. You first asked for a citation for "it's a fact that Jesus existed", but now that has changed to "a secular peer-reviewed statement that there is a consensus about it". You first asked for a secular journal, but now you are asking the contributor can't be Christian or something ridiculous like that. I found another source from a scholar from an Israeli/Jewish university published in the past 6 months, but I'm not sure if your prejudice goes against Jewish individuals as well. And then I don't know if you'll just move the goal posts again and again. I don't want to play any more part in supporting your prejudice, and I'm not convinced that anything will convince you. You have no evidence, outside of your despicable personal prejudices, that scholars are incapable of compartmentalizing, or that someone with a religious background can't publish in a secular journal (which is obviously not true because my example proves that the journal's editorial standards are different from your personal bias). I also have no idea what you think "theological" means. I really see this going no where fast. Sorry. -Andrew c  16:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Religiously biased sourcing

• The article says "essentially all scholars in the relevant fields agree that the mere historical existence of Jesus can be established using documentary and other evidence" The source is a book by a Christian theologian; not peer-reviewed. Many attempts to attribute it (i.e. treat it as opinion rather than fact) reverted.
• Factual statements in article: "The scholarly mainstream not only rejects the myth thesis, but identifies serious methodological deficiencies in the approach. For this reason, many scholars consider engaging proponents of the myth theory a waste of time, comparing it to a professional astronomer having to debate whether the moon is made of cheese. As such, the New Testament scholar James Dunn describes the mythical Jesus theory as a "thoroughly dead thesis".

• 105 contains three sources. The first publisher self-describes: "...proudly publishes first-class scholarly works in religion for the academic community...and essential resources for ministry and the life of faith.". The author's Web page says: "As we share our faith stories and listen to the faith stories of others... We come to understand our own experience of God better, and we come to recognize new possibilities for the life of faith". The 2nd publisher is "Trinity Press" (figure it out) and the third is... "Eerdmans publishes a variety of books suitable for all aspects of ministry. Pastors, church education leaders, worship leaders, church librarians... will find a wealth of resources here." .
• Source 106 is 76 years old, so there's little information. It does contain a chapter called "The Guiding Hand of God in History". It is out of date.
• 107. Published by Eerdman's (see above). Author is a theologian, founder of the Institute for World Christianity
• Source 108 is the Bishop of Durham in the Church of England, cited in a book called An Interdisciplinary Symposium on the Incarnation of the Son of God. Figure it out.
• 108 is a theologian: James_Dunn_(theologian). Publisher is Eerdman's, Christian press, etc. Not peer-reviewed.

That's a complete summary of the coverage in this article. The reader is told as fact that the non-historicity of Jesus is a fringe theory. Every single source for that claim is a theologian, and one is a bishop; 6/8 sources are from Christian presses. Obviously, no peer review. My attempt to remove the material was reverted. Noloop (talk) 15:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Andrew C has cited an article above that on a quick review seems to satisfy your sourcing requirements. As I pointed out numerous times before; the religion of the author is not relevant so long as it is a WP:RS --Errant Tmorton166 15:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

On the Fringe theory noticeboard, the goal posts have been moved. It's no longer OK for the journal to be non-religiously affiliated, and peer reviewed, but the publishing standard of Noloop and crew is superior to that of these journals, because they exclude priest teaching at a religious university. I don't want to continue discussing such matters with people who hold such vile religious prejudice. There is no evidence that one's religious background affects their ability to do their job as being prominent, learned scholars. One's gender identity, ethnicity, and political views also do not affect scholarship either. -Andrew c  15:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is one of the reasons I jumped out of this whole debate... not sure why I came back in retrospect --Errant Tmorton166 15:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Good thing the Misplaced Pages world does not revolve around Noloop's bigotry. We have no policies that say Christians are evil and cannot perform scholarship, or be cited by us. We have no valid policy based reason to exclude such information or sources. Please take your bigotry elsewhere.-Andrew c  16:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

1. Alvar Ellegård: Jesus One Hundred Years Before Christ - A Study In Creative Mythology, 1999 (p.35 2nd paragraph, p42: not the crucifixion , but the beginning of the "euaggelion" happened at AD 30-40, p. 67 2nd and 3rd paragraph, p. 70 last two sentences, etc, etc). ISBN 0-7126-7956-1

• B-Class Christianity articles
• High-importance Christianity articles
• WikiProject Christianity articles
• Old requests for peer review
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment