Talk:Historical Jesus/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Literacy

I would like to support the inclusion of a section on the literacy of Jesus. That paragraph was recently deleted, but the topic is explored in scholarship well enough to justify expanding it to two. I had found the existing paragraph to be well-balanced and representative of the various views on the question.

I've now restored the paragraph under its own subhead. The article Roman Empire links to it. In writing the section Roman Empire#Literacy, books, and education, I came upon various discussions of whether Jesus would've been literate and to what extent. The question seemed pervasive enough that I included it under the subsection Roman Empire#Primary and secondary education, along with the role of education in Jewish communities under the Empire. Roman Empire is, as you might imagine, a rather massive article, and individual points such as these can only be touched on in the briefest way. So it's useful to give readers a place where they can learn about this further. Cynwolfe (talk) 12:19, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

No big deal, because I was going to get to that later. There is much to clean up as I go along. I would have come to that later because unlike the language issue which relies on historical context, the main element presented here to support literacy are biblical references. The general issue of who could read and write and if that applied to Jesus has been discussed but really fits in the "portraits of Jesus" section not the cultural background section because the assumption that "Jesus was X" (take your pick of X as philosopher, peasant, astronaut, etc.) goes back to portraits, not background. Come to think of it, even Profession does not belong in that section and will move it to portraits once that gets cleaned up. My guess is that by the end of next week I will have cleaned up the confusion that exists in the sections below, then it will all become more clear. History2007 (talk) 16:15, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Ezra Reads the Law (Dura-Europos, mid-3rd century AD)

I'm unclear about the relevance of two things in the current section. First, the sentence about the (il)literacy of the peasant in the 7th century BC: since this is seven centuries before the lifetime of Jesus, it has no bearing on the question of his literacy. Only circumstances of literacy in contemporary Jewish communities and more generally in the Empire as a whole can possibly shed any light. (It would be like trying to judge the literacy of Roman women in the 1st century AD from evidence in the protohistoric period of the Roman Kingdom.) There could be a general sentence about traditions of Jewish literacy and its great longevity, but this point seems too specific to be useful as a context. Along this same line of reasoning, I also don't see the relevance of written Hebrew in the 10th century BC (the image). Even an image from the Imperial-era Dura-Europos synagogue, though dating to the 3rd century, would be more representative, though I'm sure there are illustrations more contemporary with the life of Jesus. As a minor point, I find the section hard to read because it's cluttered with scholarly name-dropping that belongs in footnotes. The section is about issues pertaining to the literacy of Jesus, and is not a "Bibliographical survey of studies pertaining to the literacy of Jesus," which is more how it's written. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:01, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Separate points.

• I don't remember why I added the peasant letter, but most probably because it was in the reference that described the literacy, so it seemed the only one available in refs. I am not sure if there are other indications around 10 AD or so. If you have sources for those then great. I don't mind getting rid of the peasant letter item anyway if you have something better.

• The image was just the only one commons had. If you have a better one use it. I actually like your Ezra image much better. I have not seen a more contemp image on commons given that Dura-Europos is an exception in having those images. So I think the Ezra one would work fine anyway.

• Regarding the use of scholar names, we run against the "voice of Wikipedia" problem there. If no specific scholar is mentioned for it, it may read like it is a "scholarly consensus" stated in the Voice of Wiki - which it is not given that Crossan thinks Jesus could not read, etc. So just deleting those will have objections at some point.

The whole "could he read" issue is debated by scholars and unless the boundaries of the debate are clarified by mentioning the scholars, it is not clear which camp holds what view. Hence the names. And per WP:RS/AC we can not try to summarize it ourselves, we need need a scholar who does that. Is there one?

At a more general level this article used to suffer from the "statement with no name" issue before, e.g. there were statements like "Jesus was an apocalyptic preacher" with a single reference attached to it, usually Sanders. Most of those were completely incorrect, given that apocalyptic is just one of the approaches and as thearticle states now, there are 4 others, at least. SO those types of statements that say things in the voice of Wiki and do not make it clear if that is a single scholar's view, or the academic consensus may flow better, but generally end up giving incorrect information. Hence the care in making it clear who holds what position - and it takes more effort to do it that way, but leads to accuracy. History2007 (talk) 15:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Wofford College class project

Following the discussion above, we should probably get ideas from editors about how the class project can help with some of the existing gaps in Wikipedia content regarding the "historical Jesus topic". I say topic and not article because in the age of hypertext, these articles need to be related, and using "Main links" lead to each other. This page is an overview article (as is the page automobile for its own field) and provides links to other articles via Mains.

At the moment, there are a number of places that could certainly benefit from well sourced contributions. I think the overall gaps can be summarized as follows:

• Sources and methods. These really need two separate overview articles that get linked from a new section here, as well as a serious clean up of Historical-critical method which at the moment is a redirect. There should also be Sources for historical Jesus research to discuss the ancient sources. That article needs to be written and is really a large gap in Wiki-content.

• Support articles for the sources. Given that the Sources for historical Jesus research article needs to refer to Q source and hence to Two-source hypothesis, Markan priority and Synoptic problem (which is a redirect at the moment), these articles need to be reviewed and improved. As is they need help and attention to them will be appreciated.

• Archeology: There is real need for an article New Testament archeology - for which a small section exists here but can be greatly expanded into a serious article on its own. The recent books by Jonathan Reed (ISBN 1-56338-394-2), James Charlesworth (ISBN 0-8028-4880-X) and the new 2012 book by Craig Evans (ISBN 0664234135) are very good sources. This field needs better representation in Wikipedia and attention to that would be good.

• Historical context: There is an article Historical background of New Testament which was developed by an editor who unfortunately died this year and no one is looking after it. That page needs attention and can then be better summarized here.

I think once the Historical-critical method article has been made a non-redirect and the Sources for historical Jesus research has been written, a section here can summarize them. At the moment the methods are summarized along with the quests, because there is no good supporting articles for them. Then the quest section will be smaller, as the methods section separates out with a Main. However, the quests still need to be discussed to tell he reader about the development of the field.

So I think there are several gaps that need attention within this topic and the articles it encompasses, and if the class project fills those gaps, as mentioned here, it will be great. History2007 (talk) 14:37, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Accusations of Anti-Christian propaganda in this article

I have invited User:Michael2012ro to explain here why he thinks that this article spreads "Anti-Christian propaganda". He thinks that the editors of this article are part of an Anti-Christian plot. See details upon Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Accusations of Anti-Christian propaganda on the Romanian Wikipedia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:10, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I read the VP post: well this is Wikipedia, all kinds of funny suggestions. If Michael2012ro says Ehrman is anti-Christian he has supporters. If he says Ehrman is a former Christian he has supporters. I have said this before: Ehrman is really "middle of the road" because both the atheists and the Christian fundamentalists hate him. The atheists think he is a former Christian, the Christians think he is a turncoat who no longer believes in God. But they all respect his scholarship, for he knows the topic. Anyway, in the larger context, there are almost 200 sources here. History2007 (talk) 00:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I think he chickened out of this discussion, knowing that his paranoid accusations, which were tolerated on the Romanian Wikipedia won't be tolerated on the English Wikipedia. If he has some balls, let him say it here that in his opinion you are all enemies of Christianity, all part of a Satanic plot. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:35, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

This is about the last thing I want to take the time to read on a talkpage. Please refresh yourselves on the talkpage guidelines and policies, and remember that commentary that does not pertain to improvements of the article or is calculated to attack other users, does not belong here and may be removed. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 15:12, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to agree with Til Eulenspiegel about the inappropriateness of the remark. The user doesn't seem to be trying to edit this article, so it's a little hard to see where the discussion can go from here. Surely History2007 has put the matter into perspective? Cynwolfe (talk) 22:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Michael2012ro has uttered real accusations of Anti-Christian propaganda on the Romanian Wikipedia, and it is at least honorable to say that by calling my translation from this article "Anti-Christian propaganda" he has offended the editors of this article. This is a fact about Michael's opinions. His accusations could be translated with Google Translate and see that I have not made up this matter. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

... his [tgeorgescu's] presence in the articles about Christianity is suspect, his contributions quoting sources which are patently Anti-Christian and which belong only in separate chapters or separate pages according to Wikipedia's policies.

— User:Michael2012ro, [1]

The "patently Anti-Christian sources" were extracted from the article which we are now discussing and from Historicity of Jesus. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:15, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The sources are listed at ro:Isus cel istoric#Note (they are easy to read since most of them are in English). Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:19, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I just don't see how anyone here could help you with this kind of problem, unless they happen to be familiar already with the Romanian language and the standards of what's passable or tolerable on that wiki - since these kinds of things do tend to differ from one language and wiki to the next. Til Eulenspiegel /talk/ 23:27, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Michael2012ro commented at Talk:Historicity of Jesus and said that he doesn't have any problems with the English article(s); there's nothing we can do here to enforce standards at the Romanian Wikipedia. Huon (talk) 00:03, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Let me rephrase Michael's message for the editors of this article: this article is full with "patently Anti-Christian sources" which do not belong in an article about Christianity, and including them in an article about Christianity is a violation of Wikipedia's policies (such as WP:NPOV). At least, this is what he said in Romanian language, I have translated above a quote from his accusations. If you don't believe me use Google Translate or ask somebody else to translate it for you. So, he apparently completely changed his mind and no longer sees any problems in this article, but... that is not what he has claimed about the translation from this article upon the Romanian Wikipedia. He lacks the balls to offend you in a page wherein you are able to defend your views and where the administrators swiftly enforce the policies. Weirdly, on the Romanian Wikipedia no administrator seemed to care that you have been collectively offended by him. I thought that as any honorable man he will be true to his word, but he cunningly changed his mind about the article being a platform for Anti-Christian propaganda. What is a reliable source on the English Wikipedia is a reliable source on the Romanian Wikipedia, so I fail to see how Michael's message for this article was lost in translation. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea whether Michael2012ro violates any of the Romanian Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, but you just violated WP:NPA. This tone is unacceptable. Unless you have any proposals for the improvement of this article, I strongly suggest you drop the issue. Huon (talk) 01:46, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Untitled

Related subpage: Sources
Related talkpage: Jesus/Historical_Jesus

These are pretty outdated now. History2007 (talk) 20:17, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Flavius Josephus

Unless it's buried in the text somewhere, I see no reference to Josephus' testimony to Jesus Christ in Antiquities of the Jews 18:3:3 (tr. Whiston, 1994). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zbvhs (talk • contribs) 16:31, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

It is 3.3 here on wikisource. History2007 (talk) 23:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Historical quest article

Just a note here that Quest for the historical Jesus article has been eventually cleaned up with WP:RS, etc. It is about "the process" used to build portraits, while this article is about the portraits themselves, pretty much like the difference between a Coffeemaker (process/device) and the material produced, i.e. a cup of coffee or a portrait. Anyway, now that the other article has been cleaned up if you guys want to watch it etc. will be good. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 22:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Shroud of Turin

The shroud isn't considered evidence for the existence of Jesus by any serious scholar of the historicity of Jesus. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:41, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Scientifically, it cannot be proven that it belonged to Jesus, this could only be shown to be false, but it cannot be confirmed (e.g. since we don't have Jesus's DNA or anything else that can positively affirm that the shroud belonged to Jesus instead say of another crucified Jew). It's like the Bulgarian relics attributed to John the Baptist: they could not be shown to be falsely attributed to him, but they could not be shown to be correctly attributed to him, either. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:49, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Is the Shroud listed somewhere in this article as proof of Jesus' existance?!?! "No one" (besides some staunch Catholics or people in Turin) believe this for a second, and I'm a Christian saying that... Ckruschke (talk) 03:34, 22 August 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

It isn't listed, it was listed and I have reverted it. I was explaining why I did that. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:41, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Check. I was confused... Ckruschke (talk) 16:27, 27 August 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

Mainstream depictions

I'm a little confused about this article. Ozhistory reverted an edit I made, where I moved the "faith" healing jesus out of the mainstream. I did this because of words like mystic (magic). No mainstream scholars believe mysticism or magic is real, at least not as historians. So that is why I moved it. Ozhistory, I invite you to comment, but any others please help me to clarigy is this article supposed to be about what can be confirmed by historians? Or is it supposed to be about what people believe about jesus on "faith"?Greengrounds (talk) 06:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - a few points here. Mystic and magic are not interchangeable words. A "mystic" may be defined as a "person who seeks by contemplation and self-surrender to gain spiritual apprehension of truths that are beyond the intellect" and that sort of thing. That is not to claim that such individuals actually obtain such "spiritual apprehension", but rather, is a tag for their spiritual outlook - a "well defined religious personality type, whose actions often involve healing". So it is a description of a personality type in a religious context. Whether one puts the responses of those attended by a faith healer down to "Psychosomatics" or the miraculous, is less important in this context than finding a term which defines Jesus as a personality type in a religious and historical context: ie was he Apocalyptic prophet; Cynic philosopher; Jewish Messiah; Prophet of social change; Charismatic healer or an overlap of each. This is the purpose of the section headings here. It is a separate question whether miracles occur, prophets are real, or Messiahs come. Terms like mystic, prophet and messiah define well-established religious types. They are used here to sum up "portraits of Jesus", put forward by mainstream scholars, which give emphasis to certain characteristics of Jesus about which people in the First Century wrote. Ozhistory (talk) 07:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Well said Oz. Ckruschke (talk) 15:25, 29 August 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

If I understand Ozhistory correctly, I also agree. To call someone a "charismatic healer" or a "faith healer" (there are figures alive today who can be so described) is not to endorse the efficacy of the cures they offer. To put it most cynically, I can recognize that someone's an Elvis impersonator without believing he's Elvis. To put it in its proper cultural context, magic and medicine aren't readily divorced in antiquity. Medical handbooks offer "prescriptions" for herbal remedies that often contain ingredients with demonstrable therapeutic value (willow bark, for instance), while requiring one to recite a particular prayer and wear a lizard tail bracelet or some such. There is a body of rational Greco-Roman medicine, but even Galen and Celsus, while describing workable techniques for head surgery, espouse daft theories. In the New Testament, there isn't a clear line between prayers intended to drive away illness, and the exorcism of demons. I haven't looked closely at the structural issues here, but calling Jesus a faith healer isn't the same thing as calling him a magician—and even then, to say that's a role he has sometimes been seen in (a culturally constructed role of "magician"), or even to take note of scholars who think Jesus of Nazareth set up shop as a magician, is not to assert that magic is efficacious. The practice of magic in Greco-Roman and Near Eastern antiquity, including and especially magic intended to have therapeutic effect, is amply attested by archaeology and epigraphy. I make this distinction because I've seen a tendency among certain rationalist editors to want articles to state "magic doesn't exist". But it most certainly does exist in antiquity as praxis, and to acknowledge that historical reality is not to endorse magic's efficacy. Looking a what roles Jesus played in the society he lived in, or was perceived as playing, or what roles a hypothetical Jesus would've played, and whether these roles were typically played by actual people or are only fictional types, does seem like a legitimate way to assess the historicity of the sources that portray Jesus. Cynwolfe (talk) 16:32, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Ozhistory, the way you describe mysticism, reference their "spirit", these are all unscientific concepts, references to the "supernatural", or otherwise known as "magic". However, the saving grace for this article is that it states these are scholarly opinion on the "Portraits" of jesus. We need to clarify what a "portrait" is, and as I understand it is not something that is "real". Like, for example we could do the same thing with Spiderman, look at all the stories and miracles in his life and make several "portraits" of him as well. My point is that we need to define the concept of portraits, even just putting a "wiki-link" in the lead for portraits.Greengrounds (talk) 22:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Someone being a magus does not entail that magic is real, it is just a description of what he/she pretends to do. Being a faith healer does not entail that faith healing would be effective, but just that someone pretends to heal people through faith or he/she is reputed to do that. But you should read some historical studies about Jesus, they all use such words, without implying that magic were real or that faith healing would truly work. The fact that you challenge such terms suggests that you have read no serious studies upon the historical Jesus. E.g. Doreen Valiente was a witch, but this does not imply that witchcraft works as she presumed; it is just that she performed witchcraft rituals, whether they really work or not is not relevant. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

"Portrait" is a plain English term and doesn't need a wikilink (as Greengrounds calls for above). I recommend you just read the whole section - or better yet article - which explains the terminology clearly enough. The point you make on a "mystic" could equally be made about a "priest" - ie both are spiritual roles (which you equate to "magic") but nonetheless have clear and established meaning. One may accept that the Pope is a Pope, without endorsing doctrinal positions on the papacy. Ozhistory (talk) 00:59, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Removed irrelevant and poorly-written paragraph

This paragraph was inserted into the section "Criticism of historical Jesus research" and it does not belong there as it is just a generalised assessment of the Gospels as possible historical documents, not about research.:"Bart Ehrman assesses the problems involved in conducting historical Jesus research, saying the Gospels are full of discrepancies, were written decades after Jesus' death, by authors who had not witnessed any events in Jesus' life. Going on to say they are not written by eyewitnesses who were contemporary with the events that they narrate. They were written by people who did not know him or see anything he did or hear anything he taught, people who spoke a different language than Jesus. The accounts they produced are not disinterested; they are narratives produced by Christians who actually believed in Jesus, and were not immune from slanting the stories in light of their biases. Of the texts themselves, Ehrmane points out that that they are widely inconsistent, full of discrepancies, and contradictions in both details and larger portraits of who Jesus was." Also it is not written to a standard high enough for an encyclopedia- Going on to say they are not written by eyewitnesses who were contemporary with the events that they narrate. is not a full sentence.Smeat75 (talk) 16:33, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Why is Bart Ehrman's criticism of Historical Jesus research "irrelevant"? In a section entitled "Criticism of Historical Jesus reasearch" Please explain that. Also if you think there are spelling and grammar mistakes feel free to chip in and help other Wikipedia editors Greengrounds (talk) 04:18, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I already explained that, see above.Smeat75 (talk) 04:30, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Ehrman states that this results in slanted stories from christians, and contradictions in portraits of who Jesus was.Greengrounds (talk) 04:53, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree with Smeat75. It does not belong there. Bart Ehrman would not consider his views as a "Criticism of Historical Jesus research". We should be careful to not imply things they did not mean. I also agree that it is poorly written. Plus, it simply lists things when they should be given much more detail.

Instead, it would fit better in a section assessing the sources scholars use. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 08:30, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Martijn Meijering (talk) 10:49, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

As it is a statement of fact that impacts directly on all the following "portraits" of who Jesus was, the paragraph would be more appropriate in the lead or at least leading off the "Portraits of the historical Jesus" section. Wayne (talk) 08:55, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I agree that discussion of the sources is valid, and should also be covered in the lede. However, I dislike the particular paragraph as written. There are likely well written and cited write ups discussing these sources in other articles, and we can likely copy from there. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 10:47, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Harizotoh9 you will not likely find them, as any discussion of christian sources from a scientific or historical standpoint usually gets blocked right away, and removed. The writeup I did was from a couple paragraphs by Ehrmine, and if you want I could provide them to you so you could rewrite. Or you could try and chip in to get it up to your standard. All of the facts that Ehrman presented are included, we just need to make it flow better, and I was trying to paraphrase as much as possible to avoid copyright issues. Wayne (talk) I agree with you 100%. Perhaps we could have it at the beginning of the "New testament" section. Martijn Meijering I also agree with you and Harizotoh9. We already have a section on the sources, entitled the New Testament J or something along those lines. Perhaps this paragraph could be rewritten and inserted at the top of that section. Any volunteers to rewrite the paragraph, and if so I can lend you the Original source, but I assure you I left out or changed no factual statements by Ehrmine, only paraphrased some of it to avoid copyright. Greengrounds (talk) 00:41, 1 September 2013 (UTC) Harizotoh9 I believe you removed the paragraph, awaiting consensus in talk. You have expressed that the paragraph is poorly written. Please be more specific. Also you say you would like to be more detailed on the points made by Ehrman, or at least some points. Keep in mind, that would take an entire book to do, and Ehrman has written several on the topic. Be more specific on which points you'd like to expand on. Wayne (talk) has expressed his opinion that the paragraph should be included in the lead or in the "portraits" of Jesus section and I agree with him. However, both Martijn Meijering and Harizotoh9 have said they think there should be a new section assessing the sources the scholars use. I think it should perhaps go in the lead of the historical elements section. Am I correct in this assessment of the current consensus? Next step is for editors to come out and say what needs to be improved and/or help with improving the writing quality.Greengrounds (talk) 20:19, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Non-expert opinion

I've been removing the opinion of non-experts from the article. - Leo Tolstoy - Richard Dawkins - Bertrand Russell - Alvar Ellegård - "Non-physical Jesus"

I removed the Non-physical Jesus section since it was an overview of theological views. There are many articles covering such positions, and I feel this article should focus on historians and other experts. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 08:37, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm uncomfortable with these wholesale deletions without prior discussion and have reverted some of the ones I really disagree with. We should discuss this before deleting them again. The methodological soundness of HJ research is disputed, and there are accusations of bias, coming from scholars both inside and outside the field, including some prominent HJ researchers and biblical scholars. In addition, very few biblical scholars are trained historians. This doesn't disqualify them from the discussion of course, but it does mean that at least they cannot automatically be counted as historians. Martijn Meijering (talk) 10:40, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

" The methodological soundness of HJ research is disputed, and there are accusations of bias, coming from scholars both inside and outside the field, including some prominent HJ researchers and biblical scholars.""

This is covered quite a bit in the article proper. If you wish to expand it with properly sourced content you may do so. However, the counter to this is to not include views from people who have little or no expertise in this field. This article should cover expert attempts using historical techniques to reconstruct Jesus. It is not there to cover the opinion of lay individuals on their views on Jesus. Also, once you start to include non-expert opinion where does one stop? If George Lucas or Ennio Morricone were to write a book attempting to find the Historical Jesus, would they worth being added to the article?

Here's whose views I would consider noteworthy:

• Biblical scholar
• Historians and Archeologists who focus in areas relating to Jesus and his time period

Biblical scholars are historians. The field might be flawed, and with various problems, but they are a kind of historian.

Let us go through those whose opinion I've removed:

• Richard Dawkins. He is an ethologist and an evolutionary biologist.
• Leo Tolstoy. Novelist.

Neither them have any training in any field that would be relevant, nor have they published anything in an academic journal relating to this. Their viewpoints are not relevant for this article. This article is not about a collection of the views of famous people on Jesus. One would not accept non-expert opinion on any other page, why should we accept them here?

• The God who Wasn't there
• Religulous

Two documentaries that fail to pass reliable sources. They might be notable if they are popular enough since they reflect certain shifts in public opinion. In that case they should belong in articles discussing faith, and religion and so forth. But this article should concern itself with scholarly opinion. And if we're adding internet documentaries, why not add Zeitgeist movie or something else? Why stop at these? There's countless fringe documentaries with questionable research one could add if they wished to.

• Earl Doherty

According to his Wikipedia page, he merely has a BA in Ancient history. This hardly qualifies him as any kind of historian. Also, I would argue that his personal website is not a reliable source.

• Bertrand Russel

I also removed reference to his opinion, as he is a philosopher. His opinion deserves mention on many pages, but I'd argue not here.

My main concern is that the quality of the article needs to be improved, and for that it has to focus only on expert opinion and reliable sources. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 11:24, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Dawkins is also one of the leaders of the New Atheism movement. That clearly doesn't make him a historian, but I do think it makes his opinion notable. The same would be true of prominent religious apologists of course. In both cases, the individuals should be mentioned briefly, to put the the field in a wider context. Another reason I'd like to include Dawkins is because the article is slanted towards the guild of biblial scholars who like to speak with the voice of "scholarship". Dawkins opinions speak to the academic credibility of the field, and he is a much greater scholar than any of the HJ scholars could ever hope to be.

Tolstoy and Russell aren't that important, but why not mention them? Doherty is important because he is a prominent opponent of the historicity thesis. I see no more reason to disqualify Ellegard, who was a serious scholar and who did study the issue closely. We have a reference to a booklet in which he engages several biblical scholars in discussion, and offers reasonable criticism of the discipline. I see no more reason to exclude him than to exclude Ehrman.

George Lucas is an amusing hypothetical. If the book proved popular, I'd say he ought to be included, with proper discussion of the reception of his book.

I agree the quality needs to be improved, but I'm worried about bias. That includes bias of the HJ community, but also of WP editors. You are probably familiar with WP:BIAS, and it strikes me that most of the authors cited are North American Christian scholars. There has been serious scholarship at least in Germany, and probably elsewhere as well. I also see very little Jewish scholarship (though there is some). Martijn Meijering (talk) 11:36, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

The views of notable non-specialist intellectuals are by definition notable. Wikipedia is starting to do a very bad job of representing the history of ideas, with a coterie of thinly-educated but overly assertive editors who want to include only views that are held at this very moment in time by a limited number of rationalist scholars whose methodology is deemed "scientific", a word which is misapplied to the study of culture. This suppression is leading to a serious deficiency in descriptive encyclopedic comprehensiveness, not to mention boneheadedness. It also represents a quest for truth, which is supposed to be anathema to our entire raison d'être. Cynwolfe (talk) 18:27, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I disagree, especially in this article. Tolstoy may have read Strauss, but has Dawkins ever read a book on the "Historical Jesus", or the idea that there wasn't one? I rather doubt it - his objections to religion are on far wider grounds & his comments generally show little interest in the "detail" of the subject. "The philosopher Bertrand Russell doubted the existence of Jesus" - unreferenced - is really little use, especially when we have a main article on this topic, that explains the views of specialists of Russell's generation (he was born 1872) fairly well as I recall. I suppose Tolstoy's view is of some interest - though shedding much more light on him than on Jesus. Johnbod (talk) 21:30, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I concur with Cynwolfe here. Major works that have had major impact require coverage. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:03, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't disagree with the specifics of what Johnbod said about defects of presentation, such as a lack of references. My point is that such an article benefits from including the "history of ideas", to use a shorthand. Views of the historicity of Jesus that were part of an intellectual or writer's influence are notable, as determined by coverage in secondary sources. (In the same way that the Christianity of C.S. Lewis is a notable part of his influence.) Obviously this requires that they engage in public or published epistolary discourse on the subject of whether Jesus was historical. There are very few of our articles on this or related topics that I find readable, because they're so often chopped-up little bits of arguments from scholars nobody would care about otherwise, and don't really show the cultural significance of whatever topic is at hand. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:47, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

About Dawkins, he seems to have been tipped off by other academics that the consensus is that Jesus really existed. So, while he is not a scholar of Jesus, he understands the consensus and acknowledges it. He uses the words "Jesus probably existed" as kind of a disclaimer, declining thus his competence and stating it as the view of third parties. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:53, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

NPOV dispute

I have raised an NPOV dispute for this article. It seems to be blatantly written from a Christian POV, and is (deliberately so?) misleading. The context switches back and forth between historicity/historic analysis to "portraits" and theology. For example, claiming that these literary portraits of Jesus are based on "historical methods". What historical method was used to determine that Jesus was a "faith healer"? What historical method was used to determine that "faith healing" is real? What historical methods were used to determine that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah? What historical methods were used to determine that there is a god, let alone the son of god?

Re-naming the section titles and subtitles would be one way to fix the non neutral POV, since they range from presenting the "profession" of Jesus as historical facts without mentioning the context. AKA theologically he may have been a carpenter, but this can't be presented as historical. Presenting "eight possibly historical elements" is pointless. Why not a section called 10,000 unlikely historical elements.

Following to the next section, were back to "portraits" again, and "mainstream" portraits are mixed in with christian portraits.

Mainly, the title of the article could be changed and that would make allot of this POV more neutral. Suggestion: Historical portraits of JesusGreengrounds (talk) 22:00, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Just because documentary sources are religious does not mean they can be ignored, and for the detail of Jesus' life the only sources are religious. His (probably) being a carpenter is precisely historical, not theological. Many of the modern scholars cited (rather over-prominently in the text in my view) are not, or no longer, Christian. What would be a non-Christian view of the historical Jesus? The article does not say that there is a god etc, but that people at the time thought there was, and so on. I don't like the word "portrait" here, but it essentially means differing interpretations of the same material. Johnbod (talk) 02:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's accepted as historical fact that he was a carpenter, and it shouldn't be presented as if it is. The subheaders that describe "basic historical facts" espouse the only two historical facts that are accepted by most scholars: that he was baptised, by John the Baptist and that he was crucified by Pilate. That the carpenter story is being presented as historical fact is part of the problem. As for Christian sources being the only sources, you're completely wrong there. Other sources such as Flavius Josephus, who is the most important source of Jewish history during that time period briefly mentioned Jesus a grand total of two or three times. Religious sources, as Bart Ehrman (pretty much the authority on this matter) indicates, are full of forgeries, lies, myths, discrepancies etc. and it is the job of Historians to figure out what's what. So far, the article here has little to do with what historians say, but has more to do with theological interpretations and literary portraits. The problem is, the article is called Historical Jesus. It should change it's focus to reflect actual historical facts about jesus (there are about two), or it should change the title to reflect that this article is in fact about theological portraits of Jesus' life.Greengrounds (talk) 07:18, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm completely right, and you are a very lazy reader! I said: "and for the detail of Jesus' life the only sources are religious" (my bold). Ehrman is only one of very many authorities on the subject, though he seems to have cornered the 101 course textbook market, & is over-emphasized in our coverage. Unfortunately, "Historians" have nothing to go on except the religious sources, which the article reflects. But see my comments below. Johnbod (talk) 12:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Also to answer your question of what would be a non christian view, it would be a representation of known historical facts about Jesus, like in the "Historicity Of Jesus" article. This article basically pretends to be that article. And as for the article not saying there is a god, it kind of does. It presents the "Jewish Messiah" section as main stream view of Jesus, but it is not. It is a Christian view. The view being presented states implicitly that Wright, believes that Jesus was the Messiah and argues that the Resurrection of Jesus was a physical and historical event.[151] Imagine what would happen if scholarly opinion that was introduced to this article that said (as Bart Ehrman argues) no historian thinks that was a historical event. I've tried it, and people won't allow it. What Wright says there is a Christian view, it is being presented as a mainstream view. In fact, if this were a non-Christian POV article, it would more reflect the opinion held by about 6 of the 7 billion people on the planet, as well as authoritative scholars, like Bart Ehrman, that Jesus was mostly myth, and that at most he existed in a very limited context historically, most of the stories in the bible about him aren't true, and he was not supernatural, a messiah, a faith healer or anything at all like that. Greengrounds (talk) 07:46, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

At some point, I hope Greengrounds understands a point that has been made several times above: calling someone a "faith healer" does not mean that person is actually able to perform supernatural healing, it simply means that s/he believes s/he can. The unwillingness to understand basic points of English usage doesn't give me hope that this will be a productive conversation.

More broadly, it seems that Greengrounds' belief that this article is non-neutral is based on the fact that he doesn't agree with the views presented here--either because he misunderstands what is meant, as in the misunderstanding of "faith healer", or because he's got an anti-Christian axe to grind. When asking if this article (or any article) is neutral, the question to ask is if the article fairly represents the discussion of the topic in reliable sources. Greengrounds isn't bringing any new sources to the table in this dispute, he's just making assertions based on what he thinks is true.

So, if it's not widely accepted that Jesus was a carpenter, it should be easy to demonstrate that with citations to a few reliable sources. If N.T. Wright's view that the resurrection is a historical event is fringe, out of the mainstream, hotly disputed, whatever, it should be easy to show that with citations to a few reliable sources. You don't just get to say "it is a Christian view" and declare it non-mainstream. Investigate, and you will find that Wright is widely cited, well-respected, and regarded as an important scholarly voice on this topic. That doesn't mean that everyone agrees with him or thinks that his methods are sound, and if there's some useful criticism of his work, it might be worth including that here. But the criticism has to be based on what's written by authoritative voices in reliable sources, not upon the preferences, preconceptions, and prejudices of any particular Wikipedia editor. --Akhilleus (talk) 08:34, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

For Jesus as a carpenter, see Bart Ehrman, Misquoting Jesus, chapter 7. Greengrounds (talk) 11:08, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

You're going to have to be more specific, because all I see there (pp. 201-203) is a discussion of Origen's calling Jesus the son of a tekton rather than a tekton, and the possibility that he was relying on a variant of Mark 6:3. I don't see that Ehrman discusses what Jesus' actual profession was--but maybe I missed something? Come to think of it, this is a good example of the difference between discussing the historical Jesus (was he really a tekton?) vs. discussion of textual traditions about Jesus (why did Origen avoid calling him a tekton, choosing instead to call him the son of a tekton?).

At any rate, our article doesn't actually say that Jesus was a carpenter--it rather says that Mark 6:3 calls him a tekton, and that early Christian writing often portrays Jesus as a woodworker. A few possibilities for what Jesus' profession might have been are listed (e.g., highly skilled woodworker or metalworker), as well as Vermes' proposal that "carpenter" might refer to Jesus' dad being knowledgable in the Torah. So your objection that the article presents Jesus' profession as a historical fact is wrong. --Akhilleus (talk) 12:20, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Mass reversion?

Above, Johnbod points to this version of 30 Jan 2012 as a possible reboot. I think that's worth considering. That version is far more readable, and stays better within topic scope, which I understand to be "elements of the narratives pertaining to Jesus that are amenable to historical rather than theological inquiry". "Was he a carpenter?" is a question that historical methods can attempt to answer; "did he walk on water?" is not. A couple of sections in the old version may delve too far into the divine Jesus and the nature of the teachings, but that's fixable. It's easy also to change minor wording such as Jesus was probably born to Jesus would have been born, to show the hypothetical nature of any reconstructed biography. The current version is absolutely unreadable, and goes far astray from presenting a reconstructed "biography" of Jesus into the topics of other articles such quest for the historical Jesus. I tried to sit and read this article in order to understand the issues better, but it's like reading somebody's notes for the first chapter of their dissertation: a bunch of snippets attached to the names of scholars to whom we respond with "who cares?", and with no coherent description of what a reconstructed biography of Jesus would look like. I particularly abhor the photos of scholars. Undue weight and off-topic. Could we discuss the possibility of reversion? In the old version, we get a chronological reconstruction first, followed by methodological criticism—a more standard article structure than the cart-before-horse we have here. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I agree. The January version linked above was chosen pretty randomly: this from 12 October 2012 is the last version before the big rewrite started, so perhaps the best one to compare. There are quite a few differences - see for example the start of the "Ministry" section, where there is a much shorter round-up of "portraits". On pure size: Jan 2012, 127K; Oct 2012 130K; now 99K. But 66K was removed here - the material still seems to be only in the talk page limbo linked in the edit summary. Johnbod (talk) 17:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I'm very reluctant to do a reboot. Several people (myself included) have put considerable effort into this article, and it would be a shame to throw that away. Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:30, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I am also strongly opposed to a mass reversion - you throw out too much good with the bad. I would suggest as a start that we delete the bulk of the material on the Quests, reducing it to a summary with links to the Quest pages for the detail. I also suggest that the opening material in the "Diversity of Portraits" section be merged with the "Criticism" section, and we clean up the portraits a bit to tighten the focus. Then we can work on the ordering of the other sections, to improve coherence and flow. It's not that big a job actually. Wdford (talk) 17:42, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

I was thinking more that worthwhile additions could be incorporated into the earlier framework. It's the structure that seems sounder to me. Currently, we start with a long digression into the quest for the historical Jesus. It seems to me that the article should present its subject matter first (the reconstructed chronology of life events), and then look at the methodologies of scholars. Cynwolfe (talk) 17:45, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Wdford (talk) Your latest edits have goen even further towards a Christian POV of the article. For an article on the historicity of Jesus, see that article. This article is not about historicity at all, but you've just gone and made edits that make it seem like it is. And plus, you've dramatically changed what the sources are saying. You see, what you guys don't seem to understand is that

"The term Historical Jesus refers to scholarly reconstructions of the life of Jesus of Nazareth,[3][4][5"

Is not the same as

"The term Historical Jesus refers to scholarly reconstructions of portraits of the life of Jesus of Nazareth.[3][4][5]"

To go out and dramatically change what the sources are saying is probably a gross misrepresentation of those sources. Greengrounds (talk) 20:32, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

"probably a gross misrepresentation of those sources"? Have you read them? Or are you just reverting blindly?

I don't see a huge difference in meaning between the two sentences, and the first is more concise and clearer. Also, one of the sources cited (in each version of the sentence), James Dunn's Jesus Remembered, reads as follows: "...whenever a definition is offered for the phrase, the person offering the definition is clear that the 'historical Jesus' is the Jesus constructed by historical research." (p, 125, italics are in the original.) So for this source, at least, "reconstruction" is closer to his wording (and "reconstructed" is used on the following page). Based on this, I'm going to revert Greengrounds' change. --Akhilleus (talk) 22:50, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Rename article, reorganize subcategories, and incorporate Jesus in Islam as a mainstream "portrait"

The article's title is misleading. It leads us to believe it will be an article on historical (historicity) of Jesus. In fact, it is an article on Historical Portraits of Jesus, and should be named as such.

Secondly, the subtitles need to be renamed/reorganized, and some material needs to be shifted into different categories. The entire "cultural background" subsection is Christian POV and should be named as such. Historical elements needs to be largely removed, since this article is about portraits, and some of the further subsections of that category are already covered in the Historicity of Jesus article, and are in fact duplicated there.

And thirdly, and perhaps most glaringly from a secular POV, this article needs to incorporate Islamic portraits of Jesus (Isa Ibn Maryam عيسى) This portrait needs to be a "mainstream" portrait. If this portrait is not included, then the article needs to be renamed Historical Christian portraits of Jesus

These recommendations would be a good start in establishing the NPOV of this article Greengrounds (talk) 11:25, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

There have occasionally been proposals (including by yours truly) to rename the article to Historical Jesus Research or even Results of Historical Jesus Research, but there was never a consensus. Your proposed title doesn't sound very appropriate for an encyclopedia article to me. Martijn Meijering (talk) 16:54, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

There's no reason to rename the article. This article is about the results of historical research into the life of Jesus (despite what Greengrounds says above), and scholars refer to this area of research as the study of the historical Jesus (see, e.g., the Journal for the Study of the Historical Jesus). Choosing a different name would in fact be less helpful for readers.

I find the assertion that the "cultural background" section is "Christian POV" is simply bizarre. How is it Christian POV to say that the Pharisees and Sadducees were opposed power groups in 1st century Palestine, or that archaeology contributes to the understanding of the historical Jesus?

Unless there is a significant body of scholarship from the Islamic world that employs historical methods to understand the life of Jesus, it doesn't belong in this article. Islamic views of Jesus as a religious figure (i.e. as a prophet and precursor of Muhammad) are covered in Jesus and Jesus in Islam. The Islamic views covered in those articles are how Jesus fits into Islam, rather than attempts to understand Jesus as a historical figure. --Akhilleus (talk) 12:03, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

• The article has been substantially re-written nearly a year ago (mostly October 2012), a process I did not follow. I'm not at all sure this has been a net improvement. Without, I think, the fundamental content changing all that much, and no doubt many things being improved, the presentation and sequence etc is now very different, and many references (citations) to historians have been removed. Without agreeing much with any of Greenground's main criticism, I'm unhappy about the prominent use of "portaits", and various other things. I suggest the old and new versions are compared, with a readiness to revert to the old where appropriate. The only section I've done much on is the "profession" one. There the text has been shortened, but otherwise little changed, but some citations have been removed for text which remains. This is not good. See this version of 30 Jan 2012, rather randomly chosen. The changes were mostly done by User:VanishedUserABC, who has not edited since May. This is probably connected with (Talk Archive 8 "Edited Introduction": "We are a college seminar class studying the Historical Jesus and we have undertaken the task of improving this wiki page". I wouldn't rule out starting with a wholesale revert, and building on that. The main other person on talk around then was User:History2007, who has now also left. Johnbod (talk) 12:28, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

User VanishedUserABC is actually the same person as History2007, who has retired from editing and has apparently joined a Christian apologetics group that aims to reach out to Wikipedia. His wholesale changes unilaterally overturned a lot of hard-won previous consensus. That said, I don't see the need for a wholesale reversion, as some of the changes were for the better. User PiCo has also made great improvements recently. Martijn Meijering (talk) 16:52, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Ok. I see now that although the seminar group said on 18 Oct they "had" edited, in fact their draft lead (starting (rather ungrammatically - trace word bolded) "The term historical Jesus refers to scholarly reconstructions of the 1st-century figure Jesus of Nazareth.[1] These reconstructions are based upon convergence of archaeological, textual, and theoretical evidence") only seems to entered the article on November 15, by Levinrh, and was promptly reverted because it messed up the refs. Probably worth another look. Johnbod (talk) 21:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

--Akhilleus (talk) Actually, the article you're referring toThe Quest for the Historical Jesus is about "The quest for the historical Jesus is the academic effort to use historical methods to provide a historical portrait of Jesus.[1] " And this article is about those historical portriats of Jesus. That's why it should be renamed Historical portraits of jesus. Johnbod (talk) and --Akhilleus (talk) you both seem to be confused about the difference between historicity and historical portraits. John, you seem to think that biblical scripture is accepted as being historically accurate and Akhilleus you seem to think that the historical methods used to provide a historical portrait of Jesus are different than the historical methods used by muslim scholars to provide a historical portrait of jesus. Both of your positions are christian POV. Neutral POV here would be a secular one, and from that perspective, Islamic portraits by muslim scholars can be included. That is, unless the name of the article is changed to Christian historical portraits of Jesus. Perhaps this article should be merged with "The Quest for the historical Jesus" article. Greengrounds (talk) 12:57, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

No, I'm not. This article attempts to present what is typically accepted by historians as probably accurate from the various historical sources, after much (most) other stuff has been discarded as not historical, or probably not. It therefore also involves the process of assessing the various sources in this light (see Biblical criticism). It's very far from perfect, but is still a decent shot at that. A look at earlier affiliation-counting efforts in the Talk archives would inform any comments as to the "POV" of historians cited. Or you might look at bios such as Géza Vermes, Burton L. Mack, and others. Johnbod (talk) 13:15, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Greengrounds, you say above "The article's title is misleading. It leads us to believe it will be an article on historical (historicity) of Jesus". This seems to indicate you believe the terms "historical" and "historicity" are interchangeable. But later you write that other editors don't seem to know the difference between the terms. In all honesty, a dictionary may be the solution, rather than a renaming of the article? Ozhistory (talk) 13:32, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Isn't the main purpose of this article to describe what a reconstructed biography of Jesus would look like, based on elements of the narratives that are historically plausible? As distinguished from the theological and miraculous. To describe such a thing is neither to endorse nor debunk the view that Jesus was historical. To describe Pegasus is not to assert that winged horses exist, and we don't fill Pegasus's article with "scientific" evidence that winged horses are anatomically inaccurate. I do agree that the article is badly organized, and that methodological criticism should be organized by topic (or something), not by "controversial", "non-controversial", "mainstream" and other value judgments. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Agree Cynwolfe - I would love for the article to do just that - show an honest recounting of what a Historical Jesus would be like without all the caveats and "science ACTUALLY says this and that". All the other Jesus pages, go into quite a bit of depth into whether we was real or not, so it would seem to balance the topic while not going overboard or seeming to endorse a historical Jesus.

That being said, I am fighting a (losing) battle of a similar type on Objections to Evolution so would not be surprised to lose this one as well... Ckruschke (talk) 15:50, 6 September 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

I don't understand why the article should avoid endorsing the view that Jesus was historical. After all, that's what most scholars who work on this topic think. It's no more controversial than saying there was a historical Augustus. Or were we talking about avoiding endorsing a particular view of what the historical Jesus was like? That would be a problem. But the view that Jesus didn't exist is a fringe theory, and Wikipedia pays far too much attention to it... --Akhilleus (talk) 16:40, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps we should rename this article as Historicity of a proto-Jesus, so as to clearly separate the existence of the real person from the wealth of theological and socio-political allegory that has since been heaped upon him for a variety of different motives. Wdford (talk) 23:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Historical Jesus

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Historical Jesus's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Dunn303":

• From Historicity of Jesus: The Historical Jesus in Recent Research edited by James D. G. Dunn and Scot McKnight 2006 ISBN 1-57506-100-7 page 303
• From Jesus: Borg, Marcus J. (2006). "The Spirit-Filled Experience of Jesus". In Dunn, James D.G.; McKnight, Scot (eds.). The Historical Jesus in Recent Research. Eisenbrauns. p. 303. ISBN 978-1-57506-100-9.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 16:22, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to Merge

We have two overlapping articles – Historicity of Jesus, which supposedly discusses the existence of Jesus of Nazareth as a historical person, and Historical Jesus, which is apparently about the historical reconstructions of Jesus’ life. The overlaps are substantial, and neither topic can be properly discussed without bringing in material already covered in the other article. At the same time there are vast numbers of other articles which discuss the events of the gospels in minute detail – often overlapping with each other. I propose that we merge these two articles into a single article that specifically focuses on “how much of what we read about Jesus is regarded as actual historical fact”, and that all the rest be left to the dedicated articles on the various points, with appropriate summaries and links only. Wdford (talk) 10:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose WP:SIZE alone makes this a non-starter; following that both articles are too big and should probably be split further (which I don't propose). On the simple count, this article is 123KB, the other 89KB even with a huge chunk (66K) still in wiki-limbo (see previous section). The "Historicity" is largely about the sources for the basic existence, and this about the interpretations of them, which seems a sensible division, though some rearrangement might be possible. Johnbod (talk) 12:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support The size of the articles will reduce drastically once we start deleting all the duplication and off-topic waffle. We can also eliminate all the material that rehashes existing articles, such as the Christ myth theory, the various quests and the Historical reliability of the Gospels, and reduce those sections to summaries with links. A lot of this material is simply duplicating those articles, and if anything useful remains it can be added where it fits best. What should remain in this combined article is a discussion of the 8 things that are apparently semi-historical, and a summary of the discussions that underpin those assumptions. Wdford (talk) 15:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Note - this is the nominator!

• I disagree, and I'm not impressed with your editing style, which removes far too much. For example, the Christ myth theory section here is already a very short summary; if you think it is too long you are wrong. Johnbod (talk) 15:51, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment The bigger problem will not be whether to merge or not, it will be what the article will be titled. I foresee a firestorm from either side based upon whether "Historicity" (the "perceived" discussion from the basis of Christ being a true figure) or "Myth" (the "perceived" discussion from the basis of non-existance) is selected as the merged title being such a hot topic as that it will never be resolved. Maybe this is the real reason for two articles...? Ckruschke (talk) 19:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

The proposal is not to merge anything with Christ myth theory (itself 82KB). I could imagine Historicity of Jesus being retitled something like Historical sources for the life of Jesus. Johnbod (talk) 20:10, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification John! Ckruschke (talk) 17:53, 11 September 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

• Support I don't necessarily support a straightforward merge of content from historicity of Jesus to historical Jesus, but I don't support the existence of an article called "historicity of Jesus" because there is not a serious discussion within academia about Jesus' existence; the idea that he didn't is (to put it mildly) non-mainstream, and covered in great detail at Christ myth theory. The "historicity" article, though, has tons of citations to NT scholarship and makes it look as if scholars spend a lot of time establishing that Jesus existed. This is not true to what scholars do, and in fact, in portraying arguments that scholars have made for other purposes as arguments for Jesus' historicity, the article arguably has WP:SYNTH problem.

I think Ckruschke raises a good point about why there might be two articles. The reason that there is a split between historical Jesus and historicity of Jesus is because there are a lot of people on the internet who think that Jesus didn't exist, and a steady stream of these folks come to Wikipedia to complain that any article based on mainstream NT scholarship has a Christian agenda. Seen this way, the Christ myth theory and historical Jesus articles are a troll magnet or honeytrap. Even so, the articles shouldn't misrepresent the sources, and any article that makes it look as if there is a substantial academic debate about Jesus' historicity is misrepresentation.

I do think that moving historicity of Jesus to sources for the life of Jesus or something similar would go a long way towards solving the problem. That's not a merge, really, but my "support" here really means that I'd like to see a change to how these articles are arranged. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:30, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

As I've said above, Christ myth theory explains the arguments of "mythers", and states that very few scholars now accept these, but it has virtually nothing on why they don't. The academic debate is not exactly dead, and the "popular" debate very much alive, and these arguments need to go somewhere. Johnbod (talk) 02:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

And you should also mention that there are a great many more people who might accept that a Jesus-person existed, but who also know that much of what the gospels claim about Jesus is fiction, pious or otherwise. If you persist in framing the debate in "all or noting" terms, then you will constantly have that vast number of people constantly bombarding your article with all the sources who state clearly that the Jesus of the gospels is fiction. If you absolutely insist on side-stepping all that scholarship in this article, then there will have to come one day an article entitled Non-historicity of the gospel Jesus to accommodate all the scholarship which refutes the virgin birth, the three wise men, the infant massacre, the census, the flight to Egypt, the miracles, the resurrection and the ascension - i.e. all the elements which elevate a Jewish teacher into a god-man. Maybe we should start by creating that article? Wdford (talk) 23:39, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps we should. Afaik, what material we have on this is scattered around the various Gospel episode articles - but then that's what you want to do to these ones it seems. Johnbod (talk) 02:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Once again, I think you misunderstand my intentions. I am not trying to scatter material, I am trying to consolidate it, to make it coherent and to eliminate duplication.

It is clear that there are three main views of the Jesus issue – A) Jesus was a man-god as per the gospel stories; B) Jesus is a mythical construct, as were (apparently) Zeus and Osiris; C) A Jesus-person did exist, as a Jewish Martin Luther who tried to reform the practice of Judaism but timed it badly and got squashed by the Romans in passing, and then a lot of theocratic twaddle was layered onto his story by Constantine etc for their own purposes. There are various other nuances around and between as well.

I have noted on various articles, including the Christ Myth Theory, that many editors get stressed because Option C is not properly represented. I understand why it keeps getting deleted from those articles, but I don’t agree that this is productive.

I hear you on the Christ Myth article, and my solution would be to present the counter-argument in that same article, but it seems you prefer another route. Fine, I’m not married to that idea, but I then propose a whole different approach, as follows:

Step 1: The Christ Myth article be left largely alone for now, but a strong statement be made in its lede to the effect that “while scholars agree that a Jesus-person existed – see article x for details - scholars also agree that the bulk of the gospel stories about him are fiction – see article z for details.” I think that would go a long way toward solving that problem permanently.

Step 2: The Historical Jesus article be revamped as a list of the gospel elements, with each element having a brief discussion of “is this historical fact – yes/no, and reasons/references”. E.g the virgin birth – not factual, because Vermes says etc etc. Was baptized by John – considered to be factual, because Ehrman says etc etc.

Step 3: The Historicity of Jesus article then be revamped purely to say that Jesus did actually exist, although it’s clear that much of the gospels are fiction, because Tacitus said etc etc. I perceive that this is your preference – correct me if I’m still not getting it.

Step 4: The existing Jesus article is then cleaned up by eliminating duplication where appropriate.

All four articles can then cross-reference each other closely, and people trying to get the full picture can read four clear and coherent articles to get the full picture.

I would still prefer to merge Historical Jesus and Historicity of Jesus once they are both cleaned up, because I perceive there to be a great deal of overlap, but we can talk about that when we get there, depending on WP:SIZE etc.

What do you think? Wdford (talk) 09:48, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I can't say I have noticed this "stress" on talk pages myself, and most WP complaints about some large topic not being covered are from people who haven't found their way to the right material, sometimes our fault, sometimes theirs. In the case of your "C" I agree there is (afaik, and rather surprizingly) no main article on this sort of view, and there should be. But it seems a different topic and should have a new article, which would be mostly concentrating on the period after "32 AD". Perhaps there is a further subject, on material said to be mythical in the New Testament. Both would be hugely complex, and very long if done at all properly, & I can't see any of the three existing articles providing much of a starting point. No doubt much of the material is around in other articles already. Historical reliability of the Gospels has some, though Historical reliability of the Acts of the Apostles is very narrowly-focused. On diffusion I was referring to your "I propose that we merge these two articles into a single article that specifically focuses on “how much of what we read about Jesus is regarded as actual historical fact”, and that all the rest be left to the dedicated articles on the various points, with appropriate summaries and links only" above. Johnbod (talk) 14:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment more or less agree with Akhilleus here. Having looked at a few reference books on religion lately, I do see that they rather frequently describe the sources on the life of Jesus as a separate topic. Those reference sources might be enough to establish notability of the sub-topic, and I do think that, in general, the distinction between the modern academic views of Christ's life and the specific material relating directly to the separate topic of the historical sources for the life of Jesus is sufficiently different and to have enough material to probably merit a separate standalone article. John Carter (talk) 18:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose The subjects are sufficiently different that a merger makes no sense. It would compound an already difficult to manage situation. Fearofreprisal (talk) 02:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree with editors Johnbod and John Carter's reasoning on this matter. Alatari (talk) 05:35, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Following a comparison of the way these subjects are described in other languages to resolve Wikidata conflicts, we must keep a clear distinction between the concepts of Jesus as a religious figure, Jesus as a historical person (no matter whether each reader believes he was real) and Historicity of Jesus, the study of modern findings regarding the evidence for a historical Jesus compared with an analysis of ancient texts about him (religious or not). Perhaps some cleanup of the Historicity article may help, but a merge would be a huge endeavour and would certainly confuse readers. — JFG ^talk 19:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  • JFG, would you mind clarifying what you think the distinction between the articles historical Jesus and historicity of Jesus is? Because as far as I can see, the historical Jesus article tells us about concepts of Jesus as a historical person based on modern analyses of the evidence for a historical Jesus--and that evidence is ancient texts. So I'm having trouble seeing a separation between the two articles. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
    • This article now contains every detail of value that is or was included in the Historicity of Jesus article. Read in conjunction with the Jesus article, the Sources for the Historicity of Jesus article, the Historical reliability of the Gospels article and the Christ myth theory article, I think it now covers the subject adequately. There is no longer a need for the merger. Wdford (talk) 17:36, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

All HIstorians do not agree

I would like to note that this article claims: "Virtually all historians agree" Yet in the references next it lists a historian who doesn't agree.

I am not a historian, yet question the very existence of Jesus because of the severe lack of information that he did. I also question his very name as it was listed in Matthew as supposed to be "Emmanuel". It would seem more appropriate for someone this article to state: "Most historians agree" as there are some who do not. I question the validity of this article when they use such definitive statements such as "Virtually all" (Even with Global Warming, most people understand that "most climatologists agree" ... not all, which is the correct way to say this as we know there are a scant few who disagree)

It seems that most historians who work on religious history are religious themselves and have a bias toward believing that Jesus was a real human even if they do not take the bible literally. I have a difficult time believing that "Jesus" was a real human as there is only evidence from religious texts or writings long after "he" supposedly died that claim that he did. If you take away the duplicated, implausible, & ridiculous miracles, there really isn't much reason left for there to be an actual historical human named "Jesus". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emeraldsforest (talk • contribs) 12:19, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

1) "Virtually" obviously implies "a majority less than 100%" and thus one dissenting quote clearly fits within the bounds of the definition.

2) If you spend a little time looking at the scholarship, you'd see that even most atheists freely admit that the Jesus of the Bible was a real person. The debate is over his divinity.

3) Suggesting that the removal of Jesus' divinity somehow removes the possibility of his humanity would mean, to follow your logic, that if we were to take away the history of someone's job, family, and name, that that that person would somehow cease to exist. This is obviously not true.

4) Your comment about a "severe lack of information" about Jesus implies you've spent no time actually looking at the scholarship so I'm not sure you are commenting from any actual position other than naked POV, which of course has a hard time flying in Wikipedia. Sorry... Ckruschke (talk) 18:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

You should not speak in the name of atheists. The Jesus of the Bible is an invention, what remains is little proof and lots of religious texts with no historical value. Your Point 3 seems a misunderstanding: removing Jesus Bible facts leaves only a normal person, which is little proof for anything. The problem is that the historical Jesus is just a person with two facts: baptism and death.83.52.210.16 (talk) 00:35, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, is the "historian who doesn't agree" mentioned by Emeraldsforest Robert M. Price? Because I would hesitate to call him a historian, unless we're using a broad definition. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:32, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

From my own understanding, it seems its not just the divinity that is in question - many of the gospel stories are in serious doubt. The historicity of the census, the magi and the star, the virgin birth, the massacre of the babies, the flight to Egypt, the miracles, the resurrections, the details of the trial, the reasons for the execution, the resurrection of Jesus and the ascension are all deemed to be "non-historic', and even elements such as having disciples seems to be challenged by some. The objective consensus seems to be that very little of the gospel accounts can be believed, other than that Jesus (whatever his real name) did exist, lived in that area, was baptized and was executed. Wdford (talk) 07:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Pretty sure the Imperial Roman census is in a different category of historicity from virgin birth. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:22, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Generally speaking, yes they are. I was referring of course to the particular census which Luke claims caused Joseph to load the heavily-pregnant Mary onto a donkey for a few weeks in order to visit Bethlehem from their supposed home in Nazareth - which census could not have taken place in the time period described by Matthew, and which would not in any case have required Joseph to leave his home to pay his taxes in a neighboring country. Wdford (talk) 18:14, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Wdford this article does not say that the account of the census in Luke is historical in fact it says "Most scholars agree that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, that he debated Jewish authorities on the subject of God, performed some healings, gathered followers, and was crucified by Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate" so anything not on that list may be assumed not to have agreement.Smeat75 (talk) 18:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Does the article actually say "virtually all historians"? I think it says things like "scholars" and "biblical historians", which are fine with me. Martijn Meijering (talk) 18:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Way too many weasel words for an article of this import

This article seems to go to great pains to remind us over and over how universal the acceptance of Jesus is among scholars then only provides half a dozen articles (mostly written by christians), as someone who's studied history I can say that scholars are nowhere near universal in this accpetance. The main arguments, that the baptism and crucifixion are real, is based on no more than a bunch of fairly tall assumptions, namely that a single, unsupported and questionable reference from Josephus, the absence of any contemporary accounts denying his existence and the completely baseless assumption that Christians wouldn't make up such an embarrassing story for their leader (the most ridiculous assumption of the lot in my opinion, plenty of cults portray their leaders as victims, look at Mormonism or Scientology or even the cult of Bacchus, its called begging for sympathy). Fact is there is no reason to assume any more than that at least 1 itinerant cult leader was wandering around Judea at the time, hardly an odd occurrence in the Iron Age Levant. This article has clearly been hijacked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.215.92 (talk) 00:45, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Weasel words is not a scientific objection

I find it disturbing and disappointing that commentators use such infantile arguments to attack this article.

However I would like to point out that the article is significantly incomplete in the sense that it does not point out the fact that Jesus's existence as historical fact is further confirmed by the sheer magnitude of the effect this man has had on history, language, ethics, philosophy, art etc since virtually right after the seemingly routine and unimportant event of the travels and crucifixion of an (at the time) unimportant man. In an article about the historicity of Jesus this should also have been mentioned/explored - the completely disproportionately large effect these events have had on the world since antiquity right through to the development of the English language (just browse through English expressions in the Oxford dictionary to see how many of them have New Testament roots)*. It is a significant fact directly related to the subject on hand, and much more relevant than the objection that "weasel words" (a meaningless slang phrase) have been used. It is improbable that someone who never existed could have had an effect of this magnitude. 196.2.126.173 (talk) 03:56, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

The sheer magnitude of the worldwide cultural impact of Mickey Mouse does not go to show that he really existed. His impact has no bearing on whether or not he is fictional. ~ Röbin Liönheart (talk) 23:20, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

• Oxford dictionary of modern English

Updated Christ Myth Section

I have taken the liberty of updating the section on Jesus as myth. Over the last 6 weeks, I have been making improvements to the main Christ myth theory article, namely a new introduction reached through consensus and compromise with contributors who have varying perspectives, as well as new sections with key arguments, lists of books and documentaries, and for a number of authors including Dawkins, Hitchens and Harpur. I look forward to your comments. Radath (talk) 17:55, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Groundless article, needs serious rewrite

The major part of the article is nothing but baseless opinion from inner gutt of mostly christian scholars (aka. priests). Christian sources (priests, biblical scholars, you name it) on the topic is undoubtably invalid. There is no mention why the sourced people believe what they believe, therefor these references should be removed. As that kind of stuff fills the majority of the article (like 2/3 to 4/5), the article has to be rewritten to be less of a christian propaganda, and more a lexicon-article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.133.47.71 (talk) 09:47, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

I became tired of repeating myself, read what I wrote at #Factuality of baptism and crucifixion. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:35, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

On Wikipedia we merely report what reliable sources (defined here) say, we don't offer opinions on whether they are right or wrong. If other notable sources have opinions, we report them too. Martijn Meijering (talk) 10:59, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm always amazed at how many people think that an open, NPOV discussion/recounting of historical evidence (or even the lack thereof) is automatically considered pro-Christian propoganda. Some people need to pull up their Big Boy/Girl pants/panties, grow up, and understand that open dialogue of the pro/con evidence behind any topic, even those that we may disagree with, is considered "scholarly" rather than the opposite of that... Ckruschke (talk) 18:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke

You seem to be ignoring the fact that the little fish of "open, NPOV discussion/recounting of historical evidence" are swimming in a vast ocean of pro-Christian propaganda. And that the overwhelming majority of Biblical "scholarship" is pure blither and twaddle not deserving of the name. Little wonder, then, that intellectually honest Biblical scholarship is often overlooked or dismissed. If you're going to go down this road, it would be best to stick to very high quality sources in real academic publications, and preferably not by so called "Biblical scholars", but by real historians with real credentials and proven track records outside of their religious groups. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 18:32, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Mainstream Bible scholars do not generally do Christian propaganda. From the viewpoint of fundamentalists and very conservative evangelicals, historical-critical scholarship is a Satanic plot against Christianity. Tgeorgescu (talk) 19:28, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

I am well aware of that. The way to tell serious Biblical scholarship apart form the loony fringe blither that often goes under the name of Biblical scholarship is to rely solely on high-quality real academically reviewed sources from selective scholarly publications that are highly regarded outside of just one particular faith group, preferably by authors who have serious credentials in historical research. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 19:38, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

There are many peer-reviewed, scholarly journals that print articles about Intelligent Design/Creationism. There are also many academics that support ID/Creationism/Christian History that have had mult articles that support ID and Christian history printed in other, more secular, peer-reviewed journals. Again its your non-NPOV to pick and choose which source is considered "scholarly" and which isn't simply because its supported by a Christian organization. Its also troubling that you continue to beat the "Christian Propoganda" drum when you have presented no reference to the "vast ocean" other than your OR...

So unless your comments are seriously in support of the IP who started the thread (The major part of the article is nothing but baseless opinion from inner gutt of mostly christian scholars ), rather than just picking a personal scab, this thread should be considered officially closed as we've already established in several previous Threads who should and shouldn't be considered a viable academic reference source.Ckruschke (talk) 20:09, 28 April 2014 (UTC)Ckruschke