Talk:Historicity of Jesus/Archive 12

Luke and Paul

Caesar, I don't think the info about Acts' "we" sections belongs in the section on Paul's epistles, as Acts isn't one of them. This info bears on Luke's sources in his writings, and so I think it belongs under the discussion about the Gospels, as it is already stated that the "traditional" view was that Luke knew Paul, which this is evidence for, and should go in there. So I'm adding it back to that section as well as changing the majority view of dating about Mark, as the majority view, according to that cite, does not have it written that late. Roy Brumback 10:35, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I changed the date based on what Andrew said in the talk page, so I will leave that edit up to him since I am a thrid party to it. As for the we sections, I don't think they belong with Paul's letters either, so we agree, but I think the section on the Gospels is a worse place for them. I will leave it a little while and see if someone else can sort it out, or if one of us gets a better idea. Lostcaesar 12:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I know some people argue for that late date, but as is was written it has that date tied to that cite, which was a fallacy. And maybe a seperate paragraph or section on Acts? Roy Brumback 06:32, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

dating mark

I'm sorry if I am a little edgy over this topic, but I discussed this same thing over at Talk:Gospel of Mark a few months back and reached a conclusion there, so I want to make sure the articles are consistent, and do not want to go through the whole argument again. But in summary, according to R. Brown in his college level overview text on the NT, the average range that scholars accept for M is 68-73. Rounding up, and covering a slightly more diverse number of views, we get 65-75. However, afer seraching through Ehrman, Meier, and various other scholarly texts (and earlychristianwritings.com), I see no reason what so ever to push the date arbitrarily 5 years earlier to 60-70. If we are going to push it back earlier, we also have to push it later, which is why I added 60-80, and which is why the Gospel of Mark article gives that range of dates. There are liberal scholars who argue for a later date, and more conservative scholars who argue for an earlier date. There is no reason to ignore one of these views, resulting in a range of date biased towards the conservative range.--Andrew c 15:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

For what it is worth, 60-80 sounds fine to me. Lostcaesar 15:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Guys, I have no problem with including those views, but according to that cited source, the common scholarly view is not 80, nor earlier then the 60's, it is sometime in 60's to a little after 70. According to Andrew, Brown's other book has it as 68-73. It does not really matter what "discussion" editors here have had on the issue, only that we accurately portray what the common scholarly view is. Does anyone have another source that says the common view has it in 80? Like I said before, feel free to include those hypotheses on dating, but cite them and unless you have counter claim sourced label them as minority positions. The goal here is accuracy, not necessarily comformity between wiki pages, and those changes are not what source says, making them inaccurate cites. I'll check out Mark page next. Roy Brumback 08:35, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I hate to open a can of worms, but putting "Gospel Mark date" into Google gives you, on the first page of hits, a *much* broader range of possible dates than 60-80. The Catholic Encyclopedia cites sources that place the Gospel as early as 38 before concluding that is was probably written between 50 and 67. Historical Commentary on the Gospel of Mark, on the other hand, says that "a handful of exegetes" see Mark as being written after the Jewish Revolt of 135; the website also points to suggestions that passages in Mark are based on Josephus, which was written after 95 and probably after 110.

There's some irony in the fact that the dating seems to revolve around the prophecy of the destruction of the temple in 70--with conservatives suggesting that this means that the gospel must have been written before 70, and skeptics saying that this proves it was written after. Nareek 09:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

You guys seem to be missing the point here. There are several hypotheses about date of Gospel, but according to my sources the majority view is 60's-early 70's, and that's what that view has been labeled as, only the majority, not the true accurate view. We can easily have other cited views and reasoning for them but unless someone disputes this is the majority view with a reliable source then they should be labeled as minority view to be accurate on subject. Roy Brumback 10:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Century old references like the Catholic Encyclopedia should not be used as evidence of current scholary consensus. john k 20:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

We should note the consensus, which is 65-75, with the possible note that some think earlier (or later) depending on the notability of those different opinions (including their recentness). There is a reason why dates are narrowed down, as the probability increases in the narrower range. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 20:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no concensus - a plurality think 65-75, and I am ok saying that, but its not a concensus. Lostcaesar 21:51, 20 September 2006 (UTC) (Edit: if you want a concensus, then you could probably get away with saying that for a date of 60-80) Lostcaesar 22:11, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with 65-75 as well. I just think the wording of "in the 60s, or maybe slightly after 70" is misleading in that it seems biased towards a more conservative date (and would prefer a simple range without qualifiers such as "slightly"). I wrote more on this (probably too much) on the Talk:Mark page.--Andrew c 22:13, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

The question is "What is a consensus?" How great an agreement do we need?

If all must agree there will never be a consensus and it certainly will not be 60-80. JAT Robinson for instance dates Mark still earlier.

Also suspect is the symmetrical approach here: If you want to extend the range down to 60, because that reflected consensus, there is no reason to automatically extend it up to 80. And I have never heard of a modern scholar dating Mark that late.

As I said, the range 65-75 is one of highest probability, according to scholars. Whether we call this a "consensus" or whatever I'll leave to native speakers. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 07:15, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

POV/BIAS tag

I think the early church fathers writings should be mentioned (for example, Polycarp was a disciple of the Apostle John and Polycarp has some writings. ken 08:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

I've reworded and expanded the Introduction to more accurately reflect the scope of the debate. I also moved discussion of texts and sources to "Earliest" and "Christian Writings". Additionally I changed "A majority of scholars and historians" to "A number..." and "A small minority" to "Some...". The changed language reflects less of a bias in the face of an unsupported assertion. Again, just because some biblical scholars state that "the majority of biblical scholars and historians agree" does not make it so. The former language is a rather broad generalization that fails to take into account the great many scholars and historians who either abstain from a conclusive assertion either way or argue to the contrary. It is my understanding that disputation of the historical Jesus was common knowledge, I'm not sure why the Pro-historical view has been asserted to be the dominant view. Dominant in which group - Christian theologians? Sure. Biblical Scholars, maybe but insufficiently supported. It certainly isn't the dominant view in sociological, anthropological or global historical discourses. Significant, yes. Dominant, completely unsupported. I think there is some latitude in the use of "dominant" terminology when applied to specific groups of biblical scholars but I vehemently object to such terms being applied to the whole of historians who wrote/write on the subject. -- I am in the process of adding citations for historians like Campbell and Pagels. Please be patient with me. Also, I messed up and put some comments in the wrong section, should I move them or leave them? Thanks. Phyesalis 07:19, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

My advice is to slow down, discuss all changes here first and reach a consensus, and to support all of your assertions with evidence. Secondly, I don't think anthropologists or sociologists are relevant scholars here. The article's terminology is intended to accurately reflect the field of relevant scholarship. Perhaps your contributions would be more profitable in Jesus as myth. Lostcaesar 08:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I did discuss intended changes previously, and was unaware that I needed consensus to make changes. It seems to me that there are two main pages discussing both Historical Jesus and Jesus as myth and that the purpose of this page, titled "Historicity of Jesus Christ" is not an overview of Biblical Scholarship but an overview of the whole debate - history v. myth. I suggest that if sociologists, non-theological historians and anthropologists, like Pagels and Campbell (support for which I'll get to if my contributions aren't summarily reverted), are not suitable experts, then the title of the article be changed to biblical scholar and avoid objective claims of historicity since it would be refusing to address legitimate criticisms. This is a topic of international and interdisciplinary significance: to limit the discussion to the expertise of the biblical scholar who relies on a intra- and inter-disciplinarily disputed primary source, without addressing that fact, is academically dishonest. Additionally, speaking of style, an intro shouldn't necessarily jump into one side of the debate, it should provide an overview and does not need support as support is provided throughout the body. There are appropriate headings, the info you reverted makes more sense placed under the headings. Zero-sum reversions are rather discouraging, I would appreciate it if you would supply more of a rational for dismissing the number of changes I made. Would it be better if I made them individually? Also, there are tons of weasel words in this article, and while this appropriate in an intro, it is inappropriate in the body of the article. These need to be addressed. How does one reach a consensus among users, who constitutes the acceptable authorities, and how does one determine that a consensus has been reached? I'm always open to constructive criticism, but I'm not quite sure about this consensus thing - which consensus did you reach when you reverted my contribution? I see no discussion on this page between you and any other member regarding such an action. Is there something I'm missing? Phyesalis 11:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View

I think this definitely doesn't meet the standards for Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View. It seems very biased in favor of the idea that Jesus was a historical person and that the Gospels are at least a somewhat accurate reflection of his life. While it could be agrued that these are a majority viewpoint and weighted accordingly, I think that would reflect a current non-neutral point of view among scholarship more than anything. I think among scholars who attempt to verify the existence of Jesus, those who argue that he didn't exist make up a significant portion, whereas most scholars, especially theologians, start with this as a given and do not attempt to prove it on any significant level. Moreover, those interested in Jesus from a religious standpoint are much more likely to take up study of him, and thus have a vested interest that gets in the way of impartiality. While I personally can't say one way or the other, I think those who argue against his existance make at least as good an argument as those who argue for his existance, and I think their viewpoints deserve a more space than they are currently getting. For example, as someone who studies mythology, I can say that the simple dismissal of Jesus' life being a collection of older myths is unfair to a theory that has much more credit to it than the article implies. When I have more time, I'll bring in more research to the article, but I wanted to flag it till that could be done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Cjcastor (talk • contribs)

The article summarizes the material / sources relevant to the subject and then gives examples of current scholarship; what exactly are you looking for? If such a process shows clear signs that Jesus existed, then it is still npov. Lostcaesar 23:22, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

The majority of scholars, including historians, accept that Jesus was a historical person. In addition the Jesus mythers at Wikipedia were unable to produce a historian who favors the Jesus as myth view. However, there are number of historians including Michael Grant who believe Jesus was a historical person. [1] [2] The article spends more time on the majority view which is normal for Wikipedia articles. I favor the POV/bias tag to be removed and I removed it. ken 23:32, 23 September 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

Richard Carrier is an Historian and Philosopher from Columbia who supports the idea that Jesus was probably a myth [3]. In fact the page linking to Michael Grant above mentions Carrier as an authority. It contains a very misleading quote where Carrier is cautioning "amateurs" against jumpping to hasty conclusions without having a strong familiarity with a specialized branch of history. However, any scholar familiar with Carrier is well aware that this caution did not mean he is abandoning his well known position that Jesus was probably a myth. Anyone who would try to cite Carrier as an opponent of the Jesus Myth Theory is engaging in purposeful intellectual dishonesty. So, I would say that my link to the facts about Carrier prove that credible historians do support the idea of the Jesus Myth and call into question the link provided above, which claims to represent "scholarly" opinion. This article should be tagged as having a non-neutral point of view. There has not been a consensus of modern scholarship which has objectively examined, much less disproven the Jesus Myth Theory. The strategy of the people fighting this theory is to quote old historians unfamiliar with the new analysis and to quote biblical scholars who are predominantly practicing Christians and thus unlikely to even consider the idea of the Jesus myth. Quoting biblical scholars on this is like quoting Islamic scholars on some of the questionable documents about Muhammad's life. They will not tolerate dissent from their orthodox views. [[User:cowan66|cowan66] 22:37, 27 October 2006 (UTC)cowan66

I must agree that the article takes a clear and unsubstantiated POV that most experts agree on the historicity of the man known as Jesus Christ. This is simply not true. It would be more accurate to say that many theological scholars accept that such a man existed. Just because this article has more Pro-history support does not mean this is reflected in the relevant disciplines of inquiry. "Many" is neutral, "most" implies some kind of comprehensive survey, of which I see no evidence. The mere assertion does not make it fact. I think there is an important question to be asked: is this article an overview of the views and issues surrounding the historical debate or is it about proving a point? If the purpose of the article is to provide an overview of the debate, the article as it stands, IMO, has serious flaws. The question of JC's historicity is not a question open to theological historians and scholars alone. The question does, as it should, avail itself to academics in a wide variety of discourses: archeology, anthropology, psychology, mythography, as well as regular historians not affiliated with a religious agenda (i.e. historians who do not also also make positive claims about the divinity of JC, unlike E.P. Sanders). Phyesalis 20:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the recent changes to the third paragraph are a step in the wrong direction. If we are summarizing the mainstream scholarly POV, then there is no reason to cite an apologetic, non-scholar such as Holding, or cite equally as questionable people as McDowell and C. Price. I mean, they are on the same level as R. Carrier, E. Doherty, and Freke and Gandy. Seriously, according to WP:RS, extremists groups with agendas (Christian apologists) do not make reliable sources. Note: I agree 100% that mainstream scholarship accepts a historical Jesus. I am just saying, the people cited are not mainstream scholars. Try citing Meier, or R. Brown, or Ehrman, or even EP Sanders or NT Wright (or even Crossan, Funk, or Borg). I think it seriously compromises the integrity of this article by citing apologists instead of scholars. I know there is a big debate on the internet between atheist Jesus Mythers over at internet infidels and Christian apologists from Tekton and bede, however I do not feel that conflict should be represented here in an encyclopedia article about mainstream scholarship (not internet armchair 'scholarship'). I propose reverting to the previous version of the 3rd paragraph, and if needed, citing actual scholars.--Andrew c 20:05, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we should exercise discretion in our sources. I perhaps have a different characterization of the categories of various scholars, and I think we must be quite careful in using judgment to separate scholars into camps of "worthy" and "unworthy", but in the context of this article some sources are clearly preferable to others. We should investigate the sourcing of the third paragraph. I will say that likewise the article on "Jesus as a myth" is a ridiculous example of this problem, and I think in general this article is far more dignified in its handling of the sources. It is for this reason that I think we should uphold these high standards here. The paragraph asserts the position of historians, so we should quote scholars with doctoral degrees in history. Lostcaesar 21:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The assumption that only people with history Ph.D.s have anything worthwhile to say about history is a bias that is very un-Wikipedian. Jimmy Wales is a self-described "anti-credentialist"--which he defines as a belief that people should be judged on the quality of their work. Nareek 21:58, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

And whom among us shall we invest with the authority to make such a judgement? What you say is reasonable, and I didn't mean to exclude serious scholarship from related fields, but I think credentials are relevant for us here. Lostcaesar 22:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

We make those judgments together, as we make countless other collective decisions as we put together a wiki-created encyclopedia. Certainly credentials are something we should take into account, but if we assume that a credential is equivalent to good scholarship, we will be leaving out much good work and including some bad work.

I'm honestly not anti-academia, but it is an institution that has biases like any other institution. Given current academic fashions, it's very unlikely that you'd get a history Ph.D. based on the question of whether Jesus was a historical figure or not--the contemporary emphasis being very much on description and not on interpretation. Nareek 00:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like we agree. Lostcaesar 07:17, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I just think if we are summarizing mainstream scholarship, we should cite mainstream scholarship. Like I said above, this view is held by the majority of biblical scholars and historians, so why cite controversial figures with "strong views" and "an agenda" such as Holding and McDowell. I hate to be so judgemental when it comes to sources, but I do feel strongly that we should cite mainstream scholars in this instance. As for the problems with the Jesus myth article, I believe this section of the NPOV policy applies "None of this is to say that tiny-minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can give them on pages specifically devoted to them." We keep the JM views out of the main Jesus page, and try to represent them without giving them undue weight here, but they do belong in an article specifically about their view.--Andrew c 22:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll let the matter drop if the consensus is against me, but I stand by my original assertation. The burden of proof is on those claiming that Jesus existed, as the burden of proof is always on the person making the positive claim, and I think their case is a bit woobly. Scholars such as Michael Martin, a prof of Philosophy at Boston University (just one to start with) have made good cases for the non-existance of Jesus, and I do not think this page accurately reflects a) the burden of proof, and b) the opinions of numerous scholars that believe those with the burden of proof have failed to meet the scholarly standards of proof.

Who has the burden of proof is a philosophical question which the article, in my view, ought not to take up. If you have material that fits the scholarly criteria that you would like to add please do. My point is just as follows: the article presents relevant information, if that naturally leads to one conclusion over another, that is fine and not a violation of neutrality. The article on the holocaust naturally leads to the conclusion that the event occurred, even if some people (even those in the ivory tower) say that it did not. Lostcaesar 19:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the article does present relevant info, but I assert that the way it is presented is biased. Many historians acknowledge that there is some evidence, but I am unaware of any comprehensive analysis of the issue suggesting that most experts in most applicable fields agree that the issue has been conclusively resolved, nor of the resolution all these experts have allegedly reached. I think the article should state that the matter is subject to debate. Many of the reputable historians that I have read, like Elaine Pagels, avoid such absolute claims, and instead present evidence and leave the question unanswered. I think the article would benefit from an expanded discussion of the legitimacy of the Bible/New Testament as a source for proving the existence of JC, as well as a historical overview of the debate starting from Gnostic texts and Church persecution of "heretical" texts. The article as it stands puts, IMO, undue weight on canonical texts. The fact that these texts have been generally recognized as collaborative works that have been continually edited and voted on through the years in accordance with religious and political agendas (e.g. First Nicene Council) puts their legitimacy as historical proof in serious question to many scholars. If religious texts are valid proofs, then all documents from that time period seem worthy of discussion, including Gnostic texts from which many historians acknowledge as source material for early christian cults. Just because a bunch of men voted on various texts as legitimate religious texts does not make the texts any more legitimate as historical proof. Phyesalis 20:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with some of your initial criticisms. However, the last few sentences seem off base. The NT Gospels are some of the earliest writings that discuss the life of Jesus. The vast majority of the Gnostic texts are much later, and therefore are NOT as historically significant (just as John, much of it being considered late, is not considered as historically significant, especially the strong theological aspects, as Mark and the shared Q material found in Luke and Matthew). The Jesus Seminar has found historical significance in regards to the historical Jesus in some non-canonical works (Gospel of Thomas, Gospel of Peter), but the vast majority of Gnostic texts are too late, and theologically colored to be as useful as sources. The Gnostics were not exempt from altering texts to further their religious agenda. Also, Your depiction of canonization is also flawed. There were a number of factors going into canonization, not all of them self-serving agendas. It is true that a number of books that scholars now believe were 'forged' are in the NT, however this topic isn't really relevent here because those books do not discuss Jesus' life. Also, canonization wasn't an issue until regional Synods in Carthage and Laodicea, roughly half-century after Nicene I.--Andrew c 20:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I will simply repeat that an article need not give both sides equal weight, or leave a matter unanswered, in order to be npov. The article on the holocaust need not lead the reader in doubt that said events occurred, even if some people (scholars) think that it did not. As for your points, the canonic texts are given more weight as historical sources than the Gnostic texts, not merely because of their earlier composition, and not merely because they have a better case for a connection to historical witnesses, but also because they contain historical information not present in most Gnostic texts. The Gnostic texts I am familiar with are generally restricted to sayings given in the setting of a private revelation to a certain figure. Whereas the Gospels are biographical: Jesus did X in Y city at the house of Z in the presence of A, B, and C. Lostcaesar 21:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

First, I meant "religious and political agendas" as neutrally as possible. Although, I might ask Andrew c to provide examples of the Church's agenda which were not, by definition, self-serving (jk). The intersections of the reification of the Nicene Creed, the anathematizing of contrary positions and writings, and the confluence of religious and political agendas as proven by the involvement of Emperor Constantine all stand as a significant precedent when examining Christian texts. Secondly, I acknowledge that my characterization of canonical texts was a bit fast and loose, but the points remain. The New Testament, as with all religious texts apocrypha or otherwise, is a debatable source of historical proof. While I fully support its inclusion in the debate, I suggest that it be contextualized within objective academic pursuit, which includes more than "biblical scholars", a dubious distinction to begin with. Perhaps a qualification of theologian v. biblical scholar v. secular historian/anthropologist/mythographer would improve the article. (My critique of the article's POV is not leveled at the contributing editors, merely an assessment of it's reflection of the overarching issues.) The argument regarding Gnostic texts is that a number of historians and anthropologists attribute the development of early Christian cults to concurrent and/or pre-existing Gnostic texts, a number of which held that Christ/logos was a symbol and that God did not take physical form. A considerable number of scholars recognize a distinct shift in tenor and content between the "central" church and pre-Catholic "cults" (neutral). Phyesalis 23:03, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Will Durant affirmed that Jesus existed - I deleted the Will Durant Jesus myth claim in relation to Durant that was uncited

Will Durant affirmed that Jesus existed - I deleted the Will Durant info that was uncited. Here is what Durant wrote in in Caesar and Christ:

The Christian evidence for Christ begins with the letters ascribed to Saint Paul. Some of these are of uncertain authorship; several, antedating A.D. 64, are almost universally accounted as substantially genuine. No one has questioned the existence of Paul, or his repeated meetings with Peter, James, and John; and Paul enviously admits that these men had known Christ in his flesh. The accepted epistles frequently refer to the Last Supper and the Crucifixion.... The contradictions are of minutiae, not substance; in essentials the synoptic gospels agree remarkably well, and form a consistent portrait of Christ. In the enthusiasm of its discoveries the Higher Criticism has applied to the New Testament tests of authenticity so severe that by them a hundred ancient worthies, for example Hammurabi, David, Socrates would fade into legend. Despite the prejudices and theological preconceptions of the evangelists, they record many incidents that mere inventors would have concealed the competition of the apostles for high places in the Kingdom, their flight after Jesus' arrest, Peter's denial, the failure of Christ to work miracles in Galilee, the references of some auditors to his possible insanity, his early uncertainty as to his mission, his confessions of ignorance as to the future, his moments of bitterness, his despairing cry on the cross; no one reading these scenes can doubt the reality of the figure behind them. That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so loft an ethic and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospel. After two centuries of Higher Criticism the outlines of the life, character, and teaching of Christ, remain reasonably clear, and constitute the most fascinating feature of the history of Western man. [4]

ken 02:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)kdbuffalo

The article never said that he denied Jesus's existence, just that he summarised the arguments of those who did. Paul B 10:08, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Disputed sentence

The text reads:

Other issues with the historicity of the Gospels include possible conflicts with each other, or with other historical sources. However, possible examples of this are few, the most frequently suggested ones being the Census of Quirinius as recounted in Luke, and the two genealogies contained in Luke and Matthew.

There is dispute over whether the section in bold should be omitted. I would like to open up a dialogue where we can discuss reasons for this change. What we need to do is find sources that seriously discuss the matter, and see if we can refine the language here if necessary.Lostcaesar 10:48, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

There really does not need to be any discussion on the matter. Theologians and academics who don't believe that the bible is the inerrant work of God accept that the various books were written by various authors, and that they conflict with each other in some areas. Here are two of the earlist books that discuss contradictions in the gospels (although dedicated to the christian bible as a whole) Burr, William Henry, 1819-1908. Self-contradictions of the Bible / William Henry Burr ; with an introduction by R. Joseph Hoffmann. [Buffalo, NY : Prometheus Books], c1987. Series title: Classics of Biblical criticism. UCB Moffitt BS533 .B798 1987 UCD Main Lib BS533 .B798 1987 The "Holy Scriptures" analyzed, or, Extracts from the Bible : shewing its contradictions, absurdities and immoralities / by Robert Cooper. 2nd ed., to which is added, a vindication of the work. Manchester, [Greater Manchester] : J. Cooper, 1840. Series title: Goldsmiths'-Kress library of economic literature ; no. 31887. UCLA AGSMgmt H 31 G57 Microfilm

You might also like to review the wikipedia page on biblical errancy at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alleged_inconsistencies_in_the_Bible and the relevant references there. Retsudo 15:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Could you show the relevant material in those text please. This is a good start, but we need to begin examining the sources closer now. Also, but sure that the works cited are reputable. Lostcaesar 15:53, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean, show the relevant material? DO you want me to list all the inconsistencies in the gospels? The material is all either on the errancy page or indexed very well on the skeptics annotated bible site, with the contradictions and 'rebuttals' listed.Retsudo

You must show verifiable material for your claims, its a Wikipedia policy, see WP:V. You could try to list innerancies all day, but then people (including me) would probably just argue with you the whole time, and at the end of the day, nothing could properly go in the article. Homestarmy 19:02, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

This sentence addes additional qualification to this section. That is a good thing to have, as long as it is sourced and cited. As it stands, quantifying these "possible conflicts" as "few" is unsourced. The sentence seriously reads fine without this clause. Read it again without it. We say the conflicts are "possible" so we are being NPOV and not taking sides. Then we give examples of these conflicts. Simple as that. When we add the qualification, especially without citation, we are tipping the NPOV scales. Some people believe the Gospels are chock full of this stuff, and some people think there isn't a single conflict in any religious text. By saying the conflicts are "few", without a citation, we are taking sides, where without that clause, we aren't. I have reverted, please do not re-add that clause without a citation. (and even then, I imagine we'll have to adjust the wording to be a bit more NPOV).--Andrew c 03:10, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

As I said from the beginning, I am open to rewording the sentence. My problem is as follows. The sentence was changed because: "there are HUNDREDS [caps original] of examples of conflicts between gospel accounts", and again because: "There are hundreds of books and articles discussing the hundreds of contradictions in the NT. THis is a fact and representing it any other way is not NPOV, it is based on belief" and lastly because: "The gospels have hundreds of conflicts and contradictions with each other", and I was directed, not to any of those hundreds of books, but to "skepticsannotatedbible.com". It is impossible to assume good faith concerning edits with this kind of unabashed antagonism. Now my esteemed co-editor is recommending a disclaimer that some scholars who are Christian be called out, basically, as substandard scholars for their belief. Frankly I am completely insulted by this approach. Again, I am open to rewording this sentence, as I has said all along, but I was afraid to let such changes stand for those reasons because it would open the door for more and worse such edits, which it clearly has.Lostcaesar 20:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

While I was at the library today confirming the Michael Grant quote, I turned the page and on p.200, Grant says that there are many discrepancies among the gospel accounts (he goes on to say that this alone is not reason enough to outright deny their historicity altogether), but it is clear to Grant that these conflicts are not "few". I propose removing the controversial clause. --Andrew c 21:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

For that reason I can sign on, — perhaps in due time a summary of different academic views could be worked in. Lostcaesar 07:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

'Essential' historical details'

from the first paragraph, there is a statement "in which the historical details of Jesus’ life are essential" - Isn't this incorrect? Surely not all sects of christianity are totally based on a flesh and blood jesus; but rather on the metaphorical and spiritual stuff in the NT - if you read Paul, you can get the impression that he didnt consider jesus flesh and blood at all. What I'm saying is that some sects dont need a historical jesus, like they interpret the OT to be metaphorical when it says their god was wandering about talking to people.Retsudo

Almost all are based on a Jesus who actually existed, the only ones I can think of which take Christ's existance metaphorically are certain members of Unitarian Universalism, and even then, that church does not recognize itself as Christian, members often recognize themselves as members of whatever religion they want. Homestarmy 15:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Good, so you agree that not all christian sects need a historical jesus, so the part about it can be changed.Retsudo

Wrong, Unitarian Universalism does not claim to be a Christian church, all Christian church's I know of affirm the existance of Jesus. And yes, Christianity requires Jesus to exist. While some groups claiming to be Christian have different definitions of who Jesus is, I know of none which feature a fictional Jesus. Homestarmy 16:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say fictional, I said (not) "flesh and blood". Not all christian groups believe that the early jews literally carried god around in a box (read the OT), but they still believe in the god. Similary, they may believe in a non-corporeal jesus who didn't actually walk the earth (like the early christians, especially paul, did)Retsudo 18:08, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Not flesh and blood means fictional, obviously the only Jesus described in the Gospels was a man in part anyway, and besides, if a church also thought of Jesus as not being based on the historical details of Jesus's life, this would be a fictional Jesus. The tabernacle also has nothing to do with this conversation, and once again, there are no church's I know of which claim to be Christian and do not believe Jesus was a real, physical person, or that he was described with historical detail at some point. But please, feel free to link to one of these "Christian" churchs, they couldn't be that hard to find....if they exist. Homestarmy 19:00, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The historical details of Jesus's life are essential to Christianity and Islam, as the above discussion, in a round about way, shows. Change the details and the religions are effected. Lostcaesar 21:56, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

christian scholars

This article needs a sort of disclaimer stating that the Christian scholars, making up the majority of the academics in this area, are very unlikely to conclude that their lord and savior did not exist, so they may be a little biased. Please help me to make it NPOV.Retsudo 11:15, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I believe you are misinterpreting the NPOV policy. There is a difference between being simply "neutral" or having "no point of view" and the specific usage of NPOV on wikipedia. Our jobs is NOT to cleanse the bias from our sources. Our job is to report on our sources, giving majority POV the most space, and making sure minority POVs do not get undue weight. If you can find a source that makes the claim that the majority of scholars are biased, you may be able to cite that as a side note in the mythist section. But a) making the claim, uncited, is original research and b) if the majority POV is that Jesus exists, we cannot give the fringe minority POV undue weight by being overly critical at every step of the majority. Wikipedia isn't about The Truth, but simply summarizing the dominant views by reporting on reliable, verifiable sources. Unfortunately, that means minority views do not get as dominant a place in articles, and therefore should not turn this article into a debate or get control over placing disclaimers on this article. Hope this helps.--Andrew c 19:44, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Reporting on the sources, yes. I am currently trying to find a better example, but I think what I have so far is enough to let the paragraph remain- J.P. Moreland, the Theologian and Christian Apologist, has noted that there is a common accusation of this type - that Christian scholars are biased - and has mentioned it in some of his lecture/ articles. (his defence is 'yes, they are, but they are biased for a reason') - The well-known 'Jesus Seminar' also makes similar points.Retsudo 22:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

It is going too far to mention bias amongst scholars who are experts in their field. Although such a bias could theoretically exist, we do not see similar disclaimers in other articles. Try adding a section to Evolution stating that scientists who promote evolution are commonly accused of being biased. While it may be true, you won't get far. So I will fix this article. ^rossnixon 10:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The problem is a relevant part of the article topic, and we now have J.P. Moreland as a reference, therefore it deserves to be cited.--BMF81 13:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

...and we are all waiting for that citation before we can even have anything to talk about. Lostcaesar 13:05, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I have a multitude of problems with this section. I will quote in full then discuss:

There is contention over the conclusions raised by the mainstream scholars, however, as most scholars who study in this field are committed Christians. As their personal religion means that they already Believe in 'Jesus Christ,' it has been suggested that their conclusions could be biased. This has been addressed to an extent by J.P._Moreland and other Apologists.

The article does not really draw conclusions, and if it does the conclusions of differing views are mentioned and cited. Who contends which particular conclusion? This is completely vague in the above passage. Furthermore, if the conclusions are made by the "mainstream", then the scholars who raise contention must be fringe scholars by definition. Nonetheless they are not named. Who says that most scholars who work in the field are Christian, and what field – history? Whatever the case, the accusation that a scholar is necessarily inferior because of his religion is unfounded and downright offensive. The possibility of bias is equally potential with any scholar, regardless of belief or lack thereof. To show the silliness of this claim, it could equally be said that scholars who are not committed Christians are potentially biased in this field since they may have converse aims. It is a pointless assertion, and whatever the case, no such disclaimer appears anywhere else that I know of. Lastly, the passage says it has been "addressed" by JP Morelan; what does that mean? What did he say, what was his argument or point, and what is the source? This passage is absolute rubbish, simple as that.Lostcaesar 15:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I have a multitude of problems with the extremely biased treatment of this article. It is absolute nonsense to claim that a scholar who believes, faithfully, that jesus christ is his personal lord and saviour can be anything but biased in his conclusions as to his historicity. Most scholars who investigate the roots of christianity are committed christians. The assertion is not unfounded at all; it is a perfectly reasonable conclusion, supported by the evidence. It is different from most other subjects as they are NOT subject to deep committed faith. Would you agree that an extremely devout muslim is likely to be biased in their conclusions about whether or not Mohammed had a flying horse which he flew to heaven on? And that someone who is not a devout muslim is not going to be biased? JP Morelan brought up the criticism in at least one of his articles as it is a common criticism. I could certainly put the entire text in the article but I did not think such a lengthy discussion is necessary. Fact: people who believe in something religiously are doing so despite and irregardless of the evidence- to have the same people investigate the evidence and claim they are unbiased is untrue and POV.Retsudo

Fact: Wikipedia is based on Verifiability, not fact. There's nowhere near enough description in that paragraph to warrent a full disclaimer at the top, especially when you haven't even cited any part of this JP fellow's writing. Homestarmy 14:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Verified: gonnae stop pushing a biased POV now? Retsudo

You did not address my points. As for bias and a muslim scholar in your example, I believe concerning such an issue all scholars will have to deal with the matter of bias, but we should extend basic scholarly respect and avoid ad hominem attacks. Perhaps a scholar who is an atheist examines Islamic history and decides, based on his research, that Muhammad was telling the truth. Who are we to say? If you want to advance the dialogue, answer my points above and stop with irrelevant hypothetical questions.Lostcaesar 17:08, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

What exactly do you want me to address? I completely disagree with your conclusion and think you are trying to push your own point of view. The relevant points are: Due to the influence of personal belief, christian scholars are liable to presuppose the existence of historical jesus. The scholars who HAVE approached the issue without this bias overwhelmingly conclude that there is no good evidence for a historical jesus (and as such that it comes down to personal beliefs.) Christian scholars are aware of this and have replied to this criticism, either by denying bias or by claiming that the bias is because of the supposed evidence. I have referenced the article where JP Holding (who is, in fact, a Christian scholar and theologian) replies. Retsudo

Retsudo, you didn't provide any scholar reference. J. P. Moreland is not a scholar, anyway if the reference is in his book Jesus Under Fire: Modern Scholarship Reinvents the Historical Jesus. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995, provide page number and quote.--BMF81 17:20, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I will be specific about the vagueness of the paragraph. What conclusions are reached by mainstream scholars? What is the "contention" over these conclusions and who raises it and in what texts? Who says that most scholars "in this field" are committed Christians? What field is this? Who claims that this is a problem that taints there conclusions? What does JP Morelandsay , who is JP Moreland, and where does he say it?Lostcaesar 19:05, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I just checked the source given, and it seems this reference takes the main premise of the section Ratsudo proposes and attempts to prove it wrong. The skeptical opinion is the first bold group of sentences, and the articles goes on to call this accusation "silly" among other things. I re-worded the last sentence to conform with the reference given however. Homestarmy 19:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

We must have different definitions of the word "addressed" - I knew he was attempting to defend christian scholars from this criticism, sorry if I wasn't clear - that is what I meant by 'addressed.'. IMO he fails, but that is my opinion and shouldnt be in the article. What should be in the article is that there is this criticism and counter-criticism. Thank you for your help in rewording.Retsudo

There's another problem in that the reference doesn't actually mention anybody notable who holds this view, they might just be trying to talk about random non-notable skeptical people. Homestarmy 20:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

1) Its still a valid, common and notable criticism even if were not attached to any specific person - Contrary to what you seem to think, not everything needs to be tied to a specific person.

2) It IS verifiable through the article I have already linked to, which means it is suitable for inclusion to Wiki.

3) Earl Doherty has made the criticism and I am sure others have also, I am currently searching for more. Earl Doherty's statement is in the postscript to 'The Jesus Puzzle' - we could change the disclaimer to be a positive statement using this instead of the current one? Statement is "The theory that Christianity could have begun without an historical Jesus of Nazareth has been adamantly resisted by New Testament scholarship since it was first put forward some 200 years ago. It has generally been held by a small minority of investigators, usually "outsiders." An important factor in this imbalance has been the fact that, traditionally, the great majority working in the field of New Testament research have been religious apologists, theologians, scholars who are products of divinity schools and university religion departments, not historians per se. To suggest that a certain amount of negative bias may be operating among that majority where the debate over an historical Jesus has been concerned, is simply to state the obvious. Nor is such a statement to be considered out of order, especially in the face of the common 'argument' so often put forward against the mythicist position: that the vast majority of New Testament scholars have always rejected the proposition of a non-existent Jesus, and continue to do so. In fact, the latter is simply an "appeal to authority" and cannot by itself be given significant weight."Retsudo 20:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you should slow down with the changes and make proposals, one by one, here in talk so there can be colaboration.Lostcaesar 21:28, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that Lostcaesar made a very arrogant move by reverting all the Retsudo contributions without regard. That's not the way to start asking for collaboration.--BMF81 22:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I quite agree. If there are any problems with the changes (which are all verifiable and can be sourced) then they should be discussed here BEFORE reverting.Retsudo

Well, the edits are unconstructive to say the least. I would like collaboration, but it is difficult since you have not engaged my comments here. You could always post your desired changes here first, and avoid the difficulty. Whatever the case, on your last edits, I did not revert everything, instead I preserved one insertion and merely moved it to the proper place. Also, two sentences which you wanted reworked have been. Lostcaesar 07:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I have engaged with you here, you have simply reverted anything you don't like. For example, your repeated insistence, despite the more accurate information on the pauline epistles article and in scholastic work, that galatians is totally undisputed (it isn't) and that 'at least' seven works are credited to paul - no, seven. Not at least seven. STOP pushing your POV, cite any reliable sources for what you change and be prepared to accept that not everyone agrees with your beliefsRetsudo

Retsudo, you are showing your ignorance here. The title "undisputed epistles" is a technical term employed by the scholarly community. If you do not like this then you will have to take it up with them. Some scholars treat other letters as Pauline, thus "at least" is an accurate addition. Lostcaesar 11:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

"'percieved as' committed christians" - I disagree- they ARE comitted christians, what they are percieved as has nothing to do with it. The criticism is to do with their beliefs, not others percieved beliefs of them. The only reason I have not changed this back immediately is that I have made a lot of edits recently and want to explain this one. Homeostarmy, please state a source which says 'perceived as' or it will have to be changed back to the accurate version.Retsudo

Do you even know how many ways you could take "Commited Christians"? A skeptic might take that to mean the people at Godhatesfags.com. A Jehovah's Witness might take that to mean just Jehovah's witnesses alone. I would take it to mean people who actively try to find ways to seek and save the lost, no matter how many people whine and complain about how "intolerant" and "close minded" Christianity is. If nobody percieves them as commited Christians, fine, the whole paragraph needs to be removed, since apparently nobody sees any of the scholars as commited to Christianity at all, and the basis of the dispute is null and void. However, if as I suspect, Earl Doharty for one sees these scholars as "mostly Christians", then he certainly does percieve them to be Christians, but Earl Doharty alone is certainly not a reliable enough source to show that anybody is 100 percent certainly a "commited Christian". The only source that would suffice that is God, since He is omnipotent and is the only one who would know for sure whether someone is truly a Christian, and I don't think you'll find any specific references for your purpose from Him. Homestarmy 23:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Heres a simple definition: If you ask them if they are a Christian, will they say yes? Simple, honest, verifiable. Nothing to do with other peoples perceptions at all. Regardless of your beliefs, this criticism is verifable and fit for inclusion to the Wiki, stop pushing POV please.Retsudo

Verifiable, yes. Always makes them "commited", to the point where they would basically lie about reaserch, (Which would be hypocrasy anyway, making them not commited) certainly not. Homestarmy 12:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

An observation: Retsudo's claims about Christian bias seem to be based on a major misunderstanding of Christian theology. Retsudo is focusing on claims by scholars that Jesus existed. As I understand it (I count of Lostcaeser and Homestarmy to corrent me; I am not a Christian and may be mistaken), what is important to Christian theology is that Jesus was the son of God and one with the father, and that he was not only crucified but was resurrected. This is a far cry from saying that there was a man named Jesus who was fully human and the son of a human mother and human father who was later crucified by the Romans. Although I would not be surprised if there are Christians who believe this, I thought there was actually a time when Christians who claimed this were considered heretics! In short, my understanding is that the issue for Christian theology/dogma is not that Jesus "existed" but that he was and is divine. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, in order for Jesus to of been the Messiah, He had to fulfill all of the Messianic prophecies concerning Him, one of which was to be born :/. (To a virgin or to a woman I think is a debate for another day). Homestarmy 14:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Homestarmy, believe it or not I am trying to be constructive. I did not suggest that Christians do not care whether Jesus existed or not, I said that Jesus's "existence" (meaning, he was born, and he died) in and of itself is not the point of Christianity. Do you really think the point I made, above, is unconstructive? Do you really think your comment is going to help resolve the dispute with Retsudo? What does ":/" mean and tell me, do you genuinely think typing it is going to help resolve a conflict among editors, or is it possible that it might add to irritation, frustration, and suspicion? What exactly do you want to accomplish? Slrubenstein | Talk 14:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

You did say you were counting on me or caeser to correct you :) (And :/, like :), was just a emoticon face, just trying to defuse a tense situation). I think Lostcaeser summed it up though earlier in another section when he said "The historical details of Jesus's life are essential to Christianity and Islam, as the above discussion, in a round about way, shows. Change the details and the religions are effected." Homestarmy 14:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

With all due resepct, do you think that the ":/" will have the effect you want on Retsudo i.e. defuse a tense situation? Slrubenstein | Talk 14:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Well i've used that kind of thing for awhile and it doesn't appear to of backfired yet. Besides, its sort of hard to project emotion or connotations in typing the way you always want it to..... Homestarmy 17:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

You may bery well be right, Homestarmy. But with all due respect, Retsudo has yet to respond to my well-intentioned comment, and I would hate to think that it is because he was turned off by your comment which to me seemed to trivialize the issue (his concernk, my point). I am not trying to attack you and realize I really could be wrong about this, but I did want to let you know what motivated me, Slrubenstein | Talk 10:54, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits

I added the clause "and the chronology of the Easter events in all 4 gospels" to the frequently cited apparent conflicts list. This was removed and replaced with Moreover, since many Christian denominations hold the Bible to be the literal and inspired word of God, any form of contradiction is likely to cast doubt on this conception, and simultaneously render dubious any attempt to use it as a primary source for historical enquiry. I think this is terrible. First of all, this little rant seems off topic for this article. Second of all, inerrants are not "many". Next, this claim isn't even cited, so it isn't verifiable. Finally, it is wrong. Regardless what a minority of religious extremists believe about a text, it doesn't change that it IS a historical text, and that historian DO examine it, using historical methods, in addition to examining external evidence, contemporary texts, archaelogy, etc. to reconstruct probable histories. Maybe I am reading this sentence wrong, but it sounds like because someone believes the text is perfect and inspired by god, but actually it contains contradiction, it is therefore useless as a historical document? That logic doesn't follow, and it contradicts every university level historian and biblical scholar that I have read.

Next, Galatian is one of the undisputed epistles see Authorship of the Pauline epistles. Maybe the title is a little misleading, but when the VAST majority of a diverse body of scholars agree that 7 letters are "authentic" or "undisputed" we can not change what our cited sources say just because we can find some nuts on the internet that will dispute anything.

You cannot say something is unpisputed if it is disputed. You can say 'almost undisputed' or 'virtually undisputed'Retsudo

Actually, he certainly can, if nobody notable disputes the claim, then to Wikipedia, their dispute on the issue doesn't really matter. Homestarmy 12:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Then a better wording would be "undisputed by any notable source".--BMF81 14:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

But Wikipedia can't refer to itself like that, and in that case, it would be referring to WP:N even while not wikilinking it, because it would be using Wikipedia's notability standard. Homestarmy 14:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The claim that it's indisputed is unsourced.--BMF81 14:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The fact of the matter is that is exactly what these letters are called by the relevent scholars. Open up any college level text book on the NT (try Bart Ehrman's. He is a fairly liberal scholar, and is agnostic, not Christian). We do not need to change the terminology used by that consensus of scholars because someone, somewhere may doubt the authenticity of these letters. Do you have multiple sources questioning the authorship of the undisputed, or are you just questioning the status quo for the sake of it? Go to amazon and use the "Search inside" feature for the word "undisputed".--Andrew c 15:24, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Next, why was Having a "brother" and "apostles" who are arguing with Paul over what Jesus' real intentions were during his life is impossible if he never existed. deleted? Maybe we change "impossible" to "improbable" or "unlikely"? But keep the sentence in.

Because, as the edit log shows, it is not impossible - that is christian POV. People argue about all sorts of things, not all of them actually happened. Think of the heavens gate cult arguing what colour their spaceship is - that doesnt mean there actually was a spaceship.Retsudo

Finally, there is already a section in this article for the mythists position. it is giving undue weight to a minority view to have rebuttle sections from this minority view in the pauline epistle section. Also, I personally am not fond of long quotes. It seems much less encyclopedic than a brief summary of a position.

The article is already too far biased towards the historical believers, it is not giving undue weight to a minority view. Both sides of the arguement need to be given, the majority view in more detail, yes, but you cannot simply remove arguements you dislike.Retsudo

Actually, anybody can technically remove any argument they dislike, the grounds of a dispute are just whether or not the removal is justified. Just as you have added arguments that you like, (I presume to correct what you see as bias) others can remove said arguments if they see something as biased, though if people simply removed them without even trying to talk about it, then that would probably be problematic. Homestarmy 12:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually on wikipedia adding material is not at the same level as removing it. The policy presents many cases where the removing is dealt with much more caution.--BMF81 14:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

That's why I said technically, if I just revert war removed something without even trying to discuss it, I suspect a block would be in my future :). However, we've had quite a deal of discussion.... Homestarmy 14:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

The discussion is still going on, the removal was a bit premature.--BMF81 14:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems that you are pushing the mythist POV. Just keep in mind the NPOV policy. An article like this cannot give undue weight to such a small view. Your efforts might be better met at improving the actual article on this position Jesus as myth. If it upsets you that the majority view (which you believe is biased) gets the most space here, then your anger should be directed at wikipedia policy, not this article in specific. --Andrew c 00:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not angry, and I don't think anyone else is. Neither am I saying that the majority view should not get the most space. I am simply saying that the article should be NPOV, which it keeps drifting away from towards when christians keep inserting fatuous and unverifiable things, and removing parts that they just dont like.Retsudo

In what way is the view of Jesus as historically existing the 'majority' one? Can someone please provide a citation or proof of this notion?

But I also agree with Retsudo about the way the believers tend to force their point of view into the article. The Crying Orc 09:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you look at the references for the 2nd paragraph over at Jesus, then look at the talk archives for the 2nd paragraph discussion. Only a small handful of scholars who aren't even ancient Roman/Jewish scholars or NT scholars fall into the Mythist camp (Richard Carrier is almost a scholar, but he doesn't have his PhD yet, and isn't exactly a mythist either. Robert M. Price is fairly well credentialed, but is only agnostic towards a historical Jesus. Freke and Grady, Doherty, Acharya S are not experts by any means in these fields. Wells is fairly scholarly, but took up his interest in biblical studies as a hobby.) It was argued that NONE of these scholars are anywhere close to people like Sanders, Metzger, Ehrman, Meier, Wright, Brown, etc. That they were not scholars in the proper field, that none of this has been published in scholarly journals that you'd find at jstor.org (such as Novum Testamentum, the Journal of Biblical Literature, etc), that no one who teaches on a graduate level at any prestigous university supports these theories, etc. Seriously, you are hard pressed to find sources on the Jesus Myth. Maybe there are 10 books total (and a couple internet sites that are about as reliable and verifiable as extreme apologetics sites like Tekton)? Can you convince us otherwise that the Jesus myth is nothing but a fringe POV (that should not get the power to turn this article into a debate by having a rebuttle in each and every section, nor a disclaimer concerning scholars who happen to be Christian at the top)?--Andrew c 15:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

An anon edited the article to say that the JM scholars are the same type of scholars as the mainstream scholars. However, it had been sucessfully argued in the past (and I summarized above) that the JM people are NOT in the same group as mainstream scholarship. The whole point is that scholars in their appropriate field support a historical Jesus, while a small minority of outsiders dispute that claim. Also, adding "alleged" in front of "life" is POV pushing. It is the same thing as a creationist trying to change the evolution article. Unfortunately, according to wikipedia policy, we cannot allow minority views to color an article in this way.--Andrew c 15:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

scholarship versus slander

I see someone has added the following:

There is contention over the conclusions raised by the mainstream scholars, however, as most scholars who study in this field are committed Christians. As their personal religion means that they already believe in 'Jesus Christ', critics of Christianity often assert they may not be able to maintain the proper degree of detachment and neutrality.

Let's leave aside the fact that some of these scholars are Jewish, or non-Christian - a fact which is alone sufficient to dispose of this claim. Let's pick the example of Sanders who is Christian. I take very strong exception to this for two reasons. First, it is an insult to serious scholarship. Doherty is a dilitant who relies on Wells, another dilitant. I believe very very strongly that Wikipedia should strive to acknowledge and incorporate the best of mainstream scholarship. To me, this means looking at scholars who have relevant graduate degrees and who have published in relevant peer-reviewed journals, or who have published books through well-respected academic presses. For example, in the article on physics, I would respect the work of a physicist trained at MIT or Cal Tech (or many other similar institutions) who has published in Science or Nature. When it comes to Jesus, I have a high regard for the scholarship of E.P Sanders because he received a doctorate Union Theological Seminary which is a well-known seat of critical scholarship on religion (an he later received a degree from Oxford), is a member of the British Academy, teaches at Duke University (one of the top ten or at least top 15 universities in the US), has a book published by Cambridge University Press. More importantly, Sanders employs the tools of the modern historian or scholar of comparative literature. Regardless of his credentials, his scholarly writing holds up to academy-wide standards of critical scholarship, by which I mean (1) his conclusions are not determined by his personal beliefs and (2) his conclusions are supported by appropriate (in this case, linguistic, literary, and archeological) evidence, and (3) he holds his work accountable to other scholars in his field. Sanders may be a Christian, but non-Christians, including Jews and atheists, respect his work because it is not based on Christian theology but rather the highest standards of academic research. Compared to Sanders, Doherty and Wells are as much experts in New Testament or 1st century Roman Palestine history as they are experts in physics or biology. I would not draw on them in an article on physics or biology, and I wouldn't draw on them in an article concerning Jesus. To do so is to disrespect the entire tradition of post-Enlightenment Western science and academia. Second, it is an insult to Christians because the implication is Christians cannot be scientists. I realize that some Christians believe the world was created in six days and that God created all species, but this does not change the fact that there are many Christian astrophysicists, geologists, and evolutionary biologists and we do not dismiss their work because they are Christians. There is no need for me to discuss the many works by Christian intellectuals about how they can be both Christian and accept post-Enlightenment science; this is well-established. What is true for astrophysics, geology, and evolutionary biology is true for the study of history and comparative literature.

NPOV means that we must represent diverse views. But it also means that we must represent views accurately. Sanders is a man, he was born in Texas, and for all I know he plays golf and the violin. My point is that, like any man or woman, he is many things. This does not mean that when he writes about Jesus he is expressing the point of view of violinists or golfers, or Texans or men. Neither does it mean that he is expressing the point of view of a Christian. How do I know? I have read his books along with other words of comparative literature and history. He does not claim to write as a cleric or as a theologian; he does not claim to be addressing issues central to the Christian faith. He does claim to address issues of importance to a historian, and he frames and answers these questions as any trained historian does. Now, I can sort of see how someone might think that if he is Christian, and writing about Jesus, his faith must bias his research. But it takes me less than a second to dismiss this reasoning as naive or ignorant. It does not surprise us that most people who are extablish scholars of US history are American, or that most people who are scholars of German literature are German - but this in no way means that these scholars are nationalists whose research is driven by a nationalist agenda. That a Christian may be drawn to learn more about Paul or jesus is not surprising. But it should be no less surprising that in the process they want to be as objective, and draw on as many modern critical methods, as possible. Anyone who finds this surprising must either know only a small range of Christians, or nothing about academia. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

3RR

It has been called to my attention that I have reverted the article at a frequency in violation of wikipedia policy. Let me take the opportunity to apologize to my fellow editors for the difficulties that this has caused, whatever they may be. I will abjure from this article for 36 hours, beginning with this edit (3:51GMT 19 Oct), in the interest of respecting the policies that we work under. Lostcaesar 14:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, but please feel free to weigh in here on talk on these matters. Your perspective is definately appreciated. (or if you need time to cool down, have a cup of tea, whatever. That's fine. You will be missed).--Andrew c 15:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Andrew c, thank you for pointing out that I am in conflict with the policy, I'm afraid this is a bit confusing. Can you explain why, in contrast with Wikipedia standards, when my evolving contribution has been summarily reverted multiple times, I am in violation of reverting my own contribution when it is those who reverted it in the first place without justifiable reason, without vandalism, who are in breach? I am not attempting to exclude other's contributions as others are trying to exclude mine. I introduced substantive change well within the acceptable bounds of Historiography. My argument is that the reversions of my additions constitute vandalism. When criticism was offered, I made revisions to reflect it. Should I give warnings to those who reverted my whole contribution? I have addressed the vandal-like reversions of my posts on this page, but have gotten little in the way of satisfactory explanation for this vandalism, yet. My contribution has been effectively censored with no legitimate explanation. Thank you for any help you can offer. I shall give the matter further attention and refrain from reverting my contributions, as such. I apologize for my confusion and ask you to accept my apology in good faith. It was not my intention to disregard the conventions. Phyesalis 22:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Differentiation of Scholarship

It may be useful for whenever the phrase "some scholars" is used with citation to differentiate between Conservative and Liberal scholars. The obvious difference being Conservative scholarship's approach tends to use the text of the Bible as inherrent truth in arriving at thier conclusions whereas the Liberal scholarship approaches text as insight into the cirumstances of it's creation with an open mind as to how interpretations of history and alternative sources might give equal or more accurate clues.

I don't see this as being much of a problem, most Liberal scholars appreciate the term Liberal and haev no problems understanding the conservative viewpoint while disagreeing with the foundation on how the conclusions were obtained. Simmilarly conservatives, also appreciating the title conservative, see Liberal conclusions as erroneous dur to missing key elements from the scripture. Most scholars have no problems at all (and in fact are proud of) identifying which school of thought they operate in.

I think it would be important to this article due to it possibly being a main line of separation between the varying theories. And also this would alleviate nPOV issues. While some may argue that scholars agree or what the majority is, no one is going to argue what Liberal scholarship or Conservative scholarship teaches when the citations are in place, leaving the POV to the notable experts and us simply citing them. Peace --Home Computer 15:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution over illegitimate reversions

Please stop reverting my changes. My contribution is legitimate. It does not constitute vandalism and is not subject to zero-sum reversion. I began discussing these changes yesterday, before I started making them. If you disagree with my contributions, please follow Wikipedia's conflict resolution guidelines: edit, discuss, bring in a mediator. Arbitrary reversion is not a well-regarded behavior by Wikipedia standards. This imposition of consensus as a condition for change is decidedly unwiki. Phyesalis 11:49, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I will respond here for simplicity's sake. There is already an article on the position that Jesus is a mythological figure, and another for the various reconstructions of Jesus based on historical methods. This article discusses the relevant sources, primary and secondary, concerning the historicity of Jesus. I don’t think its about "the debate", so much as about what sources discuss Jesus as a historical figure and how reliable this attestation may be. I have said that anthropologists and sociologists don't seem like relevant scholars to me, since I don't see what anthropology or sociology has to do with the historicity of Jesus, but maybe you could just explain what you had in mind. I think Pagels would be on the edge of whom we should include. The passage which begins "the majority of scholars in the fields of biblical studies and history agree…" is imported straight from the page on Jesus, and there it was arrived at through much discussion and examination of sources, and is presented in the introduction on that article. Lostcaesar 17:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Please review Help:reverting and the Do's and Don'ts of reverting contributions and why revert wars are considered harmful to the Wiki project/community. If you disagree with some of the contribution, please edit it. But the purpose of a reciprocal editorial process is progressive change and improvement. Summary reversion is not forward progress, it's stagnation. I'm happy to debate issue by issue, reworking my contributions in light of criticism or editorial revision. Please extend me the same courtesy. I believe my contributions challenge other contributors to improve upon their arguments by bringing new and different information to the article, not by any personal merit, but by the inherent merits of the Wiki process. Please note that I did not say better, merely new and different in the context of the article's current state. If one accepts a quote from another wikipedia entry - a la "the majority of scholars...", though I'll have to check the refs for that entry, that's rather specious language if unsupported by any survey - then surely the demarcation of Historiography, as set out by the wiki entry is a valid set standards in this entry as well. You can't pick and choose like that. This article is either about the historiography of Jesus Christ or it is about a select and exclusive set of Pro-historical theological discussions regarding the a priori academic assumption that he existed. Historians draw on the works of archaelogists, anthropologists and sociologists to obtain, contextualize and interpret certain historical evidence. The contributions of these academics are legitimate discussion within historiographical discourses of religio-mythical figures. Look, I'm not trying to be inflammatory. We disagree. I actually quite enjoy this kind of progressive process. I look forward to debating the details of this issue in a collegial manner, this is the kind of geek that I am. Please work with me. I am concerned that others are making changes in between our back-and forth reversion argument and that these are getting lost, at least by me. I realize this is probably a terrible breach of etiquette and waste of space, but this is a disputed issue, reverting, and significant enough to the essence of the project that I think it is worthwhile to repost Wiki's Dos and Don'ts, under Help:reverting for posterity:

Do's

See also Wikipedia policy should follow the spirit of ahimsa

• Reverting is a decision which should be taken seriously.
• Reverting is used primarily for fighting vandalism, or anything very similar to the effects of vandalism.
• If you are not sure whether a revert is appropriate, discuss it first rather than immediately reverting or deleting it.
• If you feel the edit is unsatisfactory, improve it rather than simply reverting or deleting it.

Dont's

• Do not simply revert changes that are made as part of a dispute. Be respectful to other editors, their contributions and their points of view.
• Do not revert good faith edits. In other words, try to consider the editor "on the other end." If what one is attempting is a positive contribution to Wikipedia, a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor possess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary. Mere disagreement is not such proof. See also Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith.
• Generally there are misconceptions that problematic sections of an article or recent changes are the reasons for reverting or deletion. If they contain valid information, these texts should simply be edited and improved accordingly. Reverting is not a decision which should be taken lightly.
• There's sometimes trouble determining whether some claim is true or useful, particularly when there are few people "on board" who are knowledgeable about the topic. In such a case, it's a good idea to raise objections on a talk page; if one has some reason to believe that the author of what appears to be biased material will not be induced to change it, editors have sometimes taken the step of transferring the text in question to the talk page itself, thus not deleting it entirely. This action should be taken more or less as a last resort, never as a way of punishing people who have written something biased. See also Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ
• Do not revert changes simply because someone makes an edit you consider problematic, biased, or inaccurate. Improve the edit, rather than reverting it.

Phyesalis 21:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, first of all you have been reverted by three different editors (mine being only one revert thus far), so perhaps there is a reason for that. Second of all, you can check the page history to see if anyone else's edits have been lost in the revert exchange, if this is a primary concern for you. Now, since you like philosophical language, I will simply summarize my position as follows: your assertion that this article is "either about the historiography of Jesus or a select and exclusive set of Pro-historical theological discussions regarding the a priori academic assumption that he existed" is a false dilemma. I will repeat my position for you: this article discusses the relevant sources, primary and secondary, concerning the historicity of Jesus. You will have to explain to me, in specifics rather than generalities, how an anthropologist or a sociologist could be considered a relevant source. Here is a little overload argument to prove my point: historians in general also draw on other disciplines, from linguistics to liturgists, depending on their subject, but I likewise fail to see how liturgics would be relevant here. Lostcaesar 21:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Major overhauls without prior discussion to most articles are controversial (look at the coversation in archive 11 about LC's "clean up"). Even though we do have this anti-revert policy, in practice, the long standing, older version of an article tends to have much more weight than new changes. I feel that the people that were reverting Phyesalis are perhaps biting the newcomer, because they are not discussing the specific problems on talk. (LC gets a cookie for coming to talk). There should be more discussion. People should state what they feel is wrong with the edit, and the people supporting the changes should say why the changes need to be implimented. Anyway, I will start things off by giving criticism.

• mythical figure we cannot call "Jesus Christ" a mythological figure, without qualification and contextualization, because that is only representative of one POV.
• commonly called Jesus Christ I think the "man" is more commonly called "Jesus of Nazareth". Christ is simply a religious title.
• The rest of the second sentence is problematic again because of word choice that seems to push a POV. I understand that this sentence is trying to contrast the historical reconstruction of a 1st century Galilean using scholarly methods from the Jesus of faith, but there is probably a more neutral way to phrase this.
• The third sentence introduces anthropologists and sociologists (two fields of study that I do not believe are at the forefront of historical Jesus research). Then it gives the illusion that Jesus' existance is a) still up for debate and b) split 50/50. This is giving undue weight to a minority view. Newspapers usually try to give each 'side' an equal voice, however wikipedia's NPOV policy states that we must represent each view with due weight.
• Moving the 2 paragraphs out of the WP:LEAD section seems like a poor choice. It is ok to have redundent content in the lead, because it is supposed to summarize the rest of the article. I don't know why the majority view overview as moved out of the lead, and into the Christian writtings section. Seems out of place.
• I agree that "states" is more neutral than "claims".

All that said, the changes were not that major, and I do not see why everyone is using blanket revevrts (but then again, some of the rearranging of text doesn't make sense to me either). Hope this helps.--Andrew c 22:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

First, Lostcaesar, are you seriously trying to suggest that linguists' contributions aren't critical to a field of study that relies heavily on the translation of multiple ancient languages and 2,000 years of linguistic shifts? Also pbs.org has an article which states that scholars in the field draw from interdisciplinary methods particularly noting sociology and anthropology. Setzer cites as specific examples Crossan's use anthropological evidence to explicate agrarian societies in the Mediterranean, and Richard Horsley's use of sociological methods/evidence to support his interpretation of Jesus as a historical political figure ("The Historical Jesus" by Claudia Tikkun Setzer http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/jesus/tikkun.html). I find the assertion regarding sociologists and anthropologists to be baseless. Assertions that they are not valid contributors to the debate regarding primary and secondary resources suggest an unfamiliarity with interdisiciplinary academic traditions and the nature of Humanities disciplines at large. Unsupported, they are specious at best. Please support this assertion.

Andrew c, I appreciate your specific critiques, although I disagree somewhat. I did qualify the term myth, with the introduction of sociology. Christianity is regarded in sociology as a religious myth system, as are all other religions with myths. This is a valid academic categorization and should be allowed to remain to reflect the current and ongoing dispute surrounding the historical potential of Jesus Christ. This would be why many reputable scholars categorize the Pro side as the "positive estimate" and the anti as the "negative estimate" in academic journals like the Journal of Bible and Religion (Oxford University Press) and The American Journal of Theology for example - my sources are the academic collections of JSTOR, EBSCO and MUSE. These POV positions are positions and not objective fact. If you would like to paraphrase a specific scholar's specific assertion, and allow me to contribute information to the contrary, I have no problem with it being stated as an opinion. NPOV states (emphasis mine), "The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions." And I would offer to table discussions of placement until we can come to a better understanding of the issues at hand. Phyesalis 02:43, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I said liturgists would not be relevant scholars concerning the historicity of Jesus. Also, there is a difference between historians drawing from other disciplines, and people of other disciplines dabbling in history. Whatever the case, those examples you mentioned only apply to the historical reconstructions of Jesus' life, not to his historicity per se. The "use of sociological methods to support an interpretation of Jesus as historical political figure" seem to do the exact kind of assuming of the historicity of Jesus that you seem to be so careful to reject. My point, to be clear, is that a scholar is relevant insofar as that scholar has expertise in history. Knowledge of other disciplines is subordinate to this qualification, at least concerning the historicity of Jesus. And please, no ad hominem arguments about my personal naiveté. Lostcaesar 08:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for responding. You used liturgists and linguists in the same group in your example. I addressed your use of "linguists". My point stands, how many of the scholars that have been suggested haven't had "expertise in history"? There are numerous interdisicplinary academics whose work can be concomittantly categorized as "historical" in methodology, resources, and import. Please show me the scholar, anthropological, sociological or interdisicplinary I ref'd who did not have "expertise".

As for "assuming"... I am against this article assuming a position on Jesus of Nazareth's historicity when the issue is still up for debate. If there was no debate, there wouldn't be a flurry of scholastic inquiry into the subject, nor would the history of this article be so contentious (ok, not the best argument, but you get my point). I'm not against evidence that argues for the positive historical position. I'm not the one summarily excising other's contributions arbitrarily. I was using "pro" scholars because you asked for specific examples, I thought you'd be more accepting of examples that used "pro" scholars. Since I'm arguing a general point, I don't think it matters if the example I use is "pro" or "anti". If an example is valid, it is valid regardless of it's position, or the position it is being used to support. Please explain how the examples are relevant to his historical person, but not relevant to his historicity. Actually, would you mind defining "historicity" as you're using it?

And I did not make an ad hominem attack on your personal naiveté. I'm sorry if that's what it appears to be. It does read as rather snarky. My apologies. You assert that anthropologists and sociologists are not valid scholars regarding the authentication, interpretation and problematizing of primary and secondary texts. I disagree. I'm arguing that assertions (in general - not you) denying the interrelated fields of history, anthropology and sociology, particularly in the matter of religious historiography, suggest a lack of familiarity with the methodologies of Humanities' scholarship. You doubt me and asked for specific examples. I provided them. I have an interdisiciplinary education. I spent two years studying under 4 professors in an interdisciplinary program at the begining of my formal education. In the intervening 11 years that I have participated in the academic community, I have never come across the assertion that Anthros and Socios were not valid contributors to any field of historical study, and I deal with history and historical scholarship all the time. I was the editor of my university's peer-review journal for Women's Studies scholarship. Many, if not the majority, of the papers reviewed constituted, and relied heavily upon, historical scholarship. Admittedly, absence of proof is not proof of absence. I'm not presenting myself as an expert, merely providing anecdotal evidence in order to contextualize my position. But, I have submitted examples that I think satisfy your criteria, per your request. I dispute your assertion and ask for you to extend the same courtesy. Please support your assertion. Disputing your assertion and asking you to support it is in no way a personal attack. Phyesalis 13:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

There is a book you might be interested in reading. It is called The Killing of History and it is by Keith Windschuttle. In it, he discusses certain academic trends to import cultural, literary, and social theory into the analysis of history, and the parallel shift from "history" to "historical studies", and explains how this move has caused a decline in historical scholarship. I think you will find interesting examples there. As for your points, I think that interdisciplinary collaboration is essentials to historical work, but I don't see how the opinions of an anthropologist or sociologist are relevant to the specific question of the historicity of Jesus. Historians, Archaeologists, Paleographers, Classicists, &c seem like relevant scholars. That is not to say that there are not necessarily areas of crossover into other fields, but the default requirement should be a historical background. Philosophers, theologians, and biologists might likewise have opinions on the historicity of Jesus, but unless they have training in the specific historical methods, I do not see why they should be thought of as pertinent to the very specific question of Jesus' historicity. Of course, a philosopher, theologian, or sociologist might well have training in the proper historical methods, in which case my objection hardly applies. (ps, I defined "historicity" vs. "historiography" below, in responce to your other post) Lostcaesar 14:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll put it on my list. And your response However, as Windschuttle argues for the degradation in historical scholarship due to interdisciplinary trends, he confirms their use. That you "don't see how opinions of an anthroplogist or sociologist are relevant" isn't evidence for your assertion that they don't count. While W's book may provide legitimate points as to why interdisciplinary approaches should be avoided, it doesn't mean that they are avoided by all or even most historians, historicists and historiographers, or that they should be avoided by contributers to this article. I must ask again, would you please support your assertion that they are not currently considered to be relevant sources by a significant number of h/h/hs? Just because you don't like it, or agree with it doesn't mean you can arbitrarily exclude specific disciplines on the basis that they might contradict your POV article. What's the significant difference between Classicism in its study of "language, history, literature and art" and Anthropology in general as it relates to "all humans at all times and with all dimensions of humanity. In principle, it is concerned with all institutions of all societies" and its use of ethnographies. Your exclusion is arbitrary and I think you should withdraw it, but at the very least, you should stop summary revisions of contributions on that basis, although you should stop doing it all together. If older views are given more weight, and contributors can arbitrarily excise new and might I add BOLD contributions, why should new users even bother? Phyesalis 17:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Anthropologists are not generally trained in determining the historicity of figures who lived 2000 years ago — simple as that. Certain anthropologists might be, and those are obviously therefore as a exception relevant. Lostcaesar 18:41, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not that simple. I have asked repeatedly for evidence regarding your assertion that As and Ss are not relevant sources of information in this debate, you repeatedly gave none. Just because you make an unsupported claim, that looks an awful lot like your biased opinion, does not mean that your opinion is evidence. Please provide evidence regarding the ways that classicists are "trained", how they differ from how anthropologists are "trained", and how these differences are relevant. What are the criteria that you are using? You are making all these unverified claims about the field of history and academic scholarship in general. Please support your assertions. Phyesalis 20:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I thought it was merely common knowledge that anthropologists, like say biologists, are not in general trained in examining the historicity of a certain figure two thousand years ago. Do you disagree with this? Lostcaesar 20:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure biologists, part of the "hard" sciences, would be inappropriate sources. But this isn't the hard sciences, history is a social science, part of the Humanities. The social sciences, aside from Lc's commentary, are inextricably interdisciplinary by nature. The differences between pyhsics and biology are not equivalent to the differences between history and anthropology. One can be a physicist without knowing a lot about biology, the same cannot be said for history and anthropology. They both do fieldwork, do research, deal with or translate foriegn/dead languages, use critical thought and methodologies, require an understanding of geo-political influences, social customs, social group dymanics, religious systems, political structures and dynamics, as well as the occurence of and reasons for changes in the past. How do you not know that we are in the post-colonial era of scholarship???? Maybe it would be better if you explained with detail as to why you think they are different. Thanks. Phyesalis 16:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

In contrast to what Phyesalis has said, (natural) scientists do work interdisciplinary as well, in as much as biologists do know some physics and physicits some biology etc. In the humanities (and I leave aside that derogatory epithet of "hard science") scholars work interdisciplinary as well, but that doesn't make anthropologists historians, if the former are not trained in the same way. Anthropologists as such do not have the training that historians have to do history, as LC has explained. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 18:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I used "hard" in quotes to make the distinction between the physical sciences and the social sciences. My point still olds, I never said scientists couldn't or didn't do interdisciplinary work, it is the common academic trend. But, in anticipation of theologian post, what are the differences in training between a theologian and a historian? There must be some differences between a secular historian's training and the training one gets as a theologian? Because it has nothing to do with (nor did I say it did) the fact that they are Christian or any other religious affiliation. If we accept a secular argument built on the work of theologians, surely we can give credence to secular scholars of comparative fields (religion/theology v. myth/cultural anthropology)Phyesalis 19:17, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

The point doesn't hold because it isn't there. Anthropologists and sociologist can help historians but they are not historians themselves (at least not per se). A theologian is basically either a philosopher with a revealed text or a philologist. It is historians that speak on whether and how far something can be said on Jesus from the historical standpoint. The overwhelmingly (and that's an understandment) affirm Jesus' existance and confirm this or that about the details. Non-historians and most notably theologians often confuse this historical Jesus, a reconstruction with the methods of our craft, with the whole person of Jesus as he walked the earth 2000 years ago but it is no more than a reconstruction. There might be many things missing. Finally, there is no such thing as a secular scholar: there are biologist, physicist, historians, sociologist, economist, philosophers, theologians etc. Everyone has preconceptions but, depending on the subject, everyone is secular. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:21, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

What??? "A theologian is basically either a philosopher with a revealed text or a philologist." I repeat, what? Some theologians are philosophers, maybe, but most are not. Philologists? Are you aware of what that word means?

Your definition of secularity is rather interesting as well. Wrong, but nonetheless interesting.

I also wonder how you define historian. Are you aware that most historians specialise? (Meaning most have never said diddly one way or t'other on Jesus. Oh, and what is "our craft"? •Jim62sch• 22:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

"Our craft"? MOST OF YOUR SOURCES ARE THEOLOGIANS! Their educations have to do with DIVINITY and THEOLOGY, not HISTORY. Your little group of Jesus Seminar "majority view experts" are a minority view among their contemporary theolgians, who for the most part characterize the group's works as speculative, agenda-oriented, and religious HISTORIOGRAPHY. See how fluid all this is? You say "historian" I say "theologian", they say "historiographer" and I know how some of you object to the idea of people who treat history as though it were fiction (and perhaps the overall tendency of secular Humanities to treat the bible as well, sacred literature. Odd, how the majority of those academics don't see it as a historical document, it is of history but not about history, not factual history.)

I just spent the last 24 hrs looking up the educations and critical reviews, secular and non-secular, and the "majority" opinion on your little group's "historical scholarship" is pretty grim. And I WILL be including a large portion of criticism from far more respected "experts". So unless you want me to fill pages of this talk section with an overwhelming amount of reliable, verifiable data proving that most respected experts reject these people's work, you should stop with the "majority view" bias and the rejection of other equally qualified, some might say more so since they actually have predominantly secular educations, academics. And on this subject in particular, everyone is not secular. Please familiarize yourself with the differences between a Ph.D and a D.Div or D.Th, one is secular, relating to secular standards of scholarship and facts, the other is religious relating to God and spirituality and religion. While a D.Div/D.Th is considered to be equalt to a Ph.D, this is only in manners relating to the teaching of Divinity or Theology in secular schools (and that they are considered scholars in their religious disciplines). This is an obvious conflict of interest if you are trying to pass them off as secular historians. Really. I'm not trying to cram my beliefs down any one's throat or discipline. Feel free to use them, just qualify them as the theolgians they are, and expect legitimate content in rebuttal. I'm not even asking you to point out that they are a clear and disreputable minority among their own peers. And, pointing out a conflict of interest is not an ad hominem attack, nor is requesting an even-handed approach. These are my requests:

• Get rid of POV all together, no assertions of how many think what (although feel free to state the majority view of the Jesus Seminar, if qualified as such since that has been statistically proven), merely people and positions.
• Allow the intro to texts paragraph to contain the full spectrum, you know "from those who think it provides accurate details to those who think it is of no use in proving his existence" (since many in the skeptical group do indeed believe this - cited refs to come shortly, aside from those of the myth perspective).
• Allow equal space and deference to the mythical perspective. I'm happy to discuss the phrasing of it. Personally, Jesus as Myth sounds kind of sensational. I think there are better ways to contextualize it. I have no issues with the personal belief that Jesus existed, I respect it without reservation. And, I am skeptic, as are many people, a goodly number of whom are Christians and C. academics. Please respect our positions too.
• We work together to get rid of all weasel words in all sections. It can be done, it just takes time, but may well result in a much better edit.
• Start with an overview which should include discussion of the bible and it's questioned authority as a historical account, since it is doubted in part or sum by the majority of scholars, a brief sketch of the quests, a delineation of the pro, skeptic and negative (which becomes myth in third q.) estimates and then I'm not sure how to proceed.

What I think some don't understand is that this is not a history debate. It is a cultural debate in which some members of some sides have attempted to incorporate secular/objective proof for their positions, all of which are subjective. No one can prove whether or not he existed. The pros have faith in the validity of the bible. The antis have faith in the well-established pattern of syncretic origins of religions, namely that they recreate the same figures over and over again, each incarnation drawing from a mixing of the old culture/figure with a new culture/figure. Skeptics think well, there's something funny going on with those Abrahamic religions that seems different, is it because Christianity and Islam developed later in the species' pan-cultural development, or because they are the first world traditions to codify their religious texts and their social laws in the same institution, or because they are a new paradigm in psycho-social representations? Maybe some guy did some of the things that the bible says. But how much? How much stuff did one specific guy have to do in order to distinguish him from a bunch of other people doing the exact same things, being born, growing up and being educated as a rabbi/teacher, getting mad at the Romans and the money-changers (just like a whole bunch of the other rioting Messianic Jews did), and being put to death on a cross, it was kind of common. The only things of distinction are the miracles, IMO. How can you buy the man if you don't buy the miracles? If you can't buy the miracles, it's hard to buy the historicity, because otherwise he was no different than any of those other people. And since there is no undisputed proof outside of the Bible of Jesus (Christians yes, Jesus Christ no), then no, it's probably the amalgamation of several historical and mythical figures, but that leaves the skeptic like me at, well then there were some men, the first group of Christians, that is all we can know. I don't know that he existed. That is different from believing that he did not exist. It's an interesting issue, nonetheless. Please let me just put forth the perspectives. I haven't barged in and tagged the whole thing, I've shown a willingness to discuss and compromise on issues of respect, and I genuinely want to contribute NPOV text. I am happy to address issues of POV in my own contributions. What do you think about my requests? Phyesalis 22:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I feel this discussion should take place over at Jesus, but for the time being I am going to invite the editors there over here. The reason for this is because the 'controversial' sentance that says "Most scholars" and is cited, is a direct copy and paste from Jesus, and the research was performed by a number of editors (including myself, not to toot my own horn). Next, you say a couple of fairly biased things. Why on earth should we disregard the book of the NT as historical documents just because they are Christian? Should we disregard the works of Plutarch on Alexander the Great because he was Greek? I suggest you read chapters 13 and 14 of Ehrman's The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings (he is agnostic about God, and clearly not Christian, but supports a historical Jesus). And it seems like you have discovered why we have an article on the historical Jesus and another article on the New Testament view on Jesus' life. No real scholar accepts the Gospels as being 100% historically reliable, just like no real scholar accepts Plutarch's Lives as being 100% historicall reliable. And I think you have hit another nail on the head. Because there were "a bunch of other people doing the exact same things, being born, growing up and being educated as a rabbi/teacher, getting mad at the Romans and the money-changers (just like a whole bunch of the other rioting Messianic Jews did), and being put to death on a cross, it was kind of common," the idea of there being a man named Jesus that relates to the earliest Christian communities is really not far fetched at all. From the writings of Josephus and Philo and others, we know that there were radical Jewish religious teachers with small followings that got crushed by the Romans. And we know that some of them were names Jesus. History is all about deciding what probably happened in the past, and given this information and the gospels, it really is not improbable that the gospels have some information that goes back to an actual living human (or multiple ones, as you suggested with you amalgamation hypothesis). Just about every scholar who specializes in this field of study recognizes this. We have that huge list of citations to back up this claim. I also think you are confused, because you bring up the Jesus Seminar (only one of our cited scholars is a member, JD Crossan). The reason why the JS is so controversial is because they say that over 80% of the sayings of Jesus are not authentic, that the Gospel of John is basically trash, that non-canonical works are at least partially reliable as historical sources and a number of other things that really upset conservative Christians. I really really would like to see all your cited sources that deny a historical Jesus, and I would also like to see your criticisms of our cited scholars. I have done a lot of research for this topic over the past year, and I have only found information to verify that a majority of scholars who study and teach relevant topics acknowledge a historical Jesus. (which is MUCH MUCH different from saying that the gospel accounts are 100% true, or that miracles actually happened). I think we need to go over these details first, before trying to remove alleged 'POV' from the article, because I seriously believe that we are being NPOV by pointing out that only a very small handful of people who questionably qualify as scholars, who are for the most part not professions in this field of study, deny a historical Jesus.--Andrew c 23:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Andrew. Thank you for taking the time to address this. First let me clarify. I am not trying to a) exclude theologians as you are trying to exclude c/h anthropologists and mythographers and b) I have no problem with them being Christian. I have a problem with you accepting non-secular theolgians and then trying to pass them off as a bunch of secular historians, while at the same time excluding other scholars on the basis that they are not historians. I appreciate your year of original research on the subject, but over the 20 years that I have been familiar with this debate, and in my formal secular education on the subject, I find this "majority" business to be a false assertion based on opinion. Your opinion/research is no more valid than mine, they cancel each other out and - poof! No POV.

• I never said that I thought the idea of a historical Jesus was far-fetched. As I've mentioned, I see a number of arguments for it. But just that, arguments - no proof, and since this is a currently debated argument in our culture at large, not just between theologians, I think we should allow the scholars who opine to contribute. Why do you insist on putting a POV slant on a discussion like this? If your position is correct, you should have no fear from an even-handed, POV free presentation. I think the fair thing would be to remove the POV, very simple - I'll do it myself, and then address it.

• Look you say, "the majority of scholars agree" I say point to the published study. You say point to the people who say Jesus didn't exist, and I'm sorry here, but most secular Humanities classes teach that it is not an issue that can be known, and I'll bring you links from people who say that - secular and theological. As far as I know that is the "majority" view in the academic world - I cite the fact that myth and religion are both contained under the 200s, theologians don't have a majority view, they are coming from a number of perspectives based often on denominational and personal beliefs (and theor own theological studies). Again, most honest academics on both sides of the debate refrain from such sensationalist assertions that "yes he did" and "no he didn't". It's a bad academic position, either way - it is a subjective issue and should be treated as such, with no POV.

• And I'd be happy to share the criticism, I'll post a few links (more after if you still want them). A lot of it is from various academic journals, but I can post the info and the stable links. If you have access to college databases, you should be able to read them. Likewise, would you mind posting your research on the matter of what most scholars think? I said, I'm not trying to discredit them or exclude them, merely to point out the inconsistencies in the argument of historian v. theologian v. c/h anthropology.

• I'm actually going to step away now for 24 hrs in light of the exchange that I just posted with respect to Lc. I think I should have responded better. Thanks. Phyesalis 01:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

First of all, I know it seems like a lot, but please try reading through the Talk:Jesus archives, because a lot of these issues have been discussed before. You can at least see the process and research that went into getting the 2nd paragraph (and you can seem some POV warriors who wanted to totally exclude the non-existence view, and others who wanted to say "no historian" deny Jesus' existence, which is a negative claim that cannot be proven.) Anything in Feb is good, say archives 22-36? It's easy to see what threads deal with this debate and what threads do not. You can also look at Talk:Jesus/Cited Authors Bios, it gives the background of a number of our sources, and has a section dealing with scholarly view on the non-existence hypothesis. I don't see what POV you are claiming is in the article. Could you explain that a little more? As for excluding scholars, I am not big on trying to exclude scholars, however doesn't it make sense that someone who has a PhD and MDiv from Princeton and is the head of the Religious Studies department at UNC matters more than some guy with a BA who argues with apologists on the internet? It's like saying 88% of mathematicians deny Shakespeare existed, while 97% of 16th Century English history and literature scholars say he actually lived. You could say that the literature and history scholars are biased because they enjoy the writtings attributed to Shakespeare, and I could say that mathematicians' opinions are as relevent to the subject at hand as plumbers. But all of this is just hypothetical. I'm ready, if this is the direction this discussion needs to go, to start taking specifics. Let's name names. Are there any historians (whether 1st century Jewish/Christian specialists or not) who deny Jesus' existence? Who is the most famous Jesus denier? Who is the most credentialed denier, and what are his/her credentials? Do we have any cited sources of notable individuals who comment on how common the non-existence hypothesis is? (there were a few in the Talk:Jesus archives noted above).--Andrew c 02:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

A bit too much emphasis on degrees -- let us not forget that the current US prez has an MBA from Harvard. I also think you misunderstood Phyesalis' points, and then go on to make wild exaggerations of them. •Jim62sch• 10:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I sincerely apologize if I got off track or misrepresented anyone's view. It is my understanding that Phyesalis and possibly yourself want to ignore the part of the NPOV policy which states We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view, and views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. To me, the crux of this debate is whether the majority of Jesus/NT/1st century Jewish/Christian scholars accept a historical Jesus or not. I think it is clear, from the past discussions at talk Jesus, and from our cited sources, that the answer to that question is "Of course". So I'm just trying to figure out what we need to do to convince you two of this. --Andrew c 16:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

So, do we have numbers of scholars/historians who oppose or support the hypothesis? Did we ever define either scholar or historian? Why are we only worried about potentially theologically motivated scholars? •Jim62sch• 00:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)