Talk:Historicity of Jesus/Archive 13

Historicity and Historiography - a debate regarding the intent of the article

Okay, for the time being, I am willing to stop editing this article in order to gain a better understanding of its intent. The title is "Historicity of Jesus". Historicity means, essentially, of or pertaining to historical fact. How is this different from Historiography? Do we agree that this article is intended as an overview of the historiography of Jesus of Nazareth? Let's start with this and then I'll move on to address other issues. Sound reasonable? Phyesalis 02:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Historiography is different from historicity. Historicity of X is the extent to which historical methods can confirm X. Historiography is the "history of history", i.e. the historiography of X is how X has been told in historical narrative from the first telling to today. So, an article on the historiography of Jesus would be totally different, including extended discussions on late antique, medieval, and renaissance writers. For example, in such an article we might have to discuss the shifting emphasis on Jesus' father that occurred in southern countries in the Reformation, naming specific authors, and discuss why that happened. That's not what we're doing here. Lostcaesar 08:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Again, thank you for continuing this dialogue. Now, could you explain the difference bewteen Historicity, Historicism and Historiography, and provide me, as well as other frustrated contributors, with a rationale as to why these are not relevant contributions to this article if acknowledged as such. I'm interested in the functional difference between the broadly recognized field of historicism and the term "historicity". Additionally, I'd like to suggest some reading on current interdisciplinary trends in historicism and historiography. For example, Jurgen Pieters writes "I will argue that in order to fully characterize the newhistoricist reading method, we do well to distinguish between two variants of postmodernhistoricism: a narrativist one (best represented in the work of Michel Foucault) and aheterological one (of which Michel de Certeau's writings serve as a supreme example). Pieters, Jürgen (2000) New Historicism: Postmodern Historiography Between Narrativism and Heterology. History and Theory 39 (1), 21-38. http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/0018-2656.00111 (I didn't have to sign in so I think it is free to all.) The whole paper is discussing methodological trends in interdisciplinarity that have been going on for at least 30 years. This isn't groundbreaking, it's rather run of the mill academic publishing, partly because what he's talking about has been discussed for decades. Please note that Michel Foucault, whose works are generally acknowledged as historiographical scholasticism, among other things, is referred to the best example of a narrative historicist. Google "Foucault historiography" and "Foucault historicism" and "Foucault historicity". This is but one example to support not only my assertion that you and/or the article is making an exclusive, biased, and specious distinction between "historicity" and "historicism", but also my assertion that historiographical comment is a valid addition to the article. I am happy to provide tons more. Current methodological trends acknowledge that there is little significant difference (at least not enough to exclude historiographical/historicist commentary from the article) between Historicism and Historiography, the two are practically used interinterwoven. Looking foward to your response. Phyesalis 15:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

And who is "we"? Ain't I a "we"? Doesn't what I'm trying to do here count too? I, along with others, would like to be allowed to contribute, because at present and maybe absolutely, this is the best page to add said contributions. Ironically, I don't have a position on the debate, or rather, I don't have enough info to make what I consider to be more than a guess. I'm just happy to debate/contribute to the issue, since I feel there is more value in the process itself than the outcome. OK, stepping off of soapbox. Phyesalis 16:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

This historicity of something is the extent to which historical methods can verify its actuality. The historiography of something is the way in which the treatment of it in historical narrative has developed over time. Historicism can mean many things but it generally refers to the process of understanding history in terms of causal connection expressed through narrative. If you mean something else, please explain. This article attempts to discuss the relevant sources, primary and secondary, concerning the historicity of Jesus. It references the sources in antiquity that mention Jesus as a historical figure, and gives relevant views on how reliable these sources are in this respect. In other words, it gives views on how accurate of a witness these various sources may be to the existence of Jesus. As for the work of Foucault, in general I don't see his contributions as positive to the field of history. Lostcaesar 16:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

And here I thought the page opens with, "The historicity of Jesus concerns the historical authenticity of Jesus." It does not read "The historicity of Jesus ONLY concerns the primary and secondary sources concerning the historicity of Jesus". Historiographical and historicistic commentary is applicable to an article who's aim is to explicate the "historical authenticity of Jesus", especially when that aim is based on religious, cultural and historical texts, all under the purview of h/h, anthropolgy, and sociology. Besides there's no mention of historicity as a field, toll method or approach in History, nor is it listed as a general category in List of historians by area of study. Both mention historiography, neither mention historicism or historicity. Would you please provide academic evidence regarding the distinction between historicity and historicism (outside of WP). Your distinction between the two, historicity as valid and historicism as invalid, seems incredibly arbitrary, particularly since historicism is widely recognized as a legitimate historical approach and historicity is merely derviation of a pre-existing academic term, historicism - historicity and historicism are often used interchangeably. In as far as I know, historicity is not a distinct and recgonized historical approach/tool/method in any academic sense. I'm not saying it isn't absolutely, just that it isn't according to any source I am familiar with. Re: Foucault, I get it, you have presented a dim view of this whole branch of historical inquiry. Look, we can debate this all day, but you do not have the authority to prohibit/revert contributors from adding dissenting evidence/criticism, nor do you have the right to impose arbitrary limitations on the definiton of a general word like historicity by ascribing to it a selective unrecognized authority to exclude legitimate historical commentary. Do you agree to stop censoring my contributions by reverting them? Do you acknowledge, and thereby abide, that you do not have the right to exclude dissenting evidence? I assert that this article may be expanded to include these perspectives in an effort to address obvious POV violations, as well as enrich the article with pertinent information. You have not provided any valid argument why this can't happen, or why your reversion of my contribution was justified. I'm not trying to pick on you- or to imply that this whole issue somehow rests on your shoulders, my use of "you" has been a little too general in places - but you were one of the people who reverted my contribution and you graciously agreed to debate the issue with me. I notice that none of the other reverters in question have joined the discussion. Really, I'd welcome some other views weighing in on this. Please know, that while I disagree with you (on most of these issues), I truly appreciate you taking the time to hash this out with me. And, again, I'm sorry my earlier statement clearly implied an ad hominem attack. That was bad, I can see the inference you drew. I should have chosen another way to make my point. Thank you. IGF Phyesalis 19:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

If the very definition of the subject of this article is understood to be something very different than what it is now, an enormous amount of work would need to be done to change the article properly. Changing the definition to include dissenting evidence from people who, as I understand things around here, barely have any authority on the subject at all, hardly seems worth the trouble. Homestarmy 20:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Hardly worth the trouble? Accuracy and validity and verifiability are hardly worth the trouble? Look, out of frustration with people whose sole purpose appeared to be adding roadblock after roadblock I walked away from this whole series of articles. I too was trying to do what Phyesalis is doing: interjecting neutrality in the form of full coverage into the article, but I was having as much success as Galileo trying to convince the Catholic Church that the earth went round the sun.

Homes, you and others hijacked the Jesus article, turning it into a children's Sunday School lesson. The purpose of this article was to present a non-religious view of Jesus -- Phyesalis is trying to do just that, and if I have anything to do with it, he will succeed. •Jim62sch• 12:44, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

So far, i've seen no evidence that the article as it stands is lacking in either accuracy or verifiability, or that this article actually presents a solely religious view of Jesus. The changes proposed seem more concerned with changing the point of view than anything else, which does not automatically mean the article will become more accurate. And I wish the Jesus article was like a sunday school article, but alas, the "lesson" being learned is not from a Christian fundamentalist perspective, I guess we can't win them all.....(Not that i'd think i'd have much chance winning that perspective in any article really) Homestarmy 18:59, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Let me say first that I think you are using the term "historicism" in a much different way than I have. I defined my terms "historicity", "historicism", and "historiography", and if you disagree with these definitions then it might be best for you to forward your own for the sake of clarity. Let me also say that I am not trying to keep your contributions out in general; rather, I think that you are instead contributing to the wrong article, especially since you describe Jesus baldly as a "mythological figure". And, lastly, to me the "historical authenticity of Jesus" and the "primary and secondary sources concerning the historicity of Jesus" are basically the same, since, after all, establishing the historicity of something entails examining the reliability of sources. PS, I never took any offence at your previous statements, rather I merely took it as a falacious argument — so no hard feelings here. Lostcaesar 20:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Good, Lc. Touché. Fallacious is more than fair, generous even. I think we have minor disagreements over historiography and historicism, minimal enough to be settled with referenced content within the article. The question is whether or not the use of the word "Historicity" authorizes arbitrary exclusions regarding scholars, to the benefit of a select group of scholars POV who all have the same position on the overarching debate of whether or not he existed. I say, and wikipedia supports me, no. And Homestarmy, let me get this straight, you volunteered to participate in an on-going discursive community whose main purpose is to promote communal scholarship, and you're disputing a legitimate challenge on the basis of "it's too much work?" I'm sorry, I don't accept that. I'm not asking you to do any work. If this article had an A or higher rating, maybe. Maybe. But as it stands, the article needs work. All articles are to subject to new and different information, that's what scholarship is about. Phyesalis 22:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

You know, there was a second part of that argument of mine, "hardly seems worth the trouble". What would be gained by totally overhauling an already very large article which has been through a ton of work just to put the viewpoints of people who are less reliable into the article on par with the sources there are now? Homestarmy 22:30, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Substantive difference between "it's too much work" and "hardly seems worth the effort"? You are splitting hairs. You think it is too much trouble for you. I think that's a terrible reason to summarily exclude my contributions to the article. Besides, your assesment of "less reliable" is pure opinion. No one has offered academic evidence, the standard to which you hold contributions for this article, as to why these people are "less qualified". All you have offered was specious rhetoric. Besides, WP isn't about "the most reliable" it's about reliable and verifiable. I think you need to get over the personal importance this article seems to have for you and let the Wiki process continue. Phyesalis 22:54, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Agreed - especially as this is reminiscent of a point I raised many months ago. •Jim62sch• 12:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

We have a problem

OK so I went over to Historical Jesus and I read this "This article is about Jesus the person, using historical methods to reconstruct a biography of his life and times. For disputes about the existence of Jesus and reliability of ancient texts relating to him, see Historicity of Jesus." What is going on here? It seems like you are trying to railroad this page to exclude an even-handed overview which includes the DISPUTED historicity of JN and argument against his existence. It's pretty clear that that's what this article is about. To be forthright, after reading that, I went and c&p'd it on Jesus-Myth. So I did a little work on the intro to reflect the real scope of the article. But as a peace offering, I put "Biblical studies" and "Linguistics" ahead of "anthropology" and "sociology". What do you think? Phyesalis 21:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree with "a number" of your changes. First of all, Whether or not Jesus of Nazareth actually existed is question of significant interdisciplinary debate. Can you point me in the direction to this debate? Could you cite scholar journals where this debate is ongoing? I'd say the debate is not significant and not scholarly. The question on whether Jesus existed really is not considered anymore. The vast majority of scholars agree on this. What is debated is questions regarding what kind of person this Jesus was. How accurate are the Gospel accounts and the other sources. What can the historical method, archaelogy, anthropology, etc tell us about this figure? These are the questions, not whether or not he existed. This is giving WAY too much undue weight to the mythists, and to me seems like trying to make two unequal positions seem as if they are equal. Unfortunately, wikipedia does not respect this sort of duality, and we don't have to give equal weight to minority views. IN fact, doing otherwise is the opposite of neutral, and is misleading to the reader. Also, you changed "The majority of scholars" to "A number of scholars", which makes the statement less accurate. There is nothing wrong with the previous wording, in fact I would support changing it to "The vast majority". I believe all of these problems stem from your misconception that scholars are split on Jesus' existence, and that these matters are still debated. They aren't. I urge you to read through Talk:Jesus/2nd Paragraph Debate and the archives (esp. 3 and 4), this has all been gone over before. --Andrew c 23:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, "majority" and "vast majority" are terms that have not been substantiated. They're POV. "Some scholars" is far more accurate. Can you give me figures? Can you tell me how many do and do not agree? I think this is an attempt at a POV fork:

"A POV fork is an attempt to evade NPOV guidelines by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. This is generally considered unacceptable. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major Points of View on a certain subject are treated in one article." Wikipedia CLEARLY respects this "duality". I've been reading through the archives (haven't read them all) and it seems as if there's been a lot of debate about POV, I'm thinking this article needs another POV review and some serious intervention. The fact that a number of people and scholars dispute this (outside of theological scholars who deal with JC not JN) makes it a majority view. And can you point out the part of that 2nd paragraph debate that was relevant? I saw lots about vandalism, anonymous editors and lots about blasphemy, and lots about edit wars - I thought the comment about all "donating two reverts a day" was pretty interesting. Also the comment that doing so constituted an edit war - which it's seems like where we were headed when my contributions were reverted multiple times in the same day. Phyesalis 00:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Let me say that I appreciate your willingness to make some modifications to your changes, especially removing the description of Jesus as a "mythological figure". That said, I still have certain problems with your edit and will correct them for the reasons given below. I think you go to far in characterizing the issue as a back and forth style, 50/50 debate. The truth is that the vast majority of historians think that Jesus existed, and I think you know this, so you are trying to spice things up by tossing in some anthropologists and sociologists into the fray. There might be some botanists and astrologists that don't think Jesus existed either, but that is mostly irrelevant. Also, your sentence "For Christians, Jesus' existence is assumed on faith" falsely implies that, for Christians, it is not likewise based on reason and fact. Lostcaesar 08:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Faith seems to me to be an issue very much at the core of the exceptions taken to Phyesalis' edits. You and others are viewing these edits solely through the prism of faith, and little, if any, light from the scholarly perspective is getting through. •Jim62sch• 13:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I return the page to the last edit, which was a progression from before that did include some of Phyesalis's edits, and I decided to add a reference so that a little scholarship might shine through nonetheless. Lostcaesar 14:11, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Responding to comment accidentally left over at Talk:Historical Jesus. For DAB headers, you can read Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Disambiguation_links. There are a large number of templates one can use. The point is to be concise and direct readers to similarly names pages. The purpose is not to give a summary of what the article is or isn't about. The closest thing we have are the templates that say "This article is about x, for y see z". I'd also argue that the current header is a little unorthodox as well. Next, most, the majority of scholars in the relevent fields accept a historical Jesus. Seriously, why do you dispute this. How many scholars in relevent fields can you name that deny a historical Jesus? How many people can you name in general? How many teach a relevent topic at an accredited university? Seriously, we can discuss this further, but I want to know why you don't agree with our charecterization of mainstream scholarship? Really, the only ongoing debate is on specifics, "who was this guy named Jesus", not "did some religious figure named Jesus live 2000 years ago"? Finally, the treatement of the mythist position in this article. Perhaps it does need some work, but I see nothing wrong with saying "most scholars think this hypothesis is far fetched at best" if we can cite the sources. Just like I see nothing wrong with the evolution article saying "only religious fanatics who don't know anything about science deny evolution". Of course, I wouldn't phrase it in this manner, but you get my point, no?--Andrew c 15:32, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Headers we can discuss. I dispute your speculation of what the majority of scholars think because you seem to be unaware of the vast body of work done by reputable scholars and because there are entire disciplines built around the concept that all religions are myths and that Jesus, like every other religious myth syncretized as amalgamation of other ideas and figures before him. I am least able to give credence to the perspective that he might have existed and have no issues with you presenting factual information. Most scholars think there is no way to reliably prove his existence, accept that people believe he existed and move on. I don't agree with you because the work of scholars like Elaine Pagels, Levi-Strauss, Joseph Campbell, Karen Armstrong, who do not have agendas to prove Jesus existed, provide a wide variety of evidence that there is no reason to believe that the texts written on Jesus are any more reliable as verifiable historical fact than the texts written about Hercules or Achilles. Again, I'm just looking for balance. Consider this interview with Maier. I'm not taking a stab at Maier, just asking for a little perspective. http://www.americancatholic.org/Messenger/Dec1997/feature3.asp And would you mind pointing out where these people have Ph.D (study of history or religion as a SECULAR discipline?)

• John P. Meier is a theologian with not secular education outside of a B.A.
• Paul L. Maier has a Masters in Divinity, and Ph.D after studying with noted theologians, not historians, and is most noted for his historical fiction
• Sanders might (a bit unclear if or in what), but it seems like all his education is heavily theology.
• Grant had credentials, but he began as a numismatist (coins) and taught latin. Consider this review of his historian cred in the Times as part of his obituary:

Already Grant’s approach to classical history was beginning to divide critics. Numismatists felt that his academic work was beyond reproach, but some academics balked at his attempt to condense a survey of Roman literature into 300 pages, and felt (in the words of one reviewer) that “even the most learned and gifted of historians should observe a speed-limit”. The academics would keep cavilling, but the public kept buying. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,60-1306228_2,00.html

• Brown doesn't have a Ph.D (also a theologian)
• Crossan was educated as a priest and has a Doctorate of Divinity but not a Ph.D
• Barnett has a Ph.D, and was an Anglican Bishop and known as a theologian, not a secular historian.
• Habermas maybe - lots of theology, again however, his website which proudly proclaims his life-long dedication to proving the life and resurrection of Christ makes him a bit speculative as a non-theological historian of much credit, that and the shameless self=promotion of the site.

These are primarily theologians, not secular historians. Again, not saying myth is right, just saying these sources seem, well, biased and unqualified as compared to Pagels, Campbell and the like who refrain from making theological assertions cloaked as secular historical scholarship. Phyesalis 18:51, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Phyesalis, you are proving my point by mentioning people like Michael Foucault and Levi Strauss. You are mentioning people who specifically thought that history was fiction, and were happy to literally make up lies, yes lies (like the "Ship of Fools"), when history did not tell the story they wanted it to tell. And to clarify, I have not said anything against the value or profitability of using an interdisciplinary approach. But the entire point behind interdisciplinary methods is that each field has its own unique specialty not found in other disciplines. If anthropologists were as adept at history as historians than there would be no need for an interdisciplinary approach in the first place. Historians have skills that anthropologists do not have, expressly in determining the historicity of matters in the distant past. And as for my sources, the work I referenced, which says that even the most hesitant historians think that we can discern certain things about the life of Jesus, was written by two historians with PhD's (in history), one from Harvard and one from Oxfod. Good enough? Lostcaesar 19:16, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Lc, again, I wasn't attacking you or addressing you personally, merely pointing out an obvious bias in the article's sources, if you would like to state that the majority of theologians hold such beliefs, go right ahead, but again, I think those theologians without an agenda are honest to admit there is no conclusive proof and no need to know the truth about a historical Jesus. At least, that was what I was taught when I studied the philosophy or religon. My reading bears that out (but this is just my experience). As for my murky contributions, since they are so quickly removed (not all, but most and repeatedly) I haven't really contributed much. I do appreciate the jab though. Maybe if you pointed out the details of my less than satisfactory edit, your criticism might be constructive. (Look Lc, I'm not saying I don't make cranky comments - but I'm no punching bag.) I don't really want to do a whole lot of work only to get into some edit war. I'm trying to have a civil discourse and appeal to reason in addressing the obvious bias in this article. Also, would you mind discussing the studies of those two sources, did they study history or theology, and if they studied theology, what aspects? Was it just Christianity, was it just Church/text history, or was it languages, or was it comparative religous studies. I mean, a degree in theology could mean a lot of things. The study of comparative religions seems objectionable to you from a secular scholar but you'll accept a theologian who is also (sometimes) trained in the religious study of comparative religions - that is obvious bias. Phyesalis 19:37, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I hope my comments earlier were not taken as an attack on you, for I certainly did not mean as such. I did attack Foucault and Strauss, but the point of this was to state that, in an article about whether a figure who appears in ancient texts is historical or fictional, it is pointless to cite people who think that history is fiction (and that figures in texts are therefore nothing more than figures). And I will say it absolutely does matter to Christianity whether Jesus existed historically or not. In short, the doctrine of the Incarnation holds that God became truly man, whilst remaining truly God, and thus established in his being a communion between man and God, allowing eternal life (because God is life, and so without union with him there is only death). This incarnational principle appears in doctrines of both the Eucharist and the Church. It also appears concerning the redemption of mankind. In religion before Christianity men offered sacrifices to atone for sin or to appease divine powers, however these sacrifices were never enough because of the infinite gap between God's majesty and man's finitude, and for this reason some religions sought to make the greatest sacrifice, offering up humans as victims – but even this will not do (as I am sure you can see). Hence the Eucharistic institution and the crucifixion, understood incarnationally, are examples of a man (Jesus) offering God (Jesus) to God; and, lastly, that this happened during the greatest human sin (deicide) makes real the claim that God will never abandon his creation no matter how far the fall. This was all very brief, but with your philosophical background I am sure you can understand, and if you never got this in your classes on religion then you were done a great disservice. Lostcaesar 22:15, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Deicide? Hell, one could easily make the argument that it was suicide. Either way, the death and subsequent alleged resurrection are what make the religion -- absent the probabnle reality of crucifixion and the myth of resurrection there is no religion. If Jesus had died as an old man do you think Paul would have been able to craft a religion around an old guy who died of old age? •Jim62sch• 22:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

First, I'm offended by the gross mischaracterization of religions prior to Christianity. That is utterly disrespectful, ignorant and arrogant. I would appreciate if your efforts of brevity might refrain from such inherently bigoted fallacies. See, this is an excellent example of the difference between my secular education, and whatever Christian theology course you might be comparing it to. Philosophy is not a religion, it is a secular discipline of logical thought, and in secular educations they don't try to pass off religious beliefs as objective facts. This would be what makes your theologians cum historiographers so suspect. Let me ask you Lc, do you believe all that primitivisation garbage about "religion before Christianity" - "In religion before Christianity men offered sacrifices to atone for sin or to appease divine powers, however these sacrifices were never enough because of the infinite gap between God's majesty and man's finitude, and for this reason some religions sought to make the greatest sacrifice, offering up humans as victims – but even this will not do (as I am sure you can see). Hence the Eucharistic institution and the crucifixion, understood incarnationally, are examples of a man (Jesus) offering God (Jesus) to God; and, lastly, that this happened during the greatest human sin (deicide) makes real the claim that God will never abandon his creation no matter how far the fall." What about Buddism which predates Christianity by at least 500 years, and incidently, never debased itself with the worldly political persecutions and wars started by the Church and Christians in te name of Crist and his unwanted and imposed salvation? I'm surprised you have the nerve to criticize Foucault for his view of history as a product created by the minds and words of humans. Talk about your fictions! I'm sure the world's Buddhists, Shintos, Confucianists, Chinese folk tradition adherents and Hindus would appreciate your fanciful, if not crude and mendacious, summation of their religions. Again, please explain how a theologian who has no secular history credentials is acceptable and secular scholars, like cultural and historical anthropologists are not. I'm not angry with you Lc, just truly offended. Phyesalis 23:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

You are offended at what? In attempting to explain why the historical reality of Jesus is important to Christian theology, I mentioned the concept of "sacrifice" in certain pre-Christian religions and how that is understood differently in Christianity because of the doctrine of the Incarnation (religions without a concept of "sacrifice" are not the subject of this statement). This was a sub-point to show that disbelief of the Incarnation effects key Christian doctrines (e.g. the Church, the Eucharist, Salvation, &c). I made no value statement, nor was my point to debase all pre-Christian religions, nor did I insinuate anything about "primitivization". You are reading into my words and thereby missing the point. My point here is to show that your claim, that it doesn't matter to Christianity whether or not Jesus really existed, is false (at least for mainstream Christian theology). On a related note, sometimes religious claims are indeed positive claims to fact, whose veracity is subject to investigation.

As for the citations, the citation I added, which said "even the most hesitant [historians] concede that certain basic facts can be discerned about the life of Jesus" comes from a history textbook, written by two historians, with degrees from Harvard and Oxford (in history). So I am puzzled why you say things like: "this would be what makes your theologians cum historiographers so suspect".

I have a degree in both history and philosophy, so I understand basic things like "philosophy is not a religion". I have never been to a religious school. I also have a great interest in pre-Christian Europe, and have a real admiration for Germanic and Celtic cultures. Just because my philosophical (or other) views differ from yours does not mean that they stem from ignorance. And, lastly, I think it worth saying that secularism is itself a point of view, in no way is it synonymous with "neutral", nor should it be thought of as some prerequisite for being a "real" scholar.

Lostcaesar 00:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Again with the degrees. A number of YECs, IDists, OECs etc have degrees (in science), and still support non-scientific gibberish. Having a degree does not mean that someone has a de facto grasp of the truth. Essentially you are making an argumentum ad verecundiam -- argument/appeal from/to authority. This is known in Philosophy as a fallacy. Many Physics PhD's doubted much, if not all, of what Einstein wrote on gravity (just to name one item) until, in 1919, two astronomers proved that the sun warped space. Conversely, Einstein himself campaigned vociferously against quantum mechanics - and lost. Hawking later retracted his own theory regarding the arrow of time and the expansion/collapse of the universe. Bottom line, no one is infallible, no matter what their bona fides. •Jim62sch• 10:32, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

What a lot of irrelevant points. You miss the central issue. We have a policy against "Original Research" precisely because of arguments such as your: "oh this is the fallacy of appeal to authority. But authorities have been wrong so we should argue the issues from scratch, just like Descartes said...". Such an approach means that the most aggressive arguer gets to say what's what on the page. It would also mean that Wikipedia would become a rag-bag of idiosyncratic opinion presented as fact. Instead the policy is that the scholarly consensus should be the one that dominates, with other positions being given space according to their notability. Like other encyclopedias we judge this scholarly consensus on the basis of qualifications and academic norms in the relevant discipline. That is the policy and has been for a long time. Paul B 10:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The central issue is not OR (and thank you ever so much for the tutorial, irrelevant as it may have been). You show me where in the article there is OR, and we'll talk -- in fact we'll get it removed immediately. (Hell, you go through my 12,000+ edits and find me one instance where I supported OR and we'll have a party). However, what I say, or what anyone else says, on the talkpage is exempt from the strictures of OR policy. It really is that simple. Do we understand each other? •Jim62sch• 11:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

You signally miss the point. No-one is proposing removing your comments on the talk page, but your comments here concern the basis for including material in the article. Arguments about the "fallacy" of appeal to authority have no place in the debate for that reason. If we were writing an encyclopedia at a time when Einstein's views were a minority opinion, then we would - and indeed should - have said just that about them. What matters here are the opinion of accredited historians of the ancient world. So yes, degrees are one index of status, along with publication by the serious academic press, positions in accredited institutions (as opposed to some Arizona bible college, let's say). Paul B 11:56, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

It would only be a fallacy if I were trying to prove Jesus' existence by resorting to authority. Instead, I am trying to prove that my sources are not theologians, as was said, and that their credentials are historical and significant, as was inquired of. In that sense it is no fallacy at all. This article isn't about grinding your axe, its about accurately representing relevant scholarship. If I wanted to grind my axe (and I have one too), the article would be much different than it is. Its best to put the axes aside and talk scholarship. Lostcaesar 12:21, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Alas, there is simply no point in bothering as you are both missing the point. The point that I made was rather simple: a degree does not inherently imply a special wealth of knowledge. Period. End of story. No implications made, no warped inferences about motives to be drawn. Do you get it now?

Grinding axes? And where did that come from? •Jim62sch• 17:51, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

If there were no implications then it's a worthless truism, not more helpful than telling us the Great Truth that sometimes some people might be wrong about some things. One can't miss a point when there is no point. Paul B 16:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Logic is not OR, Jim did not suggest starting from scratch. He is pointing to the inherent bias of pointing to a bunch of theologians, who as Lostcaesar pointed out, have much at stake in the issue, and trying to pass them off as the majority view. The debate to the historicity of Jesus and the texts used in that are not limited to theologians alone. Please note Will Durant's of the dominant view of secular historians. Then there are the anthropolgists (cultural/historical sociological et al), comparative religion scholars and mythograpers, all secular, all agreed who have much to say about the whole thing. My point is that it seems a number of Pro-historical editors are unaware of the vast sum of secular scholarship that has accrued under the general assumption of a) it's just a syncretic myth like every other myth, it may contain some few facts of historical truth, but are in no way proof of Jesus' existence or b) it may be an amalgamation of multiple early messianic Jews who were crucified en masse throughout the era, that is a metaphor for a greater cultural history. These two are given. Virtually no one disputes these academic positions as valid and majority views. (Please show me the studies which dispute my assertion). Historians, secular academics trained in accordance to what Lc professes is a singular qualification, traditionally treat with the phenomenon of Christians, not with the historicity of Jesus. While there is abundant proof of messianic Jews and early Christians, most historians acknowledge the secular position that there is no proof for Jesus' existence outside of the Bible. In the secular academic world, the Bible is considered religious literature, not a record of historical fact. Lostcaesar may have a BA, but that doesn't mean that he understands the scope of the secular academic community, and just because I say I do doesn't mean that I am anymore qualified, which is why it would be best for both sides to refrain from "majority view" summations of scholars' views and stick to atrributing specific information to specific scholars. Just because you don't agree with a significant portion of the secular Humanities doesn't mean it shouldn't be included as a perspective. Covering the bulk of the secular views on this is in no way giving it undue weight, unless you mean to imply that Christian theologians represent the bulk of secular scholarship. If you want to say something like "the majority of pro-historical theologians agree that he existed", please go right ahead, but I think it must be qualified as pro-historical non-secular scholarship. And the line "even the most hesitant historian would agree that he existed" must be stricken. There aren't any secular historians' works who've been cited in the article as saying anything of the kind.Phyesalis 00:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

"And the line "even the most hesitant historian would agree that he existed" must be stricken. There aren't any secular historians' works who've been cited in the article as saying anything of the kind" — except, of course, the citation in the article given immediatly after the sentence whence the information in the line (almost a direct quote) comes, which references a history textbook written by two historians whose credentials I have given. Lostcaesar 00:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I changed the sentence to better reflect reality and WP:NPOV. The use of "hesitant historians" and "concede" is clearly POV. I'm sure that upon reflection, you'll agree (concede?) that that is the case. •Jim62sch• 01:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Those are the exact words of the quote. You cannot change a quote because you don't like it. Its what the ref says. Lostcaesar 08:13, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Please see my post at the bottom. Did you bother going to the Talk:Jesus archives, or at least looking at the Talk:Jesus/Cited Authors Bios page? You are arguing a strawman by saying that the cited scholars are all non-secular, theologians. And I still do not understand why we have to exclude or criticize scholars based on their religion. Do we say evolutionary biologists can't be reliably cited on the evolution page? You keep making broad claims with no citation. Please, start naming names. Who are all these secular scholars that deny a historical Jesus? --Andrew c 01:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll narrow this down a little and ask question I am dying to know the answers to. Who are the leading scholars who deny Jesus' existence? What universities do they currently teach at, and what subjects do they teach? Name as many books about Jesus or the NT that are used in secular universities as textbooks that advocate the non-existence hypothesis. I am really confused, because I have not run across any of this information, and I have been looking, so I wonder where I have gone astray. All I have found has confirmed that the vast majority of scholars in these relevent fields accept a historical Jesus (that is not to say they believe this person was supernaturally gifted, or God himself, or that the gospels are 100% historically true, or any other such nonsense).--Andrew c 01:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposed Removal

I find the following statements either factually wrong or not wholly relevant and thus warranting removal:

The historicity of Jesus concerns the debate surrounding the historical authenticity of the figure commonly refered to as Jesus of Nazareth. It is important to make a distinction between the debated figure, Jesus of Nazareth, and the undisputed religious symbol of Jesus Christ. For Christians, Jesus Christ's existence is assumed on the basis of faith. Whether or not Jesus of Nazareth actually existed is question of significant interdisciplinary debate. Relevant fieds of scholarship include, but are not limited to, History, including Historiography and Historicism, Biblical studies, Linguistics, Anthropology, and Sociology.

• That Christians assume Jesus on the basis of faith falsely implies that the do not use reason and facts as a basis, and in general I think this shows a mischaracterization of "faith" from that used by the plurality of Christians.
• The distinction between Jesus the historical figure and Jesus the religious figure is misrepresented here. I myself added a similar line to the "Historical Jesus" article, so I am not against some form of this statement. But the mistake here is implying that historicity is somehow distinct from the religious symbol of Jesus - a view held only by certain minority groups of Christians. We can include some line of this sort, as I said, but this implication must be removed. The Jesus of Faith, exactly because majority Christianity holds him to be the historical Jesus of Nazareth, is likewise subject to historical methods of analysis, especially when establishing the veracity of claims about him. The difference is that other areas of knowledge, such as dogmatic pronouncements, the writings of the Church Fathers, and the like are applied when building knowledge about the Christ of Faith, whilst they are not included directly in the strictly historical methods of analysis. Lostcaesar 16:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Seems fair to me caesar. Homestarmy 18:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, the distinction needs to be made. As both of you have shown a distinct preference for dogmatic editing, I suppose that distinction is not clear to you, but it is a an important one. •Jim62sch• 20:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I can see both sides to this issue. I feel like the current wording is problematic, but removing the point that is trying to be made is also not good. Maybe we need to qualify it by saying something like "Often scholars draw a distinction between the scholarly reconstruction of Jesus, and the Christ of faith" or something like that? And while we are talking about deletions, I feel strongly that the current dab header is terrible. We don't need to have an intro to the intro. The purpose of dab is to direct readers to other articles with similar (or identical) names. The lead section gives the over view, not the dab. If we are to keep it, I strongly suggest using one of the established dab templates (maybe one that says "This article is about x, for y see z".)--Andrew c 21:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Alright, based on these comments here, I will remove the line on Christians accepting the existence of Jesus on faith, since it implies something incorrect, and I will reword the sentence on distinguishing the Jesus of History from the Christ of Faith, and, lastly, I will frame the dab in something more fitting. Lostcaesar 22:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

It is not incorrect, and I will restore it. Also, there is nothing wrong with the dab. •Jim62sch• 22:19, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

BTW, there is no "proper" form for dabs, they merely need to be accurate...the current dab is accurate. •Jim62sch• 22:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your view Andrew, I admit that my "x" was a bit long, and I did not use the template, but I thought that was the basic formula I followed. Could you cite how I differed? It would be most helpful to me. Really, this is one of the areas I'm working on, wikicode is not my specialty. Also, I think Andrew's suggested line about the distinction is a good one, because I've been trying to find a tactful way to address the possible conflicts of interest on the part of noted apologetic scholars who do not make that distinction. Like didn't Grant or Maier write a book argiung for the historicity of the resurrection? That seems to be a conflict of interest. I don't think historians are known for their proving of miracles. Also serves to illustrate why we need to distinguish between JN and the religious myth/icon of JC, perhaps as a distinction between the historical and theological works of interdisciplinary scholars. Please note that "myth" for me is a neutral-value term. When I say myth, I mean personal/social spiritual truth system, and inherent in that is my respect for each person's right to define their own spiritual truths, a subjective truth. The kind that Campbell qualifies as the highest truth, those that are experienced but not translayed into words or symbols. I'm not trying to imply any kind of falsity, or score sub-textual POV points, with the socio-anthropological def. of "myth". Phyesalis 22:56, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Check out my last rendition of the page - I think you will find it includes most of what you are looking for. Lostcaesar 23:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Lc. I think it's an improvement, but I still think it needs a little help. I did some tweaking. I moved the commentary on New Testament accuracy down to the section on Christian writing. The article has better flow that way. If you disagree, would you mind explaining why? Maybe I'm missing something. I also redressed part of the POV issue. If this is going to be an ongoing dispute, perhaps we should call in some third parties to examine the POV of this article. I think it is a grave miscarriage of wiki policy to let the article imply that most/majority Historians (et al.) anthropologists, sociologists, biblical scholars, and classicists agree that he existed, particularly when the assertions are unprovable, and this one is. Most honest academics who study these kinds of issues tend to shy away from absolutes, unless they want to generate buzz (like when publishing a book for general public consumption). Instead, they present a thesis, and provide argumentation that supports the thesis. Making a good argument for a thesis is not actually proving it.

Philopsophy, mother discipline to subjective inquiry and the scientific method, does not prove such existential assertions (which is why logic has an existential instantiation symbol, to contextualize, not prove, that a thing does indeed exist - well ontology does debate it but it's not equivalent, much more Cartesian epistemology, cogito ergo sum a la God). The scientific method does not "prove" anything in reality, the physical world is observable. Newton wasn't trying to prove that the apple fell, because it always falls. Instead, he was trying to formulate an explanation of why it fell. The SM disproves various theories, leaving us with a summary of those hypotheses that have not yet been disproven. Historical analysis is somewere between the scientific method and philosophy. Unlike the physical world and its directly observable phenomena, Jesus' historical existence is not directly observable and because JC is indeed a myth like all other religious god/heads, lots of people/academics have no more belief in his existence than that of Adonis, because there is equal proof for both of them. More so, one might argue, for Adonis given that he predates JC by 600 years and is also of Greek-Semitic origins. The similarities between the two are astounding, from a mythographical perspective, the motifs are almost identical. Of course if they were identical, there would be no need for a different name. But JC comes out of a different culture chronologically, same area, same Greek-Semitic influences, same chthonic cycle, but a more modern sensibility - they didn't like the incest bit so they made him a virgin birth, etc, so the socio-antropologist might argue.

Such POV assertions make gross mischaracterizations about academics and academic processes. As a clear and inaccurate POV, it should be stricken. Yes, I know you've suggested going to a debate board, but the purpose of this page is to discuss what is appropriate for the article. That's what I'm trying to do. I apologize for my verbosity. This is my suggestion:

• have an overview of the debate (from early docetism, which is relevant, we might just want to merge the two) to Reimarus on through current positions (real brief) then,

• have a Pro-historical section (no quantitative assertions about how many: most/majority), a mythographical section (ditto) and a section about inconclusiveness (extremely NPOV) to represent each modern position, then,

• have an overview of the sources. Come on, think about it. If we did a really good job, we might get a good rating. Don't you want all your work to be acknowledged? Please, I offer you a friendly challenge in the name of discourse community scholarship. Because even if we aren't doing original research, we are engaging scholarship. Phyesalis 00:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Sounds OK to me, lets see if the gauntlet is picked up. Cogito ergo deus estne? •Jim62sch• 01:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems to be that our differences are over the summary paragraph about the consensus view of historians and biblical scholars, and the dab at the top. As for the dab I don’t have much to say except I think my version is smoother and to the point, and I don't really understand your objection to it. As for the paragraph, this summarizes the view of historians and biblical scholars, and as such I don't see why it should be in the section on "Christian writings". I do agree that the flow of the intro could be smoother, but I don't think pushing this info out is a good fix, because the intro then no longer represents the fact that virtually all historians and biblical scholars think Jesus existed, and I think this is the real reason you want it out too. It seems to be that you think this is factually incorrect, yet the claim in the article is very well referenced. You argued that academics generally avoid absolutes; well, here we have references that say that historians and biblical scholars agree and are comfortable putting into print that Jesus existed and also some basic things about his life. I doubt there is much academic hesitance from absolutely stating that the Roman general Agricola existed either. It seems your objections are more philosophical: that nothing, not even a sound deductive proof, can "prove" anything absolutely. Well, we cannot go on every article and make every fact stated sound vague because of this philosophical maxim. The extent to which historians can be sure about anything, they are sure Jesus existed — and this is the reality that this article reflects. There is no point to us arguing here whether or not this is the way things ought to be. Can you name any mainstream historians who don't think Jesus existed? How many?

Let me give you a little example from my personal experiences here. As you know, the majority view among historians and biblical scholars is that Mark is the first gospel written and that Matthew used it as a source. Personally, for scholarly reasons, I contend that Matthew came first and that Mark redacted Matthew – and I really think this view is right and could debate it all day (and have). That doesn't change the fact that this view is only held by a minority (though at least there are historians and scholars, and not a few, who think this, but still a minority). Now, I have not attempted to go into wikipedia and rewrite this fact away — it’s the reality of scholarly opinion today. Instead, I have made sure that this minority position gets its proper due as a minority position, i.e. it gets a mention and a link, usually, while claiming only to be a minority view (sometimes it gets a little more attention since, historically, it was held for so long and is a necessary view to state before the newer view can be introduced). Aside from that, I spent my time on the main article that discusses this synoptic hypothesis. In general I found this process altogether more peaceful and good for the soul than it would have been if I had begun a grinding series of edit conflicts where I tried to change articles to show a 50/50 toss up debate among scholars on the matter. You might be in a similar situation here yourself.Lostcaesar 09:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Lets try coming at this from another angle: "'This article is part of the Jesus and history series of articles. The purpose of this article is to provide a history of the debate, the spectrum of positions, and the significant aspects and criticisms of those positions. For more information on the evidence used in the arguments of both sides, see Historical Jesus and Jesus-Myth." What in particular do you find is unbalanced in this? I found your Mark/Matthew example well-reasoned and admirable, yet it does not specifically address the issue here. Your post seems to indicate you feel the intro I quote disputes the existance of an historical person, Jesus, am I understanding you? Please explain - thanks much! KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

That would seem to be the issue to me. Sorry if the version KC, Phyesalis and I prefer is painfully accurate, but one cannot hide behind whitewash all of one's life. In presenting what you term the minority view we must accurately portray that view, not to make it more palatable by ignoring it and hoping it will go away.

BTW, the intro is hardly all that will be questioned: I have just begun to work on the article.

Mark edited Matthew? Mark wrote Matthew? Huh? •Jim62sch• 18:11, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

"The purpose of this article is to provide a history of the debate, the spectrum of positions, and the significant aspects and criticisms of those positions" — sounds wordy for a dab, no? Lostcaesar 14:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

The dab is fine.

On another note, I don't care whether Augustine wrote the ignorance bit it simply stands out like a sore thumb in this article. BTW, do you have the quote in the original Latin? •Jim62sch• 14:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

You call the phrasing in that sentence purple prose, but you think the dab is fine? I'll look for the Latin... Lostcaesar 14:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

enjoy: et quamvis singuli suum quendam narrandi ordinem tenuisse videantur, non tamen unusquisque eorum velut alterius praecendentis ignarus voluisse scribere repperitur vel ignorata praetermisisse, quae scripsisse alius invenitur

Lostcaesar 14:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks -- not exactly classical Latin, but not bad, it has a nice flow. That's a good translation then. But, we might want to bring the rest of the prose up to that level, or at least ascribe it to Augustine in the article (i.e., not as a ref only).

As for the dab, there are not really any limits on a dab -- in this case it explains precisely what is going on. •Jim62sch• 00:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I can live with the dab if its a big deal; Augustine's Latin in unique, and though he employs different styles of Latin depending on his audience (City of God is more "high" Latin than the sermons), he is still distinctly not classical. But then again, Augustine never had the same nightmares as Jerome, who feared that he liked to read the elegant Cicero more than rusticly written spiritual works =D

Lostcaesar 07:43, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I just think with some many relating artivles in this whole project, a little extra in the dab might make things clearer for the next reader/contributor and is a nice intro. If you can live with it Lc, I'd really appreciate the kindly concession. And as for the stricken sentence, I can see where the implication of "faith" to Christians could be insulting, but I think we need to address the issue somehow.

Introduction and intent

The introduction needs to clearly address one of the main purpose of the article which is the disputation of whether or not he existed. Otherwise this is the exact same thing as Historical Jesus and should therefore be merged or deleted, IMO. Really, please stop messing with the POV so as to imply that it is not a significantly debated issue. I'm going to re-introduce this point. Please do not remove it. Thank you. Phyesalis 23:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

If you want to get technical about it, (Which you may or may not) you were the one messing with the POV first :/. Homestarmy 23:17, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, no, not really. Phyesalis is merely reintroducing topics I attempted to intoduce many months ago.•Jim62sch• 23:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Hold on a minute here, let me get this straight, the works of "Biblical scholars" only counts as "Christian writings"? Homestarmy 23:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Depends on who the scholars are, no? •Jim62sch• 23:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

True, to a point. I've taken the liberty of removing the clearly non-Christian ones from the section, however. Homestarmy 23:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

You also removed a Christian. •Jim62sch• 00:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

BTW, care to explain how it is "True, to a point"? •Jim62sch• 00:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

First, which one did I remove, (I gotta admit, all the references were a bit hard to see through :/. ) and second, as User:Slrubenstein I think has shown numerous times, (Most recently in the large section he made a couple sections above) the works of Biblical scholars are not always in the same class as any "Christian writing". Homestarmy 01:09, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I had not divined User:Slrubenstein's expertise on this specific issue -- although I must admit he is a good editor. You removed Bauer. •Jim62sch• 01:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

You bring up a good point about biblical scholars, Homestarmy. While I consider my edit an improvement over the previous version, I also find the wording to be less than satisfactory. But I'm hesitant to make major changes, happy to take smaller, easily discussed modifications in a progressive movement toward overall improvement. We can reword it. This is a complex and interwoven (I won't say interdiscipl.) analysis. I'm not trying to say that biblical scholars' (I'm trying to not over generalize) work counts as Christian writings, but the fact that they are commenting on the Christian writings (New Testament) is what makes me think it should be there. I'm really flexible (outside of quantitative assumptions) with the wording. I think it might be best for all of us to keep hammering away until we can find something we can all agree on. Also, I have no problem with any position citing scholars of various predispositions. Although, I certainly agree that there was more than enough citation and that it was rather dense to wade through. I think it would be overly exclusive to only contain obvious Christian scholars, it appears as if the only scholars who believed this were Christian, which weakens the argument by making it appear to be a position held solely by people who may or may not be acknowledged apologists.Phyesalis 02:39, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, I have to say, i'm not increadibly familiar with how this article has been formulated as of late. I just know something about what the consensus was and the general argument for it, and to me anyway, it seems like a logical defense. The Biblical scholars used in the chunk of text in question are, if I understand this correctly, representative of mainstream scholarship concerning Jesus and the New Testament and whatnot, and the people on the other side often turn out to not really be Biblical scholars at all for the most part :/. (Though I think eventually one or two exceptions have been found, it took several months to find one I think since the rest were basically nothing authoritatively speaking....) And, therefore, as is the general consensus on most articles dealing with scholarly type things, I believe the explanation for not including these other views in the same light as the ones in there now has to do with Undue weight. Another thing, Jim, are you sure Bauer was supposed to be a Christian, because he's in the Atheist Philosopher category, and if i'm reading it correctly, before he started writing several books, he seemed somewhat sympathetic to Jesus, but then ultimatly decided all of the gospels were fiction, and it really doesn't sound like he was explicitly Christian at all when he wrote his books. Homestarmy 02:57, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Look, I'm not trying to be a pain. Would you mind sharing a slightly more in-depth explanation of how you define a scholar? Perhaps you just haven't had the experience of co-editing with someone contributing JM content who actually has access to scholarly databases. I mean, really most people don't care one way or the other. If one accepts JC as their Lord and saviour, if nothing else, they accept him on faith (not to imply any lack of reason). Those who don't believe he existed don't care, they too have made a choice of a kind of faith, to the contrary. Those who find it inconclusive are likely to always find it inconclusive, barring any global manifestion of God itself pointing out that Jesus of Nazareth was an actual historical human being. I, myself, acknowledge that some of the presentation of the JM side along with a number of links and citations are pitiful. But again, absence of reliable counter-scholarship proof is not proof of absence. Perhaps you yourself are not familiar with it, thus believe it does not exist. And again, where does it say that this has to be restricted to Biblical scholars? Certainly Biblical Scholars make up a large chunk of those who support a pro-historical hypothesis, but they are by no means the only academic "experts" qualified to weigh in on the subject. And the POV you give, is by no means representative of all scholarship. Maybe among Christologists and apologetics, many of whom are also Biblical Studies scholars who espouse pro-historical views, but not by all qualfied scholars who contribute to the analysis of whether or not a mytho-religious figure was indeed a real historical figure. In the near future, I will be providing a number of reliable and verifiable contributions. I may even make some to the pro-historical stuff. And if we're talking about Bruno Bauer, he was definitely a Christian theologian. Just because he claimed the Gospels were mythopoetic literature, didn't mean he was an atheist. Are you at all familiar with Bauer's work? You know, the guy who influenced Albert Schweitzer's views of theology? And his views were/are neither minor nor insignificant. This all goes back to my argument of it not really making any difference, and not implying a lack of reason - if Christianity is a good moral/ethical system, it is because it is actually good, not because some person actually existed or not - that would just be silly. Enjoying the ongoing process. Thank you. Phyesalis 12:03, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I too would be interested in the answer to Phyesalis' first question. As I pointed out in the Jesus article many months ago, the requirements to be even a true biblical scholar are quite stringent: one must know the bible (of course), the languages of the time, the customs of the people of the time (in prticular the Semites), have a basic understanding of archaeology, be well-versed in Greek and Roman history and mythology as well as having a full understanding of the mythologies and cultures that predate the earliest writings of the bible in roughly 720 BC.

And that merely covers biblical scolars. Linguists, for example, have noted the disparity in the writing styles of the OT and the Hellenistic flavour of certain books of the NT, especially the Gospel of John (1:1 hardly expresses a semitic idea, it is rather Greek philosophy lite). Historians and archaeologists have noted, for example, that while there is proof of the destruction of certain Canaanite cities as mentioned in Joshua, there is simply no proof that Joshua or his people were responsible for that destruction, and that assuming that they were is simply a case of post hoc ergo propter hoc thinking. I could go on, but I assume I've made my point.

So then, the question becomes, as Phyesalis posed it: how do you define scholar? •Jim62sch• 18:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, the thing of it is, once again, editors like Slrubenstein have answered the "scholar" question many times over the course of this article history, most recently in the "scholarship versus slander" section above. I can't speak for them because I don't really concentrate on this article much, (Well, apparently until now anyway) but once again, their position on what a scholar is seems entirely reasonable and well defined to me. Also, on Bauer, I only ask about him because he's in the Atheist philosophers category, his article never seems to call him a Christian even once, and in the Theologian article, the definition of a theologian doesn't seem to require someone to be an adherant of the religion their a theologian of, "Theologians attempt to use rational analysis and argument to discuss, interpret, and teach on any of a myriad of religious topics." doesn't sound to me like a Christian theologian has to actually be Christian at all. Homestarmy 19:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I have not read at all, so forgive any redundancy: Biblical scholars are scholars and their writings are scholarly ones. However, theirs is a special kind of scholarship and depending on how a Biblical scholarship is trained (the term is quite blurry to me) his writing are relevant or not to this issue, which is, lest anyone forget, the question of the "Historicity of Jesus", of whether Jesus is a historical figure or not.

Clarifying my point above, why sociologist and anthropologist (as such) have no say in this: the former research structure of societies, the latter with humans in general. Neither has any means at their disosal of verifying the historical existence of one single individual person, which is exactly our issue here. If they have any means I'd like to know. Historians do have at their hand all kinds of historical sources and are trained to interpret and analyse them, and hence they are relevant. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 11:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

What an interesting approach to exclude and discredit any criticism, but the point is - if you don't accept the Biblle as any source of reliable proof (since it is a collaborative effort that has been mistranslated into many languages - may I remind you of the original King James edition), then one doesn't have to study the Bible, but the rest of the world. It is a micro v. macro approach. And if it is a myth as some critics contend, whether you like or not, what is relevant is the study of psycho-social and historical trends that created the myths. POV FORK. Phyesalis 23:36, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Phyesalis, you say "exclude and discredit any criticism" like that's a bad thing, but if arguing against criticism is always a bad thing, then nobody anywhere should be able to challenge any criticism at all anywhere in Wikipedia, to the point where every article on Evolution would have to have Creationism in equal weight all throughout criticizing it. Excluding and discrediting criticism is not in and of itself a bad thing, the arguments for discrediting a particular criticism may be bad, but simply trying to discredit and exclude it (Especially exclude, because that's an Undue Weight thing) itself isn't bad. Homestarmy 19:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me one needs to establish undue weight first. •Jim62sch• 00:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Right, but i'm just saying, the attempt to establish it isn't a bad thing. Homestarmy 15:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you so much for not getting rid of my changes. Like I said, my changes aren't perfect, but thanks for letting me get started and share in the article. I really appreciate it. I feel like I've been wiki-vetted. I just wanted to say that I truly appreciate the help you all have given me. Phyesalis 02:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Header

Hi. Can we come to some kind of agreement on the header? Phyesalis 12:12, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

do you mean the intro? Not being flippant, just making sure we're talking about the same thing. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I'm talking about the DAB header. It says "The purpose of this article is to provide a history of the debate, the spectrum of positions, and the significant aspects and criticisms of those positions. For more information on the evidence used in the arguments of both sides, see Historical Jesus and Jesus-Myth." The first part is completely false. There is no history of the debate provided. The vast majority of this article deals with the written sources dealing with Jesus. The spectrum of positions is also not provided (whatever that is). Finally, the last sentence frames the debate in a manner that I was critical above. It is not about there being two sides and that they are equal. This is akin to a news article taking about evolution vs. creationism equally, when in actuality one is supported by the vast majority of scholars, and one is only held be people with religious/philosophical agendas (ironically the mythists are typically pseudo-skeptics). Like I said, find me anywhere in the Manual of Style that says DAB headers can be used like this. Find me a SINGLE Featured or Good article that has a similar header. I really think any summary of the article should go in the intro, and the DAB header be used for just that, disambiguation purposes, not an overview (which is the lead's job).--Andrew c 02:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

That's right, because I tried to start working on the article but have all my attempts to specifically address POV issues reverted. Then I offered to stop working on the article. The debate regarding pov is about the current article content, the debate about the header is about how the article should be. This is not creationism, this is the debate between the primarily theological view (not historical, as the Will Durant quote shows) versus the secular view. The secular academic view of this debate is not adequately represented, unless you are suggesting that only theologians are allowed a voice. Please check the academic bona fides of the people you claim represent the majority of historians or the academic/secular view. They have predominantly sectarian educations, not secular. They are considered theologians, not historians. A bible scholar in the sectarian sense is not the same thing as a secular historian. The secular camp is divided into two main groups: those who think there can be no answer, and those who think the answer is myth. The mythists are not Pseudoskeptics they are members of the American Academy of Arts and letters, they are widely regarded scholars and have been for some time - NOT that they're represented in this article as it stands, which is why, among many reasons, this article has a clear and misleading POV. You have presented this as a majority view of historians when it is only a small group of theologians. This is inherently misleading and should be addressed. Also, my argument for the header is that it does help with disambiguation, marking out the distinctions between this and the multiple other pages relating to the subject. That for a subject like this, maybe a little more is needed. Phyesalis 23:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, this is all hypothetical to me. Start naming names. Who the heck are all these secular historians that deny a historical Jesus. Can you name ONE? Seriously. Let's go through our cited authors. Ray Brown is a Catholic priest, so he's out because of your bias. Shaye J. D. Cohen is Jewish (so we can't rule him out based on his religion), and has a PhD in ancient history, and teaches relevent topics at Harvard. John Dominic Crossan was once a catholic priest, so he's probably out as well, even though he has been on record as saying Jesus' body was probably thrown to the dogs to eat, instead of being burried by Joseph of Aramathia, and even though he co-founded the Jesus seminar, whose goal was to "demythologize" Jesus. Michael Grant, was a noted classical scholar, while normally dealing with the Roman empire, wrote a book called Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels; I do not know his religion (I've seen apologist sites call him an atheist), but nothing in his resume ties him to theological seminaries, and he is arguably this most "historian" of all of these scholars. Paula Fredriksen, I don't know her religion (maybe Jewish), but she has relevent degrees, and has taught relevent topics at a number of secular universities. John P. Meier is a Catholic priest, so I guess he is out, despitehaving very meticulous, scholarly (secular) methodology (and does not believe the resurrection can be proved historically). E.P. Sanders also has some theological seminaries on his resume, but he is a very noted scholar, and I believe that he can seperate his scholarship from his personal religious convictions (but I guess by your starndards he's out). Geza Vermes is Jewish so he isn't ruled out yet is a very well known Dead Sea Scrolls scholar. Paul L. Maier has both secular, historical degrees, and theological degrees does that mean we have to rule him out? N. T. Wright is an anglican bishop, so I guess he is out as well, despite his known scholarship. Ben Witherington III is a christian apologist and he argues for the historical resurrection, so I'll rule him out myself. But really. Why am I doing this? You claimed that the cited scholars were actually a minority because they only represent a small number of Christian believers from private theological institution, and I think I have demonstrated otherwise. Yes, there are some believers on that list, but that isn't enough to say their scholarship should be ignored based on their personal religious convictions. Anyway, I am very curious to start seeing who is in this so-called secular majority who deny Jesus existed (which is strange because in the US and UK, the Christians outweigh the seculars anyway).--Andrew c 00:11, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Add we should add the two I mentioned, whose concern in the text was not to make any lengthy arguments, but only to characterized the field of historical scholarship on the matter of Jesus' existence (the work itself is a basic history textbook, not an argumentative work by any means). Jo Ann Hoeppner Moran Cruz, PhD in History from Harvard, and Richard A. Gerberding, D.Phil. in History from Oxford University. I think their knowledge of the field should be both thorough and fair. You certainly have yet to show otherwise. I too await the list of historians who doubt the historical existence of Jesus. Lostcaesar 00:28, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I propose the following minimal changes to the header:

this articleis part of the Jesus and history series of articles. The purpose of this article is to provide a history of the debate, the spectrum of positions, and their significant aspects and criticisms of those position. For more information on the evidence used in the arguments of both sides, see Historical Jesus and Jesus-Myth

I am still not happy with the remaining text, but at least for now I think we can all agree to drop the wordiness, without getting into debate about content. Why say "spectrum of position" when "positions" says the same? Obviously, information is only given on "significant" things. Lostcaesar 09:10, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Sectarian v. Secular, theologian v. historian v. rest of the Humanities, POV and "even the most hesitant historians"

First, I would like to say that I appreciate the contriubtions of all who are contributing to this discussion. I want to note and thank Lostcaesar for his concession to let the dab stand and Andrewc for taking the time to review the 3RR issue and determine that I was not actually in violation. I think perhaps we are not arguing the same points.

• I am not trying to categorically exclude theologians. I respect theologians' diverse perspectives and scholarship, I just want it to be noted, plainly and simply, that they are theologians and sectarian when that is the case. I object to the mischaracterization of sectarian bible scholars as representing secular historians. A bible scholar is not a secular historian. A bible scholar assumes the Bible contains legitimate information, many question which parts. A historian does not assume the Bible holds legitimate information, as it is a religious text which has been transcribed from oral recountings and influenced by faith and politics. A historian does not assert or deny Jesus's existence, merely asserts that there is no reliable historical proof. As I said before, most secular historians do not address Jesus' historicity, because the issue even after the Dead Sea Scrolls is considered settled, instead dealing with the provable historical phenomena of Messianic Jews, gnostics and early Christians, heretical and otherwise. There is no historical proof and so there is no historical debate. Even the Vatican kind of came on line when it said that the Bible is "Truth" not the truth, in the 60's. Only among certain theologians and cultural anthropologists is there any kind of debate. Not all bible scholars are concerned with the historicity of Jesus and many decry the attempt. Some, Like Dr. William Loader, Professor of New Testament Studies at Murdoch University, Perth, Western Australia, feel there is a huge gap between the gospels having some historical basis and the basis being "Jesus" (emphasis mine): "Recent work on Q led me to accept that the gospels (unlike the Pauline and the other early epistles) may include traditions about a truly historical itinerant preacher of the early 1st Century" http://www.abc.net.au/religion/stories/s1517046.htm. MAY. Not DOES. And he's the one in the debate representing the pro-historical side. And please note the equally weighted counter-argument by Prof. David Wells, http://www.abc.net.au/religion/stories/s1517040.htm. These are the dominant views of the debate: there may be some proof compared to there is no proof that he existed. Please note the wording. NEITHER SIDE IS SAYING HE DID OR DID NOT EXIST. Elaine Pagels, a well respected scholar whose reputation has stood much longer and uncontested than any of these scholars, says "maybe", most respected unbiased scholars say maybe. Again, not saying we should cite in the article that anyone is biased, merely refrain from specious generalizations. Such explicit speculations are generally left to people who want to sell books. My point is that there should be clear avoidance of general summaries of how many whos think what. Present the facts, contextualized facts.

• Additionally, if sectarian theologians are allowed, qualified as such and not conflated with secular historians, then other legitimate scholars like Alan Dundes, Joseph Campbell and the like (some recognized members of such prestigious associations as the American Academy of Arts and Letters for a start) should be included in their appropriate sub sections, syncretism and myth, and presented as a legitimate part of the intro. If you're not familiar with either of these, they would be a good start. I mean Campbell alone has won more awards and had more bona fides than 90% of the people quoted in this article. Currently these sections are abysmal. Then there's Dundes' monograph, a review of such scholars as Friedrich Von Hahn, Otto Rank and F.R.S. Raglan in Western Folklore (a respected peer-review journal available through JSTOR),The Hero Pattern and the Life of Jesus. Also his Holy Writ as Oral Lit: The Bible as Folklore. He's considered a major contributor to the field. These perspectives are common place assumptions of entire fields of secular Humanist studies.

• POV and the quote - the quote is either specious or taken totally out of context. Again summaries based on OR of how many historians think what should be avoided. Again, if you want to say the majority of Jesus Seminar participants (the only thing coming close to a statistical survey) think something, that's fine, but crit contextualizing the Seminar then becomes germane, IMO. Why is it so difficult to strike POV assertions that are purely opinion? Can someone tell me what sources of info the quoted author used to support such assertions? Maybe that would help. Thank you. Phyesalis 18:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

David H. Lewis is not exactly a major scholar. As you can see here [1] he was not invited to contribute to the debate because of his distinction. He submitted his article to request a debate. It's also clear that he is simply repeating what Wells says (in fact you seem to merge the two by calling him "Prof. David Wells"). Lewis is an internet personage who writes on atheist websites promoting this view. I see no evidence that he is a distinguished scholar. The page rather vaguely asserts that he "teaches ancient history". Oh? To who? Where? In what capacity? Note, btw, that I am not a Christian, or indeed a theist. I am however an historian. have no especial wish to believe that Jesus existed, but that is the consensus view. As with all history we deal with probability not certainty. Of course no historian will say Jesus absolutely for sure 100% must have existed, but it is thought very very likely that he did by most historians who write about the era - Jewish, Christian and secular. Most don't even engage in debate on the subject. They are more concerned about separating fact from myth, or about seeing the early Christian texts as products of the culture of the time. Paul B 18:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

• "the quote is either specious or taken totally out of context. Again summaries based on OR of how many historians think what should be avoided."

The quote is neither specious nor taken out of context. I will provide the full context if you like it. The research is not mine, and not original. Those two historians are characterizing the historical community. They are not theologians, not biblical scholars, not sectarian — the book is not even about Jesus; it’s a textbook about Western history.

• "A historian does not assert or deny Jesus' existence, merely asserts that there is no reliable historical proof."

So nice of you to define a historian in a way that forces them to agree with your assumptions. Unfortunately, the secular world does not define the word "historian" like this. And, according to my source, you are wrong about what historians think. Historians are as sure that Jesus existed as any other person in ancient history, and there is no point to go round to every single entry about a historical person and assert some philosophical claim about epistemology of historical knowledge. Historians say Jesus, Agricola, and Virgil existed, &c.

So far I am the one who has forwarded a reference from non-theologians, non-biblical-studies, non-sectarian historians who are characterizing the field of history.

Lostcaesar 19:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you ignoring that I pointed out that our cited scholars are not all theologians? I don't know how you'd explain this list, with the vast majority of the listed scholars accepting a historical Jesus. You can't write them all off as being theologians, because that simply isn't true. And even some of the believers can't simply be ignored, because I have not yet been shown why one's religion excludes them from performing scholarship. I am not saying that there isn't the position that Jesus never existed, and I am not trying to remove that view. But like I said above, where are all the textbooks used in secular universities' religious studies departments that deny Jesus' existence? You found a folklorist with a Freudian take on the Jesus story in the 70s. The review in Vol. 38 No. 1 of Western Folklore says that this is a radical, new theory (clouded with Dundes' bias and some scholarly errors). It clearly doesn't say that this is a good summary of the majority of scholars. And really, I think it is most telling that it is really really hard to find biblical scholars and 1st century Christian/Jewish/Roman historicans who deny Jesus' existence. That's the same thing as saying it is hard to find biologists who deny evolution (but go outside of that field of study, and you can find a few, but still no majority). Really, the serious scholars who devote their life work in this subject area for the most part accept some form of historical Jesus. I really don't understand how anything else can be argued. These scholars cannot simply be written off as theologians and biased Christians. As for the Jesus Seminar, while representing over 100 scholars, it is only a minority view. Most scholars feel the JS is too liberal, and goes too far in removing words and deeds found in the gospels from the life of the historical Jesus.--Andrew c 22:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I just came across this article on the secular web. It is a popular overview of the search for the historical Jesus written by some atheist on the internet with a BA in philosophy. While I wouldn't consider this a WP:RS for wikipedia standards, I feel he gives a fairly accurate overview. Plus he says "Most scholars believe that a real, flesh and blood Jewish peasant whom we call Jesus lived and taught in first-century Galilee. What they disagree on is what this man was like." Finally, he reminded me of something that I hadn't really mentioned before. There is the whole group of scholarship called biblical criticism. It is a scholarly attempt to examine Judeo-Christian origins, texts, etc. How many of these critical scholars deny a historical Jesus...--Andrew c 00:07, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Hesitant

re (no way Jim, you cannot change the words of a reference, its unfair to the source) -- was the item a verbatim quote? If so, it needs to be attributed in the sentence itself (not just in the ref) and needs to be in quotation marks. If the item in the article is just a paraphrase it can be changed. So, which is it? •Jim62sch• 21:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I did not give the full quote because it would akwardly make many redundant statements, but the words I used are the words of the text. I will just post the whole passage below. After discussing the sources which mention Jesus, it says:

Thus our prime sources about the life of Jesus were written within about fifty years of his death by people who perhaps knew him, but certainly by people who knew people who knew him. If this is beginning to sound slightly second hand, we may wish to consider two points. First, throughout most of our study of the Middle Ages we shall be grateful indeed for narrative sources this chronologically and personally close to their subjects; most ancient and medieval history was written from a much greater distance. Second, all the Gospel writers could have talked to people who were actually on the spot, and while perhaps not eyewitnesses themselves, their position is certainly the next best thing. Because these are not historical books but religious ones (and for other serious reasons) many historians have grave reservations about their use for writing history. Even the most hesitant, however, will concede that we are probably on safe historical footing in concluding the following four things from them about the life of Jesus: 1) He was born about 4 or 5 BC and grew up in Nazareth in Galilee, although the Gospels contain almost nothing about the first thirty years of his life. 2) He was a Jewish teacher well versed in the Jewish sacred writings, Christ's teaching, however, does not indicate influence of formal theology of the Rabbinical schools (as, by contrast, the language of St. Paul does). On the other hand, he also shows no evidence of zealous Jewish patriotism. 3) He attracted a small following of local Galileans. 4) He was crucified by the Jewish and Roman authorities in Jerusalem about AD 30.

Because most of that material was already covered in the preceding section, especially the details about his life, I paraphrased the part of the passage that had unique significant for us, keeping the wording, as follows:

" Even the most hesitant historians, however, concede that it is probably safe historical ground to conclude certain basic historical facts about the life of Jesus [and in the reference, added: "e.g. that Jesus was a Jewish teacher, attracted a small following of Galileans, and was crucified by the Jewish and Roman authorities in Jerusalem"]

So there you have it. Lostcaesar 22:01, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for providing that, much appreciated.

In any case, as you paraphrased and left out key caveats, the text can be changed in the article to what I had without causing and disruption in the meaning of the paraphrase.

This statement is key, Because these are not historical books but religious ones (and for other serious reasons) many historians have grave reservations about their use for writing history. as is Even the most hesitant, however, will concede that we are probably on safe historical footing in concluding the following four things from them about the life of Jesus: 1) He was born about 4 or 5 BC and grew up in Nazareth in Galilee, although the Gospels contain almost nothing about the first thirty years of his life. 2) He was a Jewish teacher well versed in the Jewish sacred writings, Christ's teaching, however, does not indicate influence of formal theology of the Rabbinical schools (as, by contrast, the language of St. Paul does). On the other hand, he also shows no evidence of zealous Jewish patriotism. 3) He attracted a small following of local Galileans. 4) He was crucified by the Jewish and Roman authorities in Jerusalem about AD 30. Your editing changes the meaning substantially (surely with your history/philosophy double major, you know this to be true). I would suggest that you reword the passage or I will, as in essence, you have followed the NRA policy of selective use of a ref. By this, I mean that the NRA proudly proclaim on its headquarters and in its publications, [T]he right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed, ignoring the caveat that significantly alters the meaning, A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, ...

Finally, I don't care if Jesus existed or not, although my inclination would be to "concede" that he did, but I do want this article to focus on what it should focus on: the historicity of Jesus. Personally, I think that most of the material in the gospels is myth, and I also think that Christianity should be called Paulism as it was Paul who framed the religion, not Jesus. I would gather from reading your user page that your opinions are diametrically opposed. At least I think we both know where each other stands now. •Jim62sch• 22:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not think LC's wording was that misleading. However, I don't really think that extra sentence was necessary, because all of it was really covered in the previous sentence. The main issue is that most scholars, even hesitant historians, accept a historical Jesus. I personally don't find that statement too controversial, and I believe it is more than adequately supported by cited sources. However, Phyesalis seems to disagree with our attempts to say that those few scholars who do deny a historical Jesus are in the minority. Because NPOV is all about contextualizing, and qualifying, and giving due weight, I believe this distinction between the majority and minority is important. This is not to say that article doesn't need improvement (because I feel the article can be improved), but not by making the Jesus mythers seem more dominant than they actually are. As for my own personal bias, I feel it is irrelevent, and would rather not 'out' myself (but I can also understand sharing your own personal perspective with us, and I apprecate that as well).--Andrew c 22:57, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

As a government employee (it pays the bills), and as a linguist, I am very sensitive to "word games" and selective quotes (I see my share of them). LC is not playing word games -- he appears to have too much integrity for that -- but the quotation is selective, perhaps not intentionally, but the result is the same with or without intent. If there is a chance of redundancy, change the whole paragraph to remove the redundancy. No one is going to assume a link betwen the statements, so the "hesitant" statement has no assumed caveats -- caveats that the original does have.

Let's for example, note that from my above post you could quote, "my inclination would be to "concede" that he did", and while that would be "true" (in a sense) it would be ignoring my opening clause, "I don't care if Jesus existed or not" -- it changes the meaning of what I said. •Jim62sch• 23:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Jim - How did I misrepresent the reference? Please explain your claim. (ps. the only reason I mentioned my background was so that certain editors would stop condescending me by "telling me what philosophy was", but it seems it was to no avail).

Andrew, I agree it is mostly redundant, indeed that is why I only took the one sentence which said something unique, and that was because it specifically mentioned historians, which seems especially important to some editors here. Lostcaesar 22:59, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

See above. Also, I did not say "misrepresent", I said you left out key caveats that do change the meaning of the sentence. Just rewrite the paragraph so there's no chance for redundancy, and the words "hesitant" and "concede" should present no further problems.

Yes, "historian" is important -- I'm more inclined to take the word of an objective* historian over a theologian. I'd also be interested in seeing what non-Western historians have to say on the issue. (*well, as objective as is possible for a human)

BTW: I only mention my linguistic background on my page for the same reason -- doesn't always work though. (speaking of which, why did you treat Caesar as a neuter on your talk page?) •Jim62sch• 23:35, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Well I don't think I omitted anything that changed the meaning of the quote. It says, basically, that even historians who are extremely hesitant about using the Gospels for historical information still concede that it is safe historial ground to say he existed, and a couple more things. Looks fair to me. (ps., in medieval latin, when mentioning the office rather than a specific person, caesar is N., though since this is so irregular perhaps I should make it more classical, thx). Lostcaesar 08:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, let's see if anyone else objects -- if not, we'll just leave it as is.

I have a preference for Classical Latin (I guess I'm a snob that way) -- I figured you hadn't made a mistake and had a reason for using neuter, I was just curious what it was. •Jim62sch• 13:25, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Appears I'm not alone. •Jim62sch• 01:09, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The NRA? What on earth do they have to do with anything? Either point to a significant problem with the passage or don't. Making comparisons of that sort is gratuitous and unhelpful. A significant problem is the fact that it is not presented as a quotation. It should be put in quotation marks, attributed and footnoted. BTW, some earlier comments made about Foucault and Levi Strauss are just as objectional. Neither of them ever said that history is fiction or that hisstorians had a right to make things up! Both placed great emphasis on empirical research. Paul B 23:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually Paul, for philosophical reasons Foucault did indeed think that history was fiction, and he did indeed make up fictional events and tell them in a book about history, arguing later in interviews that, basically, he knew it was a lie but since history is fiction then he should be able to make up whatever he wanted, and it doesn't matter if he says its a fact when he knows it isn't. A statement is not slander if its true. I stand by what I said. Lostcaesar 08:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I am aware of no such instance, and I have read most of Foucault's works. They are filled with often quite subtle examinations of the problem of the use of empirical data. I know of nowhere in his writings that claimed that hisory was "fiction" or defended making things up. Please provide an instance of this. Paul B 10:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

I will have to dig it up for you (the interview that is). The most famous example I can just mention is the totaly fabricated ship of fools, but I will pass more information on to you, perhaps privately as to not distract from the conversaton here. If I linger on this just message me. Lostcaesar 15:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The Ship of Fools is “totally fabricated”? What do you mean? That means conscious deceit. There are many errors in Foucault's books, which is not surprising given the range he covered. It's almost inevitable. Making mistakes just human. Not Sokal or other any other critic of "post-modernism" has ever made such claims - and of course Foucault himself rejected the concepts of post-modernism and post-structuralism. Most writers on Foucault of which I am aware would never accept such a caricature of his views. He argued that history was constituted in discourse. The concept of "fiction" as we normally understand it (with the meaning of non fact) necessarily implies the existence of fact, which invalidates therefore the very claim that is being made about non-factuality. Foucault never made such a naive philosophical error as to assert history is "just fiction" in that sense, since to do so would, by necessity, be to claim that it needn't be. Curthoys and Docker's book Is History Fiction? examines these very issues. The fact that you make the same claim about the structural anthropologist Levi-Strauss, who did detailed field-work, is even more...unfortunate. All historians are aware thatr history is a narrative, and that information is picked or ignored to serve a narrative. Foucault emphasised that the historians own perspective should be explicit because claim "objectivity" was to obscure what on wikipedia would be called "POV". In this respect perspectivism functions in the context of truth-claims (making the conditions of the construction visible) rather than propaganda. It's actually an archetypally modernist argument. When Foucault does speak of the fictive nature of history, as he does in several interviews, then it is precisely to emphasise that this is in the service of truth. By "fiction" he means something that is fictive - that is constituted or made. That is not "made up" in your sense - i.e. lying Paul B 00:43, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Analogies are gratuitous and unhelpful? On what planet? I did point to the problem, reread what I wrote. It is not represented as a quotation because it is a paraphrase -- did you read what LC wrote? •Jim62sch• 23:38, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

On this planet, when an analogy is useless and gratuious, as that one was - since it provided no meaningful information. It is very obvious that you did not bother to read what I wrote otherwise you would have noticed the following "A significant problem is the fact that it is not presented as a quotation. It should be put in quotation marks, attributed and footnoted." Paul B 10:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Realizing that neither reading nor thinking are your strong suits, I'm going to try to put this as simply as I can: IT WAS NOT A QUOTE, IT WAS A PARAPHRASE. Now, since you seem to have little to add to the discussion, and as LC and I had already agreed to disagree and to let his edit stand for the nonce, perhaps you should find some other article on which to troll. •Jim62sch• 18:14, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

One thing we could do is, we could leave the first passage, which says "Most scholars in the field of..." in the intro, and we could move this paraphrased comment, which is redundant if quoted in full, down to the section on the gospels and give it in full rather than as a crop or paraphrase. That would allow the intro to cover something mentioned later, without making one section redundant. Lostcaesar 08:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, its out of the intro, so this should make everyone happy, I suppose. Lostcaesar 09:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Questionable References

Why is this reference used so extensively in this article?

• Jo Ann H. Moran Cruz and Richard Gerberding, Medieval Worlds: An Introduction to European History Houghton Mifflin Company 2004, pp. 44-45

There are two full paragraph quotes from this book in this article, both of which I find objectionable and where I can provide sources that contradict them (from books that actually focus of the history of the Gospels). Furthermore, looking at the bio of the primary author at her university web site I see not a single reference to Gospel or Jesus related research). Furthermore, the book is about European history (300 C.E. and onward), a far cry in time and space from where/when the Gospels are supposed to have taken place.

Now can somebody justify why two major quotes in this article (there are three it total as far as I can see) come from a book that does not focus on the Gospels and is written by a professor who does not work in that field?

So in summary, two large quotes in this text come from a book that does not deal with (or does so marginally) with the Gospels or Jesus. The authors credentials do not mention any expertise in the historical or even theological research of the Gospels and Jesus. So I move to either delete these two quotes or replace them with much more appropriate sources.

PS: I came across this same problem in the Jesus article (see here). Utterly unjustifiable sources were used there as well to make very definitive statements. My post in the Jesus article also states many sources that contradict the very optimistic picture drawn out by the two quotes in these two articles. And these books are actually from tenured professors who solely work with the history of the Gospels, not historians who do not have a single article published in the pertinent field.--Roland Deschain 17:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, here is the history of that source. Some people here were mischaracterizing the historical community, and refused so accept any authority on that matter than had any hint of interest in religion or the bible, i.e. they wanted to see a non-biblical scholar, non-theologian, non-prof of religion, &c. characterize the historical communitiy. I had a history textbook near me, written by two historians and, beause it is a textbook, spun through 20 editorial boards. Originally the text was just a minor quote used to support the aready accurate characterization of the historical community. Because I was falsly accused of misrepresenting the source, I provided the full quote here. I was then falsly accused of cropping the quote, so I put virtually the whole quote in. And, lastly, it was said the material should not be in the intro, so I moved it. And that's why it is so legnthy and where it is, and why that souce was used. I will say, I am not dead set on this being in the artcile, nor have I been. But I am dead set on the reality of the historical community be accepted by my fellow editors, and this is a fair source to represent that, being a textbook, written by historians, and spun through the standard editing process (and if you know about textbooks, editorail committees write a good % of the book, making it conservatively written and in line with mainstread scholarship in the field, since textbooks are not places where contraverisial theses are advanced). Now, as I have said, I am not wholly opposed to removing the source. However, I completly contest your objections to the statements, and request that you make good on your challenge to refute the basic spirit of the quote from any respectable source the historical community. Lostcaesar 22:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

One thing at a time. My readings of both historical and theological works on the Gospels has convinced me that there is a huge debate about the history of the Gospels. The simple fact that the Bible (including the Gospels) was heavily rewritten before the advent of the printing press shows just how difficult it is to gauge what was written at the time (by second or third hand witnesses) and what was added later on as a matter or politics or theological conflict (which happened often with rather funny contradictions). The fact that these debates aren't more pronounced (ie: in textbooks) (as Daniel Dennett argues in many of his works) is the taboo against scrutinizing religion. As you seem to know a lot about this, are there sources outside the Gospels that collaborate Jesus' historicity?

Anyways, to my main point. The citation is very weak and does not justify two very very large portions of the section (see my arguments above). If such a definite statement is to be made, let's have it from a source that deals with the actual Gospels and is written by somebody who has actual credentials in the field (not from a book about Medieval Europe written by authors who do not have a single publication in the field of Gospel or even Bible research). As you so confidently say, there is such a large consensus in the historical community about the historicity of the basic (secular) facts about Jesus; there should therefore be a plethora of sources that closely mirror the above quotations.--Roland Deschain 22:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The problem, Roland, is that as per other comments above there are some editors here who have already excluded the possibility of a source written by someone with credentials in the field of New Testament or Biblical Studies. I think just reading that all will explain a good bit. The spirit of this view is stated in the intro of the article and fully referenced by scholars which include the kind you are looking for. The point of these quotes was because those were seen as "not good enough" because they were "factional" — this was supposed to be a non-factional source (and the list of "factions" was very inclusive), hence it is a textbook written by historians who specialize in the analysis of ancient texts and ancient / medieval history (and textual analysis is probably the most essential element of medieval studies) but who have no personal investment in New Testament or Biblical or Religious studies. Instead, they are quoted on (1) the nature of historical sources, and (2) the field of historical scholarship in the area. So, Roland, I understand your concerns, I do. I just want you to see why those quotes must needs have been mentioned (rather than others, which are also mentioned), per convestaion above, and why the legnthy form has appeared. I will compromise and chop out the latter quote, though the former seems soild to me. As to you first point, none of that implies anything about this historicity of Jesus, nor does it contradict either of the quotes (and there are a plethora of other quotes, already mentioned in the intro, which, as I said, were somehow thought not sufficent). Lostcaesar 23:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Small Minority

You cannot assert that a "small minority" of scholars challenge the historicity of Jesus, as this is a subtantial and growing group of (non-Christian) scholars. The fact that the majority of Christian scholars accept the historicity of Jesus is obvious and beside the point of this article, which should be NPOV at all times. For that reason I edited the above phrase to read "many" scholars (an un-biased term) rather than the strained, "small minority" reference, but the edit was reverted. Can you give me any justification for that specific wording being stringently enforced, other than your desire to preserve the POV of the article as it stands?207.216.49.234 18:41, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure we can, the real debate should be whether or not we should use that wording, not whether we can or cannot. A small minority which may or may not be growing is still a small minority. "Many" is highly ambiguous, and while "small minority" is open to interpretation as well, its more descriptive than "many". However, since I did not do the revert, i'll leave your question to the person who reverted you, and ask one of my own, can you give me any justification for "many" being more NPOV than "small minority"? Homestarmy 19:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

See consensus following discussions here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jesus#small_minority.3F. Do not revert without achieving a new consensus. ^rossnixon 00:49, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but I really don't see a "concensus" there. Therefore, since you no longer have a concensus (and it looks like you never did to begin with), it makes more sense to use the less loaded term "some" rather than the stronger terms "many" or "small minority." Can we get a concensus on that?24.84.208.246 06:40, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I already mentioned that "small minority" sounds strained - it has the air of rhetoric. Why? Because a much simpler statement (ie., "some scholars" or "many scholars") would suffice, rather than the more elaborate and pointed claim of a "small minority," a phrasing which lends extra argumentative force to the statement. It is also a more specific claim, which calls for empirical evidence (the citation provided doesn't mention a survey of academic opinion on the subject). Since this is a controversial topic, wouldn't it make sense to use the less controversial, simpler phrasing and use either "some" or "many"?207.216.49.234 02:07, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The compromise "small minority" was due to some people who believe "scholarly mythers" were so "fringe" and small in number, that they need not be mentioned at all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jesus/Archive_75#I_could_find_no_other_encyclopedias_which_denied_the_existence_of_Jesus ^rossnixon 09:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I think you need to take into account that we are talking about an issue of belief, and therefore there is a lot of strenuous objection from Christians (understandably) to the idea that their central figure of worship may be legendary or semi-legendary. The vast, vast majority of NT scholars are Christian. Does this indicate bias? Perhaps you can argue that it shouldn't, but that would be an unrealistically naive view. In fact, among secular, non-Christian scholars who study the NT, the view that Jesus was legendary or significantly legendary is not uncommon. There is no dearth of sources to argue this point of view; I could list them but I think I'm making an obvious point here. So despite that earlier "conscensus" why can't we use the neutral term "some" which even the article on Jesus uses ("Some scholars dispute the historicity of Jesus")?24.84.208.246 19:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The vast, vast majority of non-Christian New Testament scholars, etc., still believe that someone named Jesus existed. You should not conflate "the view that Jesus was entirely legendary" (which almost no actual scholars believe, and is, I think, almost a fringe belief) with "the view that Jesus was significantly legendary", which is very common, and which even many self-described Christian scholars would agree with. Could you please name some scholars in the relevant field who believe that Jesus never lived? I am unaware of any but amateurs who have written along these lines. john k 19:56, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

By semi-legendary, I am referring to the idea that there may have been some seed to the legend of Jesus, but that it would be extremely different from the Jesus concept we hold today (even excluding miracles, etc.) For instance, if the philosophy of the NT were part of a broad revolutionary movement among an oppressed people (the Jews), who hoped and prayed for their Messiah to save them, it is possible that decades later this movement (which perhaps had many followers and MANY pseudo-Messiahs) became personified by one legendary figure, namely "Jesus". Imagine if the 1960s came to be personified by a man named "Hippy" who preached love and tolerance (I'm only sort-of joking). As for your call to name scholars who believe that Jesus never existed, G.A. Wells is one that I know of - he argues that at the time of Paul's writings, Paul believed Jesus to have existed a century or more before, and wrote of him in the vague sense that he does for that reason. Paul's writings then became the seed for the further growth of more specificity.24.84.208.246 08:23, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

And I'd like to echo User:Slrubenstein by saying that many scholars bracket their religious beleifs. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 20:32, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

The phrase "small minority" was carried over from the main Jesus article last February. There was a LONG debate over this phrasing--see Talk:Jesus/2nd Paragraph Debate and its 9 (!) archives. I was never really comfortable with a vague ordinal measurement (it originally read "minority"), but then again, I'm only one editor. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 20:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

PS: See also Talk:Jesus/Archive 27 through Talk:Jesus/Archive 36 inclusive.Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 20:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

After almost a full year of this debate, I have still to see a reference to a single historian or Biblical scholar who rejects the existence of Jesus entirely. What we have seen are books by philosophers, professors of German literature and journalists. If there are any I've missed, perhaps someone can cite one -- author, title, publisher, place, date and page. Until then, I will not dignify such arguments. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 12:02, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Well if you disagreed with the party line that Jesus existed, you would be unlikely to devote years of your life to studying the accepted tenets of that belief in a field of academia which would be outright hostile to your (dis)beliefs, wouldn't you? I don't think it matters that G.A. Wells is not a theologian -- it almost goes without saying that he wouldn't be, given his stance on the issue...24.84.208.246 19:51, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

What I would expect is that the person actually be familiar with what constitutes evidence in the field of history and/or Biblical studies, has proven his scholarly reliability by producing work accepted by the academic community of those disciplines. In Wikipedia, we're looking for reliable and verifiable sources. One of the criteria is that a person be an expert in the field. On the question of the biological existence of Jesus of Nazareth, this means we favor credentialed historians and Biblical scholars, some of whom are neither Christians nor religious at all. Using this standard, for example, Voltaire does not count as support for the existence of Jesus, even though he advocated it, because he was not a historian.

What this does mean is that we are not required to give the position any space at all. Because it is a subject of interest to some, however, it is good to show this position exists but characterize the level and kind of support it enjoys. We do this. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 14:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually, many famous theologians wern't Christian at all, many were downright hostile. Theologians, if you'll look at the article, are defined with the line "Theologians attempt to use rational analysis and argument to discuss, interpret, and teach on any of a myriad of religious topics.". As you might imagine, not all Theologians were therefore Christian, simply put, the definition of Theologian does not require adherance to the faith in question. Homestarmy 19:56, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

"Actually, many famous theologians wern't Christian at all, many were downright hostile." ...Well if that's the case, that sort of invalidates what many of you have been arguing anyway. That disbelief in the existence of an actual historical Jesus is some wacky fringe belief with no legitimate support.207.216.49.234 08:53, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Not at all, - why would it? Start nameing some scholars, and especially historians, that think Jesus never existed, or let the matter be. Lostcaesar 09:43, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thomas L Thompson [2] [3]. I've changed "minority" to "number" as it reads better and is factually correct. Sophia 09:59, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

That's 1 professor of theology. You need more, and still no historians. Lostcaesar 10:02, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Sophia! Great to see you here. Do you have a quote, title, and page number for Thompson supporting the non-existence hypothesis? I recall going through his book finding it impossible to say what he believed. Mostly what he does is chronicle the history of the question. It is very easy to mistake his summary of what others say for his own assessment.

Even if it turns out to be accurate that he supports the theory, that still does not change our characterization that it is a small minority of scholars that support the position, IMHO. --CTSWyneken^(talk) 14:09, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:thompson: Thompson specializes in the OT, so I'm not sure how much work he has done on the NT. I do know that he has been idenified with the Copenhagen school, we might check some of their other members. Cf Talk:Jesus/Cited_Authors_Bios#Thomas_L._Thompson for a list of names and a link to Thompson's faculty webpage. Arch O. La ^{Grigory Deepdelver} 22:42, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Hysterical

You do not question any text that were found in ancient Rome or Egypt.

You do not question a textbook written by a tired, frustrated Christian-hating pseudo-scientist that has been proven mathematically impossible (> 10⁵⁰)

You do not question an ex vice-president with a political agenda that sells books and movie tickets.

But you do question the historical accuracy of a birth that secularists had no reason to lie about.

Who's the pseudo-scientist and ex vice-president....? Homestarmy 22:29, 19 December 2006 (UTC)