Talk:Historicity of Jesus/Archive 23

With few exceptions

The lead for this article states: "With few exceptions (such as Robert M. Price), scholars in the fields of biblical studies and history agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher..."
The citation for this links to various authors in the field. My question is this: do these citations support the fact that Jesus was a historical figure, or do they themselves make the assertions that, with few exceptions, scholars in the field agree that Jesus was a historical figure?
I ask this because if it is the former, then stating "With few exceptions" would be synthesis. What would not be synthesis for these citations (if they are of the former category) would be a statement such as "Several scholars in the field of biblical studies" or perhaps even "Many scholars", and leaving out the "With few exceptions" assertion. WDavis1911 (talk) 14:22, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The passage clearly has NPOV issues. But to be fair a lot of the problem is the literature itself. By WP:RS standards much of it is a mess regardless of it being pro, con, or somewhere between the two. "J. Reuben Clark: Selected Papers on Americanism and National Affairs‎" 1987 (University of California and Brigham Young University) pg 129 is one of the few potential sources that might clear up what falls into what category but no one seems to be able to get a hold of a copy.--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Request Removing Last Line In Jesus Myth Section

The following line should be removed;

"Theologian James Dunn describes the mythical Jesus theory as a 'thoroughly dead thesis'."

This is bias and incorrectly gives the impression that the debate over the historicity of Jesus is over. BoyintheMachine (talk) 20:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

It is, at least among historians. No historians debate it in journals, books, or anywhere else.Roy Brumback (talk) 07:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but that is wrong. Richard Carrier has a PHD in Ancient History and holds that Jesus didn't exist.--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Not only is that statement wrong,l but it is horribly biased and, frankly, ignorant. Wikipedia does not allow blatant POV pushing like that. Roy may want to believe no historians believe in it, but that's solely because he refuses to believe it. DreamGuy (talk) 21:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

We have a wikipedia page for Richard Carrier that states:" "Though originally skeptical of the notion, and subsequently more agnostic, since 2005 he has considered it "very likely" the historical Jesus didn't exist,[19] but that this still "remains only a hypothesis" in need of peer review": His personal views do not matter, until he presents a developed argument that is subject to peer review, its just speculation on his part. Hardyplants (talk) 20:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The abstract for Fischer, Roland (1994) "On The Story-Telling Imperative That We Have In Mind" Anthropology of Consciousness. Dec 1994, Vol. 5, No. 4: 16 states "There is not a shred of evidence that a historical character Jesus lived, to give an example, and Christianity is based on narrative fiction of high literary and cathartic quality. On the other hand Christianity is concerned with the narration of things that actually take place in human life." and in the main body there is this: "It is not possible to compare the above with what we have, namely, that there is not a shred of evidence that a historical character Jesus lived." Anthropology of Consciousness is peer reviewed, it is published by American Anthropological Association and dovetails into Drews' comments in Die Christusmythe about a "Christian consciousness" or "Christian municipality consciousness" depending on the translation you use.--BruceGrubb (talk) 20:51, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Personally, and some might consider me biased, I would have to say that having one peer-reviewed publication assert something does not necessaarily mean that something is not a "dead issue". I think I recently saw a peer-reviewed document saying that "Simon", "Peter", and "Cephas" (all names used to refer to Saint Peter) were, in fact, all separate people. I sincerely doubt anyone other than, maybe, the author of the article in question really hold open much of a chance of that being accurate. It seems to me that the James Dunn in question is notable and reliable enough for such statements from him to be included, although I could see adding something to the effect of his assertion not being an opinion shared by everyone. John Carter (talk) 21:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, if it were only that single source, you'd have a point, but lots more people than that believe in the Jesus myth hypothesis, and the Christian apologists who want it to go away just decide anyone who believes it must not be a real historian. DreamGuy (talk) 21:37, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The "real historians" who believe in this hypothesis are people like Robert M. Price, who teaches at an unaccredited theological seminary, and Richard Carrier, who holds no academic position. The Fischer article that BruceGrubb cites above--which can be read by anyone with Anthrosource access here doesn't argue that Jesus was non-historical, and in fact on p. 17 of the article Fischer endorses Géza Vermes' portrait of the historical Jesus: "Jesus, the Galilean Jew, was independent-minded, unscholarly (compared with Jerusalem Pharisees), "charismatic", a hasid, exorcist, healer, popular teacher--in short, a remarkable and in many ways admirable representative of a known type of first-century Judaism." So this doesn't count as a peer-reviewed publication endorsing the Jesus myth theory. We have, however, a boatload of quotes from academics saying, quite explicitly, that this is a dead issue in scholarship. Let's take their word for it. (And let's stop the "they're Christians so they're biased" stuff--the whole point of a Wikipedia article is to present the mainstream view, and the mainstream view is that the myth thesis is a dead letter.) --Akhilleus (talk) 00:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

And the one individual I mentioned above, Michael Grant (author), wasn't even necessarily a Christian, so far as I can tell. Nothing I read in his books indicated he was, anyway. John Carter (talk) 00:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

"The "real historians" who believe in this hypothesis are people like Robert M. Price, who teaches at an unaccredited theological seminary, and Richard Carrier, who holds no academic position" (Akhilleus) And they are mentioned BY NAME in the article. I have no idea what more people can expect. I think mentioning every single Jesus myth scholar by name already violates WP:UNDUE. Carlo (talk) 01:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Their qualifications would be more important than what they are currently doing, What are their qualifications? ^rossnixon 02:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

What they're currently doing is part of their qualifications. If someone holds a named chair at a university, they're obviously in a better position to speak about what scholarship is concerned about than someone who got a Ph.D. and then started managing a hotel. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Price appears to have PhD's in theology and religion from Drew University. Carrier apparently has a PhD in ancient history from Columbia. But as Akhilleus says, their current jobs certainly form part of their credentials. Compare their credentials to Dunn (named chair at Durham), Vermes (professor at Oxford), Sanders (endowed chair at Duke), Brown (professor at Union Theological Seminary i.e. Columbia), or even Crossan (professor at DePaul) and Fredriksen (professor at BU). I'm sure you can find 2 PhD's to support just about any theory besides the absolute fringiest. john k (talk) 03:07, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

If anything, both names could likely be removed from the article and replaced with a link to The God Who Wasn't There, which I think probably would more easily meet RS standards than either of them individually. John Carter (talk) 13:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, can we focus the conversation some. Is anyone proposing something? Should we change the article based on these discussions? It doesn't seem like anyone has provided any tangible evidence contrary to how we currently present the POV weight issues. The historicity of Jesus seems to be the broad, mainstream position. Some editors here may think that is wrong or illogical personally, and they may even have good arguments for that, but that doesn't change the weight of our cited sources, right? saying "lots more people than that believe in the Jesus myth hypothesis" isn't helpful without examples and cited sources. And I can't help but draw analogies to the evolution/ID pseudo-debate. Intelligent Design Creationists point to a small handful of peer reviewed papers, and a list of doctors who question evolution and claim there is still a debate over evolution. And here, we have even less people involved with the mythist position. I'm not sure what the mythists want here. So please, lets try not debate or talk about the issue broadly, but instead focus on proposals to change the article, and discussing what people may find problematic with the current state of the article. -Andrew c ^[talk] 16:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

The other thing is that there IS a Jesus Myth ARTICLE - a whole separate article - for that particular aspect of the Historicity of Jesus. It reminds me a bit of the Shakespeare Authorship Question, which really ISN'T a question among Shakespeare scholars. But those for whom it is a pet theory refuse to accept that, and want the article of William Shakespeare to give lots of space to casting doubt on Shakespeare's authorship question, although it's not really a serious question among scholars. So there's a separate article for the Shakespeare Authorship question, and that's where that material goes and belongs - not in an article about the mainstream subject. And anti-Stratfordians are a lot more common than Jesus Mythists. Carlo (talk) 22:33, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually the article was changed to Christ myth theory whose very WP:RS definition is a total train wreck. Take a look at Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard/Archive_7#Christ_Myth_Theory_definition that tried to get something out of the mess and did a spectacular fail. As I have said before it is one thing to say the story of Washington and the Cherry Tree, Paul Reveres' ride via Irving, or Columbus and the flat earth (also via Irving) is a myth (all parallel examples of what Bromiley says how Christ Myth theorists regard the story of Jesus in the Gospels) but it something else to say those people never existed. There are people who say Jesus did exist but the Gospel accounts tell us nothing about that man and some of them are called "Christ myth theorists" by the amateur pro historical Jesus brigade like Holding.

Throw in people like Bishop Irenaeus who c180 CE was claiming ("The thirty aeons are not typified by the fact that Christ was baptized in his thirtieth year: he did not suffer in the twelfth month after his baptism, but was more than fifty years old when he died" and saying "the Gospel and all the elders testify" to this and you see the problem. By saying Jesus was over 50 years old makes it clear that Bishop Irenaeus was NOT holding to the 4 BCE to 36 CE timeframe we do. Worse Irenaeus cites John 8:56-57 to show Jesus was a minimum of 45 years old stating "Now, such language is fittingly applied to one who has already passed the age of forty, without having as yet reached his fiftieth year, yet is not far from this latter period. But to one who is only thirty years old it would unquestionably be said, "You are not yet forty years old."" Clearly something has gone haywire. While we can't interpret Irenaeus's writing we should note the fact he held to the idea Jesus was over 50 when he died and let the reader sort it out.--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

So the specific proposal you are making is that we include information about Irenaeus in the "Early Church fathers" section? I could live with that, though, to avoid original research (synthesis of primary sources), it'd be nice if we could cite some historians who have discussed Irenaeus in the context of Jesus' historicity. -Andrew c ^[talk] 16:29, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this passage has attracted a great deal of scholarly attention, but somehow I doubt BruceGrubb's interpretation is the standard one, at least if this webpage is any guide. However, this seems to be something that is debated in the world of internet exegesis, rather than scholarly literature. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:16, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

You have got to love it when Akhilleus pulls something out of Holding's website and love it even more when a little research shows "Phantaz Sunlyk" to be totally lacking in logic and what the scholars say. First off Irenaeus states as bluntly as possible the John 8:56-57 passage shows a 45 year old Jesus, minimum. Second and worse for Sunlyk Robert McQueen Grant Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity, The University of Chicago points out "Since, Irenaeus explicitly dated the birth of Jesus around the forty-first year of Augustus, he cannot have had in mind the real beginning of that emperor's reign in January 27 BC, but must have back dated it to the death of Julius Caesar in 44." while a little later showing that Irenaeus clearly mean 49 years old at minimum. Finally, RM Grant states that Irenaeus set the death of Jesus during the reign of Claudius (41-54) in Irenaeus' Demonstration (Grant, Robert McQueen (1998) Irenaeus of Lyons Routledge pg 33). On a side note this book was reviewed in Donovan, Mary Ann. (1998) "Irenaeus of Lyons (review)" Journal of Early Christian Studies - Volume 6, Number 4, pp. 674-675 DOI: 10.1353/earl.1998.0062.

So were we have a Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity of University of Chicago demonstrated that Irenaeus had Jesus a minimum of 49 years old and dying well past the required 36 CE date by a minimum of six years! Wonderful. Lends support to Wells' Gospel Jesus is a composite character formed out of preexisting mythical Paul Jesus and a historical Jesus who died much later than the Gospel account say. I have to thank Akhilleus for posting this as it inspired me to go and find a true scholar who actually knew what he was talking about.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

It's good that you found these passages from Grant, but you haven't made it clear whether this is the consensus interpretation of Irenaeus or not. Other interpretations are possible. Furthermore, your conclusion that this supports Wells' view is your own, and not Grant's. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

So how is Irenaeus's statement, right or wrong, even remotely relevant to whether there is currently any substantive degree of credit for the belief that Jesus did not exist? I cannot see how any of the above comment is even remotely relevant to the apparent subject of this thread, and would urge all parties to stick to the point. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 22:47, 20 August 2009 (UTC)'

The passage is relevent because it shows how easily they were messing wth history as early as 180 CE. RM Grant's "Jesus After the Gospels: The Christ of the Second Century" pg 107 actually tells us where in Demonstration (74) to find this. The actual passage is "For Herod the king of the Jews and Pontius Pilate, the governor of Claudius Caesar, came together and condemned Him to be crucified." All good translations note that this is a historical impossibility and the more honest ones say this is so Jesus can be a minimum of 45 years old when he is crucified and so agree with the claim made in Against Heresies Book 2. Bishop Irenaeus has just given the historical equivalent of a four sided triangle with this statement. First the "King of the Jews" title here was not given to Herod Antipas but to his nephew Herod Agrippa I. Second, Herod Agrippa I got his title from from Caligula who came to power in 37 CE. Finally, it is thought Pontius Pilate committed suicide before Claudius Caesar came to power in 42 CE. So we have either the wrong title or wrong Herod entirely with a dead man as governor or the wrong Caesar.

Again this is not a matter that Jesus didn't exist but that the Gospel Jesus didn't exist any more than Irving's Paul Revere or Columbus existed; this only a smoke screen by those trying to strawman the actual arguement. Richard Dawkins said it best in The God Delusion pg 97: "It is even possible to mount a serious, though not widely supported, historical case that Jesus never lived at all. [...] Although Jesus probably existed, reputable biblical scholars do not in general regard the New Testaments (and obviously not the Old Testament) as a reliable record of what actually happened in history..." and a little further on the same page he states "The only difference between the Da Vinci Code and the gospel is that the gospels are ancient fiction while The Da Vinci Code is modern fiction." That someone so close (180 CE) to the supposed events has his historical fact this badly screwed up indicates something is wrong.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

This whole conversation is surreal. Bruce Grubb comes up with an unreadable stream of lengthy original interpretation . These comments have no connection to anything relating to the article, and generally don't make a great deal of sense all around. Then somebody asks him what he's saying, and what it has to do with the article. He replies with another stream of incomprehensible gibberish. Virtually everything BruceGrubb is saying here is OR. Can we just ignore him? john k (talk) 00:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia has not yet implemented kill files, sadly. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

But we do have policies and guidelines regarding disruptive and tendentious editing, as per WP:DE and WP:TE, and I wonder whether the time may have come to take recourse to them? John Carter (talk) 16:06, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

My interpretation is not "original" but is rather a saner reading what Joseph Wheless presented back in 1930. While he did view nearly everything as "evidence" of Jesus being a forgery he does provided more references to back up his statements that most later authors either pro or fictional do. Thankfully Wikipedia doesn't have kill file that would be used just because some people don't like the message and claim it is unreadable. RM Grant meets WP:RS guidelines and shows Irenaeus was talking about a 49 year old Jesus living till the time of Claudius Caesar way outside the accepted timeline. DEAL WITH IT.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

What is redactive critique?

The article mentions:

Many of these scholars rely on a redactive critique of the hypothetical Q Gospel

What does redactive critique mean. I've looked for an answer without success. The word redactive is not in the dictionaries that I looked up. Clearly the article needs to balance being precise with being easy to understand as possible. Obviously technical terminology can be used, but only when necessary. Perhaps we could have a new page in wikipedia explaining what redactive critique means. An alternative would be just to use some other phrase more widely understood, or at least with words that appear in standard dictionaries.
Pnelnik (talk) 17:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

would a simple wikilink to Redaction criticism suffice?-Andrew c ^[talk] 03:00, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The sentence should still be rephrased so a reader has some idea of what is meant by a redactive critique without reading another article. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Andrew C, that link is very helpful. I guess I missed it because I did some text searches for redactive critique, rather than redaction criticism.Pnelnik (talk) 23:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed mergers

There are many articles on Jesus, as can be seen at Jesus and History. Much of the content overlaps. Would it not be a good idea to merge these sites, with brief and focused fork articles to expand on certain points without repeating all the detail over again? Wdford (talk) 10:32, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that merging is needed to deal with what has become a ridiculous situation the question is what get merged into what?--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:24, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

At present there appears to be at least the following list of existing articles with bearing on the topic: • Christ • Christology • Resurrection of Jesus • Second Coming • Messianic Judaism • Virgin birth of Jesus • Jesus in Islam • Depiction of Jesus • Religious perspectives on Jesus • Christian views of Jesus • Historicity of Jesus • Relics attributed to Jesus • Judaism's view of Jesus • Historical Jesus • Names and titles of Jesus in the New Testament • Chronology of Jesus • Cultural and historical background of Jesus • Miracles attributed to Jesus • Jesus • New Testament view on Jesus' life • Aramaic of Jesus • Quest for the historical Jesus • Genealogy of Jesus • Christ myth theory • Jesus Christ in comparative mythology • Race of Jesus • Parables of Jesus • Sexuality of Jesus • Ministry of Jesus • Cultural depictions of Jesus • Scholastic Lutheran Christology • Active obedience of Christ • Jesus in Scientology • Belief in Jesus • Crucifixion of Jesus

I would suggest, as a start point, that the article called Jesus be restructured as a framework only - almost as an index - with about one sentence per section and then a link to the existing article which discusses that aspect in depth. If the Jesus article contains info which does not exist in another article already, that portion of the content can be transferred and added to a relevant existing article.

Where more than one existing article overlaps, then those two can be merged and edited as a separate project.

I see a lot of overlap between articles such as Historicity of Jesus and Quest for the historical Jesus and Historical Jesus, just for example. We would need to agree what each article is to be about, and then prune out anything which is not strictly relevant, or which is already explained elsewhere, with appropriate links.

Does anybody have an alternative suggestion on how to proceed? Wdford (talk) 19:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Forget about pruning main Jesus article down to simple bullet points and links. That will never fly. You might try merging some of the rest, but I guarantee most will just be back later as people keep adding info and theories on Jesus all the time and will be for as long as Wikipedia exists, and articles can really only be so long, so we're going to have a lot of articles about Jesus, even if we don't need all the ones you listed as separate articles.Roy Brumback (talk) 20:43, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually Brumback what you are talking about could fall under WP:CFORK. Editors should only create articles for which there is some WP:RS material to support its existence. The article bloat on Jesus has gotten insane and needs a serious trimming.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:34, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no problems with the content material, or with having lots of content forks - I fully agree we can't merge everything into a single article. The problem as I see it is that the material is being duplicated across numerous articles, and what I am proposing is that all content must be mentioned once only, and everything that gets added thereafter must be added only in one place. The articles are hard to read, because almost every section has links and redirects to multiple other sections and articles, and the material is not always consistent in its duplication either. Perhaps the start point should be to clean up the subsidiary articles first? Wdford (talk) 10:18, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh I agree there is far too much to merge into one article but I agree with inconstancy. With some articles, like Christ myth theory, part of the problem is due to the nature and quality of the source material. For example, Volney did NOT say there wasn't a historical Jesus as I pointed out above but rather confused memories of him were if you will "plugged-into" an already existing mythology. John Remsburg's The Christ effectively says the same thing and like Wells would 100 years later say there are two Jesuses htough he had very different views on their nature and relationship to each other: "Jesus of Nazareth, the Jesus of humanity, the pathetic story of whose humble life and tragic death has awakened the sympathies of millions, is a possible character and may have existed; but the Jesus of Bethlehem, the Christ of Christianity, is an impossible character and does not exist." Remsburg gives what is likely the simplest explanation of the reason for the whole issue: "While all Freethinkers are agreed that the Christ of the New Testament is a myth they are not, as we have seen, and perhaps never will be, fully agreed as to the nature of this myth. Some believe that he is a historical myth; others that he is a pure myth. Some believe that Jesus, a real person, was the germ of this Christ whom subsequent generations gradually evolved; others contend that the man Jesus, as well as the Christ, is wholly a creation of the human imagination."--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Stein?

I really don't think "The Jesus of History: A Reply to Josh McDowell" is a reliable source, and think we can do a lot better. Personally, I think Josh McDowell is a hack and not a scholar and think he clearly should only be cited in matter of what fringy apologists think. So a physiology PhD who is writing a reply to McDowell in some obscure, fringy skeptics magazine seems one step below citing McDowell (which I would never consider for this article). The literature on this subject is so broad, I'm sure we can find dozens and dozens of actual biblical scholars to cite before we have to consider citing Stein on this matter (who is writing outside of his field of study in a vanity/boutique publication). In fact, I feel the only reason Stein was cited was a POV push to have the words "is of no use in determining if Jesus was a historical person" in the article. It plays into the mythist view. Compare to Ehrman who says "scholars generally recognize that these references are of little use for reconstruction the life of the historical Jesus" and "These references, as I've said, come hundreds of years after Jesus' life and appear to represent a Jewish response to the Christian claims about Jesus. They do not, that is, appear to provide historically reliable information about what Jesus said, did, and experiences." (Jesus 1999) or Meier "Jewish literature of the early Christian period offers no independent source for inquiry into the historical Jesus" (A Marginal Jew 1991). Therefore, I see no reason what-so-ever to sight a non-scholar with Stein to push the mythist view. If there is a particular point that we feel is missing from the Talmud section, I'm sure we can add it sourced to a real scholar (as long as that point isn't there to push the fringy mythist POV). Accordingly, I've removed Stein. -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

What do others think about citing someone from the 50's for the seemingly sole purpose of getting a nod to the mythist view? is of no use in determining if Jesus was a historical person. seems a bit over the top. What is the context of Guignebert's statement? Is he just saying the Jewish and pagan sources are completely useless, or is he actually arguing that Jesus wasn't a historical person? Taken out of context, it implies a clear message of non-history. I'm not sure this is appropriate. -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Bart Ehrman's quotations cited above, coming from someone very much writing in his field of strength, would be much more useful. I too agree that the Stein quote seems to be implying more than it is in fact saying, and that it could reasonably be considered problematic on that basis. John Carter (talk) 15:33, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

The point of Stein and Guignebert statements were to show that the Talmud is not very useful because of its date range and non effort to be historial in the first place. Even JDG Dunn admits Talmud is not very useful in determining if there was a historical Jesus.--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

So the point was to push a POV? Carlo (talk) 19:04, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Where did that non sequitur come from? Trying to use the Talmud as evidence of Jesus without pointing out the problems it has is POV pushing so how does pointing out those issues push a POV? If anything it put s the article on a more NPOV tack.--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Saying the Talmud is problematic is excellent. Saying it throws doubts on the historical Jesus, or phrasing it in a manner to suggest that the problems in the Talmud leads to questioning the existence of Jesus altogether is a leap. Phrases like "if there was a historical Jesus", "no use in determining if Jesus was a historical person", and "nor even any assurance that he ever lived" are seemingly in place to re-enforce doubt regarding the Historical Jesus. However, mainstream contemporary scholars (some of which I cited and quoted above), don't follow the line of reason. It would be one thing if the Talmud had material saying "Jesus never existed", but even the Talmud accepts claims of a historical Jesus (even though it tried to discredit some of the claims by calling him a bastard and a sorcerer). We just need to make sure the two issues are not mixed. The lack of historical accuracy of the Talmud in regards to the historical Jesus (something most can agree on, though not all) vs. using the Talmud to disprove Jesus altogether. -Andrew c ^[talk] 16:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

That is reading the quotes with a POV already in mind. Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz pointed out in 2003 the same thing Mead did in his 1903 Did Jesus Live 100 B.C.?: the various time markers present for Jesus (Yeshu) point to a person c100 BCE far too early to be the Jesus of the Gospels. Even Robert E. Van Voorst in Jesus outside the New Testament: an introduction to the ancient evidence tries to tap dance around this passage in an effort to claim it refers to the historical Jesus: "When King Jannaeus (d. 76 BCE) was killing our rabbis, Rabbi Joshua ben Perahiah and Jesus escaped to Alexandria, Egypt." No matter how you try to hand wave it this Jesus cannot be the Jesus of the Gospels though Van Voorst does make an effort delving into nonsense like code names and the like. The issue of this Jesus expressly stated as being contemporary with a man who died some 72 years before the Gospel Jesus was even born doesn't slow Van Voorst down in the anachronistic insanity that follows. Gil Student goes over the problems with people being refereed by only their first name and examines all the Talmud passages claimed to refer to Jesus and finds problems with all of them. Even a non scholar can see anyone claiming that Yeshu refers to the Jesus of the Gospels is grasping at straws.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Wait, are you saying we need to add material to the article which argues that the Talmud does not reference Jesus at all (outside of what we have not "in a few rare instances likely or possibly refers to Jesus")? Excuse me if that is presumptuous, I'm just trying to see if any of the above can be related back to the article. -Andrew c ^[talk] 00:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

(remove indent)Tell me how this conflicts with Gordon Stein's statement of "authorities are agreed that most of this Talmudic material derives from the period from 200 to 500 A.D., and represents Jewish attempts to deal with the growing strength of Christianity. It makes no attempt to be historically accurate and, in fact, is of no use in determining if Jesus was a historical person." If anything, Stein is being generous in saying this Jesus has any relationship to the Gospel Jesus as the Talmud Jesus is in the wrong century and the events described at best only tangentially match those of the Gospel Jesus as accounted in Matthew. Stein could have just as easily argued this was a record of some other Jesus that the Christians latched on to as "proof" the Gospel Jesus existed but he took a more middle ground. So far all I have seen is a bunch of POV pushing and nothing why we are keeping the Talmud but excluding Irenaeus. Instead of excluding these point why not rework them?--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe Stein meets WP:RS, and I think there are dozens of other actual scholars we should cite before even considering Stein. That was the point of this whole thread. When it comes to Stein, I don't think there is anything to rework, because I strongly feel he does not belong anywhere in this article. I'm sure we can find actual scholars making similar general points. What specifically do you think the article is currently lacking in regards to the Talmud? I think Irenaeus was discussed in another thread, and I don't see why it should be brought up here, as I think the issues are independent from each other (so excuse me if I don't comment on that part of your reply above ;) I'm just trying to pinpoint who these discussions will lead to improving the article. -Andrew c ^[talk] 04:46, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

At least Gordon Stein tells us why the Talmud has problems which is far more than Charles Guignebert does in the quote we have. Given how common the name Jesus was in that time the Talmud Jesus could just as easily be an entirely different person that just happened to have the same name as the first century teacher.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Irenaeus

The new text on Irenaeus has incorrect references: I would correct them, except this addition is off topic and does not belong. Here is the source you want [1] which does not have anything to do with the historicity of Jesus but does say a lot about Irenaeus's mode of argumentation, note the source calls it an "unconvincing analogy". Hardyplants (talk) 05:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

FORMAT

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

Objectivity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, he is simply saying he isn't an expert in the subject. I'm not sure how much of a myther Dawkins is anyway. Here [2] is an article of his with him arguing Jesus would be an atheist today (snicker), and he seems to implicitly accept him as historical, but even if he's a total myther, so what? I believe Voltaire was partially a myther, but we don't cite him, any more than we cite say Isaac Newton or Einstein, who were not Jesus mythers, or any other non historian or bible scholar. Theologians are cited, but only when asserting what historians think, not what theologians think.Roy Brumback (talk) 01:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Theologian Vs. Historian

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

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

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

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

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

Your only understand of the subject comes from a short wikipedia article on him? Thats rich indeed. Here are two links to look at: [3] and [4] Hardyplants (talk) 09:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

If you don't believe the cites we have, will you believe it from a professionally composed encyclopedia [5] Roy Brumback (talk) 05:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pauline Epistles: Jesus' brother

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is nonsense, if that is what the article says, then I would dismiss it at as clueless. Read Galatians chapter two [7] to find out why that kite can't fly. 08:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

The Irenaeus issue

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Few, numbers and comparison

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deleting my contribution

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

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

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

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

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