Talk:Historicity of Jesus/Archive 28

Archive 25

Archive 26

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

→

Archive 35

Merger--Christ Myth Theory and Historicity of Jesus

During the discussions on merger, some things are becoming clear to me.

I have become convinced that the hatnote on the Historical Jesus article accurately identifies the present Historicity of Jesus article.

This article is about Jesus, 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.

The second sentence of this hatnote accurately identifies this article. Actually, I was searching for an article on “Existence of Jesus”, and after passing through several hoops, it was this hatnote which led me to this article.

So, it appears to me that the present title of the article is somewhat off the mark.

Secondly, most scholars appear to engage in dissecting the life and times of Jesus, his sayings, actions, etc. but do not engage in debating the question of “Existence of Jesus”. Most of them appear to be avoiding a discussion on this issue by giving scathing, contemptuous reasons as exemplified below----

the Bishop Of Durham, N.T. Wright, compared it to a professional astronomer having to debate whether the moon is made of cheese.

. We all know about this and other similar statements.

Since the majority of scholars avoid a discussion on this debate, it may be that this whole article is fringe, and that the Christ Myth Theory and Historicity of Jesus are merely two parts of the same fringe debate.

As such, I want to propose a merger of these two articles.

The new, consolidated article would have all the material of these two articles, and we can continue to develop it from there. It would be a completely fringe place where fringe interested persons would come to get a view on this debate. We would take up the question of “Existence of Jesus”, and leave it as a question till the end.

Opinions / suggestions / criticisms? - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Civilizededucation (talk • contribs) 16:54, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I can agree to this - its as good a start point as any. I would suggest that the current CMT article is excessively long, and maybe we don't need a separate paragraph on every individual who ever commented on the subject. Many of these sources already have articles of their own, and the rest should be mentioned in summary only with references for the reader who wants to know the details on an author by author basis. Wdford (talk) 22:21, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I think I agree to this, though I'm not sure in which direction the merge is being proposed. I wouldn't mind seeing an article called Existence of Jesus, rather than "historicity," and deal with all the doubts and claims there. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:32, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I support the idea of a merger, in general, but I urge that the Quest for the historical Jesus be considered at the same time. I think that material from CMT, Historicity of Jesus, and Quest for the historical Jesus could all be merged and reorganized into two articles - a revamped Historical Jesus article that restricts itself for the most part to actual academic historians, addresses methodological/historiographic issues and then provides different versions of the reconstructed historical Jesus (I would put stuff on the Jesus Seminar and maybe even Price here), and an Existence of Jesus article that would include debates over the status of certain theological or specifically and explicitly Christian claims, or that are furthering claims that are explicitly presented as "atheist" or "secular humanist" views. I suspect that there may be some material left over from this process. Anything that is simply presenting a Christian view should go into Christology or Monarchism. I would like it if we could keep it an open question, as to whether or not it makes sense to have one article on debates during and in the wake of the Enlightenment versus 20th century debates - I am not urging this approach, just raising it as a possibility I ask people to keep in their minds while doing any merger. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:57, 1 September 2010 (UTC).

I couldn't support a split that amounted to a POV fork by saying certain kinds of sources are allowed in one, but not the other. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:02, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

I do not view this as the kind of POV fork that ought to be forbidden. POV forks are bad because they provide ways for people to present views in one article that had been rejected by people working on another article as silly. And by putting one set of views in one article, and another set of views in another, people can read either article (mis) believing that the views in that article are the only ones.

That POV fork is bad and I oppose it. But this is not what I meant to suggest. I meant to suggest (1) content forks, because I am proposing different articles (two of which you already agreed to) on different topics. (2) each article I propose includes multiple and opposing views - you cannot call this a POV fork.

Slim, you already agreed to two articles, one on the historical Jesus and one on the existence of Jesus and I am just agreeing with you. The only thing new I added to the mix is, that you have to consider the article on the Quest for the Historical Jesus in this merge/resplit process. Why would you object to that? That is m,y only real proposal.

The fact is, when devout Christians and atheists debate the existence of God, they are substantively engaged in a different conversation than when historians discuss what rules to apply to the study of historical sources on Jesus. Theological debate is not the same thing as a historical debate. Putting them in diferent articles is not a POV fork. Tell me, is the fact that we have an Evolution article and a Creationism article a POV fork? Are you opposed to it? These are two popular and important articles; I have never heard you object to them. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I would just have one article, not two, that covers the debate about his existence. I'm not sure how debates about God fit in, but I would have one article on whether Jesus existed, arguments for and against. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Civilizededucation that historicity of Jesus has a misleading title and should either be renamed, or the content should be moved elsewhere. (Another thing to consider: if this article simply disappeared, would there be a big problem? The body of the article is concerned with ancient sources that discuss Jesus, and each one of them is discussed in its own article and in others.)

I don't think I agree with the suggestion of creating an existence of Jesus article. Aside from simply being a title equivalent to historicity of Jesus, the only reason there's a "debate" about Jesus' existence (not properly characterized as a "debate" IMO) is because of people espousing the Christ myth theory. The best title for an article about that subject is Christ myth theory or Jesus myth theory (actually, I thought the article was going to be moved to the latter title, but for some reason that hasn't happened...) --Akhilleus (talk) 02:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I would agree that we should merge all three of historicity, CMT and quest. I also think we should postpone debates about forking until after we have done the merger and deleted the overlap. Once we have specific content on the table, the debate on the need or otherwise for daughter articles will be easier and less abstract. This is merely the first step of many, so we don't need to finalise the argument about future proliferation before we begin to correct the current proliferation. All material relating to religion should be placed in the various existing articles that deal with those religions, and can be dealt with here in one line with a blue-link to the article in question. As a title for the article, I would suggest we use "Historicity of Jesus" until things shake out a bit further - I'm sure a better title will suggest itself as the article actually takes shape. Other material will also be merged in over time, and rather have the final material drive the final title than agree a title now and then have that title exclude material that it would actually be appropriate to include. Wdford (talk) 06:36, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Wdford mainly because a search for "historicity of Jesus" (with the quotes) produces articles covering the full range that Ian Howard Marshall, Boyd-Eddy, Remsburg, and Barker talk about:

"A criticism of the contention that Jesus never lives, a statement for the evidence for his existence, an estimate of his relation to Christianity" (The historicity of Jesus by Shirley Jackson Case of Department of New Testament Literature and Interpretation University of Chicago (1912))

The historicity of Jesus: a survey of the evidence for the historical Jesus and the mythical nature of Christ Ronald Charles Tanguay (1988)

(Chapter 23) "The Debate about the Historicity of Jesus" The quest of the historical Jesus' By Albert Schweitzer Bowden translation Page 391-393

"Along with the vigorous attacks on the historicity of Jesus came the religious attempts of Kalthoff and Jatho to set forth a Christianity without historical credentials." (The American journal of theology: Volume 18 University of Chicago. Divinity School (1914) Page 201)

Like it or not there term "Historicity of Jesus" covers the entire range of ideas from Jesus is total myth to the one that the Gospels are historical documents detailing the events exactly as they happened. That means it covers what is now Historical Jesus, Christ myth theory, Historicity of the Gospels, and Quest for the historical Jesus with some of Cultural and historical background of Jesus thrown in. As I said before, the mainstream view regarding the Historicity of Jesus is that the Gospels are a mixture of myth and history that give us some reliable information regarding a first century teacher named Jesus. Everything that departs significantly from that position is fringe:

• The Gospels being totally accurate records is fringe (assumes Jesus is historical)

• The minimalist position that the Gospels tell us next to nothing about the "real historical Jesus" to the point where he is little more than a Tabula rasa where he can be made to say and do anything is fringe. (assumes Jesus is historical)

• The idea that the Gospel Jesus is some sort of composite character made up of several teachers from different times is fringe. (a historical Jesus may be one of the components)

• The idea that the Gospel Jesus is a mythologizing of a flesh and blood teacher who lived much earlier than the Gospel account claims is fringe (assumes Jesus was a historical flesh and blood man)

• The idea that there was some Christ Myth floating around that a first century teacher who just happened to have the same name (Jesus) was plugged into is fringe. (while admiting Jesus is historical this has Jesus being originally a myth--Christ Myth theory per Walsh's definition)

• The idea that Jesus is a pure myth formed either intentionally or through natural process is fringe. (the pure myth Christ Myth position)

Note of all these fringe "Historicity of Jesus" positions only the last one says Jesus didn't exist (ie never lived) Marshall Gauvin points out in "Did Jesus Christ Really Live? (ca. 1922)" "The Jesus Christ of the Gospels could not possibly have been a real person. He is a combination of impossible elements. There may have lived in Palestine, nineteen centuries ago, a man whose name was Jesus, who went about doing good, who was followed by admiring associates, and who in the end met a violent death. But of this possible person, not a line was written when he lived, and of his life and character the world of to-day knows absolutely nothing." So there is a kind of disconnect between saying the Jesus of the Gospels didn't exist and that there wasn't a flesh and blood Jesus in the first century (Pure myth Christ Myth). The first allows for a first century teacher whose connection is so partial that they might as well be two different people (Jesus Agnostic to extreme minimalist position).

Far too much time is wasted in saying Christ Myth theory is fringe where there are so many other fringe parts of the "Historicity of Jesus" spectrum that are NOT the Christ Myth theory. Ie while Christ Myth theory (however you define the thing) is fringe, fringe is not always Christ Myth theory.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:35, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I am opposed to an article named Christ myth theory or Jesus myth theory. These name views, and we should not have articles on views - that is the definition of a POV fork - we should have articles about what a view is about, and then have all views concerning that topic or question. We can call it Existence of Jesus or Historicity of Jesus but at least such a topic would allow for the gamut of views rather than be a POV fork.

Bruce laid out a number of references, but did not give us any contextual information. Bruce, are all of these people engaged in the same debate i.e. debating one another? A book on plate tectonics can have an introductory chapter stating that in the 17th century most people thought the earth thought that the planet was only 6,000 years, but it would be a mistake to suggest to our readers that the author of this book is engaged in a debate asgainst that view, or really even is speaking to that view.

I have read many of these books and I see many of them dividing into two groups (there may be a third I haven't noticed). Some books argue for Jesus' existence. They are not based on any scholarly research on 1st century history, they generally rely on secondary sources (i.e. books by 1st century historians and Bible scholars) and therefore they make mention of the work by historians on the historical Jesus, but it is not their own research, and they are not contributing to that research, and not engaged in any debate with those historians. They are debating against people who claim Jesus never existed, and most of these people are not historians either but refer to works by historians. Other books are by historians of the 1st century. They often have a paragraph or a chapter on the history of modern debate about Jesus and may well refer to people who debate Jesus' existence, but this is usually in order to explain how and why this book or article is different, how and why historians make different assumptions and ask different questions. Most of these books say that the authors think it is highly likely that Jesus existed, but do not try to "prove" that he existed; they are instead asking, if Jesus existed what did he likely teach, and what did he likely do, and why was he exectuted - they raise these questions because they take it for granted that the Gospels are not reliable history. These are books that often present relatively detailed resconstructions of Jesus, but a life of Jesus that diverges in some important ways from the gospel accounts. The accounts are part of an argument that the author is making against other historians who have presented other reconstructions of the historical Jesus.

So, two debates: one providing a set of views on the question, did Jesus exist, largely based on secondary sources; the other providing a set of views on if Jesus existed, what was he most likely doing and why was he most likely killed, largely based on original research on primary sources. Now, there is a clear overlap between these two sets of books if you are using software to do a content analysis. Both each set of books refers to at least some books from the other set. My point is that they are nevertheless two debates among two different groups of people addressing two different kinds of questions.

I am concerned that people are proposing ways of grouping books and articles based on descriptions at Amazon.com or snippets from Google scholar, rather than from having actually read the books and articles in their entirety. As a result, some editors have distorted views of the writings on these related but distinct topics. But if this is how we go about writing articles, we will end up with articles that really distort academic research and fail to represent it accurately to our readers. That is not right.

Historian Jim Clifford wrote a fascinating article about a court trial on whether or not the Mashpee Indians of Masasachussets were indeed Indians and therefore deserving of Federal recognition and rights. He describes how of all the witnesses called to the stands it was the anthropologists who squirmed most. Passages that they wrote about the complex ways in which ethnic identity can be created (socially constructed) by the state, how markers of indigeneity are recent inventions, were all used to suggest that the Mashpee were not "real" Indians. The problem was, the argument among Federal lawmakers and jurists over who is and is not an Indian is a completely separate debate from the one anthropologists have over the social construction of ethnicity. The rules of evidence and the fact that witnesses had to provide direct answers to direct questions meant that these anthropologists could not even speak the way they were trained to - through long lectures exploring the complexities of an issue, or through academic debate in which one question could reasonably be replied with another question. Academic discourse has rules scholars are socialized into during graduate school and through their career - in the trial, they had to play be entirely different rules. The anthropologists he interviewed expressed real frustration that they were being misunderstood.

Noam Chomsky made a similar point about why he is seldom asked to be on news shows, and seldom says yes. I saw a film in which he explained that the real questions are often never asked and if he ever tries to give an answer that explains why things are more complicated than people think, and speaks for more than 60 seconds, he is either told that he has to shut up to make time for the other guest or what he says is edited out.

My point is not that TV news is bad and academia is good. By point is that in this world there can be multiple conversations about the same or similar things. To distinguish between these conversations - say, the trial about the Mashpee versus anthropological research on the Mashpee - is not a POV fork. Each conversation has multiple points of view. It is a content fork, because the questions and criteria or methods for answering those questions are different, and mixing them up just leads to misunderstanding. An anthropologist can even analyze the legislative or judicial debates about the Mashpee and offer her own analysis of the relationship betwen the Mashpee and the state. But such work is seldom or never considered by Congress, or taken seriously by a judge. The rules by which judges make decisions and by which anthropologists make decisions are very different, and serve different purposes.

Based on the books I have read, the same thing is going on here. The conversation over whether Jesus existed is not for the most part a conversation among historians - historians often mention it but only as a prelude to doing what they really mean to do in their books - it si a conversation among other people who as Civilized said many people (not historians) are interested in. And the conversation among historians is not primarily over whether Jesus existed. Every major historian I have read has written that historians seldom can answer such questions, that all they can do is look at the sources available, and reconstruct what historians consider a plausible or reasonable account of what was going on at a certain time. These are two different conversations and to mix them up is like learning anthropology just from listening to the anthropologist testify in court. Sure, it is an anthropologist talking, but he is answering someone else's questions and following the rules of the court. The knowledge he produces in that arena is not at all representative of the scholarship he produces in academic journals and academic books that respond to and are written for other anthropologists. To learn anthropology just from what Sturtevant said in a Massachussetts courthouse is not really to learn about what anthropologists think. If we mix these two conversations up, a whole set of views (not one view - I mean multiple, opposing views, but views of a certain kind) will be distorted or lost. I think it s a terribly unscholarly-way to write an encyclopedia article. Slrubenstein | Talk 11:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

SLR makes an excellent point - which rules do we play by here? To make use of SLR’s example of the Mashpee Native Americans – the Mashpee were trying to demonstrate that they are an Indian Tribe, and they used the Indian Rules of Tribalism to prove this. Their opponents used the White Rules of Tribalism. The outcome of the case was essentially determined by which definition the jury chose to use. So – what Rules do we use? “Scholarliness” has its strengths. However, do we write articles using scholarly language, scholarly interpretation and layered obfuscation that only other scholars could understand and appreciate, or do we write in plain English so that ordinary people can understand it, and be informed by it? See for example WP:Manual_of_Style#Clarity. Some might argue that we should have one article that is a "Scholarly discussion of scholarship for scholars", and a second article that explains the facts (or lack of facts, as the case may be), for the other 99.9999% of the readership. I vote we start with the second article, and perhaps deal with the first article later, if at all. Wdford (talk) 14:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - but I do not think this is a style thing; all articles should be well-written, and there are very few scholarly ideas that cannot be explained clearly to a lay audience, none relating to this topic. Also, it is not an "either/or" decision. We should NOT choose "the Mashpee rules" or "US Federal law" or "anthropology rules." My point is that in any converation where people are debating a topic or a set of related topic, people who are talking to one another have implicit rules for how to communicate and be understood - these rules can influence what is considered a stupid tangeent versus a new but highly salient topic, or influence what questions researchers (or judges, or Indians) think are worth asking. My point is that if you mix these up, several views end up getting misrepresented. So each "conversation" should have its own article. NPOV is NOT violated, since for each conversation we continue to include all significant views. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:08, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

While I understand the point both Wdford and Slrubenstein are making I must remind them that we have to have something that meets Wikipedia:Verifiability to back it up and to date we haven't seen anything that even hints at the split they are seeing. The only thing we at this point do have are four sources (two notable-Remsburg and Barker; two reliable-Ian Howard Marshall and Boyd-Eddy) that say that the Historicity of Jesus covers a spectrum of ideas. Marshall defines the full range; Remsburg, Barker, and Boyd-Eddy break that spectrum into four categories and while Boyd-Eddy points out his categories are "overly simplistic", "ideal-typical", and "a useful heuristic" this is only implied by Remsburg and Barker.

Interestingly it is the two notables not the other reliable that best mesh with Marshall:

"Orthodox Christians believe that Christ is a historical character, supernatural and divine; and that the New Testament narratives, which purport to give a record of his life and teachings, contain nothing but infallible truth." to "Other Freethinkers believe that Jesus Christ is a pure myth -- that he never had an existence, except as a Messianic idea, or an imaginary solar deity." (Remsburg)

"The New Testament is basically true in all of its accounts except that there are natural explanations for the miracle stories." to "Jesus never existed at all and that the myth came into being through a literary process." (Barker)

The fact that the categories of Remsburg, Barker, and Boyd-Eddy don't full match just shows that these categorizes are not clearly defined and very from author to author.

IMHO Historicity_of_Jesus should be like the "The Quest for the Historical Jesus" chapter in The Historical Jesus: Five Views or In search of Jesus: insider and outsider images By Clinton Bennett where you get the major contributors in a more or lest chronological order and what effect they had.--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:13, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Paula Fredricksen and Geza Vermes and to a lesser extent Dominic Crossan are widely assigned in University courses relating to Jesus; their principle works mention the question of whether Jesus existed only in passing - they say that while historians are confronted with several logical possibilities (definitely did not exist, definitely did exist) most take a position somewhere in the middle ... but they do not spend most of or even a significant amount of ttime arguing why, and to characterize their books as arguing that Jesus existed, or engaging the arguments over whether he existed, is inaccurate. Sanders spends a few pages justifying his position that Jesus probably existed but he does so explicitly as an historian (i.e. discussing the criteria historians use for looking at other people from antiquity) and not as a Christian. So here are four books at least that really do not belong in an article on the Existence of Jesus. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:22, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

SLR, I'm still not clear about what you're suggesting if not POV forks. We can't have a scholarly article on animal rights and a popular one. The scholarly article, which would rely on academics who specialize in AR, would be almost 100 percent pro AR. The popular one would be full of hate. They would be POV forks. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:09, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I think I get what he is discussing. It is something similar to the Race of ancient Egyptians article as well. Basically, he is saying that the idea of Jesus being basically a myth is a non-starter to most academics, who as often as not just mention the general rejection of the idea by academics. However, that does not mean that, in non-academic or not-quite-fringe/alternative views academia, the idea does not get a great deal of attention. So, like some other not-quite-fringe ideas, it gets overlooked and dismissed out of hand by most academics but discussed at length by a few others. Because most of the "mainstream academics" (for lack of a better word) basically say, essentially, "wrong", while the others discuss it at length, keeping them in the same article would lead to a bit of an imbalance in that article, because the short dismissals do not regularly deal with the details of the not-quite-fringe proposals. I am close to right here, SLR? If I am, then I think that there is a basis for separating the two. Maybe we should contact WP:WikiProject Alternative Views regarding their input. John Carter (talk) 19:40, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

The current structure of articles already allows for extensive coverage of the idea that Jesus was a myth, so I don't think this is a problem that needs to be solved. The idea that he wasn't historical is in Jesus myth theory; there's also Jesus Christ in comparative mythology, which covers ideas that there was a historical Jesus, but this figure has been overlaid with material drawn from mystery religions and other Graeco-Roman or Near Eastern mythologies. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:26, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Again, Akhilleus ignores the fact that some of the people called Christ Myth Theorists do hold that there was a historical Jesus but the Gospel account is almost if not total fiction. Some of these so called "Christ Myth Theorists" say this related by name only Jesus lived in the first century while other put this Jesus lived c100 BCE which would still be a historical person turned into a myth and before anyone goes into the "Jesus of Nazareth didn't exist" song and dance I should point out that a story about a composite character is strictly speaking is a history of no one.

Wells' current potion is that a possibly mythical Paul Jesus was combined with a Q Jesus who was not crucified to form the Gospel Jesus and says Jesus of Nazareth is a composite character and therefore by definition could not have existed. Any yet Wells says this is not a Christ Myth Theory position (at least as Boyd-Eddy defines it).--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

To John: That's a description of a POV fork. Here are the sensible people who believe X. And here are the silly people who believe not-X. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not so sure it is necessarily a POV fork, as per the quote from WP:CFORK "A point of view (POV) fork is a content fork deliberately created to avoid neutral point of view guidelines, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts." It might more accurately, maybe, be characterized as a "history of a realtively well-defined, if not necessarily agreed-upon, range of minority opinion." Now, this isn't saying that I myself really like seeing such articles, having been involved in that one, but I can see if the subject is one which has been discussed frequently, from a variety of different angles, it might make sense to have it, and, like I said earlier, I think those sorts of articles, including a lot of conspiracy theories, some of which I myself give substantial credit to (I won't say which), have been found to be acceptable. John Carter (talk) 23:39, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

It's a classic example of a POV fork, John, and it would be perennially in violation of policy because anyone trying to add the "wrong" kind of source would be directed to some other article. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 00:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

And that sort of removal has happened at Race of ancient Egyptians, including at least once by me. But that article continues to stand without regular overwhelmingly serious problems, as have many of the conspiracy theory articles and other similar ones. I guess the problem with that article, as well as others, is clearly and explicitly defining the content of the article in the lead to make it easier for editors to see the topic. That can be difficult, admittedly, and has been in the past. But maybe using a title something like History of the Jesus myth theory might help reduce those problems. John Carter (talk) 00:35, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Again the Jesus myth theory covers a lot of ground including the idea that there was a flesh and blood Jesus...only that he lived c100 BCE. As Price states in The Historical Jesus: Five Views pg 80-81 he views the date incompatibilities of Irenaeus, Talmud, and Gospel Jesus as "residue of various attempts to anchor an originally mythic or legendary Jesus in more or less recent history."

A legendary Jesus made more relevant by making him seem recent (perhaps even using the vague stories of some recent teacher of the same name) is totally different from saying he is totally mythical and yet BOTH are part and parcel of the Jesus myth theory as in the very same book Price calls Ellegard along with the early Wells as a mythicist.

Trying to say it really means Jesus of Nazareth did exist doesn't work as Wells current position (which he says is minimalist) is that Jesus is a composite character (by definition non historical) formed form the merger of a mythical-legendary Paul Jesus plus a historical Q Jesus who was not crucified.

About the only thing certain about Jesus myth theory is the Gospel account has so much myth nothing including when or even if the Jesus described really lived.--BruceGrubb (talk) 21:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

What does that have to do with merging? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I think I "get" Akhellius when he says that it is not a debate. It can't be a real debate with one side preferring to remain totally aloof and regarding the dabate as a moot thing. I think it is a not-debate/discussion/description of the various factors around the question of "Existance of Jesus". I think a merger of the two articles would result in an intelligent description of the various angles and factors around this fringe question and give the interested reader what he wants. I think we have a consensus to move ahead with the merger; Existence of Jesus being the tentative title of the merged content. We can add other articles,as suggested, into it as we move along.--Civilizededucation^talk 02:36, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Random break 1

I'm still opposed to this. I don't see any benefit to merging, and I think it's quite likely that the article will turn into an incoherent series of points pro and contra Jesus' historicity rather than an article that covers the history of an idea.

BTW, this proposal hasn't been mentioned at Talk:Christ myth theory, and it's not entirely certain that all the editors at that article watch this one. I'll post a notice there. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's a manageable idea. The CMT is about 35% larger than this article so merging will mean that a lot of important details will be lost or overshadowed. Therefore, I think that the amount of text (a paragraph worth) devoted in this article to the CMT is just fine and mirrors the amount of space given to the the Moon landing hoax in the Moon landing article. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 03:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

To answer SlimVirgin's earlier response of "what does that have to do with merging?" to my demonstration of how complex the Christ Myth theory was, a merger would get rid of the what is and what is not the Christ Myth Theory problem that has plagued the article for years. You simply present the position people of Drews, Strauss, Bauer, Schweitzer, Wells Price, etc and the reaction of the mainstream and move on.

As for loosing anything a good hunk of the current article can be either be spun off into a Documentation of Jesus article or merged into their parent articles. That leaves only two short paragraphs more than enough room. If the article still becomes too long we can use Quest for the historical Jesus to spin things off based on chronology (first, second or third quest). Not hard at all.--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:37, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

As for comparing Moon landing hoax and CMT that has much the same Provenance and technological then vs now problems Holocaust denial has with some practical social political added in for good measure. That the pro historical Jesus side trots out such blatant Strawmen and expect to be still be taken seriously show bad judgment on their part.

Bulfinch in the "Origin of Mythology" chapter points out six different ways myths were thought to come about: Scriptural, Historical, Allegorical, Astronomical, Physical, and explanation for natural phenomena. He also said "All the theories which have been mentioned are true to a certain extent."

The claim that if Jesus hadn't exist the point would have been raised ignores evidence from Eusebius (Preparation of the Gospel} that Euhemerism (Bulfinch's Historical category) may have been a common view back then.

This is why statements on Christ Myth theory like Bromiley's "This view states that the story of Jesus is a piece of mythology, possessing no more substantial claims to historical fact than the old Greek or Norse stories of gods and heroes,..." are more confusing then helpful especially when he follows up a sentance about Lucian's criticism regarding the Jesus story being being a pale imitation of Apollonius of Tyana with a sentence on the death and resurrection story said to resembling dying and rising god cults like that of Attis, Adonis, Osiris, and Mithras. "Osiris, Attis, Adonis were men. They died as men; they rose as gods." (Encyclopædia of religion and ethics, Volume 10 (1919) edited by James Hastings, John Alexander Selbie, Louis Herbert Gray) "In recent years the historical reality of Osiris as a king who one lived and reigned in Egypt has been maintained by more than one learned scholar" (J. G. Frazer The Golden Bough). Was Bromiley actively trying for the most confusing examples imaginable?!--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:08, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I think a new name is suggesting itself. Did Jesus Exist ?. This could be a more accurate name for the merged content. We would take it up as a question, and leave it as a question. It would be fully in need of all the content of these two articles. It looks more appropriate because we are treating a fringe question rather than a fringe debate. The length of the merged content should not be a problem because the merged content is likely to be shorter than expected. Some things are common in both articles and we would be needing just one lead. Secondly, as described above, we would also be saved from describing what CMT is, and what it is not.-Civilizededucation^talk 07:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Did Jesus Exist ? is IMHO a horrible title as it implies a yes or no answer and would just open the doors to the repeatedly slam head into wall hit yourself in head with hammer fun that has been the Christ Myth theory article for the last three years.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:26, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The articles should be merged. That fact is extremely obvious when you take a step back, look at the talkpage, and take in a scenic view of the pointless nonsense that has been going on for years because they were not merged. --dab (𒁳) 08:03, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

It's just a proposal Bruce, not a stout marker of my position. We can always improve upon it if something better comes up.-Civilizededucation^talk 09:07, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgin's analogy that you cannot have an article on a popular debate on animal rights and a scholarly depate on animal rights sounds like deliberate obfuscation. I have already explained that there are two debates focusing on two different questions. There is one debate on whether or not Jesus existed. There is another debate that brackets that question as unanswerable in any definite sense and puts in its place an assumption that he probably existed, in order to ask different questions. Right now we have several articles - Historical Jesus, Christ Myth Theory, and Quest for the historical Jesus - where there is considerable overlap. We need to consolidate them, but if we just merged them we would have (1) an article that is too long and (2) an article that does not make sense. It is time to rethink the different topics that fall under the larger topic of "Jesus." In the section above I proposed a plan for redividing articles. Now we are discussing another one. I do not understand Bruce Grubb's rejection of an article on "the existence of Jesus." He seems not to like it because it can be answered by a yes or a no. Of course he is flat out wrong, because any question like this admits to at least four answers: yes, kno, I do not know, or maybe. Be that as it may, is this not what our NPOV policy demands, that we include different views? To say there should be two different articles is not a POV fork. Now I have already asked the following question to Slim Virgin and she avoided answering it. I will ask again, and I would appreciate an answer: we have an article on Creationism and an article on Evolution. Is this not a POV fork? Are you going to propose that these two articles be mreged? A second question: why have you been working on Christ myth theory which is explicitly a POV fork (the Christ Myth Theory is obviously a point of view about Jesus, that he was a myth. That people may have different views about what exactly the "myth" is does not change the fact that the article is about the view that Christ is a myth. You cannot get more POV-forky than that. I do not understand why Slim Virgin is defending a POV fork. My proposal gets us away from that. I do not see why anyone would object, unless they are intent on pushing the view that Christ is a myth and think that this view would somehow disappear. Anyone who has read my proposal knows that this view would not disappear. But an article that is clearly a POV-fork, Christ Myth Theory, has to go. An article called "Christ Myth Theory" declares a bias for one of these views, and trying to make it NPOV by then having a section on people who oppose the theory is not in my view faithful to the spirit of NPOV; it is subordinating one view to another. The view that Christ is a myth belongs in an article the encompasses all views, that Christ was a myth, that he was not, that he might be. These views are all responses to the same question: did Jesus Christ exist. So I think Civilized Education's proposal, that the article be titled, Existence of Jesus, is a great suggestion. It names the question at the heart of this debate quite clearly. Any significant view that is a response to this question belongs in the article. This is not a POV fork. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:39, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Could you explain why the animal rights (AR) analogy is obfuscation, deliberate or otherwise? I think the analogy is a good one. The specialists you want to highlight are religious scholars, Christian and non-Christian, who argue that Jesus existed. You want to devote an article to their views alone. Similarly, I could create an article focusing only on the views of scholars who specialize in AR and assume it's a good thing, and who want to ask different questions about it, more sophisticated ones, rather than rolling around in the mud with the haters. So we could create a second article about AR for the non-scholarly, hateful views of newspapers and others who know nothing about it. I wouldn't mind that, because I like AR, but Wikipedia would call it a POV fork. Why is what you are proposing any different? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Your analogy is false - I think - because as far as I know philosophers are debating the same questions people in the streets are. But the question of whether Jesus existed, and the question of what a historical Jesus would have been like, are two separate questions. You say that the specialists I highlighted are religious scholars. You meant to write "scholars of religion" - the phrases do not mean the same thing. They are not arguing that jesus existed. They assume he existed and then ask how the sources about him have to be interpreted. Surely you can tell the difference between an assumption and a conclusion. You keep saying that they are arguing that Jesus existed but this suggests to me that either have not read them, or are interpreting them in terms of your own interests. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I meant to write what I wrote: "religious scholars." And they are discussing what Jesus was like because they believe that he was like something; they believe he existed. Academics don't write articles about what Dionysus would have been like had he existed: who his parents might have been, where he might have been born.

Well, then you and I are talking about two different groups of scholars, because i am not referring to religious scholars, I am talking about historians of religion. You are right that historians do not write about what Dionysus would have been like, but this is a bad analogy. They do write about what Socrates or if you prefer Pythagoras was like, and the people I am talking about are historians. You are making a deductive argument about an empirical question: you think you have some kind of authoratative expertise on what historians do, and based on your beliefs, you deduce that since x and y do not do what you want them to do, they cannot be historians. This is simply a way for you to perpetuate your own biased point of view. This is really an empirical question: look at historians based on some criteria other than what I happen to believe in, and then see how they work, what they do. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Please explain to me how the AR analogy is a false one. It seems very precise to me. AR scholars write about the ways in which AR arguments mirror rights arguments in other areas; the debates are complex and require some background in philosophy to understand properly. In the meantime newspapers and others write about what nonsense AR is. AR scholars rarely if every respond to the "it's evil nonsense" arguments, because there's nothing of substance to reply to. Therefore we do essentially have two debates: the scholarly and the less-informed. Your suggestion seems to be that we could therefore create two articles about AR: one that assumes the rightness of AR then discusses the details, and one that questions the rightness of it. That would be a POV fork, and it's what you are suggesting here. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:46, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Answering your creationsim/evolution question separately. The reason we have two articles, and in fact a good deal more than two, is that there's an enormous amount of material about what are two very different world views, world views that are only rarely discussed seriously by the same people. In the case of Jesus, we have almost no information about him—and none at all in the view of some scholars—so there's simply no need to spread a discussion about his existence over multiple articles from multiple perspectives. The analogy therefore doesn't hold. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:45, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Wait - are you saying that if we have lots of material the way to handle it is a POV fork? Here you say that each article represents two different "world views." I thought NPOV demands that we include multiple especially differing views in an article. Are you actually saying that NPOV requires us to include different "views," but not different "world views?" Where does it say that in NPOV policy? Why do you think once something is a world view a POV fork is allowed? You are really confusing me, are you opposed to POV forks or in favor of them? before you seemed to be arguing against them, and now you are arguing for them? Slrubenstein | Talk 09:41, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that when we have overwhelming amounts of material about "how the universe and life began," we prefer not to create one 10-million-word-long article about it, so we split it into different articles. Where there is a significant split in world views, that suggests a natural fork. But there is very little historical material, if any, that tells us Jesus existed, so we are not faced with those decisions here. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

"There is very little historical material, if any, that tells us Jesus existed." So suddenly you are a historian? Have you published in a peer-reviewed journal? It seems like NOR no longer applies, when your own personal views are at stake. It is not for us to dictate how historians work, or how they interpret historical documents. What matters is that there are historians who have written on Jesus.

In the meantime, we do not actually have overwhelming evidence about how the universe was created (microwave radiation and the doppler effect, basically), and even less for how life began, but that doesn't matter. I am perfectly willing to grant that we need more than one article on the creation of species. The question is, do we handle this through content forks or through POV-forks? POV forks are not the only kind of forks, and there are other ways of handling the "lots of information on the creation of species" matter, surely we can come up with content forks rather than a POV fork. All I see is your double-standard - in some cases a POV fork is fine, but in other cases it is wrong. You have yet to describe a consistent principle. Do you have one? Slrubenstein | Talk 09:44, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I have been a fan of Slim in the past, but here I think her position is weak. Recently, I read all three articles (Historical Jesus, Christ Myth Theory, and Quest for the historical Jesus) and what struck me was that they were very, very unreadable. Slrubenstein's suggestions are basically common sense. - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:04, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

They're unreadable because poorly written, poorly researched, and long-winded. That's not relevant to the question of whether they ought to become one or two articles. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:39, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Slrubenstein, you just demonstrated another problem the Christ Myth theory article has--the really flaky nature regarding some of the definitions.

A Jesus that existed c100 BCE regardless of him being in the Talmud or Dead Sea scrolls would still be a Jesus who existed but that has been labeled as Christ Myth Theory as well.

Wells current position of mythic-legendary Paul Jesus + historical Q who wasn't crucified = Gospel Jesus basically has the Gospel Jesus as a composite character and to make a very bad pun 'the story of a composite of two people is the history of no one both figuratively and literally' but Wells insists this is not a Christ Myth theory postilion even though Carrier and Doherty call it an example of ahistoricity and "modern Jesus mythicists" respectively.

As for Historical Jesus, Christ Myth Theory, and Quest for the historical Jesus being unreadable I disagree but then I can read Binford who gives most non anthropological scholars migraines (IMHO that man needs to go and relearn the wonders of the introductory paragraph). Quest for the historical Jesus is in essence a list article--here are the people of the The First Quest, here are the people of the second (New) quest, and here are the people of the current third quest--not hard to read but also not very informative.

Historical Jesus and Christ Myth Theory have different problems which could IMHO fixed with a merger.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

The Quest for historical Jesus article is very informative about one important thing: the different contexts for historically distinct discussions about Jesus. This is valuable in understanidng different views in their context. If you think it is just a list of other articles, then let's delete it and create a disambiguation page or a page that is simply a list of NT historians and/or theologians, i.e. a pure list article. I do not object to taking the names of people in CMT at QHJ and creating such a page that is a pure list of links to articles on different historians (or theologians or philosophers etc.) But if we do this, there is one thing from QHJ page that needs to be incorporated into any other article or articles that are created through the proposed reorganization, and that is the fact that different views are organized into distinct debates each in a different historical matrix. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Random break 2

I would happily support the merger of all three articles (Historicity, Quest and CMY) into an article called Existence of Jesus as proposed. Its just a first step, and we will certainly improve on this as we proceed, so let's take the first step and see what happens. If a spin-off article is required, the need will become obvious and it won't be difficult to get consensus on it when the time comes. Wdford (talk) 15:11, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

But wait a minute. Quest for the historical Jesus isn't about the existence of Jesus, it's about scholarship on the historical Jesus. The rationale of this merger is that those are distinct conversations. If Quest for the historical Jesus needs to be merged (the more satisfactory solution would be to develop it so it's not a list, but an actual history), it should go in historical Jesus, not the proposed existence of Jesus. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:20, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

My proposal anticipates Aknilleus: merge three articles (QHJ, CMT, HJ) into two (existence of Jesus AND the Historical Jesus). My view, like Akhilleus, is that it looks like QHJ would mostly go into an article on the historical Jesus (perhaps the three stages could provide a basis for reorganizing the article, and providing more historical context for each debate/effort). But I have not read all of the people mentioned in the QHJ article. If it turns out that some of them are trying to prove the existence of Jesus, then those people would go into the Existence article. Akhilleus, if you have read all of their works and know that none of them were engaged in that debate, fine. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:32, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

agree with Dbachmann above. Once you get out of the echochamber in here the fact that the articles need to be merged becomes self evident. -- ۩ Mask 16:27, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree. This whole issue springs from POV pushing. Jesus myth theory, historicity of Jesus, quest for the historical Jesus (which doesn't really say anything) and and probably historical Jesus too, could easily be tightened and merged into a new Existence of Jesus. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that we have articles addressing two different basic questions. Historicity of Jesus and Jesus myth theory address the question "Did Jesus exist?"; historical Jesus and quest for the historical Jesus address the question "What sort of chap was this Jesus fellow?". Even if one subscribes to one of the various "myth" views that BruceGrubb has elucidated, the second question is valid, in the sense that the question "What sort of chap was Santa Claus?" could be considered a valid question. If any merging occurs I think there would be value in keeping these rhetorical questions separate, i.e. merging Historicity of Jesus and Jesus myth theory into Existence of Jesus and subsuming quest for the historical Jesus into historical Jesus. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 03:30, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually the two questions are related. The quest for the historical Jesus basically asks "how much of the New Testament story is reliable and matches with historical data as it currently stands and known social political views of the time (Ethnohistory)?" with answers ranging from totally "unreliable to the point you can't even show Jesus existed" (pure myth Christ Myth Theory) through "unreliable to the point they tell you nothing about the actual man" (100 BCE Christ Myth Theory to extreme minimalist position) to the "New Testament is total historical with ever detail exactly as it happened"--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:20, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

What is your source for that, Bruce? My recollection is quite different. The hisotians I have read (e.g. Vermes and Fredricksen) are not quite asking "how much of the NT is reliable" - a quantitative question. They say that the authors of the Gospels did not distinguish between theological and historical truth, as we do, and then they say that the Gospels like any other text is of historical value and the question is, what kind of historical value? How does one go about interpreting it? I think the historians' questions are more like, it is 100% historically valuable, but much of it tells us something about the beliefs of its authors rather than about Jesus and can we use any of it to tell us about Jesus? You can rephrase this as a quantitiative question about accuracy if you want but the point is that they are still not engaged in a debte about Jesus' existence. Of course the two questions are related in that there is no point in speculating about his life if you think he never existed. But I do not know any historians who ask:

how much of the New Testament story is reliable and matches with historical data as it currently stands and known social political views of the time (Ethnohistory)?" with answers ranging from totally "unreliable to the point you can't even show Jesus existed"

as you put it. Rather, they start with the assumption that Jesus existed, and reinterpret parts of the Gospel in light of what we know about the social and political views of the time. It is not simply a mater of matching, it is a matter of saying "everyont thinks passage x means one thing, but in fact it means something else. They are saying that popular interpretations of passages do not match what we know of 1st century Jewish life. And they will reinterpre3t a passage - this is more like "making the passage match." So it is not always so simple as you are presenting it.

For example, the idea that Jesus was resurrected (the apostles touch his flesh so he does not reappear as a spirit, he is resurrected) perfectly matches the views of the Pharisees. Now the fact that it matches does not mean it is historically accurate - you do not believe that Jesus was resurrected just because this belief in the NT matches Jewish belief of the time? What this shows is that Jesus being resurrected means that the source for the story thought like a Pharisee, that is all. Then there is Jesus casting out demons. Again, this matches with 1st century beliefs. It does not mean Jesus really cast out demons, just like many anthropologists do not believe that witchcraft is real and shamans can cure people of it. Yet this does not mean that Jesus didn't exist. To use your emic/etic distinction, etically he did not cast out demons, but emically he did. So here is a passage with a supernatural elment and historians can reject the supernatural element but consider it historically reliable. Then there is his being called the son of God. Again, this is entirely consistnt with Jewish belief at the time ... but what Jews mean by "on of God" is not what people (atheists as well as Christians) think it means.

The historians who are involved in this line of investigation may think most of the NT needs to be reinterpreted, but they still assume Jesus existed. Your continuum of total disbelief to total belief is a theological continuum, it doesn't represent how historians argue among themselves. Peaceloveharmony is right. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:31, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Another excellent point, where SLR once again highlights the need for clarification on "The Rules". To the average reader, the term "historically reliable" is normally interpreted along the lines of "it records something that did actually take place as described". SLR once again highlights the fact that "historians" do not necessarily use the same definition, but are inclined to accept something as historic if it merely reflects the kind of thing that people would have been prepared to believe at the time. It seems to me that this would make the Greek gods "historic figures" based on the fact that the ancient Greeks believed those gods really existed. If that is valid - and it seems to me that this is the implication - then perhaps Jesus is every bit as historic as Dionysus, and vice versa. Or am I misunderstanding?

Once again I ask - which Rules should we follow here? If we are going to use "scholarly" definitions and terminology, then I think we should emphasise this in the lead section, by stating specifically in each of the articles that "the authors of the Gospels did not distinguish between theological and historical truth, as we do" and that "much of it tells us something about the beliefs of its authors rather than about Jesus". Wdford (talk) 11:23, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

As I said the one thing the whole Historicity of Jesus needs desperate is a thorough historical anthropological (ethohistorical) look at the time and no evidence of anything even remotely like that had been done. You have a few claims that "the Jews wouldn't have created a story like this" but as pointed out by Richard Carrier in his tongue in cheek "Did Jesus Even exist?" there are problems with that view when you apply it to the Romans because Acts has a lot of things that from a Roman standpoint make no sense.--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:15, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

"the whole Historicity of Jesus needs desperate is a thorough historical anthropological (ethohistorical) look at the time and no evidence of anything even remotely like that had been done." Can you clarify - do you mean done by Wikipedians, or done by historians? Based on the rest of your comment I infer you mean done by historians, and the rest of this comment is based on that reading. If I am misinterpreting you my apologies. You are engaging in OR, Bruce. When you publish a book or article in a peer-reviewed journal, we can put your views in the article. In the meantime, we have a professor at Boston University and a professor at Duke university and someone who before he died was a professor at Oxford University. We have a number of fine sources for a good Historical Jesus article. Right now, drawing on what has been written, it won't be much but let's face it, a lot of our history articles especially classical history and I'd say virtually all Jewish history articles are pretty bad, because we do not have many (or any) editors who have expertise in the historical research. But it is out there, and some of it is in here, and that should be an article, regardless of your personal beliefs. As for wikipedians providing a historical look at the time, yes, it has been done, in Cultural and historical background of Jesus. That article was written before we had a clear citation policy so it is not well-referenced. But the bibliography includes a good number of reliable sources. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:56, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually my comment is based on the situation I found in 1992 when I did research for a paper called "Historical Archaeology at the Point of Contact: The Disease Issue" in one of my master level courses at New Mexico State University. In my research I found that Ethnohistory had been effectively out to lunch regarding handling of historical documents regarding Native American peoples. Simply little details like the nature of diseases changing over time or total inexperience with the effects of such diseases on "virgin" populations was being missed again and again despite the point being raised by Schuyler in a 1977 paper. In fact of all the sources I had at that time only Schlesier took that the data was telling him and plugged the documents back into the world view he was seeing both archeologically and historically.

Sclesier, Karl H. (1976) "Epidemics and Indian Middlemen: Rethinking the Wars of the Iroquois, 1609-1653" Ethnohistory 23(2) pg 129-145

Schuyler, Robert L. (1977) "The Spoken Word, the Written Word, Observed and Preserved Behavior, the Contexts Available to the Archaeologist" in Historical Archaeology: A Guide to Substantive and Theoretical Contributions Vol 10, No. 2 pg 347-360

Other than Carrier there doesn't seem to be much effort to reevaluate the New Testament story on what we know about the culture of that time. Sources that from an Ethnohistoral standpoint would seem to be useless regarding Jesus being a flesh and blood person such Thallus, Suetonius, and Pliny the Younger are trotted out so often one is reminded of the joke line in Casablanca: "round up the usual suspects". It is nearly a bad joke at this point and you don't need to have a degree to see these three sources have obvious problems.--BruceGrubb (talk) 15:29, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Then you obviously have not read the latest work by historians, or the works I have repeatedly cited.

We are not talking about Native Americans. I fail to see how your MA thesis on Native Americans has anything to do with 1st century Jewish history. Or are you trying to convince me that ye, you do wish to violate NOR?

I never mentioned Suetonius or Pliny the Younger and the historians I have cited do not rely on them either. I mentioned three sources by affiliation, and named two of them, and you are saying my sources are a joke??? Are you joking, or are you really trying to insult m? Do you want me to just say "screw you", if you refuse to assume good faith on my part? If you refuse to respond to what I wrote, how can we have a good faith conversation? Do you want me to just start ignoring you? Slrubenstein | Talk 17:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Slrubenstein. A little good faith would be helpful! - Ret.Prof (talk) 17:25, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Gospels Section

This section currently provides very little information about our topic. It is mostly about the background of the Gospels; the material is almost certainly present in other articles, in greater depth. Like most parts of most Jesus articles, it also states as fact what should be opinion, and conceals potential bias. For example: "The reason for composition of the gospels is given in the scriptural material itself, as being due to the death of a number of eyewitnesses to the events described, and the need to combat alternative versions of the events which were emerging." This factual statement is sourced to: Paul Barnett (2002). Jesus & the Rise of Early Christianity: A History of New Testament Times. InterVarsity Press. Paul Barnett (bishop): "Paul Barnett is an ancient historian, New Testament scholar and was the Anglican Bishop of North Sydney from 1990 to 2001." InterVarsity Press mission statement: "As an extension of InterVarsity Christian Fellowship/USA, InterVarsity Press serves those in the university, the church and the world by publishing resources that equip and encourage people to follow Jesus as Savior and Lord in all of Life."[1] Again, if you can't source the article primarily to mainstream scholars, then don't tell the reader there is a consensus among mainstream scholars.

The first step should be to remove most of the material that really only belongs in an article on the Gospels, and replace it with discussion directly related to the Gospels' value in studying Jesus. As we do that, we should keep an eye on the balance and neutrality of the sourcing. Noloop (talk) 16:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I have taken a look at the Gospels section and agree that much of it is unrelated to this article. This article only needs to discuss the reliability, necessity of the Gospel material for obtaining a Historical Jesus.-Civilizededucation^talk 10:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Second Merge

It seems to me that the section Jesus#Historical views in the main Jesus article heavily overlaps with this article. Should we not move most of that material here also, thereby much simplifying that long article and eliminating even more unnecessary duplication and overlap? Wdford (talk) 11:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the main Jesus article needs more historical information, not less. ha. We should avoid overlap to an extent, but should also be mindful of summary style. I guess we should focus on making sure the parent summary article doesn't contain more detail and content than the spin out articles. And we should make sure they are on the same page, so that if they read the main parent article they get the same impression as when they read the more detailed spinouts. I guess I'm more concerned with having good content, and then consistency across the board, then trying to reduce and simplify. I'm concerned in the main Jesus article, if we don't have a sizeable section, with good content concerning the scholarly/historical view, then the article will be overwhelmed with religious views and the summary text of the gospel stories (another type of religious view, in a sense). Sure Jesus is first and foremost a religious figure, and I'm not trying to separate that out, but I am concerned with what the main article would look like with less historical content. -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm with you on most of this Andrew, but I think the solution is to strip out the detail of the historicity content (leaving just a few lines in summary) into the Historicity of Jesus article, and move the "religious" material (leaving just a few lines in summary) into the various appropriate daughter articles, bearing in mind that every aspect of Jesus' life has its own article already, and every Bible verse just about has its own article too. It seems ridiculous to me that the Jesus#Historical views in the main Jesus article is currently 3689 words long on its own - a 100 word summary would surely be more appropriate, with a link to this article for the detail. Don't you think? Wdford (talk) 17:10, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like you want a glorified disambiguation page, and I want a FA.... How much detail can we remove, and still have enough good coverage for a FA? -Andrew c ^[talk] 17:29, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

There is lots of other valuable material in the 131k Jesus article that would stay there. But in the many aspects where hugely detailed daughter articles already exist, is it not ridiculous to duplicate the material over and over again "just because"? Surely in such cases the best practice is to present just a few lines of summary, and a blue-link to the Main Article/s on that topic? Wdford (talk) 17:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

If the subject is complex, a few lines will not accurately summarize the daughter article. The summary at Jesus#Historical views can probably be condensed somewhat, but it will still need to be lengthy since historical Jesus covers a lot of territory. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:50, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Historical Jesus covers a lot more territory than is really necessary - much of it is already duplicated elsewhere. If Historical Jesus was cleaned up, then the summary of Historical Jesus in the Jesus article would also be much slimmer. The benefits of this exercise are endless !! Wdford (talk) 18:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm interested to hear what material you think is unnecessary in historical Jesus, because I'm not seeing a lot that is obvious (although the "History of Historical Jesus research" and "Quest for the historical Jesus" sections should be combined). It's a complicated subject, and since there is so much diversity in people's reconstructions of Jesus', the article needs to cover many different points of view. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Re the article Historical Jesus, in my opinion:

• “Quest for the historical Jesus” already exists in detail elsewhere, and this section should be summarized further;
• “Summary of reconstructions of the life of Jesus” is OK, but this is duplicated lower down;
• “Jesus and John the Baptist” is a bit long, considering the topic has its own detailed article;
• “Ministry and teachings” is way too long, considering the topic has its own detailed article;
• “Disciples” is ridiculously long, considering the topic has its own detailed article;
• The article then repeats (yet again) a lot of detail on the entry to Jerusalem, the crucifixion etc etc etc – this material already stands in the Jesus article, and in innumerable daughter articles and elsewhere.

I feel that these sections can be trimmed down a lot by eliminating unnecessary duplication, and by summarising necessary duplication a lot more tightly, without removing anything of value that is not readily available at the click of a blue-link. Wdford (talk) 19:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that elimination of duplication is needed. Perhaps once that is done the amounts left will be able to tell if the articles need to be merged.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

First merge

I've merged the Quest for the historical Jesus in here. It's full of OR and very wordy, so it will have to be tightened considerably, but at least that's one fewer for now. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:59, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Nice bit of boldness there, SV. Now to work - what of this material do we keep, and what rides into the sunset? Wdford (talk) 08:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know yet, Wd. We'll have to read it through in the context of this article, remove any repetition, and check the sources to remove any OR. It's a fair bit of work. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:06, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

As an old saying says a journey of a 1,000 miles begins with a single step.--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:34, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I know I've been avoiding this page, and not that active on Wikipedia lately, but... seems to me Quest for the historical Jesus is an attempt to discuss the various movements and trends in history during the past 150 years in regards to historical Jesus research. It's basically "a history of scholarly trends in historical Jesus research". Therefore, it seems to me, if it was to be merged, it would work better in the historical Jesus article as a "background" or "history" section. I can't think of one reason why it would work better in this article... but I'm probably not wearing my thinking cap ;) So what's the dealy? -Andrew c ^[talk] 00:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Browsing the above, it appears Akhilleus and PeaceLove both suggested the quest article go to HJ, not here... -Andrew c ^[talk] 00:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's where the quest material belongs. The primary concern of the quest is not historicity as this article describes it (i.e. as the mere historical existence of Jesus), so placing this material here gives the reader an inaccurate idea of what these writers were doing, whereas locating this material in historical Jesus presents no problem. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:13, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

And historical Jesus is already at 103K, otherwise I would have just moved the quest material from this article there. I really don't see why we shouldn't maintain Quest for the historical Jesus as a separate article, there's no shortage of material on which to base a good article on the history of scholarship in this field. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Many of our sources say there is a shortage of material, i.e. little that can be known. There is no shortage of stuff written on the topic, but that's different topic. Noloop (talk) 01:28, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I quite understand your last comment. There is no shortage of stuff written on the historical Jesus, and there is no shortage of material written about scholarship on the historical Jesus. If you think they're different topics, then that would suggest that Quest for the historical Jesus should be maintained as a separate article... --Akhilleus (talk) 01:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

During the merger discussions, it was clear that some material from "Quest...." would be relevant here, and some in the "Historical Jesus" article. I think things would become clearer as we get to work on the material from "Quest..."-Civilizededucation^talk 02:11, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

What part of the Quest material do you think is relevant here? --Akhilleus (talk) 02:22, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Folks, let's complete the merge and clean up the overlap and repetition first. Once that is done properly, we can carefully consider the need for a spin-off article, and possibly recreate the Quest article - but this time in a more focused and non-overlapping manner. Much of the Historical Jesus article probably does belong here also, and the Historical Jesus article should probably just be a summary of the Jesus-related gospel material, with caveats about the historicity of the source material and a reference to this article for that detail. Wdford (talk) 08:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree; let's not allow the perfect to be the enemy of the good. What we need first of all is a structure, then we can start to focus on which parts of the structure the content is best directed towards. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:54, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree with this at all. If the purpose of these initial merges is to create a working structure, it's important to create a strong and accurate structure, and this merge hasn't done it. You've taken an article that is about reconstructing what the historical Jesus was like and shoved it into an article that ostensibly covers whether he existed at all. As many comments on this page have indicated, these are two different conversations. This is creating a muddle, not clarifying things. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• Much of the Historical Jesus article probably does belong here also, and the Historical Jesus article should probably just be a summary of the Jesus-related gospel material
  • I think we are getting ahead of ourselves. I don't agree to that at all, and it isn't clear to me that there is consensus for such a bold change. Why start all this merging junk, when we aren't even on the same page yet. Maybe this is something someone should work up in a sandbox, instead of merging entire unrelated articles into other articles, with the intention of trimming all the unrelated content (and maybe salvaging all the trimmed stuff elsewhere? that isn't even clear at this point). Seems quite destructive. If you are trying to figure out what best fits here, work it out in a sandbox, or just move the relevant content. It seems absurd to move an entire article with the knowledge that most of it isn't going to end up here in the end.-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Andrew c, why fret so much? We have it all in the article history. It's not gone anywhere. There can be many other ways of merging too. Let's see what happens before we decide if it's good or not. The proposal for bringing stuff from the Historical Jesus article looks good. I too think some of it belongs here. Why do you jump to conclusions even before you have seen the details of the proposal?-Civilizededucation^talk 17:04, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Andrew, look at the Historical Jesus article and see how long are some of the discussions, about content that has its own daughter article already. Do a wikisearch for "Jesus", and you get 41600 hits. Some of them are for towns and films and universities, but see how many articles there already are that cover this very same material over and over again. Repeating the same material endlessly does not make for quality articles, it actually forces readers to wade through the same old stuff over and over and obscures the content that they might be looking for. A clean-up is long overdue. We need an agreement on the reason for existence of this article, and the reason for existence of the Historical Jesus article, and then we need to split the huge mass of content between them. If some stuff belongs elsewhere then it must move over there to where it belongs. We already have articles that deal with the "religious" aspects of Jesus - we don't need to repeat that material either. The blue-link system is massively powerful - let's not waste that opportunity to create user-friendly articles. Wdford (talk) 17:21, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

A clean-up that makes things more confusing is no clean up at all. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how things can be more confusing then they are already. The Jesus article bloat has become akin Old McDonald's Farm: article on Jesus here, article on Jesus there, everywhere an article on Jesus. This had gotten totally out of hand and some cleaning up to straighten up the mess is needed.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:47, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

On the other hand, a clean-up that makes things more readable and less confusing, is both valuable and desperately needed. Wdford (talk) 21:22, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Source abuse

Ignoring we had a RfC on this exact topic, PeaceLove's changes (which I just reverted) simply distort what our sources are saying. We quote our source specifically. Stanton says "Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not..." I don't know how it could be any more clearer. How could anyone read that statement and conclude "only Christians fall under this category". As for the second change, is it necessary? My concern there isn't the religious background of sources 14 and 15, but instead, how those sources relate to the sentence at all. The grammar is a bit weird, "much reliable historical information" is vague and weaselly. I think that sentence does need work or better sourcing for sure. But I really don't get the "devout Christian" addition. I mean, how can you even tell something like that? -Andrew c ^[talk] 01:17, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The statement about consensus is problematic in many ways. It is putting words into the mouths of other scholars who have said nothing. How can we allow this? Is the source the president of "all scholar" union? Did he conduct a survey of "all scholars"? Did he even notify "all scholars" that he is making a statement on their behalf? And who is meant by "all scholars"? There may even be scholars who have nothing to do with Jesus and Christianity and do not even know that someone is making statements on their behalf. I have described my opposition to keeping such statements in the article in another thread. Such statements are of trivial value.-Civilizededucation^talk 02:04, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Andrew c, why can't you discuss things before you jump to conclusions and just revert?-Civilizededucation^talk 02:14, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Andrew has objected to two passages, restored by Civilizededucation in this edit. First, "While scholars draw a distinction between the Jesus of history and the figure of religious faith, the vast majority of scholars who specialize in the historicity of Jesus are Christians who believe his existence as a historical figure can be established using documentary and other evidence..." The references cited for this material is Graham Stanton, who does not say that the "vast majority", or even "most scholars", who study the historical Jesus are Christians. He says "Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed and that the gospels contain plenty of valuable evidence which has to be weighed and assessed critically." The article needs to reflect what Stanton actually says, instead of citing him for something he doesn't say.

The second passage Andrew objected to is in the "Gospels" section: "Devout Christian scholars may assert that mainstream historians consider the synoptic gospels to contain much reliable historical information about Jesus as a Galilean teacher..." The sources cited are Robert Van Voorst and William Weaver. These sources don't say that "devout Christian scholars may assert" anything. Both make statements about what scholars say. Neither, as far as I'm aware, characterize other scholars as "devout Christians", nor do they characterize themselves as "devout Christians". So it's unclear to me why any editor would think this material is an accurate representation of what the sources say. I will, therefore, revert.

If someone wants to argue that the text accurately represents Stanton, Van Voorst, and Weaver, please do so. But do so on the basis of what those sources actually say. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

The point is that all three of the sources are devout Christians who are asserting their opinion regarding the mainstream view. It does not take much of a Google search on these individuals to figure out that they are devout Christians, and we are doing a disservice to the reader not to alert them to this fact. If this was a Mormon asserting that the Book of Mormon was historical, then we would also want to make the reader aware of this information. Given the quality of the sources, this is the most accurate statement that can be made in compliance with WP:NPOV. The sources are making statements of opinion, not fact, and we are telling the reader information about the sources that helps the reader evaluate their opinions. -PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 03:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

How do you know that they're "devout Christians"? What does this phrase even mean? When you use an evaluative word like "devout", I can only think we're getting an opinion, not a fact—and in this case, the opinion comes from a Wikipedia editor, not a reliable source. And, you know, our sourcing policies tell us that we give considerable deference to opinions contained in reliable sources. Scholars like Stanton, Van Voorst, and Weaver are in good positions to make authoritative statements about not only their (well-informed) opinions about their subject matter, but the balance of opinion in their academic fields...and if they're off-base, it should be no problem to find other reliable sources that disagree with what they say. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I find going around in circles on the talk page fairly dull, so I've posted this at WP:NPOVN to get outside input. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:30, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

We just had an RFC on in-line identification of sources as Christian, and the majority supported it. The adjective "devout" does seem a bit subjective, but that's a reason the remove the word, not the entire edit. Noloop (talk) 17:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

We should identify the religion of a source when the religion of the source is an issue. Akhilleus is right, what we have here is the same disruptive edits we had a month or two ago. We need to represent accurtately what sources say. It is simply unacceptable for a Wikipedian to put words in the mouth of a source - it is a clear violation of WP:V and WP:NOR; edits that violate these core content policies should be reverted on sight.

CivilizedEducation, PeaceLoveHarmony, and Noloop are implying that the views represented are specifically Christian views. We need reliable evidence of this. Do the authors say that they are expressing or writing about the Christian viewpoint? They usually do so, you know. Or do we have reliable secondary sources that identify these particular books as expressing a Christian point of view? PeaceLoveHarmoney seems to consider googling "research." It is not. Please find reliable secondary sources - for example, other historians writing about 1st century Judea or the Galilee - who identify these works as expressing a specifically Christian view. That would be a verifiable source we could use. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:57, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Noloop: the RfC concerned identifying sources as ordained ministers or similar, not as "devout Christians." And that's only one of the issues here: the more obvious problem is that the version that PeaceLoveHarmony, Civilizededucation, and you support uses Stanton, Van Voorst, and Weaver as sources for something that they don't say. As SLR says, it's unacceptable for editors to put words in the sources' mouths. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I reverted to your version. I criticized the word "devout". The wording of tyhe RFC was "the source is an ordained minister or similar." Stanton is similar. Are you going to edit war over the meaning of "similar" now? Hardyplants has now decided to turn it into an edit war, by shoving the text into the article without consensus with the dishonest rationale that what matters isn't consensus but just whether it's referenced. Noloop (talk) 18:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Noloop, I see you didn't revert me, so I've just struck part of my comment above. But I don't think that Stanton's being a Christian, whether devout or not, makes him similar to an ordained minister, so you're going to have to help me out on that one. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, this problem is much more widespread than I had realised. I encountered another example at Book of Joshua today. Should we try to solve this problem on one page first and then try to spread it to others or should we escalate the whole issue? Martijn Meijering (talk) 18:40, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Problems with the Book of Joshua should be addressed at that article. If you're trying to address a project-wide concern about statements of academic consensus, that should be addressed on a policy page. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:56, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I meant a project-wide concern. What do you think, should we continue to meet like this or should we start a fundamental discussion? What policy page would be appropriate if we chose to do the latter? Martijn Meijering (talk) 18:59, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that use of the word "devout" could be problematic. I do see it used in other Wikipedia articles (try searching for "devout Christian" for examples) but unless individuals characterized themselves in that way, it becomes a subjective judgment. I would argue that Graham Stanton was a devout Christian, based on the fact that he delivered sermons expressing his beliefs, as can be seen from this selection of quotes:"This scholarly interest relates to his own Christian faith - Graham believed that 'in the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, God disclosed his purposes for his creation' (Gospel Truth?, 192); he believed (echoing 2 Cor 5) 'that in (or through) Christ crucified, God was reconciling the world to himself, no longer holding people's misdeeds against them. God has taken an initiative in love, forgiven our sins, reconciled us to himself, and thus transformed our lives. ' (500th anniversary sermon - notable for the appeal to P46 at 2 Cor 5.19!)"[2]

By the way, this is not a discussion about whether the sources are reliable, per se, but rather a discussion about whether the sources' statements should be treated as statements of opinion or statements of fact, and whether or not we should let the reader know the sources are Christians. All three quotes are examples of Christians who are making statements about the mainstream scholarly consensus. (Please see Civilizededucation's response above for an excellent summary of why these statements are problematic.) These are statements of opinion, and should be presented as such, and they are representative of the kinds of statements that are made by the majority of Christian scholars, as has been well-documented by the FAQ quote list that Bill the Cat has popularized on the Jesus Myth Theory talk page. If Bill the Cat's FAQ quote list is a fair representation, then the statement "the vast majority of scholars who specialize in the historicity of Jesus are Christians who believe his existence as a historical figure can be established using documentary and other evidence" is accurate, since over 90% of those sources are Christian and/or were educated at Christian institutions.

Similarly the statement, "Christian scholars may assert that mainstream historians consider the synoptic gospels to contain much reliable historical information about Jesus as a Galilean teacher", is supported by the sources that have been provided, as they are two examples of this opinion being asserted by Christians. -PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 19:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

So you have done an informal survey of sources that a Wikipedia editor has compiled, and concluded that roughly 90% are Christians, so therefore we can add that "fact" to a sentence based on your original research? Is that what you just said above, or am I missing something? (not to mention that your change made it seems like it was Stanton making the claim, not the Wikipedia editor PeaceLoveHarmony, ignoring the fact that we can't use your informal survey of another Wikipedia's sources as a citation in the first place). You claim that "Christian scholars may assert" such and such, but from what I gather from our quotations in the footnotes, these scholars are not even making that assertion. As I stated in the OP, this sentence is problematic because it isn't clear how it is even derived from the sources, or what "much reliable historical information" means. I think we should get our phrasing an sources together first, before accusing the sources of bias for something they never claimed in the first place! -Andrew c ^[talk] 19:34, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the statements about academic consensus from this field should not be used at all. They are worthless.-Civilizededucation^talk 00:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The latest edit war

I have some concerns regarding this material:

"Historians subject the gospels to critical analysis, attempting to differentiate authentic, reliable information from what they judge to be inventions, exaggerations, and alterations.

Which historians? Who? What? Where? When?

"Many prominent mainstream historians consider the synoptic gospels to contain much reliable historical information about the historical Jesus as a Galilean teacher

This is misleading, as many historians also consider the Gospels to lack reliable historical information of the historical Jesus (as is noted later). Also, "many" and "prominent" are weasel and POV words. Both the sources are overtly Christian, as Bruce pointed out above. The main conclusion I can draw about sources for this topic is that most "prominent mainstream historians" don't consider the question at all.

"The baptism of Jesus, his preaching, and the crucifixion of Jesus, are generally deemed to be historically authentic, while the two accounts of the nativity of Jesus, as well as certain details about the crucifixion and the resurrection, are generally deemed to be non-authentic.

Again, "generally deemed" is a bit weasely, and there is a ton of overtly religious sourcing in the references. Noloop (talk) 04:01, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see it as an edit war. It's on the talk page now. I don't see sourcing problems in exactly the same way that you do. Will be back later with a more substantive response.-Civilizededucation^talk 06:03, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Paul B (talk) 08:57, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually I do see sourcing problems the way that you do. Only difference is that I see more problems. I think that cherry picking and misrepresentation are also massive problems and they have made this article totally Christian POV. I intend to pursue the cherry picking and misrepresentation problems first. Most issues are being discussed in a vague,one sided way. There are other/more complete views on them. If we can find other/clearer views and correct the misrepresentations, that should help a great deal in making the article neutral. The current edits are a step in that direction. That is why I support them.-Civilizededucation^talk 05:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

establish existence

What is the source for this sentence: "The majority of scholars who specialize in the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth argue that his existence as a historical figure can be established using documentary and other evidence" Also, what exactly does it mean? It seems to amount to saying the majority of scholars (a group that is Christian) don't claim its just faith. Noloop (talk) 19:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

It makes no sense to me. Also no source. - Ret.Prof (talk) 19:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Now it works. - Ret.Prof (talk) 20:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

What is the supporting text from the source: Norman Perrin, The New Testament, an introduction: proclamation and parenesis, myth and history, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1974. p 285-288, ? (Something more recent would be better.) Noloop (talk) 01:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Stanton in the lede

Stanton is not a historian and therefore isn't a reliable source on a consensus among historians. Even if he were, the lede is still misleading because it talks about scholars in general not about historians and therefore isn't an accurate representation of the source. I do believe the general statement is true, but it needs better sourcing, possibly even from Stanton but not this specific quote.Martijn Meijering (talk) 00:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

It's also a problem because the lead is specific about how the existence of Jesus is (allegedly) established, whereas the supporting quote isn't actually about that. Noloop (talk) 00:39, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Stanton may not be a historian per se, but he is a good and balanced source on the subject. The distinction between historians and biblical scholars is an imprecise one here. What difference is there between saying that the existence of Jesus is accepted by historians who consider the gospels to contain useful evidence, and saying that they consider his existence can be established using documentary evidence? I see no objection to this quote, although it could be attributed to him directly in the text if you prefer.--Rbreen (talk) 00:46, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Stanton is a historian, and is a reliable source on multiple counts. (wow, that is easy to do, making bold assertions!) Anyway, the sentence in the lead is qualified "majority of scholars who specialize in the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth". Who specializes in the historicity of Jesus? Is that some new tract of study? I'm not sure what you folks have been doing to the lead, but it has issues. But I guess that is another point. It seems like we had an OK, sourced lead, but things have been cut and changed to fit the desires of a couple editors, while keeping the same sources from before (but without taking into consideration that one editor's desire may not be supported by the pre-existing sources). Maybe editors who are rewriting the lead should stick to the sources better. I'm going to have a hard time defending the current phrasing based on this, even when I find generally that our sources are good, and reliable. -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:59, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

By 'a couple editors' you mean 'community consensus after two RfC's and multiple RSN threads'. This article was a serious issue, with a lot of fighting until we got a larger sample of the project in here and started hammering out consensus. -- ۩ Mask 00:45, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, the sentence in the lead is qualified "majority of scholars who specialize in the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth". I think you have a point there. How do we know that the source is saying majority of scholars who specialize in the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth? Let's stick to what the source is saying even if it is totally unclear what he is saying. I mean, let's not put our words into the mouth of the source. Even if we are unsatisfied with his wording, we should not take it upon ourselves to clarify it according to our own inclinations. We should let it remain unclear and misleading because the source statement is unclear and misleading.-Civilizededucation^talk 04:21, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I mean, it is obvious that the statement has problems. But instead of putting words in the mouth of the source, we should find other ways of solving the problem.-Civilizededucation^talk 04:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the quote should not be in the lede. If we are going to quote Stanton, then we should quote him accurately. But if we do, he is no longer a reliable source on the opinion of historians, not being one himself. We could still quote him if we think it is notable, but his opinion should be presented as an opinion, not a fact. In any event the current quote should not be in the lede. Martijn Meijering (talk) 14:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Huh, where did the Stanton quote go? Did I start this discussion on the wrong talk page? I see the quote is still there on the Jesus myth page. Martijn Meijering (talk) 15:07, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

You are on the correct page. The quote is in the first line of the article now. I think the quote should not even be in the article. It should not even be on Wikipedia because it is totally unclear what it is saying. We don't use unclear statements on Wikipedia.-Civilizededucation^talk 16:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Stanton is back in the lede now, with the same inaccurate quote: Stanton talks about historians, not about scholars who specialise in the historicity of Jesus. Stanton is not a reliable source about a consensus among historians, he should not be quoted inaccurately and the (probably true) claim of a (possibly biased) consensus among specialised scholars should be supported by a better source. Martijn Meijering (talk) 23:46, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

...the (probably true) claim of a (possibly biased) consensus among specialised scholars.... Mesays- you have got a good picture there.-Civilizededucation^talk 11:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Andrew c 3 reverts (oral or written, ordained Baptist, Jesus Project)

I reverted 3 edits of Civilizededucation, and I'd briefly like to explain to allow for further discussion. My first revert removed the new sentence It is not clear whether they were written or oral sources which was attached to the Ehrman p. 83 citation. The only place Ehrman says "either written documents that no longer survive or oral traditions that they had heard" is in relation to the special M and L material. Not all the sources behind the Gospels. Ehrman argues clearly that Q was a written source, so we cannot say that scholars don't know if the sources were written or oral in all cases. Similarly, the semeia source is argued to be written as well. We clearly repeat later in the paragraph that the M and L special material could have been written or oral, so I think Ehrman's point is presented, in the proper context, already. CE's change made it seem like there was doubt across the board for all sources whether they were written or oral, when at least two are always argued to be written.

My second revert restored "The non gospel books of the New Testament do not contribute much to our picture of Jesus" This is an important phrase to include. Without it, it makes it seem like McKnight is referring to Paul, the Gospels, and Acts, when he is actually referring to the non-gospel books. I also feel like the sentence is important to qualify the NT, as the bulk of the NT material IS unrelated to the HJ. Finally, it introduced "ordained Baptist" and removed "New Testament scholar". What evidence is there that the view presented by McKnight stems from his religious ordination? I'd be glad to include such a qualify, if it can be substantiated. Otherwise, his background in NT scholarship seems much more relevant. I believe the RfC has general agreement to include such religious qualifies when presenting clearly religious ideas. I don't feel that this is a case, but I'm open to arguments on the contrary.

Finally, I removed reference to the "Jesus Project" from the sentence that started "it continues today among scholars such as". The Jesus Project does not continue today. Such an addition is inaccurate. I'm not opposed to adding a mention of the JP at all, so I'd encourage someone to find another way to incorporate the link if they feel it is still needed. Just don't imply they are still active. -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Ha! The subject line makes it seem like a 3RR violation.-Andrew c ^[talk] 14:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you even review edits before reverting them. The Mcknight attribution is not my doing.-Civilizededucation^talk 15:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Apparently not. I just go around reverting and reverting because I hate my fellow editors and want to spread chaos. ;) Simple mistake. I've redacted the above... -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The RfC is not limited to "clearly religious ideas." That's absurd. This is an article on a secular matter, and we are presumably not presenting any religious ideas at all. The question of the RfC: When we use in-text attribution regarding a point about the historicity of Jesus, and the source is an ordained minister or similar, should we include that information in the attribution? For example, should we write: "New Testament scholar N.T. Wright, the Bishop of Durham, argues that ..."? [3]. The McKnight comment is "a point about the historicity of Jesus," and the source is an ordained minister. (I might add that if you look at the actual source, you see some pretty specious reasoning. McKnight very much seems to be skimping on analysis in an area where he has religious belief.) Noloop (talk) 16:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

It is very clear from the RFC that this attribution is needed. I don't see the point in reverting it now.-Civilizededucation^talk 16:44, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Where is this RFC? john k (talk) 17:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

It is here apparently. I was gone when this took place and reviewing it now makes it clear that the outside opinions were split, and those in favor of attribution pretty much all added caveats to their vote that are not being represented accurately or fairly in the above comments. For instance I don't see any outside commentators supporting the attribution of someone's religious affiliation, and see many supporting all kinds of attribution (which would mean mentioning that someone is a bishop as well as mentioning their academic credentials. Those in favor of attribution here don't want that however, because their only aim is to make the readers think certain scholars are biased. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 17:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

This is a lie: "those in favor of attribution pretty much all added caveats to their vote that are not being represented accurately or fairly in the above comments. For instance I don't see any outside commentators supporting the attribution of someone's religious affiliation..."

• Support Relevant information about the source of a scholarly opinion is always relevant and virtually never something that can be construed to be biased. Mentioning someone's position as a minister should hardly even be a matter of debate, former bishops included. Mentioning someone's religion seems less clear-cut, though. It would very much depend on how the belief has been expressed. If anything, compare it with politics: mentioning that a political writer is a (former) politician of a certain party is obvious, but not necessarily what party s/he voted for. Peter Isotalo 19:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support If this were a controversial comment related to the biography of Barack Obama, as a reader I'd like to know who made the comment, and what his political background is, to understand the context. I see no difference here. History and its interpretation are highly politicized, esp. when they relate to modern issues. So when it comes to the history of religious figures revered by some modern day historians, our readers have the right to know where those historians are coming from, to get the full picture. Crum375 (talk) 21:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support If someone is an ordained minster, that is an important fact in the attribution. At the same time, the fact that they are ordained should be verifiable. Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 02:15, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
• Support. When the source has a clear conflict of interest (namely studying something they believe to be their personal savior and gateway to eternal life) the reader should be informed. -- ۩ Mask 16:46, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
• Support in some instances. Some illumination on the background of the person giving the commentary, if it is relevant, is something that I would advertise. The occupation revealed should, in my opinion, be in a short, preface-like manner that isn't too long or distracting. If it breaks one of those principles or is unimportant, then it shouldn't be there for the particular cases. Backtable

There are more. Noloop (talk) 18:25, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Please reconsider calling my comment a "lie" as a lie is not simply an incorrect statement but an incorrect statement intended to deceive, which I can assure you was not my intent. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 18:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

First of all, there are no more outside views supporting attribution, and one of the views you've quoted above is very questionably uninvolved. The rest of the supporting views come from clearly involved editors with a distinct POV. I'll grant that my above comment wasn't 100% accurate, but my point is exactly that some of the support votes had caveats like ...

• "... Mentioning someone's position as a minister should hardly even be a matter of debate ... Mentioning someone's religion seems less clear-cut, though."
• "Support in some instances ... If it breaks one of those principles or unimportant, then it shouldn't be there for the particular cases."

There seemed to be support for attribution of someone's profession generally, and specifically for attribution of ministerial affiliation, but not mere religious preferences. That's my point.Griswaldo (talk) 18:37, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

It is also notable that one outside party pointed out during the RFC that all of this is covered by policy, and this policy is explicitly against the push for attributions unless what is being attributed is an opinion, as opposed to an uncontested fact. Please read WP:ASF. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 18:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

• Yeah, OK, you "accidentally" missed five counter-examples. Coincidentally, the accident advances a position you've been trying to advance for the last two months.
• The so-called "outside party" advancing WP:ASF is Jrtayloriv. There is a section on that same page called" Jrtayloriv's lead changes". He was real uninvolved.[4]
• We aren't discussing mentioning "mere religious preferences." Stop misrepresenting the situation and making strawman arguments. Two months of that from you gets old.
• WP:ASF applies to matters of uncontested fact. There was a long discussion of this on the Talk page with Jrtayloriv [5]. We are having these disputes because the facts are contested.
• The matter at hand is whether non-Gospel New Testament texts confirm the fact of the historical Jesus. Please document that it's an uncontested fact that the non-Gospel texts of the New Testament confirms the existence of Jesus. Noloop (talk) 19:11, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

And what facts exactly are "in serious dispute among reliable sources"? That is the language of WP:ASF. Only in such situations do statements need attribution. You're simply using attribution to insinuate bias.Griswaldo (talk) 19:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

(EC)Seriously, why edit war to get this in to the article? You know it is contentious, and you know that it is under discussion on the talk page? So why the heck would you edit war to restore this newly added, contentious material (well, maybe not "newly added", as it has been discussed multiple times in the past)? Seriously, WTH? You have been making borderline personal attacks on other editors, your tone is very condescending, and perhaps you are upset or frustrated. But now I see you are edit warring over this as well. It is hard to react to that, and try to work in good faith with someone in such a state. I'm hoping that you can self revert, calm down a bit, and we can all scale back and discuss this civilly. -Andrew c ^[talk] 19:59, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Gee, I was told it's OK to make negative comments about edits, just not editors. Why is it OK to say comments are bigoted, but not lies? Noloop (talk) 23:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello last month. If you recall, I apologized for using the B-word, and have NOT used it since. Water under bridge? Ahem. Anyway, I wrote a whole paragraph explaining why I felt your edit was problematic, could you please at least try to address my concerns. Why did you delete the first half of the sentence? I explain above in the OP why I feel it is important, and why without it, you are misrepresenting what McKnight says.-Andrew c ^[talk] 00:48, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello last month. If you recall, I apologized for using the B-word, and have NOT used it since. Water under bridge? Please don't speak as if it was nothing. You don't know what it feels like to be in a situation like that. You don't know how it changes people. It cannot be forgotten because it is not something that can be forgotten.-Civilizededucation^talk 03:28, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to Griswaldo, and the crowd from the Slrubenstein RfC. Noloop (talk) 05:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

@Andrew c. Your latest "surviving" edit does not appear to make any sense. What does it mean. Please review it. Do we have any proof to show that there were any accounts to start with. Your edit is implying that.(besides not making good sense)-Civilizededucation^talk 08:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

TO quote SV "There are no extent contemporaneous sources. That means no one from his lifetime wrote anything about him that survived." Key words are "extent" and/or "that survived". The prior phrasing said that there were no sources. We shouldn't say one way or the other that there were or there weren't sources, only that most scholars think the sources, in the current form, were composed decades after Jesus' death. I feel like we should also point out that most scholars think that some of these sources, the gospels in particular, contain material that does come from the time of Jesus... regardless, I don't think it was appropriate to make a bold claim that no sources ever existed (but we shouldn't definitely say that there were sources either). IMO, the wording from a couple days ago was superior. Also, why no talk on the McKnight stuff at all? -Andrew c ^[talk] 13:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to be picky, but can we clarify that the word should be "extant", NOT "extent". We don't want yet more confusion. I'm sure SV's use of 'extent' originally was just a typo. Paul B (talk) 13:36, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I wrote extant. [6] SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I am sure you have written the correct word in other posts, but the one quoted by Andrew you used "extent". See your post dated 17:43, 15 September 2010. Strange that you can't even admit to a typo. [7] Paul B (talk) 11:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I have tried to address your concern of misrepresentation. After the RFC, I don't see much need for further discussion on the issue. The RFC is very clear that the attribution is needed.-Civilizededucation^talk 14:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

There is surviving no evidence for the existence of Jesus that comes from the time of Jesus—no writings or artifacts of his, no accounts of him written in his lifetime. This is the present sentence. I was trying to say that the addition of "surviving" has made the sentence ungrammatical and implies that there were some sources which have been lost. Since we agree that we should not say whether there were/weren't sources, the removal of "surviving" should solve the issue. It would make no claim in either direction.-Civilizededucation^talk 14:55, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with reporting various opinions. According to church tradition the gospels of Matthew and John were written by eyewitnesses and Mark was written by the interpreter of an eyewitness. I think that the majority of biblical scholars no longer accept these claims and we can report both opinions. In any event it is true that no surviving source is generally accepted as an eyewitness account, nor do we know of eyewitness accounts that have not survived. Martijn Meijering (talk) 15:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

"Surviving" is a red herring. The present tense takes care of any doubts. There is no evidence for X from the time of X. This doesn't imply X never existed. If I say there are no dinosaurs, I'm saying there are no surviving dinosaurs; the word "surviving" is unnecessary. Leaving it out doesn't imply there have never been dinosaurs. Noloop (talk) 15:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Additional point: the modifier "from his time" implies that there is evidence for the existence of Jesus (just from a different time). So the current wording implies the existence of evidence, yet it is still being lawyered over. The word-gaming in this topic is just insane. Noloop (talk) 15:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Please explain what is wrong with the previous wording: "There is no evidence for the existence of Jesus that comes from the time of Jesus". What the source, Elaine Pagels, said: "none of the historical evidence actually goes back as far as Jesus" Noloop (talk) 16:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we should claim or imply the gospel of John was not written by an eyewitness. We can however probably find and cite a reliable source that states a consensus among critical biblical scholars is that it was not written by a disciple of Jesus. Martijn Meijering (talk) 23:56, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

We probably don't risk plagiarism by copping an independent clause. Would using the Pagels wording directly be more satisfactory? Noloop (talk) 16:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that there is nothing wrong with reporting various opinions. I think that it is fair to represent the Church view alongside various scholarly views.-Civilizededucation^talk 14:12, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

RfC outcome

• The RFC is very clear that the attribution is needed.

I just re-read the RfC, made counts, annotations, and tried to get a feel of it, again. On sheer number counting, we have 13 supports, 8 oppose, and 2 others. 57% vs. 35%. I don't see how that is consensus, vs. vote counting. On closer analysis of the comments, and the discussion following the votes, I found commentors or both sides presenting grey areas where "in some cases" or "in some instances" such attributions IS needed. There are only about 5 people that clearly suggest something along the line of "Christians aren't neutral on the existence of Jesus", and that this general bias should be presented on that fact alone. On the other hand, there were only maybe 2 or 3 editors with 'oppose' votes that thought scholars should blanket be "given benefit of doubt", and even then it isn't clear if they would oppose "some cases" of religious affiliation attribution. There were three commentors who really didn't discuss the topic at hand, but after their vote went on about something off topic. That leaves about 12 people, on both sides, that support attribution "in some cases" or "in some instances". It was my view now (and before the current thread) that the only consensus that could read from the RfC is that there was broad support for attribution in some cases, where the attribution is "relevant", "important to our understanding of what they have to say", "[i]If the balance of other reliable secondary sources discussing the author's work make the attribution, then we should too", "[i]f it's an opinion, or a statement of fact that is contradicted by other reliable sources, it needs to be attributed." The funny thing, Noloop said clearly "Christians aren't neutral on the existence of Jesus" and Civilizededucation "I see all sources on matters like religion, as having some bias", but I don't think anywhere close to a majority support the idea of Christian talking about Jesus=bias, and thus needs attribution. The majority of commentors had a higher standard. Do reliable sources discuss the religious background? Is the material disputed? Is the religious background relevant to each example on a case by case basis? In terms of McKnight, I want to know specifically why it is important to add the "Baptist" qualification. Is the claim disputed? Do other sources when discussing his scholarship on this topic make the qualification? How is "Baptist" relevant to his claim on historicity? As Griswaldo said above, I don't see how this particular case is anything but an effort to insinuate bias, which is unfounded in reliable sources. I'd welcome an uninvolved admin to review the RfC and determine "consensus". I think the important point is we all discussed our views, and we are able to find some commmon ground, you know, parts that we can all agree to.-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:55, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Somebody shoot me, please. Noloop (talk) 16:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

If we need to discuss this all over again, what is the meaning of having an RFC. The RFC was exactly on this issue. And the outcome is clear. The people who say "Support" mean that they support attribution of this type. The people who say "Oppose" are opposed to it. The people who say "Support" and say more things mostly mean that they want attribution in more cases. Please don't misrepresent them. You can ask them for clarifications if you want.-Civilizededucation^talk 16:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Shocking that it would be so amazingly clear that the outcome of the RFC conforms 100% to your position. Who'd have expected that? Look, even if we view this as a yes or no vote (which I think is problematic; it's not as though the question was formulated by someone trying to express the dispute neutrally - it was formulated by SlimVirgin in order to persuade outsiders who haven't followed this closely that you all's position is right), 13-8 is not consensus. You can't use the RFC as evidence for much of anything. john k (talk) 17:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

It's shocking that we can count? Somebody besides me request arbitration please. This month-long waste of everybody's time is going to be a years-long waste of everybody's time, unless certain individuals are made to give up their jihad. Noloop (talk) 19:19, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

A 57% majority is not normally taken to be consensus. A move request that had 3 yes votes and 2 no votes would be closed as no consensus. john k (talk) 22:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

John, could you explain what you mean, please, by "it was formulated by SlimVirgin in order to persuade outsiders who haven't followed this closely that you all's position is right ..."? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:13, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Nothing nefarious. You obviously have opinions on the subject, which you've made clear beforehand. I thought the RFC question was written in a way so as to garner maximal support for your position. If Andrew c had inquired on the RFC about the same topic, I imagine he'd have framed it quite differently, and this might have led to different results. That's fine; we all tend to present issues in the light most favorable to our own opinions. There's nothing wrong with that, and it's hard to do otherwise. But I think it needs to be taken into account when we try to understand the results of the discussion. john k (talk) 22:07, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The article suffered to an extreme extent from a walled garden effect, being the purview of a small group of editors. The echo chamber effect this has and how out of touch the results it produces need not be illustrated, they are apparent, but in case they need to be, just look at how Noloop was ganged up on. Two topic bans proposed in a week which received unanimous support from editors who had been active on this page but a very clear 'no' from the community at large. Opening the article up to the wider community has helped, and it is that that you are seeing, not some conspiracy about Slim. As to your comment that 57% is not a consensus... Only a third want it as is. There is/was clearly not consensus to remain at the version as it then stood. That means we make a change. It means that change is fluid, and is shaped by consensus as we go, but the big take away lesson is that the article as it stood did not have the support of the community. After the two RfC's that much is crystal clear. -- ۩ Mask 22:35, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

"The article as it stood" does not have community support? What does that even mean? What part of the article? Even if that were true it's pretty meaningless and doesn't support the specific issue being discussed here. You say the article suffers from a walled garden effect, well let me offer you a different opinion. This article, and a couple of other related ones, have been under siege from people with an anti-theist POV (for the record I'm an agnostic and couldn't care less if Jesus was real or mythical). These POV pushers have been relentless, and just because some of us don't have time to show up to every RFC does not mean that opinions opposed to yours haven't been expressed by many, many more people than those who participated in the most recent RFC. Acceptance of the mainstream scholarly perspective has been expressed by many on these talk pages and on various noticeboards (FRINGE, NPOV, etc.). Regarding Noloop, he has been blocked several times because of his behavior on this and related articles, despite the fact that the community isn't tired enough with his antics to want a topic ban. Noloop was hardly ganged up on. The reaction to him has been his own doing.Griswaldo (talk) 22:50, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

It's unbelievable that we are still debating this. An RfC doesn't require a supermajority to be relevant. Is the suggestion that we should ignore the RfC because it is merely a majority? Are we to ignore it because Griswaldo didn't "have the time to show up?" The majority of people supported the idea that identifying sources that are priests and such is a good idea. It's a really typical, standard thing to do in any article, and there is no reason to make exceptions for Christians. I don't think Griswaldo has even read the text in question: the claim being attributed to a minister is more specific than "mainstream acceptance." AKMask is right. These articles have a core of editors whose contribs are dominated by Christian articles and who show up mainly to revert. Hardyplants does not even have a comment on this Talk page, yet he is still reverting edits. Flash has about 20 reverts to the article in the last month, and about 3 brief comments. (For the record, I was blocked twice for what was essentially one edit war on one article, not this one, two months ago. Not "blocked several times because of his behavior on this and related articles," as Griswaldo puts it.) Noloop (talk) 01:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

You were blocked for edit warring on Historical Jesus. See here. The RFC you started on Slrubenstein also came down very hard on your behavior, much more so than on his. The various ANI discussions, while not ending in topic bans for you were in no way an endorsement of your tendentious editing either. There were several uninvolved editors in those forums who did support blocks, topic bans and/or other sanctions as well. The only reason I bring this up is that the picture painted above of some kind of unwarranted persecution of you is pretty far from reality and simply an attempt by others to muddy the waters here. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 03:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

A move request that had 3 yes votes and 2 no votes would be closed as no consensus. This is a complete misrepresentation of the outcome.-Civilizededucation^talk 12:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC) If you had a gripe with the wording of the RFC, you should have aired it at the start of the RFC. Now-sour grapes.-Civilizededucation^talk 12:38, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Two users have apologized for behaviour which was similar to yours. You can't pretend that Noloop was responsible for your behaviour.-Civilizededucation^talk 14:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

No kidding. I would comment about hijacking threads for endless personal remarks, but it would be doing what I object to in others. Noloop (talk) 14:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

If you all don't want this discussion brought up here then leave it out. Someone else was trying to impugn those who disagree with their (and Noloop's) perspective by using Noloop's reception here as an example. That's simply nonsense. Regarding my behavior you're completely twisting reality Civlizededucation. Those users apologized for calling him a bigot, something I've never done. During the Slr RFC, many editors, some completely uninvolved, commented that while it was an inappropriate word to use it did in fact describe the behavior quite well. Stop trying to impugn other people vis-a-vis this issue and then maybe it can be laid to rest. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 15:06, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Undue weight and possible POV pushing

Why does the article emphasis the myth theory to the extent of undue weight? Fact is, almost all historians accept the historical existence of Jesus, and the myth theory has been thoroughly rejected and ridiculed by mainstream scholars, as can be seen by the mountains of sources here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bill_the_Cat_7/CMT_FAQ#FAQ_Question_.232

These facts are simply absent from the article. Flash 02:15, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Point taken, references added, Stanton replaced, let's move forward. The myth theory has its own article, so let's focus here on the more serious challenges to the Historicity of Jesus of Nazareth. Wdford (talk) 02:39, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

This article is about the historical existence of Jesus, therefore the overwhelming consensus that Jesus existed is relevant. Why did you put information in the references instead of the actual article?

Among these scholars, how many have done any work in the field of Historicity of Jesus of Nazareth. How are they specialists of this field?-Civilizededucation^talk 03:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The "historicity of Jesus of Nazareth" is not a field, so no one can specialize in it. However, anyone who has done work on the historical Jesus (which is a field of study) knows the evidence for Jesus' life, and is well-qualified to comment upon it. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? The article has only one very short paragraph about the Jesus Myth Theory, very near the end. The theory gets brief mention in the lead paragraph, as it should, since the lead should summarize the contents of the article. -PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 03:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Then can you explain why fully 1/3 of the lead is dedicated to it?

• "Critics often accuse Biblical scholars of creating Jesus in their own image.[10][11][12] Still, a small number of scholars believe the gospels may describe an entirely fictitious or mythical figure,[13] an idea which has been popularized in the early 21st century by writers representing New Atheism such as Richard Dawkins, and movies such as The God Who Wasn't There."

The emphasis in the lead is very arguably WP:UNDUE.Griswaldo (talk) 03:51, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

This article wouldn't exist without the myth theory. That's pretty much by definition; without the people who question whether Jesus existed, there wouldn't be an article about whether he existed. The whole article is really WP:UNDUE, because it's elevated an outsider theory to the level of "a narrow area of biblical scholarship"—and now we're getting claims that scholars who don't specialize in this "field" aren't good sources for the article. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Well that's a very fair point. Why does this article exist?Griswaldo (talk) 04:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The theory gets exactly one sentence in the lead. You quoted it above. I do not see how that is WP:UNDUE. WP:UNDUE would be if we presented the Jesus Myth theory equally, which this article clearly does not even come close to doing. I don't think the article itself is WP:UNDUE, since it is just documenting what scholars have said on the question. -PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 04:16, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Which question is that, exactly? --Akhilleus (talk) 04:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

From WP:UNDUE - "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint, giving them 'due weight'." If a viewpoint is represented in a proportion closer to 1/10 or 1/100, then UNDUE would be anything above that. It doesn't have to be "presented ... equally" to be UNDUE at all. Where are you getting that from? The point is to represent it proportionally, and only if it's not WP:FRINGE, in which case it shouldn't be represented at all.Griswaldo (talk) 04:25, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

(again)Among these scholars, how many have done any work in the field of Historicity of Jesus of Nazareth?-Civilizededucation^talk 13:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

(again) The "historicity of Jesus of Nazareth" is not a field, so no one can specialize in it. Those are Akhilleus' words in response to you just above. They are just as accurate now as they were then. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:41, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

IT is not an answer to this question.-Civilizededucation^talk 14:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

You changed the question. When you do so you should strike through and not simply replace words, since my response no longer addresses your question directly, when it did originally. Regardless, I should note that you are still referring to is as a field when it is not. There are many scholars who do historical Jesus research, and do so by way of the historical method. Of these scholars those that question historicity are a very small, even fringe, minority.Griswaldo (talk) 14:36, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I changed any words. My earlier question had two parts. One of which was answered. But this one was unanswered. I take your present answer to mean that no scholars have done any work to answer the question of Jesus Historicity.-Civilizededucation^talk 14:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

That is not what I said at all and you should read some of the other posts in this thread more carefully. Most scholars don't address this question because it is no longer a question of interest to them ... they all feel it has been adequately dealt with and that the real work concerns what we can know about the historical figure and not whether or not he was a historical figure. Most discussions of evidence come from that kind of scholarship. Your very question is a red herring, and it has been suggested, I think rightly, that the entire article is undue given the reality of the scholarship in question.Griswaldo (talk) 15:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I restored the phrase "an idea which has been popularized in the early 21st century by writers representing New Atheism such as Richard Dawkins, and movies such as The God Who Wasn't There" to the lead, because I think it improves the article. It is not giving undue weight to the idea to simply note that it has been popularized in recent years. This is just a fact, not an opinion. Any editor who feels the so-called "myth" aspect of the article has undue weight should expand the other areas of the article, because it already has so little representation, it would only harm the article to trim down what little is there. -PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 16:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The people who want to remove it seem to be the ones who want to give a slant to the article and remove mention of a very notable fact they apparently want to hide from readers because it offends them personally. (And, while we should always assume good faith about editors' motives, based upon their comments and edits it does seem undeniable at this point that it's all about what they *want* to believe and have people read and not about facts and reality.) DreamGuy (talk) 16:08, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

@Griswaldo. This article exists because the question of Jesus Historicity exists. Even the leading scholars of our times do not deny this. The Jesus Project was going to take up this question and leading scholars were to take up this question. The fact that leading scholars were going to take up this question clearly show that this question exists in non-fringe circles. Hoffman, the co-chair of the project thinks that this question was not being taken up because of theological reasons.-Civilizededucation^talk 01:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Slow Down!

The onslaught of edits lately is disruptive, and inappropriate for such a controvesial article. WP:BOLD doesn't work when there are 20 bold edits a day. I requested discussion of one version of the second paragraph [8].[9][10], and there was little response. Neither of the editors reverting it, ReaverFlash and Hardyplants, contributed to the discussion. Nonetheless, there have been dozens of edits to that paragraph in the last day. Wdford seems to have very rapidly added a slew of references based on the Bill the Cat 7's FAQ. Bill the Cat 7's quote-based FAQ is not a reliable source. Did Wdford actually check the sources he added? I expressed concerns with a large amount of material WDford added here, but Wdford hasn't responded. Everybody is moving too fast. This article is prone to edit warring when there is one one-sentence change per day. Blitzing it with edits increases the odds of warring, and makes it hard for editors who don't live in Wikipedia to participate. Noloop (talk) 15:02, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Point taken - Ret.Prof (talk) 00:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Misrepresenting what sources say

The sentence:

Because we do not have any surviving sources written by Jesus himself or by anyone who knew him personally,

is unsupported by the sources. The quote provided says no such thing.

White, L. Michael. From Jesus to Christianity. HarperCollins, 2004, pp. 3–4: "This is one of the problems with the story. We have no writings from the days of Jesus himself. Jesus never wrote anything, nor do we have any contemporary accounts of his life or death. There are no court records, official diaries, or newspaper accounts that might provide firsthand information. Nor are there any eyewitnesses whose reports were preserved unvarnished. Even though they may contain earlier sources or oral traditions, all the Gospels come from later times. Discerning which material is early and which is late becomes an important task. In fact, the earliest writings that survive are the genuine letters of Paul. They were written some twenty to thirty years after the death of Jesus. Yet Paul was not a follower of Jesus during his lifetime; nor does he ever claim to have seen Jesus during his ministry." Flash 14:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

You've been told before, by editors on both sides, that no contemporaneous sources means that no one knew who knew him or had any kind of contact with him wrote about him. There is no dispute about that, so please stop trying to make an issue out of it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:20, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Well whoever told him that before was wrong. It's simply false to say that "no contemporaneous sources means that no one knew who knew him or had any kind of contact with him wrote about him." There are many sources which take the view that some of the content of gospels and epistles does indeed derive from people who knew him, and even may have been written, at least in part, by witnesses. We simply do not know. The source quoted says "Nor are there any eyewitnesses whose reports were preserved unvarnished". It does not say there are no eyewitness reports. It says that are no "unvarnished" ones. It's like saying there are no surviving paintings by an artist which have not been retouched. That is not at all the same as saying there are no paintings by the artist. Paul B (talk) 16:40, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The source is L. Michael White, From Jesus to Christianity. HarperCollins, 2004, pp. 3–4

This is one of the problems with the story. We have no writings from the days of Jesus himself. Jesus never wrote anything, nor do we have any contemporary accounts of his life or death. There are no court records, official diaries, or newspaper accounts that might provide firsthand information. Nor are there any eyewitnesses whose reports were preserved unvarnished. Even though they may contain earlier sources or oral traditions, all the Gospels come from later times. Discerning which material is early and which is late becomes an important task. In fact, the earliest writings that survive are the genuine letters of Paul. They were written some twenty to thirty years after the death of Jesus. Yet Paul was not a follower of Jesus during his lifetime; nor does he ever claim to have seen Jesus during his ministry.

Please quote a senior, mainstream academic source here who contradicts what he says, who specifically and clearly, in non-religious language, talks about the existence of a firsthand eyewitness account, unvarnished or otherwise. No editors' opinions, please, just one clear quote from a good source. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Did you even read what I said? I have already quoted his exact words, so there is no point in repeating them to me. I was quoting them to demonstrate that you had inaccurately glossed them with your own statement: "no contemporaneous sources means that no one knew who knew him or had any kind of contact with him wrote about him." Please reply to what is actually being argued. The very words you quote say that the surviving Gospels may "may contain earlier sources" - that is actual text from witnesses. That entirely consistent with what I said above, viz that many sources believe that "some of the content of gospels and epistles does indeed derive from people who knew him, and even may have been written, at least in part, by witnesses" Also, White refers to the gospels. For example, there is a widespread (admittedly far from universal) view that 1 Peter was actually written by Peter. Paul B (talk) 16:54, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

'May contain earlier sources' does not mean they had writings from the time of jesus. It means they had writings from some unspecified source previous. You dont know when its from or who wrote it because, well, its only a hypothesis. When you have text, let us know. -- ۩ Mask 20:46, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course we don't know. We cannot know for certain. That's exactly what White says. He does not say that we definitely do not have sources from people who knew Jesus. To say that would be to wholly misrepresent what he writes. Paul B (talk) 21:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

He does say that. He says it very clearly. But rather than focusing on White, could you please do as I asked and produce one good source who says there are extant contemporaneous sources? Please, no more personal opinions about what words mean, and about how later sources might have used earlier ones. Please just produce one senior mainstream academic source that backs you up. Discussing our own opinions makes article development impossible. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 21:14, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

He does not say that at all. I have explained why very clearly. If you are asking for a letter or document proven to have been written in his lifetime you are creating a straw man. You know perfectly well that no scholar claims that any such document exists, so the question is sheer evasion. It's not even a question of what scholars believe. Even rabid fundamentalists don't claim that. It's utterly beside the point. The "true believers" always held that gospels and epistles were written after his death, but they claimed that they were written by his disciples or their own immediate followers. White does not even deny that. He says "Nor are there any eyewitnesses whose reports were preserved unvarnished". In other words there may be eyewitness reports, but ones that have been "varnished" over time (hence my painting analogy). Paul B (talk) 21:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The current version isn't good: "never wrote anything, and because we have no writings from the days of Jesus himself," We have many writings from the days of Jesus. We have no accounts of Jesus from the days of Jesus. In other words, no contemporaneous accounts. Noloop (talk) 18:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Paul, every historical source contains a trace of some previous source. The point here is that, if anyone knew Jesus, they did not write anything down in any form that survived. That is what it means to say there are no extant contemporaneous sources. What is known about Jesus is hearsay about hearsay, and there is no dispute about that point that I know of.

This talk page should only be used to discuss the merits of what named sources say, with a view to deciding whether to include them. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:47, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

"Paul, every historical source contains a trace of some previous source." That is yet another wholly false statement. Historical sources can be primary, in which case they do not contain traces of other sources. Or they can be invented, in which case threy also dont. What historians try to do is to sort out the reliable from the unreliable and from the fantastical. It's not easy, and always provisional, but that's exactly the process White - and all non-fundamentalist writers on the NT - is taking about. White does not and never asserts that "no one knew who knew him or had any kind of contact with him wrote about him." There are many writers who believe that gospels and epistles contain material originally written down (directly or through scribes) by people who knew Jesus. Paul B (talk) 21:18, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Your proposed wording isn't even in the source. The sources say no contemporaneous sources. You're taking the wording in the source and turning it into something completely different. Stick to what the sources say. Flash 19:05, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

You are writing as though you don't know what "no contemporaneous sources" means. And my lead used those precise words, so I don't know who your comment is directed at. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you not proposing to include the clause "Jesus did not write anything, nor did anyone with any personal knowledge of him"?. That is not in the source. Flash 19:12, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

It is. The source says no contemporaneous sources. That, by definition, means not him, and no one who was there. You're being tendentious.-- ۩ Mask 20:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

It is not what he says at all. It means there are no actual surviving documents from his day. That does not mean no-one wrote about him. There are many lost sources that are quoted in surviving sources from the ancient world. We don't conclude that Manetho never wrote anything because we only have references to his writings. Paul B (talk) 21:27, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the source (White) says: "We have no writings from the days of Jesus himself. Jesus never wrote anything." Why was this wording reverted, in favour of the word "contemporaneous", which does not appear in the source at all. Why this obsession with avoiding the use of plain English? Wdford (talk) 19:31, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

The source says, quoting now, "Jesus never wrote anything, nor do we have any contemporary accounts of his life or death". We changed tense on contemporary, but thats cosmetic. It is very much in the source. -- ۩ Mask 20:50, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

"Contemporaneous" is the correct word; using the correct word is using plain English (the source uses an incorrect but oft-confused term). "Contemporary" means "modern" or "present day" (there are thousands of contemporary accounts of the life of Jesus); "contemporaneous" means "co-existing with". I've added two more sources, and it easy to find many more on this point. Noloop (talk) 20:53, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually the two words are synonyms. The usage of "contemporary" you cite above is definition #4 in the OED, after all the definitions that are synonymous with the various definitions of "contemporaneous". Usually when a word or phrase is used by scholars in peer reviewed publications or books published by respected publishing houses in a manner your gut (or your brain) tells you is incorrect the reality is that your gut is in the wrong. It is helpful in these situations to use a dictionary before blundering into argument. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 01:12, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

It would be good to avoid using the word "contemporaneous". Editors, and presumably readers, disagree about its denotation and connotation. "No surviving documents from his lifetime" is good phrasing. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:29, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Who disagrees with its denotation and connotation? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Both "contemporaneous" and "contemporary" are ambiguous. The only reason to use them is to muddy the waters. As you rightly say, "from his lifetime" is clear and precise. I can think of no legitimate reason for not using it. Paul B (talk) 15:18, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

"Contemporary" has a sense of modern or current that "contemporaneous" does not, so "contemporaneous" is the more precise choice. Nobody will misunderstand what is meant in either case, but it's not important. Noloop (talk) 05:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

The correct term here is contemporaneous, and as we're not writing for children I agree that there's no reason not to use it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Slim, I don't mean to quibble here but "contemporary" is also correct. If you don't believe me consult the OED. Since the terms are synonyms in this usage and contemporary has other modern usages as well "contemporaneous" may be better, but it is no more correct. The source, quite correctly uses "contemporary". Can we stop saying it's wrong. Thanks and cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 15:33, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Contemporary isn't correct in this context, G. No contemporary sources = no sources today write about Jesus. No contemporaneous sources = no sources during Jesus's day wrote about him (or if they did none exist).

It's true that some people get the two mixed up, but Wikipedia shouldn't join the ranks of those who use words imprecisely. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

You are not listening. I said please consult the Oxford English Dictionary for a reason. Here is what you would have found for "contemporary":

1. a. Belonging to the same time, age, or period; living, existing, or occurring together in time.

2. Having existed or lived from the same date, equal in age, coeval.

3. Occurring at the same moment of time, or during the same period; occupying the same definite period; contemporaneous, simultaneous.

4. a. Modern; of or characteristic of the present period; esp. up-to-date, ultra-modern; spec. designating art of a markedly avant-garde quality, or furniture, building, decoration, etc., having modern characteristics (opp. PERIOD n. 15).

The fourth definition is itself modern, with the first three being much older. As I said, I agree that "contemporaneous", which does not have this fourth definition, is clearer because of it. However, for the last time, please stop incorrectly correcting people about this. You will find plenty of writers still using the traditional meaning of the adjective "contemporary" and they are absolutely not getting "the two mixed up". Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 16:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Good points but this IMHO only adds confusion as this allows word games. For example, you could argue that Zachary Taylor was the last President contemporary to George Washington and strictly speaking that is true as their lives overlap but Taylor was only 15 years old when Washington died. Similarly, you could argue that John Adams and William McKinley were contemporary Presidents because they were both President during the 19th century (definition 3)--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:05, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

We CANNOT say that we know for a fact that no one who knew Jesus never wrote anything. It's trying to prove a negative. On top of that, the cited source says just the opposite, or at least implies that there WERE eyewitness accounts, but they were varnished over the years. It is entirely possible that someone who knew Jesus wrote something. The fact of the matter is, we don't have any surviving documents that fit the bill, but that doesn't mean that they didn't exist at one point in time. And let's not ignore the POV that some conservative scholars hold: that the gospels WERE written by eyewitnesses or friends of eyewitnesses. I'm sure if you look not that hard, you will find a scholar defending the idea that the apostle Matthew and the apostle John wrote the gospels that bear their name. I don't see why some editors are comfortable ignoring some minority POVs, such as this, but then go on and on about how we have to include other minority POVs (JM). Can't have it both ways, IMO. Say that most scholars don't think any surviving accounts were written directly by eyewitnesses. Don't say that eyewitnesses never wrote anything ever (as that is entirely impossible to prove, AND more importantly, NOT what the source is saying at all). -Andrew c ^[talk] 17:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

There are no extent contemporaneous sources. That means no one from his lifetime wrote anything about him that survived. We are trying to re-invent language here by pretending not to know what ordinary words mean. Now I have to read the OED to find out how to write in English? Come on, please, let's start focusing on sources and how to improve this article, and stop fiddling with the lead.

Andrew, please, produce sources. Don't tell us they exist. Produce them. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 17:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Slim maybe you missed this, but the source itself uses the adjective "contemporary" and it uses it in its original meaning ... the one that is synonymous with "contemporaneous". I agree, once again that the latter term is clearer because it lacks the other, now common usage of "contemporary". However, if the context is presented correctly there is absolutely nothing wrong with using "contemporary" to mean what, ah hem, it actually means (see above). Both terms require a clear point of reference, btw. Unless we know what something is contemporary, or contemporaneous with neither term correctly identifies the era in question. To go around saying that "contemporary" is the wrong word, or that it doesn't mean what the OED clearly says it does seems foolish to me. I'm all for improving clarity, but please don't make false claims about the English language on the talk page. That's all I'm asking.Griswaldo (talk) 18:52, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree completely with the first two sentences above. "Extent" and "that survived" are the key words there. What we have in the article now is "Jesus did not write anything, nor did anyone with personal knowledge of him". This IS saying "No one with personal knowledge of him wrote anything". To me there is a BIG difference between the two. Saying none survived vs. none ever existed in the first place. One is fairly knowable, where one is unknowable. I'm not arguing semantics here. The way it is phrased currently, we are telling our readers that No one with personal knowledge of Jesus wrote anything, and attributing it to a source which is not saying that. A simple rephrasing can probably fix this (I'd propose simply deleting the clause between the em dashes). I'm totally fine ignoring minority views in the lead, so I won't pursue the view that the apostles wrote the gospels further (other editors may). But this also applies to past efforts to add those who question Q into the lead, and so on. Just sayin' ;) -Andrew c ^[talk] 18:02, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the point of adding personal opinions here, Andrew. There's no chance of fixing this article up unless we stick to discussing what named sources say. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 19:49, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Jeez.That's exactly what Andrew is saying, and what I've been saying, and what ReaverFlash was saying in the very first post in this thread, which is called Misrepresenting what sources say. The source does not say what that article claims. Your response is WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, yet again. Paul B (talk) 22:10, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm taken aback, and a bit offended by that reply, SV. Are you focusing only on the second to last sentence I wrote, and ignoring everything else? Or are you saying it is only my "personal opinion" that the article is specifically saying something that is not found in the source? *confused*-Andrew c ^[talk] 22:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm losing track of what any of these discussions are about. There are hundreds of thousands of words on this page and its archives of editors exchanging views, and the few sentences that really are direct issues about named sources tend to get lost in it all. I'm sorry if anyone is offended by that. Andrew, could you say in one short sentence what your issue is with the source or the words we use to describe what the source said? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 22:30, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there is a lot of discussion. I wasn't exactly replying to any of the above when I started this thread (which is why I didn't indent), but I didn't want to create a new topic when there was already discussion on this general topic (I personally don't want to get into any of that OED mess, which you seemed to be venting on me in your first post). That said, your last edit fixed my concern, so I'm totally fine not taking up any more talk page discussion (though adding "surviving" to the second clause may (or may not) help). -Andrew c ^[talk] 23:01, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

It already says "no extant contemporaneous sources"!! How many times? No extant sources. No existing sources. No surviving sources. We have no sources. We have no accounts. Good lord! SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I must apologize for my last post. Frustration got the better of me there, I'm afraid. I hope the issue is sorted out now. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 23:11, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

This discussion seems like a failure to "pick your battles." It seems to me "contemporaneous" is preferred simply because it lacks the sense of "modern," and is therefore less ambiguous. As long as the writing is clear, there are obviously much bigger things for the editors to work out. for example...

Why are Pagels and Christianity Today being removed as references? They are both excellent, relevant, and they can be read in their entirety on the Web. The Chrsitiantiy Today article covers the entire issue from an insider's view, and I consider it must-reading for anyone interested in the topic (The Jesus We'll Never Know). Elaine Pagles is, in my view, the highest quality source we will find on the matter, and her comment is directly relevant to the paragraph in question: "The problem I have with all these versions of the so called "historical Jesus" is that they each choose certain early sources as their central evidence, and each presents a part of the picture. My own problem with this, as a historian, is that none of the historical evidence actually goes back as far as Jesus—so these various speculations are that, and nothing more." THE POLITICS OF CHRISTIANITY: A TALK WITH ELAINE PAGELS. Pagels is a professor of religion at Princeton University, author of many books on Christianity. The Gnostic Gospels won the the National Book Critics award and she is also a MacArthur Fellowship recipient. These sources are being silently deleted, even though they are rich enough to be useful in several aspects of the article. Why? Noloop (talk) 20:05, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

What was the objection for removing the source? Please show the diff. There might be something in the edit summary.-Civilizededucation^talk 04:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

This discussion seems like a failure to "pick your battles." Are you trying to say that folks are picking on these issues because they are unable to find any meaningful things to do?-Civilizededucation^talk 10:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Sources of information of the historicity

Let's establish some guidelines for how we'll treat the historic evidence for historicy. Right now, some of these sections have little connection to the actual topic. For example, here's the section of Paul:

Paul of Tarsus, a first century Hellenistic Jew who experienced a conversion to faith in Jesus, dictated letters to various churches and individuals from c. 48–68.[6] Fourteen letters are traditionally attributed to Paul, thirteen of which claim to be written by the man (the Epistle to the Hebrews is anonymous). Current scholarship generally believes that at least seven of these letters are authentic Pauline compositions, with views varying concerning the remaining works.

The historical Jesus is fundamental to the teachings of Paul, who rejected the separation of the Jesus of faith from the Jesus of history.[7] While not personally an eye-witness of Jesus' ministry, Paul states that he was acquainted with people who had known Jesus: the apostle Peter (also known as Cephas), the apostle John, and James, the brother of Jesus.[8] Additionally, in his letters, Paul often refers to both teachings of Jesus and events in Jesus' life. For example, Paul talks about Jesus' teaching regarding divorce, the second coming, and the remuneration of religious leaders.[9] Likewise, Paul alludes to Jesus' humanity,the Last Supper, his crucifixion, and reports of his resurrection.[10]

This says very little about how the writings of Paul relate the subject of this particular article--the historical evidence for Jesus. The section should consist of modern, reliable, and neutral sources discussing the relevance of the the Pauline epistles to establishing the actual existence of Jesus. Noloop (talk) 03:17, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I can see the problem that you are trying to make out. Actually I have been meaning to take it up myself. I think that there are other views on Paul's understanding of Jesus. Some sources say that Paul only discusses Jesus in a metaphysical way and says that Jesus only "seems" to exist and does not discuss Jesus as a flesh and blood being. This point should also be mentioned.-Civilizededucation^talk 05:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I mean, some sources say that Paul did not know of any historical Jesus and that he only talks of a metaphysical Jesus who "seems" to exist. That was his idea of Jesus.-Civilizededucation^talk 06:15, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

That's definitely worth mentioning. I suspect the main gist of the section should be about how Paul's mention of Jesus is supposed to evidence for the historical existence of Jesus. We don't think there was a historical Dionysus just because people mention him. Why is Jesus different? What's the reasoning among reliable sources? Obviously, it would be good if we didn't have to rely on priests for this secular, historical view. Noloop (talk) 14:03, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious why it's different. As far as I am aware no-one wrote letters saying that they had met with people who personally knew Dionysus, and had links with his surviving family. The situation is completely different. Paul B (talk) 14:16, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Letter-writing wasn't exactly common in that age. There were oracles and movements. Dionysus was a beloved god of the people with a mass following (who was resurrected, born of a mortal woman and Zeus, and had wine as his sacrament--hence the theory that Jesus is derived from him). Noloop (talk) 14:29, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Letter writing was pretty common, but your response is, well, non-responsive. You don't address the issue, just trot out Jesus-Myth mantras. Paul B (talk) 14:39, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying the section is perfect or couldn't use expanding, but I think it is decent and does relate to the topic of this article. The first paragraph gives a brief summary of background information on the section "Pauline epistles", which I feel is necessary, though I'm not attached to our present wording by any means; it is adequate. The second paragraph explains what possibly can be gleaned from the epistles about the historical Jesus. I think a concluding sentence like the one found in Meier would help synthesize a bit more "these [references to the historical Jesus in Paul's letters] at best simply confirm what the Gospels tell us anyway". or rather, the reason why scholars believe Paul contains material associated with the actual historical Jesus is because parallels are found in the synoptic 'teachings/sayings' material.

As to Civilizededucation's suggestion, I found a brief reference to that argument in Theissen/Merz for the sake of rebutting it, but they do not attribute it to anyone in particular. The argument goes "The earliest Christian writings, the letters of Paul, depict Jesus as an almost mythical being, whose earthly existence seems to be only the intermediate stage between pre-existence and exaltation... As the Synoptics are later than the letters of Paul, given the fact that Paul cites hardly any traditions about Jesus, the suspicion arises that a good deal of the Jesus tradition did not yet exist in the time of Paul." The latter part isn't a critique of Paul as much as a critique of the synoptic tradition. They find it notable enough to briefly mention and present 4 counterarguments, but it really is a shame they don't attribute that argument to anyone. Does anyone here know any citations that forward such arguments? I just looked in Price, and he briefly attacks those who would find the words of the historical Jesus in Paul, just because there are synoptic teachings paralells, in the cases where Paul does not cite his source as Jesus (you'd think, if it was so important, and that the material came from the Lord, Paul would have made some indication of that), but that argument isn't an attack on all Pauline material, and is a bit different from introducing the mythical thesis. Maybe Price wrote more about this topic elsehwere? Ehrman and Meier don't mention this view either, so they aren't much help (Meier has extensive footnoting on scholarly debates about how much of Paul's 'teachings of Jesus' material). With all that said, if you have "modern, reliable, and neutral sources discussing the relevance", I'd totally encourage such additions. Do you have any proposed new sources that fit the bill Noloop? -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:05, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree the reasoning is likely that Paul confirms other sources, and that confirmation is evidence. I can't say I find the reasoning very convincing. Paul never knew Jesus, so his knowledge probably came from the very sources he supposedly confirms. In other words, why couldn't Paul's letters have been based on the oral tradition that became the gospels? Something like the"Q"? Since this seems like a likely criticism that needs to be addressed, I assume some discussion of it is out there somewhere. Noloop (talk) 14:23, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

What Price seemed to be saying isn't that Paul and the synoptics could have gotten the information from the same source (which happens to not be an actual historical Jesus tradition), but instead is implying that ideas that were unique to Paul were later given more credence by the gospel writers by attributing them to Jesus (when actuality Paul is their author, not Jesus). And again, that only applies to some of the Pauline material with synoptic parallels, not all, since there are a few places where Paul is attributing text to Jesus. Well, as for sources, that is an interesting way to approach this. :) If we have sources fine. It seems a little odd to think up criticism, and then suppose that somewhere there has to be sources that make the same arguments you just thought up. I encourage you to keep looking for sources, if you want to include such material, but in general, I think we should follow sources first, as opposed to coming up with ideas, then trying to find sources that fit our 'original' ideas. -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:45, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The problem with that is that he is saying he has met actual people who knew him. This, of course, is at a time when there would be many people around who had known him, seen him preaching etc. We are not talking about an "oral tradition" of something hundreds of years earlier, but something that was just a few years earlier. In any case, what you or I personally find convincing is neither here nor there, as you know. Paul B (talk) 14:47, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

My point was that it's not valid to assume the first written account of something is the origin of it. There was undoubtedly an oral tradition, on which both Paul and the gospels drew. So, it's not clear a similarity between Paul and the gospels constitutes independent confirmation of anything. This is all OR, of course; I'm not proposing we insert it in the article because of my reasoning. The problem with section right now is that it doesn't actually feature reliable (or neutral) sources talking about Paul in the context of J's historicity. Noloop (talk) 16:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

If Paul was in contact with the brother of Jesus and two of his disciples as his epistles indicate isn't that a strong indication there was a historical Jesus? Unless the epistles are not authentic, are interpolated or contain lies isn't it exceedingly likely Paul discussed the life of Jesus with Peter, James and John? Unless you assume they were a bunch of charlatans. Martijn Meijering (talk) 00:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

There are several possible explanations here, Martijn.

1. Paul was a fraud, who lied about meeting the disciples to gain some stolen credibility with the Christians of his day - who often provided travelling apostles with food, lodgings, "expenses money" etc.
2. Paul met two liars who claimed to be the disciples, but who were actually defrauding Paul, and Paul didn't know enough to tell the difference.
3. Paul really did meet the apostles, and they told him that Jesus was a Jewish revolutionary and not the messiah, but Paul couldn't handle the truth so he went home and concocted a story for his followers.
4. Paul really did meet the apostles, and they told him that Jesus was a Jewish revolutionary and not the messiah, and Paul wrote the truth in his letters, but the later Church Fathers couldn't handle the truth so they rewrote Paul's letters to support the giant fraud they were perpetrating on the Christians of their day, and then burned all copies of the original versions.
5. The NT stories are all true.

Each of the above is equally possible - and its also possible that the truth is a mixture of several of the above. Pay your money, and take your pick. Wdford (talk) 16:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Define Topic

I tend to agree with Andrew. Indeed it would be fair to say that we have all gone a little crazy and the article has suffered. I thought a good place to start would be to define the topic so that we are all talking about the same thing. After doing some reading, the sources are pretty much in agreement with the definition of Shirley Jackson Case: "The historicity of Jesus, is a narrow area of Biblical scholarship that attempts to answer the question: Is Jesus of Nazareth a historical individual, or is he purely a creation of fancy?" Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Don't like "purely a creation of fancy," Elegard's Jesus is neither definitely historical nor pure fancy. There are many gray areas. There could have been a historical figure who bore some relation to Jesus Christ, and the difference is the layering of legend on top of that distant figure. The current characterization is a false dichotomy. Noloop (talk) 23:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The evidence shows that there was a "Jesus" but what did this historical Jesus look like. Yet there are some scholars who deny his historicity saying there never was a man named Jesus. No gray area at all! They are in the minority and that is what this article is about. - Ret.Prof (talk) 02:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how the article is about the non-existence of a gray area. Ellegard is frequently dumped into the "creation of fancy" crowd, even though he doesn't think that. The labels are too crude: we can do better. Even the mythists don't actually call Jesus a creation of fancy. Noloop (talk) 05:22, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the grey area is covered by the definition. It is not outside the preview of this definition.-Civilizededucation^talk 09:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Never mind we have two reliable and two notable sources that say the ideas of the Historicity of Jesus runs the full spectrum of "total fictitious creation" to "Gospels are reasonably accurate historical documents with possibly every detail recorded exactly as it happened". Ellegard who has been put into the mythist category does NOT say "there never was a man named Jesus" but rather and I quote "Accordingly, though the Gospels are entirely fictional in their portrayal of Jesus as an itinerant preacher and wonderworker, accompanied by twelve disciples, Paul's Jesus was indeed a historical figure, namely, the Essene Teacher of Righteousness." ("Theologians as historians" by Allvar Ellegard Lunds Universitet). Wells Jesus Legend (1996) on theory of "possibly mythic Paul Jesus + historical but not crucified Q Jesus = Gospel Jesus" has been called part of the Christ Myth theory by Stanton, Price, Doherty, Richard Carrier, and Boyd-Eddy. These and many more exampled show that no one can even agree on what the Christ Myth theory even is or who is one.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually I do not disagree. I am going to modify the wording of the Shirley Jackson Case definition to an "entirely fictitious creation". It keeps the distinction between this topic and the historical Jesus, but reads better. - Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 11:33, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Do we have a source for the first sentence that is less than 98 years old? Noloop (talk) 19:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I've added information from both scholarly and notable sources that show this supposedly yes or no question is actually a spectrum of ideas.--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:46, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The latest edit war (SEP 18)

These two sentences are redundant:

• New Testament scholar and former Lady Margaret's Professor of Divinity at Cambridge University Graham Stanton stated in 1989 "nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed".[2]
• A small number believe the gospels may describe a fictitious or mythical figure.[6]

There is no reason to have both in one paragraph, especially not in the lead. I couldn't find support for the second in the source. So, I propose replacing the second with the first.

Flash and Hardyplants have continually reverted my edit to this paragraph, but neither has contributed to the discussions I've started in this Talk page. In fact, I don't think Hardyplants has made a single comment on this Talk page--he just shows up to revert. I've discussed the changes I made in three different places above, and nobody has objected, yet the changes keep being reverted. Reverting without discussion is disruptive. Noloop (talk) 20:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, why do we care what someone said back in 1989 about her personal opinion of what other historians believe when it's clear that a number of historians disagree with her? It seems like people want to do anything they can to slant the article to push the claim that no serious historian doubts Jesus was real. That's POV-pushing, whether you realize it or want to admit it. DreamGuy (talk) 16:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Is it clear that a number of historians disagree with Stanton (who, like most people named "Graham," is a man)? Obviously there are a couple of historians who believe that Jesus might not have existed (Price being the most prominent of them; maybe Carrier counts?). Nobody has yet presented any reliable sources which state that anything more than a tiny minority of historians refuse to accept that Jesus existed. So far as I can tell, even most "Jesus myth theory" writers accept Stanton's premise, and present themselves as iconoclastic rebels against the scholarly orthodoxy. What sources do you have which suggest otherwise? john k (talk) 03:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Price isn't a historian, nor is Stanton. I strongly object to theologians being quoted as historians or reliable sources on a consensus among historians. I'm not saying they aren't worthy people or fine scholars, just that they are not historians. We don't quote biologists as reliable sources on chemistry or chemists as reliable sources on astronomy and we shouldn't quote theologians on history. Martijn Meijering (talk) 19:28, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Graham Stanton was not, at all, in any shape or form a "theologian". His discipline was "biblical studies". Perhaps you did not realize this or perhaps you do not to understand that Biblical studies encompasses many different methodological approaches, and depending on the scholar one or more of these approaches will take center stage. From Stanton's obits it appears that his approach was mostly historical. Does that make him a "historian"? I'm not sure, but it certainly makes him more of a historian than any other such label that I can think of ... certainly more than theologian.Griswaldo (talk) 19:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

He was a professor of divinity, how could he not have been a theologian. Note that I'm not using this term as some kind of pejorative, any more than chemist or biologist is a pejorative. My own father is a professor emeritus of theology and most of his work is historical. I wouldn't call him a historian however, nor do I think anyone should quote him as an authority of historical methods or a consensus among historians. Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

"Professor of Divinity" is part of the title of the chair he was granted late in his career and "divinity" does not always refer to degrees in the discipline of theology. Stanton also has a Doctor of Philosophy degree (PhD), does that make him a philosopher? If you are going to make claims about someone's qualifications you ought to do more than infer something from a named chair they hold. He was a professor of Biblical studies, and as so one inclined towards history. You can also find this out if you do some research about him. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:09, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Griswaldo, do some research about him. He was a licensed preacher, his degrees are in divinity, and he is described as a theologian in his obituary. Noloop (talk) 20:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say the fact that he held the chair made him less of a historian, I wasn't aware he had studied history. Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:17, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

No you claimed that he was a theologian, and then you defended your mistake by referring to the title of his chair. My point is that you didn't really try to figure out what he studied, just jumped to conclusions based on the title of his chair. Please be more careful. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 20:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't make a mistake. I did and do claim he was a theologian. He was a professor of theology. Note that one can be a historian and a theologian at the same time. The fact that he studied theology and was a professor of theology establishes he was a theologian (duh). The fact that he also studied history and concentrated his work on historical subjects within theology may qualify him as a historian as well, though we would certainly not quote him as a reliable source on history in general. I objected to the perceived argument that biblical scholars count as historians. Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:56, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

He was not a "professor of theology". He was a "New Testament scholar" and a "professor of New Testament". Where on earth does it say he was a "professor of theology". The name of the chair granted him does not make him a professor of theology. Read his obituaries they describe him as a professor and scholar of the New Testament, and not Theology. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say he was a professor of biblical theology. Maybe terminology is different in English than in Dutch or maybe I'm wrong about the details, but as I understand it in Holland the situation is as follows: we have (or had) faculties of theology structured according to a duplex ordo, which means we had professors who held a chair as representatives of their denomination and professors who held a secular chair. My father belonged to the latter category while I had a granduncle who belonged to the former. Both are/were religious and church ministers. Both categories are called theologians. I'll check with my father to see if this is correct. Martijn Meijering (talk) 21:19, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

From Graham Stanton OB,[11]

"Born and brought up in New Zealand, Graham Stanton studied History and Theology at Otago University before coming to Cambridge to do a PhD....His collection of essays on Matthew's Gospel, A Gospel for a New People (1992) used the full range of modern critical techniques to illuminate the community behind the text - a reminder that the Gospels, as much as the Epistles, were originally written in a particular context. He was prepared, where necessary, to draw on "the disciplined imagination of the historian"; and for him discipline was as important as imagination....As a scholar he was meticulous, candid without being identified with conservative or radical positions, and always attentive to other people's points of view."

Hardyplants (talk) 19:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know he studied History, that is a very important piece of information, thanks for pointing that out. Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

From Stanton's obituary in the Daily Telegraph:

For Stanton, however, this research was not only, or even chiefly, an academic matter, but related closely to the central figure of Jesus Christ, and was therefore an aid to the deepening of personal faith.

Stanton was himself an active member of the United Reformed Church who advocated closer collaboration between New Testament scholars and theologians.

Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:29, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

No one said he wasn't interested in working with theologians, nor that he wasn't personally quite religious. Neither of those facts make him not a historian however, and as you can see in what you quote, New Testament study is quite separate from theology. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

• "Graham Stanton: An authority on the New Testament, he was a gifted theologian"
• "gained master's and bachelor of divinity degrees from the University of Otago as a student of Knox College, Dunedin." (From Knox College: "Notwithstanding the Presbyterian tradition of Knox, the College fosters a spirit of ecumenicalism in recognition of the fact that residents are drawn from across the broad spectrum of Christianity and beyond."
• "Brought up in the Salvation Army, he trained for the Presbyterian ministry in Dunedin and was licensed to preach." [12][13]
• A comment like "he studied history" doesn't mean anything. I studied history. Bertrand Russel studied history, yet the will to exclude him from these pages is, shall we say, religious. Stanton was not, primarily, a historian. Noloop (talk) 20:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

For the last time, he was a scholar of "biblical studies" with a historical bent to what he did. This also appears to obvious in his publications. I would not argue that he's a great example of a historian, but at the same time I'm sick of the ignorant character assassination of scholars that goes on here by people who seem to have a very little grasp of the relevant disciplines and what they entail. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Calling someone a theologian is not character assassination, nor is denying someone is a historian (even if incorrect). Frankly, I find the suggestion absurd. And I would call any scholar of biblical studies a theologian, whether they are religious or not (many aren't) which does not imply their work is necessarily influenced by bias or ulterior motives or that they do not try to be scientific (in the wider sense of that word). Martijn Meijering (talk) 21:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

It is a character assassination if someone's credentials as a historian are being impugned. I don't think your understanding of "theology" (which is perhaps related to Dutch uses of the term) jives with how the academic discipline is understood here in the United States. I know many professors of religion who engage in Biblical studies, and they would be dumbfounded, and possibly insulted, should you refer to them as theologians. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 21:46, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Very well, let's not use the term theologian then, at least for now. I'm not impugning his credentials, especially not on the grounds that he is a scholar of biblical studies. I'm merely saying that the mere fact that he is a scholar of biblical studies (or religion or whatever) doesn't make him a historian. Maybe the fact that he studied history makes him a historian, though you might expect someone to be engaged in historical research to qualify as a professional historian as opposed to someone who has had training as a historian.Martijn Meijering (talk) 00:20, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. A reliable source describes him as a theologian, he trained for the Presbyterian ministry and was licensed to preach, his degrees are in divinity, and he was a professor of divinity....but we can't call him a theologian? Noloop (talk) 23:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that Griswaldo's objection is that the term theologian means someone who teaches the doctrine of a certain denomination to those who are training to be church ministers/priests/clerics whereas a biblical scholar is supposed to be guided by the principles of historical critical bible studies, not religious dogma. S/he is a scientist, not a preacher. If this is so I can understand why some biblical scholars might object to the term theologian as it might impugn their motives or competence. To the best of my understanding this is not how the term theologian is used in my country, but maybe it is in the English speaking world as Griswaldo says. Martijn Meijering (talk) 00:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Martijn that is exactly what I'm saying. Noloop his degrees are not in "divinity". A PhD in Biblical studies or New Testament studies is certainly not a "degree in divinity". Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 01:30, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

What is wrong with you? Multiple reliable sources say he ""gained master's and bachelor of divinity degrees." One has already been given here that explicitly refers to him as a theologian. Do you ever actually read anything? Noloop (talk) 03:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

When discussing the credentials of a scholar bachelors and even masters degrees are unimportant when the scholar has a doctoral degree. He could have gotten an MBA before deciding to go into academia, or a BS in nursing, but that's entirely irrelevant. If he met the qualifications for, and completed a PhD, that is the only relevant degree. We're discussing whether or not he can be considered a historian. A Bachelor's degree or Master's degree in divinity, or theology, do not disqualify him from this status if his PhD is relevant. Stop obfuscating.Griswaldo (talk) 12:36, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi Griswaldo. All his work is in the field of theology. Why should we decieve the reader by hiding this info? "Theologian" is not an epithet. People take degrees in theology.-Civilizededucation^talk 14:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

When "theologian" is used to mean someone who teaches the doctrine of a certain denomination, and is therefore a believer and unable to be neutral about Jesus' existence, it's being used as an epithet. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

A PhD in Biblical studies is simply not a PhD in Theology. None of these diversions about why I am objecting to the term change that fact. That said, why do I object? 1) Theologian is being, and has been used as an epithet on this talk page and in related discussions as Akhilleus points out, but 2) more importantly in this discussion it is being used in an either or scenario to disqualify him as a historian, e.g. he is a theologian as opposed to a historian. Also, in regards to Akhilleus' point, there are different ways that a scholar can train in "theology". Training in theology meant to "teach the doctrine of a certain denomination" is usually linked to degrees in "divinity". In the United States these are degrees that prepare someone for the ministry, whereas a PhD is a degree that prepares someone for the academy. Stanton had a PhD in the most pervasive and pertinent field when it comes to applying the historical method to research about Jesus (New Testament scholarship). That is a fact. I have no idea about how his personal religiosity, or other affiliations with a specific denomination effected his work, but that is not for me to say, nor does any such speculation change the basic fact of his academic qualifications. Please stop with all the obfuscating comments and tangents and move on. Thanks.Griswaldo (talk) 16:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

This site needs an "ignore" list. Noloop (talk) 16:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Akhilleus here. There is also the question about whether the specific name given to a type of degree is necessarily the best indication of what the material studied is. Not knowing the details of this particular instance, if the term "theology" is used as part of an official name, but the material the subject earned the degree for is more along the lines of history, biblical studies, or anything of the like, then the use of the official name may well be misleading. The course of study, if that can be determined, is what is most directly relevant, rather than the terminology used in the degree documentation. John Carter (talk) 16:42, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

• "He was head of the departments of Biblical Studies and Theology and Religious Studies" [14]
• "Graham Stanton: An authority on the New Testament, he was a gifted theologian"[15]
• "For 28 years he was a mainstay of the Department of Theology" [16] (this source is James Dunn (theologian)...who is cited in these articles)
• David F. Ford and Graham Stanton, eds, Reading Texts, Seeking Wisdom: Scripture and Theology (book title) Noloop (talk) 16:49, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

"Theologian" is not an epithet under any circumstances. Only you guys think so.-Civilizededucation^talk 16:52, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it can be, in the same way calling, for instance, J. Gordon Melton a "minister" would be. The man is a Methodist minister, but he is also the leading authority on religion in America and one of the leading authorities on new religious movements in general. Calling him a "minister", if one were to do so in regards to his work in those areas, might be rationally seen by several people as an attempt to denigrate his academic opinion. Noloop points out that he was head of the departments of Biblical Studies and Theology and Religious Studies. It would be useful to know the exact name of each group. He was also, apparently, described as an authority on the NT. Those who are called such things tend to be involved in "Biblical studies", not "theology". I would like to know exactly what the scope of the Department of Theology involved. Basically, in terms of Christianity, those who study "theology" tend to be people like Thomas Aquinas, Augustine of Hippo, Martin Luther, and other individuals who deal with religious matters from the standpoint of a particular set of beliefs. "Biblical studies" and related terms tend to be used in regards to people like, for instance, Bart Ehrman or Elaine Pagels, who are best known for studying the matter from a comparatively neutral historical or other perspective. It would be useful to know which term seems to be more applicable to this particular individual. John Carter (talk) 17:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Most of our sources seem to think he is a theologian.(When looking at his lifelong work)-Civilizededucation^talk 17:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

No kidding. This is wikilawyering. Reliable sources call him a theologian. He was a professor of divinity. He had two degrees in divinity. He trained to be a preacher. We already had an RFC on identifying such sources. Noloop (talk) 18:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Most sources do not consider him a theologian. More annoying obfuscation above. When is going to end. Every single source I've seen on the man calls him either 1) a scholar of New Testament studies or 2) a professor of New Testament studies. Only one of the sources refers to him as a "theologian". "Departments of Theology" are almost always departments of religious studies more generally that have kept their traditional names. Anthropologists, sociologists, philosophers, historians, biblical studies scholars etc. all, often have appointments in departments of theology. This is the department they are referring to at King's College London. I happen to know the department intimately after a study abroad program as an undergraduate there many years ago, but please do have a look for yourself. If "theologian" is not an epithet to you all then why are you working so hard to have him labelled as one?Griswaldo (talk) 18:43, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I would appreciate seeing the specific sources which regard him as a "theologian", which I don't think I've seen, although I may have missed them. And I really have to question whether a school which offers a program in Chinese religion, like this one does, is necessarily one which has a clear Christian religious bias, particularly when the school's main page here says nothing whatsoever about it being a Christian (or non-Christian) school in any way. Compare the University of Notre Dame here, Harvard University here which mentions it was founded by a minister (Christian) on its page, etc. John Carter (talk) 18:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The Guardian referred to him as a theologian but it is not clear exactly what they meant by that. It uses the term but then does not describe any work in theology. My personal opinion is that they used the term in some generalist sense to refer to a scholar of Christianity. Alternatives make little sense.Griswaldo (talk) 19:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

If "theologian" is not an epithet to you all then why are you working so hard to have him labelled as one?

In my case it is not so much that I want the label theologian, but that I object to the label historian as justified by no more than being a biblical scholar or a scholar of religion. Now that my misunderstanding of the term theologian (helped by the frequent retention of the traditional term department of theology) has been cleared up, I would choose the term biblical scholar or scholar of religion instead. Whether such a person is also a historian is difficult for an outsider to judge (unless supported by more easily verified sources such as professors of history), which makes them less useful as reliable sources. Martijn Meijering (talk) 23:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense to me too. "Biblical scholar" or "Biblical historian" or "Historian of religion" (if that is the personal form of the phrase "religious history" or "history of religions") would probably be preferable to me as well. John Carter (talk) 00:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

"Biblical scholar" or "New Testament scholar" is accurate and reflected in the sources ... especially 'New Testament scholar". From a glance at work it seems that Stanton is doing religious history, but I'll leave that determination to others who know his work. "New Testament scholar" is completely satisfactory as a label.Griswaldo (talk) 04:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

The bizarre thing here is Meijing and Noloop's misunderstanding of modern academe. The name of a chair is not an indication of what one's expertise is, or what one is expected to teach or on what one's research is. A person can study in a seminary and not be a priest or minister; a person can have a Doctor of Theology degree even, and not be a theologian. If this does not make sense to you, just wait until you go to university and be sure to check out different colleges and departments. You will be surprised at what you can learn. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't misunderstand how universities work. I live in a university town, I studied mathematics and computer science at my local university, I was employed by my local university as an instructor, my father is a university professor, so is his brother, I had a granduncle who was a university professor, my cousin is a fellow at an Oxford university college etc etc. My family is also full of church ministers, going back several generations. The misunderstanding was over the scope of the term theologian. Martijn Meijering (talk) 19:58, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I understand your point. The only real problem I see is that, basically, so far as I can tell, most western universities are so used to using the title "Master of Theology" or "Doctor of Theology", based on their generally Christian history. Even if they expand or dramatically alter the nature of their programs, the change to some other title would be generally poorly received, so the schools won't make them. So, particularly for the older schools, which often tend to be among the better respected ones as well, the word may just be used because the schools tend to be somewhat conservative and resistant to change. John Carter (talk) 20:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Of course, it is possible to be a theologian and a critical scholar of religion at the same time. Much of my father's work deals with with dogmatic history and he always made a strict separation between critical scientific inquiry and personal religious conviction and his work is mostly historical in nature. He is a church minister, but was employed as a secular, not a denominational professor. When I asked him whether he considered himself a historian or a theologian he said he was a theologian. So I was aware of the subtleties involved, but not of the precise scope of the word theologian. I suspect many readers of the article will not fully appreciate it either and that is something we may want to keep in mind. Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:18, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Agreed that the term "theologian", which carries certain connotations which may not be accurate in many of the cases, is probably a word to avoid regarding this subject unless the individual or work being discussed is clearly and distrinctly primarily relevant to the idea of "theology" in some sort of doctrinal sense, or the functional equivalent in the case of Baptists and others who tend to eschew defined doctrines. John Carter (talk) 20:24, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

There is little ambiguity in the case of someone who is referred to as a theologian by reliable sources, who was trained as a minister and licensed to preach, who earned degrees in divinity, who is a professor of divinity and/or who self-describes as a theologian. There was nothing wrong with Martijn's understanding of the term. Those who earn degrees in divinity, or teach divinity, are pursuing theology. Noloop (talk) 05:47, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Theologian, biblical scholar, scholar of religion, historian etc

OK, you guys have convinced me we should stop using the word theologian to describe scholars of religion in general. I checked with my father and he confirmed the words are not synonymous, not even in Dutch, even though theological faculties mostly kept using the old name of theology. Of course it is possible to be both a scholar of religion and a theologian, a theologian and a historian etc. Divinity is a synonym for theology and therefore has the same undesirable connotation.

Also, there are certainly scholars of religion who are taken seriously as historians by mainstream historians (who read history, are employed by a department of history and may or may not be religious), but not all of them are. So the trick would be to find the reliable ones, as is always the case with the search for reliable sources. I would suggest that the mere fact that someone is a New Testament scholar does not mean one is qualified to speak for a majority of historians, but it is not enough to disqualify such a person either. A professor of history, employed by a department of history at a major university would qualify, but somehow there don't appear to be too many of those who have expressed an opinion on the historicity of Jesus. Martijn Meijering (talk) 16:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

It is certainly possible to be professor of religion and not be a theologian; those academics tend to be in departments of religion rather than departments of divinity or theology etc. They tend to publish in journals such as Classical Antiquity rather than Theological Studies: a Jesuit-sponsored journal of theology or Eerdmans. I probably wouldn't describe Elaine Pagels as a theolgian, for instance. Noloop (talk) 17:02, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Would you describe her as a historian? She does describe herself as such. Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

That would probably be my choice of terms for her. John Carter (talk) 17:25, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Pagels is probably best described as a scholar of religion. Noloop is wrong about where professors of religion tend to publish; Classical Antiquity is a classics journal. You can see the table of contents for the current article here. In principle, an article on early Christianity could appear in Classical Antiquity, but that rarely happens. Since Pagels has been brought up as someone who studies religion but isn't a theologian, it should be noted that she's published articles in the Journal of the American Academy of Religion, the Journal of Biblical Literature, The Harvard Theological Review, and Vigiliae Christianae. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:39, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Also, there is no undesirable connotation. Theologians happily self-describe as theologians. It merely raises questions of neutrality (more than reliability), for Wikipedia's purposes. Noloop (talk) 17:05, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Your logic is breathtakingly absurd. Of course a theologian would not mind being called a theologian, just like a Psychoanalyst doesn't mind being called a psychoanalyst. But please do me a favor and refer to a clinical psychologist, or a psychiatrist as an "analyst" and tell me how happy they are about it. The point is that scholars of religion who are not theologians, like historians of religion, sociologists of religion, philosophers of religion, etc. would not want you to confuse what they do with theology.Griswaldo (talk) 18:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

And if a scholar is respected as both a historian and a theologian s/he would not want you to confuse the two endeavors unless s/he were consciously producing scholarship in dialog between the two fields.Griswaldo (talk) 18:55, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Advocating articles on subjects and looking at reviews of their works

I've been making myself a bit of a pain in several religion articles lately advocating that, for controversial material involving religious topics, maybe the best way to go is to create separate articles on each of the major related works relevant to the topic, and then try to include in those articles material on how those works are received. So, for instance, if the work of one "Catholic" (as an example) is regularly spoken of highly by reviewers and others who share similar beliefs, but panned or otherwise seriously criticized by virtually everyone else, then that work might not be the best reflection of "mainstream" opinion. If, as an alternate example, the work of a Calvinist writer is well received in academic journals which are not directly tied to Christianity, and particularly Protestant Christianity, in any way, then regardless of his or her Calvinist perspective that individual's work probably is the more reliable. Drawing the line can be somewhat problematic, like maybe in regards to opinions of Jews regarding early Christianity and similar instances. And feel free to substitute any terms of your choice in the examples above, by the way. John Carter (talk) 17:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

What if the work isn't "panned or otherwise seriously criticized by virtually everyone else," but mostly just ignored? As Ellegard argues, and the sourcing here supports, the historicity of Jesus is mainly a topic of Christian scholars, who operate without much exchange with secular historians. Your comment above, I think, assumes there is either debate or consensus. What if that assumption doesn't hold? Noloop (talk) 18:12, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Most will still receive some degree of discussion. For instance, Ellegard's theory that Jesus was the Qumran Teacher of Righteousness has not been directly responded to particularly often, but J. L. Teicher argued the same thing earlier and his comments were basically dismissed on the basis of the apparent time difference, and others who have made similar arguments, like Robert Eisenman who argued James the Just was the Teacher, have had their theories described as rejected by the academic community based on the time discrepancy and other issues. And, in general, like in the case of Eisenman, they will have often had at least one work deal significantly with their theories. And even Ellegard's theories are mentioned, at least, in about 400 sources at Google Scholar here, 600 times at Google Books here, and about 17000 times overall here. If certain theories really have been clearly ignored by academia, then there is no way to basically say they are or are not "fringe", but I tend to think that they are comparatively few and far between, and could probably be handled on a case-by-case basis. John Carter (talk) 18:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The historicity of Jesus is largely ignored by mainstream academia, according to Ellegard. The sourcing in these articles supports that. Noloop (talk) 05:40, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Hoffman, the co-chairman of the Jesus Project too thinks that the question of Historicity of Jesus is largely neglected by academia. He say that this is due to theological reasons. I think that the google estimates presented are somewhat overboard and include lots of false positives.-Civilizededucation^talk 11:12, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Yep. The most basic evidence of a sourcing problem is the article itself. It can exist in its current form only by relying heavily on Christian theologians and Christian presses. We also have reliable sources saying as much: Alvar Ellegård argues that theologians have failed to question Jesus' existence because of a lack of communication between them and other scholars, causing some of the basic assumptions of Christianity to remain insulated from general scholarly debate.[6] According to historian Joseph Hoffman, there has never been "a methodologically agnostic approach to the question of Jesus' historical existence."[7] [17]. It's much easier for us, as editors, to handle a clear dispute (or consensus), than a lack of dispute due to a lack of attention. Noloop (talk) 18:31, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Secular?

Loop, define secular since you use it so much. Can you be a theist and secular or is it just another word for atheist? Can for instance the US government be a secular government if it is run by a Christian? Is a department of religious studies at a secular academic institution "secular", or does secular mean in your view having nothing to do with any religion except atheism?

The dictionary is good. Secular doesn't mean atheist. I attended a secular college, not an atheist one (I've never heard of an atheist one)Noloop (talk) 06:29, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

You didn't give me your definition, which is what I wanted, but here is the encarta definition

not concerned with religion: not controlled by a religious body or concerned with religious or spiritual matters.

Do you accept this definition?

I'm not sure, it always depends on context. Generally, it seems OK. I'm leery of arguments over what words mean. Noloop (talk) 06:58, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, how about my questions for context. Is the US government secular with a Christian running it? Could it be full of Buddhists and still be secular? Were there professors of religion at your school, which you say was secular? If so were they then secular professors or does specializing in studying religion make you unsecular, even if you were an atheist? Roy Brumback (talk) 07:37, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Secular means lots of things. In my dictionary (The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary) the first definition is "Of (a member of) the clergy; not bound by a religious rule; not belonging or living in seclusion with a monastic or other order," the second major definition is "existing in time." Noloop is using one of actually eleven different definitions the dictionary gives, I think, to mean "caring for this world only or of or belonging to the present or material world as distinguished from the eternal or spiritual world; worldly."

So I think I know what Noloop means. But that is more important in an article on history and a historical subject is, what words do historians use? I have taken a range of courses in history, and have read a wide variety of books on historical topics by historians, and I have never seen a historian of religion or a historian writing about a religion or a religious figure or a religious text to identify themselves as "secular." Michaelangely was no doubt religious and the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel is an explicitly religious object expressing religious motifs. I have no doubt that a devout Catholic finds in it an expression of faith. I have also read works by art historians on the Sistine ceiling and I have not seen them identify themselves as "secular art historians," they just identify as "art historians." I have seen historians writing about Jesus, the history of the early Church, or of the New Testament, identify themselves as historians or as modern historians. In the late 18th/19th centuries modern history emerged in part with a break from the authroity of established churches, and those historians writing on these matters who wished to distinguish themselves from the Church identified their scholarship as "critical." I think we should use the terms historians use. I think if a historian identifies him/herself as a modern or critical historian we should say so, and we should certainly read each work to see how the historian identifies his or her scholarship - can onyone object to this simple principle?

Now, I suppose that much of the work by historians on the historical Jesus could be identified by Noloop as "secular" since it views Jesus and the sources that refer to him as objects "in the world" rather than eminating from any "supernatural" realm. But I just have not seen historians refer to themselves as "secular," except perhaps in interviews to the popular press. But this is undependable because most historians seldom become big enough stars to be interviewed in the popular press. Noloop, do you have a textbook used in major university courses, or examples of peer-reviewed journal articles in which historians themselves refer to themselves as writing "secular history?" Slrubenstein | Talk 10:08, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

no sources from Jesus' lifetime

Some of the discussion above, and the current wording of the article, does not reflect how scholarship discusses the historical value of the sources for Jesus' life. All of the sources postdate Jesus' life, and in this sense it's fair to say that there is nothing written by him and no accounts written in his lifetime. However, it is quite common to see the written sources as preserving written or oral traditions that originate during the lifetime of Jesus (in other words, they're based on first-hand knowledge). Christopher Tuckett, Cambridge Companion to Jesus, p. 122, states the matter in a way that many people would agree with: ""None of our extant written sources provides anything from Jesus' own hand. What we have for the most part is a number of collections of traditions about Jesus, written by other people, mostly some years after his lifetime. However, the work of Form Criticism on the gospels has shown us that individual traditions about Jesus were probably circulating orally for some time before such collections began to be formed, and indeed continued to circulate for some considerable time afterwards. We cannot therefore judge the historical value of an individual tradition simply on the basis of the date (or even necessarily the nature) of the collection in which it happens to come to light for us. Authentic traditions about Jesus may thus surface in later collections or texts."

The last part of the current version of the sentence of the lead discussing sources is not a good representation of the spectrum of views: "...little can be said about a historical Jesus with confidence." Some scholars think this. Others, probably a greater number, believe that something, perhaps even a great deal, can be confidently said about the historical Jesus, precisely because the NT preserves traditions going back to Jesus' lifetime (which is, after all, not that long before the Pauline epistles...) --Akhilleus (talk) 04:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I would prefer to replace that sentence with a line that says "Most of what we believe we know about the historical Jesus is reconstructed from the New Testament, and there is much evidence that these records are not historically reliable." Any takers? Wdford (talk) 04:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

No. 1) Don't use the first person in encylopedia articles. 2) It is POV. Many people, including Xian scholars, are skeptical that we know much of anything from the New Testament. Since you seem fond of quote-based FAQs, see Jesus Quotes. Noloop (talk) 14:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Many people are skeptical that we know much of anything from the NT. Many aren't, as the quote above shows. Selecting only part of the spectrum of views for inclusion in this article is POV. --Akhilleus (talk) 15:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

The Tucket quote doesn't say or imply that the New Testament is a reliable source of fact about the historical Jesus. It would be irrelevant anyway. I didn't say nobody thinks the New Testament is reliable, or propose editing on that basis. Noloop (talk) 18:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

You are, however, apparently endorsing saying "little can be said about a historical Jesus with confidence," and opposing including views that contradict this. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:10, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't oppose including any views. Find some reliable sources (preferably not ordained ministers publishing in Christian presses) saying otherwise, and discuss the best way to add the info. The sources we have questioning what can be known about Jesus are very high quality: Arnal and Pagels (and the Christianity Today article, which is hard to accuse of bias in this case). This is a good example of what happens when there's a blitzkrieg of editing. My original wording was something like "...as a result some scholars question the details...." But variations in wording flew by without discussion, more sources were found, and the wording changed (quite possibly, I changed it without much thought). I solicited comment on the material several times here, and nobody gave input. Noloop (talk) 04:20, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Is the new wording supported by the source. It appears to be a synthesis to me.-Civilizededucation^talk 17:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

....resulting in widespread debate about the details of his history. I think this part is a synthesis.Civilizededucation^talk 07:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Very badly written and focus needs to be decided upon

You all do realize I hope that the article is reading more and more like a badly written high school paper. The intro is atrocious. Right off the bat it claims the issue is between Jesus existing and not existing, and then contradicts itself by saying it involves Jesus not existing, and then multiple other He existed options, like New Testament is wholly true to He existed but New Testament is still wholly made up. Which is it? Should the article be about whether He simply existed or not or also include tons of other "who was the real Historical Jesus" stuff. Since I see this had been debated ad nausium why not take a tally. Should the article be strictly about whether He simply existed or not or also include info on how much of the New Testament is true or not accepting He did exist. Roy Brumback (talk) 06:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

For having article about whether He simply existed or not.

1. Roy Brumback.

For having other info besides the simple question of His minimum historical existence.

Agree, the intro is not good. I'm not fond of Bruce's recent additions. The lead is for a general overview, so it mostly shouldn't depend on statements that have to be attributed. In addition, all of Bruce's new sources are overtly Christian, in an article that is already dominated by them. One of the sources was over a century old (I removed it). The source for the first sentence is nearly as old. Noloop (talk) 06:27, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Roy, we already have an article called Jesus myth theory which addresses the question of did he exist or didn't he. This article is about how much we can actually rely on what is supposedly "known" about him. There is a debate still about possibly merging the two articles, but thusfar the feeling is to keep the two articles separate. There are quite a few editors involved in this discussion, so please be a little bit less BOLD about unilaterally changing the focus of an entire article. If you feel the wording can be improved upon then please join the discussion and make suggestions. However, deleting all the content that shows the NT accounts of Jesus are not universally accepted, and replacing it all with a single statement that "Jesus did exist", looks very POV to me.

Noloop, please stop whinging about "Christian sources". The current intro wording clearly states that many scholars don't accept the gospels as "unvarnished", but we still need to include the "Christian" scholars viewpoints - even though they might contradict each other. Enough already, please.

Since the topic is about what happened 2000 years ago, the age of the sources is not an issue, unless more recent scholarship has changed direction. I see no evidence that recent scholarship has changed direction.

Wdford (talk) 10:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the present scope of the article is fine. I also think that the scope was nicely defined by the material provided by Bruce Grubb. Only the wording needs to be condensed. I would like to see the material back.-Civilizededucation^talk 14:56, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

In order to remove the recent confusion about the focus of the article, I propose that the opening sentence be changed slightly to read: "The historicity of Jesus concerns whether or not what is written about Jesus of Nazareth is historically reliable." Wdford (talk) 16:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I like that and will use it. I am also restoring the stuff about the four categories though it does need a bit of cleaning up.--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Wdford, please be polite (and know what you don't know). As for the lead...the topic is whether Jesus existed. That's different from the reliability of what is written about him, although naturally they are related. Noloop (talk) 16:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. The Historicity of Jesus is not a simple did he exist question despite claims to the contrary. The Historicity of Jesus revolves how much of the Gospel account is historical reliable. There are people (Remsburg and Barker are two examples) that say the Gospel Jesus is a fiction but do not exclude the possibility of a 1st century teacher called Jesus; about the only difference is Remsburg felt there was just enough evidence to show evidence of this historical Jesus while Barker does not.

"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)

"...we need to distinguish the Jesus of history and the Jesus of the New Testament; they were not necessarily the same person." (Dan Barker in a debate with Chris Forbes). Barker goes on to say that while it is 5 to 10 percent chance there was historical Jesus the New Testament Jesus did not exist.--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:24, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Bruce, I think this is maybe too much detail for the lead. How about we summarise this material to say: "It covers a spectrum of ideas that range from “the gospels are essentially mythical” to “Jesus existed but the gospels tell us little or nothing about him” to “each event depicted in the New Testament is the literal truth.”" How about that? Wdford (talk) 17:43, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I understand but NONE of the sources actually say this. I. Howard Marshall only gives the two extremes of the spectrum and while Remsburg, Barker, and Eddy do break up this spectrum into four parts they are not the same four parts. Also Eddy doesn't go all the way to the "each event depicted in the New Testament is the literal truth" that Marshall does. So in trying to keep faithful to the source material and avoid WP:SYN as much as possible IMHO I have to word the passage in this awkward fashion. I'm not thrilled with that fact but until we find a reliable source that gives use both Marshall's full range and some variation of the four categories it is the best we can do.

I should point out that "the Gospels are somewhat historical" is a kind of grab bag of ideas ranging from the fringy Gospel Jesus is a composite character (Remsburg, Wells Jesus Legend, and Price's Deconstructing Jesus Prometheus Books, pg 85) to the more mainstream the Gospels are mythologized versions of actual events. The plain fact is the Historicity of Jesus is not the simplistic "did he exist?" question people think it is and that fact needs to be in the lead and kept to the spirit if not wording of the source material.--BruceGrubb (talk) 01:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, but Marshall's range encompasses all the others, and he uses wording that accepts that the reality could fall at any point in between, so adding the detailed categories is perhaps somewhat redundant. The lead needs to summarise, so how about we limit this to the Marshall comment in the lead, and put the detail about the categories into the body of the article? That way we have the detail, we have a referenced summary in the lead that covers the detail, we have a lead section that reads smoothly and tells the reader everthing they need to know in one easy paragraph, and we remove a lever that could otherwise be used to remove this info from the lead (note the heading of this thread)? Wdford (talk) 05:32, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The first sentence in the lead's second paragraph is the reason for the redundancy: "The majority of scholars who study early Christianity believe Jesus existed". Per Marshall's range why is that even there? By it's very nature this sentance sets up the excluded middle either Jesus existed or not nonsense that has bogged down all the Jesus articles.

The Remsburg, Barker, and Eddy material is to hammer home the fact that Marshall was speaking about a spectrum or RANGE of ideas. Perhaps begin in the first paragraph is not the best place for it but is clear from both the article and the talk page the fact that the Historicity of Jesus is A RANGE OF IDEAS AN NOT A YES OR NO QUESTION needs to be in the lead to clarify that point. I will work on the lead end paragraph and try to make work better but the categories need to remain somewhere in the lead in.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Wdford's recent changes to the lead divorced the refs from the text: Pagels, Arnal, and Christianity Today are the sources for saying that none of the evidence comes from the time of Jesus, and that scholars tend to create historical jesus in their own image. We also don't need 6-8 references for every sentence: pick the highest quality references. Finally, we need use care in citing Christian theologians, ministers, etc. People who worship a subject are not neutral on it. Noloop (talk) 16:41, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Hm, actually, it looks like the refs were messed up before Wdford's edit. People need to slow down, and use care. It seems like people aren't even checking the references they are using to support text. Noloop (talk) 16:45, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

...... whether or not what is written about Jesus of Nazareth is historically reliable. I think this part is very confusing.-Civilizededucation^talk 17:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

We already have an article on the topic of "whether Jesus existed" - its called Jesus myth theory, and Noloop has been a prolific contributor there. We don't need two articles on the same topic - this article has always been a discussion about the sources which tell us that Jesus existed, while the Jesus myth theory article discusses the sources which claim that Jesus never existed at all. I am all in favour of merging the two articles, but not at the expense of deleting the material which points out that what the NT says about Jesus is not necessarily reliable.

Which part of that sentence is confusing to you, Civilizededucation? Wdford (talk) 17:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

@Bruce. Agree the reliability of the Gospels is important. But, the definition of this topic is not "the reliability of the gospels." There are other factors, so I don't think we should define historicity of Jesus as being about the reliability of the gospels. @Wdford. Pointing out that the NT narrative isn't history is certainly essential. here are many quotes (Ala Bill the Cat 7) on the unreliability of the NT on my Talk page [18]. I undid what you wrote mainly because I realized refs had become unattached from their proper text. T Editors are moving too quickly. Feel free to restore it. BTW, have you checked the actual sources? Noloop (talk) 18:25, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually the reliability of the Gospels is critical as that is where nearly all the biographical information we have on Jesus comes from. Throw that out and all you really have is Josephus (known via Origen to have been tampered with and whose second passage is vague to the point of uselessness) and Tacitus (who given he uses the wrong title could simply be repeating an urban legend).

The only other source to definitely talk about a Jesus close to the Gospel one is the Talmud version which was compiled in the third century CE and puts its Jesus c100 BCE.

The supposed Suetonius and Thallus references seem to be more wishful thinking on the part of pro historical Jesus supporters than anything else: Suetonius seems to be talking about someone else and Thallus' history has to be fudged from its supposed ending of 167th Olympiad (c109 BCE) to fit.

We need to remember that the existence of Jesus is not the same as the Historicity of Jesus. You could still have some preacher named Jesus in the 1st century Galilee that other than having the right name and being in the right place at the right time and preaching has nothing to do with the Gospel Jesus. As I have said before the Historicity of Jesus is akin to the Historicity of Robin Hood or the Historicity of King Arthur; you might find a possible historical person to fit but at the end of the day there is so much that has been added you can't be sure you have the right person.--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:38, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

...... whether or not what is written about Jesus of Nazareth is historically reliable. I think this is confusing because there is a lot that is written about the Historicity of Jesus of Nazareth. There are lots of non-academic books on this topic. This article and it's talk page are also on the same topic. Are we discussing the reliability of this article and it's talk page?

I you look at the JMT article, you may agree that it is a discussion about the idea "Jesus did not exist". This article is about "Historicity of Jesus". This means, we discuss both sides of the question. We mostly discuss the sources on the Historicity of Jesus because this is the thing which is most relevant to Historicity of Jesus. But it is important to keep in mind that this article is about Historicity of Jesus, not just sources. We are trying to give the reader a complete understanding of the issue of Historicity of Jesus. For example, if you look at the Quest material, which is now called "Overview of scholarly...", this portion is relevant for an article on Historicity of Jesus. But would not be necessarily important for an article on just the reliability of sources.

I am not trying to urge for a merger of JMT and HoJ articles in this thread. And far be it from me to try to remove the discussion on the reliability of the NT. I think that some discussion of the reliability of the NT, or the Gospels rather, is absolutely necessary for a discussion on the Historicity of Jesus.-Civilizededucation^talk 08:09, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that the references are the most important assets of an article. As such, I dislike the present trend of removing references because we of having multiple references for one point. I think all effort should be made to preserve references. If we do not like to have five of six blue squares after a sentence, perhaps we can group all of them under one heading.-Civilizededucation^talk 08:27, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

The historicity of Jesus concerns how much of what is written about Jesus of Nazareth is historically reliable. Perhaps we could rephrase it in this way. --The historicity of Jesus of Nazareth is about the sources of historical information and issues related to existence of Jesus.

Not everything contained in the gospels is considered to be historically reliable, and elements whose historical authenticity is disputed include the two accounts of the nativity of Jesus, as well as certain details about the crucifixion and the resurrection. I think this is too specific and we should say something about the controversies related to all the evidence regarding the historicity of Jesus. Something about the authenticity of all of the evidence. Gospels, early Church fathers, Josephus, Pliny the Younger,....et.al.-Civilizededucation^talk 10:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

As I have pointed out before the are plenty of definitions of JMT, CMT or whatever you want to call that show it is more than simply Jesus didn't exist.--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:28, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

@Civilizededucation I think you are confusing authenticity with relevancy. Arguments regarding Pliny the Younger, Suetonius, and Tacitus are more on the issue of relevancy not authenticity. All three could be totally authentic and still be useless regarding showing the Historicity of Jesus because of the three only Tacitus gives any kind of details regarding "Christ" and given the incorrect title used for Pontius Pilate his c116 CE comments could just be repeating what the Christians believed rather than actual history--BruceGrubb (talk) 23:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)