Talk:Historicity of Jesus/Archive 29

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

→

Archive 35

Graham Stanton again

I think it should be abundantly clear from the various obituaries of Stanton found in reliable sources ([1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], etc.) that his field of expertise, in which he researched and taught for his entire career, is "New Testament studies". The only time "divinity" appears in association to the man's name is as part of a named chair he was granted late in his career, and not as a descriptor of what his expertise was in. Please reconsider edit warring over this, Noloop. If a man has made his living as a New Testament scholar and then late in his life gets the "such and such chair in whatever", we clearly focus on what he actually made his career doing and not "whatever".Griswaldo (talk) 18:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The professor of divinity may not be crucial, but I don't think there's anything wrong with pointing out Stanton was also a theologian, since not all NT scholars are. That should not be all we say about him however. Only saying he was a theologian is inadequate, since that gives no indication of his credentials concerning the topic of this article. The same goes for Henry Chadwick, who I'm reliably informed was first and foremost a patristics scholar but also definitely a theologian. Martijn Meijering (talk) 18:34, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Griswaldo is, um, "misrepresenting the truth" again. Stanton's degrees are a bachelor's of a divinity and a master's of divinity. He trained for the ministry and was licensed to preach. His department was the divinity department at Cambridge for almost 30 years. Divinity and theology mostly go together. There were (irrational) objections to calling him a theologian (even though reliable sources do so), so I tried an actual title nobody could disagree with.

• "In Western universities, a Bachelor of Divinity (BD or BDiv) is usually an undergraduate academic degree awarded for a course taken in the study of divinity or related disciplines, such as theology or, rarely, religious studies."[7]
• "In the academic study of theology, the Master of Divinity (M.Div., magister divinitatis in Latin) is the first professional degree ..."[8]

This dispute is tendentious and disruptive, and disrespectful to the consensus process. We already have had an RFC's on the identifying sources with overtly Christian interests, which certain editors are now trying to wikilawyer to death. Please stop it. Noloop (talk) 18:45, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Noloop it is tendentious on your part I'm afraid. You failed to mention that he has a PhD in New Testament, and not in Divinity. He did not teach at Cambridge for 30 years at all, he taught at King's College London for 28 years, as a "professor of New Testament studies". The department in question, is this one, which is a secular department of "religious studies". Please follow the link and see for yourselves. I'm not misrepresenting the truth, though you have posted some bold inaccuracies in your own presentation.Griswaldo (talk) 18:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Type "Graham Stanton" into Google,, and the 2nd hit is Graham Stanton - Faculty of Divinity Noloop (talk) 20:03, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

After I Google something I like to actually read it. When you do that you see that he was part of the Cambridge faculty of Divinity since 1998, that would be 11 years before his death. It is not clear at all that he "taught" there, and if so for how many of those years prior to dying he did so. Your reference to 30 years teaching was clearly a confusion between his 28 years at King's college and his later post at Cambridge. Being snide about it after the error is pointed out to you does you no favors.Griswaldo (talk) 20:07, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

So we have shown this claim to be false: The only time "divinity" appears in association to the man's name is as part of a named chair he was granted late in his career, and not as a descriptor of what his expertise was in. Your expertise is in what you study. Someone whose degrees are in history, and who is a professor of history in a history department, has expertise in history. All Stanton's degrees are related to divinity, including his PhD, and he was a professor of divinity in the department of divinity. The study of divinity is mostly the same as the study of theology. Stop playing word games. Noloop (talk) 14:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Please provide evidence for what you assert about his PhD being in "divnity". In fact I didn't know you could take a PhD in "divinity" (btw there are DD degrees, Doctor of Divinity, and ThD degrees, Doctor of Theology, but they are not the same as PhD, so maybe you're confused). All the sources say NT studies. They also say this about his professorial appointments and his expertise -- New Testament studies, which is a branch of Biblical studies, not Theology. I've already provided evidence for this from every single obituary, can you provide evidence to the contrary?Griswaldo (talk) 15:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

As for Henry Chadwick, the first sentence of his Wikipedia article says: "a British academic and Church of England clergyman."Noloop (talk) 18:48, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

True enough as far as I know, but Wikipedia is not a RS. Mine (my father, who knew him) is a reliable source and occasionally a RS, though only when published, not when on the phone to his son. :-) The fact that he was an NT scholar and a church historian is relevant for this article as it addresses his area of competence. So are the facts that he was a theologian and a clergyman, as it addresses the potentiality of bias. The fact that he was a professor of divinity seems much less important. The fact that he was a capable administrator (with the rare distinction of having been master of both an Oxford and a Cambridge university college) and an accomplished musician are even less relevant to this article. And somehow we want to avoid turning the description into an essay on Henry Chadwick... Martijn Meijering (talk) 19:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Agree with most of this. The basic need is to 1) fairly represent the credentials of the source, and 2) identify (for lack of a better term) professional Christians sources, due to concerns with bias (this has been supported by the larger community many times). It should not be an endless, seemingly impossible argument. I chose "professor of divinity" because it seems to do both: a professor is a scholar, and a professor of divinity is a Christian scholar. People were creating issues with theologian, so I thought I'd try something else. The insistence of just "Biblical scholar" and nothing else is an attempt to avoid the identification of poitential bias in the sources. Noloop (talk) 19:59, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Not just professional Christian sources, atheist activists too, clerics of different religions etc. Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

That hasn't been addressed by the community as much. There are obvious differences. People aren't neutral about things they worship. There is a potential conflict of interest when your career and/or professional reputation is staked on certain positions. So, Christians aren't neutral about Jesus, and professional Christians are doubly biased. Atheists don't, by definition, worship the non-existence of God. A "professional atheist", such as Christopher Hitchens, should probably be identified as such. I doubt any of the editors here would object to writing "atheist Christopher Hitchens says..." but they have been hateful and dishonest in regards to text like "Christian Graham Stanton says...." Noloop (talk) 21:13, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Hitchens, and Stanton, the context is the key. In most contexts, if you're quoting Hitchen's on religion I would not identify him as an atheist. I might identify him as "religious critic Christopher Hitchens", but that's the relevant information, that he's a professional critic of religion, not that he's an atheist. Stanton, regardless of what you may think, was not a professional apologist for religion, or for Christianity, he was a professional scholar of the NT. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 23:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The "larger community" consensus you claim has been established "many times" over is a complete fiction. The largest amount of community input on this issue came during the SLR RfC you started, and consensus there was against your position on religiously profiling sources and rather poignantly so. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 20:10, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Not this again. identification of poitential bias in the source. Really? Either the source is biased, or it isn't. Do you have any evidence of bias? Christian does not by itself equal biased, regardless what you think the larger community has many times supported. If the source is bad, or biased, or inappropriate, please discuss this. We may consider not using it altogether if there is good evidence, or else, we can all agree that some sort of qualification is needed. But this ridiculous idea of "poitential" bias is inappropriate and offensive. I am not necessarily saying that this is black and white; biased or not biased. But to introduce the idea that a source may be problematic, we need more to go on that "He's Christian" or "there is the word divinity one of their titles" or "they went to a seminary" or "they are a theologian" or whatever other junk you guys have been pushing here. We could be citing the pope here, and unless we can demonstrate what the pope is saying is disputed by other scholars, or is problematic, or biased based on sources, then we have no business WHAT SO EVER, trying to alert our reader of "poitential bias" based solely on some random internet user's internet sleuthing. Seriously. Step up. Demonstrate the bias, or the controversy, or that other scholars dispute these claims, or make accusations of bias. Otherwise, we have a situation where some random, anonymous internet users claim to know more about bias and scholarship than the actual published professionals in the field, and this ia in Wikipedia's mission that we should avoid research along those lines.-Andrew c ^[talk] 20:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

The fact that his degrees, which are the start of his career, are in divinity seems to put to rest this nonsense about that being only the tail end of his career. As for Andrew c's frankly absurd continuence of the argument with attribution is just that, absurd. We've had 2 RfC's, numerous noticeboard threads, the matter has reached a general consensus. That may change, consensus can always change, but for now the onus is on him to show that it has changed. -- ۩ Mask 01:41, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

• "If you held the belief of a Christian afterlife and the key component of getting into that afterlife is the existence of Jesus (which it is for Christians) then how could you ever admit or believe that he didn't exist? To assume a writer from a Christian background would not be biased on the existence of their Savior and the key figure of their religion is utterly insane. — raekyT 20:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
• "The quest for non-Christian scholars that acknowledge the historicity of Jesus is a reasonable one, and the idea that Christian scholars can be objective on the topic is somewhat amusing....There's really not that much difference between this and the kind of difficulties we have with various pseudoscience articles.—Kww(talk) 18:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)"
• "Obviously sources that cleave to a set of dogmas will treat the subject as if it were true - whether that is acceptable, to the exclusion of sources that contradict this truth, I find problematic. Editors trying to apply a standard of editing that only permits a strictly scientifically rigorous approach to phenomena that is not capable of anything that would be accepted as falsification would be laughable, if it were not so pathetically sad. And I am a Christian (just). - MishMich - Talk - 19:25, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
• "This is absurd. It is not bigoted to ask that we do not adopt a Christian perspective but rather a secular perspective on Wikipedia. II | (t - c) 00:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

[9]

• "...the primary criticism of Christian sources in the Historicity of Jesus article is that they, by their very upbringing, approach the topic with the conclusion already set in mind. Their research is, overall, better described as "Jesus existed, how can we prove it", as opposed to the more valid "was there a man known as Jesus Christ". That's not to say that they're necessarily aware of their own bias, or even that their conclusions are automatically wrong - just that their conclusions are rightfully suspect. We don't use Moonie "research" for the Sun Myung Moon article, perhaps dwelling on that will help enlighten some as to why Christian sources for this article are so contested. Badger Drink (talk) 19:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

[10]

• "There is a definite problem, for example, in Talk:Historicity of Jesus. All I am trying to argue is that if a consensus exists (which I believe is true), we should nonetheless indicate the background of the scholars, make it clear that the consensus exists across the spectrum of backgrounds, exactly to swipe away reasonable doubts of cherrypicking biased sources. I am meeting unexplicable resistance for that, something that in theory should reinforce their position. User:Griswaldo for example denies the very possibility of religious bias in the study of the historical Jesus, a position which looks naive, at best, from me." Cyclopiatalk 16:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
• "The historicity of the figure of Jesus is open to debate - banning someone who wants to add reliable sources that discuss this looks very much like religious censorship. This isn't Conservapedia. Asking for sources from genuine scholars rather than Christian evangelicals seems reasonable! Sure, you can mention that Christian apologists believe that Jesus was an historical figure, but it's the academic view that should hold weight in articles."[Fences&Windows 19:23, 21 July 2010 (UTC)]

[11]

• "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)
• "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)
• "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)
• "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)
• "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

[12]

The concern isn't a fiction, nor is it my "tendentious POV". Please be honest about what others have said, and fair about it. Noloop (talk) 02:05, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

All of those quotes are from Wikipedia editors, who aren't reliable sources; none of them mentions Stanton specifically. So this quote-spamming doesn't answer Andrew c's concern, that an assumption is being made that Stanton is biased because he's a Christian. And that's what this boils down to, really, if you want the quotes above to be used as guidance—Christians are potentially biased, so the reader must be warned!!!!) Meanwhile, no one has ever provided evidence that bias has distorted Stanton's scholarship, nor that he is wrong on the particular point for which he's being cited. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

That wasn't the point. Noloop (talk) 02:51, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Noloop in just a couple of minutes I compiled and even longer list of people who have explicitly opposed this POV. Do you want me to post my own wall of text here to prove to you that your list does not represent a "consensus"? I will if I have to, but I request if that is the case that we can hat both lists so that neither is the eyesore that the current one is.Griswaldo (talk) 14:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say there was a consensus, although you could make a case for one ("consernsus" is vaguely defined, like everything on Wikipedia). Stop playing word games. Noloop (talk) 14:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey, Akhilleus, im just posting on here to say I think your solution (in the edit you made, naming the chair he held) is a wonderfully elegant solution. It informs without denigrating, showing him in a prestigious light so pointing out he studied divinity isn't seen as a slur. Excellent edit. -- ۩ Mask 04:33, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree as well that this is an accurate way of describing him and wont object to it, though I will point out that a named chair like this doesn't speak to someone's expertise and research interests. In reality I think no qualification should be posted at all when a scholar has a wikipedia article that we link to in the name, like Stanton does. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Your expertise is in what you study. Someone whose degrees are in history, and who is a professor of history in a history department, has expertise in history. All Stanton's degrees are related to divinity, including his PhD which was earned in the divinity department, and he was a professor of divinity in same department. (An expert in divinity is called a theologian (rather than "diviner" or "divinist"), hence the reliable sources referring to him as a theologian.) Stop playing word games. Noloop (talk) 14:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Please provide evidence for what you assert about his PhD being in "divnity". In fact I didn't know you could take a PhD in "divinity" (btw there are DD degrees, Doctor of Divinity, and ThD degrees, Doctor of Theology, but they are not the same as PhD, so maybe you're confused). All the sources say NT studies. They also say this about his professorial appointments and his expertise -- New Testament studies, which is a branch of Biblical studies, not Theology. I've already provided evidence for this from every single obituary, can you provide evidence to the contrary?Griswaldo (talk) 15:37, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Nobody said his PhD is in divinity. Stop playing word games. Noloop (talk) 15:39, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

There is an immense irony in your suggestion that others not "play word-games". You said all his degrees are related to divinity and then claimed that divinity is synonymous with theology. At Cambridge University, where he received his PhD, the "faculty of Divinity" covers the entire study of religion ... religious studies as well as Christian theology. See here -- Cambridge Faculty of Divinity. And low and behold, included in the Faculty's key research areas, along with seven others, is Biblical Studies. It is, once again, you who are behaving in the manner you accuse others of behaving. Stop with the word games indeed.Griswaldo (talk) 15:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if this is helpful, but it says clearly that he is a "New Testament scholar", among a bunch of other things. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 15:52, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

And this, this, this, this, this, and this. I'm not sure how much you can help someone who doesn't hear that.Griswaldo (talk) 15:57, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

That's right. He earned his Ph.D from the department of divinity. His bachelors and masters are also in divinity. All his degrees are related to divinity. A specialist in divinity is a theologian. Reliable sources refer to him as a theologian. So, yes, stop playing word games. Noloop (talk) 22:48, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

There is no "department of divinity" at Cambridge. There is a Faculty of Divinity and you seem to refuse to understand what the faculty encompasses.Griswaldo (talk) 04:24, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, the wording that gives the full title he held (before he died) has been in the article before. Mmeijeri removed it, on the grounds that the full title is superfluous. What matters is a name for the kind of expert he his, and attribution of the bias in his background, which "professor of divinity" or "theologian" indicate adequately. To be proper, we should put "former" in front of the title, which makes it even longer. Noloop (talk) 22:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

You just keep on pretending not to hear. Getting a degree from the Cambridge Faculty of Divinity absolutely does not equate to getting a degree in theology. Follow the link and read the damn page. The faculty is so named because they've kept the traditional name, but the faculty encompasses the entire study of religion, much more than theology. You're either willfully being tendentious or you can't read what people are writing to you.Griswaldo (talk) 02:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Out of curiosity what is your objection to using the description used by every single source about Stanton, including the lone source that also uses the term "theologian"? What is your objection to using "New Testament scholar" which is in every description of him and which describes the degree he has from Cambridge?Griswaldo (talk) 02:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Scholarly rather than religious methods

Scholarly studies attempting to use historical rather than religious methods to construct a verifiable biography of Jesus have been know as "Quests". Can somebody give the text (and source) being used to support this statement? Noloop (talk) 15:14, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

No comment? Noloop (talk) 21:18, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The term scholar is very broad. Fundamentalist Muslim Ulema could reasonably be described as such. In the sentence you quoted a more restricted sense like scientific seems to be intended, although I have my doubts about whether the scholarship in question really deserves that designation. Martijn Meijering (talk) 21:25, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not fond of "scholarly" either. It's a bit POV-ish, seeming to be a synonym for more obvious POV terms like "important" or "serious." Noloop (talk) 02:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I dug up quotes sort of related to this almost 2 months ago: Talk:Jesus/Archive_113, see my "16:27, 11 August 2010" comment. Ehrman and Meier's definition of a historical Jesus and the methods scholars use may be applicable here. -Andrew c ^[talk] 02:49, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Addressing the miscategorization problem

Currently we have "A small number of scholars believe the gospels may describe an entirely fictitious or mythical figure,[14] an idea which has been popularized in the early 21st century by writers representing New Atheism[15], and movies such as The God Who Wasn't There. However, the majority of scholars who study early Christianity believe Jesus existed in some form.[16][17][18]" as a point in the lead in.

This has a multitude of problems.

1) Boyd-Eddy mixes what could be called the traditional Christ Myth theory with what they call Jesus agnosticism (ie there is not enough to show he actually existed) so the reference doesn't back up the statement made.

2) Richard Dawkins does NOT say Jesus didn't exist. Here is what he actually says in The God Delusion regarding Jesus:

• "It is even possible to mount a serious, though not widely supported, historical case that Jesus never lived at all. [...] Although Jesus probably existed, reputable biblical scholars do not in general regard the New Testaments (and obviously not the Old Testament) as a reliable record of what actually happened in history..." and a little further on the same page he states "The only difference between the Da Vinci Code and the gospel is that the gospels are ancient fiction while The Da Vinci Code is modern fiction." (pg 97)

• "Unlike the cult of Jesus, the origins of which are not reliably attested, we can see the whole course of events laid out before our eyes before our eyes (and even here, as we shall see, some details are now lost). It is fascinating to guess that the cult of Christianity almost certainly began in very much the same way, and spread initially at the same high speed." A little later Dawkins on page states "John Frum, if he existed at all, did so within living memory. Yet, even for so recent a possibility, it is not certain whether he lived at all." (pg 202-203)

So again a claim is made that is NOT backed up by the material cited.

3) No reference supporting the claim is made.

On about every major point you can name this section has problems.--BruceGrubb (talk) 01:58, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

For one and two, I dont see what you're complaining about. Both seem well attested to in the source. The statement is "gospels may describe an entirely fictitious or mythical figure". May is one key part. Dawkin's explicitly states a serious challenge to his existence can be mounted. He doesn't buy into it that much, but the possibility is readily acknowledged. The second key part is fictitious figure. "reputable biblical scholars do not in general regard the New Testaments (and obviously not the Old Testament) as a reliable record of what actually happened in history...". The Gospels are fiction, describing a fictitious figure. This is completely divorced from the question of 'did he exist'. If I really, really liked Harry Truman, and wanted to make sure people carried on his teachings, and gathered together a book of all the morals he taught us, and to make sure you listened I made sure he came off good, dressing up and fighting crime, rocket suit, x ray vision, and the best fashion sense. Despite the fact that there was a Harry S Truman, my book is about a fictitious person. The statement is clearly supported. For point three, I might be a bit daft, but i dont know to what number three is referring to (not being a smart ass, am actually asking for a little help to clarify). -- ۩ Mask 11:35, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

"Mythical figure" covers a LOT of ground as explained in the Bulfinch's 1881 compilation Bulfinch's Mythology: Scriptural, Historical, Allegorical, Astronomical, Physical, and explanation for natural phenomena with "All the theories which have been mentioned are true to a certain extent." Remsburg boiled it down to a much simpler three: Historical, Philosophical, and Poetical.

In modern terms They Died With their Boots on, Little Big Man, and Son of the Morning Star are all historical myths regarding Custer at the Battle of Little Big Horn. Washington Irving's story that Columbus sailed west to prove the Earth was round is another historical myth; in this case the myth became so strong that it was presented as fact for many decades (National Research Council (2005) Mason Locke Weems' story of Washington's chopping down of the Cherry Tree is a Philosophical and pure myth while Longfellow's Paul Revere is a Poetical myth. Note that even with the Philosophical and pure myth example I used a person who actual lived; in Weems' story Washington becomes the embodiment of Truth ("When a mere idea is personified and presented in the form of a man or a god it is called a pure myth.")

The problem with saying "The Gospels are fiction, describing a fictitious figure. This is completely divorced from the question of 'did he exist'." is as I have said before the Gospels are our only really detailed account of Jesus. Throw those out and all you have are two very questionable sources that tell you little if anything. Also Wells from Jesus Legend (1996) onhas been saying the Gospels Jesus is a composite character (by definition fictional) but also says this position is NOT part of the Christ Myth theory (at least as Boyd-Eddy define it)--BruceGrubb (talk) 16:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I still dont see what you actually object to. Your new edits to the page just seem to reword things. I really can't distinguish any difference in meaning or information in either. I'm not going to object to the edit, I'm perfectly fine with it just like I was perfectly fine with the page before. Maybe this is a communication problem between you and I rather then an actual disagreement. -- ۩ Mask 11:41, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you don't understand the difference between fictitious and fictionalized figures.

fictitious: Not real or true, being imaginary or having been fabricated.

fictionalized: to make into or treat in the manner of fiction

Miss Havisham in Great Expectations is a fictitious figure while Abraham Lincoln in Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter is fictionalized figure. As Terry Jones' Medieval Lives series episode "King" shows sometimes these fictionalized versions of historical people are presented as history--largely for propaganda reasons. The Richard I, Richard II and Richard III we know are so different from what contemporary records say of them that they might as well be fictitious figures but since they did live fictionalized would be the correct term to use.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:40, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

David Jenkins

Why do we have this:

David Jenkins, a former Anglican Bishop of Durham and university professor, has stated that “There is absolutely no certainty in the New Testament about anything of importance.”

Can't find any evidence that he is a scholar in new testament studies or of early Christianity or history. The quote comes from a blog like document used to bash the man, which makes the source not ideally reliable. Hardyplants (talk) 07:55, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Actually, [we are given some facts as to where quote came from]: an interview on the BBC with David Brown a little after April 29, 1984.--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

OK, but WP:RS standards have to do with the source we are citing. I also don't think that source reliability is the main concern outlined above, if Hardyplants is correct. We should be asking why this person's opinion about is notable. If it is not, but someone with the proper credentials share it then source it to them instead.Griswaldo (talk) 14:49, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

If you have to ask why the comments of David Edward Jenkins are important it is clear you haven't taking the trouble of finding out which David Jenkins was being talked about.--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Secular the sequel

Loop, you still haven't said whether you think a person who studies religion, even from a secular point of view for a secular institution, is engaged in secular studies or religious studies. Roy Brumback (talk) 05:56, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

This appears to be a generalized question, open to misinterpretation. Please cite specific names and identify the need to deliberate on those names.-Civilizededucation^talk 11:13, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Lead

Good work Roy. The lead really, really, needed work. I think all of us should follow your good example. I suggest we all read or re-read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section). Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 10:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

What Roy did was NOT a good example. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (lead section) expressly and directly states "the lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies." The massive deletion Roy did IMHO violated the spirit if not the letter of that.

Establish context: "There is 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 – and critics often accuse Biblical scholars of creating Jesus in their own image.[1][2][3] According to traditional Church teaching the Gospels of John and Matthew were written by eyewitnesses, but a majority of modern critical biblical scholars no longer believe this is the case."

Define the topic: "According to Christian theologians like I. Howard Marshall, Gregory Boyd, and Paul Rhodes Eddy as well as skeptics such as John Remsburg and Dan Barker, the historicity of Jesus covers a spectrum of ideas that range from the extreme of "the gospels are inerrant descriptions of the life of Jesus"[7] to "the gospels provide no historical information about Jesus life including his very existence"[8] on the other.[9][10][11][12] Boyd and Eddy state that any divisions of this spectrum of views are merely a "useful heuristic" to organize what is ultimately a very complex issue.[13]"

Summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies: "A small number of scholars believe the gospel accounts are so mythical in nature that nothing including the very existence of Jesus can be determined from them,[14]. Notables like John Remsburg and Richard Dawkins don't quite go that far, saying that while the Gospel accounts are no more historical then any other myth (Dawkins likens them to an ancient Da Vinci Code) the odds are Jesus did exist.[15][16] Others like G. R. S. Mead and Ellegard have argued that the Gospel Jesus is a myth based on an earlier historical person described in either the Talmud or Dead Sea Scrolls. However, the majority of scholars who study early Christianity believe that the Gospels do contain some reliable information about Jesus.[17][18][19]

Three of the things that the lead should do got nuked from orbit. That is not good. I agree that the lead in needs work to flow better but the solution is to reword and reorganize not delete it.--BruceGrubb (talk) 01:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Agree with the general principle that the lead contains relevant information, awkwardly presented. The main problem with the recent deletions is the attitude: mass deletion of 3/4 of the lead with nary an explanation in Talk, and nudged toward an edit-war by a revert of the revert, and then another revert by Ret.Prof. The edit comments were so nonsensical they made it hard to assume good faith: some rationale that the material belonged in the body--but the material was just deleted, not moved to the body; some rational about scholar X vs. Y that only applied to small parts of what was deleted and mainly justified re-wording not deletion; and a duplicitous "get consensus" comment by an editor doing the mass deletion. That kind of behavior is disruptive. Noloop (talk) 01:53, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

As the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, we should try avoid redundant citations. Leads should be written at a greater level of generality and information in the lead should be less controversial, leaving the nitty gritty for later in the article. Certainly a few references in the lead may be necessary but 32 citations is not a good sign. I also agree with Noloop that the material in the lead is "awkwardly presented". I now agree with Bruce that the lead needs work to flow better but the solution is to reword and reorganize - not delete it. I know you have put a lot of work into a difficult topic and appreciate the time and effort. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Part of what makes the lead clumsy is the naming of large numbers of specific scholars and authors. Surely its permissible in the lead to say "theologians and sceptics have stated ... ", if the people in question are quoted and cited in the body of the article? That would certainly cut down on words, and allow us to summarise the material in shorter and cleaner sentences? Wdford (talk) 06:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Except that IMHO gets way too close to WP:WEASEL issues and would just spur another nuke from orbit move. The problem is unlike most articles this is not a simple topic which results in a very complex lead in. Also, because of the need to reference everything less it be removed in what is a controversial topic I do tend to go reference happy leaving whatever is already there as I reorganize things. I would like to point out that nearly a third (11 of them!) of the reference bloat is in the last sentence of the section that was retained:

Not everything contained in the gospels is considered to be historically reliable,[22][23][24][25][26][27] 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.[28][29][30][31][32]

Excuse the bad pun but good heavens that is insane. This one lone sentence has more references than then any one of the three preceding paragraphs! Besides assuming the three references support it the end sentence of paragraph three could be reworded to "However, the majority of scholars who study early Christianity believe that the Gospels while containing clearly mythical content do contain some reliable information about Jesus." That would eliminate the need for that 11 reference bloat nightmare from the end of the lead in.--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:51, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time. I am now beginning to see the problems we face more clearly. - Ret.Prof (talk) 12:44, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not the references that bloat the lead section, its the quoting of names and titles. Technically, since everything in the lead should already be part of the article somewhere else in full detail, we should not need to have references in the lead at all. However, due to some serious POV pushing (based on some people’s idea that the falsity of Christianity is an “extraordinary claim” that requires “extraordinary proof”), over-referencing things has become a sad necessity. Bruce, I would disagree with your suggested rewording of the final sentence of paragraph three. It seems you are proposing to remove some important content for the sake of eliminating some references, while still leaving in the Marshall/Eddy/Boyd/Dawkins parade. Were it not for the POV pushers, I would suggest we combine para 3 and 4, as follows:

The majority of scholars who study early Christianity believe that the Gospels do contain some reliable information about Jesus, although the two accounts of the nativity of Jesus, the resurrection and certain details about the crucifixion are considered to be non-authentic. A small number of scholars believe the gospel accounts are so mythical in nature that nothing including the very existence of Jesus can be determined from them. Material which appears to refer to Jesus includes the books of the New Testament, statements from the early Church Fathers, brief references in histories produced decades or centuries later by pagan and Jewish sources such as Josephus, gnostic and other apocryphal documents, and early Christian creeds.

Wdford (talk) 17:03, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem with your merging even without the POV insanity that seems to to have hit most of the Jesus articles is it throws out much of the middle between the ends of the spectrum Marshall, Boyd, Eddy a Remsburg and Barker talk about and as a result we run a very high risk of this being viewed as a WP:CFORK of Jesus myth theory. The real problem is too many people including some scholars seem to reduce to the Historicity of Jesus to an overly simplistic yes or no question; there also seems to be a confusion regarding the story of the person with the person himself. Unless you expressly and directly explain this the confusion continues and the article turns into a train wreck as editors in good faith try to fix "mistakes". Best to nip that nonsense in the bud with being as direct and close to the material available as possible. Sadly the result is a very awkward and referenced out the wazoo lead in. This is ignoring all the potential WP:OR and WP:SYN challenge headaches such a rewording would cause.--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:09, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Bruce you have won me over. Our goal must be to provide to our readers fairly the scholarship on both sides of this issue. - Ret.Prof (talk) 15:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The enormous number of the refernces in the lead, and in some cases for a single sentences, bothers me. They seem to have been added indiscriminately, and I don't have the sense that they have actually been read. I removed some that were more than half a century old, and one that dated from the middle of the 19th century. Noloop (talk) 17:19, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

@Ret.Prof Your statement shows the problem. There is no "both sides"--that is the excluded middle fallacy I was talking about. There are multiple sides to the Historicity of Jesus but it all boils down to the types of myth Bulfinch and Remsburg talked about ie how much of the Gospel account is historically accurate going from "none of it" to "all of it in every detail".

@Noloop I'm not thrilled with the long quotes but watch cutting out old references some of them when supported by more modern sources show the idea they present has been around a long time--that is why Remsburg is in there along with more modern authors. He shows that the ideas they are presenting are not new and in fact go back over a hundred years. Also I have noticed that unless you have enough references to resink the Bismark things tend to get deleted in controversial articles like this.--BruceGrubb (talk) 04:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Format Problems

Most reliable sources format this topic differently. They divide the sources into two main categories - non Christian & Christian, then further divide in different ways. The problem of course is overlap. For example, Paul, Tacitus and Josephus were Roman citizens and lived in the Roman Empire. Therefore the writings of these men could be called Roman sources. It is also true that Paul was a Christian, Tacitus was a Pagan and Josephus was a Jew. Therefore their writing could also be said to be Christian, Pagan and Jewish. Now look at the article. Also most wrote in Koin Greek while some wrote in Latin and others in Hebrew. To deal with this problem I was bold and did some formatting without changing the content - Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:16, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you think that it is usual to treat non-christian sources first?-Civilizededucation^talk 04:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

No, most treat Christian sources first, as they have the most evidence about Jesus.Roy Brumback (talk) 05:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

It also makes sense in terms of standard chronology as Paul is known to predate any other source and tradition generally dates the Gospels and Acts from c70 CE to c90 CE.--BruceGrubb (talk) 01:12, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually most treat non Christian sources first, as they tend to be earlier and fewer in number. However, Edwards and others are saying Christian sources may be much earlier than we thought. My feeling is to go Chronologically (more or less). I like this format but I am flexable. - Ret.Prof (talk) 11:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The earlier and fewer comment I don't understand. If you set out the sources with their traditional date ranges you get more Christian sources that are clearly referring to Jesus (rather than wishful shoehorning) before you get to your first non-Christian sources. Non Christian sources that clearly refer to Jesus are in bold

• Paul c55-c62; Paul warns about other Jesuses and other Gospels in 2 Corinthians 11:1-8 (c55 CE)
• Gospels and Acts c70 CE to c90; Luke 1:1-4 states that there are many writings regarding the life of Jesus and hints some are not entirely accurate
• Mara bar Sarapion c73; The "wise king" could be in regards to another would be messiah
• Flavius Josephus c93; Provenance for the two passages is really bad.
• Pliny the Younger c112; only mentions Christian sect with no details of founder
• Tacitus c116; Mentions Christ not Jesus.
• Suetonius c121; might be wishful thinking on the part of Pro-Historical Scholars
• Bishop Papias c145
• Justin Martyr c165
• Lucian before 180;The Death Of Peregrine and The Passing Of Peregrinus. The passage in the second states “It was then that he learned the wondrous lore of the Christians, by associating with their priests and scribes in Palestine. And—how else could it be?—in a trice he made them all look like children, for he was prophet, cult-leader, head of the synagogue, and everything, all by himself. He interpreted and explained some of their books and even composed many, and they revered him as a god, made use of him as a lawgiver, and set him down as a protector, next after that other, to be sure, whom they still worship, the man who was crucified in Palestine because he introduced this new cult into the world." The "head of the synagogue" raises very interesting issues.
• Celsus 161-180
• Bishop Theophilus c180
• Bishop Irenaeus c180 - first Church father to extensively quote the Gospels. Also claimed that these Gospels and the Elders showed Jesus lived for at least 46 years and likely preached for 20.
• The Talmud(s): Tosefta c200 and Babylonian Talmud c500--far too late to be of any provenancal value.
• Thallus, via Julius Africanus c221; supposedly this source ends with the 167th Olympiad ie 109 BCE ergo the connection with Jesus is the product of Africanus.

As you can seen nearly all the clear references to Jesus with no shoehorning or wishful handwaving post date the Christian sources.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:26, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

F.F.Bruce

It has been suggested that material from Bruce should be deleted from the article as he is an evangelical apologist, so not at all a reliable source.

• Keep: Bruce is a respected scholar and his work is a reliable source - Ret.Prof (talk) 03:38, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Can you give some links to his background? When I object to overtly religious sources, it is not usually because they are unreliable. The lack of a grasp of the foundations of editing among some editors is getting pretty exasperating. The objection, usually, regards the overall neutrality of the article. Neutrality and reliability are different concepts. There would be a problem if an article on public education were sourced 80% to liberal teachers. That doesn't mean liberal teachers are unreliable scholars, or that they are wrong. The objection would be on NPOV grounds. So if somebody tried to add even more and more liberal teachers as sources, I might revert that, without implying that liberal teachers are unreliable, or bad sources per se. The same applies to sources in these articles that have a professional and reputational stake in the worship of Jesus. Noloop (talk) 14:58, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

The other problem with that paragraph is that some of the sources are verses from the Bible, it states an opinion as a fact "The historical Jesus is fundamental to the teachings of Paul," and the sourcing is doesn't seem to support the statements. Please provide the actual text being used to support to the statements. Noloop (talk) 15:03, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Noloop, I understand your concern but F.F.Bruce is a scholarly example of the type of Pro-historical Jesus extremism that Marshall and Remsburg talk about. It shows that that fringe position is held by some modern scholars and is not relegated to the past.--BruceGrubb (talk) 19:44, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're saying. The paragraph states things as fact. It doesn't state, "According to pro-historical Jesus extremist F.F. Bruce...". To state the opinion of FF Bruce as fact is violation of editing principles. Can somebody provide the text from the sources being used to support the paragraph in question? Noloop (talk) 21:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Primary sources

Use of primary sources is not acceptable. Anything adduced directly from primary sources is OR. I have removed some material and primary sources. Secondly, F F Bruce is heavily into evangelical type writing. He has no objectivity to speak of and just writes as if NT is the inerrant word of God. His work is of no use to this article.-Civilizededucation^talk 07:36, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't go as far as saying F. F. Bruce's "work is of no use to this article". He is notable, he was a scholar, and he is a textbook example of Remsburg's "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." and Marshall's "...at the other end of the spectrum is the view that the Gospels give us a picture of the historical Jesus, every detail in the Gospels being recorded just as it happened." He is a prime example of a modern scholar that embraced the most extreme fringe pro historical Jesus view known.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Please define what you mean by a primary source. I think Civil may be confused. Secondly, Bruce is an evangelical apologist, and I do not share his point of view. But why is he not a reliable source? Please, this article needs balance and to written from a NPOV. We must start working together! Finally Paul, a Jew who lived during the time of Christ, who persecuted the Church, would probably know if Jesus was a man or Mythical Being. Please explain your position as I keeping an open mind. Cheers -Ret.Prof (talk) 11:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

That's assuming that Paul really wrote the letters attributed to him, and assuming further that the letters he may actually have written have come down to us "unvarnished", and assuming even further that Paul told the whole truth in the first place. Since its broadly accepted that many "Pauline" works were not actually written by Paul, we can realistically consider them to be deliberate forgeries. Since the Church Fathers were clearly not above forging letters to support their POV, what confidence should we have that the statements of "Paul" are unadulterated - even assuming Paul told the truth in the first place? We know that key elements of the gospel "historicity" are non-authentic - without the so-called evidence of so-called "Paul", Jesus finds himself in the same category as Hercules. How do we explain that in the body of the article, so as to ensure NPOV? Wdford (talk) 12:08, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Now you have hit the nail on head! This is the problem. There can be only one solution:

A) We must put forward the evidence for the historicity of Jesus, fully and fairly. We must be allowed references that support Jesus was a man of flesh and blood.

B) We must then put forward the evidence that challenges the historicity of Jesus, fully and fairly. References that support this position should be allowed.

C) If there is a reference that is "suspect" then we must state why and take the appropriate action after consensus has been reached. - Ret.Prof (talk) 14:52, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

It is interesting that Wdford compared Jesus to Hercules because The Historical Jesus: Five Views states "Some mythicists (the early G.A. Wells and Alvar Ellegard) thought that the first Christians had in mind a Jesus who had lived as a historical figure, just not of the recent past, much as the average Greek believed Hercules and Achilles really lived somewhere back there in the past." As I pointed out in the Jesus myth theory talk page Eusebius in Preparation of the Gospel portrays Heracles as a flesh and blood person who was later deified. This is a prime example of why Christ Myth definitions of Bromiley that say "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,..." (International Standard Bible Encyclopedia: E-J Page 1034) are so utterly useless--they don't explain which of the six different type of mythology Thomas Bulfinch talked about over 100 years ago and Bromiley's examples don't help.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:28, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

@Ret. Prof. Please define what you mean by a primary source. I think Civil may be confused. It is not for me to define what is a primary source. Please see WP:PRIMARY to find the definition. The New Testament is a primary source on Jesus. Besides being a primary source, it suffers from numerous other problems. Every word in the NT can be, and has been interpreted in numerous ways. Every word has numerous variations and every word is seen as a word of god/man/forgers,etc. There are even people who insist that the NT should NOT be read in a literal way. There is no way we can use the NT directly to write an article. Wikipedia cannot say things just because the NT says so. As such, I intend to remove all the stuff in the article which is directly referenced to the NT. We should stick to secondary sources. OK?-Civilizededucation^talk 08:36, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

2 more references

The Illustrated Encyclopedia of the Roman Empire by Nigel Rodgers declares Jesus to be historical. TIME History's Greatest Events: 100 Turning Points That Changed the World: An Illustrated Journey declares him to be historical and claims "most scholars" think the New Testament captures the general spirit of his teachings, which means TIME claims most scholars hold to his historicity. Roy Brumback (talk) 05:59, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

The first is by Lorenz Books aka Anness Publishing Ltd who also puts out this little gem: Simple Homeopathy by Robyn Hayfield. The second is by "Editors of TIME" which doesn't tell you much about the quality reviewing.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you really believe TIME editors are mistaken or lying about what "most scholars" believe? That no one at TIME magazine fact checks things? Is Lorentz Books inherently untrustworthy? They seem to publish books on every conceivable topic. Google Random House homeopathy or almost any other publisher and you'll see they publish books on homeopathy, so what's your point Bruce?Roy Brumback (talk) 05:48, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I am merely pointing out odds are the TIME editors took the easy way out and that Lorentz Books puts out a homeopathy book--ie a book about something known to be psudoscientific. As for Ranmdom House as I pointed out in Talk:Multi-level marketing/Archive 2 their quality is all over the map. Israel Knohl and Michael O. Wise suggest that Jesus was merely continuing the work of an earlier would be messiah. This would make Paul rather than Jesus more important as his conversion brought a message that had been little more than a footnote to the world.--BruceGrubb (talk) 06:26, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

You always start rambling about some other random shit. What is the "easy way out"? I guess I missed your greatest hits on Multi-level marketing. I agree most publishers' "quality" is all over the map, but do you really believe they are wrong on this, and TIME, and every other source produced in this discussion that claims Jesus' historicity is the scholarly consensus? Roy Brumback (talk) 06:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Simply not understanding the point is no reason to insult people. By this twisted logical how can we discount Fischer, Roland (1994) "On The Story-Telling Imperative That We Have In Mind" Anthropology of Consciousness Volume 5. Issue 4. December 1994 (Pages 16 - 18) which says "There is not a shred of evidence that a historical character Jesus lived, to give an example, and Christianity is based on narrative fiction of high literary and cathartic quality" right in the abstract and "It is not possible to compare the above with what we have, namely, that there is not a shred of evidence that a historical character Jesus lived" in the main text body? Anthropology of Consciousness is a peer reviewed publication published by Wiley (one of the biggest names in the academic publishing world) and is copyrighted by no less than the American Anthropological Association. How can a quote from article and its abstract reviewed by no less than three different academic bodies not be right? That is the sort of nonsense you are arguing and the door swings both ways on it.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Bruce, well put! You have not won me over, but are making me re think my position. - Ret.Prof (talk) 10:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Still on that? We pointed out a year ago that;

1. That's not a historical journal,

2. His statement about Jesus isn't the point of the article, just his opinion he puts in, not his thesis.

And you do jump to random shit. Otherwise why have you ducked whether those sources make you more or less likely to think the claim of Jesus' historicity is accepted among historians? What sources would you accept? I don't accept random statements not related to the thesis under consideration giving the authors' personal opinion in journals devoted to consciousness studies when considering historical consensus. Roy Brumback (talk) 22:51, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Well Roy, I take offense at random shit but as to the rest you are correct - Ret.Prof (talk) 23:07, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

You seem to totally missed the point I was raising. Besides, as I pointed out before history is not the only field in play here; there is also Historical Anthropology (Ethnology), New Testament archeology, Theology, Mythology, New Testament History, New Testament Literary criticism, and Philosophy. Drews himself stated "Theologians commence with the conviction that the historical Jesus was a kind of "anticipation of modern religious consciousness." [...] Consequently it is self-deceit to make the figure of this "unique" and "mighty" personality, to which a man may believe he must on historical grounds hold fast, the central point of religious consciousness. [...] These, too, in a short while obtained their place in the consciousness of Western humanity. [...] This was the reconciliation of the supernatural loftiness and aloofness from the world of their God with the demands of the religious consciousness that required the immediate presence of Godhead. [...] The first evidence of such a consciousness, and also the first brilliant outline of a new religion developed with Jesus as its central idea, lies in the epistles of the tent-maker of Tarsus, the pilgrim-apostle Paul. [...] It is in agreement with this that according to Paul the death and resurrection of Christ, as they take place in the consciousness of the believer, represent a death and resurrection of Christ as a divine personality" so consciousness is involved.

Furthermore the link to the Anthropology of Consciousness clearly states "The journal supports rigorous and empirically-based inquiries into consciousness that utilize diverse methodologies, including ethnographic, scientific, experiential, historical, and alternative ways of knowing." Anthropology of Consciousness in of itself may not be a historical journal but its charter shows that historical methodology can be used requiring the peer review panel to be expert enough to evaluate any historical claim made in an article submitted to them. If that wasn't enough, the Society for the Anthropology of Consciousness clearly states that "Shamanic, Religious, and Spiritual Traditions" as well as "Philosophical, Symbolic, and Linguistic Studies" are among their interests along with "States of Consciousness and Consciousness Studies".

This is all ignoring the fact the statement is also in the abstract and the peer view panel Anthropology of Consciousness had to not only determine if the article was scholarly relevant per their journal's charter but also if the abstract accurately summed up the article.--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:06, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

And if one actually reads the article, which Bruce appears not to have done, you'll find that Fischer thinks there was a historical Jesus, and relies upon Geza Vermes' work to tell us what Jesus was like. So it's quite unclear to me why Bruce keeps bringing this up; Fischer doesn't say what Bruce claims he does. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:17, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

All the New Testament scholars/Biblical scholars/academic theologians/dogmatic theologians etc. who are making statements about consensus among historians about Jesus existing are liars, and-or ignorant and misleading. There is no such consensus among historians. Actually, most historians do not say anything on the existence of Jesus because there is too little evidence to be able to say anything. See Theologians as Historians the statement by HISTORIAN Rolf Torstendahl Page 197.-Civilizededucation^talk 09:16, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Have to do better than some one putting forth a rejected proposal that is more or less looked on as a crack pot idea. Theologians are not historians, that is obvious and no one has ever made the claim they are. But if a Theologian is also a historian, then they can be authorities in their area of study. Hardyplants (talk) 09:31, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

....In respect to what I have called minimum demands there are good reasons for a historian to shrink from judgments on the historicity of the person of Jesus. This means, however, that the historian in this case, as in so many others, will say neither "The evidence is that he lived there and then" nor "The evidence is that he did not live there and then". The logical possibility of the existence of Jesus (at the religiously assumed place and time) cannot be denied, but the evidence seems to be too weak to give such a statement a minimum probability..... No one has rejected the views of Rolf Torstendahl. I think you are confusing his statement with the thesis by Alvar Ellegard. Please read page 197 of the link in my above statement. I think you might not have read it.-Civilizededucation^talk 09:49, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

..if a Theologian is also a historian, then they can be authorities in their area of study... A historian is a much, much, much * 1000000000 times better than a theologian-historian for a statement about consensus among Historians.-Civilizededucation^talk 09:57, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I really don't get this. It don't see how it applies to Wikipedia, specifically WP:RS. I don't see how we are to task ourselves with judging the character of scholarship as such. It is offensive, to me, to have some anonymous internet people saying some types of scholars are better than others, even though publishers such as Oxford and Yale don't. Regardless if there is minor criticism, regardless if you are actually "right" about this, we still need to acknowledge the respectability, dominance, and widespread, mainstream ubiquity of this field. It isn't comparable to homeopathy, it isn't' comparable to creationism. Sure, some atheists (I guess, among others) don't like it. And sure they may even be right about this. But that doesn't mean they deserve undue weight, in terms of Wikipedia policy. One tiny source in some obscure publication gets to set the tone for this debate, despite the overwhelming number of sources already provided by Roy and Bill and others... It's nothing short of grasping at straws, and we shouldn't stand by while basic Wikipedia policy is ignored. -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

"I see that Rolf Torstendahl is a historian of the 19th and 20th century and not of ancient history which is a completely different field, so not impressed with his views. If they were common among historians of ancient history then their wold be many such quotes but every ancient histroy source I have ever seen contradicts both Torstendahl and Ellegard. Hardyplants (talk) 10:04, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

There are very few comments by historians on the existence of Jesus because historians are not interested in the existence of founders of religions. They are only interested on the overall impact of religions. Actually the statement by Torstendahl is the only one which I have seen about the consensus among historians on existence of Jesus from a historian. There seems to be no other comment from a historian because of this reason that they are simply uninterested in this issue. All statements about pro historicity consensus among historians are from theologians. They are lying or ignorant or deluded.-Civilizededucation^talk 10:27, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

"They are lying or ignorant or deluded" that is just your opinion- does not mean much and does nothing to construct this article. Hardyplants (talk) 10:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

You are correct, it is my opinion and would not be of use in the article. But historian Torstendahl's statement is useful in balancing the statements about consensus among historians from theolgians. The readers can decide for themselves which one is correct and who is lying.-Civilizededucation^talk 10:43, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything in Torstendahl's piece about a consensus among historians that Jesus didn't exist, or that his historicity is doubtful. The quote that appeared in a footnote in this version of the article merely gives Torstendahl's judgment of what a historian ought to say; but that doesn't mean that's what historians actually do.

This discussion, as often here, seems to be operating without any real knowledge of scholarship on early Christianity. There's no shortage of work by historians on this subject. A historian who's been mentioned many times in connection with this articles is Graeme Clarke, director of the Australian Humanities Research Centre and Professor of Classical Studies at the Australian National University. He wrote the article on "The origins and spread of Christianity" in volume 10 of the Cambridge Ancient History (2d ed., 1996), which is a good sign that he's regarded as an authority on this topic. His article treats Jesus as a historical figure, relating what Clarke describes as "a few generally non-controversial features of the ministry of Jesus", largely relying on the evidence of the synoptic gospels. Clarke doesn't mention any doubts that Jesus existed; this is, of course, because there's no significant doubt among historians that Jesus was historical. As Clarke has said in another context, "Frankly, I know of no ancient historian or biblical historian who would have a twinge of doubt about the existence of a Jesus Christ—the documentary evidence is simply overwhelming." --Akhilleus (talk) 17:11, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Torstendahl has not tried to make out that historians actually have a consensus. He has only clarified why historians do not say anything. If you have a counter, you should add it to the article.-Civilizededucation^talk 06:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

It is offensive, to me, to have some anonymous internet people saying some types of scholars are better than others, even though publishers such as Oxford and Yale don't. Hi Andrew c. I just noticed that you felt offended by my statement. I assure you that I have high regard for theologians. I think that you have misunderstood my statement. I was only saying that historians are more reliable for a statement on what historians think. This is common sense. It does not mean that historians are somehow more respectable than theologians. A theologian would be a better source on what theologians think. There is no offence here. It appears that you happen to be a theologian or close to a theologian. Please convey my clarification if this is so.-Civilizededucation^talk 02:32, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Please inform me if anything I say appears to be offensive to you. I would be ready to retract or modify it if it is actually offensive.-Civilizededucation^talk 02:57, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Another Source

Adrian Goldsworthy declares Jesus a real historical person in How Rome Fell.

He also talks about the prophecy of the Temple being destroyed and that Julian's (361-363) attempts to rebuild were stopped by 'mysterious fireballs' (Page 235). Taking such fairy stories as history makes me wonder about the quality of the rest of the work.--BruceGrubb (talk) 03:38, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Bruce you distorting another source again, try reading that again, here is a link [13] he only reports a "story" that the pagan author Ammianus reports. But in any case the book is published by Yale, so can't be any good - right? Hardyplants (talk) 04:02, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

His exact words are "Even the pagan Annianus told the story of mysterious fireball erupting and driving the workmen away" Also as The Gold Leaf Lady and Other Parapsychological Investigations by the University of Chicago shows even best can make the occasional oops.--BruceGrubb (talk) 12:36, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Section on scholarly consensus on Jesus' existence

I think it might be better if we could add a section on scholarly consensus about Jesus existence and move most of the quotes there. Just keeping 2/3 conflicting view in the lead. I also think that Bill the Cat's faq page should be turned into an article on quotes so that others can freely add conflicting points to it. It is a POV page as it is now. We could also link the new section to this new article.-Civilizededucation^talk 03:06, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, do you have a quote from one of your sources that says specifically that there is NOT a consensus? If you have already provided one, please point me to it, since I've been doing very little on Wikipedia lately since I started a new job recently. Thanks. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 03:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Since you have requested to point me to what I have provided, here is the link Theologians as Historians the statement by HISTORIAN Rolf Torstendahl Page 197. It does not say specifically "there is not a consensus". But if you read what it says, it would be absolutely clear that there is no such consensus among historians. The source is a clear historian. He also says that historians are not interested in issues like these. You may also note that no clear historian has said that "there is a consensus". All the sources who say so are biblical scholars and like.-Civilizededucation^talk 12:48, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

[14] Note what Will Durant says. Hardyplants (talk) 13:07, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Is he a professor of history?-Civilizededucation^talk 13:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

That's a joke right ... because his bio is linked above. He was trained as a philosopher but he was also a historian. His compendium on the history of western civilization is considered a classic, though as such has also been criticized in recent years for various reasons. Either way, he most certainly qualifies as a historian. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 13:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Was Bertrand Russell trained as a philosopher? I seem to recall some objection to mentioning his view. Noloop (talk) 18:33, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes but Bertrand Russel was not acclaimed as a historian and to my knowledge didn't research history or publish historical books and articles. There are plenty of academics trained in one field who gain quite a respectable reputation in another. With Russel and history that is not the case, but with Will Durant that is certainly the case. You are free to find out more about Will Durant and Bertrand Russel on your own of course. There is nothing stopping you from doing your research before you post these kinds of questions. I've said as much many times in the past. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 19:12, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Yah, OK, A History of Western Philosophy wasn't about history. Neither was "Understanding History" . Do your research, indeed.

I never said that Betrand Russel didn't publish books pertaining to the philosophy of history. That's perfectly within the scope of being a philosopher, but it does not involve actual historical research and does not make one a historian. That you fail to understand the differences between various disciplines does not surprise me anymore. The intellectual history of Western Philosophy is another story, but as you can see it was researched by his wife. Not being a scholar trained in, or practicing the historians craft, Russel didn't even research his book. Please show me who considered him a historian or respected his work as a historian? Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 19:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

You either need to be honest or stop editing. Noloop (talk) 20:22, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

It's nice to see that Civilizededucation acknowledges that Torstendahl doesn't specifically say there is a consensus. What's more, I've read Torstendahl's article, and I don't think it's "absolutely clear" that there is no consensus among historians. As for Civilized's request for a "clear historian", let me say, once again, that Graeme Clarke is clearly a historian of the ancient world—he's written several articles for the Cambridge Ancient History, and he's history faculty at ANU. I've provided links above that describe him as a historian, and here's another. Michael Grant is obviously an ancient historian as well. Some of the authors whom Hardyplants cited above are historians too. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

If you think any of this material could counter what Torstendahl says, you are welcome to add it to the article. I can investigate the attributions later and add other attributions to them if I find them.-Civilizededucation^talk 13:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure you're seeing the picture clearly Civilized. Torstdendahl does not say that there is no consensus among historians, in fact he makes no claims at all about how other historians do view the matter, so why does he need to be countered at all? In fact why should he be included at all? On the other hand there are historians who do claim that there is a consensus in the other direction, but once again they would not be countering someone who never makes the opposite claim in the first place. That's simply not logical.Griswaldo (talk) 14:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you are deliberately trying to confuse the picture. What the source says makes is absolutely clear that there is no such consensus among historians. He clearly says that historians are not interested in such issues. How can historians have a consensus on an issue when they are not interested in it? He says that a historian would not make an evidence based assertion about the existence of Jesus. He can be countered by producing a historian who would make an evidendce based assertion on the existence of Jesus.-Civilizededucation^talk 14:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Civilized please don't hold other people accountable for what your source does or does not say or how he says it. He never makes any comments that even insinuate an empirical view of the field, he only speaks abstractly about "historians" in an ideal typical manner. Do you not get how those things are quite different? Durant, for instance, says he knows of no serious scholar who holds such and such view. Whether or not you consider it his opinion his opinion is at least in relation to numbers of scholars in the field holding a certain view. Torstdendahl's opinion is not about this, but about what an ideal typical historian ought to think regarding the historicity question. If you don't get the difference I'm not sure what else I can do here, but the fact is he's made no claims about consensus, only about an ideal type. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:28, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Plus, saying people don't care about the issue isn't the same as saying they have no opinion on the matter. Most historians probably don't care about tons of stuff other historians research. I study physics and don't really care about most physics problems, but I accept other people's research on them. Saying most historians don't care, which he provides no evidence for by the way, isn't the same as saying they reject the conclusions of those historians who do. Roy Brumback (talk) 22:22, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Plus, saying people don't care about the issue isn't the same as saying they have no opinion on the matter. This is ridiculous.-Civilizededucation^talk 01:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I have opinions about things I don't care about, don't you? I think the battle of Hastings happened but I don't really care about it. 174.29.102.30 (talk) 21:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Saying most historians don't care, which he provides no evidence for by the way Right. Please show me the evidence for "All scholars agree..", "All historians agree....", etc.-Civilizededucation^talk 02:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Such evidence has already been provided, and dismissed for specious reasons. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Really? Roy seems to be complaining that Torstendahl does not provide statements from each and every historian for what he says about historians. Has any such evidence been produced from each and every historians on this planet that they agree to the historicity of Jesus?-Civilizededucation^talk 07:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

That's a ridiculous request, as you well know. Roy (and others) are complaining that Torstendahl is being misrepresented as saying there's a consensus of historians that "Historians do not say anything on the existence of Jesus because the evidence is too little to be able to say anything about his existence." Torstendahl says nothing about a consensus; he writes about what he thinks historians ought to say about Jesus' existence. Since Torstendahl's publications are on 19th-20th century Europe, it's hard to see why his opinion is being preferred to those of scholars who actually specialize in this topic... --Akhilleus (talk) 13:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm saying he doesn't provide ANY. His only evidence is that most historians don't write about Jesus, now how exactly does that prove they don't care about the issue or hold no opinion on it? 174.29.102.30 (talk) 21:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

His only evidence is that most historians don't write about Jesus, now how exactly does that prove they don't care about the issue or hold no opinion on it? I think the answer is within that sentence. Torstendahl has said that a historian won't make an evidence based assertion about the existence of Jesus. A historian won't say "The evidence is that Jesus lived at the time and place". No historian has done this. Even if someone has, it would only be a reason to add it to the article so as to balance what he says.-Civilizededucation^talk 10:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Eusebius of Caesarea and the eclipse



....."Eusebius of Caesarea (264 – 340) cited a statement of the 2nd-century pagan chronicler [[Phlegon of

Tralles]] that during the fourth year of the 202nd Olympiad (AD 32/33) "a great eclipse of the sun occurred at the sixth hour that excelled every other before it, turning the day into such darkness of night that the stars could be seen in heaven, and the earth moved in Bithynia, toppling many buildings in the city of Nicaea". In the same passage, Eusebius cited another unnamed Greek source also recording earthquakes in the same locations and an eclipse. Eusebius argued the two records had documented events that were simultaneous with the crucifixion of Jesus. Tertullian, in his Apologetics, tells the story of the darkness that had commenced at noon during the crucifixion; those who were unaware of the prediction, he says, "no doubt thought it an eclipse". Though he doesn't mention the claims of others, he suggests to the church's critics that the evidence is still available: "You yourselves have the account of the world-portent still in your archives." The early historian and theologian, Rufinus of Aquileia wrote of the apologetic defense given by Lucian of Antioch, around 300 AD. Lucian, like Tertullian, was also convinced that an account of the darkness that accompanied the crucifixion could be found among Roman records. Ussher recorded Lucian's word's on the matter, presumably also to church critics, as “Search your writings and you shall find that, in Pilate’s time, when Christ suffered, the sun

was suddenly withdrawn and a darkness followed.” "..

I can not find any evidence that the above text relates to the historicity of Jesus in current research, there are a small number of scholarly works that cover the material in discussing early Christian apologetics in demonstrating that Jesus was the messiah but none that say it has any context in Jesus historicity or says anything about the man at all. Any one have any other ideas? Hardyplants (talk) 06:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Romanhistorian. Do you think this is relevant to establishing the existence of Jesus. More importantly, don't you think we could avoid apologetics in scholarly articles.-Civilizededucation^talk 09:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree. This is about the alleged historicity of an event in the NT. This article should not go into that much detail (especially when we have an article on the Crucifixion darkness and eclipse with a historicity section). I don't think anyone uses these arguments to establish that Jesus lived. But then again, I guess this goes into article scope, and if the current lead sentence is to be taken at face value, then stuff like this perhaps does belong in this article (IMO, it shouldn't so perhaps we should change the lead). Fact of the matter, Tralles (quoted in Eusebius) and the others do not mention Jesus, but instead only refer to the darkness. It acts to establish the darkness/earthquake's historicity, not Jesus' historicity (and needless to say, what is the mainstream position concerning these accounts in the synoptic gospels anyway?)-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Proselytizing sources

This is a poor source: Mark Allan Powell, professor of New Testament at Trinity Lutheran Seminary, has stated that "most historians are reasonably certain we can know about" things Jesus said and did.[22]

The book is a Christian text promotional of the religion, published by a Christian house, intended for a Christian audience. The back-of the-book blurbs are pretty indicative--the review quotes are all from theologians at seminaries. Neutral historical writing doesn't say things like "Jesus did more than exist. he did and said a great many things historians can be certain about today. And though we can know these things apart from faith, most theologians would grant that what we know is significant for faith and ought to shape our faith." (from the page used as a reference in this article). The publisher is John Knox, which says it publishes "essential resources for ministry and the life of faith." The article is full of references like that. They should be removed. Noloop (talk) 21:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

They don't have to be removed, but they do need to be described in a way that makes it clear to the reader that they are proselytising sources. Martijn Meijering (talk) 21:13, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I added it as needed balance to Rolf. I'd be fine removing it if Rolf goes. -Andrew c ^[talk] 21:46, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The NT studies is regarded as low standard because apologetics passes for scholarship. We could do well to avoid such sources if we are to be known as a high quality encyclopedia. It should stay though, if we are unable to find a better source.-Civilizededucation^talk 09:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Is that book lying loop? Again loop, what must be provided to prove the case to you. We have had secular sources written by secular historians making the claim, so if they won't do, what will? 174.29.102.30 (talk) 21:55, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Plus, are not sources like Dawkins and the skeptics president proselytizing sources as they are from books written to advance the religion of atheism? And they don't even claim anything about scholarly consensus, they only give their own opinions. 174.29.102.30 (talk) 21:58, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Who is the skeptics president?-Civilizededucation^talk 09:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll quibble with your choice of words ("religion" of atheism), but yes they are, and they need to be marked as such. Martijn Meijering (talk) 22:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

This is essentially the argument that Creationism and Intelligent Design should be taught alongside evolution, as equal intellectual competitors. That is wrong: religion is not an equal competitor. Christianity is a religion; history is not, and neither is atheism. Neutral sources don't talk about their faith or worship in their subjects, they don't publish in presses with self-described missions of promoting worship, they don't get reviews only from people who share their religion. Mark Allan Powell goes; Rolf stays. Noloop (talk) 02:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. Religious views are still notable views, even if you and I disagree with them. If nothing else, they give us information about religious beliefs. It is interesting to know that Islam teaches that Jesus was a historical person, in fact even the second most important prophet, but that nativity story, the crucifixion and resurrection never happened. I object to passing off apologists as historians and I object to giving points of view undue weight, but not to including notable religious points of view. And interestingly, the most immediate relevant point of view (that of general historical scholarship) doesn't appear to be very well developed. "Research" into the historical Jesus appears to be mainly religiously inspired. If so, then it is an aspect of religion and ought to be described as such. Of course, we don't have the reliable sources for that either, but it supports my argument for the notability of the religious point of view. Martijn Meijering (talk) 08:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is framed incorrectly. Noloop wants to remove Powell because he's religious. Yes, Powell teaches at a theological seminary, yes, he talks about faith. So what? Powell is a notable scholar who has published on the historical Jesus; he is the chair of the Society of Biblical Literature's Historical Jesus section. His views are significant and published in reliable sources. And, last time I checked, Wikipedia's content policies say nothing about excluding sources on the basis of religion. So that's not a reason for taking Powell out.

Rolf, on the other hand, is not a significant view on this topic—aside from the article in Scandia, I don't see any publications on Jesus, the ancient world, or religion. I see work on the history of education and the professions in the 19th and 20th centuries, and some work on historiography (see [15] and [16]), but nothing pertaining to the subject of this article. Bascially, the handful of pages in Scandia seem to be the only thing he's published on this topic (if I've missed something I'd appreciate some citations). So why cling to him so closely when there are so many other more authoritative soruces that could be used? --Akhilleus (talk) 03:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

He is not being used as a source on Jesus, he's being used as a source on the difference between history and theology. As for Powell, advocates of Intelligent Design publish on evolution too: that means nothing. The question is not whether somebody has published, but whether they are neutral and reliable. Powell, is not merely a Christian. He's not a historian who happens to go to church. He talks about "our faith" in the actual book that is being used for this supposedly secular article, and the press is a Christian press with the explicitly stated mission of promoting faith. How many times do these facts have to be pointed out to you before the you show the minimal respect and integrity of acknowledging them? How many RFC's do we have to have, over and over and over, before you show other editors the respect of caring about what they think? Your disruptive and dishonest "discussion" has gone on for months. You look for any excuse you can possibly dream up to discredit a professor who doesn't fit your agenda--even sneering that he's from Scandinavia--and try to shove Evangelical ministers into the article as scholarly sources. Again and again and again you try to use authors and publishers who explictly promote religious belief in Jesus Christ as supposedly neutral sources. Again and again it is pointed out to you that worship is virtually the definition of NOT NEUTRAL. For MONTHS you have been playing these games. Show a shred of respect and understanding for other editors the principles of Wikipedia and acknowledge the fact: Worshippers of X are not neutral on X. Self-proclaimed promoters of X are not neutral on X. Those who both worship and promote are doubly NOT NEUTRAL. Noloop (talk) 04:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

You need to read Wikipedia's policy on neutral point of view, because you seem confused about what it requires. It does not require that sources be neutral; rather, it requires that all significant points of view on a topic be represented in an article, in proportion to their prevalence. No matter what your opinion of Powell's religiosity, he's a well-recognized scholar on the historical Jesus, so he's a valid source for these articles. So he's not "neutral"—who cares? The article's neutrality springs from the inclusion of a spectrum of views, in proper proportion. The particular point on which Powell's cited is that "'most historians are reasonably certain we can know about' things Jesus said and did"—this is not "the difference between history and theology," but a statement that a majority of historians think we can establish some words and deeds of Jesus. This is, in fact, a very common position among scholars who study the historical Jesus, so it's ridiculous to claim that this is a bit of religious dogma—it's a conclusion that's been reached by people of all sorts of religious persuasions, including atheists.

As for Torstendahl, I'm not looking for excuses to discredit him. I'm trying to ensure that the article is based on expert sources. You establish whether someone is an expert on a subject by looking at their publications, the reception of their work by other scholars, etc. Aside from the Scandia article, I see nothing that Torstendahl's published about Christianity at all—have I missed something? So I have a hard time seeing why he should be used as a source, when there are many other sources who could be used. I have an even harder time understanding why you're trying to get rid of sources with demonstrable expertise on the subject while trying to retain sources with no demonstrable expertise, except that you seem to want to impose a religious litmus test on the article. But that's not what WP:NPOV is about.

Now, I'm a bit irritated at being called dishonest and disruptive, not to mention religiously biased, and I noticed you're saying the same stuff about other editors, so I think it's time for a trip to WP:WQA. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:04, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

You appear to think that biblical scholars can be a source on what historians think. They should not even be used for such a matter. They can be used for almost all other points(because real historians have no interest in this subject). Historians should be allowed to speak for themselves without any assertions by biblical theologians. Torstendahl has authored several books on historiographical methods and has even covered the different types of methods beings used in different countries. It is unreasonable to think that he is unable to make an assessment of historical evidence. Moreover, he is the best source on what historians think. He if the former head of department of History of Uppsala university.-Civilizededucation^talk 08:56, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

"because real historians have no interest in this subject" that is nonsense, Historians of Rome, ancient Israel, Judaism, Christianity, Religion, languages, world

history, sociology and others take an interest in "this topic". Hardyplants (talk) 09:07, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

How many works have they produced on the existence of Jesus?-Civilizededucation^talk 09:28, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Civilized, in regards to your statement above, many "biblical scholars" are historians. I remain perplexed by this distinction that gets made over and over because it does not reflect reality.Griswaldo (talk) 12:16, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The reality is that they are basically biblical scholars. If you can find an RS which says they are historians, you can attribute them as such. If I find a source which says they are NT scholars/professors of scripture, etc. I would add it. Let the reader decide what they are.-Civilizededucation^talk 12:22, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

It is going to differ depending on the scholar, but the generalization that someone is a Biblical scholar and therefore not a historian is simply not correct. That's all I'm saying. Biblical studies, like religious studies, is a multidisciplinary field. Somehow you all have no problem identifying biblical scholars as "theologians", even if they don't do theology, but biblical scholars who do history can't be called "historians". Don't you see the absurd hypocrisy in that?Griswaldo (talk) 12:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Once again, I have to note that Bertil Albrektson's piece, which is in the same set of articles as Ellegard's and Torstendahl's is being ignored. Albrektson says that the term "theologian" can denote "a person who studies the theology, i.e. the religious doctrine, of Christianity or some other religion, with scientific methods and regardless of the scolar's own faith or lack of faith." (p. 183) On the same page, he also writes: "In fact a great many biblical scholars do practise their profession as an ordinary philological and historical subject, avoiding dogmatic assumptions and beliefs." So here's an RS that says that many biblical scholars act as philologists and historians, regardless of whether they're religious or not. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Meier seems to think quite the opposite. He has said that people do theology and call it history. Why does he say that? -Civilizededucation^talk 14:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Isn't he talking about biblical scholars when he says that?-Civilizededucation^talk 14:20, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I assume Civilized is talking about this interview with Meier, since he linked to it above. It's a misreading of the interview to say that Meier thinks all study of the historical Jesus is theology—he's quite clear that scholars can study Jesus as historians, and that certain events in his life can be historically verified. Meier says: "We can verify as historians that Jesus existed and that certain events reported in the Gospels happened in history, yet historians can never prove the Resurrection in the same way." He states quite clearly that there is a distinction between what can be said about Jesus from a historical perspective and what can be said about him from a faith perspective. This matches Albrektson's description of a theologian who pursues his study as an "ordinary philological and historical subject." --Akhilleus (talk) 14:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

It is very true that no particular source has to be neutral. Articles have to be neutral, and particular sources have to be reliable. When an article is dominated by non-neutral sources, more sources of that type should not be crammed into the article. That violates neutrality. When a source is not merely on a particular side, but talks about "our faith" in its text, is published by a press that exists to promote that faith, and is recognized (as far as we can tell) exclusively by worshippers of that faith, it is not a reliable source either. This conversation has repeatedl endlessly, because of editors like Griswaldo, Hardyplants and Akhilleus who don't really care about any of these principles and will lawyer to death any attempt to be fair and balanced in the construction of the article. Noloop (talk) 14:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

No it has repeated endlessly because of your own relentless POV pushing and failure to hear what people are explaining to you in plain English. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 14:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you guys frustrated already? Meier is an admirable scholar. But it is unreasonable to think that he is pursuing his profession as an ordinary philological and historical subject. He is a priest and is regarded as conservative in the NT scholarship. His interest in Jesus seems to be have a faith perspective.-Civilizededucation^talk 14:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

That's not at all what he says about his work, so I don't know where you're getting that from—oh, I've got an idea! It's because he's a Catholic priest. Never mind that he plainly says that research into the historical Jesus should be a historical investigation, not a theological one... --Akhilleus (talk) 15:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Do you think he is not conservative?-Civilizededucation^talk 15:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2009/04/was-fr-raymond-brown-liberal-modernist.html -Andrew c ^[talk] 16:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

[17]-Civilizededucation^talk 16:30, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course Meier doesn't say about himself that he's biased. If we judged sources by what they say about themselves, every source would be reliable. Akhilleus, make an effort to be thoughtful, constructive, to actually listen to what others say. YES, it is "because he's a Catholic priest." That is exactly right. He is a worshipper, a professional promoter of Jesus Christ. That matters. Noloop (talk) 16:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

You have a point here. What people say about themselves does not matter. What others say about them does. This is the Wikipedia principle.-Civilizededucation^talk 16:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Ad hominem arguments are not a Wikipedia principle. Noloop isn't telling us "what others say about them"; with the standard he's applying, it's not necessary to see what others say about Meier. It's not even necessary to know anything about Meier's work, his arguments, his methods, etc. All you need to know is he's a priest. Really, these religious litmus tests are tiresome and offensive. If someone wants to investigate how Meier's scholarship is received and whether he's perceived as biased by other scholars, I think that's great. But these knee-jerk reactions to well-regarded scholars because of their religious commitments needs to stop. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Looks like lots of people are getting jumpy today. Should we all take a break for 24 h.-Civilizededucation^talk 18:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I'd prefer that people take an indefinite break from ad hominem judgments. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Seriously. I think a break is what is needed. We can easily discuss your point after that.-Civilizededucation^talk 18:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

If you'd like to take a break, feel free. I promise not to respond to you while you're gone :) --Akhilleus (talk) 18:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Pagan sources

I had some edits that discussed Pagan writings on events in the 1st century reverted, notably that of Phlegon. The explanation was that it isn't relevant. How exactly is it not relevant?RomanHistorian (talk) 18:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I think this issue is already under discussion in another thread. Better keep it there.-Civilizededucation^talk 18:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Historical reliability of the gospels

The debate about the Historicity of Jesus is heavily dependent on the reliability of the information contained in the gospels. Today the editor User:RomanHistorian commenced an extensive and unilateral rewrite of the article Historicity of the canonical gospels, which among other things he has unilaterally renamed as Historical reliability of the Gospels. Unfortunately the rewrite has thusfar produced a somewhat one-sided article. Perhaps some of the editors engaged here might be prepared to assist in that article too? Wdford (talk) 07:29, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

This entire arena needs the firm hand of arbitration. Noloop (talk) 02:23, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

That is something I agree with. The entire series of Jesus article has become a total train wreck.--BruceGrubb (talk) 09:11, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you guys talking about Xian POV pushers?-Civilizededucation^talk 14:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Religious views as first class citizens

It seems to me that we are having the wrong discussion here. Religious views are inherently relevant to this article and should be accurately represented here. I for one would be very interested to know what the points of view of many religious denominations are. Not all of them will believe everything that is mentioned in the NT is historically accurate. I'm not qualified to write such a section, but I would urge others who could to contribute. Martijn Meijering (talk) 23:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

In general, I agree. However "Historicity of Jesus" is a very specific, academic topic that represents a particular approach to addressing the subject of Jesus' existence - and that's what this article should address. Rklawton (talk) 00:45, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

There is a great difference between a "religious view" and a scholarly view by someone who happens to be a Christian. Let's just keep that in mind here. Noloop wishes to impugn all scholarly views by scholars who happen to be Christian. That's the problem.Griswaldo (talk) 01:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the tradional religious views of Christians are relevant to this article. Traditional means what general Orthodox Christians believe or what a typical orthodox church can be expected to believe. What I am trying to say is that religious minded Christians should not be made to feel that their point of view has been totally neglected in favor of scholarly views. This is also a point of view and should be represented. The traditional/church view would need to be attributed as such. But this article and Wikipedia is mainly about scholarly views. Sourcing the scholarly views from christian/non christian/whatever is a separate issue.-Civilizededucation^talk 01:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

We can't leave out Christian authors and sources - they make up the bulk of the sources on these subjects, and their contributions are largely valid and valuable. However, on a subject as sensitive (and unprovable) as religion, we need to ensure that the religious affiliations of all sources are noted, so that readers can judge their contribution in context. For example, on the equally-sensitive topic of Gaza, a statement from a Palestinian source would have a different context to a statement from an Israeli source, and so we should point out "Palestinian activist X says that ...", or "Israeli army spokesman Z says that ..." I see no reason why we should not add a few extra words to our quotes, along the lines of "Historian and Christian evangelist X says that ..." Wdford (talk) 09:22, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

The lead (10/13/10)

Let's stop adding material to the lead, and work toward an agreement of what belongs in the lead and what belongs in sections in the body. Let's also stop the mass deletions. Noloop (talk) 18:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Let's stop putting in the opinions of historians who specialize in 19th-20th century Scandinavia as if they're experts on the ancient world. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:56, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

A historian knows better than biblical scholars what historians think. Area of specialization is not important here and none has claimed that they specialize in anything. He is a historian. Period. He could not have become a professor of history without having an intensive knowledge and understanding of ancient history.-Civilizededucation^talk 01:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Biblical scholars can be historians; it would be nice if people stopped asserting otherwise. I've already provided some examples of New Testament scholars describing themselves as historians.

Areas of specialization are vitally important, unless you think that historians who specialize in the Warring States Period are good sources on the Civil War or on guilds in Medieval Europe. Your assertion that "He could not have become a professor of history without having an intensive knowledge and understanding of ancient history" is based on, I'm going to guess, exactly zero knowledge of graduate study in a history department. It's entirely possible for someone to get a Ph.D. in classical history from a classics department and get hired by a history department; such a person will not have expert knowledge about the French Revolution, the role of guilds in Medieval Europe, or the military forces of the Tokugawa shogunate. But according to your logic, this historian is an authoritative source on all history. The claim that historians are omnicompetent is quite silly; even sillier is the claim that scholars who spend their careers studying early Christianity don't think about the object of their study historically, and are unable to assess the consensus of historians about such a basic matter as whether Jesus actually existed is even goofier. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Let's stop putting in the opinions of priests, as if they're experts on the ancient world. Noloop (talk) 23:55, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

There's no reason why a priest can't also be an expert on the ancient world. Many people have combined both vocations. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Bingo. And there is no reason a historian of language or Scandinavia can't be an expert on the ancient world or the relationship between history and theology. Many people have combined vocations, like you said. At least a historian who branches into a second area of history is staying within the field of history, as opposed to a theologian becoming a historian and (in an amazing coincidence) verifying the truth of his worship. Noloop (talk) 04:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

If you're talking about Torstendahl, the way to demonstrate that he has some expertise in the ancient world is to show that he's published on the subject. Has he? --Akhilleus (talk) 04:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

He has published on the relationship between theology and the historical study of religious movements, which is relevant to this article. Noloop (talk) 17:48, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, for one we should not have personal opinions by non historian theologians and biologists. Before we had theologians asserting what historians or "scholars" thought, not what they personally thought. If biologists, why not physicists and politicians. Einstein held to Jesus' historicity but said he thought the gospels contained "poetic exaggerations". Should we put that in there? We have the opinion by the president of a "skeptics" organization, are you shitting me? Should we counter that with the Pope's opinion? Maybe I can put in what my neighbor thinks too. Only certified experts on the subject please, and we will have to make an exception for mythers like Freke as there are no experts on the subject who are mythers, but that's about it. Roy Brumback (talk) 21:58, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I disagree strongly. There are many other notable points of view than those of historians. Various religious points of view for instance, and those of prominent current or historical figures or groups. The opinions of historians are theoretically extremely important for this article, but they seem to be very badly sourced. Martijn Meijering (talk) 22:41, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The below text uses a synthesis of different references who have different arguments - to make one conclusion, and the sources used do not make any conclusions that align with the apparent argument used in the one sentence we have.

There is 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 – and critics often accuse Biblical scholars of creating Jesus in their own image.

The intro has major problems, with undue weight given to a very small minority of view points. Hardyplants (talk) 22:42, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

It is squarely supported by the sources:

^ THE POLITICS OF CHRISTIANITY: A TALK WITH ELAINE PAGELS 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 Jesus We'll Never Know ...let's not forget historical Jesus scholars, whose academic goal is to study the records, set the evidence in historical context, render judgment about the value of the evidence, and compose a portrait of "what Jesus was really like." They, too, have ended up making Jesus in their own image.

^ Arnal, William. The symbolic Jesus ...scholarship on the historical Jesus uses the figure of Jesus as a screen or symbol on which to project contemporary cultural debates, and to employ the inherent authority of this Jesus-figure to advance one or another particular stance on these debates.Noloop (talk) 23:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Where do you they argue that "There is no evidence for the existence of Jesus" the argument that there is no evidence for Jesus is not the same as the interpretation of that evidence to construct a modern historical view of the man and your sentence conflates the two- they are different topics. Hardyplants (talk) 00:01, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

See [[18]] Hardyplants (talk) 00:04, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

They don't say "There is no evidence for the existence of Jesus" and nobody said they say that. Noloop (talk) 00:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Then you agree that the sentence is misleading then? Hardyplants (talk) 00:08, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Other problems with the sentence include "critics often accuse Biblical scholar" the way its worded would seen to indicate that these unnamed critics are commenting on the existence of Jesus which is the subject of the beginning of the sentence, while failing to mention that these same critics believe that there was a historical Jesus but they do not agree on how he is reconstructed by modern scholars. Hardyplants (talk) 00:15, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

ELAINE PAGELS comment( which we have as a source but is quoted extensively in a end note) belongs in the Historical Jesus page, because she referring to the portraits that are constructed by biblical scholars and not on the historicity of Jesus. Hardyplants (talk) 00:20, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The sentence in the lead There is 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 – and critics often accuse Biblical scholars of creating Jesus in their own image. is problematic because of the concluding half (well the opening half is a bit sensationalist. I'm sure we could frame a number of other historical figures in a similar manner. it may be problematic to try to present these facts as if they are giant stumbling blocks for scholars). That sentence, if kept, should not be framed by the critics, but instead should say something like While there is 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 – scholars contend that historical accounts dating back to the time of Jesus can be found in some of the surviving documents, and there is enough evidence to establish his existence through historical methods. And it should come after we name the sources, in the last paragraph, as the two concepts are very closely related. The current placement of the two concepts in different section strikes me as odd. -Andrew c ^[talk] 00:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

While there is 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 – scholars contend that historical accounts dating back to the time of Jesus can be found in some of the surviving documents, and there is enough evidence to establish his existence through historical methods. Is this an OR or is it a synthesis?-Civilizededucation^talk 01:32, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not terribly well-written, but it is neither OR nor synthesis. And, as Andrew points out, the issue brought up in this sentence—a lack of evidence from the person's own lifetime—is hardly unique to Jesus. Furthermore, the assertion that scholars reconstruct a person (or a society) according to their own preconceptions is hardly unique either. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:45, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

It is problematic when the two above points are tied into the "apparent" meaning "no evidence for the existence of Jesus" all in the same sentance. There are three diffrent points conjoined, they each maybe correct but when they are so tied together they make a statement of fact that completely bypasses all the varying points of view that each one in themselves has. None of the sources used to make this composite asserts the sentence in its entity. In should say something like what Andrew proposes, which covers the topic in a more balanced/complete and informative way. Hardyplants (talk) 01:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Is this an OR or is it a synthesis? Those are my only options? Darn. ;) My main point was we should not be framing something so early in the lead based on what critics feel (I apologize if it appears I was making a proposal of a specific wording). Can't we get out a summary of historical Jesus studies, and frame it within that context, before barraging the reader with critics and Dawkins and random Swedish dudes. -Andrew c ^[talk] 02:16, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we have a clear understanding of what this article is about. But if it's about the mere existence of Jesus as a flesh and blood person, this isn't the place for a summary of historical Jesus studies, because for the most part that isn't something that historical Jesus studies thinks is a live issue. This article exists because of random Swedish dudes. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The passage currently being edit-warred over has no "random Swedish dudes" as its sources. Its sources are Elaine Pagels and William Arnal, both extremely high quality sources, and Christianity Today, which is significant given the subject is criticism of modern Christian scholarship. And, you destroy AGF when you dismiss sources as "random Swedish dudes." Next, someone will object to your use of Jesus freaks as sources, and so on. Keep it respectful, please. Noloop (talk) 04:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The "random Swedish dudes" in question are Ellegard and Torstendahl, neither of whom has demonstrable academic expertise in early Christianity. (Ellegard's complaints about the lack of attention paid to his ideas are good evidence of this.) "Keep it respectiful" is a nice idea, but one that you haven't demonstrated. "respectful", for a start, would consist of recognizing the actual expert sources on this topic. Now, I quite agree that Pagels and Arnal are fine sources, but with these scholars "respect" entails not distorting their words and ideas, and using them to imply that there is widespread doubt among scholars whether Jesus existed. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

We are not discussing early Christianity. The historicity of Troy is not equivalent to belief in Zeus either. You need to keep your religion out of it. The material in question is the assertion that there is no evidence that dates to the time of Jesus which is true, relevant, and plainly worded. The basic idea, in one form or another, has been in the article for almost two months [19]. It is not "my" idea (as Hardyplants said), it is not an unstable edit (as Hardyplants suggested), it does not say or imply "There is no evidence for the existence of Jesus" (as Hardyplants asserted). It is a somewhat stable (for this article), relevant, factual assertion with high quality sources. In contrast, the material that is now being inserted is new, poorly sourced, and incredibly sloppy (one section of text is repeated word for word, a book cite is 180 pages long but has no page number, a long reference to a solar eclipse is completely irrelevant). It has nothing resembling stability, but is being edit-warred into the article. Noloop (talk) 04:56, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

If it worded more neutrally and clearly, then we can make some progress:

Historians and biblical scholars rely on works such as {put in here sources} that were produced by his followers and those responding to their actions and claims. Jesus himself did not leave any evidence that has survived, and scholars are dependent on written sources about him from others, which are evaluated critically.

We can use some of the same refs and others can be found from neutral parties. Hardyplants (talk) 06:31, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

We are, in fact, discussing early Christianity, which any mainstream view traces back to the activity of a human being, Jesus of Nazareth. It's unfortunate, but sadly unsurprising, that you believe editors who disagree with you do so because of religious belief. I'd appreciate it if you refrained from attributing religious belief to me; to my knowledge, I've never said anything about my religious views on Wikipedia, nor do I plan to; the implication that my editing is motivated by religion is insulting, and if you continue to make such implications, I'll take the matter to WP:WQA.

As for the specific material you mention in your last post, I don't believe I've made any edits that affect this material, so I don't understand what you're getting at. My comments in the past few days have largely concerned the use of Torstendahl and some editors' overly restrictive notion of what a historian is. Historians who study the subject of early Christianity overwhelmingly treat Jesus as a historical figure. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:09, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Historians who study the subject of early Christianity overwhelmingly treat Jesus as a historical figure. This is quite different from saying "All/Most historians agree...." or "All/Most scholars agree....".-Civilizededucation^talk 06:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Why do you think it's different? --Akhilleus (talk) 12:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Obviously because it leaves out most people who would be included in "all/most historians/scholars".-Civilizededucation^talk 11:06, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The reality is that the consensus exists only among most biblical scholars. Not all biblical scholars, mind you.-Civilizededucation^talk 09:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Only if you ignore the evidence of such sources as the Cambridge Ancient History, the Oxford Classical Dictionary, Roman history textbooks, etc. --Akhilleus (talk) 12:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

It seems its futile to work on this article in a collaborative manner. Here is another neutral source published by Routledge that makes a claim that "Jesus is universally recognized to have been a jewish rabbi"[[20]] Hardyplants (talk) 21:18, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

None of them run against what Torstendahl has stated. If you think they do, you should add it to the article.-Civilizededucation^talk 11:10, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

We know for a fact that that the majority of sources, including overtly Christian ones who believe in Jesus, think little can be known about Jesus with certainty. So a 40-year old source, written by someone who appears to have no credentials, intended for a popular audience, stating that something about Jesus is "universally recognized," is not credible. I do note the editorial advisors for the book are the Reverend Canon E. Every and the Very Reverend Wolfgang E. Pax OFM, Covenant of the Flagellation, Via Dolorosa, Jerusalem. Nice (and typical) choice of a "neutral source"....Noloop (talk) 22:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The book details are:

Who's Who in the New Testament Who's Who Series The Routledge's who's who series Oxford reference online

Authors Ronald Brownrigg, Canon Brownrigg

Edition 2, revised

Publisher Psychology Press, 2001

ISBN 0415260361, 9780415260367

Length 304 pages

Subjects Bible Religion / Biblical Biography / New Testament Religion / Biblical Studies / New Testament Religion / Christianity / History Religion / Reference

Hardyplants (talk) 23:05, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Details about the Oxford online series.:

"the content is superb ... This is a top quality resource" Library Journal the biggest, most up-to-date, authoritative, accessible, editorially vetted reference work in the world over 1.4 million facts and definitions thousands of illustrations, maps, and links to other web resources

Oxford Reference Online and public libraries in the UK

Oxford Reference Online (along with Oxford English Dictionary, Who's Who, Grove Art Online and Grove Music Online) is now available in almost all public libraries in the UK – you can log on free from home. Hardyplants (talk) 23:07, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

So I guess you're all cool with adding Einstein and the Pope. Maybe Pres. Obama's opinion too? 174.29.102.30 (talk) 21:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

To your surprise, I am cool with the Pope, as long as he is attributed as such.-Civilizededucation^talk 11:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

So we simply disagree as to who's opinion is relevant to this article. I'm for experts on the subject while you seem to want far more popular opinions included. Anyone else have an opinion as to how far into society this article's sources should reach? Roy Brumback (talk) 03:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you could enlighten me on this, but it sounds incredible that the pope should be seen as a non expert on points related to christianity. Actually I think the Pope's opinion is needed as representative of traditional view on Christianity, regardless of whether it is scholarly or not. Of course this article is mostly about scholarly views.-Civilizededucation^talk 15:42, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Yet another

The National Geographic Almanac of World History declares Jesus to be a real historical person. How many more will it take guys? Roy Brumback (talk) 04:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Does it say anything about a consensus among historians?-Civilizededucation^talk 06:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Does it say anything about how much of the gospels is known to be fake, or give any reliable approach to determining which parts of what the gospels say about Jesus can be relied upon? Wdford (talk) 09:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

It mostly just retells the New Testament. It's a popular book, and mixes legend and history freely. For example, it also declares that God told Abraham he would found a great nation and that the Jews were God's chosen people (p. 49). Should we state that as encyclopedic fact?Noloop (talk) 15:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

While I have no trouble accepting that there was a real Jesus, I have great difficulty accepting the National Geographic as a reliable source for such matters. PiCo (talk) 01:50, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Distinguishing fact from fiction regarding the most worshipped figure in human history can't be done with popular books. Noloop (talk) 04:19, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Why? It's automatically less true the more popular it gets? And if "popular" sources shouldn't be allowed loop, then why Dawkins and every Myther book listed, as they are not scholarly books written for other scholars but books written for general audiences? And it doesn't declare things about Abraham as historical except as they are stories from Genesis. It also says Genesis was influenced by Babylonian stories. It lists other religions' histories in a similar way. You seem to have the book loop, do you think it's generally a good reliable book. Is National Geographic not a reliable source? It's cited all over this encyclopedia. Do you object to those cites? I'm not saying we should cite this to claim Jesus definitively existed, it's just one more piece of evidence the historical existence of Jesus is the mainstream historical position. Plenty more to come but I've been busy lately, but every history book I've been able to dig through in any depth that talks about Jesus at all lists him as historical. Roy Brumback (talk) 03:33, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

As I have been saying for a while the Historicity of Jesus is not about if he is a historical figure but how much of the Gospel account of is historical accurate. The fact that Dawkins is being mislabled as a "myther" even though he states on pg 122 of The God Delusion "Although Jesus probably existed, reputable biblical scholars do not in general regard the New Testament (and obviously no the Old Testament) as a reliable record of what actually happened in history...". Furthermore, as far as I know the only one that calls Dawkins a "myther" is James Patrick Holding, who has to be the biggest joke on the pro-historical Jesus side. Holding even calls John Remsburg a supporter of the Christ Myth theory even though Remsburg held that odds were there was a historical Jesus.

I present this to User:Vesal as a prime example why the lead in must remain the complicated over cited borderline mess it currently is--unless we spell out every possible step of the way the range of the Historicity of Jesus we get this kind of nonsense by well meaning but ultimately misinformed editors.--BruceGrubb (talk) 07:31, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

What historians say

Hardyplants, the article currently reads "Historians do not say anything on the existence of Jesus because the evidence is too little to be able to say anything about his existence".

This is backed up by a citation, so we can't just remove it. However, if it's too strong a statement for that reliable source to support, or if we can find even a single counterexample, then we should change the text accordingly. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 13:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

As yet, this is the best source we have for info about the views of historians.-Civilizededucation^talk 14:30, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

That is an ignorant statement, because many historians talk about the existence of Jesus: [21], [22], [23], [24], [25],[26] and [27] Hardyplants (talk) 14:41, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for those sources. I would consider some (not all) of them reliable historical sources. For others reliability isn't as obvious (because they are scholars of religion), but it could perhaps still be demonstrated by pointing to publications or citations in mainstream historical sources. I'd like to see these sources integrated into the article before this discussion is archived and thus effectively lost. Martijn Meijering (talk) 16:14, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

It isn't clear to me that Rolif Tsrstendahl is saying "this is true for all historians". He is describing another view that he personally thinks "there are good reasons for a historian to shrink from judgments on the historicity of the person of Jesus". This, to me, is a lot different than the phrasing that one of you came up with Historians do not say anything... And it is complete nonsense to make such a claim when we have tons and tons of historical literature on Jesus. Utter and complete nonsense. It's either taking the POV that these published scholars are somehow not "historians", or it is just ignorant of that mass of literature. Why on earth would we put a claim as such in the article, outside of POV pushing. It isn't qualified in any regard, it isn't attributed. It is just a flat out blanket claim that we all know is false. Saying Tsrstendahl doesn't think this question should be important to historians is one thing. But the phrasing that was in the article, simply unacceptable. Not only because the phrasing cannot, in any sense of honesty, be derived from the source text in any way, but because we all know it to be nothing short of a falsehood. -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:35, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

We don't have tons and tons of historical literature on Jesus: We have tons and tons of theological literature on Jesus. It has been pointed out repeatedly that these articles tell a lie. They tell the reader the majority of mainstream historians believe Jesus existed, but the references are overwhelmingly Christian theologians. When certain editors demanded reasons to distinguish between theologians and mainstream historians, they were given the basic principle that people aren't neutral about what they worship. They were given Ellegard's statement that there is a divide. Then they were given Hoffman's comment that the approaches have not been secular. Now they are being given another reference that distinguishes between historians and theologians, and they are edit warring to keep that out too. It is reasonable to present the view as that person's opinion, rather than as a statement of fact. It is also reasonable to summarize that there is skepticism of the field because it is dominated by theologians. What is not reasonable is to wage deletionist edit wars over every thing that is not considered perfectly pro-Christian by certain editors. What is not acceptable is Hardyplants, who makes zero contribution to Talk, edit wars over everything, and when asked to contribute to the discussion does nothing but semi-randomly google a bunch of links and paste them as a comment without any effort at reading them or documenting how he thinks they are relevant. If Griswaldo thinks the statement needs to be attributed, he has a reason to add an attribution, not delete it. Noloop (talk) 15:32, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

We have tons and tons of historical literature on Jesus. You don't make it go away by claiming it's merely theological. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:48, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

In terms of provenance this claim is so ridiculous I can't see how any reasonable person can claim it with a straight face; the quality of the few sources we have is a joke. As Price himself points out the supposed life of Jesus was such that a Church father c180 CE could extensively quote the Gospels and claim these quotes supported his contention that Jesus was at least 46 if not 50 when he died (a clear impossibility in a c4 BCE to 36 CE timeline) and as far as we know not get called on the carpet on the idea that you can somehow shove 46 years into a 39 year period.--BruceGrubb (talk) 18:23, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I think a lot of the confusion comes from the fact that people claim they are doing a quest for the historical Jesus when de facto they’re doing theology, albeit a theology that is indeed historically informed. Go all the way back to Reimarus, through Schleiermacher, all the way down the line through Bultmann, Kasemann, Bornkamm. These are basically people who are theologians, doing a more modern type of Christology. Even meier says that the literature on historical Jesus is all theology, not history.[28]-Civilizededucation^talk 17:25, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Does he say that about the Cambridge Ancient History? --Akhilleus (talk) 17:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing in the "tons and tons" of historical Jesus material which would say anything opposing to what Torstendahl has said. Only an opposing view from a historian could show that there is a difference of opinion about what historians think. What biblical scholars say about historians is of no value. Does the "Cambridge Ancient History" say anything about what historians think on the existence of Jesus?-Civilizededucation^talk 17:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC) The "tons and tons" of material is all based on the assumption of Jesus existing. The existence of Jesus is an assumption for this "tons and tons" of material.-Civilizededucation^talk 18:02, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

As I've already said, Torstendahl says nothing about a historical consensus—he writes about what he thinks historians should think, but that's hardly the same thing. I don't agree at all with your statement "What biblical scholars say about historians is of no value"—the sharp distinction that's been alleged on this page between biblical scholars and historians, or between theologians and historians, is BS. Many biblical scholars are historians, many theologians are historians. And anyway, what a historian who specializes in 19th and 20th century European history, which Torstendahl appears to do, about scholarship regarding the 1st century is of little value. I really don't know why people have decided that this set of articles from an obscure Scandanavian journal is of central importance, but for some reason Bertil Albrektson's statement (p. 184) that "In fact a great many biblical scholars do practise their profession as an ordinary philological and historical subject, avoiding dogmatic assumptions and beliefs" is getting ignored—not too surprising, since people here seem determined to understand "theologian" as "mindless repeater of religious dogma."

In the Cambridge Ancient History Clarke says that he's chosen relatively uncontroversial aspects of Jesus' ministry, i.e. stuff that most historians would agree Jesus did. Obviously, if historians can agree about certain aspects of Jesus' ministry, this entails that there was one.

If tons and tons of material is based on the assumption of Jesus' existence, that means that lots of people think that Jesus actually existed, which is a reasonable definition of a consensus. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:51, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Well said, Akhilleus. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:05, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

I have presented seven non-christian historians of classical antiquity that treat Jesus as a real historical person. Hardyplants (talk) 19:21, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

We're talking about the mainstream consensus of modern historians, not classical antiquity. It doesn't matter to me one way or the other whether historians feel there is enough evidence to satisfy them; faith has its own standards. But we cannot impose the standards of faith upon historians. If we cannot find a historian to counter that citation, we must let it stand. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 23:07, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Dylan, I think some kind of misunderstanding has crept in here. Hardyplants has cited modern historians who study classical antiquity; so have I. That's the kind of historian people are looking for, surely—unless people are claiming that historians who study 19th century Sweden are more important for this subject than historians who study the 1st century Near East. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

No, Hardyplants, you've done what you always do, and what you've been asked to stop doing. You've pasted a list of google links, and declared it to prove something. You've provided no supporting citations, page numbers, quotes, or text of any kind. After a brief look, they appear to all be popular books. Noloop (talk) 00:32, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Months ago, we produced a clear "historian" making such a claim (Grant). I would say look in the archives, but we were all involved in those discussions back then, so this seems like willing ignorance. I don't think it's appropriate to play into these inappropriate demands above and outside WP:RS.-Andrew c ^[talk] 00:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I second the inclusion of Grant. But note that his point of view is especially interesting because he is one of *very few* historians with an opinion on the historicity of Jesus that Wikipedians have been able to find. That in itself hardly suggests a consensus among historians and as far as I know he makes no claim of a consensus. Just to point out where I'm coming from, note that I personally believe there probably is a (possibly misguided) consensus among historians, just not one that has been reliably sourced so far on this page. Martijn Meijering (talk) 01:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The present wording is a misrepresentation of what the source says. There is no consensus among historians on the issue of existence of Jesus. They are not even interested in this issue and very few have said anything about what historians think. How can there be a consensus?-Civilizededucation^talk 02:32, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

What does Grant say?-Civilizededucation^talk 02:47, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

If historians won't weigh in on the historicity of Jesus, who's going to? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:50, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The point is, historians are not interested, theologians are taking undue advantage of this situation to put words into the mouths of historians. This is what I want to make clear to the reader.-Civilizededucation^talk 03:25, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

This is an incorrect statement. Historians are interested in the origins of Christianity, and so discuss Jesus as a historical person—I've already given you a reference to the Cambridge Ancient History, an authoritative source on the ancient world. Pick up any textbook on the history of classical Rome and I'm sure you'll find a few pages about Jesus too. Or look in the Oxford Classical Dictionary, another standard reference work on the ancient world, which says (p. 325) "Jesus lived, therefore, in a divided Palestine...It is likely that Jesus reflected several tendencies in the Judaism of his day. Followers saw him variously as a forerunner of the rabbis, holy man, wonder-worker, rebel, and prophet. Attempts to decide how he saw himself have proved difficult. When we set side by side the NT (New Testament) reports and our knowledge of Galilee at the time, the wonder-working holy man appears his most likely guise. He emphasized the imminent ending of the visible world and the judgement of God upon it. He promoted also a sense of liberty, to be enjoyed by those willing to repudiate family, career, and a sense of 'sin'. That, and the number of his followers in the volatile atmosphere of Jerusalem at pilgrimage time, was enough to set him at odds with the Jewish high-priestly establishment, wedded to the social order required by Rome." This quote, from the OCD's article on Christianity, was written by Philip Rousseau, described as "Associate Professor of History, University of Auckland, New Zealand" on p. xxiii.

It's true that historians are not interested in making a statement like "most historians believe that Jesus was a historical figure," because the idea that he wasn't has virtually no impact on current scholarship—you can confirm this simply by looking at Ellegard's complaints about the reception of his arguments. Historians generally don't say that there's a consensus that Cylon, Solon, Pisistratus, Plato, Scipio Africanus, or [Atticus are historical, because there's no serious question about the historicity of these folks either. Instead, scholars simply write about these men as historical figures, just as they do with Jesus. Look at the links that Hardyplants gives in his post near the beginning of this section—those books don't spend time wondering whether Jesus was real or not; instead, they make statements like "Jesus came from Galilee. Certain aspects of his personality can be explained by the spiritual characteristics of the environment in which he grew up," which obviously entails his existence. Again, this is an indication that Jesus is generally held to be historical—there's simply no reason to say so explicitly, because there's no widespread belief in the scholarship that he isn't. (And again, this can be confirmed by looking at statements by people who argue Jesus didn't exist—take a look at what Earl Doherty says about mainstream acceptance of his ideas sometime.)

And anyway, what the heck do people here mean by "historian"? Any scholar who studies early Christianity is studying the past, and is therefore a historian. Why can't you say that Bart Ehrman or Paula Fredriksen or L. Michael White is a historian? They're certainly not theologians (not that being a theologian would prevent one from being a historian anyway).

A last point: those who assert that there's no consensus among historians about the existence of Jesus make this assertion without any sources; in fact, they're doing so in the face of several sources which say quite explicitly that there is such a consensus. This is not a sound procedure. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

I am curious about these "tons and tons" of sources. I have been watching this article for a while, and I haven’t seen anything presented by the pro-Christian camp that is not based ultimately on the Bible. The vast majority of all such “historical” literature is based on Biblical sources, or on commentaries on and derivations of Biblical sources. Apart from a mere handful of (almost) contemporary references in non-Biblical sources such as Josephus – many of which are vague or even contested – there appears to be total reliance ultimately on the Bible. Justin Martyr etc never knew Jesus personally, and everything the Church fathers wrote was based on assumptions and rumours that had been “varnished” by hundreds of years of personal POV and deliberate fraud. The “tons and tons” of so-called historical documentation is thus merely repeated rehashing of Biblical material, and commentaries on Biblical material. If the NT is unreliable, then all these “tons and tons” are also unreliable. Sadly, there is much scholarly opinion that the NT is indeed unreliable. Should we not make clear in the article that – apart from some contested mentions in Josephus etc – all the tomes about Jesus are based on the assumption that the NT is reliable, which is a false assumption? Wdford (talk) 04:18, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, my belief in a historical and spiritual Jesus comes not only from the Bible but the tradition that canonized its books and lives on in the church. Having said that, I do realize that the Bible is not sufficient for a secular historian, as it's clearly not a source of independent contemporaneous evidence, which is the basic academic requirement. Modern estimates for dates do not support contemporaneity, and such things as the synoptic problem undermine independence.

This is not to say that there was no Jesus, only that historians cannot speak of this topic based on the Bible alone. This is where faith comes in. As for the NT, it is entirely reliable, but it is a religious work, not a history book or a guide to touring the mid-east. To expect every parable to be literally true is to demand a reading that conflicts with tradition.

To speak of Jesus, a historian would need to invoke extra-Biblical sources. I know that some of these are clearly tainted -- Josephus is infamous for that -- but aren't there some solid Roman ones at the very least? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 04:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not the case that one that independent contemporaneous evidence is a basic requirement. There are many events in ancient history for which there are no contemporary sources at all (e.g. the Lelantine War, the conspiracy of Cylon) and yet historians are able to say something about them. Even for such well-known events as the Persian Wars or the Peloponnesian War, we're often dependent on a single literary source. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Most of these are poor examples. The Lelantine War has reasonable archeological evidence, the Persian Wars have two contemporary sources (Herodotus and Thucydides), and the Peloponnesian War was recorded by a clearly contemporary source (Thucydides) and also have archaeological evidence backing them up. As shown by Susan Provost Belle in The history puzzle: how we know what we know about the past pg 80 "Most scholars believed that Troy had never existed. One historian comments about amateur archaeologist Heinrich Schliemann's search for Troy "When Schliemann began excavating at Hissarlik in 1870, probably about half of the scholars...would have said Homer's Troy was a figment of his imagination and that to seek its location...was folly" largely because of problems with the source material...and we all know how well that turned out.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:18, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

There is no archaeological evidence for the Lelantine War. There is archaeological evidence that is sometimes thought to cohere with the reconstruction of the Lelantine War modern historians have made from literary sources, which come from a much later time than the war supposedly happened (so they're not contemporaneous sources). But it's only conjecture that the archaeological finds back up the reconstruction of the Lelantine War, and it's probably wrong: [29]. Neither Herodotus nor Thucydides were contemporary with the Persian Wars. Herodotus was writing in the 430s, decades after the Persian invasion ended in 479 (this is a longer gap than the one between the death of Jesus and the letters of Paul); Thucydides writes even later. Thucydides was a contemporary of the Peloponnesian War and an Athenian general during part of it, and his narrative of the war is an extremely valuable source; however, for many of the events he chronicles he is the only contemporary source, but in general we trust his narrative. So Dylan's original comment, that "independent contemporaneous evidence" is required in an academic context, doesn't apply here. (There's also not a ton of archaeological evidence for the Peloponnesian War, unless you mean inscriptions, though you do get an amazingly rich destruction layer at Athens for the Persian invasion in 480.)

As for Troy, many scholars believed that Troy existed before Schliemann's excavations, as your quote says. Even now, when there's nearly universal agreement that Hissarlik should be identified with Homer's Troy, there's lively debate about how much the Homeric poems reflect the history and culture of the bronze age...but this has very little to do with the comment I made, which had to do with the supposed need for contemporaneous evidence. Even on a conservative dating, the Trojan War happened (if it happened) in the early 12th century BCE and the Iliad was composed in the 8th century BCE. Definitely not a contemporary source, and the gap between the supposed Trojan War and Homer is four centuries, far greater than the gap between Jesus and the NT material. I suppose this illustrates that some historical information can be passed down through oral tradition for an extremely long time... --Akhilleus (talk) 01:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Not in this way, because this is using editors' opinions that the NT is unreliable as a way of discrediting scholarship that holds that the NT provides valuable historical evidence, when analyzed critically. This is, in fact, the majority position. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:33, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Also, non-canonical Christian texts are widely used in the study of the historical Jesus—the Gospel of Thomas probably being the most famous one. Non-Christian texts get in there too. I'm pretty sure this very article will give you at least a little guidance about this... --Akhilleus (talk) 04:42, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Thomas is much too late to be contemporaneous. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 04:45, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

That's highly debatable. It's quite possible that Thomas is earlier than the gospels, or that Thomas preserves oral traditions that predate the written gospels. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:53, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

The passage in question is interesting, and bears reproduction:

"Religions are certainly important historical phenomena with social repercussions so deep that nobody can ignore them irrespective of his or her convictions about religion. This does not imply, however, that the historical existence of the founder or central figure of any religion is important to the historian. It may be important to the religious believer, for many religions claim that certain historical events should evidence their truth. If this is taken seriously, history (a certain small segment of history) is made a question of belief rather than a question of normal historical argument. Believers tend to let the two grow together: some Hindu scholars have spent much time to reconstruct the exact site and happenings of the battle of Kurukshetra (where Krishna acted as charioteer for Arjuna and told him the wisdom of the Gita)....

"Few historians doubt that the historical development of religions in society is rather independent of the amount of "historical truths" which can be said to be evidenced in the mythological core of the religion. The myth in itself is the social force. Out of such considerations questions relating to the historicity of specific persons or events, however religiously central, cannot rank high in what I have called the historian's optimum norms. It seems that many historians share my opinion on this, or they ought to have devoted much more energy to such questions. They have not done this and have thus, implicitly, given such questions low marks as regards importance and fruitful relation to more general problems concerning the role of religions.

"Another view is the methodological in a strict sense. In respect to what I have called minimum demands there are good reasons for a historian to shrink from judgments on the historicity of the person of Jesus. This means, however, that the historian in this case, as in so many others, will say neither "The evidence is that he lived there and then" nor "The evidence is that he did not live there and then". The logical possibility of the existence of Jesus (at the religiously assumed place and time) cannot be denied, but the evidence seems to betoo weak to give such a statement a minimum probability. It is easy to defend a statement with its logical possibility. Giants in ancient Scandinavia, unicorns, and the activity of the God Ape Hanuman are all within logical possibilities, though out of probability. However, "a grain of truth" may be in the stories about these beings, but still only as a possibility and not at all within the reach of any "minimum demands" of evidencing.

This is supported by the sourcing in these articles. Virtually none of it peer-reviewed, and a minority of it non-Christian. The topic is of interest mainly to Believers. Akhilleus' claim that " Historians are interested in the origins of Christianity, and so discuss Jesus as a historical person" is silly. It is wrong to equate interest in the origins of a religious movement with interest in its myths. Historians are interested in the origins of Greek mythology, that doesn't mean they discuss Zeus as a historical person. When editors here produce historians discussing the historical Jesus, it is almost always in popular books (e.g. Grant). We already have Pagels, and others (in the previous paragraph in the lead) pointing out that little can be truly known about the so-called historical Jesus, that study of the early Christian movement doesn't rest on it (from the persepctive of a historian), and that the so-called quests tend to be personal interpretations rather than true historical research. Knowing whether there really was a Jesus is no more important to the historical study of Christianity than know whether Vishnu is based on a historical figure is important to the study of Hinduism. These things are mainly of interest to Believers, some of whom, of course, have a spent a lifetime acquiring historical knowledge. Nonetheless, they aren't neutral and they shouldn't be presented to the reader as mainstream historians. Noloop (talk) 05:50, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the Cambridge Ancient History and the Oxford Classical Dictionary are "popular books." Oh, wait, they're not. They're high-quality sources with stringent editing. And they provide examples of articles that treat the origins and spread of Christianity that discuss Jesus as a historical person, just as innumerable other sources do. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

It’s also quite possible that the Gospel of Thomas is complete fiction, and has as much historical value as the Harry Potter novels. Certainly the NT has some grounding in historical fact, as do the Harry Potter novels. The serious issue is – the NT is historically reliable in that Palestine did exist, as did Jerusalem, and there were indeed Romans around, and the Jews certainly were waiting for the Messiah, and Pontius Pilate did indeed execute lots of Jews for stirring up revolt. However, many of the stories about Jesus of Nazareth specifically have been shown to be fiction (insert euphemism of choice), and thus the value of the NT as support for the “historicity of Jesus” is questionable. My point about the so-called reliability of the NT is encapsulated in Akhilleus’ very-euphemistic phrase “when analyzed critically”. What this actually means, in plain English, is “once you have sifted out all the errors, mistranslations and outright lies, you can still find the occasional useful historical fact in there somewhere.” While the NT certainly does contain some "valuable historical evidence", the reliable evidence in question is about things OTHER THAN JESUS. So, to put it another way, how do we properly explain this in the article, other than by using technical obfuscation such as the phrase “when analyzed critically”? Wdford (talk) 08:30, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

That's not what "when analyzed critically" means. It means when one applies the same methods used with other ancient texts, a significant body of information about Jesus' life can be recovered. A. N. Sherwin-White, a Roman historian, wrote that the Gospels compared favorably with Herodotus in terms of their historical value, and also said that the historicity of Acts was taken for granted by ancient historians. It's not hard to find scholarship that thinks the NT gives us good information about Jesus' life, so framing the issue as you suggest would not be fairly representing the mainstream view. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

But if that is the case why are comparisons made with ancient people like Plato, Gaius Julius Caesar Augustus, or even Alexander the Great who have material of much better provenance than what exists for Jesus. When such strawmen such as these or the even more insane and illogical comparisons with Holocaust denial or Moon Landing hoax are raised one gets less the impression of scholarly support and more the impression of an idea built on sand. Considering that Oswyn Murray in 'Greek Historians' in 'The Oxford History of the Classical World, J.Boardman, J.Griffin and O.Murray (ed.s), Oxford University Press (1986) page 188 said that Herodotus was "a curious false start to history" as despite his efforts he still mixed history and pure myth A. N. Sherwin-White's comparison of the Gospels with Herodotus in terms of historical value does really tell us much. Opinion on the quality of his work is not always been positive as these quotes show:

In fact, these references seem to indicate the exact opposite of the impression you want: ::::"Even though Herodotus has often been evaluated by modern historiographers as lacking historical accuracy,..." (Dictionary of the Old Testament: wisdom, poetry & writings By Tremper Longman, Peter Enns, 2008, pg 172)

"If the story had stood in Herodotus, and not in Thucydides, one might have been tempted to doubt its historical accuracy,..." Herodotus, the Seventh, Eighth, & Ninth Books Page 340 Reginald Walter Macan 1908)

"We sometimes are led to ignore the historical inaccuracy of Herodotus, through his fascinations of style and composition." Victorian review: Volume 3 H. Mortimer Franklyn (1880) Page 238

"Despite the many inaccuracies of Herodotus' history and his inclusion of folk tales, oracular pronouncements,..." The handbook of classical literature Lillian Feder 1998 Page 164

Also you have the problem that historians as a general rule are not historical anthropologists--they do not have the expertise of historical anthropologists to take what records they do have and create a view of how a particular culture thought and viewed the world. If euhemerism was the dominate view of the culture the idea of a person being actually personification may not have occurred to them. As Richard Carrier points out in Kooks and Quacks of the Roman Empire: A Look into the World of the Gospels (1997) believe in the supernatural was very common in those times. In a Missouri State University presentation Carrier points tongue in cheek out all the really bizarre things in the New Testiment like the Book of Revelation--which he describes as a five hour acid trip that if made into a movie would out do Eraserhead in the most annoyingly weird movie catagory.--BruceGrubb (talk) 17:37, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Christian documents have a long and distinguished history of forgery associated with them, per Bart Ehrman. Would saying this be a way of doing what you suggest?-Civilizededucation^talk 09:41, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

@Akhilleus. You can't call Bart Ehrman, Paula Friedrickson,.... as historians because they are basically NT scholars.-Civilizededucation^talk 10:16, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Why do you think NT scholars aren't historians? Fredriksen's faculty page describes her as a specialist in the "social and intellectual history of ancient Christianity"; that sounds like a historian to me. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

My impression is that she is a New Testament scholar. If you have an RS which says she is an historian, you can attribute her as such. If I find another RS which says something else, I can add it. If we still have a difference of opinion, we could discuss it then.-Civilizededucation^talk 16:31, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

My assertion that there is no such consensus among historians is based on torstendahl's statement. It is ridiculous to say that it is without any basis. Actually the assertion that there is such a consensus among historians is without a good basis. It is based on statements by NT scholars and like, not historians.-Civilizededucation^talk 10:35, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

As I've already said many times, Graeme Clarke is a historian, who says "Frankly, I know of no ancient historian or biblical historian who would have a twinge of doubt about the existence of a Jesus Christ—the documentary evidence is simply overwhelming." Torstendahl, on the other hand, does not say anything about a scholarly consensus—he is saying what he thinks historians ought to say about Jesus. And since he specializes in 19th-20th century European history, not ancient history, why should he be regarded as an authority on this subject? --Akhilleus (talk) 18:03, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

It should also should be noted that many times these very same experts say things that leave you scratching your head. For instance in "Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels" pg 199 Michael Grant seems to equate the Christ Myth theory with docetism which flies in the fact of all the he didn't exist definitions out there. The list of people who have called Wells' Jesus Legend (1996) and Jesus Myth (1999) Christ Myth theory seems to grow the more you look at it. To date it has been shown again and again Doherty, Price, Carrier, Eddy-Boyd, and Stanton have all at one time or another put Wells' possibly Mystical Paul + historical Jesus = Gospel Jesus in the Christ Myth Theory camp. Quite frankly the litature even from experts is a full fledged train wreck.--BruceGrubb (talk) 10:17, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Akhilleus, you've said that many times. The source for that quote is a newspaper guest opinion by the founder of Jesus-promoting agency relating a phone conversation with Graeme Clark he made for the purpose of writing the op-ed. Clarke is anecdotally relating his own opinion about the historians he knows; it's not analysis, not research, and not made in any kind of formal context such as a book, article or research. It is tendentious and disruptive for you to keep repeating it because anecdotal phone conversations initiated by ministers aren't reliable sources and we know for a fact there are historians who do have a twinge of doubt about it. Noloop (talk) 21:02, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, someone's being tendentious and disruptive—the person who's straining to discredit any evidence that there is a consensus on this topic. Clarke's quote is a fine source (though I would certainly be happier to find a similar statement in a book or journal article); the article in question easily meets WP:RS, and Clarke himself is an authority on the topic—unless you think rank amateurs are selected to write articles for the Cambridge Ancient History. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

...Graeme Clarke, director of the Australian Humanities Research Centre and Professor of Classical Studies at the Australian National University.... Clarke being a historian appears to be your opinion. I don't think he can be attributed as a historian.

Authoring an article in the Cambridge Ancient History qualifies one as a historian, and it seems that Clarke has other articles in the CAH in addition to the one I've already cited. No one is defining what they mean by "historian"—it seems, Civilized, that you won't allow that someone is a historian unless they're in a history department. But this isn't a good way to define what a historian is—for starters, scholars who specialize in ancient history are often in departments of classics rather than history departments. As for Clarke, though, note that he is part of the faculty in history at ANU [30] and that the directory of fellows at the Australian Academy of Humanities lists Clarke as adjunct faculty in history at ANU, with expertise in "Classical (Ancient) History and Archaeology". So, a classicist, an ancient historian, a classical archaeologist—Clarke is all of these things. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Clarke is a multi faceted personality and it is difficult to pin down what exactly he is. He is highly energetic in various fields and he does not seem to have majored in history and he is also a part theologian by the way.-Civilizededucation^talk 02:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Sure, he's multifaceted. One of those facets is that he's a historian. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Torstendahl is a historian, a professor of History, not a professor of 19-20th ....as you say. In any event, he is a more reliable source on what historians think than any biblical scholar/theologian. Being a historian, he would know better what historians would do in a given situation.-Civilizededucation^talk 01:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Since many historians in there works on the topic contraindicate his statement, his reliable does not seem that trustworthy. Hardyplants (talk) 01:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

You find out what a scholar specializes in by looking at his/her published work. Torstendahl's publications concern such topics as "The social relevance of education: Swedish secondary schools during the period of industrialization." Looks interesting, but that's not exactly an article about the ancient world. I don't see any publications by Torstendahl on the ancient world, but plenty on education and the professions in 19th-20th century Scandinavia. This is not the profile of someone who's an expert on the ancient world, so he should not be used to document a consensus, especially when he contradicts what specialists in the ancient world actually say, and especially when Torstendahl himself doesn't say anything about a consensus anyway. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:35, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

As yet,he is the strongest source on what historians think. He is far better than having biblical scholars/theologians describe a (non-existant) consensus among historians.-Civilizededucation^talk 01:12, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

What he has said is correct. I see nothing that is contradictory to what he has said.-Civilizededucation^talk 01:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Nothing, even Time magazine and several books written by actual historians and several secular encyclopedias all saying he existed or that most scholars conclude he existed. How many will it take? And your source doesn't say what historians think, only the authors opinion about what they should think. Does he actually say "...the majority of historians refuse to take a position on the historicity of Jesus" or something equivalent? Could you write out the whole section here so we can judge? If I were to find say 5 history books written by respected historians claiming he existed (I've already listed two) would you still believe most historians don't take a position? How about 10? Go to the local bookstore and check almost any general history of the Roman Empire or ancient Mediterranean world and you'll see they always declare him to be historical. Roy Brumback (talk) 05:37, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The flaw with this line of reasoning is that since more sources say that Wells' Jesus Legend (1996) and Jesus Myth (1999) with their "possibly mythical Paul Jesus = historical Q Jesus = Gospel Jesus" is part of the Christ myth theory (Price, Carrier, Eddy-Boyd, and Stanton) than those that say otherwise (Wells and Van Voorst) we must go with what the majority of sources say and ignore Wells comments on the matter which is totally ridiculous. They are many took that say King Arthur and Robin Hood are historical as well but not as we know them.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

? Roy Brumback (talk) 22:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Since it is apparant that you have not yet read what the source says, you are welcome to read the whole of it in the link in the thread below. The link is already on this talk page and in the article, and parts of it are in this thread too. I think it would be better to talk after you have read the material.-Civilizededucation^talk 13:11, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, now that I've read it all, it lists 0 historians who doubt the historicity of Jesus. His only "evidence" for stating historians don't care is that is what he "supposes" and that this must be true as most historians haven't written about the founders of religions. Pretty weak.

Now, again, how many actual historians saying Jesus was historical must be provided for you to admit historians probably conclude he was historical? Roy Brumback (talk) 22:15, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

The criterion on Wikipedia is that you have to have a reliable source (in this case a historian, a real one, not a historically inclined theologian or scholar of religion) stating there is a consensus. In the many discussions we've had on the subject I don't recall anyone coming forward with such a reliable source. We've seen theologians and scholars of religion being passed off as historians and offering opinions on a consensus among historians, but those don't count. They could still have notable views of course. Martijn Meijering (talk) 22:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Why would a scholar of religion not be a historian? --Akhilleus (talk) 02:25, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Why should a scholar of religion be a historian? Fields like historical anthropology, philosophy, and mythology also play a role never mind the idea of revealed truth that comes in.--BruceGrubb (talk) 08:55, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I think it is safe to say Clarke is an historian. In the modern university, it is common that som historians do not get their PhDs from or teach in history departments. This is because what defines history as an academic subject is the careful examination of texts. Histoy departmnts generally require PhD candidates to have proficiency in two modern languages, and these candidates generally work with texts written in modern (so-called living) languages. The expertise required to study texts written in "dead" languages is such that training is usually provided by separate departments, and historians who work with texts in dead languages often find employment in such specializd departments. Classics usually covers ancient Greek and Latin - the fragmentary nature of the written record (compared to people studying contemporary history) is such that a good historian coeing this period also needs to know more about archaeology than, say, a historian of the Austro-Hungarian empire, and these departments also employ archaeologists and give their students som training in archaeology or the analysis of material remains. This does not make them inferior historians, it makes them superior historians. That Clarke was affiliated with a classics department does not make him less qualiied to speak about the historicity of jesus, it makes him more qualified. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:40, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

....while talking to a christian minister.....-Civilizededucation^talk 00:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Clarke seems like a fine source to me. The problem with that particular comment its publishing route, not the expert per se. If a foremost expert makes an offhand comment at a cocktail party that makes its way to a public venue, one doesn't include it in an encyclopedia. Clarke's comment was made over the phone, which a minister then related in a newspaper op-ed. That's all. That's not an encyclopedic source. Noloop (talk) 03:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

If he is giving a formal interview for a newspaper or magazine (i.e. it is quoted in a journalistic source) I think we can take it as a reliable source on his views. As a statement of scholarly judgment, I think I would agree with noloop that we should be looking at his books and peer-reviewed journal articles. If he really holds this view one would think ti would be published in a scholarly source or that he got it from scholalry sources he cited. We should find those sources. Slrubenstein | Talk 10:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Jesus question

I am on the brink of an edit conflict with Reaver Flash at the Jesus article. It hinges on whether or not a phrase is preserved that includes a link to this article. Therefore, I think the commnts of people who watch this article would be relevant, hopefully constructive. Just check the edit history at around this time, it's pretty simple I think. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:00, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Appeals to consensus

In addition to what Wdford said in the above NPOV-tag discussion, I want to comment on the "historians say" and other appeals to consensus. The problem is not so much with this article, but with the field itself. Here are two facts:

• In the Cambridge Companion to Jesus, not a single contributor is a "secular" historian!
• Donald Akenson seems to have an interesting perspective on historical Jesus studies, raising some of the same issues about institutional affiliations and the pressure to produce theologically sound history, which in his opinion, results in unhealthy appeals to "scholarly consensus". A preview can be found here.

Given the propensity in the field to appeal to consensus, for whatever reason, I don't think such claims can be avoided here. Again, the problem is really with the field itself, not our coverage of it. A more reasonable alternative would be to include these appeals to consensus (though I now see the need for clear attribution), but also Akenson's and other people's criticism of the field. Hope this helps, Vesal (talk) 19:50, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Precisely. There are indeed many "affiliated" scholars who pronounce on the topic, and not all of them are objective. Some, like Bruce, go a bit further over the edge than others, but a respected scholar is a respected scholar. It would be against WP:Policy to exclude these respected authors, so we include their POV - with appropriate context. To do otherwise would itself be a contravention of NPOV. However I can't see any justification for complaining about "tons of Christian sources" etc, as scholars who criticise the Historicity of Jesus have been thoroughly represented as well. Wikipedia:NPOVD#How to initiate an NPOV debate requires that any editor who has an NPOV concern must, in a "new section, clearly and exactly explain which part of the article does not seem to have a NPOV and why. Make some suggestions as to how one can improve the article." Let's see it, please. Wdford (talk) 20:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Article needs expert attention

This article reads incorrectly to me. Almost all historians consider Jesus to be historical, and agree on a limited number of events about his historical life, while disputing others. This articles is focused too much on myth hypothesis. MoeDew (talk) 00:09, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

For what little it might be worth, in all honesty, I think some of the closest things to experts wikipedia has on this subject are already paying at least a little attention to this article, although they aren't necessarily the ones doing the consistent editing. John Carter (talk) 00:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if some real experts read pages like these to get an idea of the gross misunderstandings that exist among "lay people" (especially militant atheists with an axe to grind). I've heard Bart Ehrman himself say that he is considering writing a book on extreme positions such as the so-called Jesus myth hypothesis. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 01:27, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Judging by this talk page, it is not the expertise that is lacking. I might have previously complained that religious sources should not be used for broad statement about the acceptance of myth theory, but the lead section here completely out of hand. It has effectively turned into a post-modernist parody of Wikipedia: not only is everybody's opinion equal, but the in-text attributions are so excessive that you have to work hard only to separate the content from the biographies. Well, here is an attempted rewrite, and while the second paragraph is very rough, at least it tries to summarise the article, rather than serve as a separate soapbox. Vesal (talk) 21:54, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem with your proposed rewrite is it does not spell out that the Historicity of Jesus as a range of ideas. As demonstrated by this talk page and its archives as well as the Talk:Jesus_myth_theory there are way too many laymen and even scholars who think this is a simple yes or no question--the simply fact is it is not and unless you explain that fact with enough citations to resink the Bismark the article risk degenerating into a WP:CFORK of Jesus myth theory.--BruceGrubb (talk) 02:53, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the assertion that it is a range of ideas was one of the few things I like about the current lead, and I did not deliberately attempt to eliminate it. I only kept the first sentence, because I think the discussions about the different materials (last paragraph of the current lead) makes the point very clearly that it is not a simple yes/no question. While there may be a range of views on what aspects of the narrative are reliable, there is also a simple yes/no question as to whether historical-critical methods can yield any useful information about Jesus at all, and here the current lead obscures the scholarly consensus. Vesal (talk) 06:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Again the problem is too many laymen and scholars alike confuse historicity with existence and given the word can have both meanings it is not hard to understand why. As a museum anthropologist one of the things I was trained by the late [Fred Plogg] is that few things are that black and white--the very methodology you go into your study with can color your results (part of the point of Horace Miner's very satirical "Body Ritual among the Nacirema" article)

John Remsburg and Richard Dawkins are examples of people who felt there was enough to show Jesus existed but the Gospels themselves were effectively non-historical. Even the Jesus Seminar said only a pathetic 18% of sayings said to be from Jesus were from Jesus; that is less than 1 in 5. Then you have the whole Jesus of Nazareth vs Jesus of the Nazarene_(sect) issue which given the size Nazareth (assuming it even existed--there is serious doubt on that) make the second option more likely.--BruceGrubb (talk) 22:42, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Alright, but most of all, I object to the style of the lead. The actual content, I don't care so much about, but I insist the current lead reads like a post-modernist parody. Above, Wdford mentioned Israel/Palestine conflict articles, and none of them have their lead going Palestinian scholar says this, Israeli scholars say that; they do cite official positions, but they are still written in a style that is accessible to those of us who believe the external world exists independently of our sense-experience. Let's take the second sentence: "According to Christian theologians like I. Howard Marshall, Gregory Boyd, and Paul Rhodes Eddy as well as skeptics such as John Remsburg and Dan Barker, the historicity of Jesus covers a spectrum of ideas that range from ..." Why is this so controversial to require attribution? Or is the attribution there to make the point that it is not controversial? In any case, I find this completely excessive. It feels like the article, rather than the talk page, is being used to resolve editorial disputes. Vesal (talk) 10:43, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

That was there because there are scholars and skeptics alike that make it appear the historical existence of Jesus a overly simply yes or no question. The idea that the Gospels are mytholgical account of a Jesus that lived c100BC or present a composite character (by definition non historical) that include some obscure teach who lived in Galilee in the 1st century are examples that say that the Gospel Jesus (ie "Jesus of Nazareth") didn't exist but there was a historical Jesus. Wells' possible Mythical Paul Jesus + historical Q Jesus = Gospel Jesus theory has been labeled or implied to be Christ Myth Theory by several authors (Price, Doherty, Carrier, Eddy-Boyd, and Stanton) which only confuses the issue (and editors) As I have been saying the material on just what the Christ Myth theory even is is confusing and contradictory but continues to foster the mistaken idea that the Historicity of Jesus is this either he existed or he did not excluded middle concept.--BruceGrubb (talk) 11:28, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Proliferation of templates

This article has accumulated a huge collection of warning and caveat templates. This is usually done by POV pushers to discredit articles which report things differently to their POV. My understanding is that a template can only stand if the concerned editor clearly states their concern on the talk page, and engages to resolve the concerns - its not allowed to remain indefinitely, just because. Am I mistaken? What is the rule please, and would those who added the templates please clarify what their remaining concerns are (if any) so that we can resolve and move forward? Wdford (talk) 13:17, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I think the article does have some problems, but you're right about the permanent tags. I took them out. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 13:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

I think I added the POV tag several months ago, because of the heavy use of Christian sourcing and tendency of the article to assume its conclusions in places. Those who disagree with me tend to complain about POV problems introduced by "atheist ax-grinders" (etcetera), so it seems clear that POV is in dispute. The others are recent additions. Noloop (talk) 15:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Noloop, as has been discussed endlessly over the months, we can't ban all Christian authors just because they are Christian. We seem to have almost reached a reasonable consensus that scholars who are also Christian clergy etc should be identified as such in the article when they are used as sources, so that readers can be aware of the context of their comments, but that's as far as we can go. Please could you provide a specific list of those sentences where the wording is unacceptable to you, so that we can concentrate on rewording or re-sourcing them as appropriate? Wdford (talk) 17:23, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

To the best of my knowledge no one has suggested we should ban all Christian authors. If that's what you've been hearing, then I don't think you've been listening. Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

No kidding. This blind refusal to listen to what is being said is really tedious. Endless strawman arguments. Nobody said anything about banning all Christian authors. Nobody said anything about banning any authors. Nobody said anything about banning most Christian authors. Noloop (talk) 18:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

As for specific objections, Wdford could start with an objection I made to material he added, which he ignored.[31] Noloop (talk) 18:48, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, Noloop, this is getting pathetic. You said above that you are persisting in tagging this article “because of the heavy use of Christian sourcing”. This is despite the efforts of many – including me – to ensure that the article presents a balanced picture. And what do we get – more whining about “Christian sources”, followed by still more whining about “strawman arguments”. Make a constructive suggestion please, because your mindless circular whining is getting old. Re your whine way back in the archives, the answer was given in depth in the article itself. However, since you clearly didn’t see that, here is some more help. You whined about the sentence "Historians subject the gospels to critical analysis, attempting to differentiate authentic, reliable information from what they judge to be inventions, exaggerations, and alterations,” and you somehow inferred from the sources that “most prominent mainstream historians don't consider the question at all.” Well the content of the article reported dozens of scholars who consider the question very seriously, such as the following:

1. EP Sanders
2. Craig L. Blomberg
3. Graham Stanton
4. Paul Barnett (2009)
5. James D.G. Dunn
6. Norman Perrin
7. Bart Ehrman

There are many more, as I’m sure even you have noticed by now, so I don’t quite see where your confusion is coming from. How could any reasonable person dispute that these are “prominent” scholars, or that there are “many” of them, when the article lists the content in depth? The lead is supposed to be a summary, not a detailed list of every person who has ever been quoted by every other person, so why on earth are you continuing to whine on about it? Please could you clarify exactly what it is that continues to cause you to doubt the neutrality of the article, so that we can move forward. Wdford (talk) 19:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Jesus, that was snotty. Do you really expect me to take comments like that seriously and assume good faith? If you want an answer to your questions, you need to start over. To put it another way, if you want people to take you seriously, you need to return the favor. Noloop (talk) 20:01, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

We have assumed good faith about you for months, but still you continue with the circular arguments. Wikipedia:NPOVD#How to initiate an NPOV debate requires that any editor who has an NPOV concern must, in a "new section, clearly and exactly explain which part of the article does not seem to have a NPOV and why. Make some suggestions as to how one can improve the article." If you want to keep your neutrality tag, then please comply with policy. Explain where you think the neutrality broke down and why, and we will take it seriously and fix it. Otherwise, to put it another way, your tag is illegal. Wdford (talk) 20:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

1. Wikipedia:NPOVD#How to initiate an NPOV debate is an essay which requires nothing and makes nothing "illegal." It isn't even a guideline; it is somebody's opinion which states "Essays may represent widespread norms or minority viewpoints. Consider these views with discretion."
2. You are relatively new here. The tag predates you and the basic background ought to be clear. POV is not only disputed by me. It is even disputed by those who disagree with me, and consider the POV problem to be "atheist ax-grinding." Every single dispute that has occurred over this article has been over a POV issue. If you really don't know the POV issues, read the Talk page and recent archives.
3. Nothing more is going to be explained to you when you initiate the discussion with a paragraph-long personal attack, and follow it up with more antagonistic comments. Noloop (talk) 20:57, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, Noloop. I too have concerns which are somewhat similar to yours. It is recognized that the article has problems. The way to making this article NPOV is to find a multiplicity of views and to get them into the article. It is always a mistake to misread helpful and well intentioned guys. Even the most vexed problems can be solved when they get identified properly. Vesal's comment below is identifying the crux of problem.-Civilizededucation^talk 04:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Please, let's take a step back and be civil about this. Noloop posted up the tag and now it's his job to explain why he feels it's valid. If after some time we do not find his arguments persuasive, or if we do find them persuasive and make some changes, we take the tag down. But we don't just leave it there forever as a mark of shame.

Noloop, please help us get started by pointing out specific instances that show "heavy use of Christian sourcing and tendency of the article to assume its conclusions". Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not clear that the way to make this article neutral is to find a multiplicity of views. The way to make the articles on evolution and the formation of the Earth neutral is to exclude views from priests, professors of divinity, and Christian presses. In these articles, it's more philosophically difficult (for me) to find an approach to sources like that. I don't think they necessarily lack credibility nor did I ever say they are dishonest. They aren't neutral. They have a conflict of interest; they tend to promote a particular view. That doesn't mean the authors are unreliable (I'm undecided about presses). Reliability and neutrality differ. The Pope is a reliable source on many aspect of Christianity, but he isn't neutral. So, I don't think priests and theologians should be excluded, I think we should limit their use. We should note when it is impossible to source an idea with primarily secular academics, and limit what we say about such things. We should alert the reader if the article/section/paragraph can't exist in its current form unless sourced mainly to Christians. Certain editors tend to load these articles willy-nilly with sources from priests and Christian presses, without regard to these concerns. Christian presses that explicitly say they publish for the purpose of promoting Jesus are another problem. In that case, both reliability and neutrality may be a problem. As for documenting the character of the references, all you have to do is look at the references.Noloop (talk) 14:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

This field has problems (as User Vesal has pointed out). And the source which he has provided, beautifully discusses these problems. Getting some material from that source into the article would alert the reader to the problems in this field. I am reading it and am not finished yet.-Civilizededucation^talk 15:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

RFC: Use of Christian presses as sources in history topics

Should the use of Christian presses as sources in factual, historical disputes pertaining to Christianity be nearly zero, very limited, moderately limited, or unlimited? Roughly, consider "very limited" to be under 20% of sources, "moderately limited" as 20-50%. "Unlimited" is just that. (Feel free to be more specific in your comment.) Examples of Christian presses being used for expertise on the historicity of Jesus are:

• "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."[32]
• "Regent College Publishing seeks to educate, nurture, and equip men and women to live and work as mature Christians through the publication and distribution of academic literature and educational media resources."[33]
• "Baker Academic serves the academy and the church by publishing works that further the pursuit of knowledge and understanding within the context of Christian faith. Building on our Reformed and evangelical heritage, we connect authors and readers across the broader academic community by publishing books that reflect historic Christianity and its contemporary expressions."[34]
• John Knox "...proudly publishes first-class scholarly works in religion for the academic community, nationally recognized trade books for general readers, and essential resources for ministry and the life of faith."[35]
• Eerdman's... "The finest in religious literature."[36]

So, what guideline, if any, should there be for such sources? Noloop (talk) 17:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments from uninvolved parties

No Limit If a source is considered reliable then it can be used, that is the benchmark for WP. It would appear the goal here is to try and prove that Jesus never existed and the easiest way to do that is to not allow any Christian sources. Arzel (talk) 16:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments from involved parties

Very limited Nearly Zero. Neutrality policies limit the prevalence of such sources in articles about the objective matters, like the historicity of Jesus. Reliability policies further limit the use of these sources for factual statements, because their primary mission is to promote a particular view. See policy on reliable sources: "Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view."[37] Noloop (talk) 17:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

• This RfC is ridiculous. It seems that Noloop wants to set up some kind of quota system for sources that he thinks are religious. This shouldn't have to be said, but Wikipedia's content policies don't mandate classifying sources by religion. The requirement is to represent all significant views published by reliable sources. If those views happen to be found in books published by the presses listed above, then we use them, without trying to meet some arbitrary percentage. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:27, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

No, I want some guidance. That's why I said "roughly" and "feel free to be more specific in your comments", so as not to propose what you just misrepresented me as proposing. Given the history of lawyering and distorting by certain editors, I thought a little quantitative specificity might be helpful. Wikipedia's policies do mandate care with sources that promote a particular view, and the publishers listed above self-describe as existing to promote a particular view. It is obvious you think the concerns of others are "ridiculous" but that's not constructive. When this subject has been opened up to the broader community in the past, there has been strong support for the idea that the use of Christian sources needs care and qualification.[38] You need to adjust your disagreement, in order to work with others. Noloop (talk) 17:38, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

If you want some guidance, try this: stop judging sources on the mission statements of their publishers, and start looking at how those sources are evaluated by the scholarly community. If a book written by James D. G. Dunn, published by Eerdmans, receives positive reviews in academic journals and is widely cited in subsequent scholarship, that suggests that it's a good source for use in Wikipedia articles. If John P. Meier publishes a multivolume series on the historical Jesus with Yale University Press that receives good reviews and is widely cited in subsequent scholarship, that suggests it's a good source for use in Wikipedia articles. The "quantitative specificity" you need to worry about is making sure that the article reports all significant points of view. Trying to limit sources by the type of press is not a good method of doing that, nor is trying to limit the number of "Christian sources," as you put it. And whether you intend it or no, that seems to be the end result of your proposal—a limit on the number of sources you deem Christian.

This should go without saying, but I don't agree that the presses you name "promote a particular view," as if every book they publish parrots the same opinion. Just on the topic of the historical Jesus, you can find books from these presses that sharply disagree with each other in terms of method and conclusions. So the appeal here to WP:RS is flawed (aside from the more nitpicky point that the section quoted is about journals, not presses). --Akhilleus (talk) 18:03, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

• Have to agree with Akhilleus here on all points. John Carter (talk) 17:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

• Agree with Akhilleus and John Carter. This is the same kind of nonsense that stirred up the whole "Slrubenstein called me a bigot" drama. Some unwitting soul is going to get just as fed up and start calling you bad words again if you push down this road so please spare us the future drama by not being prejudiced against religion in ways that are completely unsupported by Wikipedia policy.Griswaldo (talk) 20:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

• Support. These presses seem to be publishing mostly apologetic works. If something is published by these presses, it is likely to be from a fringe POV. As such, best avoided or at least should get much less of a preference. If a work is from a press like this, it should be prima facie evidence that it is unobjective and has nothing to do with fact checking. I would not support this as a hard and fast rule though.-Civilizededucation^talk 18:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

• Question Why isn't this listed under "Religion" topics at RfC, but instead "History"? Fruedian slip at the RfC list Noloop?Griswaldo (talk) 20:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

It says it all that you don't know the answer to your own question. Hint: this is not supposed to be a religious topic. This article is supposed to be about history. Noloop (talk) 22:13, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The irony, Noloop, is that you and Civilized have been arguing to retain a source that says claims precisely that historians don't even should not consider the question of Jesus' historicity. In other words that this topic is outside the purview of history. Cheers mate.Griswaldo (talk) 01:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

....a source that says precisely that historians don't even consider the question of Jesus' historicity...... It's good to see that you accept that the source says so "precisely".-Civilizededucation^talk 06:36, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Civilized, I forgot that you are having problems with the meaning of what he wrote -- that he writes in the abstract and not the concrete. Do my changes help? Do you get it now? Please let me know if you need it rephrased again.Griswaldo (talk) 12:19, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Pheeee. Bad sportmanship. You let it slip there. You can't change it now.-Civilizededucation^talk 14:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Judging by the sources that have been presented, it is in fact a religious topic. In fact, it looks as if religious views on the historicity of Jesus and the "historical" Jesus are more prominently represented than agnostic, secular, historical views. In my opinion there should not be a quota on religious sources, but they - like all other sources - should be noted for what they are and not passed off as historians, unless they happen to be historians as well and are recognised as such by mainstream historians. Employment by a department of history rather than religion or divinity and publications in mainstream historical journals would count as evidence of that. Religious affiliation does not invalidate that evidence, though the affiliation should be noted, just as would be the case with atheist activists like Dawkins. And note that religious views are very much on topic for this article and should be accurately represented from a neutral point of view. Martijn Meijering (talk) 23:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

We can't leave out Christian authors and sources - they make up the bulk of the sources on these subjects, and their contributions are largely valid and valuable. However, on a subject as sensitive (and unprovable) as religion, we need to ensure that the religious affiliations of all sources are noted, so that readers can judge their contribution in context. For example, on the equally-sensitive topic of Gaza, a statement from a Palestinian source would have a different context to a statement from an Israeli source, and so we should point out "Palestinian activist X says that ...", or "Israeli army spokesman Z says that ..." I see no reason why we should not add a few extra words to our quotes, along the lines of "Historian and Christian evangelist X says that ..." Wdford (talk) 09:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Martijn, you are mix and matching categories in problematic ways. You can differentiate the views of people based on their own religious background, or you can differentiate the views of people based on whether or not those views are considered historical, theological, etc., but you can't mix and match these sets of categories willy nilly. A historian's view is a historian's view, whether or not that historian is a Buddhist, a Christian, an agnostic or an atheist. When you say that "religious views" are more prominent than "historical views" I am not exactly sure what you mean. Do you mean religious historians are presenting these "religious views" or do you mean religious non-historians vs. all historians? I realize that there is a campaign going on by a couple of editors who have next to zero understanding of the discipline of Biblical studies to persuade people that no scholar in that discipline could be presenting a "historical view" or could be considered a "historian", but I hope you haven't fallen pray to this. If we want to compare the "historical view" to the "religious view", it can be done only if we realize that the religious view is not contingent on personal affiliation but on the nature of the view itself.Griswaldo (talk) 12:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Heheh, "fallen pray", is that a Freudian slip? ;-) I suppose I chose my words badly, but it is difficult to find a concise description of what I have in mind. What I meant by historical viewpoints is viewpoints that arise from research that is done by professional historians (who are employed by history departments, published by mainstream historical journals, cited in such journals etc) out of purely historical interest. At least in theory this can be done by both religious and agnostic individuals, although it seems unlikely to me that a religious person would not also be strongly motivated by his or her religious feelings. Note that I'm talking about motives here, not whether they are able to separate faith and science. I agree that religious individuals, including priests, can engage in bona fide historical research. Maybe you'll also agree that sometimes apologetics masquerades as historical research. The criterion for reliable historical sources should be the same as for all sources: are they employed by history departments, do they publish in mainstream historical journals and are they cited in such journals. All three would be best, but not absolutely necessary, and I suspect not in all cases possible. The latter in itself is grounds for *wondering* (no more, no less) about a possible bias. Martijn Meijering (talk) 13:03, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

This is a straightforward historical topic. Of course it is a religious topic, in the sense that anything that impinges on religion is religious: abortion, evolution, and the formation of the Earth are religious topics in that sense. Nonetheless, we don't cite publishers that aim to promote "a life of faith" in the article on evolution, and we would limit them severely in an article on abortion. Griswaldo, Akhilleus, et.al's characterization of this concern as having a Christian "litmus test" or prejudice against scholars who "happen" to be Christian is dishonest: They have repeatedly made that accusation. It has been repeatedly pointed out that there is no litmus test, and that priests and Christian presses do not just "happen" to be Christian. They have an professional stake in the promotion of worship. That makes them one-sided, and when they explicitly talk about their faith in asource, it makes that source unreliable as history. Noloop (talk) 14:57, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, in regards to this priest business, according to WL Craig, John Meier is the most important and influential historical Jesus scholar now writing. If we are to relate this to your RfC proposal, it appears you want to "Nearly Zero" references to "the most important and influential historical Jesus scholar". To me, this seems really backwards. But maybe this is just a snide comment aimed at priests and not related to the RFC topic because Meier's work is not published on these alleged Christian presses. To discuss the specifics of your RfC, the citations in the article from InterVarsity all represent a scholarly, but very conservative Christian POV. Bruce, Guthrie, Witherington. I don't think we should eliminate that POV (and really, who else is going to publish that POV?), but we do need to consider weight issues, as they do represent a minority position among scholars. Not sure if we should set a numerical standard on weight, but I definitely would oppose a strict numeric limit set based on publisher. We should be cautious that these scholars may represent a minority view and present it as such. As for for John Knox Press, we are citing a book by JD Crossan which makes the claim that Jesus' body was probably left for carrion birds and scavenging dogs, and perhaps ended up in a mass grave/left open to the elements. Crossan also makes claims such as the authors of the gospels invented stories about Jesus, and that the early Church made up traditions that don't date to Jesus. Another work from John Knox is from Powell, former chair of the SBL's Historical Jesus section, and called Jesus as a figure in history: how modern historians view the man. From the title and background of the author, seems like a great work for this article, and I'd like more evidence of how poor a book it is besides the publisher. Based on these two works (Crossan and Powell) on John Knox, I think they clearly publish scholarly content that isn't touting the Christian party line and would not include them on your list. I know, without doing more research, that Eerdmans has published the foremost volume on Old Testament textual criticism. So they do have scholarly material. We are currently citing Bruce and Dunn (included in the The Historical Jesus: Five Views), who are more conservative scholars. Then we have Bauckham, Van Voorst, and Neufeld who I don't really know much about. In my opinion, Eerdmans does contain clearly scholarly material, and therefore is generally of a good caliber in terms of WP:RS. The only other thing to consider is the particular positions we are presenting on a case by case basis in terms of due weight. I don't think we can place a blanket statement on the publisher, and I think undisputed facts, or majority positions presented in such works should not be questioned based on the publisher or Christian background of the authors. For example, do we have any reason to believe that these scholars cannot translate the Church Fathers, or present the contextual history of those documents (citations #152-155 in the article)? It would be absurd to me to have to go out and find another translation of the text, and another scholar saying the same thing about the background based solely on a google search of the mission statement of Eerdmans. I think such clumsy generalizations miss the point, that we need to focus on actual problematic article content (if there is any). -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Noloop there is great irony in your constant accusations against others for what you claim is dishonesty. When sources are produced from peer reviewed journals or academic publishers (like Oxford) you find whatever connection to Christianity you can to impugn the author despite the publisher. Maybe their faculty position is in a seminary? Maybe their job is in a religious studies department that happens to have "theological and religious studies" in the name? Maybe they had a named chair that had "divinity" in the title? You go to great lengths to argue for textually attributing a "Christian point of view" to these sources in whatever fashion you can, whether or not other academics accept their scholarship as secular and historical. The picture you paint above of merely being concerned about the theological perspectives of Christian ministers is distorted beyond belief. If that were truly the case most of us would be right there behind you fighting for the same thing. But clearly that is not the case.Griswaldo (talk) 15:06, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Of course it is a religious topic, in the sense that anything that impinges on religion is religious: abortion, evolution, and the formation of the Earth are religious topics in that sense.

It is much more than that: most of the people who care about the topic appear to be religious and the topic in question is almost exclusively of interest because of the religious views (past and present) on Jesus. Without Christianity Jesus would have been a "marginal Jew". Martijn Meijering (talk) 15:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Martijn, most of the people who care about almost all topics on could imagine are religious, because most of the people in the world are religious. When it comes to religion as a topic specifically most of the academics who write about Judaism are Jews, and most of the academics who write about Islam are Muslims. The same holds true for Christianity in general as well. That most of the academics doing scholarly research on the historicity of Jesus are Christian should not be a surprise to anyone. Do Christian authors worry that Muslim scholars of Islam are biased? Generally no. Do Muslim scholars worry that Jewish scholars of Judaism are biased? Again, no. Do non-religious critics claim that religious scholars are biased ... apparently all the time. The issue here is less about Christianity and the notion that non-Christians are suspicious of Christian scholarship on Jesus, but non-religious critics attacking the the religion that in the West they are most fervently against. From a sociological perspective the whole issue very easily falls into the same old culture wars nonsense that we're inundated with all the time here in the United States. I'd like the atheists in the room to step back and consider what non-atheists who are also non-Christians consider about this question. Or are they just as biased because they are also "religious"? If the answer to you is yes then I think the answer to the larger question of what is going on here is self-evident as well.Griswaldo (talk) 15:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that making insinuations about the religious/irreligious persuasions of other eds can be touchy. And you may even be wide off the mark.-Civilizededucation^talk 15:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Am I off the mark? There is either an ideological battle going on here or a continued willful ignorance of how academia works. It is hard to believe that someone without a vested interest in certain ideological viewpoints would be so hard headed about the reality of academic research into religion when it is presented to them over and over again. But what do I know. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 15:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I should also clarify here that I do not assume that all the people who share Noloop's perspective are atheists. Not at all. I do think however, that this perspective is a product of so called "secular" side of culture wars rhetoric. There are two unfortunate cultures of suspicion that are products of the culture wars. One is religious, and it is suspicious of the "secular", but the other is not secular per se, but liberal more generally and it is suspicious of the overtly "religious". This culture includes, in fact is populated mostly by the liberally religious and not the overtly secular (atheists, free thinkers, etc.). Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 16:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I hope you realize the futility of taking wild shots (on anyone). The world is much more complicated than we imagine. You could still be incorrect. Anyway, I think more than the "culture wars" thing, this is what could lead us to a closer understanding of ourselves (our own impulses and inclinations).-Civilizededucation^talk 03:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.WP:V. This may be a persuasive reason to try to stay away from involved sources. But I am in a quandary considering what Wdford has said about sources.-Civilizededucation^talk 15:25, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

There are plenty of sources on religious views on the historicity of Jesus. There are far fewer third party sources on views among professional historians. If anything this would encourage us not to have an article with the title "historicity of Jesus", taken as a descriptive article title (WP:NDESC). Instead, we should have an article using the term of art "historicity of Jesus" as it is understood by the branch of religious studies (not history!) known as historical Jesus research. Note that that article suffers from the same descriptive/term of art problem. Martijn Meijering (talk) 16:20, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Martijn, religious studies includes history. Within religious studies you have philosophers, historians, sociologists, etc. There is no unified methodology in religious studies. Almost everyone specializes in another disciplinary methodology. The historical study of religion is almost exclusively done by historians who are trained either in history programs or in religious studies programs but usually have appointments in religious studies departments. It is really hard to have to repeat these things over and over again.Griswaldo (talk) 16:24, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I am aware of that, but my point was that history of religion is a branch of religious studies, not a branch of history. To the degree that scholars employed by history departments, or published/cited in mainstream historical journals, publish on the matter, it can be considered historical research. I'm not denying such sources exist, in fact Hardyplants seems to have identified a few. I'd like to see more of that and less defense of "historians" of dubious because unverifiable reliability. Martijn Meijering (talk) 16:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Historians of religion are historians. They publish in historical journals all the time. I'm not sure what you are getting at here. You're creating a false dichotomy between "history" and "history of religion". There are historians, who have appointments in history departments, who also focus on religion. Just as there are historians who focus on food history who happen to be part of a culinary arts program and not a history department, and historians of the Near East who have appointments in Near Eastern languages programs, and historians of Scandinavia who have appointments in Scandinavian studies departments. The boundaries that you have erected here are artificial.Griswaldo (talk) 16:33, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

To the degree they are published in historical journals there is no problem. Note that I didn't say they necessarily weren't historians, just that history of religion is a branch of religious studies, not a branch of history. The two statements are distinct. Similarly history of mathematics is a branch of mathematics, not a branch of history. I suspect that in many cases its practioners really are mathematicians, not historians, and I know there has been an amount of methodological criticism because of that. As another example consider mathematical physics, which despite the name is generally considered a branch of mathematics, not a branch of physics. Normally this isn't a problem, but it is helpful to identify a source as a mathematical physicist rather than a physicist or mathematician in general. And mathematics and physics are perhaps even more closely related disciplines than history and religious studies. Martijn Meijering (talk) 16:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Martijn, the comparison to mathematics is not apropos. Mathematics is a field of study. "Religion" is not really a field of study. The reason we have "Religious studies", and please note the plural, is because "Religion" is not so much like "mathematics" but more like "numbers", or as my examples above would note "food", or "the Near East". These are subjects that can be approached in any number of ways. You have religious studies (plural) because they are approached in a variety of ways. There is no "religious study". Does that make sense?Griswaldo (talk) 16:49, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

On an anecdotal note, religious studies has undergone some rather intense criticism over the last few decades from within and without, and in no small part because of the lack of methodological uniformity. There are examples of religious studies departments which were disbanded in the United States during this time. The faculty in these departments were relocated in departments of history, sociology, philosophy, etc. I don't fault you, or anyone else, for not knowing these things, and in fact I'm quite intrigued by the idea that there seems to be an idea of what "religious studies" is floating around out there that is to me the complete reverse of what it really is.Griswaldo (talk) 16:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Maybe this will be helpful Martijn. Here is a listing of historical journals that deal with religion. Please note that the listing comes from the American Historial Association ... and not a religious studies association (like the American Academy of Religions). See list here. Do these journals qualify as "history journals"? You'll find most of the contributers to these journals to be in departments of religion, at schools of theology, etc. What do we make of that?Griswaldo (talk) 16:44, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

We consider them historians of religion. And note that many of these sources have explicit religious affiliations. Take the "American Baptist Quarterly: a Baptist journal of history, theology and ministry". Martijn Meijering (talk) 16:52, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

So therefore every historian publishing in any journal listed in the AHA taxonomy by subject (see here) is not a "historian" but a "'historian of ..."? Or is it just historians of religion that it applies to? Martijn forgive me here but what you say makes little logical sense to me. Please explain on what basis you make a distinction that the largest historical association in the United States does not?Griswaldo (talk) 16:58, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes and no. I've already named the criteria I think we should apply (employment, publications, citations) and I believe those are general Wikipedia policy. Under those criteria a historian of mathematics would generally be considered a mathematician. Depending on the context it might be appropriate to describe him or her as a mathematician or as historian of mathematics, or without any epithet. If publishing in a general historical journal such a person might be quoted on a historical subject without even naming their qualifications. And as it happens as a student I was acquainted with someone who went on to obtain degrees in both history and mathematics. Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:07, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Martijn, what on earth is a "general historical journal"? I can't find the "general" category in the AHA taxonomy of journals -- they are all classified either by region, time period or subject matter. What is the criteria for "employment" and where does the criteria come from? You're saying now that only an appointment in a department of "history", so named, counts for this criteria? That would be completely absurd. If that is the criteria then we can rule out all the ancient historians in classics departments as well ... archeology also. I guess you can't cite anyone as a historian of the ancient world anymore. Jeez.Griswaldo (talk) 17:16, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say you needed all three criteria. Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:26, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Ancient history is sometimes shared between classics and history, it used to be at my alma mater. Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok, but that means that anybody not in a department called "History" needs to be published or cited in a "general historical journal". What is that? Please let me know.Griswaldo (talk) 17:28, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Probably, if you want to refer to them as historians or if you want to use them as sources for general historical statements of fact, or about a consensus among historians. Note that the reverse also applies, you can't use any historian as a source on NT studies. I'll have to think a bit about general historical journals, but as a first stab I'd say journals without a religious affiliation (i.e. no "Baptist Quarterly") or religious subject matter (i.e. no "Journal for the Study of the New Testament", even if much of it uses historical methods). Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Wait a minute. "Without a religious subject matter?" Here again you're making an arbitrary distinction between "religion" as a subject, or say "food", or "war", or "politics". Why should religion, as a subject matter, make a journal different from "war" as a subject matter?Griswaldo (talk) 17:59, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Not at all, I'd say military history is part of defence studies, or whatever they call what is taught at military academies. Martijn Meijering (talk) 18:02, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

OK and by that logic Near Eastern history is part of "Near Eastern studies" and "Scandinavian history" is part of "Scandinavian studies", and so on and so forth. There is no such thing as "general history" though and there are no "general historians". I remain confused by what you're trying to distinguish here.Griswaldo (talk) 18:04, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

In reality of course, "military history", is a branch of history, and so is "religious history". See here for instance.Griswaldo (talk) 18:13, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

They are usually taught in different departments or even at different institutions. And they have no religious affiliation. Something like the American Baptist Quarterly cannot be used as if it were an ordinary historical journal. You could never be sure you'd filtered out the Baptist bit, or the "theology and ministry" bit. Martijn Meijering (talk) 14:17, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

While history often deals with military and religious topics, it has a general scholarly intent as opposed to a practical one. Military history is taught to prospective military leaders, so that they can base their strategies and tactics on what has been tried before, thus making them better soldiers and generals. Likewise, Christian history is for making people better Christians, which is why it's taught in seminaries to future clergy. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:27, 5 November 2010 (UTC)