Talk:Historicity of Jesus/Archive 31

Archive 25

←

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Archive 33

→

Archive 35

Proposed change to first paragraph

I propose the definition of the article be changed to: "The historicity of Jesus concerns the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth", seeing as it is the official definition of historicity. MoeDew (talk) 01:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Verifiability vs. truth: undoing text removal

It is official policy that Wikipedia does not evaluate truth claims. All it matters is information provided by secondary sources which qualify for reliable sources. So don't remove sourced material "because it ain't true", since we do not discuss truth here. Instead, come with your own reliable sources and add their information to the article. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Jesus as myth

In the opening sentence "The existence of Jesus as a historical figure has been questioned by biblical scholars and historians" I remove "historians", because AFAIK today there aren't historians supporting the jesus myth theory, so the sentence was misleading. Any feedback is welcome. --F.giusto (talk) 23:03, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

... and I changed it completely. The question is "Did Jesus exist?" not "Is the evidence that Jesus existed reliable?" That is the context of the question, but NOT the question. I've phrased the question succinctly and added the reason why it is a question (the "historically reliable and accurate" question about the evidence). projectphp (talk) 02:07, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Too Many Links

The starting paragraph has too many links strung together. There is no way that the links relate directly to the quote, and it distracts from the point. A user shouldn't have to wade through 10 links to see whether or not is supports the statement. Instead, each point should have a link e.g. Jesus was regarded as teacher[link] and healer[link], that he was baptized by John the Baptist[link] etc etc. projectphp (talk) 01:47, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Definition of the article

Can we find a reference for the definition of "historicity of Jesus" instead of entering whatever we think it's right? MoeDew (talk) 19:56, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Opening sentece, I turned back to 22 December version. Let's avoid edit wars and enjoy dialogue. Thank you. --F.giusto (talk) 23:48, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

We were having a discussion thank you very much. Martijn Meijering (talk) 23:53, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Some quick on-line dictionary definitions of "historicity":

1. Farlex Free Dictionary - "historical authenticity" [1]
2. Merriam Webster - "historical actuality" [2]
3. Babylon Online dictionary - "quality of actually having occurred; quality of being factual" [3]
4. Reverso English Dictionary - "historical authenticity" [4]

My (serious) problem with using a definition limited to "existence" is that the mainstream agree that somebody named Jesus existed in that place and time, but there is major disagreement about how much of what the gospels say about him is true. If we limit this article to the mere existence of somebody who was "sort-of Jesus-like", then we are merely arguing existence vs non-existence, which is the basis of the Jesus myth theory article. The basis of this article is to examine the extent to which Jesus of Nazareth really did exist as described in the Bible, i.e. virgin birth to resurrection with miracles in between. Its not at all the same thing as "mere existence". Wdford (talk) 18:06, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

One problem with saying that the historicity of Jesus concerns how much that is written about him is reliable is that it seems false at first sight. I'd be inclined to think it means whether Jesus existed or not as Moe Dew and others have suggested. But on closer inspection, if Jesus didn't exist, then who is this Jesus we are talking about? The question becomes meaningless, since you cannot identify a non-existent person other than by referring to a body of literature, legend etc. The obvious reference point is the New Testament. Maybe we could say that the historicity of Jesus is the question of whether the Jesus described in the Gospels was a historical person. Not everything said in the Gospels has to be perfectly historically accurate in order to affirm the historicity of Jesus. In addition, the Gospels are not the only sources. In a very real sense the question of the historicity of Jesus is therefore at least very closely related to the question of how much that is written about Jesus is historically accurate. Nevertheless that remains a jarring and clumsy way of introducing the subject to the reader. I think Projectphp found a very good solution to this dilemma and I would propose we accept it. Martijn Meijering (talk) 19:20, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

The Jesus myth theory article only focuses on the "non-existence" theory. It is perfectly common to have a main article on an issue and the other articles detailing each side. Nevertheless, would it not be a good idea to have a source for the definition instead of simply entering what we think is right?MoeDew (talk) 19:09, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Paragraph on Historicity of Paul

This entire paragraph has numerous POV issues, no sources, and apparently some original conclusions, so I excised it:

But there are also doubts as to the historicity of Paul who appears nowhere in the secular histories of his age (not in Tacitus, not in Pliny, not in Josephus, etc.) Though Paul, we are told, mingled in the company of provincial governors and had audiences before kings and emperors, no scribe thought it worthwhile to record these events. The popular image of the saint is selectively crafted from two sources: the Book of Acts and the Epistles which bear his name. Yet the two sources actually present two radically different individuals and two wildly divergent stories. There is also the point that when Paul was said to be persecuting Christians, it is accepted that there were very few Christians anywhere so they were ignored by all.

71.95.197.94 (talk) 19:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

"But there are also doubts as to the historicity of Paul"

Yeah, ok.

Please sign your comments and get an RS. Thanks.-Civilizededucation^talk 01:17, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Contradiction in the lead section

Today, the lead section include the following contradiction:

• The majority of scholars who study early Christianity believe that the Gospels do contain some reliable information about Jesus,
• a majority of modern critical biblical scholars no longer believe this is the case.

The second sentence you cite above doesn't refer to the first one, but the one that comes between them (in the article), which deals with the authorship of the Gospels. I'm pretty sure of that since I added it. The text has been revised many times and please feel free to edit it in a way that removes ambiguity. Martijn Meijering (talk) 18:31, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

As I understand the issue at hand there are three schools of thought:

1. Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God, who lived and died in Jerusalem 2000 years ago.
2. Jesus was the founder of Christianity.
3. Jesus is a myth, legend or literary device used by Paul and the apostles in their teachings.

It was my understanding that Number 2 (Jesus was the founder of Christianity) was the majority opinion held by historical scholars at universities everywhere. That this opinion is common among secular academics, religious academics and atheist academics. It seems to me that whenever I pick up a survey history of the world, Jesus Christ is listed among the movers and shakers of the first century. It was my understanding the Number 3 above (Jesus is a myth) was a relatively new scholarly hypothesis, slowly gaining ground chiefly among atheists. One way or the other, it seems that these points (at least) should be clear in the lead section. -ErinHowarth (talk) 19:07, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The first is not relevant, as it's a purely religious belief. Dylan Flaherty 19:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

The ....majority of modern critical biblical scholars no longer believe this is the case. is referring to the issue of authorship of gospels. So, there is no contradiction.-Civilizededucation^talk 00:14, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The third school of thought (which is not new) is not relevant, too. Born in the 1800s, it's not backed by historians (no difference among believers and non believers) because of lack of supporting evidence. Today there is also a growing confidence on the use of apocryphal texts and the availability of archaeological data. This school of thought can anyway be interesting as a pure philosophical hypothesis (methodologically, we cannot be absolutely sure of anything about the past). --F.giusto (talk) 23:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

If three is wrong, then we need four: there is little to no evidence Jesus existed, and not in a form anyone would recognize as Jesus - projectphp (talk) 01:42, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Number two is irrelevant. Paul, if he existed, was the founder of the Church. Paul did not meet Jesus in flesh. Paul started to witness about a Jesus who should have lived at the same time, even if there had to be a dozen disciples and literally thousands of living witnesses of Jesus in flesh. Why did Paul have to front the Church? According to Ellegard Jesus had already been dead one hundred years when Paul established his religious campaign. Ellegards description fits the myth better than the description taught by the Church. St.Trond (talk) 21:23, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

If he existed? At any rate, Paul's letters make clear that there was a Christian community already in existence before his own conversion. john k (talk) 01:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

I wonder if two and three are mutually exclusive. Might there have been some sort of Jesus, who perhaps was a charismatic leader of a small sect of Jews, who died (or so it was reputed) at the hands of the authorities in Jerusalem. As such he served as the foundation Christainity (without, necessarily, founding anything more than a community of associates, if that). The Jesus of Chritianity as it developed and became an organised, established religion over the next two centuries, however, was largely mythological. His story a combination of preexisting, common, if not universal, myths, shrewd confabulation, and not disinterested surmise cobbled together and refined into a cannon of scripture and associated forms of worship with several branches and interpretations, with much to dispute and elaborate on. The unifying organising principle being that of the Roman Empire, early Christianity benefited from the hierarchy and authority inherent in its structure to cement, and further distill, its scriptures and doctrine into a strong and successful ediface. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.212.110.88 (talk) 19:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

In an article about the historicity of Jesus, it is more appropriate to cite to historians than Bible scholars. Bible scholars know the Bible well. And they surely have some working knowledge of ancient history. But historians know the historical methods used to establish historicity. Bible scholars do not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.251.145.68 (talk) 02:31, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I dispute the neutrality of this article. Using Bible scholars instead of antiquities historians to show scholarly consensus on Christ's historicity exhibits a bias for a religious viewpoint. It appeals to inappropriate authority anyway. The issue is Christ's historicity, and therefore antiquities scholars--historians--are the appropriate source. This article is not neutral, and it should be edited. Either that line should be removed, or it should cite to appropriate authorities on the matter. If it isn't changed within 24 hours, or my comments responded to, I will edit out the inappropriate materials. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.251.145.68 (talk) 16:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The quest for the historical Jesus appeared among theologians and Bible scholars. My two cents are that ordinary historians, although they may have a private opinion on whether Jesus has really existed, have not produced much research on these matters. Therefore, such research is produced by those who care most about the historicity of Jesus, and most of them seem to be theologians or teaching at divinity schools. Thus the debate itself is biased because most scholars have faith from the start that Jesus really existed. However, as encyclopedia authors, we only render secondary sources and the debate among scholars who research this matter. We cannot just make polls for rank and file historians and judge the historicity of Jesus according to such polls. Bart D. Ehrman, an agnostic, has convinced me that Jesus really existed (I'm not a Christian). He also holds the opinion that Gospels are not reliable historical documents, but he does historical research about Jesus despite of such claim. In the end, there is simply no consensus on whether Jesus existed or not, and this is why we render the most relevant positions inside this debate, instead of passing our own judgment on whether Jesus did really exist. So, the thesis that Jesus did not exist is notable enough to demand being included in the article, but as said above, it is more of a minority view among those who earn a living by doing scholarly work on the historical existence of Jesus. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:05, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

You raise interesting points. But really, for the casual reader, the article creates a false impression that there is a scholarly consensus, which you say does not exist. An edited discussion of what you just posted would be better than what is written. Readers should understand that the issue is still controversial, and that the consensus the article purports is among people who, as you concede, "have faith from the start" that Jesus really existed. The line is inappropriate, misleading, and biased as written. It needs to either be substantially qualified or eliminated. Maybe the line should be, "Among Bible scholars, who tend to begin their studies with the faith that Jesus was real, the majority view is that Jesus was real. There is no evidence of a consensus on Christ's historicity among professional academic historians." I'd have less serious objection to that than what is written. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.251.145.68 (talk) 18:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are based on what the sources say, and there are several sources cited in this article which plainly say that there is a scholarly consensus that Jesus existed. The article shouldn't be changed based on editors' impression that there's a controversy—unless there are some sources that say there is a scholarly controversy. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Well Akhilleus, we've been over this many times... There are recent reliable sources from among HJ researchers who dispute this and little to no evidence in favour of this consensus that comes from academic historians. BUT... I think we can remove part of the controversy by renaming the article to Historical Jesus Research, where we can identify a scholarly mainstream, consisting mainly of theologians and scholars of religions - and the two terms are not synonymous as we've discussed before -, and state their views. Martijn Meijering (talk) 18:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Oops, my bad, confused this article with the HJ article. Martijn Meijering (talk) 18:39, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

The issues are the same, though—and there is no reason to draw an artificial division between "academic historians" and "theologians and scholars of religion". A scholar of ancient religion can be a historian (and vice versa). Furthermore, ancient historians (i.e., scholars who study the history of ancient Greece/Rome) are academic historians, and we have statements from ancient historians who say that there's consensus on this issue. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:47, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I have never conceded that there were reliable sources to demonstrate a consensus among historians (but I'll happily accept there is a broad consensus among HJ researchers), but let's leave that aside for now. If you look at the criticism section of the HJ article, you'll see that statements by Akenson, Meier and Hoffmann give us strong reason to doubt that there is a consensus among historians as to the methodological soundness of HJ research, which calls into doubt claims (widely held ones among HJ researchers, probably a consensus) that there is a consensus among historians as to the historicity of Jesus. I wouldn't be surprised if there were a consensus, but we need evidence and the evidence we've seen looks sloppy and biased to me. Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I followed a course in religion studies at the University of Amsterdam. Prof. Wouter Hanegraaff said that there is a practical division of work among religion studies scholars and theologians: religion studies scholars study mostly other religions than Christianity, and theologians study mostly Christianity. It is not an absolute rule, but it is the way things get done. We could presume that a similar division of work applies to historical research, e.g. Bart Ehrman was educated as a theologian but later became a historian of the New Testament, while mainstream historians have less interest in this subject. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:12, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are based on what the sources say, and there are several sources cited in this article which plainly say that there is a scholarly consensus that Jesus existed.

This argument misses the point. The issue is whether the scholars cited are the best, most appropriate scholars to cite. This article is titled "Historicity of Jesus." Professional historians are the appropriate authority. Were the issue a matter of Biblical interpretation, Bible scholars would be the appropriate authority. That is the basic issue that you have not responded to.

The article shouldn't be changed based on editors' impression that there's a controversy—unless there are some sources that say there is a scholarly controversy.

Neither should the article cite inappropriate authority for the subject matter at hand. The article should be changed if as a result of an appeal to inappropriate authority, the article creates a false impression, or shows a bias for a particular point of view.

The issues are the same, though—and there is no reason to draw an artificial division between "academic historians" and "theologians and scholars of religion". A scholar of ancient religion can be a historian (and vice versa).

The distinction is not artificial, and there's every reason to recognize the real difference between academic disciplines when establishing appropriate authority. Especially since Bible scholars begin their studies on the faith that Christ was real. It is good to know there is consensus among theologians--people focused on understanding religious doctrine--for Christ's historicity. But it doesn't do much to illuminate the issue for objective observers.

If you look at the criticism section of the HJ article, you'll see that statements by Akenson, Meier and Hoffmann give us strong reason to doubt that there is a consensus among historians as to the methodological soundness of HJ research, which calls into doubt claims (widely held ones among HJ researchers, probably a consensus) that there is a consensus among historians as to the historicity of Jesus.

This right here is the crux of the whole matter. Professional historians, with specialized training in the historical methods used to establish historicity, are appropriate authorities here. If there is consensus among them, great. Let's cite to it. If not, then let's modify the article to either a) eliminate the offending passage, or b) include appropriate caveats as to its limitations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.251.145.68 (talk) 22:42, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

This discussion—as usual—is proceeding on faulty premises. It seems that we're back to claims that anyone who specializes in the study of Christianity does so from a faith-based perspective. 64.251.145.68 has just said "there is a practical division of work among religion studies scholars and theologians: religion studies scholars study mostly other religions than Christianity, and theologians study mostly Christianity" and used this premise to qualify any consensus about Jesus' historicity as limited to theologians, who "begin their studies on the faith that Christ was real." It may well be that traditionally in European academic systems one studies the history of Christianity in a theology department. But I don't think this is necessarily the case in Europe now, and it's certainly not the case in the United States today. If you want to study early Christianity at a liberal arts college or university in the United States, most likely you will do so in a department of religious studies—e.g. Williams College, Reed College, Oberlin College, George Washington University (see the entry for Paul Duff), Duke University, The University of Texas at Austin, and Harvard University for examples. Implicit in the structure of these programs is that Christianity is one religion among many, to be studied from a variety of scholarly perspectives—one of which is certainly that of history. For instance, the homepage of Reed College's Religion Department describes its curriculum thus: "The aims of the curriculum are two: to introduce students to the various religious traditions of the world—Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Buddhism, for example—and to acquaint students with a variety of recognized methodologies employed in the study of religion—philosophical, social scientific, and historical."

There seems to be an assumption in these discussions that academic disciplines are monolithic and self-contained entities, dominated by a single method or set of methods. But this isn't the way that any academic department I'm familiar with (at least in the humanities and social sciences) works. Interdisciplinarity is the norm—walk into any English department and you'll find people studying literature and culture using methods borrowed from just about any discipline people can get their hands on—anthropology, sociology, economics, linguistics, history, etc. etc. Now, someone whose research focuses on how Victorian science and technology shaped the novels of the period wouldn't normally be called a historian, because their research uses the methods of historical study to illuminate works of literature. On the other hand, someone who teaches in a religious studies department whose research focuses on the social context and economic context of early Christianity often would be called a historian, because their research uses historical methods to understand more fully a historical process (e.g., the growth of Christianity in its ancient Palestinian context). So, then, there should be no hesitation to find "professional historians" in religion departments. Furthermore, there is no reason to assume that scholars working in theology departments cannot be "professional historians", since scholars in theology departments study a wide range of topics, including historical ones. (And note further that working in a theology department does not mean that one is Christian, or even religious. It simply means that one studies "theology"—which can be quite broadly defined.)

As for Martjin's statement that If you look at the criticism section of the HJ article, you'll see that statements by Akenson, Meier and Hoffmann give us strong reason to doubt that there is a consensus among historians as to the methodological soundness of HJ research, which calls into doubt claims (widely held ones among HJ researchers, probably a consensus) that there is a consensus among historians as to the historicity of Jesus. it should be noted that doubts about the methodology used to reconstruct Jesus' life do not automatically lead to doubt that Jesus existed. Akenson, Meier, and Hoffmann don't say that there is scholarly doubt about the mere fact of Jesus' existence, do they? --Akhilleus (talk) 03:59, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Agreed on the last point. It does suggest that we cannot simply rely on statements by HJ researchers about an alleged consensus among historians. I've long held this opinion of course as you know, and I believe the onus is on HJ researchers to prove that they should be considered historians who are qualified to proclaim a consensus among historians. But now in Akenson, Meier and Hoffmann we have evidence from both HJ researchers and historians that undermine the reliability of such sources. Note that I personally believe in the historicity of Jesus (though not in his divinity or divine inspiration), and I personally believe a majority of historians if polled would also support the historicity of Jesus, we just need reliable sources to that effect. I do not consider the say so of HJ researchers themselves good enough and here I honestly believe (but cannot prove) the historical community in general doesn't view history of religions as practised by departments of religious studies as a mere branch of history, on a scholarly par with other branches of history. I'd be happy to be better informed if this is not the case, but then I'd like to see some evidence. I don't doubt that history of religions itself is accepted as a valid field of research, and I do accept that there are scholars employed by departments of religious studies who are considered bona fide historians by the historical community. Martijn Meijering (talk) 21:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

By the division of work Hanegraaff referred to the publication of research papers. In getting educated in religious studies one does study Christianity, it is just that Christianity will not be the main focus of religious studies scholars during their research career (speaking in general). Also, as Bart Ehrman shows, being educated as a theologian does not imply that one remains a believer for all his/her life. People can change their minds about their faith. I was not saying that Ehrman is not a historian. I was saying that for practical reasons, most historians don't specialize in the history of the Bible. One does find historians teaching in divinity schools: they remain historians but their main focus has to do with what they teach there. This subject did not appear from nowhere, it has a history of its own, it has scholarly authorities, it has ways of asking the questions, it has ways of solving problems, so although there is no coercion to accept the real existence of Jesus as a fact, one is likely to find more scholars agreeing with the real existence of Jesus rather than disagreeing with it. As humans we are not free from bias, especially in humanities and social sciences. So, having some sort of assumptions is natural and it would not count as pseudoscience. The historians in general don't decide in respect to this consensus (or lack of it), since most of them have not studied the subject. Only those historians who have studied the subject decide upon having a consensus, and they're more likely to accept the existence of Jesus. So, there is some sort of bias, but not the sort of bias which would render it pseudoscience. Since most research is produced by those who care about the existence of Jesus, we have to render the majority opinion of the experts, since is they who publish in peer-reviewed, print-published scientific journals. Militant atheists (the new atheists) also care about the real existence of Jesus, but they are rather a minority position. E.g., there could be atheist scholars who believe in the real existence of Jesus, they have no agenda of denying his existence, as the militant atheists have. So, the minority position is as biased as the majority position, there's no way to avoid bias. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

The assumption that the new atheists deny the existence of Jesus, as put forward by Tgeorgescu, is not true. They are perfectly prepared to accept Jesus as a man, living in first century Palestine. What they are not prepared to accept is the Christian "baggage" that goes with conventional Christianity - that he was born of a virgin, that he is the only begotten son of God, that he could raise people from the dead and walk on water etc etc. These elements they see as added on, either from the "pesher" technique of ransacking the scriptures to find passages "fulfilled" in Jesus, or coming from the Greco-Roman context in which the stories were promulgated. John D. Croft (talk) 13:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Ok, agreed. This means that there are even fewer Jesus-as-a-real-man-deniers than I thought. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:56, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Militant atheists (the new atheists) also care about the real existence of Jesus, but they are rather a minority position. E.g., there could be atheist scholars who believe in the real existence of Jesus, they have no agenda of denying his existence, as the militant atheists have. So, the minority position is as biased as the majority position, there's no way to avoid bias. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

When did this become an issue of militant atheism vs. religionism? I'm a Christian. I have faith that Jesus is my personal lord and savior, that he was resurrected from the dead, and ascended to heaven. That's why my sole concern here is adherence to proper historical method in an article on historicity. It would be interesting to hear from someone willing to thrice deny the existence of God and the divinity of Christ who holds the point of view that theologians and divinity scholars are appropriate authorities in an article on the historicity of Christ.

It's almost like some people here have an agenda that isn't the promotion of truth and best practices on Wikipedia, but rather the promotion of a particular point of view in an ideological battle that can't be settled. I'm not saying that is the case. I'm just saying it sort of seems like that. Especially since some posters here seem more focused on the minority/majority status of historicity among laypersons than on evidence of real consensus among an appropriate scholarly community.

But surely everyone here is acting in good faith. It's not like this is one of those pages on the Palestinian/Israel controversy where there's a strong motive for people with an ax to grind to edit the page in order to promote a viewpoint, rather than promote truth.

There is such a thing as historical method which is accepted within the community of academic historians. And that method is why this article should appeal to historians. That method, and the peer review process, is why this article should appeal to historians and not theologians for its authority.

I have more to write, but life beckons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.251.145.68 (talk) 18:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Well, I am not a Christian, but I believe that Jesus really existed. I don't deny that the existence of a real person two thousand years ago is a matter for historians to decide. It is just that history, theology and religion studies are not mutually exclusive. It could be that rank-and-file historians don't publish scholarly works about Jesus since they recognize that the historical Jesus is more of a playground for theologians. At least, it is very difficult to do historical research about Jesus while ignoring theology. And theology is not what most historians learn in universities. There's so much to study in history, and the existence of Jesus is a tiny and obscure subject among thousand of issues worthy of study. It is like requiring that every biologist should be a specialist in bees keeping. The issue discussed here is about whether historical Jesus scholars do sound science. Wikipedia is about rendering sound science. So, I understand the doubts, but if this research subject is mostly dominated by theologians and religion studies scholars turned historians, I would say that the discussion about history and historians in general is a red herring. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:20, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Besides, it is an argument from silence: most historians don't produce research about the historicity of Jesus, therefore their lack of interest would be evidence that Jesus did not exist. Now I am not saying that "Jesus did exist" would be a fact. I'm saying that the absence of a lot of research is not evidence of the fact that he did not exist. All I am saying is that those who produce historical research about Jesus have different opinions on his existence, and we have to render the majority opinion as majority opinion and the minority opinion as minority opinion. I.e., as the majority of historical researchers about Jesus think that he did exist (whatever he was: liar, Lord, lunatic or "legend", i.e. it would be a legend that he called himself Lord), while a minority of researchers think that he did not exist. Both such opinions have their place in the article and they should be labeled as "majority opinion" and "minority opinion" respectively. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Was Jesus a Jew?

This topic has been brought up by a novice editor on the article page, but without citations, these edits have been reverted. However, it bears discussion. Are there reliable sources that suggest he isn't? Rklawton (talk) 18:52, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Of course not. There are many unreliable ones, though. See Race of Jesus. Paul B (talk) 19:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

What is going on here--> Jesus outside the New Testament

Looks like an article which duplicates the purpose of part of this article has been created. Jesus outside the New Testament seems to act to compile sources of Jesus (outside the New Testament), while this article's section 3, 4, and part of 5 do the same thing. I know myself and SLR in the past have thrown around the idea of a "sources" in the past (i.e. [[5]], where it was shot down as us having way too many spin out articles as it is). Just wanted to bring this to you all's attention, to see if that article is appropriate, or if it can be improved, or incorporated better with our hierarchy and such. -Andrew c ^[talk] 02:12, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Back to the fountainhead

Andrew, I actually agree with you. I am not sure what the solution is. The problem is that sources explain that during the formative years of Early Christianity 75 ancient witnesses testify to the fact that there was a Hebrew Gospel in circulation. Google Link Over 12 different witnesses testify that it was written by the Apostle Matthew. Google Link No ancient writer either Christian or Non-Christian challenges these two facts. Google Link

Letter to Pope Damasus Jerome, 383 A.D.

The labor is one of love, but at the same time both perilous . . . I am now speaking of the New Testament. This was undoubtedly composed in Greek, with the exception of the work of Matthew the Apostle, who was the first to commit to writing the Gospel of Christ, and who published his work in Judæa in Hebrew characters. We must confess that as we have it in our language it is marked by discrepancies, and now that the stream is distributed into different channels we must go back to the fountainhead.

Nicholson, Parker, Edwards, Bütz and others agree with Jerome. Thus the Hebrew Gospel is the basis for a number of topics. How do we go back to the fountainhead without duplicating material? The matter is further complicated by the fact that the Catholic Church and a number of scholars believe that Jerome was wrong and that the Gospel of Matthew in the Bible was written by Matthew with no discrepancies. I will defer to your wisdom. Until then I will redirect the article as a sign of good faith Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 04:26, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that Hebrew gospel stuff is interesting. I always, always thought it was an interesting feature (anomaly) that most scholars believe the Matthew we have was originally written in Greek, no doubt about it, yet we have church fathers clearly describing a 'Hebrew' gospel. That said, when it comes to this topic, since that gospel is lost, historians simply cannot use it to reconstruct the life of Jesus, nor use it to attest to his historicity in any way. So it really isn't relevant here, even though it probably is relevant in discussing, to some degree, sources (or lost sources) on the historical Jesus (and then we do have Lost books of the New Testament)). I appreciate you sign of good faith, but I'm not sure we need to redirect the article yet. I just wanted to get input from editors here. Perhaps we could make a joint proposal to cut down on the sourcing material here, and have a main hatnote in those section pointing to Jesus outside the New Testament and then merge all the relevant content to your new article, keeping a little here per summary style. Or are there still editors here adamant about not creating more new articles (the anti-spinout crowd). -Andrew c ^[talk] 20:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is why I find Bütz etc so very fascinating. They maintain that the Matthew's Hebrew Gospel is not actually lost but preserved in the writings of the Church Fathers. Thus, the Historical Jesus is "more Jewish" and became "one with God" at his baptism. Also if Edwards is right and Matthew wrote an eye witness account which served as the basis for the Synoptic gospels, then it would impact the the historical reliability of said gospels. Now don't get me wrong. I am not saying Nicholson, Parker, Edwards, Bütz etc are correct. What I am saying is that they are reliable sources that should be heard along with those who believe they are mistaken. It is important that we write from a NPOV which will not be easy but it is important to get thing right. Your help is important. I now have a strong grasp of the referenced material but I need learned admin to keep me from making Wikipedia policy blunders. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 21:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Andrew c. I have no objection with an article on the Hebrew gospel. I also understand that some duplication of material may be needed in other articles in order to have a wholesome and intelligent discussion of those topics. However, the proposal to dismember this article is as distasteful now, as it was earlier. In order to have an intelligent discussion of historicity of jesus, it is absolutely necessary to provide a discussion of the sources for the historicity of jesus. Without such a discussion, this article won't make good sense. This is an interesting article and we should keep it. I don't see how an article on the hebrew gospel might necessitate the dismemberment of this article.-Civilizededucation^talk 13:38, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry if it wasn't clear, although I did write a sentence about the topic above, my concern has nothing to do with a Hebrew gospel article, but instead the Jesus outside the New Testament article, and how it may or may not relate to the sources section of this article. -Andrew c ^[talk] 16:15, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification Andrew c. I see that the confusion was entirely mine. Anyway, this is the main article on sources. So, maybe we could do with summary sections in the Jesus outside the New Testament article. Those sections are absolutely necessary here. And the sections in that article do not duplicate ALL sources. If it be necessary to have some duplication there, it should not be a problem. We need to discuss that topic in an intelligent manner too? We don't want an incomplete/unintelligent discussion in either article? There is no need to dismember this article. Such a proposal is absolutely unacceptable and is distasteful.-Civilizededucation^talk 06:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating (ironic when the subject is duplication, but then duplicate talk pages are also generated by duplicated content) there is now so much material across a dozen articles generated in the last few months sourced from James R. Edwards (2009) etc. that I can barely keep track of it. This includes not just new essay style articles but major articles like Gospel of Matthew and expands such as Canonical Gospels which was expanded from a simple redirect Gospel#Canonical Gospels. And again (repeating myself) the duplication includes material from self-published website http://www.ahavat-israel.com/torat/index.php and misdated 19th C sources with BiblioBazaar dates 2010. It makes it very difficult to keep track on what is being said. There is a case for this hypothesis of Edward Nicholson (librarian) (1899) that a lost Hebrew Gospel of Matthew is preserved in the 3 Jewish Christian Gospels having its own page if it really is a distinct hypothesis. But as it stands it'd be better developed on Edward Nicholson (librarian) and James R. Edwards own pages and mainstream "critical" scholarship being represented on the main articles.In ictu oculi (talk) 05:23, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no duplication problem re the article on the Hebrew gospel. I understand that some duplication of material may be needed in other articles in order to have a wholesome and intelligent discussion of those topics. This is an interesting article and we should keep it. - Ret.Prof (talk) 16:36, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Suetonius

Is this NPOV? Tacitus uses the same spelling, so the comments are overstated. The time they're both writing, Tacitus explains Christianity is on it's first boom, so Suetonius doesn't explain who Chrestus was, he didn't need to. On the other hand, it goes against Christian dogma, nothing wrong with that, as the source, Luke, is not only secondary, but contradicts both himself (Acts, 40 days, vs Gospel, 2 days) and John, who says Jesus was around for a long time. Perhaps the entire thing should be dismissed as self-referential, but even so the general creed should be mentioned as the object to be reconciled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.129.214.229 (talk) 11:10, 11 July 2011 (UTC)

What a critical Bible scholar means

User:Mcarlie raised an objection in the article. The word "criticism" applied to the Bible has a particular meaning, see higher criticism and lower criticism. Critical Bible scholars work according to the historical-critical method. I hope this explains the use of the word "critical" in respect to Bible scholars. Broadly speaking, critical thinking is opposed to biblical inerrancy, which assumes the whole Bible to be literally true in lack of proof (it is just assumed, not proven to be true) and despite of scholarly criticism and despite of (the lack of) historical evidence for/against it. In this sense, critical means not taking its truth for granted. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Christian bias (ho hum)

"Many scholars believe not everything contained in the gospels to be historically reliable,[38][39][40][41][42][43] and elements whose historical authenticity is disputed include the two accounts of the nativity of Jesus, as well as the resurrection and certain details about the crucifixion.[44][45][46][47][48]" The historicity of the resurrection is not disputed by scholars, except perhaps Christian ones. The resurrection is a Christian myth. Noloop (talk) 22:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

The resurrection is a myth according to you (and to be honest me as well), however, even if the scholars who dispute this are Christian, they are still scholars who dispute that the Bible is not historically accurate in regard to the resurrection. So I, personally, don't see much of a problem with the quote as is. Vyselink (talk) 23:29, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Jesus in India

I've had a quick scan through this article and found no mention of this theory, Would anyone object to adding this theory as a section? It is quite important and is well sourced. We need a space for other sources that aren't Roman, Christian or Jewish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.81.165.143 (talk) 03:37, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

According to Bart Ehrman, who was rendering the scholarly consensus, that's a theory completely fabricated by Nicolas Notovitch and later championed by the cult of a self-appointed Messiah. In this article it would be WP:FRINGE. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:52, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Merger mulling at Talk:Jesus myth theory

In ictu oculi (talk) 04:21, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Majority of scholars do not believe gospels written by their traditional authors

Moved from User page:

I removed that section because it was not supported by the sources cited, and said so in my edit explanation. You then undid my edit, saying: "Are you disputing the quote is legitimate???" I am not necessarily disputing the legitimacy of the quote, but I am disputing that the quote is derived from any of the sources that were cited. So, while you may be correct, and the quote may be legitimate, your sources do not support your addition. Your addition/edit should be removed until evidential sources are cited. Mes (talk) 21:45, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand your point. What do you mean that you aren't necessarily disputing the quote but disputing that the quote is derived from any of the sources? What is the difference between the two? Martijn Meijering (talk) 21:52, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

What I think he's saying, and it is a valid point if it's true (I haven't personally looked at the quotes), is that although the information itself may in fact be true (in this case the quote), the sources used to prove or assert this information do not, in fact, actually assert this point. He's not arguing with the fact itself, but more how this fact is, in this case, not proven by the sources that are given. Basically, you're saying that "A is true, and here are my proofs to back it up" but none of your proofs actually support your assertion, even if you are right. Vyselink (talk) 23:23, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

The quote I was talking about is the one in the footnote, namely "Although ancient traditions attributed to the Apostle John the Fourth Gospel, the Book of Revelation, and the three Epistles of John, modern scholars believe that he wrote none of them." That seems to support the claim that "However, modern biblical scholars no longer believe this is the case." On reflection this only applies to the Gospel of John. Is Mes asking for similar quotes for the other gospels so we can verify exactly where the claim is allegedly substantiated? Martijn Meijering (talk) 23:53, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Bump for Mes. Martijn Meijering (talk) 04:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Hello again. I responded again on your user page, before finding this. The article has changed since I made my edit some months ago, and I will have to go and see if any additional sources have been added. On another note, the footnote you have provided above still does not support the quote in the Wiki article. Your Wiki quote proposes that modern biblical scholars no longer believe that the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses, while your footnote only provides evidence for the proposition that John did not write the Gospel of John. Who wrote the Gospel of John is irrelevant, per the Wiki article, as long as it was written by an eyewitness. Do you understand what I am saying? Mes (talk) 16:05, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, I understand it now. The solution would appear to be to either modify the claim made, or to find more and perhaps better sources. As I believe the claim is true, I think the solution is to go hunting for more sources. Do we add a cn for that, or is there a better tag for this sort of situation? I'll be happy to agree to interim changes if necessary. Martijn Meijering (talk) 16:11, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

As discussed below, I have removed the citation overkill. If you think that Sanders does not support "Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses" thesis as the scholarly consensus, see [6] for references which are now removed but could be added back to the article if so demanded. I think that in matter of biblical studies, there is little doubt that the Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses. Perhaps I should put back Ehrman's clear view on this issue. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Ehrman's view that the Gospels don't even claim to be written by eyewitnesses was already present in the article. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Many References in the Lead

I apologize if this has been mentioned before, but why are there (currently) 54 citations in the lead? I understand that this is potentially contentious material, likely to be challenged, but these points are addressed in the body of the article, making the lead cites redundant, and repetitive, and redundant. Is it really necessary to have 11 inline citations in the lead to support the point that the Gospels claim: "Jesus was a Jew who was regarded as a teacher and healer, that he was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman Prefect of Judaea, Pontius Pilate, on the charge of sedition against the Roman Empire."? Might I suggest that some references be trimmed? 54 citations in the lead is, from what I can tell, completely unprecedented. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 00:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I haven't watched this article lately, but it used to kinda be the mother of all contentious articles, and probably still is. That's my guess on all the refs. You might try removing a few of the less necessary to see if people will allow it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

All right...well, if there are no further objections, I will try to trim the references in the lead down to Jesus levels (28). I hate undoing peoples' hard work on collecting these -- I how tedious it can be to add references -- but this lead is massively cluttered with references, and the claims are generally fairly vanilla (did you know that, according to the Bible, Jesus was crucified?). ColorOfSuffering (talk) 16:37, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I'm curious to see what happens. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:45, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

There is a history to these references, as you have probably already gathered. The issue was that a POV editor was trying to suppress the fact that the gospels are not actually literal truth, and that only parts of the gospels are considered to be reliable. To get these lines to remain in the lead, they had to be converted into "referenced material". The article has been quiet for months, so perhaps remove a bunch of references which support "non-contentious" statements, but maybe leave (for now) the references that support statements that the gospels are not "gospel". Just a suggestion? Wdford (talk) 15:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

At [7] I have added multiple references since at [8] another user has removed text, considering that there is no way to know that the majority of scholars considers in respect to claim which he/she had removed. Since it is a majority view, sources can be found easily with Google Scholar, that was my point. Some sources even state that this is what modern scholars consider or what the majority of scholars considers. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:01, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

This is a good case study for citation overkill. The lead, as it stands, it nearly unreadable. I know I keep threatening to amend this, but every time I attempt to chip away at it, the article size forces a time-out error on my browser. It's maddening. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 20:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

(redent) WP forced me to switch browsers once. I use Chrome now. You might try a different browser. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:38, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

About "vanilla" events: you would be surprised that what many people consider vanilla events about Jesus do not meet broad agreement among historians; so it is interesting to know which vanilla events are agreed upon by virtually any competent historian who studied Jesus. We cannot trust common sense to decide that, instead of the scholarly consensus. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

E.g. "resurrected the third day, according to the Scriptures": historians cannot affirm that a miracle happened (as a historical fact); even if we believe in miracles, the period of three days is disputed (depending on whether did he die on a Wednesday or a Friday); and the Scriptures did not mention anything about the Messiah coming back to life. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

I have removed the redundant references from the lead, see Talk:Historicity of Jesus#Source for "very small". We may thus conclude that we have reached consensus on this issue, as well as upon the correctness of the previously challenged text, which has determined me to add all those extra references. So, citation overkill is settled; the correctness of the challenged text is settled. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Can we get get some names in the opening?

There are too many weasel words (Some critics, many biblical scholars) for anyone to take the opening seriously. Either we need to produce some names and/or links to solid numbers, or it needs to be re-written to include only differing points of view, not whether or not "a few" or "many" people think they are true. Soxwon (talk) 18:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Heavily Biased and Cherry-Picked Evidence.

It's definitely okay to state a point of view, but when there is two sides, stating only one is intellectual treason.

The majority of scholars consider the New Testament to be reasonably accurate, depending on the predisposed assumptions of the scholar. This has been somwhat stated. However, the evidence behind that belief is deliberately ignored.

More than 4000 manuscripts of the New Testament have been found in no less than three languages (Greek, Coptic, and Syriac at the very minimum) compared to less than 650 for Homer and much less for Julius Caesar. Compared to Homer, of which most of these manuscripts are from the 10th century AD or later, most of the manuscripts are earlier than the fifth century AD, and a great many in the early second century. There are references to it from even earlier. In fact, there is so much accumulated evidence that "the science of textual criticism has so far advanced and the textual problems of the Greek Testament have been so well traversed that one may read the Christian writings with an assurance approximating certainty". That Jesus existed is an intellectual no-brainer. The deity of Jesus is where the debate truly lies in scholarly circles. http://www.bible-researcher.com/isbetext02.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.144.151.76 (talk) 13:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The number of surviving manuscripts has absolutely no relevance to the question of the reliability of the text. That's like arguing that the Da Vinci Code is more reliable than Martin Kemp's Leonardo da Vinci. Artist, Scientist, Inventor because there are more copies of it in existence. Paul B (talk) 15:55, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The fact that 4000 copies of the New Testament exist does NOT indicate that 4000 eye-witnesses each penned their individual recollections, it means that monasteries full of scribes repeatedly copied out a handful of thousand-year-old versions. Using this standard, Harry Potter would be more authentic than Adolf Hitler and Josef Stalin combined. Wdford (talk) 10:12, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I think you mean historically reliable rather than authentic. Psvait (talk) 02:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Some might contend that it is the question of the deity of Jesus that is the "no-brainer". Psvait (talk) 02:57, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

I am chiming in to agree with this point. In fact, although there are very many copies of the Gospels,

There are many different versions of the same Gospels. In other words, copies of the same Gospels are quite different across times and places. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.248.26.11 (talk) 22:14, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Source for "very small"

Ehrman, Bart D. (2011). "8. Forgeries, Lies, Deceptions, and the Writings of the New Testament. Modern Forgeries, Lies, and Deceptions. The Death Sentence of Jesus Christ.". Forged: Writing in the Name of God—Why the Bible’s Authors Are Not Who We Think They Are (First Edition. EPub ed.). New York: HarperCollins e-books. p. 285. ISBN 978-0-06-207863-6. This does not mean, as is now being claimed with alarming regularity, that Jesus never existed. He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees, based on clear and certain evidence. But as with the vast majority of all persons who lived and died in the first century, he does not appear in the records of the Roman people. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); |format= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |accessdate= (help); External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

Besides, I did not check the reference given in the text, it may also claim that the number of such minded scholars is very small. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:42, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

"Very Small" is POV. Can you imagine ANY respectable encyclopedia ever writing a phrase like that? No? Then it is bogus and judgemental. I am removing it. Beyond that, "very small" implies a value judgement - one that should be avoided at all costs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.91.73 (talk) 04:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I showed a reliable source which proves my point. You lied that it doesn't. You did not show anything for your claim. It's vandalism. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:33, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

There's a difference between lying and simply not bothering to check the reference. Rklawton (talk) 13:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

I gave a quote above. Is he/she blind? Or just purposefully misrepresenting the above quote? Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:52, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. And please don't use the term "vandalism" so lightly. Wikipedia:Vandalism#What is not vandalism clearly states that such an act is not vandalism. It may be edit warring or disruptive editing out of stubborness or a number of other things, but it is not vandalism. The important thing is that this matter should be settled on the talk page, not through edit warring. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I have undone my revert in order to settle it here. Who considers that the revert should happen and who agrees more with not reverting it? Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:54, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

There are two points here:

1. Is "very small" accurate.

2. Is "very small" appropriate language.

Lets start with issue 2: "Very Small" is just poor English. "Minority" is more professional than "very small", and says something tangible (e.g. less than half).

Which leads to issue 1 - is it accurate? You didn't show that "very small" is accurate. You showed a quote that doesn't give any quantification to the numbers who claim he didn't exist, and instead, you quoted "as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity". That says nothing of the number who do hold this view.

Let me give an example to explain: A very small number of homo Sapiens have ever held the world record for the 100 metres - reference: a number that is very small.

Change the terminology to minority or some other quantifiable statement or, as I did, just remove the entire chunk - it kind of reads like a dog's breakfast anyway. projectphp (talk) 05:44, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

So, you do admit that you are the same editor as 60.240.91.73. My problem with what you did is that you have removed sourced information, which should not be done in lack of a good reason, and so far I don't see a good reason for such removal. The critique of the critical historical approach to historical Jesus is relevant and although I personally disagree with such critique I find it a matter of WP:NPOV to render all notable standpoints, as long as they are properly sourced. I have no objection for changing "very small" to "minority" since it renders the same idea. I don't nitpick words, but we still have to render the idea expressed by Ehrman, unless another reliable source is shown to say otherwise. Besides, the number of antiquity scholars is not large, so excluding "virtually every competent scholar" there remains a "very small" number of scholars, i.e. very small relatively to the total number of such scholars. E.g. the number of Jews in Romania is very small in relation to the total population of the country, but they could still be seen as many if they happened to gather in the same place.

In respect to reading "as a dog's breakfast" you could have simply rephrased the information. Editors worked hard to find the reliable sources from the given references and then you came and canceled their work because it did not read well. That's why I considered that it would be a form of vandalism. Perhaps if we consider the history of the article, the information may have read well in the past, but it could have been modified by other editors. I find it disrespectful for the work of other editors to simply do away with properly sourced information. If it is not to the point in this article, we could move it to another article, but I still don't think that it needs being removed from this article. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:46, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

And it is relevant to know which information is consensual among historians who studied Jesus (consensus is not unanimity, but certain data about Jesus are broadly agreed by such scholars). Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:56, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

If you read this discussion page, the removal of some information which you have removed was already discussed. Some pointed that there would be an overkill of references, but this could have been simply solved by keeping only the most relevant references and removing redundant references. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:04, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

The sources are so long and over the top - find me another article with so many strung together in a row for a single point. I'll pick an article at random - Homer - and count. The most sources next to each other at any single point is: TWO. Most statements have a SINGLE source. Why does this article run sooo many together? Even now, after I cut that first paragraph down, it still has a two, a three, a five and a six source, run together look. Why? What other article does that? That aside, lets look at the quotes. You are arguing that the quotes given match. Your "source" for "small number" was not any research, but rather the quote "as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity" - that says nothing of the numbers, so is not a quote in support of anything numbers related. But that said, I've got a solution: why don't you rewrite that section, so that it reads well, avoids poor English and reduces the multiple citations for a single point, and we can discuss your rewrite. Sound fair? projectphp (talk) 23:58, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Ok, I have restored text after rewriting it (or copying/pasting it from Jesus). I have also reduced the citation overkill, and kept references which are most contrary to the beliefs held by that particular scholar, kind of criterion of embarrassment applied to modern scholars. If I have removed too many citations, feel free to put them back. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:15, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't see how Ehrman as a source provides any evidence for the existence of Jesus: he in fact states in the paragraph above the one quoted: "We have no birth certificate, no references to his words or deeds, no accountsof his trial, no descriptions of his death—no reference to him whatsoever in any way, shape, or form. Jesus’s name is not even mentioned in any Roman source of the first century." He then adds to this statement with what you have quoted in the wiki text but then doesn't support it or source it at all. How can a source for a statement that requires a primary source to be considered credible be basically the statement reworded with no primary source to support it?

As another discussion point, I don't see how Christian scholars who 'believe' (like Ehrman) can not be seen as having a vested interest in the existence of Jesus. Would you ask a wiccan to conduct a study on the effectiveness of wiccan practices? But what i have said above is of more import I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.75.73.158 (talk) 22:04, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Ehrman is not a Christian, but "a happy agnostic". Besides, we don't do original research here, we just let the academic authorities decide the matter and we render their views. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:37, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Question

most scholars involved with historical Jesus research believe his existence,

What is the basis of their belief?217.94.205.131 (talk) 15:37, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, the existence of an oral tradition about Jesus, which was written down in many gospels and the letters of Paul. They think that these records are not 100% fabricated, but they are based upon a person who really existed. There were no records kept about ordinary people, that's why first century Greek and Roman sources never mention Jesus. In his own time, Jesus was not famous, he was just one of the many Jewish religious rebels who got punished by the Romans. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:52, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

The idea there were no docs about ordinary people is incorrect. The gospels actually start with the Holy Family travelling to Bethlehem to be counted in the a popular census. Furthermore, Pontius Pilatus was supposed to report to Rome about executions of politically dangerous people, thus the "Acta Pilatei" or Jesus's court case file had been searched for centuries, yet no trace so far. Maybe it will turn up someday, maybe it burned in Nero's time or when Rome was sacked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.210.163 (talk) 10:48, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The best proof for historic Jesus is the mention of Pontius Pilate in the gospels. The person of this prefect in unknown in roman annals, no clues anywhere about his familial background and the guy was long considered fictional at best, thus making gospels look like fables. Then in 1960 an antique sidewalk was dig up by archeologists in Jerusalem and the milestone carving said that sidealk was repaved on the order and expense of prefect Pontius Pilate. This sudden proof greatly enhanced the credibility of the gospels, showing their accuracy in minor detail - thus there is no reason to doubt their the major detail, the historc existence of Jesus.

Furthermore, jews always professed that Jesus was real, but an unholy/evil prophet in their view. They claim Mary was impregnated by a roman army centurio named Panthera to deliver Jesus. That is an apparent mistranslation of greek, as in Panthera generis (from Panthera's groin) <-> Partheno-genesis (being born to a virgin). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.131.210.163 (talk) 10:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Jesus as a myth

The last para of the section Jesus as a myth should need some improvement: the academically respected George Albert Wells, Earl Doherty and Robert M. Price are mixed with the academic outcast John M. Allegro and the pseudohistorical popular writers Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy. The Jesus as a myth should deserve some expansion with the theories of all the above, carefully distinguishing academic-strength argument from incoherent allegations.

And for the rest it is odd how a list of sources for the existence of Jesus is dominating in an article that is about the historicity of Jesus. (FYI: I'm for the historicity of Jesus as an obvious Occamic solution, but this article should take great care to make a proper case for those who put the historicity in question). Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 07:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The article is generally good. My criticism indicating bias is incorrect. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 07:19, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't claim to be written by eyewitnesses? Marcus clearly writes he was there on the last night.

> Since the four canonical gospels don't even claim to be written by eyewitnesses ...

This statement of the article seems weird. In the gospel of Marcus he clearly writes in first person singular tone that he was the very youngster who narrowly fled from the hill with a loss of all of his clothing, when the sanhedrin's soldiers came to arrest Jesus and his followers. 82.131.210.163 (talk) 10:28, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Where does it say that? Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:46, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

And there followed him a certain young man, having a linen cloth cast about [his] naked [body]; and the young men laid hold on him: And he left the linen cloth, and fled from them naked.

— Mark 14:51-52, KJV

1st: it's the Gospel of Mark not Marcus. 2nd: I don't know how you are reading this, but the words "he" and "him" are not first person singular.

However, back to your original question, The Gospel of John was written by John the Apostle so that invalidates the entire sentence. Do the two references linked in the sentence actually say that "many" modern biblical scholars think that the gospels were written anonymously? Or did someone just turn these two authors into a "many" - because I've never heard this before. In fact, all the biblical scholars I've ever read state pretty unequivocally that the gospels were in fact written by their subject authors. Therefore this sentence should clearly be deleted. Thoughts? Ckruschke (talk) 19:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

Then you have probably been reading conservative Christian scholars. The majority opinion among critical scholars (Christian and non-Christian) is that the gospels were not written by eyewitnesses, even though they may have drawn on traditions that do go back to eyewitness accounts. In particular, John and Matthew are not believed to have been written by disciples of Jesus. Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I see nothing in the Gospel of Mark that says the "young man" was Mark himself. I also don't see any clarity that the "disciple" John wrote the Gospel of John. The wording of John is quite vague and ambiguous, and certain aspects were written about (such as the audience with Pilate and Mary with Jesus at the tomb and the discussion by the lake between Jesus and Peter) where John was not personally present, and where John could not have known for sure that his "testimony" was accurate. And to top it all, John 21 v 24 says "This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true." This is written in the third person, so we can see very clearly that not all of the text was written by the "beloved disciple" alone. Hence the opinion of scholars that the current versions are a committee product, based on various sources and not necessarily reliable. Wdford (talk) 11:56, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

"The majority opinion among critical scholars (Christian and non-Christian) is that the gospels were not written by eyewitnesses, even though they may have drawn on traditions that do go back to eyewitness accounts."

That's what I've read as well. I remember for instance Bart Ehrman listing some reasons why he and other scholars do not think they are eyewitness reports. He could be used as a source if he is not already one this. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 13:26, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

An absurd aspect of this article

The current article goes on and on to quote literary criticism, without ever mentioning that we have a polaroid photo of Jesus as proof of his existence. Yes, I am talking about the Shroud. Some say it is a fake, however it is a large and extremely detailed photo negative representation, thus it contains uncomparably higher magnitudes of graphics information then the entire antique book corpus of Jesus's mentions. Therefore it is much more important for the topic, pro or con, without regard to the debate about its authenticity. (Although the latest discovery about the femtosecond UV-laser effect seems to ban any fakery claims, unless one is willing to believe in antique UFO visitors instead of Christ.) 82.131.210.163 (talk) 11:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

No offense, but even if the shroud was actually as old as claimed, there is nothing proving it was that of Jesus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.227.66.211 (talk) 14:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Gross over-exaggeration

I find the claim made in this article 'most scholars believe Jesus existed' to be without foundation. Please cite sources, as during a a recent debate at the Royal historic society (UK) not a single historian in the room (200+), when canvassed, accepted that there was enough evidence outside of the bible and scriptures referencing the existence of Jesus to support any claim that he did indeed exist. Who are the 'most scholars' that the Christian writer who wrote this article is referring to? Only references to claims and letters relating to claims exist. As such the claim that 'most' scholars believe is without foundation and a gross over-exaggeration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slipslap (talk • contribs) 00:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

If you consider that most scholars are Christian theologists, then maybe the statement doesn't appear that far-fetched? For the rest it's always good to add references, and if a reference for the statement could be found, then it would be good to add it. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 07:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Would it be worth adding in a paragraph or two mentioning the problem of religious belief (or lack thereof) biasing the opinions of scholars? It seems fairly obvious that there is a number of biblical scholars for whom Jesus' historicity is a fundamental doctrine of their belief, unable to be questioned. What impact such a group has on what 'most scholars' believe is going to be difficult to assess. Myk (talk) 02:57, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Its a slippery slope assuming bias in other people. If we follow the same line of thinking, you'd have to put disclaimers beside all scholars' findings because presumably those scholars who are in the field of any of the sciences (let alone the "controversial" ones like Golbal Warming and Creationism) have the "bias" that they believe the evidence they are showing is correct. Or in Slipslap's argument above, how many of these historians are atheists such that their personal bias is that Jesus is not real and would state w/o a doubt that he didn't exist EVEN IF they knew of actual historical evidence to the contrary. A simple strawpoll in a gathering is 100% meaningless because someone's OPINION could be based on any of dozen different reasons. Therefore it is ridiculous to put in a disclaimer into this page - or any other - that would marginilize the scientific work and historical evidence based solely upon here-say and the personal points of view of editors. If something like this was suggested on "more mainstream" scientific pages on Wikipedia, though no less controversial to Christians, such as global warming and evolution, the editor would be shouted down in a second and told to take his non-NPOV elsewhere. Ckruschke (talk) 21:31, 8 March 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

Actually, given how significant a part of life religious belief often is, bias is enough of an issue to warrant mention here. Seeing as there is no Christianity without 'Christ' (Jesus), you can clearly and easily imagine the difference in conclusions drawn by scholars who went into their research faithful, and by those who had no preconceived beliefs. On the other hand, the existence or not of a historical Jesus has no bearing whatsoever on the views of an atheist, a Buddhist, etc. Meanwhile, topics like global warming and even evolution can easily be reconciled with Christianity (see theistic evolution), while the only way to reconcile Jesus not existing is to relegate the entire New Testament story to a level of mythos.

Note the difference in tone and approach between this article and Historicity of Muhammad. Of primary interest is the difference in sources used - the majority are non-Muslim. While it's likely not intentional (and simply a result the fact Muslims in the English speaking world are a minority), "most scholars" are indeed Muslims. Vel non (talk) 08:13, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

"Actually, given how significant a part of life religious belief often is, bias is enough of an issue to warrant mention here. "

That's a total assumption that you basically just made up.

IOW, this article should include your baseless, anti-religious assumptions as a foundational principle.

No, that's stupid and bigoted. Carlo (talk) 15:54, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

IOW, this article should include your baseless, anti-religious assumptions as a foundational principle.

No, it's an observation that has been made by scholars in the field itself (Hoffman, Meier, Akenson) as well as serious academics outside it (Ellegard). Martijn Meijering (talk) 18:41, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

To expand on this, note the simple 'Further information' section at the end of Christ myth theory. While not completely thorough, and maybe even wrongly titled, it presents the same perspective requested above. At the very least - if this article is going to be presented using scholarly consensus like it does - a section explaining the very real concerns involved is warranted. Vel non (talk) 05:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

'Editorialising'

I have undone an edit which made reference to 'editorialising', in regard to a quote that has been changed a few times in the last couple of days by various editors. The quoted text has been restored to what the cited source actually says[9]. Original quotes should not be re-worded, even if the source's views do not agree with other sources. Thanks.--Jeffro77 (talk) 08:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

My apologies - I failed to note that the statement was in the middle of a quotation. NebY (talk) 08:52, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

No problem. I would have only mentioned it at your User Talk page, but as you weren't the only one to change the quoted text, I thought it better to mention here.--Jeffro77 (talk) 09:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Jesus as myth: the docetists?

I don't understand why the section Jesus as myth starts with the docetists. They believed Jesus was a purely spiritual being not composed from solid matter, they didn't believe Jesus was a myth, unless you believe myths are composed from "spiritual matter" and so are real existing things. Rursus dixit. (^mbork³!) 15:49, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

You have a point. Docetism did only refer to the physical nonexistence of Jesus. Although it could, I suppose be argued that, as the story of his crucifixion is a myth, as per the academic definition of that word, Jesus was basically not "historical" (having never existed in phsycial space, but apparently in some other realm where different laws might apply) and on that basis be used. I would love to see exactly what the source cited for that material says. John Carter (talk) 16:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

This particular text in this section was pushed I believe by BruceGrubb. I never saw the point of it as a "myth" either... Ckruschke (talk) 19:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

I've eliminated the docetism material from this section. Given the unimportance of mythicism in scholarly views of Jesus, the section should probably be pared down. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Good work. Considering there is a Christ as myth page, IMO this section should be pared down as just an overview. Ckruschke (talk) 15:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

Slight Expansion of Origen

I expanded the discussion of Origen from one sentence to three. The passage as written seemed to suggest that when Origen notes that Josephus did not accept Jesus as the Christ, this challenges the authenticity of the passage on James in "Antiquities." I don't know if that was the author's intention, but I thought it should be corrected if it was and clarified if it was not.

In his discussion of Matthew and again in "Contra Celsum," Origen actually quotes Josephus verbatim. In chiding Josephus for his skepticism, Origen seems to be referring to the fact that Josephus says only that Jesus was "called" Christ, and not that he actually was Christ. Regardless, Origen uses Josephus's description of "James, the brother of Jesus" as proof that James was as righteous as Christian tradition claims he was. This, plus the fact that Origen quotes the description of James word for word demonstrates that the passage in "Antiquities" existed in Origen's time substantially as we find it today, and thus is an argument for, and not against its authenticity.

I thought that point needed to be brought out a little more clearly. Psuliin (talk) 09:41, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

You are right that it needed help. But in fact, the entire treatment of Origen/Josephus/other writers is hopelessly incompetent, as is much of the other treatment of the ancient sources here. It does not even relate Origen and Eusebius, and one cannot even discuss this topic with any scholarly basis without that. And the treatment of Jewish War Parallels is also hopelessly inadequate in that it misses the views of Feldman, Thoma and Painter. And the article seems to think that Mara Bar-Serapion is a Jewish source, while most scholars presume that Mara was pagan, etc. Too many glaring errors of commission and omission all over the article. Overall a totally inadequate treatment of the ancient sources. It seems to have happened by the gradual addition of incoherent sentences by many editors over time. I will try to just start by cleaning up that section, then see about the rest. History2007 (talk) 20:47, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Historicity of Jesus's Contemporaries

Does this article or any other article here address the historicity of people said to have know Jesus, such as any of the 12 disciples, Mary, etc.? 98.221.141.21 (talk) 09:03, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

The pages for each of the disciples (and Mary) discusses this issue. Ckruschke (talk) 19:44, 29 May 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

In some cases those help, in most they do not. Items such as the well established chronology of Paul, as corroborated by the 20th century discovery of the Delphi Inscription do shed light on the subject, but Mary, John, etc. do not really help that much in establishing historicity. However, references by Peter in Acts to the Baptist, etc. make a minor impact and the well established chronology of the Baptist (e.g. via Herodias and Aretas IV of Nabatea) does help. As I just mentioned above, the treatment of ancient sources here is really inadequate. I will try to touch up the section discussed above about Origen/Eusebius/etc. then see about the rest. History2007 (talk) 20:58, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Conflicting Statements - Jesus as a myth vs. Jesus as a historical person

This section references Richard Dawkins as a modern-day writer who has popularized the idea of Jesus as a myth. However, the preceding section mentions that while Dawkins seriously doubts the historicity of the gospels themselves, he does lean towards a historical Jesus (The God Delusion, 2008). Given that this section does not reference a specific book (by Dawkins or Hitchens), it may need to be clarified, rephrased, or removed. I have read a great deal of Dawkins' work and I do not recall having seen any mention of a strictly mythological Jesus, however I do not feel comfortable reworking this section based purely upon my memory. Does anyone have more insight into this matter? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.154.232.179 (talk) 02:02, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

True, as far as I know Dawkins says that it is a possibility that Jesus was fictive, but he probably existed, since most historians think so. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you are right of course. As for the IPs question, I am actually cleaning up these issues and will do so in the next few days or a week. I was cleaning up the ancient sources first, and I will gradually get to all of them. By the way G. A. Wells now also holds the same view. He no longer denies the existence of Jesus but says that the gospels are all incorrect. However, Dawkins has never had a claim to historical knowledge or training and is not considered a leader of the myth movement. The de facto standard bearer for the myth movement has been (and still is) Wells - and the views of Wells and Dawkins are not far apart: Dawkins seems to have read Wells and restates it, given that Wells is known as the comprehensive guide to myth theory. Dawkins statement is on the last 2 paragraphs of page 122 of God Delusion and Wells' current position is on pages 49-50 of his "Can We Trust the New Testament?" book and they are similar. I have the relevant info/sources etc. and will touch up those sections and the lede in the next few days. The main problem inside the article is of course that there is no mention of the methods used, how they pair with the sources, etc. Much clean up still needs to be done. History2007 (talk) 15:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Quest for the historical Jesus

There is an article called Quest for the historical Jesus which just aims to clarify the 1st, 2nd 3rd quest type of attempts by various scholars. There is also plenty of duplicate material in this article on that. There is really no reason for the duplication, and the proper way is to have most of the material in the Quest article with a Main link and a summary here. Interestingly, I do not even see a good link to that article here, but there are two separate See also links to The Quest of the Historical Jesus and Quest of the Historical Jesus, leading to the same place, the Schweitzer book. I will trim one now, but the more I look, this article seems unkempt, and needs a real clean up and quality overhaul. Anyway, unless there are good reasons not to, I will move the Quest material there, so the duplication is avoided, and the material here is better anyway, and can help that other article. History2007 (talk) 16:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Agree. Ckruschke (talk) 14:52, 24 July 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

Fine, I moved those out now verbatim. The section here still needs clean up however, as does the rest of the article. I will make a list and try to fix them one by one. The ancient sources sections need real help and have many errors. But can be fixed.... History2007 (talk) 06:57, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Drastic changes

I've reverted some drastic changes that weren't just a neutral rewrite of the consensus text. Because there were intervening edits, I had to do this manually. It took a lot of work to restore subsequent edits that were lost. I think I restored everything that hadn't been subsequently overwritten anyway.

Please don't make large controversial changes in one edit, as this makes it difficult to revert and discuss individual changes. Also, please don't mix controversial and uncontroversial changes. Both are fine, but please separate them as this makes the subsequent revert - discuss cycle easier. Martijn Meijering (talk) 22:18, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry, but the material you restored includes some pretty hopeless items that I had carefully corrected. I did say pretty hopeless, because my edits were done carefully, and corresponded to WP:RS sources, as I will now explain to you. For instance, you restored:

Fine, I didn't dispute that. Submit them one by one, and we can discuss them one by one. Martijn Meijering (talk) 11:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

• Durant, Will. Caesar and Christ. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1944 as a reference.

This reference is hopelessly out of date, and can not be relied upon for it out of touch with modern scholarship and any documents discovered after 1944, say Shlomo Pines' material etc. So why do you add that back? It must go and be replaced with a modern source, say Van Voorst, which you deleted!

I'm not objecting to all specific changes, merely against making them in one go which makes it very difficult to revert them individually, and very difficult to make sure pov-changes haven't snuck in by accident. Martijn Meijering (talk) 11:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

And separately your reverted me to your version that reads:

• "many scholars involved with historical Jesus research believe his existence, but not the supernatural claims associated with him, can be established using documentary and other evidence"

You have now sourced that to Ehrman page 285. But Ehrman page 285 does NOT state "many scholars" it says "virtually every competent scholar" as the reference itself clarifies. Does it not say that? So why do you make it say "many scholars" when the source says "virtually every competent scholar"? Why do you make it diverge from what the reference actually says? I had corrected that to say what the reference states. Does the reference not say "virtually every competent scholar"? Per WP:RS/AC that should change to what Ehrman "actually says". That is for sure. Your revert made the statement deviate from the source as you reverted my correction. That is for sure.

Then again:

• You removed a reference I had added to Van Voorst, Robert E (2000). Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence. Eerdmans Publishing. ISBN 0-8028-4368-9 page 16.

Why did you remove that reference? Is Van Voorst not a great source? It is indeed. On page 510 of his book Understanding the Bible, Stephen Harris states that Van Voorst's book examines all known ancient noncnonical references to Jesus. On page 162 of his book Michael McClymond relies on it, and calls it the best recent discussion on the topic. And on page 154 of his book, after reviewing the historical issues, Craig L. Blomberg states: "The fullest compilation of all this data is now conveniently accessible in Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence. So why do you remove Van Voorst? Am I not allowed to use Van Voorst as a source? I am indeed. So you must not remove that for it is a very good WP:RS source and totally relevant to the article.

No objection to van Voorst, just a procedural objection. Martijn Meijering (talk) 11:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

So explain those issues first, then we will continue.

Nope, the onus is on you. I invite you to make these changes one by one, and I think you'll see many of them will immediately be accepted into a new consensus, while we can have a productive discussion on the remaining ones that require more work. Martijn Meijering (talk) 11:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

My changes did not come out of nowhere. I had said several times on this talk page that this article has many problems. And I do say that this article has many problems. And just because it has been there with problems, does not mean that good sources can be deleted, and material in the source can be paraphrased to be different from what the source says - as your revert did.

I agree the artciel has problems, and I'd be happy to work with you to fix them. Martijn Meijering (talk) 11:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

And the icing on the cake was that my edit summary said that per WP:LEDE the lede must have no more than 4 paragraphs. So you reverted me to make the lede have 6 paragraphs? Perfect! Way to go... way to go... Of course that can be easily fixed, but gives the impression that you are not paying attention. That goes along with the observation that you add back a 1944 source by Durant while removing Van Voorst page 16. It just suggests a lack of attention in your edits.

Happy to make the lede to 4 paagraphs, not happy with just throwing out the rest, instead of moving it to the main text, at least as a first step. Martijn Meijering (talk) 11:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Do note that I edit carefully and my edits do correspond to sources. Anyway, you need to respond to the other issues such as out of date sources, lack of correspondence to sources, etc. first. History2007 (talk) 00:07, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I would if I wanted to defend the older sources, but that's not what I'm doing. My principal objection right now is a procedural one. Martijn Meijering (talk) 11:19, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Martijn, I hate to revert you, but I don't think you did nearly enough to justify reverting History2007's edits to the article, which did a lot to improve the sourcing of the article, and do a better job of summarizing what the state of scholarship actually is. If you have specific problems with his edits, it would be a good idea to bring them here, instead of just reverting them. Obviously from his last post and posts prior to that History2007 is more than willing to discuss what he's doing! --Akhilleus (talk) 03:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't have to justify reverting drastic changes, the rule is Bold Revert Discuss. History2007 made a Bold but constructive edit, I Reverted it and now we need to Discuss it before it can become the new consensus. The onus is on the person making the drastic change. Once a new consensus has been reached, the onus will be on people proposing new changes. This is a purely procedural matter, I'm not saying History's changes were without merit, although it is true I don't agree with everything. I would encourage him to submit them again *slowly* , bit by bit, separating uncontroversial summarising edits from more controversial ones substituting one viewpoint from another. This way we have enough time to discuss individual changes and we avoid getting into more merge-conflicts, where older changes cannot be automatically undone, but can only be manually reverted which is very laborious and error-prone. Martijn Meijering (talk) 10:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you are reading a "user essay" ad think it is policy. Akhilleus was correct in his revert. History2007 (talk) 10:54, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

No, he was not. You made the first change to the consensus text and it is hypocritical to expect me to justify my reversion first while simply accepting yours. I will not revert again now, but I note my objection here and reserve the right to do so later. I see this as disruptive editing and POV-pushing and I am close to escalating it. Inviting people to make small changes to facilitate development of a new consensus seems like a very reasonable thing to ask for, unilaterally wedging in pov changes under the guise of copy-editing is not. Martijn Meijering (talk) 11:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Akhilleus, and yes, I am fully prepared to discuss sources. But as I said the article does have many problems, mostly because over time these articles gather sentences by various editors and become a collage of sentences, rather than a coherent presentation. I will suggest the next item below. History2007 (talk) 03:27, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

I fully support that goal, I just want to make sure controversial changes don't become the new consensus by default. For instance, you removed sources critical of the historicity and replaced them with sources supportive of it. That is not a neutral change, and should not be made without achieving a new consensus first, and certainly not under the guise of mere copy-editing. Martijn Meijering (talk) 10:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Please name which sources. But note that critical of "gospel narrative" is not the same as critical of historicity. The confusion is the same confusion as the one in the gospel section as discussed below. Sanders, Fredriksen, etc. call the gospel stories of the life of of Jesus "totally incorrect" but fully support the historicity of Jesus. So statements such as "descriptions of the life of Jesus" actually are about historical Jesus not historicity of Jesus - that was why I changed that statement. The "historicity of biblical incidents" in the gospels is totally distinct from the "historicity of Jesus". Please do think about that. And anyway, once the Christian sources section gets fixed today, you will see that even better. History2007 (talk) 10:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Easiest to name sources if you make the changes again in accordance with BRD. The onus is on you, not on me. Martijn Meijering (talk) 11:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

This is not going to work like this. I self reverted, just because I think the reason you do not understand the problem with the current lede is that the body is still confused. I will fix the body first, then the lede. but I do no have to type one sentence, ask your permission, then type another sentence as long as I am improving the sources, etc. The current lede fails its sources, but I will fix it later after the body. History2007 (talk) 12:13, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting, and I'll be happy to insert every one of your changes and changes made by others separately, so you don't have to go to the trouble of doing that. This way we can discuss them individually. That's all I was asking for. If I had thought of this option earlier, I would have done it. Or if you prefer, I'll let you go first. I need to go fix a computer problem now, but I expect to be back in a couple of hours. Martijn Meijering (talk) 14:39, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

BRD is an essay, not policy. Calls to discuss changes are fine, but I don't see Martijn's posts above as an attempt at constructive discussion. To start with, the assertion that History2007's changes are controversial needs to be justified. A Wikipedia editor cannot say that changes are controversial simply based on his/her opinion. History2007's edits are based in current sources and represent mainstream opinion—what's controversial here is reverting his changes back to an earlier version of the article that poorly represents expert opinion on this subject. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:18, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

You are right of course. The reason I self-reverted was that I did not want to start a multi-party revert ping-pong game. But I will change the lede in a couple of days after explaining the issues to Martijn in the body. A couple of days will not make a big difference. You are also right that Martijn's responses were somewhat telegraphic and did not say much. In the section below, I asked specific questions about misquotes, wrong sources etc. in the gospels section. Let us see if he addresses those. If he addresses those then I will discuss it, else I will make those changes.

No, by all means do make those changes now. I made no arguments against improving the lede, my objection was purely procedural. Note that I'm making a purely *technical* request, namely not to make huge edits, but to split them up so we can discuss individual changes without getting into technical computer problems with edit collisions. If you take your original edit I objected to and split it into five individual changes, I'll be very happy, even if you make all those changes within the span of 5 minutes. The problem is not so much speed as the granularity of changes. Or if you find that bothersome, I'll be happy to make those changes for you. Martijn Meijering (talk) 14:39, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Another issue that I should mention now that we are discussing discussions is an article on the "historicity of person X" has to address the obvious issues of "Did he exist?" When did he exist? Where did he exist? The current article does not mention that in the "Jesus as a historical person" section. In fact that section is not about historicity and is a summary of the Historical Jesus article with a Main pointer. I do not see a section on historicity in this article. So I will discuss that below as well. History2007 (talk) 13:52, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like an excellent idea. Martijn Meijering (talk) 14:39, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, based on the above, i will now change just the first 2 paragraphs, removing Durant that is old, making Ehrman correspond to his quote, etc. I will leave the other paragraphs as they were. The lede is long now, but does not bite, and can be trimmed as we go along. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 15:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Christian sources section

I see major problems in this section. The issues are three fold:

• There are just two paragraphs on the Pauline Epistles.

• There is a long section on the gospels.

• There is much more on the Early Church fathers than Pauline material.

That is just not correct, for the following reasons:

• The letters of Paul were written much earlier by all accounts and most scholarship relies on them for "historicity" while using the gospels as a source for the "historical Jesus" portraits. The gospels discuss Transfiguration, Calming the storm, etc. Scholars such as Sanders, Fredriksen, etc. laugh at all of that, but still accept existence and crucifixion. So while the gospels are controversial sources for portraits and teachings, the earlier Pauline material is a key element in establishing historicity.

• The Early Church fathers hardly buy anything for historicity and their main contributions are theological, not historical. What Justin wrote was far too late, and that section is mostly sourced to WP:Primary sources.

• The early creeds section is, however, important to historicity. The point is that Paul's letters indicate that he was taught creeds that predated his letters. That point needs to be clarified.

So in a nutshell, it does not really matter to "historicity" if the Synoptics say that a blind man was cured near Jericho or if a good optometrist was found at Bethsaida. Those are narrative issues. What affects historicity is that the gospels have specific details about dates and chronology that get correlated with external non-Christian sources, as well as the interaction between John and the Synoptics, given that they do not share a common source. That is missing in the article. So as a next step, I will try to expand the Pauline section with better sources, and trim the gospel section which really relates to historical Jesus and his activities, rather than this article about historicity. History2007 (talk) 03:50, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Go ahead, sounds like a good idea, but kindly do it in small steps, not in one impossible-to-revert monster edit. Martijn Meijering (talk) 11:28, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Again, I do not have to type one sentence, ask your permission, then type another. I think the main problem is that the many editors who created this "alphabet soup" section were just throwing in sentences and quotes, with no common focus. So just do not defend it without researching the topic. There are just too many problems, and just inconsistent items.

I'm not saying you need my permission, just that editors have the right to revert changes and discuss them first, with a view towards achieving consensus. And FWIW I agree with much of your criticism, and take offense at the suggestion I haven't researched the topic. I made no objections to content, just to procedure. Martijn Meijering (talk) 14:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Take the quote:

• "Ehrman has stated ".....they are not written by eyewitnesses who were contemporary with the events they narrate. They were written thirty-five to sixty-five years after Jesus’ death by people who did not know him, did not see anything he did or hear anything that he taught, people who spoke a different language from his and lived in a different country from him."

Ehrman is talking about the "life story of Jesus" not historicity. That quote "makes it look like" Ehrman is criticizing historicity. Remember Ehrman Martijn? He is the guy who totally supports historicity and is misquoted now in the lede. But Erman is against the life story weaving, while he supports historicity. Do you see the problem that permeates this article?

Of course I do. What makes you think I didn't? Martijn Meijering (talk) 14:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Now, the gospel section. Take the quote:

• Ehrman emphasizes that "[t]he sources of the Gospels are riddled with just the same problems that we found in the Gospels themselves: they, too, represent traditions that were passed down by word of mouth, year after year, among Christians who sometimes changed the stories—indeed, sometimes invented the stories—as they retold them."

Is this the same Ehrman who is certain that Jesus existed? Yes, it is. But this quote is not about historicity... Do you see the problem now? This quote is not relevant to historicity, and should go in the historical Jesus article, not here. Do you see that now?

I didn't deny it before. Martijn Meijering (talk) 14:44, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Take the quote:

• "Thus our prime sources about the life of Jesus were written within about fifty years of his death"

Again what does that have to do with "historicity"? That is about the "life of Jesus" not his existence. It has to go in the historical Jesus article. Not in this article.

Take the statement:

• The Gospel of John, often seen as the product of more than one author or redactor, has been suggested to have a number of written sources behind it

So what? John is mostly a thematic gospel. It is a piece of theology, and a discussion of its authorship has little bearing here unless we are discussing theology. The discussion of Q source and the two source hypothesis does have relevance, but the article fails to mention the Markan priority hypothesis, etc. I will just clean that up.

And the sourcing is just disastrous, Just disasterous. Take

• Historians consider the synoptic gospels to contain much reliable historical information about the historical Jesus as a Galilean teacher.

Now, go read what the sources for that statement are. They are refs # 163 and 164. The situation is just laughable. One source says:

• Ref#163: The nonhistoricity thesis has always been controversial, and it has consistently failed to convince scholars of many disciplines and religious creeds. ... Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted."—Van Voorst, Robert E. Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), p. 16.

Do you remember that statement Martijn? You removed that from the lede when I correctly added it there. But that does not mention the synoptics being more reliable. So why is it used there? Just one reason: this article is an alphabet soup. Now guess what the next source to support the superiority of the synoptics says:

• Ref# 164: "The denial of Jesus' historicity has never convinced any large number of people, in or out of technical circles, nor did it in the first part of the century." Walter P. Weaver, The Historical Jesus in the Twentieth Century, 1900-1950, (Continuum International, 1999), page 71.

Hello? Has anyone been paying attention here? That section is an "alphabet soup" with sources that are misused, confused and do not support the statements. And the statement they fail to support does not even need to be here, but in the historical Jesus article.

Most the items I have mentioned just need to be replaced with a more logical presentation, with proper sources.

Now the two Pauline paragraphs need to be replaced with a much larger section. They are too small and miss many many points. But the heart breaker comment is again about life story, not existence, etc. The early creeds section is the only one of value and needs to become a subsection of Pauline. Th Church Fathers subsection should be really trimmed, for it is far, far too late. Papias and Quadratus are somewhat relevant, but again second hand quotes, etc.

Anyway, I am not going to delete one sentence at a time, because the presentation needs to be consistent. First say how you are going to justify the current problematic items I have mentioned, then I will write something coherent with sources that are less confused than the current alphabet soup. History2007 (talk) 12:46, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Jesus as a historical person section

As mentioned above, an article on the "historicity of person X" has to address the obvious issues of Did he exist? When did he exist? Where did he exist? The current article does not mention these in any detail in the "Jesus as a historical person" section. In fact that section is not about historicity but is a summary of the Historical Jesus article with a Main pointer. That section has a huge quote from Albert Schweitzer which comes from his book first published in 1906.

Then there is confusion over who/what is quoted.It says things like "Prominent critics of religion like John Remsburg and Richard Dawkins" Remsburg died while the Model T was on the roads and what he said matters not. Dawkins is popular, but as I responded to an IP above, he draws on Wells as his main source. And Wells is just mentioned once in passing in the article. He actually needs to be mentioned in the Pauline section because he had things to say there, and I will add those later. Dan Barker is not a scholar, but is mentioned with Remsburg again. That has to change.

The reference to the Jewishness of Jesus is from Eisenman and highly controversial. Amy Jill Levine's book discusses the same issue and is a far less controversial author. The last paragraph of that section is just a long and useless lists of X said this, Y said that with no coherent presentation of what the "mainstream scholarly view" is. This is a case of applying WP:RS/AC and expressing the scholarly consensus with suitable sources, not adding quotes at random. The random addition of quotes that obscures WP:RS/AC is a problem there and they need to follow WP:DUE.

And of course the issue of chronology and location needs to be added there, for the timeframe match that is found in the chronology of Paul, the Baptist, Herodias, Pilate, etc. is one of the elements that establishes historicity.

Unless there are specific reasons for not adding time and place information and not removing the 1906 Schweitzer quote, Remsburg, etc. I will clean those up in a day or two. History2007 (talk) 14:12, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Appropriate sources for the mainstream scholarly view

Are Evans and especially Blomberg really good sources for the mainstream opinion? I believe they are Christian apologists and theologians. Still New Testament scholars of course, but so is Robert Price and we probably wouldn't use his views as representative of the mainstream either. That's not to say their opinions could not be presented here. In fact I think it would be a good idea to represent the views of various groups of people who have an interest in the historicity or otherwise of Jesus (atheists, mythicists, non-Western cultures, (Western) scholarly mainstream, various religious denominations). Martijn Meijering (talk) 21:54, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

The person who is an apologist by a wide margin is Habermas. The one who is certainly not an apologist is Ehrman. Everyone hates Ehrman, but they all respect him. The Christians think Ehrman is a turncoat agnostic, the atheists think he is a secret Christian. I do not see Evans as an apologists at all. For instance, note that Evans rejects the reference to Mara bar Sarapion (in the article already) while the apologists usually support it. Also note that as in ref#217 Evans agrees with Sanders that there are "only 8" facts that can be established from the gospels. And Sanders is no apologist, so Evans is in that category: he rejects all but 8 facts in the gospels. An apologist would never do that. So I think Evans is certainly acquitted. I have not actually looked that much into Blomberg. Do we have a WP:RS accuser against him?

I am actually going to explain the 8 facts of Evans & Sanders later... History2007 (talk) 22:28, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Do we have a WP:RS accuser against him?

No, just an impression I had, reinforced by the Amazon page on his book Fabricating Jesus: http://www.amazon.com/Fabricating-Jesus-Scholars-Distort-Gospels/dp/0830833188

It may be worth to dig into this a bit more deeply. Martijn Meijering (talk) 22:35, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I did not know about that book. I will take a look. It looks like he hates Ehrman too... History2007 (talk) 22:40, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I looked at the people who commented on the book, and they include Dunn and Theissen - who are pretty respectable. So I would not discount Evans based on that book, given that Theissen type people are solid. Yet I again look at the 8 items that he supports: 4 + 4:

• Baptism, he called disciples, had a controversy at the Temple, he was crucified.
• Jesus was a Galilean. He confined his activities to Judea, and after his death his disciples continued and some of them were persecuted.

That is a really "minimal belief level" in the gospels. And in the same article Evans praised Sanders (who is an absolute non-believer) as a key founder of the field. So I do not see that as an apologist belief set or perspective for the purpose of this article at all. History2007 (talk) 22:53, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

This article is pure Christian apologism and couldn't be more biased if it tried. It gives voice to Christian writers whilst ignoring the opposing viewpoint and worse of all makes generalizations that are entirely false. NOT ALL (or even most) academics believe in the historicity of Christ- that's absurd. 85.60.71.6 (talk) 13:49, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, then do us all a favor and find a few WP:RS sources that says "most scholars believe Jesus did not exist". That would settle it. I look forward to seeing your references. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 14:38, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

"most scholars believe Jesus did not exist" is not the logical opposite of "most scholars believe Jesus did exist". Martijn Meijering (talk) 14:47, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but I said that given that he called it absurd... But we have been through this and there are other references below from Stanton and Dunn that say the same thing. We can add those too. So let him find a source that says "a large number of scholars think Jesus did not exist"... Let him do that... The answer will still be a handful of names at most, then degenerates to non-scholars and popular writers very fast.... When G. A. Wells flipped, the game changed. He was the standard bearer for the non-existence movement, and he did a U-turn. History2007 (talk) 14:50, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I was just pointing out a point of logic. I think there is bias in the article, but that's because there is bias in scholarship. The solution is not to misrepresent scholarship, but to give voice to appropriately sourced criticism of that scholarship, without giving it undue weight. Martijn Meijering (talk) 15:01, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so your view is that the article is "representative of scholarship" but that scholarship is biased. Well, none of can change the views of scholars. The way Wikipedia works is that we report on scholarship. The point is that apart from Price (who admits he is in a tiny minority) there is not much else left beside Carrier (who has no academic position). And by the way Carrier endorses Van Voorst's book as a good source! History2007 (talk) 15:06, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, so your view is that the article is "representative of scholarship" but that scholarship is biased. Well, none of can change the views of scholars. The way Wikipedia works is that we report on scholarship.

That's what I said. Not just scholarship of course, notable opinions too, and there is more scholarship than just NT and bible scholarship, though not much. Martijn Meijering (talk) 15:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I think we are in a semi-agreement about what the sources say anyway... The point is however statistical. If 100 people look at the article, X% may think it is good Y% may object and (100 - (X+Y)) do not care. The X% will remain silent, some of the Y% will type here.... History2007 (talk) 15:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

ATTENTION: Van Voorst

This guy above is inserting references to his own work in Wikipedia entries pertaining to the same subject his books talk about. He should be sued by the community. Contact me at bushgeow@aol.com to take urgent action against him! 177.40.149.3 (talk) 02:28, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

How about some evidence that the user adding Van Voorst is Van Voorst himself? Huon (talk) 02:36, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

The IP thinks Van Voorst is editing here? That would be funny.... As would be "suing him"... I wonder if Raymond E. Brown edited here last week too... History2007 (talk) 05:41, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Also, did Van Voorst publish scholarly books on the subject? If the books exist it doesn't matter who adds references to them. Wikipedia is not the place for original research, but once research is published and peer reviewed it can be added by anyone, even the original author.70.171.204.39 (talk) 01:12, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Terminology issue?

Based on the nature of the historical consensus explained here, which affirms the existence of a person whose name would be latinized as Iesus, there may be a problem with the terminology. What scholars agree upon, as explained here and in Christ myth theory, is that a person with this name lived and we have corroborating evidence for about 1-2 events in this person's life, perhaps more. This seems like a far stretch from the phrase "Jesus existed," which cannot be divorced from the biblical source through which the figure named "Jesus" is almost universally known. I realize it may be cumbersome to use something like "a person known as Jesus" or odd to revert to the latin spelling "Iesus," but the meaning of the phrase "Jesus existed" does not reflect the sources referenced. The word "Jesus" didn't even exist until the 15th or 16th centuries, though it is now the universal English word for the biblical figure.

A useful comparison would be King Arthur. The myth of King Arthur may concievably have been based on Lucius Artorius Castus or some other Roman with the name Artorius who led or governed some part of what is now Britain, but that is a far stretch from saying "King Arthur existed," because the name "King Arthur" refers to a literary and mythological figure, not to any historical person.70.171.204.39 (talk) 01:39, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you are getting your information. The name Jesus was actually pretty common in Biblical times, which kind of busts your whole premise in your first paragraph. And then linking Jesus to a figure like King Arthur is pure absurdity - why didn't you just pick Santa Clause or the Easter Bunny? I think you bias is showing... Ckruschke (talk) 06:32, 24 August 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

Santa Claus indeed serves just as well as King Arthur to illustrate 70.171.204.39's point. After all, there was a bishop named Nikolaos of Myra; yet we would not usually argue that Santa Claus existed. Similarly, modern conceptions of Jesus aren't necessarily close to the historical person named Jesus (or the Aramaic equivalent thereof). However, we cite multiple reliable sources for the scholarly consensus that "Jesus existed"; while that may mean little more than "there's a historical kernel to the Jesus narratives", I see no need to deviate from the language used by those sources. Huon (talk) 16:52, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll just agree with your point that we cite multiple reliable sources for the scholarly concensus that "Jesus existed" w/o further debating the absurd point of view of the anon editor. Ckruschke (talk) 05:16, 26 August 2012 (UTC)Ckruschke

New editor changes to lede

Again today the lede was changed and ISBNs were added in the middle of it. I added a comment that the sources say "scholars of the antiquity" etc. and conformity to that needs to be maintained, but my guess is that IPs and new accounts will arrive out of nowhere and change that one way or another, as they have before. I think we need to have more explanation in the FAQ about the need for conformity to sources. When Pending changes arrives that mau help, but still, the FAQ may be needed. History2007 (talk) 08:29, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Several scholars are cited as disagreeing with the view in the Wikipeida article. The lede as you assert suggests there is no debate on this issue, and there is a debate.--Johnsemlak (talk) 19:18, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Not really. There are some few scholars - the article mentions three scholars in the 20th century, none of which are historians or Biblical scholars and one of which seems to have changed his position and now accepts the existence of Jesus, though not the accuracy of the gospels. There are multiple sources that the vast majority agrees on the existence - in fact, we have more independent sources for the widespread consensus than people disagreeing with it. The "virtually all" phrase is literally taken from the source, and I see no need to deviate from that. Huon (talk) 19:38, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia needs to follow what the source says. Also this has previously been discussed on the reliability noticeboard and the sources and the statement were independently evaluated as WP:RS in any case. There is in fact "not one single scholar" who has a teaching position in a university now who says Jesus did not exist. The very few of them who said that in the 20th century retired, died or did a U-turn (like G. A. Wells who no longer says that) and no one holds that view any more. The other couple who still disagree can not get a teaching position beyond high school. It is that serious. History2007 (talk) 20:07, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, just for clarity, let me list who has disagreed with the existence of Jesus this century.

• Alvar Ellegård: He was a professor of English and died in 2008.

• Robert M. Price: He has a PhD is theology and is a biblical scholar. He only teaches online courses at the "Johnnie Colemon Theological Seminary" which is just a website without an actual campus or actual classes, or any higher education accreditation. He also teaches at CFI Institute which does not seem to be a university of any type, and mostly teaches online courses or summer classes. Price can be considered a scholar, but he does not teach at a major institution. He acknowledges that hardly any one agrees with him.

• Thomas L. Thompson: Was a professor of theology in Sweden (now retired) and denies existence. Thompson's arguments were never accepted by the academic community at large and he worked manual jobs for over a decade until he found a position.

• Richard Carrier: He has a PhD, but is not an academic and does not teach at any university. Carrier's professional occupation (beyond his blog) remains unclear.

In this list there are only two clear ex-academics who deny existence: Ellegård and Thompson plus Price who is a biblical scholar and may be considered a scholar, but not an academic really. And none of them teaches at a major institution. It is just Price that teaches online courses, sometimes for $50 a course.

R. Joseph Hoffmann supports Gnosticism, but is not a direct denier of existence. G. A. Wells is a professor of German. He teaches at a major institution. He was (and is) widely acknowledged as the leader of the Christ myth theorists. Wells no longer denies the existence of Jesus. As stated above, Wells did a U-turn in his last book after the evidence from the Q source documents had been explained to him. So the opposition is just not there among academics. History2007 (talk) 20:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

How do you know this is a complete list? Can you speak for the entire world? Plus, professors who died still remain reliable sources for historical issues. If you haven't interviewed every history professor of the antiquities personally and published the results you can't assert 'virtially all'.

One of the sources who says there' isn't a debate on this issue is a Christian apologist who makes his living selling a book to Christians that Christ existed. This article says "widely accepted' which is more in line with saying 'most historians'.NPR--Johnsemlak (talk) 20:37, 24 October 2012 (UTC)]

I did not say it is a complete list on the planet. I said I listed those I know for your clarification because you said "the article lists several". No it does not.

Do you know of any others? If so, provide them just for my education. But again you and I can not discuss this and "reason ourselves". That would be WP:OR. We must follow what the sources say per WP:V of course. And I think you need to read WP:RS/AC about quoting "academic consensus". You and I can not go and interview professors and count them. We must quote a source for it, as the article does. History2007 (talk) 20:45, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Again, I provided a source, not as biased as the ones that you cite, at concedes that there is debate on the issue, even if they are in the minority. You seem to be cherrypicking sources support your view. This isn't conservapedia.--Johnsemlak (talk) 20:53, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

What was your source, and who was the scholar? Did you mean the NPR interview with Ehrman? Ehrman is the one saying virtually all. History2007 (talk) 21:06, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The source says the belief that Christ existed is 'widely accepted'. Ehrman cannot be accepted as a source of the academic community--he is a Christian apologist and the seller of a book saying Christ existed. You yourself quoted four historians as dissenting from the opinion that Christ never existed. Yet you insist that 'virtually all' historians believe he existed. You contradict yourself.--Johnsemlak (talk) 21:11, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Who was the scholar in the source that said "The source says the belief that Christ existed is 'widely accepted'." History2007 (talk) 21:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The source is NPR, a RS.--Johnsemlak (talk) 21:16, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The source is an "interview with Ehrman" by NPR staff with no name. Not a scholar. History2007 (talk) 21:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

By the way, I think if you think the many sources listed to support this statement are not WP:RS, you need to see the discussion just a month ago on this WP:RSN archived thread. I specifically listed the sources there and asked for an independent assessment. The assessment was provided by user:DGG - who is an extremely experienced Wikipedian with about 100k edits, an admin and a librarian by profession. His assessment was that these are a wide range of sources that confirm the consensus and therefore "the accumulation of them is reasonable evidence to that effect". He also said that "The attempts to say that this is not the scholarly consensus are grasping at straws." That was the independent assessment on the reliability noticeboard, the proper place to obtain such assessment. History2007 (talk) 21:24, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

DGG's comment, (one Wikipedia editor) merely asserts that there is scholarly consensus, not that 'virtually every historyian agrees'. You have conceded that some historians disagree (and several more disagreed who have deceased but their views still remain), and I have provided a RS basically asserting that 'most historians' agree.

I would accept a wording closer to what DGG said, that there is a 'scholarly consensus' of the opinion. The article needs to at least allow for the fact that there remains debate on the issue. The fact that dissenters are a minority doesn't mean a alternative view doesn't exist.--Johnsemlak (talk) 21:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

No, I had specifically linked to the Jesus article which uses the "virtually all" wording and the same references. And "Virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed." appears within the RSN thread, so it was clear. So the statement was very clearly that. And virtually all does not mean "all". It means almost all, with very few exceptions, if you want to look up in a dictionary. This article does have a section on denial. So does not ignore it. History2007 (talk) 21:46, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I have to take a break now to do other things, so I will respond to comments later. History2007 (talk) 21:56, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

I don't see anywhere at RSN where this issue is resolved they way you assert. You seem to be drawing your own conclusion. Again, I have cited a reliable source asserting that 'most historians' take the view. The cited sources to the contrary are Christian apologists or similarly biased sources on that point specifically. You seem to be ignoring alternative points of view here.--Johnsemlak (talk) 01:10, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Bart Ehrman is a Christian apologist? Only someone who hasn't bothered to read Ehrman, or even to find out a minimal amount of information about his religious views, would say that.

As for the proposed wording, I'm going to guess that Johnsemlak is not an expert on this topic, so why is s/he trying to assert greater knowledge of the status of the view that Jesus was non-historical than the published scholars who've been brought up here? --Akhilleus (talk) 01:54, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Akhilleus. We even have reliable sources calling the theory of non-existence "a thoroughly dead thesis"; there doesn't appear to be that much debate. I don't think Ehrman's interview promoting his book should take precedence over multiple scholarly sources that say the mythicists are irrelevant. The latter are clearly the better sources. Huon (talk) 02:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Ehrman is a born again Christian writing a book for Christians to buy arguing that Christ existed, for money. I'd hardly call him or other writers of the same thesis as reliable sources of the overall scholarly opinion--they're essentially saying people who disagree with them are irrelevant. There are several scholars still who argue that Christ never existed. To say there's no debate simply isn't true. This isn't conservapedia--we need to highlight differing opinions. Akhillieus, I'm perfectly well versed in the topic, I'm just not someone who takes the christian bible literally.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:02, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Your familiarity with the topic is somewhat lacking, since you seem unaware that Ehrman holds a named chair at the University of North Carolina and a well-regarded academic authority on early Christianity; he is also an agnostic, and his work is known for drawing the ire of fundamentalist Christians. Who are these "several scholars who argue Christ never existed"? Do any of them currently hold academic positions in departments of religious studies, classical studies, ancient history, etc.? Because the only names brought up so far are the usual suspects, who are basically not part of mainstream academic conversation about Christianity whatsoever. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:25, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

The 'usual suspects' still exist. The fact that they disagree with you doesn't make them irrelevant. Please quote me a reliable source w/o a vested interest who says that there's no opinion otherwise.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Nah, I don't think this discussion is worth pursuing. You're misinformed both about Ehrman's religious beliefs and also about his eminence within the scholarly community, and you're misinformed about the status of the "usual suspects". If you can't correct your misinformation, there's no point to having this dicussion.--Akhilleus (talk) 03:41, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

So you're just going to ignore an opposing view rather than argue with it, and simply shove aside opposing views as 'misinformed? Please enlighten me as to how this is consensus building. I presented my view and backed it up with a source.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:45, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to ignore an editor who's making changes to the article and making talk page posts based on incorrect information, yes. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:05, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

please tell me how changing 'virtally all historians' to 'most historians' is based on incorrect information when I have cited a reliable source saying so. At least bother to cite a source to the contrary.--Johnsemlak (talk) 04:15, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

There are four sources cited at the end of the sentence beginning "Virtually all historians..." More could be added that use similar wording, but isn't four enough? Especially when you're only citing one source, which is a radio interview, rather than a printed work authored by an expert? I already said what I meant by "incorrect information": you think Ehrman is a Christian apologist, but he's not. You don't think Ehrman is a scholar, but he is. The very NPR interview you linked to describes his scholarly credentials. And I guess you're trying to change the wording "Virtually all scholars...", which comes from Ehrman's book, to "widely accepted" based on the introduction to an interview that Ehrman gave on NPR? This is not quite using Ehrman contra Ehrman, but it's pretty close. That should strike you as problematic. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:32, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Any source for that claim about Ehrman's religion? Our article calls him an agnostic, and he explicitly confirms that in the NPR interview. And Ehrman isn't someone taking the Christian Bible literally, either. But we don't nered to highlight differing opinions, we need to report what the reliable sources have to say on the issue. Huon (talk) 03:36, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Pls give me a reliable source. I have.--Johnsemlak (talk) 03:37, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

The NPR interview with Ehrman, at about the 7:00 mark. Interviewer: "You're something of a lapsed Christian yourself, you've been described as an agnostic, is that fair?" Ehrman: "Yes, that's right." A little earlier he talks about parts of the gospel which aren't historically plausible and thus cannot be taken literally. I seem to have missed the source about Ehrman being born-again, yould you please point it out again? Huon (talk) 04:33, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

I think Johnsemlak's reasoning here is really strange, as Akhilleus stated. Johnsemlak points to an interview with Ehrman which paints Ehrman as an expert in the field and as a person who has given up Christianity. Then he calls Ehrman a "Christian apologist". That is incorrect reasoning. In fact, if you do a survey of the field, will see that Ehrman is midfield and does not side with the extreme positions on either side. In any case, as DGG said on RSN, Ehrman is not the only quote and there are several others that effectively say the same thing.

The wording "most scholars" suggests that there may be something like a 60% preponderance among scholars, but that is not the case at all. It is closer to the 95%-98% mark which is not covered by "most scholars" but well captured by the "virtually all" wording, clarified by the dictionary link I provided above. The long and short of it is that all those sources say (in one way or another) that there are less than a handful of scholars who hold that position, and no one here (or on the other talk page, pointed to from WP:RSN, which had a long discussion with many editors) disagrees with that. There are less than a handful of them among a really large number of scholars. That is correctly chracterized by "virtually all" if you read the dictionary definition. History2007 (talk) 05:52, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Unexplained revision

this is a photo of an exhibit in the Israel museum. while the museum does not state it is the actual ossuary of Jesus (and it does not say it in the caption of the photo), it is an ossuary of a Jesus son of Joseph who lived and died in the first century. It is not a forgery nor a fake, but a proven original ossuary displayed at the museum anthequities department, and as such - a good pic for this article. Deror (talk) 13:30, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

This is also being discussed on the historical talk page, so let us do it there. History2007 (talk) 14:23, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

The relevant section is Talk:Historical Jesus#Unexplained revision. Huon (talk) 22:43, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Lead Citations

Well, we had done a good job in reducing the number of citations in the lead from 54 to 20...but the number has crept up to 34. Most featured articles in Wikipedia have no more than 5 citations in the lead. Even in the very controversial featured article atheism there are only 26. In non-featured articles describing entire religions there are fewer lead citations (Christianity has 31, Islam has 16). So I think in an effort to cull some of these citations and make this article more readable I'm going to review each cited statement, as well as my opinion on the citations. If you feel differently about this feel free to chime in. I will be using WP:V, WP:LEADCITE, WP:MINREF, and WP:CITEKILL as a guide. Keep in mind, most if not all of the citations in the lead are repeated in the article, so if I recommend a citation be removed I'm not saying it should be taken out entirely, just taken out of the lead.

1. Defining the "historicity of Jesus" -- the definition of historicity of Jesus is not likely to be challenged. These are quality sources, but I think we can remove all three citations.
2. Contrasting historicity with historical -- once again two more quality sources, but the distinction between the two is not a controversial subject, but rather a benign scholastic classification. I think we should remove both citations.
3. Virtually all scholars agree -- obviously this statement is likely to be challenged so it requires citation, but I feel that four citations saying the same thing is too many for the lead. I propose that we keep Ehrman and Grant and remove Price and Burridge, based on the pedigree and perceived neutrality of the authors.
4. Arguments against existence effectively refuted -- this is essentially a direct quote of Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence, so we should keep Van Voorst and remove the other two.
5. Little agreement on historicity of gospel narratives -- I do not think this is a particularly contentious claim, so I think we can remove all four citations.
6. Agreement about Jesus' life -- I actually don't like either citation here because both authors appear to be primarily theologians, though I could be wrong here since I'm not intimately familiar with their work. I do feel this needs a citation. I believe we should replace current citations with The Historical Figure of Jesus by E. P. Sanders that was removed from the previous cited statement.
7. Most scholars...Jesus lived in Galilee and Judea -- when the article says "most scholars," it's usually best to cite a single reliable reference that states "most scholars," rather than actually citing multiple scholars per WP:PSTS. Also, I don't think we need to break this sentence into two parts, so I suggest we remove all three citations.
8. Jesus' languages -- this could potentially be contested, so I think this entire sentence can be covered with two citations. The Historical Jesus in Recent Research appears to cover multiple topics, so I think we should keep McKnight/Dunn. Also, since it addresses the language question we should also keep Barr and then remove the rest.
9. Universal assent -- since this is another direct quote we should keep Dunn and remove the rest.
10. Other facts...widely discussed -- I do not think this is a contentious point, so I suggest we remove all citations.
11. Scholarly agreement...not universal -- I think this whole section can be summed up by the Powell reference. So I say we keep Powell and remove the rest.
12. Methods have been developed -- this is not a contentious point, so I believe we should remove all citations.
13. Various sources used -- not a contentious point. Remove all citations.
14. Non-Christian sources are compared to Christian sources -- not terribly contentious but there might be some disagreement with regards to the methodology. Here is a good place for a citation, and I feel that the best one is Criteria for Authenticity in Historical-Jesus Research. So we keep Porter and remove the rest.

Anyhow, that's my two cents. Since the article draws heavily from a few key sources (The Cambridge Companion to Jesus, Jesus and His Contemporaries, and Prophet and Teacher for instance) I think this article could benefit greatly by moving away from its current inline citation format to a more bibliography-based format (using shortened footnotes for page numbers). But that's a task for another day, and probably another editor because apparently I'm far too busy writing lengthy talk page entries to be bothered with any actual editing... ColorOfSuffering (talk) 22:24, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

That may have worked for a less contentious topic. If just a single reference is used in the lede here, next week an IP from nowhere will say it has too few sources or this or that, and the debates will start, e.g. please see Talk:Historicity_of_Jesus#ATTENTION:_Van_Voorst. So in a non-contentious topic that could have worked, but here it will just consume time on the talk page for ever. History2007 (talk) 22:31, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately I tend to agree with History2007. Even the parts of the lead that are currently heavily sourced are routinely challenged - if we had fewer references or, as it's usually supposed to be, had no references at all in the lead and only summarized the sourced content of the article proper, that would get much, much worse. Huon (talk) 22:37, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Can you find an instance where something in the lead was altered because it had "too few sources"? The example you cited had nothing to do with the number of sources, but rather it was a legal threat stemming from a dubious claim of conflict of interest. Most of the discussions I've seen on this talk page relate to the quality and neutrality of the sources, not the number (though admittedly I haven't been through the entirety of the archives). Also, can you explain how anyone could reasonably contest points 1, 2, 5, 10, 12, and 13? Typically defending against changes by adding a large number of citations is frowned upon (even in controversial topics) as it tends to makes the article less readable and actually has the effect of making the sources appear less reliable (see WP:BOMBARD, WP:CITEKILL, and WP:FACTS). ColorOfSuffering (talk) 00:31, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Exactly what will the change you suggest buy us here, apart from future debates and waste of time/life? As for reasonably we will of course AGF on that, even this one, of course. I really think asserting anything in the lede here sans citation will be just an exercise in romanticism which ignores the reality of how IPs come over and edit things. And I really do not see any benefit in doing what you suggest, just a serious downside. History2007 (talk) 00:58, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

By the way, the items you mentioned, WP:FACTS, etc. are all user essays and have no applicability as policy or guideline in Wikipedia. History2007 (talk) 01:45, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

For an example of an instance where someone considers the lead insufficiently supported by sources, see the thread immediately above. I somehow doubt the claims of misrepresentation or bias will get fewer when there are fewer sources to accuse of bias... Huon (talk) 01:42, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

The thread immediately above is claiming a lack of neutraility in the sources, not an insufficient number of sources. The edit you cited was a good faith (but ill-informed) edit by a newcomer. Again, I will ask that you provide an example of a time when something in the lead/lede was contested due to a low number of sources. You are correct; I did site a few essays in my response. I was not trying to quote policy, but rather I was simply giving advice that addressed common problems (such as what's happening to the lead of this article). The other things I cited -- WP:V and WP:AGF -- are policies. WP:LEADCITE is from the manual of style. There is no policy, essay, info page, manual of style entry, or guideline I know of that agrees with the statement: "I really think asserting anything in the lede here sans citation will be just an exercise in romanticism which ignores the reality of how IPs come over and edit things", though I have already quoted several that disagree with that statement.

Per WP:WHYCITE (an editing guideline): "Citations are also often discouraged in the lead section of an article, insofar as it summarizes information for which sources are given later in the article, although such things as quotations and particularly controversial statements should be supported by citations even in the lead." So using this guideline, can you demonstrate how 1, 2, 5, 10, 12, and 13 are "particularly controversial"? If you cannot I will start removing them from the lead/lede. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 18:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry, I do not agree with your reasoning, or your unilateral "I will delete it" declaration. I respect WP:AGF but note that it is a two way street you need to respect it too. Please do not issue a "I will do X" type statement that does not affect content, and avoid a potential edit war. If people do not agree with you, there is no need to start that. There is really no need for a revert cycle here over a totally trivial issue of no encyclopedic import to speak of. I see WP:V as support for having references, not deleting them. And encouraged and discouraged are one thing, required is another - there is no requirement to delete these references anywhere. Again, from a practical standpoint the references help a user get a perspective of who supports those statements without having to dig through the body of the article. Do you think I wan to keep the references because I like to waste my time talking here? No, it is because I really see them as necessary. This is a controversial topic for many readers, given the edit histories and stating which scholars supports the statement helps. I really believe that. History2007 (talk) 20:09, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

We all AGF here of course ColorOfSuffering, but I just noticed that your edit summary here said: "Sometimes when I get bored I decide to write lengthy missives about citations and references on Wikipedia". Is that what this long missive has been about? Then your next edit summary said other things that I find as baffling as this discussion. I don't know about you, but I don't do this just out of boredom. If boredom was the reason for your "lengthy missive" here, please seek other remedies for said boredom. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 22:55, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I have made no personal attacks, I have assumed good faith, and my reason for editing is irrelevant. Focus on article content, not on editor conduct. Speaking of which, I do not believe you have answered my question. In order for us to begin building a consensus I'll ask again: can you demonstrate how points 1, 2, 5, 10, 12, and 13 are "particularly controversial"? I'm not asking about your opinions regarding citation requirements, the handling of controversial topics, lead writing, edit warring, or the notion that "discouraged" and "required" are not analogous. We can discuss that later if you like. I am only asking if you consider the points I highlighted to be "particularly controversial." ColorOfSuffering (talk) 00:03, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't see the rationale for the classification of conroversiality on your points, given that I have stated why I disagree with them and your entire approach. And if you can show disinterest in my views, that is not good. You are eating up time that could go to more productive use, than settling your boredom. And now that your say that the statements in your edit summaries can not be taken seriously and are just jokes, then that makes me very, very uncomfortable in the conversation here given that it builds on the confirmation of the boredom angle. This page is not a boredom remedy. History2007 (talk) 00:18, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

This is not my approach, it is the approach recommended by the guidelines. Again, whether or not I'm actually bored (I'm not) or how I feel about Coke Zero (I love it) or whether I think you're a very nice person (I do) is totally, completely, utterly, and fully irrelevant. Also, if you have more pressing matters, then feel free to attend to those matters, and I will work with other editors to build a consensus here. I can repeat my "rationale". From WP:WHYCITE (a guideline): "Citations are also often discouraged in the lead section of an article, insofar as it summarizes information for which sources are given later in the article, although such things as quotations and particularly controversial statements should be supported by citations even in the lead." Items that are "discouraged" are "undesirable," and something that is "undesirable" should be "removed." Of course there is no requirement, but there are recommended guidelines that we follow in the case of an editing dispute. That is my rationale. Now, can you please provide me with an explanation as to why these statements could be considered particularly controversial? ColorOfSuffering (talk) 00:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I see this as getting repetitive and heating up, so I am invoking WP:Calm here so we can stop for a day, then continue. History2007 (talk) 00:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Please note, WP:CALM is an essay and has no applicability as policy or guideline in Wikipedia. :) I'm just kidding. Yes, let's take a breather. I cannot wait to be showered with Wikilove at some point in the near future. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 00:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, let us take a break for a few days and see what other editors may say. History2007 (talk) 20:34, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Moving Forward

So we've had a chance to sleep on it. Personally I feel refreshed, and I hope you do too. Before we start to involve other editors (either via WP:EA or WP:3O and make our way down the dispute resolution process I'll ask -- is there any chance you'd be willing to compromise and consent to me removing only the lead citations that are listed on points that are unlikely to be challenged? If, you are unwilling to consent, can you envision anything that will change your mind on this topic? ColorOfSuffering (talk) 21:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Suggest your desired version here and I will comment. WP:3O will not apply since there were 3 comments already, myself, you and Huon. WP:EA is not for general assistance, not opinions and disagreements. Your next step would have to be to look at the top of this talk page, and post on the message boards of the "relevant projects" listed and ask for opinions, e.g. WikiProject Christianity, Religion, etc. That will probably generate more comments. But type your desired version below and we will see. History2007 (talk) 21:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I hadn't heard from Huon after his initial post so I assumed he was no longer involved in this dispute. Have you been in conversations with him? Either way, I assume you mean WP:EA "is for" general assistance, correct? I don't see that anywhere on the page. I do see a sentence that reads "This process can also help in resolving disputes," but nothing about only using it for general assistance. Anyhow I will edit the article to show how I think it should look (I'm not going to post my proposed edit on the talk page for for approval, as I've already posted the changes I'd like to make). If you do not like my edit you can suggest an alternative, or revert my changes altogether. This is good. I'm glad we are getting somewhere. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 23:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, let us try that. I have no conversations outside talk pages, given that I have not enabled email. I think if you just trim the ones that will certainly not be challenged we may get somewhere... where that will be is unclear... But let us make sure we do not inadvertently step over 3RR as we do that. History2007 (talk) 23:15, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with ColorOfSuffering that the lead currently heavily cites sources even when the statements probably aren't controversial, and that we could remove quite a few sources for points no one disagrees with, such as the definition of historicity and distinction between the question of historicity and the historical Jesus (points 1 and 2 of his list above). I'd be willing to try the removal of the citations for what we believe will turn out to be uncontroversial statements in the lead - if the experiment fails and the statements we believed no one would doubt get criticized, we can put the citations back in. On the other hand, from past experience here and at the main Jesus article I'd say we should keep the citations for the controversial parts (such as the consensus about existence) at the current level - we still see people doubting those heavily-sourced statements and dispute the sources' neutrality; if there were fewer sources for such statements, the criticism would likely multiply. All that criticism probably is in good faith, but arguing against it takes lots of time, and it's much easier to point out that we have multiple sources from various backgrounds for those statements when the lead explicitly cites those sources. Huon (talk) 00:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Ok, that is in effect a WP:3O. So let us make a list of items in the lede that are "not likely to get challenged". History2007 (talk) 00:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Fantastic. Thank you for chiming in, Huon -- I suppose the next step is to shower you both with Wikilove, as long as it's cool with you. I completely agree with the idea of keeping the number of citations for the parts that are likely to be contested, and they appear to be very solid sources from what I can tell. As for the points I think are unlikely to be contested, I would vote for points 1, 2, 5, 10, 12, and 13 from above. Is this agreeable? I'm by no means an expert on this topic, but as a layperson I feel that these are fairly innocuous. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 01:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

My view:

• Items 1 & 2: Maybe, maybe not. I think not having any is asking for trouble, but if we can make a deal with just one citation for each that may be settled.

• Item 5: The refs for item 5 about little agreement were suggested by another user, so I can not fully speak for them, but some need to be there, so the article does not just say it. Many people are not are of these issues and may challenge that one. But we can just use 2 sources instead of 4 and I am not even sure which of those are scholarly assessments. Needs to be checked.

• Item 10: The widely discussed issue of the 8 facts is not well known but just Authenticating the Activities of Jesus as a source is good enough I think, the other 2 refs can go.

• 12&13: I think 12 and 13 are less likely to get challenged and can go source free.

If that works, we may have an agreement. History2007 (talk) 01:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I had roughly the same impression: I'd consider 1, 2, 12 and 13 harmless, but for 5 and 10 some sources might be necessary or helpful. For item 5 I could well imagine claims that there's a consensus that the gospel narrative isn't historical, thus sources on a lack of agreement would be useful. Huon (talk) 02:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with that. History2007 (talk) 08:15, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay, hope you both had a great weekend. I've given it a first pass per your recommendations. We're now down to 26 references in the lead. This is on par with atheism (another controversial article) which I think is a pretty good benchmark. I noticed that the sentence about Jesus' languages has 5 references. Do you think we can take the recommendation I gave above -- removing 3 and keeping McKnight/Dunn and Barr? I'd love to get back down to 20, since it's such a nice, round, divisible by 10 number...but I'd be happy with 23 or 26. Thoughts? ColorOfSuffering (talk) 22:00, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I think a piece of text was inadvertently lost there too. I will try to touch that up. Will also reduce language sources, but I don't know of a policy that says round numbers are better than others, but let us not make a big deal there so we can move on. History2007 (talk) 22:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Consensus?

I doubt there is consensus on the historicity of Jesus. I think the views described in the Christ myth theory article very much make clear that the belief that Jesus did not exist, is as mainstream as the belief he did. There seems to be POV in the sources saying there is a consensus. 131.155.204.21 (talk) 11:58, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Interesting that you should mention the Christ myth theory Wikipage, given that it also says that hardly any scholars dispute the existence of Jesus. And who are these large number of well known scholars who deny existence that led you to your personal opinion? Do you have a list of their recently published (before the 1970s) books? That should be easy to find if your opinion is correct. You need scholarly sources, not personal statements of your own. History2007 (talk) 14:22, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

All sources are christian, despite the fact that they are "evidence that all scholars, christian or not, are agreed that Jesus was real" (to paraphrase) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.71.69 (talk) 19:14, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, the multiple sources explicitly spelling out the consensus for us include by Ehrman, an agnostic, and Price, himself a mythicist. How much less biased can our sources be? Huon (talk) 14:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Theoretically, if G. A. Wells came out and said that, it would go even further. But I have said this before, and let me say it again: if some scholar writes "all scientists agree that there is no global warming" the screams of protest by the opposition will be heard all the way to the moon. In this case these scholars write this again and again, and the semi-opposition like Wells and Dawkins (neither of whom deny existence) are silent, and Price (who does deny existence) agrees with it. There is solid scholarly consensus on existence of Jesus. History2007 (talk) 14:35, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

One again, I'm sure a lot of this disagreement can be avoided if we state abundantly clearly in the Introduction that the "historicity" of Jesus refers to "any man named Jesus/Yusuf/etc who might have been the original basis of the Biblical figure", and not to "the incarnated God of the gospels". Wdford (talk) 14:38, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that may help. I will try to find a source for it that says in similar words that existence does not imply divinity, etc. and that he walked the streets of Judae, but did not necessarily perform any miracles, etc. as part of the historical record. History2007 (talk) 14:44, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of history, this is an issue of historical methodology. Historians (as historians) cannot claim that Jesus was more divine than Augustus or Vespasian. As Bart Ehrman puts it in some YouTube debates, historians have no access to God: they cannot say that Jesus was or wasn't divine, because that is not a scientific statement, but it is a theological statement. They can say that most Christians now believe that Jesus was divine. Historians cannot say that God fought for the Protestants against the Catholics, only theologians could say that (unless they are Catholic). Historians cannot prove or disprove theological statements and cannot prove or disprove that a certain person was divine. So, obviously, historians mean that Jesus was the flesh-and-blood man who was crucified and gave birth to Christianity. Mythicists say there was no such person, but they are a fringe position. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:08, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree. But I really do not know why that is not obvious to some people. That is also true of all religious statements (about Buddha, Muhammad, etc.), not just Jesus. Do you have a book reference to Ehrman's statement of that, so we can triple clarify it? Thanks. History2007 (talk) 19:14, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

The evidence that Bill himself doesn't see his explanation as historical is that he claims that his conclusion is that Jesus was raised from the dead. Well, that's a passive -- "was raised" -- who raised him? Well, presumably God! This is a theological claim about something that happened to Jesus. It's about something that God did to Jesus. But historians cannot presuppose belief or disbelief in God, when making their conclusions. Discussions about what God has done are theological in nature, they're not historical. Historians, I'm sorry to say, have no access to God. The canons of historical research are by their very nature restricted to what happens here on this earthly plane. They do not and cannot presuppose any set beliefs about the natural realm. I'm not saying this is good or bad. It's simply the way historical research works.

— Bart Ehrman, "Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus?"

Perhaps by "natural realm" he meant "supernatural realm". Quoted from http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/p96.htm There are more quotes about this view to be found there. Also available on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhT4IENSwac Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but those are not exactly WP:RS sites. And the other issue is that resurrection is a really extreme case - the hardest miracle in some sense. There is scholarly disagreement on even more basic episodes - I vaguely remember a few references, will look for them later... History2007 (talk) 00:57, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The sites themselves are no RS, but Ehrman is a RS. There's little doubt that he had been there and told that. Besides, as you mentioned above, the point made by Ehrman should be obvious for anybody who has some idea of how historical research works. Otherwise we would have history professors claiming that according to historical evidence Vespasian was divine or that Attila the Hun was possessed by evil spirits. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:57, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree. I just hope for a book reference so the matter can be set aside even if the youtube video goes away next week. History2007 (talk) 01:55, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

There are some references about scholars that disagree in the Wikipedia article "Historical Jesus" under the subsection "Criticism of historical Jesus research". Perhaps some references from there could be quoted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.79.154.9 (talk) 11:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Accusations of Anti-Christian propaganda in this article

I have invited User:Michael2012ro to explain here why he thinks that this article spreads "Anti-Christian propaganda". He thinks that the editors of this article are part of an Anti-Christian plot. See details upon Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Accusations of Anti-Christian propaganda on the Romanian Wikipedia. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:07, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I read the VP post: well this is Wikipedia, all kinds of funny suggestions. If Michael2012ro says Ehrman is anti-Christian he has supporters. If he says Ehrman is a former Christian he has supporters. I have said this before: Ehrman is really "middle of the road" because both the atheists and the Christian fundamentalists hate him. The atheists think he is a former Christian, the Christians think he is a turncoat who no longer believes in God. But they all respect his scholarship, for he knows the topic. Anyway, in the larger context, there are over 200 sources here. History2007 (talk) 00:09, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I think he chickened out of this discussion, knowing that his paranoid accusations, which were tolerated on the Romanian Wikipedia won't be tolerated on the English Wikipedia. If he has some balls, let him say it here that in his opinion you are all enemies of Christianity, all part of a Satanic plot. Tgeorgescu (talk) 13:36, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, I see you don’t stop with your manipulations and attacks. Let anybody know that in your profile you have jokes about the Bible,(you say there also that “Bible is absurde”) and you also tried to include the apostle Paul into the wikipedia category of communists ...

I never said anything about the english form of this article, but about your interventions into romanian variant of this article. I’m perfectly satisfied with the form of this article in English language. So your accusations are parte of your personal attack campaign against me. As I said, I don’t have time for such conflicts...Michael2012ro (talk) 09:47, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Look, I have translated from this article upon ro:Isus din Nazaret and you claimed my translation is part of an Anti-Christian plot which tries to shove historical facts down the throat of Christianity and it should not belong in that article. Don't forget that there are people who are able to read your contributions upon the Romanian Wikipedia and how you bashed Erhman and Coogan as Anti-Christian authors, exalting your own view of Jesus (namely as a guru). Even Google Translate can render some insight into what you have said upon the Romanian Wikipedia. So don't think that here the people are dumb. Your statements will be archived forever by Wikipedia and people will be able to read what you wrote. Once you wrote what you have written there is no way to delete it. There is not coming back from it, except through apologizing for calling my translation "Anti-Christian propaganda". Since it can be my translation, but it is the work of the editors of this article, and by bashing the translation as Anti-Christian you are bashing the editors of this article. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:50, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The apostles formed a Communist society, this is a historical fact, it is even written in the Acts of the Apostles. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

... his [tgeorgescu's] presence in the articles about Christianity is suspect, his contributions quoting sources which are patently Anti-Christian and which belong only in separate chapters or separate pages according to Wikipedia's policies.

— User:Michael2012ro, [10]

The "patently Anti-Christian sources" were extracted from the article which we are now discussing and from Historical Jesus. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:13, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

The sources are listed at ro:Isus cel istoric#Note (they are easy to read since most of them are in English). Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:20, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

About the absurdities of the Bible, according to Bart D. Ehrman you cannot get a MDiv from a mainstream US theological seminary (either Catholic or Protestant) if you don't study the errors, contradictions and absurdities of the Bible. Ehrman, Bart (2010). "A Historical Assault on Faith". Jesus, Interrupted: Revealing the Hidden Contradictions in the Bible (And Why We Don't Know About Them). HarperCollins e-books. pp. 3–4. ISBN 9780061173943. My hunch is that the majority of students coming into their first year of seminary training do not know what to expect from courses on the Bible. ... Most students expect these courses to be taught from a more or less pious perspective, showing them how, as future pastors, to take the Bible and make it applicable to people's lives in their weekly sermons.
Such students are in for a rude awakening. Mainline Protestant seminaries in this country are notorious for challenging students' cherished beliefs about the Bible—even if these cherished beliefs are simply a warm and fuzzy sense that the Bible is a wonderful guide to faith and practice, to be treated with reverence and piety. These seminaries teach serious, hard-core Bible scholarship. They don't pander to piety. They are taught by scholars who are familiar with what German- and English-speaking scholarship has been saying about the Bible over the past three hundred years. ...
The approach taken to the Bible in almost all Protestant (and now Catholic) mainline seminaries is what is called the "historical-critical" method. It is completely different from the "devotional" approach to the Bible one learns in church. {{cite book}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |accessdate= (help) Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Since we apparently all agree this article is fine, this discussion is pointless or in the wrong place (or both). Huon (talk) 23:58, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Let me rephrase Michael's message for the editors of this article: this article is full with "patently Anti-Christian sources" which do not belong in an article about Christianity, and including them in an article about Christianity is a violation of Wikipedia's policies (such as WP:NPOV). At least, this is what he said in Romanian language, I have translated above a quote from his accusations. If you don't believe me use Google Translate or ask somebody else to translate it for you. So, he apparently completely changed his mind and no longer sees any problems in this article, but... that is not what he has claimed about the translation from this article upon the Romanian Wikipedia. He lacks the balls to offend you in a page wherein you are able to defend your views and where the administrators swiftly enforce the policies. Weirdly, on the Romanian Wikipedia no administrator seemed to care that you have been collectively offended by him. I thought that as any honorable man he will be true to his word, but he cunningly changed his mind about this article being a platform for Anti-Christian propaganda. What is a reliable source on the English Wikipedia is a reliable source on the Romanian Wikipedia, so I fail to see how Michael's message for this article was lost in translation. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Of course you can't generalize like this, first because I didn't even have the time to analyze all of your quotes. Second because our argue was about some specific quotes , like this from M Coogan. And if someone, even a scholar, try to demonstrate something which is contrary to evanghelical truth, like the fact that Marry was virgin at least untill the born of Jesus, let me suspect that source and try to discover his beliefs. Is important to know biography or religion of sources that argue the evanghelical truths and see if they are muslims or judeans, or pandeist like yourself, to understand their neutrality. Stop trying to put anathema on me. Unlike you, I study history of religion and I have a profound respect for all religions. And I'm sure wikipedia do not allow denigration of religious symbols. I never said anything about this article, and our fight wasn't about this article, so just stop. Michael2012ro (talk) 07:59, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

WP:TPG

Without making accusations either way, regarding the conversation above, per WP:TPG I think this discussion needs to be closed, given that it has become clear that it is not likely to have an impact on the contents of this page. I therefore move to close this discussion, and if other editors agree, now that the interested parties have said what they have, we can just close it, and move on. History2007 (talk) 14:28, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Much ado about nothing, the many quotes turned out to be a sweeping comment about a single quote by Coogan doubting the virginity of Mary. Michael2012ro thought "Coogan is a Jew," (he did think that Coogan is a Jew, he made it clear on the Romanian Wikipedia), "Jews are the enemies of Christ," (Michael's tacit assumption, since most Jews don't buy the "evangelical truth") "therefore the quote from Coogan is Anti-Christian". Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:36, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

IP addition of unsourced commentary

WP:NOTAFORUM Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 01:49, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I reverted an IP's addition of unsourced comments. I think it is just WP:OR. IP, please do not add material that per WP:LEDE does not appear in the body. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 19:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC) Come to think of it, given that Pending changes have been turned on, this page deserves to get that. History2007 (talk) 19:06, 1 January 2013 (UTC) Common knowledge statements do not require a source. stating obvious facts such as "the earth is a planet" or "fire is not an element" do not require cited sources, since they are obvious facts which are known to everyone. The following factual truths are undisputed : Not a single scholar has provided any physical evidence of a contemporary historical document containing any specific reference to an individual named Jesus, divine or otherwise, and the fact remains that there is no historical eyewitness account of a person named Jesus in any known written record between 0 CE and 50 CE, the historical period during which Jesus is reputed to have been born, lived and died, therefore the non-existance of an historical Jesus has not been refuted by any valid means which could be legally accepted as forensic evidence in a court of law. Logically if such forensic evidence existed it would be a simple task for scholars to refute any claim of non-existence by providing some document or written record containing at least one eyewitness account. Since no scholar has provided any such document to date, the argument for non-existence has neither been refuted or even challenged by any physical historical evidence. These are the inconvenient truths which most scholars refuse to comment on, for the obvious reason that such facts invalidate any claim of historical proof of the existence of Jesus, therefore defenders of the faith make a concerted effort to suppress these facts, thereby limiting the debate to 'professional opinions' rather than physical evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.230.105.7 (talk) 20:16, 1 January 2013 (UTC) While you make some decent points, the problem is that WP does not rely on first principles reasoning or what it calls "original research", see WP:OR. That's a good thing, or else every internet crackpot could start inserting their own pet theories. If you want to argue these points yourself, this is not the place to do it. What we can do however, is to find reliable sources that make these points, and quote them. Where sources contradict each other, it becomes important to present the viewpoints as opposing opinions rather than statements of fact. In general WP relies on an academic consensus. If you believe that the academic consensus on this subject is dominated by conflicts of interests (religious faith or affiliation, careers built on the supposed historicity of Jesus etc), then that is just tough luck. We can't argue from first principles that these people are wrong, although we can point out the potential for bias, especially if this bias has been addressed by RS both inside and outside the field, as is actually the case. I happen to know that theology and religious studies have very little respectability in the hard sciences (though the two are often unfairly confused by some of these critics), and it may be possible to find quotes from RS to that effect. Nevertheless, these can only be presented as opposing viewpoints. Martijn Meijering (talk) 11:45, 2 January 2013 (UTC) Martijn Meijering is correct of course: 1. No argument from first principles, and 2. Opposing views need to be provided as opposing views from WP:RS sources. Regarding the first century sources, I think that may need to be explained a little bit, e.g. the silence of Pilo may need to be mentioned and clarified in that in Embassy to Gaius Philo criticized Pilate but not for killing Jesus. On the other hand, Philo never even mentioned Christians at all, and scholars state that in 40 AD Christian were not a significant enough item in Judae to deserve a mention, so their founder was of no interest to Philo, etc. I have sources for all of that and will add something about that. History2007 (talk) 13:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC) This article is clearly biased against any factual arguments which disagree with popular opinion, with any balancing information censored (under threat of blocking) by authoritarian protocols. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.230.105.7 (talk) 20:43, 1 January 2013 (UTC) Your statement about "the inconvenient truths which most scholars refuse to comment on" runs directly against WP:RS and WP:V. If it is that obvious, why even state it. But now that it is challenged, you need a source. Your last edit absolutely deviates from hat the sources state. And your reference on your talk page to Nazis is really uncalled for. This article clearly needs Pending changes. History2007 (talk) 21:34, 1 January 2013 (UTC) I agree with History2007. 79.230.105.7, if you don't find sources that support your point of view, please don't fake the quotations we have. Huon (talk) 22:07, 1 January 2013 (UTC) No reference to 'Nazis' have been made on the talk page, there was however a reference to "Grammar Nazis" which is another thing entirely, the failure to make such a distinction puts the comprehensive abilities of the reader into question. It is clearly 'biased censorship' which is uncalled for. I challenge 'any scholar of history' to cite Here and Now (1) single credible extra-biblical document containing (1) single eyewitness account of Jesus produced between 0 CE and 40 CE, during the reputed lifetime of Jesus, with an image link displaying the actual document itself. The historical existence of Jesus is now on trial, if no forensic eyewitness evidence can be provided, then the case for the existence of Jesus is effectively 'lost'. All biblical references to Jesus were written a century after the fact, and therefore are not by definition eyewitness accounts. Any historian can provide eyewitness evidence of the historical existence of Julius Caesar, Napoleon or Hitler, the same level of eyewitness evidence must now be provided to establish the existence of Jesus, or all historians must concede that no such evidence exists, and that claims of non-existence HAVE NOT been refuted, not by a long shot! "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." ~ Carl Sagan (Butting in...) I concur with History2007 that PC protection would be appropriate. As far as evidence goes, I sincerely hope you're prepared to make the same arguments regarding Socrates and Gautama Buddha (not to get you started or anything). Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 10:52, 2 January 2013 (UTC) Yes, but the IP does not dispute what the sources say, or offer new sources, just "argues from first principles" and seems to hint that the professors are in some sense "out to lunch". But WP:V is built on the use of WP:RS sources, of course. History2007 (talk) 11:00, 2 January 2013 (UTC) The bulk of my comment above was directed to the IP, not you. Just realised that may not have been entirely clear. Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 11:24, 2 January 2013 (UTC) Yes, I agree with you Evan, but not with the IP. History2007 (talk) 13:58, 2 January 2013 (UTC) To Evan, Unlike Jesus - there have been no instances of mass murder, torture, mutilation, false imprisonment and endless other unspeakable atrocities commited against humanity in the name of 'Socrates' or 'Buddha', whereas uncountable such atrocities have been perpetrated during the past 17 centuries in the name of 'Jesus', a fictional character with alleged superpowers, completely absent from the extra-biblical historical record, born in a village which did not exist before the early 4th century, and only then on the initiative of Emperor Constantine, who was unable to find any such town in Galilee. So the issue here is not Socrates or Buddha, nor any other person in the written historical record, the issue here is 'accountability' on the part of bible scholars to present contemporary physical eyewitness accounts in the form of written documents containing one or more specific 'named' references to 'Jesus of Nazareth', which can be authenticated and dated between 0 CE and 40 CE. There is 'no other issue'. History2007 is correct in that no attempt is made on my part to challenge sources or claims included in this article, I have attempted only to balance the article by making a point that Jesus of Nazareth is not part of the known extra-biblical historical record, and if this is not the case, then scholars must be made accountable for publishing any documents which physically prove that Jesus 'was' part of the contemporary extra-biblical historical record of the early 1st century CE. If these scholars have knowledge that such douments exist, it should be as easy as holding up the artifact and saying - "Look At This!" rather than wasting our time with 'opinions' and insulting our intelligence by proclaiming that all arguments against the existence of Jesus has been 'refuted', when they most assuredly have NOT been refuted. This article is clearly biased against any argument which cites the conspicuous lack of a single eyewitness account of Jesus of Nazareth in the extra-biblical historical record. Any layperson reading this article is lead by the hand like a blue-eyed child through a minefield of christian propaganda and subjugated into accepting the foregone conclusion that any experienced free-thinking scientists who dare have the audacity to ask for physical evidence for the existance of Jesus are all completely 'off their trolly' and should under no circumstances be given the time of day, muchless be taken seriously. This is the same propaganda technique used by Joseph Goebbels to programme the citizens and youth of Deutschland into accepting the gospel of National Socialism. I assure you I will not have it, and no ethical scientist or free thinking person with any integrity will have it. Provide the forementioned document artifacts or concede that Jesus is a composite Myth, constructed in the 2nd century to achieve a covert agenda, and the world has been deceived and oppressed by power hungry despotic Popes and Theologians for centuries, in the name of 'Jesus'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.230.105.7 (talk) 21:12, 2 January 2013 (UTC) So you basically admit that you tried to push your personal point of view without having reliable sources to back it up. Wikipedia is not your soapbox. Huon (talk) 22:18, 2 January 2013 (UTC) IP 79.230.105.7, thank you for that brief lecture. I did not know Goebbels used the same techniques... But do you have a source for that? But jokes aside, this is totally off topic, and needs to be closed off per WP:TPG, of course. History2007 (talk) 22:41, 2 January 2013 (UTC) Indeed Huon, Wikipedia is not my soapbox, it is the soapbox of popular opinion, as proven by the skewed dogmatic viewpoint presented in this article. The reader is not permitted to form an independent conclusion based on balanced evidence from all viewpoints, but forced into conformity with the 'one true single viewpoint'. As stated above, opinions are worthless, there is no other relevant issue here other than providing physical evidence of a contemporary eyewitness account. Absolutely no concensus will be possible until such an artifact has been presented here for all eyes to see. Meanwhile, I will let you have the last word now. Go on then. Happy New Year to all of you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.230.105.7 (talk) 01:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC) Would anyone mind if I hatted this goalpost-moving drivel? Evanh2008 (talk|contribs) 01:40, 3 January 2013 (UTC) Please do, per WP:TPG and WP:Forum. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 01:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC) Please leave the discussion page as it is, nothing more will be added to the discussion on my part, and no further reverts, so long as the existing discussion remains unhidden and uncensored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.230.105.7 (talk) 11:51, 3 January 2013 (UTC) Archiving off-topic discussions in this way is what the talk page guideline explicitly recommends. Huon (talk) 12:30, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Van Voorst

"Although a few scholars question the passage given that Tacitus was born 25 years after Jesus's death, the majority of scholars consider it genuine.[122] (Van Voorst, Robert E (2000). Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence. Eerdmans Publishing. ISBN 0-8028-4368-9 pages 30-32). This book and its author is cited throughout this article. I kind of what to know what the book said that indicated that the majority of the worlds scholars believe is genuine historicity of Jesus. Does anyone have a copy of this book? The author is Pastor Robert E. Van Voorst. I can't find this book at my public or college library database and it's not on the website for book sellers in my city. This is listed under non-Christian sources for Tacitus, but is it really okay to use a Christian for analysis on a non-Christian source? And is it really surprising that a Christian pastor would say that most scholars believe that Tacitus is evidence that Jesus was a historical figure? I kind of come here to read the real facts about Jesus, to separate the known fact from the fiction. I almost feel like there should be an Historicity of the Historicity of Jesus article. SmallEditsForLife (talk) 11:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Van Voorst is a widely respected scholar; especially Jesus Outside the New Testament has gathered positive reviews and endorsements from people on all sides of the debate, including, say, atheist and mythicist Richard Carrier ([11]). Our article on Robert E. Van Voorst has another couple of reviews of that book. For a list of libraries carrying it, see WorldCat. And while I don't know about your local booksellers, Amazon carries it, as does Barnes&Noble.

There's nothing wrong with using a Christian academic for analysis of a non-Christian source as long as his religion doesn't distort his scholarship, and Van Voorst doesn't seem to suffer that flaw. Besides, our Tacitus on Christ article has four (!) other sources supporting Van Voorst on the academic consensus about authenticity. Huon (talk) 15:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Regarding Van Voorst, two separate points:

• There is no restriction in Wikipedia for the use of WP:RS scholarly sources based on the religion (or lack thereof) of the author if he is viewed as a reliable source, as discussed several times on WP:RSN in various contexts beyond this book. In Wikipedia Buddhists scholars can be used about Buddhism and Jewish scholars on Judaism, etc. Else agnostics could not be allowed to write on agnosticism, and only Christians and Jews could be used as sources about it.

• Regarding that specific book, Van Voorst's book is generally viewed as the best scholarly source on the topic, by a number of Chrisian and non-Christian authors. There is no doubt that the book meets the WP:RS criteria, given that it is quoted by a number of other highly respected authors, e.g. on page 510 of his book (ISBN 0073407445) Stephen Harris refers to it and states that Van Voorst's book examines all known ancient noncnonical references to Jesus. Köstenberger also refers to it on page 104 of his book (ISBN 0-8054-4365-7). On page 162 of his book (ISBN 0802826806) Michael McClymond relies on it, and calls it "the best recent discussion on the topic". And on page 154 of his book (ISBN 0801027470), after reviewing the historical issues, Craig L. Blomberg states: "The fullest compilation of all this data is now conveniently accessible in Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament". Moreover, on his blog on July 11, 2012 well known atheist Richard Carrier reviewed the book "Is This Not the Carpenter? The Question of the Historicity of the Figure of Jesus" and criticized the treatment of non-Christian sources by Lester Grabbe in that book. Carrier then said to his readers: "I would recommend you simply buy and use Van Voorst on this subject". Carrier does not have an academic position and his standing as a scholar has been questioned, but the fact that he endorses Van Voorst is interesting. So Van Voorst is an established WP:RS scholar, and his book is widely accepted as the best on the subject.

Now, regarding Tacitus, given that you wanted o understand the reasons, I will summarize them here. Those who attack the passage generally do not attack it as not being genuine, but based on the angle that the whole of Annals was fake (very, very few do that), or that Tacitus was too late to be of value, or that there should have been many more authors like him. So the answer to your question is that it is highly unlikely for the passage to have been interpolated and later inserted by a Christian scribe because it shows total disdain for Christianity and seems to have thought that they may have been cannibals, based on the "this is my blood" statement of the Eucharistic act. The intense hostility shown towards Christians in the passage is thus an indication that it is not a Christian interpolation. And remember that in the Middle Ages there were no challenges to the existence of Jesus, so there was little motive to manufacture material to defend his existence. Denial of Jesus started in the 18th century.

Regarding the Annals, as on the Christ Myth theory page, Myth theorist Acharya S discounts the Tacitus reference by arguing that the entire Annals have been forged by 15th century Italian author Poggio Bracciolini (1380-1459) at Hersfeld Abbey in Germany. While Bracciolini had discovered three minor works at Hersfeld in 1425, Zanobi da Strada who died in 1361 (before the birth of Bracciolini) discovered Annals 11-16 (the reference to Christians appears in book 15) at Monte Cassino. That the Annals were discovered before the birth of Bracciolini is also evidence by the writings of da Strada's friend Giovanni Boccaccio (1313 - 1375) who was commissioned by the city of Florence to write Commento di Dante which he completed c. 1374, where he made clear use of the Annals when he gave an account of the death of Seneca the Younger directly based on the Tacitus account in Annals book 15. So that Acharya S hypothesis has other historical problems. So the situation is rather straightforward once you look into it, and as the sources indicate. History2007 (talk) 20:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. Regarding Richard Carrier, the opening paragraph on his Wikipedia sources his belief on the topic which quotes him as saying "I think that more likely than not, Jesus did not exist." In his blog post, Carrier said that only with regards to Crabbe's point about Tacitus being the only Roman writer to mention Pilate. The endorsement was not about the historicity of Jesus. Stephen Harris is a Christian. As is Köstenberger (he has a doctorate from an *evangelical* school). I can't find anything about McClymond or why he is notable. Blomberg is also a Christian. So if I am to understand you correctly, when it is said that the majority of scholars say something is genuine, that could actually be interchangeable with "the majority of Christians believe it is genuine"? I'm not trying to bash religion here, but this is meant to be an encyclopaedia. The quote I pulled from the article was from non Christian sources, but Van Voorst is clearly a Christian and regarding his source for academic consensus, ever person he listed as agreeing with him are Christian too. I think this could be a great example of the kind of untruths that may be present throughout this article. SmallEditsForLife (talk) 21:36, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I did not use Carrier as a reliable source, but in passing, in that he has no academic position anyway. But the heart of your argument is that "Christian authors are no good as sources". Sorry that is not how Wikipedia works. And indeed, apart from Carrier, Richard Price and a couple of other popular writers you will be really hard pressed to find scholars who deny the existence of Jesus. There is no policy in Wikipedia that rejects Jewish scholars from use in Judaism articles, etc. That is policy. And you have provided no sources that say Van Voorst is no good. Have you? So please provide sources, not personal opinions. History2007 (talk) 22:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Then would it be so bad to change it to "most Christian scholars", instead of "most scholars", throughout the article where appropriate? SmallEditsForLife (talk) 10:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

That would not correspond to the source. And non-Christian scholars support it too, so it would be less than accurate. Labeling scholars based on religion is not Wikipedia policy and it implies that they had a specific angle on the issues and may be less than objective based on their belief and ethnicity. See the discussion yesterday on the Christ myth theory page about the same issue, and Wikipedia:I just don't like it overtones mentioned there. The very idea was called silly by other editors over there... History2007 (talk) 13:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

But of course Christians will say that Jesus was a historical figure. That's the entire point of being a Christian. I asked what was meant by "most scholars agree", as I didn't have access to the book, but the list of scholars that agree are all Christian. Why *wouldn't* a Christian agree that Jesus was a historical figure, and that all potential evidence for his existence is genuine? SmallEditsForLife (talk) 23:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Further, this article has more than 100 uses of the word "scholar" (my browser won't count more than 100 hits on a page), and virtually all uses of the word are variations of "virtually all scholars agree" that Jesus was a historical figure and that purported evidence of this is all genuine. However, the sources presented for these, the ones that I sampled anyway, all list only Christians as the scholars that agree. Something seriously stinks about this article. This isn't an encyclopaedia article, it isn't an honest article, considering the subject matter and title. It's trying very hard to give an impression that is not an honest one. SmallEditsForLife (talk) 23:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Your argument is no based on policy, or sources. It is just talk and personal conjecture. You have cited no policy that the religion of a scholar can be reason for the exclusion of said scholar, or his segregation. And your own sampling runs against WP:RS/AC. And regarding Van Voorst, WP:USEBYOTHERS is of course solidly against you, as discussed above. And a good indication that your reasoning is not Wiki-valid was the discussion on the Christ myth theory page that I pointed you too. And it says the same about virtually all scholars. You have no policy to base your arguments on, and no sources that say "lots of scholars think Jesus did not exist". Do you? So either provide sources, or say you have none. Do you have sources? Do you? My challenge to you is this: Find a source that says many scholars think Jesus did not exist. Or easier than that find the names of 7 professors at 7 universities that have written papers that say Jesus did not exist. Just list them for my education, Ok? I will really appreciate getting that list from you. But remember they need to be professors at real "academic institutions" with real campuses, not accountants who write self-published books on the side, or people who teach online courses. So please do provide a list of these professors for my education. I will appreciate it. Thank you in advance. History2007 (talk) 00:37, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Also, the "virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree" line is by Bart Ehrman, an agnostic who explicitly includes non-Christian scholars in the consensus. See the very first reference. Secondly, when we report on the scholarly consensus, we don't just present a bunch of scholars who agree on the issues; we cite them for the consensus itself. You'd have to claim that Christian scholars were blinded so much by their religion that they couldn't even see other scholars disagreeing with them. For example our second reference is to Price who himself doesn't believe in Jesus' existence but still says that the scholarly consensus does - every scholar worthy of the name would correctly report the scholarly consensus even if he disagrees (the greater the honour if the scholar's dissenting opinion turns out to be correct). And if you want to accuse this article of dishonesty, you should better have some reliable sources of your own contradicting the article. Huon (talk) 00:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree, but I was trying to get him to do some research on it. That way as he searched and searched he would figure out he could not come up with 7 names. But let me ask for the 7 names again... So SmallEditsForLife could you please name these 7 professors who say Jesus does not exist, just for my education. I would appreciate it. Thank you again in advance. History2007 (talk) 00:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

I missed this post at first. What seven names are you talking about? SmallEditsForLife (talk) 11:09, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

With help from my college librarian over the break, I have been hunting down copies of every book referenced with regards to academic opinion/scholarship. There are still quite a few I cannot find in any academic system and my library was going to order them in, but many of them are only available to purchase from the authors own website, which is a problem in how the library usually sources and pays for books. I'll be scanning every page referenced for the benefit of all editors and future editors of this article, dumping the relevant pages on imgur, and will rescan any further pages referenced in the future. I may have to just buy many of these books myself. If anyone would like to contribute to this project, please drop me a message on my user page. SmallEditsForLife (talk) 06:28, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry, I did not want to cause you to spend money ordering from the author's website. If you have to order from an author's web site that book is probably self-published and not of any use in Wikipedia. Please also see this list which is a good list of publishers not to use. When I first started working on that I was surprised that a company such as Vantage Press is a self-publisher - and one that has paid millions in damages to its own authors. So the publishers on that list should just be ignored as far as Wikipedia is concerned, for scholars do not use them and they are not WP:RS. The best way would be to only rely on books that a college library could get for you, because those are likely to be by scholars, rather than self-published.

For the purpose of your pursuit, the best source for the list of people arguing against the existence of Jesus would be one of the older books of G.A. Wells, any of the books he wrote in the 1980s, or early 1990s. He has since changed his position, so his newer books no longer deny existence, but almost everyone agrees that Wells was the most comprehensive and eloquent author who argued against existence. He has changed his mind, so he is no longer among the list of scholars who argue against.

There are a number of accountant/attorney types who self-publish on the topic, but there are also non-scholars on the other side, and I usually laugh at Kermit Zarley writing on the topic. His work is as full of errors arguing for Biblical analogies, OT items, etc. as the works of the likes of Acharya S arguing against him. Most of these self-published books (on both sides) are loaded with elementary errors. The avoidance of self-publishers on both sides in Wikipedia is a major, and constructive, issue.

But there are lists of books that argue it on the internet, and below here, I will post one of them, just for clarification. History2007 (talk) 11:32, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Analysis of a list of books about the existence of Jesus

This is a list of books typically presented on the internet as an overview of the authors who argue against the existence of Jesus, historicity of accounts, etc. Based on the analysis below, we can see how many "academics and scholars" there are here:

• Harold Leidner, 2000, The Fabrication of the Christ Myth. Leidner was a patent attorney (NY University Law school 1939) and amateur scholar. He was an attorney, not a scholar and wrote as an amateur outside the field of law.

• Robert M. Price: Deconstructing Jesus. 2003. Price is a biblical scholar, has training in the field and denies the existence of Jesus. However, he acknowledges (The Historical Jesus: Five Views ISBN 028106329X page 61) that hardly any scholars agree with his perspective on this issue.

• Hal Childs, 2000, The Myth of the Historical Jesus and the Evolution of Consciousness Childs is a psychoterapist (not a scholar in the field) but does not deny the existence of Jesus. His perspective is shared by a number of scholars who support the existence of Jesus, e.g. John Dominic Crossan who also said: "those who write biographies of Jesus often do autobiography, but think they are doing biography". Child's perspective is unrelated to the existence question.

• Dennis MacDonald, 2000, The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark. MacDonald is a scholar, but does not deny the existence of Jesus as a person, he just argues that the Gospel of Mark was influenced by Homeric elements. He also thinks the Book of Acts includes Homeric trends, but that is unrelated to the existence question.

• Burton L. Mack The Christian Myth: Origins, Logic, and Legacy. Social formation of myth making. Mack is a scholar who specifically supports the theory that Jesus existed as a traveling sage. Mack was a member of the Jesus seminar, believes that Jesus existed, but holds that his death was accidental and not due to his challenge to Jewish authority.

• Luigi Cascioli, 2001, The Fable of Christ. Indicting the Papacy for profiteering from a fraud! Cascioli was a "land surveyor" who worked for the Italian army. His book was self-published. His claim to fame was that in 2002 he sued the Church for inventing Jesus, but in 2005 his case was rejected. He was no scholar.

• Israel Finkelstein, Neil Silberman, 2002, The Bible Unearthed Finkelstein and a Silberman are archaeologists, but they do not deny the existence of Jesus. Their work is centered on archaeological themes and mostly addresses the Old Testament. Hardly anyone lists these two people as Jesus myth theorists.

• Frank Zindler, 2003, The Jesus the Jews Never Knew. Zindler (who seems to have been a biologist at some point) does not seem to have had any scholarly training or taught at any university on this topic. What he writes on the topic is all self-taught, not scholarly.

• Daniel Unterbrink, 2004, Judas the Galilean. Unterbrink is an accountant, and his book is self-published by iUniverse.

• Tom Harpur, 2005, The Pagan Christ: Recovering the Lost Light. Harpur (who is a follower of Gerald Massey) argues that Egyptian myths influenced Judaism and Christianity, but he does not deny the existence of Jesus. Harpur's theory is that Jesus of Nazareth existed but mythical stories from Egypt were later added to the gospel narratives about him.

• Francesco Carotta 2005, Jesus Was Caesar. Carotta does not deny the existence of Jesus, on the other hand he thinks Jesus existed but was Julius Caesar: a very unusual theory, but it does not deny the existence of Jesus.

• Joseph Atwill, 2005, Caesar's Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus It is not clear who Joseph Atwill is. He seems to have written one paper on the Dead Sea Scrolls with Eisenman, but he does not seem to have any scholarly background, apart from having studied Greek and Latin as a youth in Japan, according to a review website. No trace of his having been a scholar of any kind.

• Michel Onfray Traité d'athéologie (2007 In Defence of Atheism): Onfray, has a PhD in philosophy and was a high school teacher. He is critical of all religions including Judaism and Islam and thinks Christian doctrine was invented by Paul. Rather than focusing on the existence of Jesus his work deals with how religious doctrines were created and how they impact western philosophy.

• Kenneth Humphreys, 2005, Jesus Never Existed. I can find no evidence anywhere that Humphreys is a scholar of any type, and where he was educated. He just seems to run his own website, and his book is published by Historical Review Press, which is Anthony Hancock (publisher), whose specialty is Holocaust denial books. A really WP:Fringe item.

• Jay Raskin, 2006, The Evolution of Christs and Christianities Raskin has a PhD in philosophy, and has taught some philosophy and film making courses at various colleges. His book is self-published by Xlibris - "nonselective" in accepting manuscripts according to their Wikipedia page. Raskin is better known as a film-maker than a historian or philosopher and his movies have titles such as I married a Vampire. He is no scholar.

• Thomas L. Thompson, 2006, The Messiah Myth. Thompson is a scholar and a denier of the existence of Jesus. He is one of the very few scholars who still deny existence.

• Jan Irvin, Andrew Rutajit, 2006, Astrotheology and Shamanism From what I can find neither of these people are scholars and they seem to have a theory that religions are based on the use of narcotics: a pure WP:Fringe idea that seems to have been advocated by John Allegro as well. This is not scholarship, and these are not scholars.

• Roger Viklund, 2008. Den Jesus som aldrig funnits (The Jesus who never existed). Viklund is an amateur who self-published his book in Swedish and just has his own website. Not a scholar at all.

I think for the sake of completeness, we should add a few other writers mentioned on various websites and Wikipages, they are:

• Richard Carrier Not the Impossible Faith and Sense and Goodness without God. He has a PhD in history, but has no academic position and his books are self published by LuLu and Authorhouse. He runs his own website and may seen as a scholar or not, depending on perspective. Not clear what he does for a living.

• D. M. Murdock (Acharya S) The Gospel According to Acharya S is a self-published author and her web site says she has a B.A. degree. There is no claim or record of her ever having had an academic position and she is not a scholar by any measure.

• Earl Doherty Jesus: Neither God Nor Man - The Case for a Mythical Jesus is a self-published author. He has a B.A. but no advanced degrees and is not a scholar.

• Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy The Jesus Mysteries . Freke has a B.A. degree and Gandy an M.A. Neither has a PhD or had an academic position. Freke teaches experiential seminars. Neither is a scholar.

So really there is one solid academic scholar here namely Thompson and then Price who can be called a non-academic scholar - given that he only teaches online courses on the subject (around $50 per course) at an online website with no campus. Note that G. A. Wells has softened his position of non-existence and now accepts the likely existence of a preacher mentioned in the Q source, although holding that the gospel narratives of his life/miracles are fiction. But just Thompson and Price do not make a long list. There are probably 1 or 2 more people with PhDs who deny existence (say Carrier, but who has no academic post) yet it is quite clear from this list that most of those mentioned are either amateurs or are scholars such as Mack who actually support existence. Most of these people are attorney/accountant/etc./etc. types and not scholars. The funniest one however was suggesting Raskin as a scholar. But anyway, the results speak for themselves. History2007 (talk) 11:20, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood the point of my project. It isn't to conduct research into the topic matter, but to just collect and present the pages cited here, as well as anything else curious (one of the books is actually dedicated to Jesus!), just so we can see how this page got to where it is today. All I really want to do is assist any future editors who come to this article and aren't sure what to do with citations for books they can't find online or at their library. My librarian has put me through to a secular student club who seem very interested in having a look, but everyone is on break here at the moment so I'll have to wait until term starts before getting started. It turns out that my college also has a theological library (who knew?) who also might be able to order in these books, as they don't face the same scrutiny as the central library system, and can pay through PayPal. My campus also has a Wikipedia editor student club, but I haven't received a reply from their Facebook yet. SmallEditsForLife (talk) 11:18, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I guess I am still not clear. Are you scanning the books? Is that the idea? If so, I think you can use them for your personal purposes, as long as the copyright issues are done right, but the scanned text can probably not be loaded to Wikimedia Commons due to copyright issues. Very old text can be loaded to Wikisource, and in fact that is the direction they are going in. So adding the public domain items to Wikisource would be a very good idea. In any case, you can read the books as you wish, of course.

I should, however, mention that going out and suggesting to like-minded students, friends, etc. to come and advocate a point of view on an article is subject to WP:MEAT and not allowed by Wikipedia. So while you can read all you want, seeking outside help is a WP:MEAT issue and against Wikipedia policy.

Yet, the list of books above may still be useful in that I suggest you read not just the books referenced in this article, but all scholarly books on the subject that you can get your hands on. I think your driving force is that you can not believe that the summary provided in the article can be true, and hence wish to verify it. The way to do that is to look all that is published by all sides. My point is that once you look at all that is published on all sides you will clearly see that the list above is quite comprehensive and that there are really very, very few scholars on the other side of the issue, as the analysis above indicates. History2007 (talk) 14:37, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

As a side note, just for your clarification, given that you seem to think the existence debate is still raging in academia I did another search. It again confirmed that the debate is really over within academia and only the non-scholarly types are still discussing it. The funniest part was this challenge a year ago. I did another search and it seems that based on this ABC news item in Australia as of now no one has found an opposing professor of ancient history or classics. And there are plenty of professors out there; many of them non-Christian. The exact challenge seems to be to find "a full professor of Classics, Ancient History or New Testament in any accredited university in the world who thinks Jesus never lived". And no one seems to have found such a professor. So it is intuitively pretty clear that the debate is over within academia, just as the references indicate. What I just wrote does not affect the article, but from an intuitive point of view should tell you that the debate is over within academia. Else we can all call John Dickson and get him to eat a page after all. History2007 (talk) 04:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

There is yet one more scholar, namely Thomas L. Brodie, who in a recent 2012 book ("Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus" ISBN 978-1907534584) has argued that the coherence of 1 Kings 16:29 - 2 Kings 13:25 indicates that the Elijah and Elisha stories are a model for the gospels, and a mythical Jesus. Brodie is a scholar in the field, so now there is Price, Thompson and Brodie. His arguments are very different from the others, but this does not dramatically change the balance of scholarship yet, unless several other scholars follow him in the next few years, so only time will tell. As for Dickson eating a page, he does not have to yet, for just as the book came out Brodie either resigned or was fired from his position at the Dominican Biblical Institute, depending on which story in the press you believe. History2007 (talk) 20:44, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Article seems biased

The article seems very dismissive of the idea that historical Jesus did not exist and seems like it was written by a Christian or another religious person.

Vandalism?

The auto-signature () was removed from the above comment, as has a list of (See edit history) along with a list of reference material and other potentially relevant stuff.- Signature recovered:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.12.92.131 (talk) 13:48, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

see also deleted comment of Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:36, 5 February 2013 (UTC) in Edit history Timpo (talk) 10:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC) First read this: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view then place your arguments below here Timpo (talk) 10:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Strongly Agree

The difficulty is that 'the biblical Jesus' emerged in the 1st or 2nd century after his supposed life, and the principal source material is the New Testament which has been 'edited' over the years by copyist scribes, translators and interpreted by theologians as well as issued in various forms by a range of publishers. For me, the character has several forms:

• The natural (son of man) a real person, but stripped of miraculous aspects such as virgin birth &c. who taught the value of sharing (eg guests sharing their wine (maybe discretely hidden in water flasks?) at the wedding of a poor couple, or an al-fresco audience encouraged to share their lunch-packs during long sermon on mount) if such a person did exist, then he may well have been a rabbi, healer (anyway an educated person, so probably not the son of a carpenter, unless that was a secondary (fallback) occupation a practice which is common in some societies
• The divine character (lamb of god/son of the heavenly father etc) is very similar to other bronze/iron-age deities in India, Persia and Egypt which also evolved miraculously (virgin birth, emerging from rock or descending from heaven) at the moment the sun emerges from the winter solstice and performed miracles (assuming ther is no 'supernatural force' maybe charlatan with snake oil conjuring tricks or editors translating merely surprising events as divine miracles?)
• The composite (Holy Trinity) character - most likely a pastiche of the lives of real, exemplary people with some 'imported' ideas (notably Zoroastrian duality and Gnostic philanthropy and abstinence

Thus, since most of the 'evidence' is tainted by Christian Theological sources (and maybe Christian adherent contributors with a product to sell?) I think this article stinks and needs to be entirely rewritten as a dispassionate summary, explaining the various titles of the biblical Jesus together with the similarities and differences to other religious characters around the time of the common era (which is the birth of Christ as miscalculated by Dennis the Dwarf) - Timpo (talk) 10:48, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Timpo, your comments above are "personal opinions" and do not have sources attached. They are WP:OR. Wikipedia articles are not based on "user A thinks X" vs "user B thinks Y". You need that precious item called a WP:RS source. The points you are raising have been raised for over a century by a number of authors as discussed in the article Christ myth theory. Please read what those authors said in that article - no need to present new arguments on your own per WP:OR and WP:V. Much of that has now been rejected by modern scholarship as discussed in that article. Wikipedia articles do not work by "user opinion". They are based on WP:RS sources. History2007 (talk) 10:55, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Disagree

There is no point in agreeing or disagreeing here, given that per WP:V Wikipedia articles are not based on "personal opinions of users". Articles are based on WP:RS sources and per WP:Forum there can be no user discussion on "matters of fact" - Wikipedia content is driven by scholarly sources, not user opinions. History2007 (talk) 10:59, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

FAQ

Based on the above, I think this page needs an FAQ that discusses issues on Son of man, Christ, etc. as titles and how they do not relate to existence, etc. how Trinity came via Tertullian a long time after and does not relate etc. There is no point in adding them to the article, but I will try to do an FAQ this week. History2007 (talk) 12:06, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

An excellent idea. Let me know when you have. John D. Croft (talk) 11:41, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

The debate of Jesus's Greek

Jesus is called "the Nazarene", and this is usually taken to mean from Nazareth. Nazareth was at the time a small village if it existed at all (independent evidence of its existence is found only in the 3rd century), and so would have been very small, and be a peasant community where Greek speaking would be uncommon. Set against this is the fact that Galilee was one of the areas most settled by Gentiles, and Jesus seems to have spent time living at the heavily Hellenised town of Sepphoris, where Greek and Armenian were both spoken widely. John D. Croft (talk) 11:56, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that issue is subject to debate. They all agree that he was in "that area" around Capernaum. The James Barr article has the best review of the language issues, likelihoods, etc. that I have seen. The Sepphoris angle is being emphasized more recently by the likes of Charlesworth and Reed. So as they dig in the area they generate new theories. But some scholars flatly say that he was born in Capernaum, but again, no agreement except that he was "somewhere in that area". But that is not surprising, because details of location birth for many people in the 18th century are not determinate either. And it probably makes no big difference to the world in the end anyway, so we will let the scholars debate it and pick the latest item as they go along. History2007 (talk) 13:28, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Edit to lede

I am sorry Timpo, but your edit had multiple problems. Please read the article on Son of man and you will see that its meaning has "remained challenging and after 150 years of debate no consensus on the issue has emerged among scholars". No point in using those types of terms.

And per WP:LEDE the lede of the article must summarize article, and can be up to 4 paragraphs, you made the lede a separate section. That runs against WP:LEDE for it no longer gives an overall summary. I am sorry I had to revert those, but added teh Nazarethpart as you suggested. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 11:53, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

The main difficulty with this article (and Wikipedia En in general) is that it presumes a knowledge of the Christian faith based on Anglo-American culture, and so is not really a World view. For example the name Jesus in this article gives a religious significance to what, elsewhere, is a very common fore-name, so the addition of Nazareth seemed to me vital - as Confucius said, a name needs to be distinctive, and (as far as I know) only one resident of that town who was called Jesus is a notable historical character.

As to whether the 'Biblical Christ' was a Natural person (Son of Man), an ideal agglomeration of exemplary characteristics (light of the world - Ka Mithras et al) or an outright fiction (Son of God) should be the meat of this article, but it reads like a theological justification for the warped beliefs of that religion (e.g Virtually all modern scholars once believed the world the centre of the universe, and persecuted Copernicus and Galileo - but then if your history only goes back a couple of years, we should - as the Nazarene said - forgive and love our enemies, not mount pointless crusades as did medieval Popes and several modern mass murdering Presidents of the USA - in which class I include a certain law professor who routinely executes suspects with drones) Timpo (talk) 16:45, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry, but your use of the terms such as Son of man, Son of God etc. is less than accurate, if you read those articles please. But that matters not here, for your main problems seems to be that Wikipedia reflects scholarly opinions of the time, and if this week all physicists think that the speed of light is a constant, that is what the Wiki will say. That issue goes beyond this article and applies across the board.

And let me again point out that this article does not even assert that Jesus had any disciples, let alone assert anything theological. The article makes it clear that the "8 basic facts" are not subject to wide scholarly consensus. So I am not sure what you men at all. And I find your reference to the US President even more puzzling... What does that have to do with anything, I do not know and certainly does not matter. These are really beside the point here. History2007 (talk) 17:07, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Needs Clean-up

This article has a lot of sentences and "points" that are repeated in different sections, and almost reads as an argument rather than an article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oz Man Can (talk • contribs) 21:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

And what about this? "Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed" please someone change this to: ¨"Virtually all modern religious scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed", a christian atheist is always a christian, thus is not an atheist... and the sources... all of them religious... "One sided" citations at the article's introduction clearly states: "this article is pro-jesus, please don't edit it, you dirty rotten heathens"--190.150.4.203 (talk) 21:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

We have multiple sources that include non-religious scholars such as historians in general. The claim about "Christian atheists" doesn't make any sense; Bart Ehrman is an agnostic. Regarding Oz Man Can: The lead should summarize the article's content, so some redundancy is to be expected. Other than that, please provide specific examples. Huon (talk) 22:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

The article on Christ myth theory says the same thing too, so maybe the IP wants to complain there too if that makes him feel better. But the sources are solid. History2007 (talk) 22:10, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Only thing I would add is that the phrase "Christian atheist" does make a little sense to me, if it indicates that the person who is an atheist is more or less from a Christian background, as Ehrman is. And if the IP could produce significant reliably sourced information as per WP:RS to support his point, which he hasn't yet, that reliably sourced information would be definitely considered. To date, I haven't seen that required reliably sourced information presented. John Carter (talk) 22:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Actually the C-atheist label applies to Price, no Ehrman. And on archives this has been discussed so many, many times... And it was on WP:RSN, etc. The real thing to do is to do the FAQ so we can just point to the archives here... Will do in a day or three... History2007 (talk) 22:37, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

You're right. Ehrman is an agnostic. Oops. I skwewed up. I still think that there might be some value, if sources on atheism/agnosticism can be found, to see if reliable sources offer differentiation between, for instance, Christian atheists and Hindu atheists. I have gotten the impression from several sources that conversion is often on the basis of something other than religion itself, and thus it can be and probably is the case that some "atheists" of one faith might well be potentially more or less in line with the tenets of some other faith, like Jainism, Buddhism, or some forms of Gnosticism. I wish I knew of reference works on Atheism/Agnosticism, but haven't found them yet. John Carter (talk) 23:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

In a lot of cases, it is less philosophical than that: Crossan dropped off priesthood because he wanted to marry, etc. And see this hilariously funny story as well. But in any case, that does not apply too much to this, given that not one professor of history who denies existence has been found in US, Europe, Israel, Japan, etc. History2007 (talk) 23:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

Second paragraph

There were some changes and two reverts so far in the past day or so, and we need to stop reverting and discuss. I had objections in both cases, specially about conformity to sources, e.g. the first version said "existed in some form" which seems just out of the blue and is really very confusing because it may suggest "existence as a mirage" as in the 2nd/3rd century gnostic groups. That is not what the sources suggest at all. Not at all. Then, the biblical accounts disputes were put upfront, diverting the issue of existence in that paragraph. I do not see these as an improvement in either case, the "existed in some form" part being really way out. History2007 (talk) 14:19, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

The triumphal tone of this article

Does anybody else find that the tone of this article is distinctly triumphal? — Preceding unsigned comment added by KhryssoHeart (talk • contribs) 13:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

The difficulty may to be that User:History2007 seems to be a committed Christian with missionary zeal
The difficulty with that is that traditional teachers tend to embellish history to impress upon their students some particular issue. For example, Augustine was essentially gnostic - and (having abandoned his mistress and his 17-year-old son) decided that since the real world was evil and the spirit world good, felt guilty about fathering another human being (implicitly causing more suffering).
Therefore sin was synonymous with orgasm, and from this, later theologians decided that homosexuality was evil, and when women died in childbirth their unborn babies had to be ripped from their bellies and buried in unconsecrated ground before the (baptised) female cadaver could be given a 'proper' burial in a Christian cemetery (which they believed to be the only route to heaven) REF: Use wiki search using Eunuchs for the Kingdom of Heaven, this appears in Chapter 5 in a book of that name written by Christian theologian Uta Ranke-Heinemann. You might also enjoy root of all evil by Richard DawkinsTimpo (talk) 11:39, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Timpo, you are hereby formally advised to focus on encyclopedic content, and not other editors. The rest of your comments are personal opinions (Augustine was long after the first century) and WP:OR; and are also WP:Forum-like talk. History2007 (talk) 13:05, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Concur with History. Khrysso asked a simple question. I don't think it has merit (it may in her POV), but that's simply what I think. However, it has NOTHING to do with any other writers personal beliefs, bias, or writing style. To imply as much not only hijacks the original question, but impeaches on the credibility of History as an editor. Even a cursory review of his edits and Talk comments will reveal his neutrality. Ckruschke (talk) 15:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

People sometimes comment on other editors when what the scholars say has already been settled. The literature in the libraries is there, so let us just move on. I ell you, all these talk page comments will pass next year, libraries remain. History2007 (talk) 16:37, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Have to agree with History2007 on both points. The comment which starts this thread, honestly, offers nothing even remotely like help in determining where the alleged "triumphal" tone is, so, honestly, it offers little if any real help in addressing the stated problem. Secondly, regarding History2007 himself, I note that he has for some time been heavily involved in content related to Christianity not because of his own beliefs, but because, unfortunately, people who believe some of the theories and concepts which have been put forward in opposition to ideas which have almost universal academic support, like the historicity of Jesus, tend to try to give those beliefs, which tend to be, based on the material in academic reference books, fairly clearly fringe theories as per WP:FRINGE, which by our policies and guidelines should not receive much weight as per WP:WEIGHT in the main articles on our topics. Yes, I am myself a Christian, but, yes, I have read the works of Dawkins, and Price, and others. I have also made a point of checking the more specialist academic reference books on a wide variety of religious topics, and have found in almost all cases that many if not most of these newer theories, which have a clear appeal to certain types of religious opinions themselves, get little if any real attention in those specialist academic sources. Dawkins and Price and others have put forward some interesting ideas, but, without any real evidence to support them, those ideas tend to qualify as, basically, speculation and fringe theories, and we are obliged to follow the guidelines regarding those matters. If anyone would like to point out exactly where they see this "triumphal" tone, so that involved editors might be able to perhaps deal with some sort of content which would actually be useful, they are encouraged to do so. John Carter (talk) 00:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, given that the scholarly positions are clear, I would just assume a WP:JDLI comment and move on. History2007 (talk) 01:15, 12 April 2013 (UTC)