Talk:Historicity of Jesus/Archive 35

Archive 30

←

Archive 33

Archive 34

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

→

Archive 40

Habermas

Habermas is a scholar, trained and recognized as a historian, notable enough for a WP article. I entered nothing in my edit that he did not support fully in the citations I provided. I did not state them as truth, but as the conclusions of a scholar. I did not state them in WP's voice; that is, I followed WP:NPOV. It does not matter if it is also a Christian belief. It is a scholarly view, and therefore eligible for use in WP. Evensteven (talk) 03:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but while writing my most recent comment I noticed a recurring theme in a lot of these posts: which university does Habermas teach at? Independent researchers, regardless of what kind of academic qualifications they have, should not be treated as reliable sources for the opinions of the majority of scholars who teach at accredited institutions. Especially if they are openly advocating for a particular religion. If Habermas does meet GNG (I think he does), then you can cite his opinion as his opinion. But per WP:DUE you would need to give just as much weight to the opinions of other independent scholars, balanced so as not to give undue weight to any one theological persuasion,and more weight to the opinions of highly-regarded professors at prestigious universities...

Can you see why this would be problematic? Are you willing to do the work for that? You'd almost certainly wind up with a worse, likely-unintelligible article. When determining WEIGHT it would be better to just see what well-regarded encyclopedias, or undergraduate textbooks, or the like, say about the issue.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

He states that his own religious beliefs are supported as historic fact and that most scholars agree that the resurrection is supported by historical documents. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources, and the notion that the resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth is accepted as a historic fact by most scholars is extraordinary beyond all reason. Find multiple reliable sources that claim that the resurrection is supported as historic fact.—Kww(talk) 05:24, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Some of his religious beliefs are supported by most (virtually all) scholars as established historic fact. It's still scholarly. It just happens also to be religious belief. But he does not say that the resurrection is accepted by most, although it may be. Neither did I, nor did the text I entered. Read more closely. At least one unbiased scholar did describe the resurrection of Christ as historic fact. Your reversion is out of order. Evensteven (talk) 05:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

First, you really need to qualify these "most scholar" statements: most scholars have never published an opinion on the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth. Second, "'facts admitted by virtually all scholars as knowable history are adequate' to historically demonstrate the literal resurrection of Jesus" is a statement which indicates that the source takes an extremely fringe position overall. Even those that believe in the resurrection of Jesus (something which only Christians take as fact ... since Muslims believe that Jesus still lives in physical form, they do not believe in the resurrection) do not generally make the claim that they have historical evidence of that resurrection.—Kww(talk) 06:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd be happy to get rid of all the "most scholar" statements in the article - and I've been forthright about that in the past (that the article should focus on the analysis of historical evidence, and not big conclusions, such as "of course he existed.") But deleting one of these statements, while keeping the others doesn't seem very NPOV. Habermas backs up his statement with survey data (as already linked to in this talk page), and he claims 66% of scholars accept the "empty tomb."[1] So, showing it's fringe may be hard. I personally think Habermas is conflating historicity and belief, but the citation is so clear and on-point that I don't know how to say "no it doesn't fit here" without being inconsistent. Fearofreprisal (talk) 06:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

If all the tenured professors at prestigious universities are on the record as saying "most scholars" accept a certain historical claim, then we are violating WP:NPOV by not using the terminology used in all the reliable sources. Additionally, Ehrman (a much more reputable scholar in this field than anyone else who has been cited) has stated numerous times that, by definition, history cannot prove the resurrection and other miracles. The "empty tomb" statistic is irrelevant, since historians regularly change their opinion on that point (again, Ehrman has changed his opinion on this in the last couple of years) and all the historians who accept the empty tomb (even believing Christians) reject the idea that "he was raised from the dead" is a historically-acceptable explanation for that datum. They may choose to believe in the resurrection (although only Christian historians do, and Christians form a minority of all the world's historians), but no professional historian considers the resurrection to be a provable (much less proven!) historical fact.

End of story.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

For the record, Grant, Nobbs, Lane Fox and Akenson are much more reputable scholars than Ehrman, a former fundamentalist apologist, and a current HJ scholar whose work would lose all value if the CMT were to gain wide currency. This is an example of the sort of bias I'm trying to avoid: not so much a bias in favour of historicity, but a bias in favour of the credibility of biblical scholars in general and HJ scholars in particular. We're not here to promote the authority of biblical scholars. On the other hand, I have precisely zero objections to saying historians almost unanimously reject the CMT, because that's a statement we have excellent sources for. I do object to using someone like Ehrman as a source for that, though using an attributed citation as an example of a widely held opinion among biblical scholars would be fine. Martijn Meijering (talk) 12:52, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@User:Mmeiieri: Grant, Nobbs, Lane Fox and Akenson Which of these has written an undergraduate textbook on New Testament Studies? If any of them have, how many universities have courses that require students to use these textbooks? Ehrman's is the most-widely used in the English-speaking world, with Dale Martin of Yale University for instance using this textbook in his courses and encouraging his students to read Ehrman's other book on the historical Jesus. As for the relationship between "New Testament Studies" and "Historical Jesus Research", Ehrman's research has (as already noted) also dealt extensively with the historical Jesus. "Historicity of Jesus", as opposed to "Historical Jesus Research", is not a well-researched field since there really isn't much to say -- "Jesus definitely existed and here's why" is something Ehrman also wrote an acclaimed book on, though. How exactly do you measure the "reputability" of scholars, so as to suggest that all four of the names you dropped are more reputable than Ehrman? Additionally, "if the CMT were to gain currency" is a GROSS violation of WP:CRYSTAL. HJ researchers (at least those with graduate degrees, who teach at accredited institutions) are historians: the opinions of historians in other fields, let alone scientists and others, are pretty irrelevant to this article. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:34, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

All of them are bona fide historians, unlike Ehrman and most HJ scholars. I didn't doubt his credentials in the field of New Testament studies. Martijn Meijering (talk) 14:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean "bona fide historians"? Your contrast implies that "HJ scholars" and people with "credentials in the field of New Testament studies" are not historians? Could you be a little clearer? My understanding was that people who get paid to teach history courses in universities, and to write books on history, are by definition "historians", but it seems we have a difference of opinion on the definition. Oxford University Press either called Ehrman a historian in 2006 or (less likely) passively approved of him calling himself a historian. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:23, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

In light of the well-documented criticism of the lack of methodological soundness and impartiality coming both from within and outside biblical scholarship, we cannot treat biblical scholars as if they are just historians. Individuals may well be both, but in general we cannot simply assume they are. They still remain notable scholars, but we need to distinguish between historians and biblical scholars, and not exaggerate scholars' qualifications. Martijn Meijering (talk) 14:54, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Doesn't matter. Ehrman literally wrote the book on NTS. If what you are saying is that historians in every field other than the relevant one are more reliable than Ehrman because they work in unrelated fields, then you are, simply put, WRONG. But anyway, what does any of this have to do with the issue at hand? Which of the people you named stated that "the resurrection of Jesus is historically provable and the majority of scholars accept this"? I gave a very reliable source that stated directly that miracles are by definition outside of the historian's toolbox; and you haven't even indicated why the people you named are relevant to the issue at hand... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean by unrelated field? A historian writing about the historicity of Jesus is not writing from an unrelated or even a neighbouring field, historicity is a historical question, and historians are precisely the people we would look to for answers. If anything, NT scholars are the ones commenting from a neighbouring field. The fact that they reach similar conclusions as the biblical scholars doesn't take away from that. As for miracles, that's not what my comment was about. I merely object to saying biblical scholars are historians and to exaggerating their credentials. We also shouldn't pretend that they rather than historians represent the "voice of science" on this topic. Martijn Meijering (talk) 15:37, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? "Historians" are people trained in the study of history, who analyze various historical data and make probability judgements. New Testaments scholars are historians. The historical data (in this case almost entirely textual data) for the existence or non-existence of Jesus are the New Testament texts. (Josephus, Tacitus and Pliny are valuable, but nowhere near as much as Paul and the Synoptic authors.) Believe it or not, I actually had this exact same discussion over on Talk:Yamanoue no Okura as to whether "literary historians" count as "historians", or whether we should be taking the views of the one or two political historians who hold a contrary opinion on an 8th-century poet should be given as "what historians think". I won that debate then, and I am pretty confident I will win it again now. Ehrman is a historian, and he is one of the most respected in his field. You are claiming that people outside of the relevant field should be granted more weight because they are outside the relevant field. According to Wikipedia policy, you are wrong. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:48, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Please read the criticism section I linked to above, including things like "doing theology and calling it history" by no less an authority than John P. Meier. I also refer you to the booklet "Theologians as historians" linked there. I respectfully submit you are the one that is wrong. You assert without evidence that biblical scholarship is the 'relevant' field, when the relevant field for historical questions self-evidently is history, not biblical studies. Biblical studies is not a branch of history any more than it is a branch of literature studies, Semitic studies, archaeology, philosophy or theology even though it has points of connection and overlap with all of these. Your approach to this matter is precisely what I see as one of the main biases in the article, far more than any supposed bias towards historicism, which at any rate is almost unanimously supported in the scholarly literature. Martijn Meijering (talk) 15:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

By the way, while I know lots of bloggers like to trot out the claim that "Ehrman is not a historian", I would like to see you present one reference from a reputable university professor in any field remotely related to this one that makes this claim. Otherwise, please stop making the unsourced accusations about living people by claiming they are "bending the truth" when they publicly refer to themselves as historians. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:51, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Don't put words into my mouth, BLP has nothing to do with this. I'm not calling Ehrman a liar, I am saying you are wrong. I don't know about Ehrman in particular, but I do know that biblical scholars are not ipso facto historians any more than they are archaeologists, though individual biblical scholars may well be archaeologists. The fields are related but distinct. There has been severe criticism of the historical soundness of their work where they venture into writing history, so in the case of individual scholars the onus is on you to show they are historians. I don't know why you would even bother, since we have bona fide historians on record already, and biblical scholars are notable in themselves. If the aim is to puff up the credentials of biblical scholars, I must respectfully object. Martijn Meijering (talk) 16:04, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

For the record, the first part of my above post is about the historical existence of a man called Jesus. I was not talking about the resurrection. However, it's becoming increasingly difficult to understand what FOR is going for changing positions on whether we should say "most historians" or imply that the resurrection is an accepted historical fact. I'm not going to go as far as a growing number of other users and throw the word "troll" around, but... FOR, what exactly do you want this article to say? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:25, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Your last question is very good. I've been wondering that myself. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 12:15, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I can't speak for FOR, but I would like it to say that a small subset of historians have published papers supporting the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth. Those historians certainly make sweeping statements about how widely supported they are, but that doesn't substitute for evidence of that wide support. That support actually seems to be concentrated in Christian Biblical scholars, not in the more general field of historians.—Kww(talk) 13:23, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Historians in other fields are irrelevant. Not all biblical scholars are Christian -- that's a pretty gross generalization. Non-Christian biblical scholars also universally (read: 99.999999%) consider Jesus to have existed. And all reputable historians (Christian or not) consider the resurrection to be a non-historical explanation for the data: Christians can believe it, non-Christians don't have to, history doesn't make theological claims like that either way. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

The definition of "other fields" is the rub. If you mean people that study ancient Latin American civilizations, I'll concede your point. If you mean people that study roughly contemporaneous events in the same region of the world, I'll strongly disagree. "Biblical scholarship" is such a narrow field with such a concentration of specific religious beliefs that it has to be placed in a wider category to be judged meaningfully.—Kww(talk) 13:57, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

"roughly contemporaneous events in the same region of the world"? Are there any Josephus specialists who consider the resurrection of Jesus to be a historically provable (or proven!) fact? How many scholars of Philo consider Jesus to have never existed? Seriously, name one scholar who teaches anything remotely related to this field in a reputable academic institution, who has publically that either (1) Jesus never existed or (2) Jesus' resurrection is a historically demonstrable fact. So far no one has done this. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:13, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

And no, assuming Josephus and Philo specialists who just happen never to have made a public statement on either of these issues just happen to disagree with virtually all mainstream New Testament scholars is not acceptable. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:20, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Just as it is unacceptable to presume that they agree.—Kww(talk) 16:27, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

The difference between historicity and existence, redux.

It seems like I'm talking about this a lot. I wish I didn't have to – but so many of the editors who participate on this talk page seem to find the distinction challenging.

So, let me try to explain this as simply as I can. I'm not going to include citations from which I've culled this information, but I have them if necessary.

Let's start with a basic characterization, that historicity focuses on the truth value of knowledge claims about the past (denoting historical actuality, authenticity, and factuality.) Most scholars see historicity as an attribute reserved to human phenomena, which identifies human beings as unique and concrete historical beings.

No matter how you look at it, historicity always comes back to the underlying concept of “history.” Historicity is that which defines history, and signifies the meaning we intend when we say of something that is “historical.”

How do we know something is historical? We use historical methods, which are themselves built on scientific methods. There are actually quite a number of historical methods, and the choice of which to use is almost always based on the research agenda of the historian doing the work. (As you might imagine, theologians generally have different research agendas than, for example, social historians.)

While I'm not going to advocate for one method or another, I think it's reasonable to say that, in historical Jesus research, adequate attention has not been given to epistemic (methodological) issues, compared to the social scientific approach, where one does find efforts to enunciate aspects such as presuppositions, theories, models and methods. This leads to a problem where we can't tell whether a scholar is talking about “historical truth” or “religious truth.”

So, getting back to the question of what is the historicity of Jesus: If we base it on the background that I've just provided, it can be characterized as the truth value of knowledge claims about a unique and concrete human known as Jesus.

What knowledge claims? Any. His birth, his baptism, his ministry, his miracles, his death, his resurrection, his ascention to heaven while an imposter was crucified (Islamic view of Jesus' death), his appearances in America (Book_of_Mormon) and Japan (Shingō,_Aomori#Tomb_of_Jesus_Christ)

But what about his existence?

Consider statements such as “He [Jesus] certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees...” or “Of course Jesus existed” (Ehrman.) How can we determine the truth value of these claims, if we don't even know which Jesus they're talking about?

If you're reading this post, you should be knowledgeable about historical Jesus research. How many different Jesuses have been described over the years by historical Jesus researchers? Hundreds? And are any of those the same Jesus as the one who walked in Galilee 2000 years ago?

The real problem with statements such as “Jesus existed” is that it's impossible to know, without more context, whether they are referring to a Jesus of faith, or a Jesus of history (or even a guy named Jesus Rodriguez, who used to work for my uncle.) As in the parable of the Blind men and an elephant, all scholars see a different Jesus... and end up arguing about it. While there may be agreement among large numbers of scholars regarding certain things – such as the historicity of Josephus' writings related to Jesus – there is no consensus opinion regarding a unique and concrete human Jesus.

The difference between the “existence of Jesus” and the “historicity of Jesus” really comes down to this:

• The former tells us Jesus existed. (“Of course Jesus existed. Everyone knows he existed. Don't They?" End of article.)
• The latter tells us everything that can be learned from historical evidence about Jesus.

Which do you think is more valuable?

I'm going to stop at this point, and make a request: If you feel the need to tell me how wrong I am, please do it with citations to reliable sources. If you do this, I'll provide you with my citations, and we can see where we're misunderstanding each other. If you want to express your original research, or accuse me of pushing POV, Fringe, or whatever – please do it on my talk page, so as not to disrupt this page. Fearofreprisal (talk) 23:05, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if it wouldn't be an idea if everyone stopped throwing the word "fringe" around. I get a distinct feeling that it isn't helping this particular debate. Hopefully this little note will be enough to disseminate that idea. Otherwise we can open a whole big thread on it and maybe even waste a lot of time discussing it. So I hope to find you all in broad agreement. Regards, Samsara (FA • FP) 02:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I would pretty much agree with everything FOR says above. However its my feeling that the article already addresses almost all of these points. The Historical Jesus article uses words like "portraits", which might be useful here, although we do use it in the "Quest" section. Should we import one more summarized para from Historical Jesus dealing with methodology etc? If yes, please could Martin and FOR each submit one para to this talk page, so that we can quickly agree and quickly resolve? Wdford (talk) 07:45, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

To get the ball rolling, here is a summary from the lead of Historical Jesus. I cleaned out all the citations for the sake of this talk page, but there are dozens, which we can import later once we agree on the wording. Please add to and build on this:

The portraits of Jesus that have been constructed in these processes have often differed from each other, and from the dogmatic image portrayed in the gospel accounts. There is little scholarly agreement on a single portrait, or the methods needed to construct it. A number of scholars have criticized the various approaches used in the study of the historical Jesus—on one hand for the lack of rigor in research methods, on the other for being driven by "specific agendas" that interpret ancient sources to fit specific goals. By the 21st century scholars began to focus on what is historically probable and plausible about Jesus.

Wdford (talk) 07:55, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I basically agree with this proposal, but mentioning the fact that the majority of mainstream scholars accept some version of the "apocalyptic prophet" portrait might be helpful. Also I would say "dogmatic images in the gospel accounts" since they all give pretty different images. 182.249.240.39 :::::The portraits of Jesus that have been constructed in these processes have often differed from each other, and from the dogmatic image portrayed in the gospel accounts. There is little scholarly agreement on a single portrait, or the methods needed to construct it. A number of scholars have criticized the various approaches used in the study of the historical Jesus—on one hand for the lack of rigor in research methods, on the other for being driven by "specific agendas" that interpret ancient sources to fit specific goals. By the 21st century scholars began to focus on what is historically probable and plausible about Jesus.

(talk) 09:51, 7 September 2014 (UTC) (Hijiri88's phone)

"Consider statements such as “He [Jesus] certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees...” or “Of course Jesus existed” (Ehrman.) How can we determine the truth value of these claims, if we don't even know which Jesus they're talking about?" But this is exactly the point. What Ehrman is saying is that, despite there being a huge number of portraits of the historical Jesus (that is, the "Jesus of History" rather than the "Christ of Faith" - the concept outlined by Martin Kähler, quoted by Dunn, above), the one point about which every one of these scholars is in agreement is that there was a Jewish preacher called Jesus who lived in the first century and who formed the basis of the Christian story. On the question of the historicity (=existence) of this person, all are agreed. And most are agreed that this Jesus was baptised by John, and crucified. It's only when you try to get more detail in the story that different Jesuses emerge. The historicity (=historical accuracy) of the various interpretations (witty cynic, apocalyptic prophet) is endlessly debated. All of this has long been present in the article. --Rbreen (talk) 10:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

We don't want to rewrite the article, and we don't want to replicate the Historical Jesus material too much; we just need one extra para to close the loop on the criticisms of the methodology and the issue of the bias of the scholars. For the rest the reader is referred to the main article on the topic, namely Historical Jesus. Wdford (talk) 11:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Herewith v2: There is little scholarly agreement on any single portrait of Jesus, with widespread disagreement among scholars on the details of the life of Jesus mentioned in the gospel narratives, and on the meaning of his teachings. A number of scholars have criticized the various approaches used in the study of the historical Jesus—on one hand for the lack of rigor in research methods, on the other for being driven by "specific agendas" that interpret ancient sources to fit specific goals. By the 21st century scholars began to focus on what is historically probable and plausible about Jesus.

To be positioned at the beginning of the "Accepted historic facts" section – the next para will commence with "Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity…". Comments please? Wdford (talk) 14:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that, it's good. Are we quoting from any source for the phrase "specific agendas"? My understanding is that while some scholars may have an agenda (eg in the sense of wanting to promote, say, an apocalyptic or non-apocalyptic interpretation) others may simply be seen as having an unconscious bias - eg George Tyrrell said the 19th Century Liberal Protestants' view of Jesus was just their own face reflected back at them, and John Dominic Crossan has spoken of a tendency 'to do autobiography and call it biography'. That seems to me bias rather than a clear agenda. Also, what do we mean by "by the 21st century"? Scholars have been focusing on what is historically probable and plausible at least since the mid-19th century, but certainly since the work of Ernst Käsemann in 1954 that has been the main thrust of historical Jesus studies. We could say, since the latter half of the 20th century, or something like that. --Rbreen (talk) 15:40, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not married to the 21st century thing - I was just copying in from the main article, where that line has stood unchallenged for months. The "diverse agendas" comment is the title of an entire chapter - see [2] at pg 985 and following. The lead of the main article (Historical Jesus) has many citations for this issue, which we can import as needed. Wdford (talk) 17:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

It's become increasingly clear that the vast majority of contributors to this talk page are here to inject theology into the discussion, and limit their involvement in the article to reverting or removing any material that doesn't match their ideology.

I had hoped that by focusing the discussion on the basic question of what historicity is, it might be possible to improve the article -- to the point where it actually discusses a historian's view of Jesus. I've tried to approach this issue from multiple directions, yet, the contributors to this page can't help but pivot the conversation to their theological view of Jesus.

Fearofreprisal (talk) 20:35, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I believe that the subarticle of the Jesus article in the Anchor Bible Dictionary entitled "Indices to Historicity and to Nonhistoricity" which discusses the historical existence but only rarely if at all the question of religious bias in the observers is sufficient to indicate the attempted differentiation of meanings is not necessarily supported by the sources themselves. John Carter (talk) 20:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

He [Jesus] certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees, based on clear and certain evidence.

— B. Ehrman, 2011 Forged: Writing in the name of God

In the first place, what does it mean to affirm that ‘Jesus existed’, anyway, when so many different Jesuses are displayed for us by the ancient sources and modern NT scholars? Logically, some of these Jesuses cannot have existed. So in asserting historicity, it is necessary to define which ones (rabbi, prophet, sage, shaman, revolutionary leader, etc.) are being affirmed—and thus which ones deemed unhistorical. In fact, as things stand, what is being affirmed as the Jesus of history is a cipher, not a rounded personality (the same is true of the King David of the Hebrew Bible, as a number of recent ‘biographies’ show)[3].

— Did Jesus Exist? By Emeritus Professor Philip Davies, University of Sheffield, England, August 2012

Fearofreprisal (talk) 21:16, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Can you give an example of a theological view of Jesus being given here? All I can see is an attempt to establish whether he existed at all. That's a historical question, not theological. --Rbreen (talk) 21:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Among other things, the concept of "portraits," drawn from "historical Jesus" research is theological. "[T]he 'historical Jesus' is properly speaking a ninteenth- and twentieth-century construction using the data provided by the Synoptic tradition, not Jesus back then and not a figure in history." (Dunn, Jesus Remembered, p. 126, bold added.) As to whether Jesus existed at all -- See the quote from Philip Davies above. For that matter, click on the link and read the article. Fearofreprisal (talk) 22:56, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Let me just point out that this talk page is already over 40,000 words long. I've seen novels shorter than that.

The Davies article is interesting, but unfortunately it's just one person and it's a web page. I don't see a sign that the ground is shifting. To change the consensus would need more that that. As to the simple question of the historicity of Jesus (=the existence of a man called Jesus in the first century) that is not theological. True, most of the people who write on the subject have a theological agenda, but this is basically a historical question even if it has theological implications. If there were enough non-religious scholars who looked at the question would they decide Jesus really existed? Isn’t that a bit like asking ‘if you had a brother, would he like noodles?’ We don’t know; there just are not enough such people. We do know that lots of scholars who stop being Christians still accept a historical Jesus (Geza Vermes, Reza Aslan, Maurice Casey, Gerd Lüdemann, Bart Ehrman). When you come to the question of baptism and crucifixion, it’s a bit more complex, but again the basis on which most scholars accept those is good historical method – that both of these claims are so disturbing for the early Christian movement that it is difficult to see why they would have made them up. I don't think other scholars generally disagree.

When you come to the 'portraits' of the historical Jesus, the concept of 'portraits' is, again, standard historical approach to a historical figure. Of course, the portraits they come up with are overwhelmingly theological. Some of them are borderline: are Aslan's zealot or Morton Smith's magician theological portraits? Perhaps. But none of these really escapes from the theological framing of Jesus. This is what Dunn is admitting. And what we should address in the article. Can we focus on this aspect, rather than trying to find a phantom consensus of non-Christian scholars, with no alternative agenda, that Jesus never existed?

That's over 300 words added, now. I'm reluctant to add anything else unless we are genuinely doing something constructive. --Rbreen (talk) 22:49, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, then take the discussion somewhere that you consider constructive. Below, I have addressed a point that we have been hung up on almost forever, but for the first time, there is a WP:RS in that picture. Complaining won't yield us any progress. Give it your best shot. I'm open to another approach. Evensteven (talk) 23:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Folks, we recognize the shortfall, and we are trying to correct it by adding an extra paragraph. Rather than complaining, please all work together to build a paragraph that solves the problem. As this section of the article is a summary of a main article, we don't want a huge manifesto, we want a short summary paragraph, so lets try to avoid extensive quotations and paraphrase rather. FOR, would you like to propose a paragraph please? Wdford (talk) 07:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd like to second Wdford here. Evensteven (talk) 16:43, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

We note that when Fearofreprisal was asked to discuss in good faith a paragraph to resolve his claimed concerns, Fearofreprisal chose instead to start off on a new tangent entirely. This is not helpful to the development of the article. Wdford (talk) 19:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

And I note that I already wrote such a paragraph (and actually more), and included it in the article. You deleted it. Unilaterally. Fearofreprisal (talk) 20:45, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

No you did not write such a paragraph, you clogged up the lead with a splurge of quotes, which I paraphrased to reduce the sheer quantum of words. Please offer a paragraph (not a page, a paragraph) that addresses criticisms of methodology in a balanced and coherent manner. Wdford (talk) 00:03, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Good try, but no dice. Had you paraphrased the material, you would have left the citations. You didn't. You removed them. Fearofreprisal (talk) 00:08, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Accusations, diversions, but still no paragraph. Mmmm. Wdford (talk) 00:46, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Citations failing verification

I've added a number of "failed verification" templates to the article. In all of these cases, I've read the cited text, and found that it didn't match the material in the article. In some cases, I've requested quotations where I couldn't find an online source to read the article.

I know it's tempting to remove these templates. Please don't do it, unless you change the article to reflect the actual content of the citation, or find a citation that accurately reflects the content of the article. Frankly, I could have corrected the article in all of the cases -- but if I did that some chucklehead would start an edit war. I'll also suggest to Wdford that he leave it to some of the other editors here, as they seem to be terribly concerned about the article, despite the fact that they rarely or never actually contribute to it. (Now's their chance.) Fearofreprisal (talk) 04:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

If no other editors have objected or stepped up to fix the failed verifications, I'll take care of it within the next several days. I'll take a look at the article, and the citation, and if I can fix it easily, I will. If I can't fix it easily, I'll remove the offending material and citations. Fearofreprisal (talk) 09:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

"most scholars"

COULD EVERYONE PLEASE READ THE FAQ AT THE TOP OF THIS PAGE? Particularly Q6. If hundreds of super-reliable sources all say "most scholars" or "99% of scholars" or "virtually all scholars", then we as Wikipedians are NOT ALLOWED to second-guess those reliable sources. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:25, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

What happens if one reputable scholar makes an extraordinary statement and then claims that "most scholars" actually agree with him - despite other scholars claiming that "most scholars" believe something else? What do we do then? Did we not previously agree that in these cases, we should NOT say "most scholars" in Wikipedia's voice, but rather that "Dunn states that most scholars agree on XXX", or "Habermas states that most scholars agree on ZZZ, but Ehrman states that ..." ??? Wdford (talk) 16:24, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

If this article actually included any super-reliable sources, that comment would have an effect.—Kww(talk) 16:25, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Or if FAQs were authoritative. In any event, I think the main problem is that people want to see *what kinds* of scholars say this. So far we know it includes historians in general and biblical scholars as well. Individual exceptions can be discussed separately. Simply add this well-sourced information, and most of the problem goes away. Unless someone insists on calling biblical scholars historians in the face of compelling evidence to the contrary, there is no problem. And even if they were bona fide historians, it is still more specific to call them biblical scholars. Martijn Meijering (talk) 16:43, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Where can one find Wikipedia's definition of "super-reliable sources" that haven't already been referenced? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 17:06, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Fine and good. However how do we categorize them? Take Habermas for instance. His wikipedia article says that "Habermas is Distinguished Professor of Apologetics and Philosophy and chairman of the department of philosophy and theology at Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia. He holds a Ph.D. (1976) from Michigan State University in the area of History and Philosophy of Religion and an M.A. (1973) from the University of Detroit in Philosophical Theology." Liberty University is apparently "the largest Evangelical Christian university in the world". Habermas is open about his strong religious beliefs and motivations, but among other things, he has a PhD in a historical field, and he writes books and articles which he and many others consider to be historical. Is he therefore a historian? Any offers? Wdford (talk) 17:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Hard to say Habermas is not a historian. Fearofreprisal (talk) 02:43, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The Habermas quotation is mincing words. The facts are that virtually all scholars believe Jesus was crucified, and apparently a smaller majority believe he was buried and his tomb was later found empty. If you read the quote carefully he doesn't say "most scholars consider the resurrection to be a historically viable explanation for the data; he just gives that impression. Ehrman is, by the definition I already provided (wrote an undergrad textbook used in a large number of reputable universities), a super-reliable source. If he or another such source states something directly ("historical method doesn't consider the resurrection or other miracles to be a viable explanation"), then we don't need to second-guess him by quoting a less reputable source who deliberately used vague language to give the (false) impression that most historians support his theological view. 182.249.240.36 (talk) 04:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC) (Hijiri88)

Ehrman is not a super-reliable source. He's certainly good, and certainly well-known. But his reputation is not perfect, as a little bit of research readily shows.

While Ehrman spends a great deal of time analyzing the evidence, he does so in ways which ignore the more recent critical scholarship which undercuts his entire position. In other words, the case for a historical Jesus is far weaker than Ehrman lets on. [4]

— Thomas Verenna, Did Jesus Exist? The Trouble with Certainty in Historical Jesus Scholarship

Fearofreprisal (talk) 04:56, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

And once again, @182.249.240.36, Habermas did not say that most historians support his view. The quotation is not mincing words. These comments are being left by people who are not reading carefully. Also, I am not claiming that Habermas is a WP:RS who is superior to any other particular source; only that he is WP:RS. By all means compare with Ehrman! The man's view is one man's view. My main point has always been that the definition of historicity ought not to be restricted artificially, and that it is not restricted to the facts themselves. Historicity considers more. Habermas is quite good enough to demonstrate that. Evensteven (talk) 05:35, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I know. That's precisely why we shouldn't be quoting him. He doesn't directly say most historians support his view, he just goes out of his way to give that impression. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:48, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

He only gives that impression to people who refuse to read carefully, to people who want no more than an impression. That is not a proper way to read something scholarly. Reading takes work, and so does understanding. Those who won't do the work, won't get the understanding. That's not his fault. Evensteven (talk) 16:23, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Generally accepted vs accepted

FOR made a B, and I made a R in the BRD process. Time to discuss. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 16:47, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The criterion for historicity is historical authenticity. "Virtually all critical scholars" meets that standard, and that is the equivalency that items must meet to be included in the section, or indeed in the article. The section title is therefore appropriate as it stands. If an item missed meeting the standard, that is the thing that would need changing, not the section title. Evensteven (talk) 17:41, 10 September 2014 (UTC) Correction Evensteven (talk) 18:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

"Virtually all critical scholars" decidedly does not meet that standard. This is why the idea that biblical scholars are historians is so pernicious. But the claim is false on the face of it, and in addition we have many reliable sources inside and outside biblical scholarship who say this. Methodologically unsound, unhealthy reliance on consensus, lack of objectivity, doing theology and calling it history, an embarrassment, "need to acknowledge historicity isn't entirely certain to nudge Jesus scholarship towards academic respectability" and all that. Martijn Meijering (talk) 18:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I've already discussed this. See [5]. You might notice that my discussion is actually supported by quotations cited from a reliable source.

@Bill the Cat 7:, I do agree with Mmeijeri that your edit comment ("They are effectively universally accepted, except for fringe proponents") is POV, but, beyond this, removing the qualifier on "accepted" reduces the clarity and accuracy of the article. Notice the paragraph in the article that begins "Scholars attribute varying levels of certainty to other episodes?" That's hardly "universal" acceptance. Given this, I think the qualifier is better as "widely," rather than "generally."

I already discussed the problem with "facts" in the diff I provided above. I won't repeat the discussion here, except to sat that, if you insist on titling the section "facts," an explanation of what facts are, within the context of historical research, should be included in the article. That's going to create unnecessary article bloat.

In any event, please provide citations supporting your edit. Fearofreprisal (talk) 19:32, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Fixing this article

(I am splitting this into a new thread at this point, as this is developing into a constructive discussion, which is not really about Habermas anymore).

"FOR, what exactly do you want this article to say?" - a fair question. Here's what I'd like (not perfectly described): Scholarly viewpoints on what evidence relates to the historicity of Jesus (all majority and minority opinions, but no fringe), and a discussion of each of those pieces of historical evidence with the majority and minority analyses of each. And, as much as possible, clarity about the methodological issues related to these analyses (probably favoring sources that are transparent about their methods and agendas, as these might be considered more reliable.) So, rather than focusing on statements such as "of course he existed", the article focuses on the analyses of the historical evidence related to Jesus. I'm not suggesting fringe, POV, or anything outside of WP policy. Fearofreprisal (talk) 17:28, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Well well, finally. Of course most (if not all) of this material already exists in other articles, so we have been attempting to summarize that material here with links to the various main articles for the detail. Are you proposing that all that material should be duplicated here, or are you content to help us to summarize that material here with links to the main articles? Wdford (talk) 23:30, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• A distinction that I think it's important to preserve is that "historicity" is looking at Jesus through the lens of "historical evidence." Though the quest for the historical Jesus overlaps in the material covered, it looks at Jesus through a different lens -- and has a different agenda, and often different methodologies and assumptions. I think it's reasonable to characterize Historicity of Jesus and Historical Jesus as being different sides of the same coin.
• I certainly think it makes sense to summarize information from other articles here, so long as we're conscious of the lens we're looking through.
• I think the Sources for the Historicity of Jesus should be reintegrated here, as its scope is a subset of this article's scope (whatever that may be), and it is itself a summary article.
• Your thoughts on methodological issues are on the right track, though I'd probably give it a bit more length than you'd be inclined to. Fearofreprisal (talk) 04:34, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

This makes sense on the surface, but the reason I split off Sources for the Historicity of Jesus in the first place was sheer size - that article on its own stands at about 79k. We could save a bit by removing a separate lead and some other duplication, but the merged result would still be a very big article and probably unbalanced. I therefore would prefer to leave it as a daughter article with a summary, as it stands at present - I think it is doing the job?

We could however reconsider the balance between Historicity of Jesus and Historical Jesus. The Historical Jesus article stands at 113k, and needs to be split as well. I was in the process of splitting off the Methods of Research and Criticisms of Research sections into a new daughter article when this article got busy again, but perhaps they might find a logical home here instead, with a summary left on that side?

I would also strongly support moving the Widely accepted facts and Possible historical elements discussions here as well, and reducing them to summaries on that side. After all, much of that material is already duplicated here. This would make for a smaller and more focused Historical Jesus article, and a more detailed discussion of the "actual" historical elements over here, which might possibly address the neutrality tag as well?

Comments everyone? Wdford (talk) 10:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

• Sources: If it's going to be separate, I'd like to see a parallel structure, with more focus on the historical analysis of those sources in this article.
• The perspective on methods would be different between "historicity of Jesus" and "historical Jesus." Though there is overlap, some methods are really only used in historical Jesus research. You could share a lot, but I think there would be differences between the articles. I can provide some help on this, but it might make sense to email you copies of the reference material I've collected.
• I've actually renamed "accepted facts" in this article to "generally accepted historical events." The reason for this is that historians, and especially religious historians, use the term "facts" in a different way than, for example, archeologists. Dunn explains that "the facts are not to be identified as data; they are always an interpretation of the data. (Jesus Remembered, p. 102) ("facts" also vary, based upon whether you use "historical truth" or "religious truth." ibid p. 71. Dunn actually has a habit of putting 'facts' in quotation marks to denote this difference.) "Generally accepted historical events" as a category seems quite neutral, accurate and inclusive, and is less likely to be vandalized than "accepted facts" If you think "widely" is better than "generally", that's fine. Fearofreprisal (talk) 12:48, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

• I don't think we need to change the structure of the Sources article just yet - let's start with adding missing material, if any. Some of the historical analysis already exists in the Tacitus on Christ and the Josephus on Jesus articles - again, do we want to duplicate or merely summarize and link?
• I do not follow your statement that the "perspective on methods would be different between "historicity of Jesus" and "historical Jesus." " Please email me what you have - wdford@global.co.za
• I have no issue with the section heading of "Generally accepted historical events". However I see that somebody else has already decided its time for more drama here.
• Dunn's statement about "interpretations of interpretations" is valuable. I would support it being added here.

Wdford (talk) 22:34, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

• Summarize and link. When this article becomes more stable, revisit how much of the source article's content you want to incorporate here.
• No major issue on methods. I'm just saying that methods vary depending on research agenda. A secular historian and a quester would tend to focus on different methods.
• Will pull together the material to email it. It's a bit ragged now.
• The term "Widely accepted historical events" seems to be acceptable, and is not getting reverted anymore (knock on wood.) It's a little more general, not implying universal consensus, but still excluding fringe.
• Speaking of section names, I'd like to see the "Myth theory" section here renamed "Non-historicity" or "Disputed historicity." My rationale is that either would be more inclusive and descriptive terms than CMT. It would include reference to CMT, but could focus on less extreme viewpoints -- such as those questioning the historicity of individual events or pieces of evidence. Examples would include James Ossuary and the virgin birth. (See Virgin_birth_of_Jesus#Historicity for a nicely done section on historicity.) ( @Bill the Cat 7: - since you have a big interest in CMT, your perspective is important.)

Fearofreprisal (talk) 07:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Lack of objectivity

@Meijering, to address just one thing: "lack of objectivity". Objectivity is a phantom among human beings, a vanity that is the uncalled-for assumption (sometimes even arrogance) that one can supersede the condition of having a perspective. An example from the history of science (physics). When the electron was discovered in 1897, it dented the Newtonian (even ancient) view that the atom was a dissoluble indivisible thing. Ernest Rutherford soon after reformed the atomic model (1911) to accommodate the discovery, but even then it did not suffice for long. By 1919, experiments in radioactivity proved atoms could be transmuted, yielding the proton ("hydrogen nucleus") in the process. It took a year even for him to accede to the idea that it was a proton, a particle from an atomic nucleus, which could no longer be viewed as indivisible either. Rutherford's story goes on, but it is revealing the struggle the physics community as a whole had with the unraveling of this ancient idea of indivisibility of the atom, even among its most brilliant members. Each step required considerable convincing, and by no means was the process objective. An enormous amount of the research and its interpretation, and theorizing, was based on intuitions about what it all meant and how it fit together. There were disagreements at times, etc. You know how it can be among people. But the physicists knew and respected each other, and they also knew how to reason, and eventually came to consensus. The popular culture seems always to wish to present the idea that science is objective. Rubbish! Physics? It is experimental, and also theoretical, and the two alternate at the forefront of new developments. That's how it works, and there is nothing objective about it. How about history? One can't do history experiments. One can't gather the sort of data to support one or another historical idea the way one can in physics. The very nature of the facts are of a different kind. But the human activity that supports both is still very much human, and not objective. In history too there is intuition, theoreticizing, testing, observing, verifying, and so on. Those techniques aren't scientific in themselves; they're just useful to many things, and the sciences (and history) are among those things. Take issue with a historians' conclusions if you will; it's normal to question. But here, your criteria do not matter, and may not even be right. The historians' criteria do matter. Just present various historians' conclusions, not your own. They may disagree. Present them in their variety then. This is what we do. That's normal too. For a source on history of science, you may wish to consult Rhodes, Richard (2012), The Making of the Atomic Bomb (25th anniversary ed.), Simon and Schuster, ISBN 978-1-4516-7761-4 (winner of Pulitzer Prize, National Book Award, National Book Critics Circle Award). It's a great read, too. Evensteven (talk) 19:40, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Lack of objectivity was not my judgment (though I agree with it), but criticism of Historical Jesus scholarship by a reliable source. You insist on calling people historians who aren't. If we call them what they are (biblical scholars, NT scholars, scholars of religion, HJ scholars or whatever), then the problems go away. By all means represent all notable views, but don't present mere opinions in Wikipedia voice, or sell biblical scholars as historians. Martijn Meijering (talk) 19:54, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Habermas has a PhD in History. He is a historian. Apologetics is something that he does in his job. So is being a historian. Christianity has a history. Of, course Christians are interested in that history. But history does not occur in a vacuum. Christian history is mixed in with all the rest of history. The Bible has a history too. Scholars who work in these areas are not less scholarly because those are their areas, nor are historians no longer historians. Criticize their work if you like. Others do. But there is no problem with calling them what they are: historians. They're in the other classifications as well. I expect you have heard of cross-disciplinary scholarship, yes? Evensteven (talk) 20:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I didn't mean Habermas wasn't a historian, but that he describes a consensus among critical scholars, not historians. The odd critical scholar may be a historian as well, but most of them aren't. The fact that there is a consensus among the "critical" scholars he cites about the historicity of the resurrection appearances (however they are explained, as hallucinations or real appearances) doesn't mean there is a consensus among historians that these reported appearances are historical, and we shouldn't say there is or use Wikipedia voice to state the appearances are historical facts. We can and probably should cite Habermas in evidence of such a consensus among biblical scholars. It won't do their credibility or claims to being historians any good, but that can't be a criterion. Martijn Meijering (talk) 21:15, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I think that's mincing words. Evensteven (talk) 23:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, without mincing words: you can't treat a biblical scholar as a historian. They aren't the same thing, and a consensus among biblical scholars has no relationship to a consensus among historians. They may agree, they may not, but they aren't the same thing at all.—Kww(talk) 05:10, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Of course you can, if a biblical scholar is also a historian. And the two studies are not unrelated. Besides, this was about "critical scholars" earlier. Exactly what is the focus of your point? And wherever the focus is, these scholars do not fit into discrete boxes, and all must have training and fluency in the skills of a historian. And what is a "critical scholar" supposed to be anyway? No kind of scholar can do without a critical faculty. So without mincing words, you're both talking nonsense. Evensteven (talk) 12:37, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

No you can't, individuals can be historians and historical-critical scholars (that's what they mean by critical scholars) at the same time, but you cannot assume they are. I'm not sure what you mean by mincing words in this context, perhaps you mean splitting hairs? That would not be true either though, it's a fundamental difference. You say biblical scholars are also historians. With respect, I think this is absurd, and I would want to see very strong evidence before I'd be willing to accept that's true. This goes to the heart of the whole POV issue, so I don't see how it could be described as splitting hairs. Actually, I see you don't quite say that. Martijn Meijering (talk) 12:48, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok, there's room for some agreement here. When activities cross disciplines, the degree of crossing, and the degree of expertise exercised by those who do, does vary. Then, if you insist on keeping things separated, historians are not biblical scholars or necessarily critical scholars either. By your reasoning, they are not qualified to judge the scholarship outside their field then, either. I think that's absurd.

This comes back to my response about objectivity. The community of physicists who solved problems with the atomic models between 1900 and 1945 had a similar variety of specializations. They often worked outside their disciplines, or at least with others in related disciplines, and especially with chemists. And they all needed to work together on the same problems because those problems had impacts on all their specialties. They couldn't any of them make sense of it until they did. It's a perfect example of what scholarship is designed to be: a community of individuals, each with their own strengths and abilities to contribute, to arrive at understanding that surpasses the ability of any individual to get to alone. Their were tons of Nobel Prizes among the group I mentioned. It is exemplary. Historians and related scholars are capable of the same thing (if they are that capable). I don't think we're talking about as stellar a group of scholars here as the one in my example, but this notion that scholarship generally is somehow all divided up and sequestered and that people had better not stray "outside their expertise" (to use a common phrase) is nonsense. The more that train of thinking persists, the more scholarship suffers. And it's no wonder then that we end up with scholarship itself being disrespected, when it ends up doing such a poor job. This is what I see you advocating for. I just couldn't disagree in stronger terms. Evensteven (talk) 13:15, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm all in favour of multi-disciplinary approaches, I studied mathematics and computer science myself, and a year of physics too. All I'm objecting to is labeling biblical scholars as historians. The reverse would also be wrong, but I don't see that happening right now. Can scholars from one field judge those from another? To a degree I think they can, though it might be hard for an outsider to judge to what degree. But historians can certainly judge how well biblical scholars do when they venture into historical territory and vice versa. Akenson has made such a judgment of biblical scholars, and he was scathing, though he allows for exceptions. That doesn't mean we can no longer cite biblical scholars who engage in history, as long as we make clear they are mainly biblical scholars. Why would we insist on choosing the less precise term historian when we have the more precise and less misleading biblical scholar? I suspect that many biblical scholars would prefer to be thought of as historians because that profession is more prestigious and people might be less likely to suspect them of bias if they thought of them as historians. If so, it would be less than neutral of us to accommodate such considerations. Of course, many historical Jesus scholars do strive to follow sound historical methodology (or at least claim to do so), and we can report that, as long as we also report the criticism that doubts this. Martijn Meijering (talk) 13:40, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, yes. I grant your points, basically, as far as they go. Scholars do a lot of complaining and criticizing. That's part of what I'm complaining about too. We pay too much attention to it.

The example isn't just about scholarship either. It also applies very well to WP editing: consultation, discussion, consensus. It's time to look up and get some perspective. Isn't the lack of that what this whole long dry wall of text has been all about? Wouldn't scholars do well to do the same? Criticism itself isn't scholarship. Evensteven (talk) 13:45, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

You mean that you finally recognize that the article's presentation of biblical scholars as being unbiased historians is a problem? If so, we've achieved a major breakthrough.—Kww(talk) 13:47, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I mean that we'll have achieved a breakthrough when we see editors who are able to get a little perspective. Evensteven (talk) 14:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Have any luck with that beam in your eye lately? You might want to see about getting it extracted.—Kww(talk) 14:04, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Look, if you don't want to budge, then you won't budge. It's not like I had a grand anticipation of changing everyone's mind. It's not a beam in my eye, and it's not all about you. It's about perspective, and how it's needed. I think I've said what has needed to be said. Evensteven (talk) 14:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Moving forward

I have imported two additional sections, to address the issues of methodology and the criticisms thereof. This will need a fair bit of cleaning up, but its a start. Please help. Wdford (talk) 17:32, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Wdford: You also removed a considerable amount of material. On the one hand, your edits have improved the article substantially, and are helping us move forward what has been just a [WP:BATTLEGROUND|battleground]] too long. On the other hand, an explanation of the reasons for your removal would be helpful. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:50, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I began by importing a lot of material wholesale from a related article. I then removed various parts of my own additions which I considered to be relevant to the original article but not to this article. I could have copied it all down to MSWord, deleted what I thought was not relevant to this article and then uploaded the reduced version. It's just a start-point, and more material will need to be added and removed to clean it up properly. If the deleted item/s are considered by other editors to be relevant here after all, they can easily be added back. Wdford (talk) 19:21, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I imported a whole section on methodology from the Historical reliability of the Gospels article. This material overlaps somewhat with the related material from the Historical Jesus article. We need to decide which version we prefer, and eliminate duplications. Please help. Wdford (talk) 19:30, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Habermas redux

The discussion in the above section took one possible course, but it strayed from some useful points that still need clarity. There seems to be confusion about what he actually says. Please examine not my edit so much, but particularly the Habermas source where I pointed to it (pages 166 and 170, and surrounding) for confirmation of what I now say.

He does not say that accepted historic facts prove the literal resurrection of Jesus. He does say they "are adequate to demonstrate [it] according to probability" (page 166). In other words, objections having been sufficiently refuted, the strength of the evidence lies in favor, still only based on accepted facts. And he has talked about why. It's a scholarly opinion. And this particular opinion he does not describe as any other scholar's. (Although it is, he does not say so here as a scholar.)

One thing he does say is that the historicity of the literal resurrection is shown. This is not the same thing. Historicity does not just examine those historic facts and what they prove. It also examines the circumstances and environment in which those facts came to be. He expresses that there is wide (almost universal?) acceptance that the disciples believed in the literal resurrection, and that that is known at least as surely as eyewitness testimony and verified newspaper accounts would give us today. (It is my impression that the actual evidence is better than that. It is at a level wherein such testimony and verified accounts are working at optimum reliability by the standards of professionals, rather than the lower standards that do admittedly appear quite often today.) The point to be taken in this regard is that historicity itself is not to be taken in too restrictive a manner of definition. Whatever one wants to say about the evidence about the literal resurrection itself, that is not now the point of focus of this paragraph. The point is that we have a professional historian, an accepted WP:RS, giving a scholarly example about what can be included within the definition of historicity. I believe this has been a point of contention in this discussion. I want to insist that if there are further inquiries beyond dictionary definitions and into interpretations of what those definitions mean, that we have here a WP:RS that provides an interpretation. Evensteven (talk) 18:36, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Why are we citing Gary Habermas? He's a professor of Apologetics at Liberty University. He is not a substantial mainstream New Testament scholar.--Rbreen (talk) 21:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you saying he's not a reliable source? Or that his viewpoints are fringe? Fearofreprisal (talk) 22:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Right now, we're citing him as to a point of discussion. He's a trained historian. What's the beef? Evensteven (talk) 23:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a source that shows he is a trained historian? Martijn Meijering (talk) 10:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

@Mmeijeri: See Gary Habermas: "He holds a Ph.D. (1976) from Michigan State University in the area of History and Philosophy of Religion..." You really could have found that one yourself. Fearofreprisal (talk) 12:10, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

We rarely apply WP:FRINGE to religious articles (primarily out of courtesy), but the theory that this particular Christian belief has sufficient historical evidence to support it as fact is so far away from the mainstream as to be discounted. It's unreasonable to present him as a historian.—Kww(talk) 00:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Not a historian? Not my presentation. Argue with others who have said so; I got it from them. And you're confusing fact with historicity again. Evensteven (talk) 03:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

@User:Evensteven: You are aware that you have now opened two off-topic threads on the same irrelevant topic, right? This article isn't about whether the resurrection can be proven historically; it is only about whether Jesus existed or not. If you want to talk about whether the resurrection can be proven historically, take it to Talk:Historical Jesus. A number of people have already pointed out how bloated this page has become, and while I'm inclined to think the main reason is User:Kww and User:Fearofreprisal drilling questions that were already solved years ago and are answered in the FAQ, another major reason is off-topic discussions like this one. If you continue to argue over topics will not lead to any improvement of the article, your probably going to get a CIR block, or at least a TBAN. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

The article isn't about "whether Jesus existed or not." The article is about the "historicity of Jesus." Feel free to look at the article's title, and if that's not clear enough, let me know, and I'll give you some citations. (On your talk page, since we want to avoid bloat here.)

Is it your contention that historicity doesn't mean existence, but historically ascertainable (preponderance of evidence) existence? If so, I'd like to see a source to that effect. Also, we'd need to spell this out in the lede, otherwise it is likely to confuse readers. Martijn Meijering (talk) 15:44, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Also, you seem to be confused about "historical Jesus." Again, I'm happy to give you some citations.

As for this talk page being bloated: Don't worry. I donated to WP, so there is plenty of room. If we start running out, I'm sure Jimbo will ask for more money.

Finally, please read WP:ASPERSIONS, and take your threats to the proper page (not here.) Fearofreprisal (talk) 13:10, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Please stop posting article content discussion on user talk pages. It annoys me personally, and it's not very transparent. Looking at the above discussion, you don't seem to have convinced many other editors of your perception of the meaning of "historicity". And no, filling this page up with off-topic nonsense is disruptive not because of bandwidth restrictions, but because it makes it very difficult to read. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:13, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I dare say that what historicity is, is not an issue I first raised, but is indeed not off topic. You say the article "is only about whether Jesus existed or not", and Habermas says that is not the meaning of historicity. Furthermore, no one has been saying Christ's literal resurrection is generally accepted. But Habermas has clearly said that it is generally recognized that the apostles thought so. And that is the fact that causes Habermas to declare its historicity.

First of all, I would suggest that it is constructive to gather some material on what our WP:RSes say historicity is rather than to hear editorial blather about what everyone says it is. If you like, Habermas is a starting point. Surely there are other sources who can say something about it, yes? If you don't like what Habermas says, or you don't like Habermas, I don't mind. But quit telling me what historicity is in your opinion. We've both been there and done that and that is what won't help. It's time for WP:RSes to give the guidance. I'm not demanding that Habermas is the ultimate source on this issue, but he is what we currently have. What does Ehrman say it is? Or does he also disagree with you? Evensteven (talk) 16:42, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I do not oppose the idea that historicity is largely focussed on existence. In fact, I don't think Habermas would argue with that either. It's just not restricted to only existence as you were saying. This meaning he has suggested does not extend far from historical facts at all. It's as direct as existence facts themselves. Evensteven (talk) 16:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Habermas, p 163: "It is admitted by virtually all [critical scholars - see p 162] that the disciples had real experiences that caused them to believe that Jesus was raised from the dead." Am. Heritage Dict, 5th ed: "historicity - Historical authenticity; fact." The fact Habermas cites as accepted by virtually all critical scholars establishes it as a fact, and that is what gives it fully-recognized historical authenticity. That's historicity, folks. The rest is about article scope. Is the disciples' belief close enough to the heart of the historicity of Jesus himself to qualify as being within the article scope? If not, why baptism, etc.? Evensteven (talk) 17:31, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't see what evidence Habermas cites in support of this claims. Most scholars believe that the narrative as it is presently understood was that the disciples believed in various aspects of Christian mythology (and resurrection cults were a dime-a-dozen in that time), but I haven't found any secular scholar who argues that the disciples had "real experiences that caused them to believe..." in such. Or, if what Habermas is saying is that the disciples lived actual lives, it's a throwaway statement ("When Abraham Lincoln was in Washington, his left foot was also in Washington.") Surely, the disciples' lives affected what they believed. Whether they experienced any plausible evidence for a resurrection is the very thing which secular scholars would be highly critical of. So what is the intent of including this tortured wording from an apologist with a known agenda? jps (talk) 20:04, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

jps: The consensus here has long been that it's acceptable to include "throwaway statements" from biased sources, so long as the source claims to have evidence and some concurrence from others. Until that consensus changes, it's going to be hard to justify removing the Habermas citation. Fearofreprisal (talk) 22:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. Obviously, that kind of outlook is against multiple policies and guidelines, but I note the Habermas citation is not in the article as of right now. jps (talk) 01:08, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

I wish I was being sarcastic/sardonic/ironic/funny. But it's the truth. Fearofreprisal (talk) 03:44, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Is Professor Gary Habermas a Reliable Source? Q&A

Two off-topic threads on the same subject is enough, right? If you want to have a general discussion as to whether an author is a "Reliable Source as per Wikipolicy" please take it to WP:RSN. This page is for discussion of content specific to this article.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User Hijiri 88 asks us to consider the question: Is Professor Gary Habermas a Reliable Source as per Wikipolicy (bottom of immediately preceding thread). Discuss. 103.23.134.190 (talk) 03:09, 14 September 2014 (UTC) No. No I do not. Don't put words in my mouth. He is a notable conservative evangelical scholar who teaches at an evangelical university, and whose views on the historical verifiability of the resurrection are not shared by the majority of historians. He is a reliable source on his own opinions, when they are correctly attributed to him. However, unless he has written on the historicity of Jesus (i.e., whether Jesus himself existed), he doesn't belong in this article. His views on the resurrection are completely irrelevant to this article, but I never claimed he fails WP:RS per se and have actually encouraged discussion of his views to be taken to Talk:Historical Jesus. No comment on whether that article should cite him; as far as I can tell, the only people who agree with him on whether historians can prove the resurrection are fundamentalists and evangelical apologists like William Lane Craig (in his debate with Ehrman, extracts cited here) and Mike Licona (see, for example, here and here). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:58, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Questions about an apparent logical fallacy

My questions relates to this line from the article: Roman historian Tacitus referred to Christus and his execution by Pontius Pilate in his Annals (written ca. AD 116), book 15, chapter 44.[42] The very negative tone of Tacitus' comments on Christians make the passage extremely unlikely to have been forged by a Christian scribe[43] and the Tacitus reference is now widely accepted as an independent confirmation of Christ's crucifixion,[44] although some scholars question the authenticity of the passage on various different grounds.[43][45][46][47][48][49][49][50][51]

Why does a negative tone preclude a forgery? To me that sounds like a logical non-sequitur. The fact that it was negative has no bearing on whether its true or not. Actually, since the story is that Romans executed Christ, it would make for a stronger forgery for the Roman historian to be negative about Christ. Apparently there is a source (43) that supports this line but it is not readable and in any case if source 43 does provide a sound logical argument as to why being negative means true, it has not been accurately captured in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.178.71 (talk) 19:46, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

RFCs (again)

A few weeks ago there was discussion of whether a Request for Comments was appropriate, either with respect to the scope of this article or on any other issues. Is there a desire for an RFC, or are we satisfied that the article is moving forward with help from Wdford? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:55, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

We do appear to be making progress, maybe we should see how that goes first. Martijn Meijering (talk) 19:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think any of the warriors here are yet able to express their issues with the clarity necessary for an RfC to actually be useful. Maybe later.Fearofreprisal (talk) 20:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

@User:Mmeijeri: You "made progress" in your previously expressed agenda of making the article make the (entirely unique and unsupported) claim that "biblical scholars" are by definition not "historians", and that the opinions of a tiny minority of "historians" of unrelated fields should be given more weight accordingly, solely because I was busy with real life for a couple of days and was unable to respond to you. Claiming "a minority of historians" support the historicity of Jesus just because the majority of historians of unrelated fields have never made a statement about it is ridiculous, and you're going to get TBANned if you're not careful. Ehrman and many other historians have criticized some HJ researchers for their flawed methodologies; you are apparently trying to misrepresent this as them arguing that Jesus never existed.

I'm sick and tired of your uncivil behaviour and repeated attempts to intimidate people you disagree with. And don't put words into my mouth. I never said that biblical scholars are by definition not historians, in fact I have several times denied this is the case. What I did say is that biblical scholars aren't automatically historians, while explicitly allowing for the possibility that individuals can be both. This is neither false nor unsourced, and I have repeatedly referred to multiple sources. I have objected to your characterisation of real historians as scholars from unrelated fields. You are asserting that the scholars we should listen to are HJ scholars, which is totally non-neutral. Martijn Meijering (talk) 08:39, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

@User:Robert McClenon: I would be fully in favour of a (carefully-worded) RFC so we can inject some sanity into this discussion.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:40, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, you're elected to write the first draft of the carefully-worded RfC. Fearofreprisal (talk) 03:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

It would be pointless to have an RfC about the scope of this article, or on any other metaphysical issue. It is always best to focus on text in the article so any RfC should be about a specific proposal to change the article. Johnuniq (talk) 04:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Why do you think an RfC about the scope of the article would be pointless? And why do you equate scope with metaphysical issues? Fearofreprisal (talk) 04:57, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Because coming up with some wording about scope would solve nothing. If an RfC concluded that the scope was X, people could still change text in the article and claim that it satisfied X—the result would be simultaneous discussions about four things:

1. Is the proposed change desirable?
2. Does the proposed change to the article satisfy the scope?
3. Should an exception be made for the proposed change, and can an RfC permanently inhibit future edits?
4. Does WP:CCC apply (has consensus about the scope changed)?

Actually, it's only #1 that matters, so any RfC should be about that—what difference would a rule about the scope make? Johnuniq (talk) 06:51, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Regarding scope: In this article, as in many WP articles, the first sentence or two of the lede are statements regarding the scope. So, an RfC about the scope of the article would likely be about "text in the article." But, since no one seems to be expressing any interest in an RfC on the scope of the article, I don't get why you brought it up.

Regarding metaphysical issues: Historicity can be thought of as denoting historical "actuality", and actuality is very much a metaphysical concept. But, again, no one even suggested having an RfC on metaphysical issues, so I don't get why you brought it up.

Fearofreprisal (talk) 09:29, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

It would be a really good idea to focus on discussing text in the article. My comments do not do that, but they were focused on the question in the OP. Johnuniq (talk) 09:40, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

There is no need for an RFC on this issue - the scope as defined in the opening sentence is very clear, only one editor has actually complained about it, and even he is not keen for an RFC at the moment. If Hijiri88 has specific concerns about the scope, it's best to air them on the talk page first. Wdford (talk) 16:21, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Okay, per User:Fearofreprisal's nomination: Should this article state that "the majority of historians" accept the historical existence of Jesus? Some users consider the "majority of historians" not to have made a statement regarding the existence of Jesus. Additionally, do scholars who apply historical criticism to the New Testament count as "historians", or should we use the phrase "New Testament scholars"?

This comes pretty much exclusively from my involvement in the dispute. Areas that I wasn't involved in might not be covered. Therefore, the above should be considered a "first draft". Any suggestions?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:26, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

You need a lot more clarity I think. Though I may be misinterpreting, it seems like the root issue you're trying to get at isn't too far from the one that I've raised a number of times, about the essence of historicity. It comes down to the question of what makes something "historical?" Or, stated differently, what methodologies and protocols, when used by a scholar to create a reconstruction of past events are likely to provide a result that can be called "historical?"

The Habermas example that's been disputed here recently probably provides a good example of this: His assertion of the historicity of the resurrection is based on the assumption that the creeds and gospels are reliable starting points for his analysis. This isn't too different from, say, Dunn, who says "in burden of proof terms we can start from the assumption that Synoptic tradition is a good witness to the historical Jesus unless proven otherwise" (The Historicity of the Synoptic Gospels, in Crisis in Christology: Essays in Quest of Resolution, ed. William D. Farmer [Livonia, Mich.: Dove Booksellers, 1995], 216).

For purposes of the "quest for the historical Jesus" (which is targeted to an audience of Christians) such assumptions are both reasonable and necessary. Yet, for purposes of academic history -- understanding "what actually happened" with no value commitments -- such assumptions are probably not justifiable (cite available.)

Should we dismiss an assertion of historicity based on methodologies and protocols (which include assumptions) that likely wouldn't have been used by a secular historian? I suspect that doing so may be a slippery slope, leading us to substitute our value judgments for those of "reliable sources." If you dismiss Habermas, you probably have to dismiss Ehrman.

I think the only thing we can reasonably do is focus on transparency, including, where we can, information on the methodologies and protocols used by reliable sources. Yet, this raises a couple of questions:

• Often times, a scholar's methodologies and protocols can be inferred fairly directly from context, or reference to their other written material. How far can we go in incorporating this inference before we've crossed over to synthesis or original research?
• In cases where it's not easily possible to discern a scholar's methodologies or protocols (or where no WP editor wants to go to the trouble), should nothing be said in the article? Or should these sources be deprecated?

I don't think these questions are well-formed enough for an RfC, but maybe they'll spark some thoughts you can use in refining your proposed RfC questions. Fearofreprisal (talk) 18:17, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Thing is, I don't think it's time to call in the rest of the Wikipedia on the Habermas problem. I still stick to my guns that the historicity of the resurrection is a separate issue from the historicity of Jesus himself: I actually started re-reading Ehrman 2012 and I noticed that (on page 35) he specifically supports me here. It's a commonly used mythicist non sequitur argument that "Jesus performed miracles, therefore non he must have been famous, therefore contemporary pagan sources should mention him", and bringing the historicity of the resurrection into an article on the historicity of Jesus is actually making the mythicist case for them...

The quest for the historical Jesus is not targeted to an audience of Christians. The historical Jesus is entirely unrelated to the Jesus of Christian faith. Please see Martin 2010. The quest for the historical Jesus is targeted to an audience of historical researchers. Now, if we are talking about changing the scope of my proposed RfD wording, I am interested. How about this:

Four points: (1) Should this article state that "the majority of historians" accept the historical existence of Jesus? Some users consider the "majority of historians" not to have made a statement regarding the existence of Jesus. (2) It is acceptable on the talk page to refer to scholars who apply historical criticism to the New Testament as "historians" if reliable sources use this terminology, or should we use the phrase "New Testament scholars"? (3) What should the scope of this article be? Some users consider discussion of the historicity of Jesus' miracles (namely the resurrection) to belong in this article, but others (per Ehrman 2012:35) consider discussion of the historical view of Jesus' miracles to belong in the other article. (4) Should we be specifically discussing the methodologies applied by specific historians to historical Jesus research, or should we simply state the historical consensus of scholars that Jesus did exist, and cite the evidence the historical community considers most convincing? Some editors on this article consider the historical methodology of certain historians to be questionable; should we discuss these methodologies and let readers make their own decision, or would this violate WP:NOR?

Habermas is a Christian apologist who works in a Christian institution. Ehrman is the dean of New Testament historians (per one of his textbooks being the most-widely used in the United States). Your comparison is flawed, and I really don't want to include it in an RfC until more discussion has taken place here, since I thought you (and everyone else) had gotten over the "you can't dismiss Habermas or else you have to dismiss everyone else" thing yet.

Per "methodologies": I'm not entirely sure what you're asking here? Are you saying we should discuss the evidence provided by historians for the historical existence of Jesus? If so, does my new proposed wording deal with your concerns?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Hiriji:

• I think it would be a waste of time to undertake an RfC on anything in this article, until we were able to distill down to a really clear question where "the rest of Wikipedia" could provide useful input.
• Regards your 4 proposed RfC questions: My opinion is that they're way too complex and ill defined. But I'm in no position to tell you not to go with them.
• Regarding Habermas: So what if he's an apologist? So long as he's not an abcderian, it doesn't matter. This has been discussed over and over and over, both here and in ANI: We can't exclude sources because of bias. In this field, all sources are biased. Fearofreprisal (talk) 21:32, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Request for comments: Inclusion of more than "theological historical criticism" scholarship

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

There is considerable discussion in this forum about the inclusion of so-called "minority" opinions. Basically it boils down to, whose citations represent a valid contribution? There has been considerable push back over many months and years to the inclusion of scholarship that falls outside of the one school of thought protected within this article: namely biblical scholarship based almost exclusively on theological historical-criticism. From a broader academic perspective, inclusive of seminal archaeologists, philosophers and different types of biblical scholars, the positions in this article are challenged. Please review to assess and validate the inclusion of other scholarly opinions in this article as found, for example, at Historicity of Jesus#Diverse Opinions of the Investigation of Jesus as a Historical Figure. --IseeEwe (talk) 03:00, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: Of course such sources should be included, where they satisfy WP:RS and are not WP:FRINGE nonsense.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:36, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:RS only applies to things we state in Wikipedia voice, doesn't it? We can still cite notable opinions that might not satisfy WP:RS as attributed opinions, can't we? Martijn Meijering (talk) 12:31, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Clarfication in response to a lot of venting below: Sources "who say Jesus didn't exist while dismissing anyone else as a fundamentalist theologian" would not be likely to be reliable sources, but biased one. I'm talking about peer-reviewed history, biblical archaeology, and other journals, in which it's not likely that authors of particular pieces are going to be advocating their personal beliefs without evidence and attacking others who believe differently, or they wouldn't get published. Books by "theologians" and "researchers" who aren't being peer reviewed strike me as unlikely to be reliable on this topic, whatever side they take. An exception would be solid, well-reviewed secondary sources taht summarize avialable research and views (whether taking a position on the matter in the process or not), but they'll be reliable as as summaries of facts presented by others, not as sources of facts themselves. I.e., an investigative journalist might accurately summarize a debate over interpretation of various peer-reviewed papers, but is not separately an authority on the question being debated. Further more, "peer-reviewed" theology journals that only accept theological views don't count as reliable sources. Nor would a pseudo-peer-reviewed journal edited by Richard Dawkins that selectively ignored all input peers who were not self-declared atheists. And, frankly, we all already know this.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  07:13, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

• @SMcCandlish: Since sources "who say Jesus didn't exist while dismissing anyone else as a fundamentalist theologian" would not be likely to be reliable sources, but biased one[s], does that mean that sources who say Jesus did exist while dismissing anyone else as not competent or respectable also "would not be likely to be reliable sources, but biased one[s]?" Hypothetically, of course. Fearofreprisal (talk) 08:32, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

If that is what reliable sources say, then no, the same would not apply. Fringe is defined by reliable sources and if virtually all reliable sources say that something is fringe, then that is how it must described in the article. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:18, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm for including other sources, and for WP:DUE inclusion of other views -- but not turning it into "Only scholars who say Jesus didn't exist while dismissing anyone else as a fundamentalist theologian," which is the direction that the combined efforts of IseeEwe and Fearofreprisal have shown. The only factor religion should play is that the sources should be from academic publishers and not Sunday school sources, but that does not mean treating folks like Bart D. Ehrman as if they're Bible-thumpers. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:24, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

This is disingenuous rhetoric. This editor has systematically attacked, berated and poked fun at the suggested contributions of many editors over the last 6 months (at least). Look at the threads of discussion. At this time, the article almost exclusively cites one school of thought. Wider perspectives are rejected for any of a number of reasons. My contribution did not remove or change a single element of the rest of the citations or text. I added a two or three words, and then added a section outlining a selection of diverse opinions in the matter. There are far more opinions about this than mine, including those based on faith, literary criticism, sociology and anthropology. No other opinions are allowed in this article by this small and tight knit group of editors. The article should be rewritten top to bottom to include a wide array of perspectives in the matter.--IseeEwe (talk) 16:07, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Your accusations are a damn lie and a personal attack. I'll admit that I've pointed out when tendentious POV-pushers have tried to push fringe views on the article, which would primarily be you and the account that many believe you are a sockpuppet of, but I wasn't active on this page before May. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:39, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Also, your edits did change cited material ([6] [7]), explicitly to cast existing sources as non-scholarly while presenting your views as what "real" academia believes. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:43, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

You can scream and point fingers all you wish. You attacked and deride my suggested edits by repeatedly deleting my entries, by refusing to communicate with me, by snidely calling into question my independence, and by pointing in every direction but at yourself for this problem. You wrote, and I quote, "... multiple users have told you that you're violating (WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE)" when not one person had communicated with me. To Fearofreprisal you wrote "you've been told before that your view is against consensus, if not common sense." That comes across to a new editor as a pretentious and demeaning personal attack on the integrity and intelligence of the editor. You wrote about me and Fearofreprisal "...they are two POV-pushers going against consensus." That is a horrid assumption to make, without any communication with me at all. You maintain a scholarly superficiality, but you act like a bully and a spoiled child. --IseeEwe (talk) 02:45, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Deleting your entries is not an attack, it's common for POV material. Accusing me of attacks without evidence is a personal attack. By adding those changes, you refused to acknowledge the communications going on on this page. It is your responsibility to justify your edits on the talk page. And accusing me of not communicating with you after responding to an entire section I wrote detailing what was wrong with every individual citation is bad faith at best (that is, without insulting your intelligence). Course, you didn't even acknowledge any of the points, but instead chose to hypocritically attack my intelligence. Your edits are quite clearly against the consensus quite visible on this talk page, and if you needed a personal message to understand that (not that you've demonstrated that you understand that, though I acknowledge that that appears to be by your own will rather than a lack of capacity) after being reverted by almost everyone but Fearofreprisal, maybe you should consider writing elsewhere.

Fearofreprisal is attempting to remove a source regarding the historicity of Jesus from an article on the historicity of Jesus on the grounds that it's outside the article's scope. That is against common sense. Have you even tried to consider why so many users are telling you to stop? Can you for a moment quit making paranoid attacks and maybe look at some of the guidelines that are being cited, or bother to understand some of the reasons they're being cited?

Still, I do apologize for not leaving a message asking you to read the talk page to see existing discussion that explains why your edits were reverted, even though your behavior indicates that it wouldn't have mattered. I mean, really, if you would have listened then, you'd listen now. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Ian.thomson -- your straw man arguments are funny, but not credible. No one has proposed anything like what you've said. Fearofreprisal (talk) 16:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Straw man? No, just calling a spade a spade. You've been calling for treating all sources that consider Jesus's existence as plausible as religiously biased (even attempting to argue that Erhman, who presents problems for your paradigm, is outside the scope of this article), and IseeEwe's edit carried those intentions out while presenting only the denial of plausibility as the only position held by secular academia. Your arguments on the matter have not even been archived yet, and your and IseeEwe's actions are still in the first page of the history. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:39, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

The arguments you're attributing to me are fabrications or distortions on your part. But I'm certain that you'll disagree, so just show me the diffs. As for IseeEwe: I have nothing to do with him or his posts. Fearofreprisal (talk) 21:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

• Clarification needed - @IseeEwe: Any chance we could have examples of the specific citations in question here? The Diverse Opinions of the Investigation of Jesus as a Historical Figure section seems to have been deleted. NickCT (talk) 15:10, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I believe that the section still exists in the history of the page. I am too new here to tell you how to access it. I requested that it be left on the page until after external review. That request was ignored. If you review the history of discussion on the talk page you will see a pattern. A new editor comes along with a suggestion (any suggestion) pushing for neutrality and diversity of opinion, and they are shut down by the same small group of editors. This is a systematic abuse of Wikipedia. No matter the citations provided, everything that falls outside of the one chosen paradigm is rejected. The article should be rewritten top to bottom to include a wide array of perspectives in the matter. There can never be a single claim to authority. If we allow this group to dominate the page (and other associated pages) then we are hermetically sealing off what could be a lively and engaging article. Too many well intentioned, articulate, engaged and interested people have been pushed off this page --IseeEwe (talk) 16:07, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

• I think minority is a misdescription. Scholars who believe Jesus Christ to be a divine being are too biased to be considered reliable in this context. The article should focus on objective historians, be they atheist, Jewish, Buddhist, Wiccan, whatever, so long as they don't believe that treating Christ as a fictional being would invalidate their beliefs. An article that found that most non-Christian, non-Muslim historians considered Christ to be an actual historical fact would be compelling. An article that finds that most Christians don't believe that they have been worshiping imaginary beings has no value.—Kww(talk) 00:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, you'd be surprised to know that some Christian fundamentalists do not like the historical Jesus approach and say that it is a bankrupt enterprise, there being no retrievable historical Jesus, so Christians have to be content with the Christ of faith, since that's all they're ever gonna get on this planet. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:21, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

For them "Jesus really existed" is a theological truth they learn from the Bible, not a fact contingent upon the consensus among historians. There is a difference between theological truths and historical truths, and since they argue that the historical truth can't be known in this respect, they are content to affirm the theological truth about the existence of Jesus. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:29, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment in response to RFC: I only looked in for the RFC. The subject is of no interest to me, but I cringed on receiving the Call. Not because I don't comment on RFCs on topics that don't interest me, but because of a dreadful foreboding that the article and talk pages would turn out to be very much as in fact they turned out to be. My smallness of faith blinded me to the possibility that a greater insight might emerge, namely that WP has a weakness (several in fact) and in particular in this context, that we need a formal court of appeal or similar mechanism to decide disputes speedily, decisively, cleanly, and where appropriate, conditionally. No hissy fits, no slanging matches, no bullying, and not too much weaseling or grandstanding. There must be thousands of articles on non-trivial topics, not just groupie slanging matches on the merits or demerits of a particular backyard rock group, where settling the matter currently amounts to a shouting match with the outcome depending on who can manipulate the edit warring tactics more skilfully or with more stamina. Some people engage in such matters as a personal matter of entertainment, and much joy may it afford them, but it is no part of our duty to indulge them, rather than contribute to a constructive encyclopaedia. Many of the conflicts have to do with matters of science, many with politics, and many with various forms of superstition, though some amount to simple malice or vandalism. I don't know whether there is any sort of movement towards a general court of appeal that could settle disputes, especially POV, OR etc, first rapidly, then formally if necessary, but if there isn't, there should be. The current arbitration mechanisms are too cumbersome and far from decisive enough to be effective (witness this article for one example). It would do a great deal for the quality of WP and the respect it should deserve if something of the type could be instituted. As matters stand, looking at the quality of a lot of the supporting citations in the squabble in this article, I find a great darkness of the spirit descending upon me. If it should occur to anyone that we should be looking into agitation for anything of the type that I lament the absence or inadequacy of, let me know. Don't bother to call me just to tell me that anyone has found evidence for the existence of the son or for the non-existence of Caligula or for better citations for this particular article. JonRichfield (talk) 08:42, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
• Response to RfC All peer-reviewed research bearing on this subject constitutes reliable sources. The article should aim to represent major points of view in a balanced way. Individual publications at odds with the mainstream can be given attention if they have had impact. Valid measures of impact include the response caused within academia as well as news coverage outside it.

Generally, sections that are entitled "criticism of mainstream opinion" or some such are discouraged - rather, their contents should be remarked within sections covering aspects of the subject or evidence UNLESS they constitute entirely different self-contained theories. The main reason, as I see it, is that this results in better flow and understanding for the reader. However, sometimes such "criticism" sections may be an unfortunate and inevitable first step towards acceptance of valid inclusion. Regards, Samsara (FA • FP) 03:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• Response to RfC Especially within a Historicity of Jesus page, it does seem appropriate to include various view points that are peer reviewed, as Samsara has pointed out. It seems people are primarily concerned of something being too one-sided, and that is where the desire for certain parts to be left out come from. I would imagine some strictly historians or archaelogists might be appropriate, while someone who is just a philosopher might not be very helpful as that opens a gigantic can of worms. Seems like both sides of the discussion though are being a bit too unreasonable and vicious and there is a middle way available. Lets see some examples perhaps and help weigh in? What is getting deleted, for example, that feels uncomfortable? Prasangika37 (talk) 01:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Include a balance of scholarly opinion on the matter

It may come as a surprise that some scholars actually discount the existence of Jesus, but this article should describe the debate. I see at least three sections: 1) Jesus as the divine Son of God, worker of miracles, teacher of eternal truths; 2) Jesus as an influential leader of the Middle East; 3) Jesus as a fictional invention representing truths held sacred by specific groups.DonaldRichardSands (talk) 11:04, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Attempted to remove some bias

I've attempted to remove some bias, by specifying the credentials of provided sources, providing sources of dissent, and making clear which are claims and which accepted facts. Edit was immediately reversed. To ColorOfSuffering and Ian.thomson, how about letting the facts speak for themselves? Is your religion so fragile?? Also, note that revisions are auto-undone by multiple people, instantly, implying 1) a bot, and 2) a collusion to make edits impossible without the editor violating edit-war rule.Roguetech (talk) 15:24, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Why “a bot, and a collusion”? Why not multiple bots, colluding with each other?

But seriously:

1. Roguetech, there were no recent edits made under your name, although there were some made by 205.143.246.80. If that was you, you might want to be a bit more consistent about using one ID or the other, as there are potential problems in using both.
2. ColorOfSuffering did not revert either of your edits; check the page history.
3. Reverts were not instant; in fact, they weren't even within the same minute. All the timing proves is that a human editor took three long, leisurely minutes to press one “undo” button, which does not seem super-human.
4. Since there were no “multiple people”, there was no collusion.

WP:BRD. You were bold. Someone else reverted. Now you get to discuss. But please don't start out with the assumption that we're all out to get you.  Unician ∇  16:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Roguetech, I also checked the edits and reversions, and found I agree with the reversions. The writing was not encyclopedic, and also not neutral, and furthermore not backed up by WP:RSes. What's more, it removed content without reasons cited. It's not the religion that is fragile, it's the editing. Evensteven (talk) 17:08, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Oof...what a land mine this article has become -- I think I may have been caught in the cross-fire. I was merely removing a duplicate reference from the article space, nothing more. When I edit, my religion is spelled out entirely in the Manual of Style, which makes it terribly fragile (though I prefer the term imperfect). I hope you guys are able to come to a consensus about this, because I think the topic is fascinating, and there's some great, recent scholarship which I feel merits consideration in this article. I also feel that some past scholarship has been flawed, but I don't know enough about that to say for sure. But I understand the contentiousness of this article, seeing as this topic discusses not just the divinity, but the entire existence of a key religious figure. Anyway, godspeed...and I love you all. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 18:30, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dubious paragraph

Please remove the following paragraph:Since the 18th century a number of quests for the historical Jesus have taken place, and historical critical methods for studying the historicity of Jesus have been developed. Unlike for some figures in ancient history, the available sources are all documentary. In conjunction with Biblical sources such as the Pauline Letters and the Synoptic Gospels, three passages in non-Christian works have been used to support the historicity of Jesus. These are two passages in the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus, and one from the Roman historian Tacitus. Although the authenticity of all three passages has been disputed to varying degrees, most biblical scholars believe that all three are at least partially authentic.

It is not sourced, and it is vague. First off, who are the "most biblical scholars" and what parts do they believe are/aren't authentic? This paragraph violates so many wikipedia policies it is not even funny. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.121.225.190 (talk) 04:48, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

As per policy, the lead summarizes the content of the article. If you read the article you will see all the sourcing etc there. We can add all of that to the lead, but will it make things better, or will it just clutter things up again? Wdford (talk) 06:55, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

RfC?

I indicated 2 weeks ago that I thought it reasonable to start an RfC, perhaps specifically dealing with (1) the scope and title of this article, (2) whether a separate article dealing with Fear's preferred definition seems to have the required notability based on the evidence so far provided, and (3) to determine, roughly, how much WEIGHT to give that topic here. Opinions? John Carter (talk) 20:55, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

What is my preferred definition? Please do tell me, I'm interested to know. Fearofreprisal (talk) 21:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

if you were really interested in helping the article along, you would state your preferred definition openly, and allow it to be debated. The fact that you continue to demand changes, without explaining what changes you wish to see, is a cause for some concern. Why don't you state you preferred definition for the record? Wdford (talk) 19:22, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Look here [8], where I say:

Wdford -- Since this section is about changes to the scope of the article, and you've actually proposed a changed scope - unrelated to the topic of the article - I'll also propose a changed scope:

The scope of the Historicity of Jesus article should be the Historicity of Jesus.

I'm interested in hearing comments in favor of or opposed to this. Fearofreprisal (talk) 22:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Notice that I originally addressed that directly to you, and even put it in a quotation box, to avoid misunderstanding? Is that "open" enough?

Now, ask John Carter what he thinks my preferred definition (of the scope) is. I think you'll find it hilarious.[9]

As for "explaining what changes [I] wish to see": Really? Do you need me to provide diffs, including your responses to what I wrote?

Fearofreprisal (talk) 22:02, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I believe the above comment seems to be based upon one individual's interpretation of the stated scope of the article based on his view of the meaning of the title. As others have already seen, the Anchor Bible Dictionary in its subsection which runs to roughly two pages of transcribed text uses the word "Historicity" in its title but says nothing about the question of academic bias in the study of Jesus. Also, as was indicated elsewhere the recent Encyclopedia of the Historical Jesus" whose articles are listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Jesus work group/Encyclopedic articles is specifically cataloged by the Library of Congress classification in "Historicity", but does not mention the issue of academic bias in the field to any degree I could see. I believe the repeated refusal to apparently even acknowledge that one individual's opinion of what the title means is not necessarily supported by outside academic sources is maybe the most "hilarious" thing taking place here. John Carter (talk) 15:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

This was not a good faith suggestion for improving the article, this was the contribution of a troll. PS: I was not actually proposing a change of scope, that accusation was just more of your trolling, which you appeared to have based on the assumption that a dictionary is an unreliable source of definitions. Do you have an actual point to make? Wdford (talk) 00:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Circular. Not helpful. Here is a reminder of what scope is all about. Evensteven (talk) 00:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Wdford - Suggesting that the scope of the article is (or should be) "historicity of Jesus" *is* a good faith suggestion for improving the article. Again, do you need diffs of where I've talked about this?

As for you not proposing a change of scope, let me quote you:

The question thus is: should we rename this article Scholarly opinions on the historicity of Jesus and narrow the scope, or should we keep it as is? The rules say that unless we have a consensus to change the scope, the scope of the article remains as is.Wdford (talk) 16:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Please take your "trolling" accusations to my talk page. They're really not appropriate here. Fearofreprisal (talk) 00:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

More trolling. I clearly stated that the scope of the article should remain as is described in the opening sentence, unless a consensus emerges to change it. The opening sentence clearly describes the scope as being the "Historicity of Jesus." You made no effort to offer an improvement, you merely disputed the reliability of dictionaries. Wdford (talk) 00:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Prejudicial mistatements of the statements of others for the purposes of indulging in straw man arguments is a serious violation of decorum and continued indulgence in such behavior can and often is looked down on at ANI or ArbCom. John Carter (talk) 15:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Josephus testimonium flavium

Guys, it's time update the information about this Christian interpolation in the work of Josephus. Here is the scholarship on the item:

"Analysis of the evidence from the works of Origen, Eusebius, and Hegesippus concludes that the reference to "Christ" in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.200 is probably an accidental interpolation or scribal emendation and that the passage was never originally about Christ or Christians. It referred not to James the brother of Jesus Christ, but probably to James the brother of the Jewish high priest Jesus ben Damneus." More Info: vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 489-514 Journal Name: Journal of Early Christian Studies

Sources: Journal of Early Christian Studies vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 489-514 http://www.academia.edu/2329601/Origen_Eusebius_and_the_Accidental_Interpolation_in_Josephus_Jewish_Antiquities_20.200 http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/2946

As you can see there is no mention of an "authentic nucleus". It was talking about a totally different Jesus. 1 in 26 people in that time and place were named Jesus, so this should not come as a surprise. The citation needs to be included to balance the vague, misleading language currently in the article which states " Testimonium Flavianum, is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it is broadly agreed upon that it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus, which was then subject to Christian interpolation or forgery"

Could one of the more experienced editors include the above mentioned citation from Richard Carrier's published work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.91.107.165 (talk) 23:45, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Probably need to clean up the Josephus_on_Jesus article first. Then the Sources for the historicity of Jesus article. After that, this article can be dealt with. Fearofreprisal (talk) 04:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Geoffrey Blainey

Hey guys, I think citations from Geoffrey Blainey ought to come with the disclaimer: *Christian

Apparently, he believes in magic, and believes that the resurrection of the dead body of a man actually happened. He certainly can't be trusted about anything he says with regards to historicity of Jesus. Peruse these two stories about him with regards to his belief on the resurrection of a dead body.

"Blainey applies the test of an empirical historian before concluding that, by the standards of the first century AD, the voluminous accounts of Jesus' life count as reasonable documentary evidence. Jesus did exist. He hedges his bets on the resurrection, giving ample voice to its sceptics, but notes that Christ's virtual presence in the minds of his disciples gave Christianity an edge over older, less dynamic competitors."

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/arts/gadfly-geoffrey-blainey-comes-to-praise-christianity-not-to-bury-it/story-e6frg8n6-1226179886632?nk=ee1ed1034064ef12a6f53ad1a537deff

"Apparently, Blainey 'hedges his bets' on the resurrection as an historical event giving 'ample voice to its sceptics'."

http://citybibleforum.org/city/brisbane/blog/jesus-history

So from what I understand, his religion doesn't affect his bias, but Richard Carrier, because he doesn't believe in magic, is "bias" and sould have an asterisk beside his name? That's fine, but as long as you put an asterisk beside the name of Blainey and his ilk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.91.107.165 (talk) 00:41, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Its a bit hard to tell if you're just trying to be inflammatory or you are trying to make a point that actually matters to you? The whole "Actually happened.." criticizing Christian view betrays anything you're trying to propose.. Prasangika37 (talk) 02:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not hard to tell, after you've spent some time on pages like this. Pages like this seem to attract radical atheist POV warriors who have an emotional stake in denying god in general and jesus in particular. Just a heads up. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 13:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

What POV, dogmatic bullshit! Back to the topic. In his home country (also mine) Blainey is seen as the conservatives' historian. His opinions are wheeled out whenever the right wing of Australian politics wants to "prove" something. His view are not universally well respected. Using him here does damage to the the cause of those trying to prove Jesus existed. HiLo48 (talk) 19:21, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

ANI discussion

User Hijiri has fired off another of his many complaints at a noticeboard when he doesn't get his way, and not for the first time without notifying the Wikipedians who are involved (Fearofreprisal and yours truly this time) even though this is required by policy. Wikipedians here may want to follow the discussion. [10]Martijn Meijering (talk) 13:12, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Remove the "criticism" section?

Now that the dust has mostly settled, can we discuss this? The section basically serves no purpose in this article except to give the (false) impression that some scholars who criticize others' ideas on who and what Jesus was reject the historicity of the man himself. Schweitzer didn't deny historicity. Neither does Crossan. Or Ehrman. Of Meier. Does ANYONE cited in the section? Ehrman at least is on record as having been bewildered at the false characterization as a mythicist. Is Wikipedia one of the websites giving this false impression? Discussion of controversies surrounding Christian apologetics masquerading as HJ research DOES belong on Wikipedia ... in the appropriate article. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:25, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Outrageous suggestion, blatant POV-pushing. The section should stay. It doesn't at all suggest that certain scholars reject historicity, it says that there are serious methodological deficiencies and issues of bias in HJ research, which goes precisely to the heart of the POV dispute we're having. Martijn Meijering (talk) 14:33, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Removal is a bad suggestion and the claims you made about the section are inaccurate. Thumbs down. Blackthorne2k (talk) 15:47, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

@User:Mmeijeri: What POV am I pushing? That Jesus of Nazareth existed? I was under the impression we were all on the same page on this point. My questions to you are: Why do we need to point out in this article that there are "serious methodological deficiencies and issues of bias in HJ research", when we already have a whole article devoted to HJ research? What does that have to do with the historicity of Jesus? What kind of impression do you think devoting 20% of our historicity of Jesus article to this content gives our readers? Do you seriously think this is relevant to the topic? Or are you trying to give this kind of impression?

The POV that HJ research is just a branch of history, that biblical scholars are in fact historians (and for some reason should preferably be called historians rather than biblical scholars) and that the CMT is a fringe theory. If you were right on this, we would have to state the opinion of people like Ehrman in Wikipedia voice. But since you're not, we need to present these as attributed notable opinions while pointing out the criticism that many HJ researchers themselves as well as at least one historian who has published on the subject have made of HJ research. Martijn Meijering (talk) 19:51, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The CMT is fringe. And that's not POV. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:15, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

BtC7: You have a well-documented obsession with CMT, so it's pretty hard to take anything you say about it seriously. Fearofreprisal (talk) 21:25, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

@User:Blackthorne2k: What inaccurate claims did I make? I said this section's inclusion within the context of the "historicity of Jesus" articles gives the impression that the scholars cited deny the historicity of Jesus. I would present these facts to back my point up:

(1) On March 20, 2012, Bart Ehrman published the book Did Jesus Exist?.[11]

(2) Said book's introduction states (on page 4) "My wonder only increased when I learned that I myself was being quoted in some circles -- misquoted rather -- as saying that Jesus never existed".[12]

(3) Said book (per the rest of the introduction) was Ehrman's first public foray into discussion of the Christ myth theory, the question of the historicity of Jesus, and so on. He had written another book about the historical Jesus, in which none of these topics were mentioned even once.

(4) Immediately before Ehrman's book was published, our present article looked like this.

(5) In said version of our article, Ehrman's name was mentioned five times:

(5-a) He was quoted as saying "Tacitus's report confirms what we know from other sources, that Jesus was executed by order of the Roman governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, sometime during Tiberius's reign." No real problem here.

(5-b) The second mention was in the context of the Pauline epistles. The line read "According to Ehrman, the practice of Christian forgery has a long and distinguished history." What does this have to do with the historicity of Jesus? Paul didn't write the pastoral epistles -- so what? Why was this here?

(5-c) He was again quoted as saying of the canonical gospels: "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." Again, this has no relevance to the historicity question per se, but gives the impression that "since the gospels were not written by eyewitnesses, they are unreliable, and therefore cannot be used for historical research -- therefore, Jesus might not have existed". I'm sorry, but within the context of an article about whether or not Jesus existed there is no other way around it: this quote was being abused.

(5-d) He was again quoted about the canonical gospels' sources: "The 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." Again, this statement is completely true and accurate. Historians need to be careful with the gospels. However, this quotation does not belong in an article about whether or not Jesus existed historically.

(5-e) He was also cited as reasserting Schweitzer's apocalyptic prophet view of Jesus. No real problem here, either.

(6) All of the above quotes were taken out of their appropriate context, since Ehrman had not used them in a discussion of the historicity (a discussion he had not been aware existed, per his 2012 introduction).

(7) The current version of the article mentions him only three times.

(7-a) One of his undergraduate textbooks from more than a decade ago that is quite difficult to access is cited as stating that the crucifixion is attested by a wide range of sources including Josephus and Tacitus. The source is tagged with a "need quotation to verify". Not going back to find out who added the tag, it certainly looks like a violation of WP:POINT: Ehrman's popular book on the historicity of Jesus is readily available for an affordable price, and it backs up the statement just as well. Requesting quotations for bloody-obvious facts like these is inappropriate.

(7-b) He is quoted as saying "it is hard to imagine a Christian inventing the story of Jesus' baptism since this could be taken to mean that he was John's subordinate". I don't dispute this, and it probably does belong in this article, as well as in the Historical Jesus article.

(7-c) He is cited as stating that given the scarcity of sources, it's difficult to establish anything beyond the bare bones of Jesus' life story. This is true. But in the present context of an article about whether Jesus existed or not the statement is inappropriate, as it is almost certain to give the reader the wrong impression.

As demonstrated above, the situation is a lot better than it was just before Ehrman published his historicity book. At that time, our article quoted him numerous times, giving the very strong impression that he either denied the historicity of Jesus or held views sympathetic to the mythicist. He had to write and publish a 300-page book on a subject that clearly does not interest him, with one of his expressed goals being to quell false rumours about his views. After said book was published, the out-of-context quotes were (gradually?) removed, to the point where the article no longer gives that deeply negative impression. However, other scholars who have not devoted their valuable time to menial pursuits like writing entire books on the subject of "Jesus existed. Get over it!" do not have this privilege. Meier's name appears four times in the article: two of the citations are tagged with "not in citation given" even though these are, as the title says, "widely accepted historical events", and the view attributed here to Meier would almost certainly be verifiable in one source or another (whoever tagged the citations was being WP:POINTy by not doing so themselves, imo); the other two quote him as claiming that a lot of so-called HJ researchers are in fact doing theology, not history -- this is a valid point, but out of context it gives completely the wrong impression of the man and his view. "Many HJ researchers are theologically biased, therefore HJ research is a bunch of bunk" is a view clearly espoused by many people on this talk page, but it is not the view espoused by Meier. Meier devoted 20 years to writing 3,000+ pages of Historical Jesus research: he clearly is not opposed to HJ research per se and he should not be quoted out of context as "criticizing" HJ research.

And that's just two of them!

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 18:09, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:TLDR - From what I read before I gave up, you seem to believe that you can build consensus through a wall of text on the talk page. Fearofreprisal (talk) 19:35, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Historicity is not just about the existence or non-existence of a historical figure. It is about the degree of confidence one can attach to the historical events and statements reported as being uttered by a historical figure. Thus the statements about the criticism here is valid and important. John D. Croft (talk) 23:00, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Then why are there two articles on that topic? "Historicity of Jesus" and "Historical Jesus" are treated as separate (although related) topics in the literature -- why does well over half of this article need to be devoted to either (a) speculations by some scholars about how much of the gospel material is historical or (b) criticism by other scholars of said speculations?

Another problem that might be brought up is that when Ehrman, Meier and others criticize a certain form of Christian apologetics that masks itself, they are not criticizing Historical Jesus research as a whole (they themselves practice it). If we need to include criticism, we should at least put it in the correct context. "Licona claims the resurrection is historically verifiable. Ehrman and Martin have criticized this view for not adhering to standard historical method." kind of thing. We should not be lumping them all together in arbitrary "pro" and "con" groups.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The criticism of HJ research does not apply to the discipline as a whole in the sense that they do not say it cannot be practiced in a historically appropriate way, just that by and large it currently isn't being done that way. As for the length of the criticism section, that may be a problem, but that's something we can solve after we fix the POV problem. Some of us have expressed doubts whether we need to have a separate article of the historicity of Jesus in addition to the HJ and CMT articles. Martijn Meijering (talk) 06:26, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Part of the problem here is there is a deep ambiguity in this article. Is it about the historicity of Jesus (=Jesus existed)? In which case, how is it different to the Christ Myth article, which should then logically be a subset of it? Or is it about the historicity of the details of the life of the historical Jesus, in which case, how is it different from the Historical Jesus article? As a result the Criticism section is also ambiguous. In most cases, the criticisms expressed seem to relate to the methods used by biblical scholars to construct a Historical Jesus - which is fair enough. But if this gives the impression that there exists a body of historical writers who question, on historical grounds, whether Jesus existed at all. And that is simply not the case. The Christ Myth Theory is fringe, as has clearly been established. So, which kind of historicity are we writing about, and why should it have its own article? --Rbreen (talk) 00:52, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree our current division into three articles is problematic. If the current criticism section gives the impression that the writers quoted question the historicity of Jesus, then that must be corrected, because with few exceptions they don't. That should be easy enough to fix and I'd be very happy to work with you to find a form of words that solves this. As for the CMT being fringe, I must respectfully disagree that that has been established. There are a number of serious scholars who subscribe to it, consider it a possibility or at least think it deserves more scrutiny. To be sure these form only a tiny minority, and we must not imply otherwise, but they're still serious scholars. Martijn Meijering (talk) 01:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Martijn, that clarifies things, although I am not sure if it is the view of everyone here. On the question of what difference there is between a tiny minority and a fringe, I am not convinced but willing to consider the possibility.--Rbreen (talk) 01:36, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Irrelevant sentence

"There is no evidence today that the existence of Jesus was ever denied in antiquity by those who opposed Christianity."

This sentence is irrelevant. Why would people deny someone who they've never heard of? We don't have records of people going around saying Zeus wasn't real, does constitute evidence for the existence of Zeus? Also, cited to the encyclopedia of THEOLOGY, not an encyclopedia, not a history book, it is about theology.This is called Christian apologetics, it is irrelevant to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.91.107.165 (talk) 01:00, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

It's true that the claim you've quoted is an intellectually sloppy argument on the part of the source, but your point about “someone who they've never heard of” is not actually among its (multiple) flaws. Given that ancient opponents of Christianity had heard enough about Christianity to oppose it, there is some reasonable likelihood that they had heard of Jesus.  Unician ∇  10:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Obviously people don't deny the existence of someone they've "never heard of", but that's not what the sentence says. It clearly refers to people who are aware of Christian beliefs. Your next sentence about Zeus has no logical relation to the first, since people who deny Zeus have obviously "heard of" him. However, Zeus is not a person. Denying the existence of supernatural concept has no resemblance to denying the existence of a historical person. Paul B (talk) 11:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

But to the believers, Zeus was actually "real", as was Jupiter, Neptune etc. They were notorious for incarnating as humans (and animals), impregnating human women and generally causing mayhem among humans. For much of the Old Testament, the fight was that the pagan gods were powerless before the Jewish god, not that the pagan gods did not exist - King Solomon himself happily worshipped pagan gods alongside his Jewish god. The people of that time would not have had issues about the "reality" of Jesus, anymore than they would have questioned the "reality" of Mithras or Isis. That doesn't indicate that Jesus really existed, anymore than Zeus or Apollo really existed. Wdford (talk) 11:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Wow. A truly long list of non sequiturs. The reality attributed to Jesus is of an historical human being, being born, living and dying. It has no resemblance to stories of Mithras, Isis or Zeus. Paul B (talk) 11:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I must respectfully disagree. The parallels to the ancient people would have been clear and obvious - it's only modern Christians who perceive there to be no resemblance. Wdford (talk) 12:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Both Pliny's and Josephus's accounts are of a normal person who founded a "sect", not of a magical being. They were perfectly capable of distinguishing between mythological and historical figures. Paul B (talk) 15:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Anyway, the sentence should definitely stay. Its a very useful point and is well cited. Its very helpful to see that at the time, there was not a commonly-held disbelief in Jesus's existence or even sometimes-held. I think it helps the article and is factual. Regarding the point that no one would have commented on it, how can we authoritatively assume that? Surely there are examples in texts of people 'disbelieving' myths or mythical creatures. We have two RS, as fact, saying one thing and we have speculation on the other hand. Seems like we are left with leaving it. Prasangika37 (talk) 02:28, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Much of what is being said here is original research. If the sentence stays, it should be a cited quotation. And it should include the context that the authors merely disclaim knowledge of such evidence. (As noted in the Van Voorst footnote.) Fearofreprisal (talk) 04:47, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Now that we've solved that problem, can we add the point that mythicists such as Zindler claim that the most ancient understanding of Jesus was that of the docetists and that they agreed with the mythicists that he never existed? (笑) 182.249.241.42 (talk) 02:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC) (Hijiri88's phone)

This talk page section concerns the statement in the article There is no evidence today that the existence of Jesus was ever denied in antiquity by those who opposed Christianity.[54][55]

In citation 54, Rahner says "in antiquity it never occurred to anyone, even the bitterest enemies of Christianity, to doubt the existence of Jesus." In citation 55, Van Voorst says "no pagans or Jews who opposed Christianity denied Jesus' historicity or even questioned it." Both Rahner and Van Voorst are essentially saying "there is no evidence." Yet, the Docetism article includes a very strong analysis of just such evidence.

As a result, the existing statement in the article regarding "no evidence that the existence of Jesus was ever denied in antiquity" is inaccurate, and needs to be removed. Further, the discussion in the Docetism article, particularly Docetism#Christology_and_theological_implications should be summarized in this article. Fearofreprisal (talk) 06:11, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I SO want to quote The Princess Bride right now... Docetism is irrelevant to the historicity question, since docetists by definition believed that Jesus is an immortal divine being, exists now as he did in history, and he appeared in the world in a form that seemed (Gr: dokeo) to be that of a human. Read a book, please, and stop trolling this talk page. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed)

From the Docetism article: In Christian terminology, docetism... is defined narrowly as "the doctrine according to which the phenomenon of Christ, his historical and bodily existence, and thus above all the human form of Jesus, was altogether mere semblance without any true reality." Based on this, docetism is directly relevant to early Christian beliefs about the historicity of Jesus. (unsigned comment by Fearofreprisal (talk · contribs))

No comment ( ;-) ) on the first paragraph I removed. As for the second, please read WP:NOTSOURCE: do not use other Wikipedia articles as sources, especially when I just provided you with a better definition based on lectures by Ehrman, Martin, etc. If you get from our article on docetism that it refers to a belief in the non-historicity of Jesus, then our article has failed in its purpose. 182.249.204.174 (talk) 10:04, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Just to shine a little sunlight on this: User:Hijiri88 deleted the following comment above:

Hijiri88, you have long history of personal attacks and incivility - Though I have no way of knowing whether this is related to your past use of to the point where you've had to use sockpuppets and ultimately change your user name change. So I really don't take much that you say very seriously.

He replaced it with a WP:RPA template and a hidden note, saying:

I (Hijiri88) removed this regurgitation of personal attacks associated with the site-banned user JoshuSasori. It seems pretty obvious Fearofreprisal has now joined the ranks of users who have received emails from JS, who has a long history of both block-evasion and abuse of Wikimedia's email service. Per AGF, we'll assume Fearofreprisal only read the email, naively believed it, and didn't respond. Further indication of off-wiki collaboration with banned users, though, will be taken to ANI, or directly to one of the admins who have already dealt with this issue in the past.

I have no idea who JoshuSasori is, but I think the users here should know that, based on his talk page, Hijiri88 seems to get involved in a lot of is pretty well known drama. Fearofreprisal (talk) 19:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC) Edited 01:51, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Since when am I "well known [for] creating drama"? Where did you get this idea? You have never interacted with me before other than on this talk page. You appear to be the one creating the drama here... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:36, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

"we have a few cited scholars who support the CMT"

"we have a few cited scholars who support the CMT" Dispel my ignorance - who are they? PiCo (talk) 14:19, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Ellegard, Wells (to a degree), Carrier, Price, Brodie. The Christ Myth Theory article contains more names, but these are the respectable ones among those who have actively published about it. Also see [13] and [14]. To be sure these only constitute a tiny minority, but we aren't suggesting otherwise. Martijn Meijering (talk) 14:38, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

What establishes their credentials as scholars? Academic posts, higher degrees in a relevant field, that sort of thing? (Just give me their full names and I'll look them up). PiCo (talk) 16:58, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the quickest way to find that information is on the Christ Myth Theory page. Carrier's view of the evidence is stated here [15] in what looks like a somewhat respectable trade publication for biblical historians. They have respectable academic qualifications, but all these authors have something that makes them look somewhat unusual. They either no longer have tenure, are retired, have published outside their original area of professional expertise or are atheist activists. I've long argued for including enough information about authors to help the reader identify possible sources of bias or lack of scholarly qualifications, and CMT proponents should of course be held to the same standard. Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:21, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

If I may make a personal remark, I'm really happy you have started working on this page. I've long followed your edits on pages related to religious subjects and your occasional spats on POV issues and had been hoping you would join us here eventually. Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:21, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Ridiculous tag? Not

@Slawekb: In your edit comment [16], you wrote Widely accepted historical events: removed ridiculous tag. A quotation was given to verify what this source says. "Not in citation given" refers to... that quotation? Possibly you should have checked the source, as I did? The article contains a direct and intentional WP:POV misquotation of the source. Fearofreprisal (talk) 20:22, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

If you had the exact quotation at your disposal, then I am puzzled to say the least why you would have added a {{verification failed}} tag instead of just correcting the quotation in the first place. Surely there is simply no excuse for that. Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:59, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Sławomir: There are a couple of reasons: First, I've found that my edits get reverted a lot by people who never contribute a thing to this article. So, I thought it was better if someone else did the edit, rather than starting an edit war. Second, I was looking at a bunch of citations, and thought it better to just tag 'em all, and sort them out later.

Rbreen: As for citation 55 -- I don't have a problem with the quote per se (other than the use of "and" instead of "or"), but footnote 35 in the source amends the quote, using the qualifier "known to me." There's a big difference between a scholar saying certain claims have never existed, versus saying he doesn't know of any such claims. I reverted the tag (just the tag, not the addition you made to the cite), until someone can figure out how to incorporate this qualifying language in a way that won't get kneejerk reverted.

By the way, early Christians had a tendency to suppress or interpolate any writings which might not support Jesus' historicity, so I'd say that the claim "In antiquity, the existence of Jesus was never denied by those who opposed Christianity" is extreme, and fundamentally unprovable. It might be made more reasonable to change the article text to something like: "Van Voorst has stated that he knows of no cases in antiquity where pagans and Jews who opposed Christianity denied or even questioned Jesus' historicity." Fearofreprisal (talk) 22:30, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Historian of ancient history Robin Lane Fox states "Jesus was born in Galilee".[5][not in citation given] Did you actually read this and find it wasn't in the citatino given? Because she does say it here link

It's unclear whether she's talking about a historical or theological context. Well, it seems clear that she's talking in a thological context, because saying "Jesus was born in Galilee" is something only a Christian would say. Is your problem with the citation that she means it in the sense of "according to Christian mythology, Jesus was born in Galilee". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.91.107.165 (talk) 01:12, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Read the relevant edit comment [17] Author refutes this statement at end of next paragraph. Calls it "historical impossibility.". Fearofreprisal (talk) 05:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

That's embarrassing for the Christian apologists, isn't it? An outright lie. Leave it up for all to see the lengths they will go to to evangelize Jesus. And they say Richard Carrier must be biased because he's not a Christian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.91.107.220 (talk) 23:45, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The source says that the story of the first Christmas is a historical impossibility, taken together with the purported worldwide census. And it says that the Crucifixion was a historical fact. Well, you can't crucify a man who has not ever been born! Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:20, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that is what the source says. And what did the edit say the source said? Was that you who made that edit? Can you find out who it was? Because they don't belong anywhere near Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.91.107.206 (talk) 17:47, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Specification that authors critical of HJ research methodologies...

... aren't themselves mythicists is most appreciated.

@User:Mmeijeri: I like your edits from a little while ago. If we are going to include citations of scholars who are skeptical about some of the more ... "credulous" HJ models out there in this article, then we should definitely specify that they all affirm historicity.

My initial problem, though, remains. I think that unless someone actually thinks we should WP:MERGE the Historical Jesus article with this one, we should try as far as possible to keep the two separate. Discussion of basic information that is (near-)universally agreed on about the historical Jesus (born in Nazareth, baptized by John, crucified by the Romans under Pontius Pilate), and the methodologies by which historians came to these conclusions, is of course good. But 930 words on "Widely accepted historical events" (by the way "Jesus was a Galilean" is not an "event" -- why can't we say "facts"), 1,499 words on "Methods of research", and 874 words on "Criticism of Jesus research methods" = 3,203 words devoted to essentially HJ material, while the entire article is only 4,172 words long.

Can you see where I am coming from here? I don't think you are a mythicist (it's why I amn't trying to get you TBANned as a fringe POV-pusher), but the problem is that the way the article is laid out now appears (Gr. dokeo ;) ) to favour the mythicist position. The article is supposed to be essentially about the question of whether Jesus existed and the evidence for such (i.e., the historicity of Jesus), but devotes much more time and effort to detailed and lengthy discussion of the unreliability of the gospels, the fact that a lot of so-called historians are actually more interested in Christian apologetics than history, that modern scholarship is completely awash as to exactly who the historical Jesus was, etc., etc. The casual reader who goes through this article from start to finish is going to get completely the wrong impression.

I stand by my earlier speculation that when Ehrman wrote in 2012 that some people were misquoting him as denying the historicity of Jesus, at least some of the people he was referring to got their information from this Wikipedia article, since at the time it definitely gave that impression. (I know FoR claimed above that he didn't read that speculation, but I am sure that is what he was referring to when on ANI he accused me of "OR". I should specify that WP:NOR refers to article content: presenting hypotheticals and original-but-reasoned arguments on the talk page is completely acceptable under Wikipedia policy; adding the text "who is a Christian" or "who is a former fundamentalist apologist" after the names of every contemporary scholar mentioned in the article could much more accurately be called OR.)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, as I've said I believe our current division into three articles is problematic, although I don't know what the appropriate division would be. If the historicity article is to remain, then I agree our current criticism section is far too long. In addition it duplicates what is said in the HJ article, which is undesirable because it will then be difficult to keep the two synchronised. I don't remember who introduced it, but I believe it was intended as a temporary measure, with the intent to summarise the content to a more appropriate length. Right now I am more concerned about the issue of bias. You are correct that I'm not a CMT advocate (I do find it an intriguing theory that has more merit than I thought it had and deserves more scrutiny). My big issue is that the scholarly bias that has been mentioned here (partially confirmed by a friend of my father's, a retired professor of ancient history) has 'infected' the article, something I find worrying.

I don't know why you think mentioning a person's background is similar to OR. We rely on sources for that information, and we don't draw any conclusions from it ourselves. For instance if we introduce N.T. Wright as a New Testament scholar and former bishop, we are simply providing factual information on issues that scholars have mentioned as potential sources of bias. Of course that information is intended to help a reader identify potential bias, but doesn't lead the reader towards a specific conclusion. Had we said N.T. Wright agrees event such-and-so in the bible didn't happen, and he's a former bishop and a Christian apologist, so you can't suspect him of being overly skeptical here, then that would be OR. The other day I asked my father about a chapter about his own theological views in a scholarly work he had written. He had included it to help the reader identify any potential religious bias on his part. I asked him if this was customary in his field, and he said it wasn't, but it struck me as useful and similar to what we've been doing here. To be sure, we do have to be careful to choose our words judiciously, so as not to nudge the reader towards OR conclusions of our own. Martijn Meijering (talk) 14:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

So what IS the scope of this article? If it's just whether Jesus existed or not then I need to cut back the sentence I'm currently arguing about with ToR. And if it's that, then shouldn't it be merged with the Christ Myth article? PiCo (talk) 13:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I think at least the answer to your latter question is "yes". The fact is that the majority of legit scholars (read: everyone except Ehrman, once, in 2012) completely ignore the idea that Jesus never existed, so we don't have all that many sources with which to discuss the "theory". Its advocates believe in it on mostly religious grounds (even if they don't admit it), and they are the only ones who generally discuss their ideas and their relation to mainstream scholarship. I haven't frankly read out CMT article, because I personally believe that it will eventually get merged in here without my input.

As to your first question: I honestly don't know. There have been literally thousands of words devoted to that subject here and in this page's archives (and despite what my off-wiki stalker will tell you, only a tiny portion of that was me). I'm actually inclined to expand the scope in the sense that I'd like to see some discussion of how Jesus' miracles, and in particular the resurrection, are generally rejected by historians on the grounds that "history can only demonstrate what probably happened in the past, and miracles are by definition the least likely occurrence" (I'm paraphrasing one of Ehrman's debates with Licona, and Martin essentially agrees). The first question I'd have if I was a general reader from a Christian background was "wait -- if historians generally believe Jesus existed, does that mean the resurrection is also a historical fact?". This point should be clarified in the article. I'm not sure why the word "resurrection" doesn't appear once in the article right now: are we trying to accommodate both fundamentalists and radical atheists by leaving the historical consensus on this point unstated?

As for the "criticisms of research methods", I think I've already made my views on this section clear. Even though nothing in the section is factually inaccurate, in the context it is misleading, it doesn't serve any real purpose to this article, and the only reason it is included is to accommodate Wikipedians who are clearly, let's just say, "skeptical" about the historicity of Jesus. The section should be removed, with any pertinent information migrated elsewhere in the article.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Then can I suggest that we start with the very irreducible minimum, Did Jesus Exist? A section on that, saying that the overwhelming opinion of scholars in the field is that he did. It would also have to say what grounds they use to come to that conclusion, which would bring in ToR's area of concern. Can we think about doing this? PiCo (talk) 15:12, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

"Did Jesus Exist?" - Which Jesus are you referring to? Please be specific. (Serious answers only, please.) Fearofreprisal (talk) 20:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Scope (first sentence of lead)

(Splitting existing thread as it takes in two subjects) BTW, FoR didn't like my revision of the topic sentence (first in the lead). I thought it was rather good and helpful. What do you think? PiCo (talk) 17:00, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I didn't look at it closely, but I didn't see anything wrong with it. I will look at it more closely. I think FoR needs to come up with concrete objections of his own when reverting a bold edit, and leave it to others to do so if he merely suspects they will. Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

It was this:

• The historicity of Jesus is the question whether Jesus of Nazareth existed as a historical figure, whether any of the major milestones in his life as portrayed in the gospels can be confirmed as historical events as opposed to myth, legend, or fiction, and the weighing of the evidence relating to his life. (The historicity of Jesus is distinct from the related study of the historical Jesus, which refers to scholarly reconstructions of the life of Jesus based primarily on critical analysis of the gospel texts).[1][2][3] PiCo (talk) 17:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

What I like about it is that it establishes 3 distinct topics to look at in the body of the article.PiCo (talk) 17:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I have a problem with defining the "historicity of Jesus" as it was before, or even as you changed it. To understand why, substitute another person's name for Jesus in the sentence. Let's say... George W. Bush. (I'm not being absurd here: historicity is a quality of all humans. Even humans who are still alive.) With this substitution, the sentence would say:

The historicity of George W. Bush is the question whether George W. Bush existed as a historical figure, whether any of the major milestones in his life as portrayed in the gospels can be confirmed as historical events as opposed to myth, legend, or fiction, and the weighing of the evidence relating to his life.

This doesn't make much sense, does it? Since we're going to the trouble of trying to fix the first sentence, I've taken another stab at it, as follows:

The historicity of Jesus concerns the question of whether traditions about Jesus of Nazareth can be determined to be historical (as opposed to myth, legend, or fiction), through the analysis of historical evidence.

Now, I don't think this is perfect, but it's pretty good. It cleanly merges your 3 topics into 1, without limiting the scope of the article, or creating any POV problems. Fearofreprisal (talk) 09:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

PiCo: Since you already reverted my change, I'll let you read what I've written above, and decide what to do. A couple of details:

• Jesus "existence," the "major milestones in his life as portrayed in the gospels," (and, for that matter, *all* events about Jesus portrayed in the Bible, the apocrypha, the Quran, and the Book of Mormon), are "traditions about Jesus" that are subject to questions of historicity. So, I'm suggesting using the term "traditions about Jesus" to refer to such claims collectively. Do you have a better or more clear and unambiguous term in mind?
• Historical analysis (whether Historical method or Historical criticism) doesn't consider the existence of a historical figure separately from the events in that person's life. They are taken together, to paint a picture of a unique individual. If you want to break this into two distinct topics, I'd like to see some citations to support it.

Let me know what you think. Fearofreprisal (talk) 10:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the comparison with George Bush is a false one. "The historicity of George W. Bush is the question whether George W. Bush existed as a historical figure." But nobody does question whether George existed. Try instead King Arthur: "The historicity of King Arthur is the question whether King Arthur existed as a historical figure." That makes perfect sense. Or you could substitute Buddha, or Ulysses, or a hundred others. George and Jesus are different classes of beings.

"The historicity of Jesus concerns the question of whether traditions about Jesus of Nazareth can be determined to be historical." Elide that: "The historicity of Jesus concerns...whether traditions about (him)...are historical." That doesn't address the basic issue of whether he existed. Jesus' existence isn't a tradition, it's a question some people ask.

The traditions about Jesus - the historical record - is the second and third part of my formulation. If the answer to the question of his existence is "overwhelming opinion in affirmative" (as it is), then the next question is, "on what evidence do we (or the experts) come to that conclusion?" The answer is the New Testament literature, plus a tiny amount of Roman writings, plus our knowledge of the Jewish and Hellenistic milieu of the time. So we do a brief overview of that evidence.

Finally, having established what the evidence is, we ask: "How far can it be trusted? Which parts are most reliaable, which parts least?" Opinions on that differ, and we have to register that.

The article needs to be a lot shorter, and a lot more readable - it suffers from that perennial Wiki problem of being written by people who spend too much time in their mom's basement. PiCo (talk) 13:36, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

George and Jesus are not "two different classes of beings". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.91.107.206 (talk) 17:36, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I like fear of reprisal's work better. It doesn't have as many a priori assumptions, and it is simply more objective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.91.107.206 (talk) 18:06, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• "I think the comparison with George Bush is a false one." The same definition of historicity applies to all humans, living or dead.
• "George and Jesus are different classes of beings." Not for the purposes of historicity.
• "That doesn't address the basic issue of whether he existed." But it does address the basic issue of his historical existence.
• "Jesus' existence isn't a tradition." Our understanding of Jesus' historical existence is based on tradition. Fearofreprisal (talk) 20:43, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Here's an alternate construction for you to consider:

The historicity of Jesus concerns the historical actuality of claims about Jesus of Nazareth, based on the analysis of evidence using historical methods.

Fearofreprisal (talk) 06:19, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

That's so turgid as to be meaningless. "Historical actuality"? What's that? I had a look at the article it links to ("historicity"), but it's no better - two barely relevant sources for a related term that also means nothing. we need to use language readers can understand.PiCo (talk) 06:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

"Historical actuality" is the Merriam Webster dictionary definition for "historicity."

If you're no longer interested in discussing this issue, we can just leave the first sentence as it is for the time being. However, WP:BURDEN still applies: All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.

Please provide that citation. Fearofreprisal (talk) 10:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion

The advice page on articles for deletion. Read it and we can discuss what to do. PiCo (talk) 14:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Boy, that's a lot of text. I hope there are some volunteer AfD consultants out there. Martijn Meijering (talk) 14:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

More obstruction

I made a few fairly straightforward edits to the article earlier today, and the following is what ended up on my talk page:

---

Kindly stop edit warring at Historicity of Jesus. You are aware that you do not have consensus for the edits you propose, yet you continue to ignore the consensus on the talk page to push your own ideas. If you cannot get consensus, then just walk away from the article. Continuing in the same way will result in nothing except you being blocked.Jeppiz (talk) 09:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

@Jeppiz: You reverted four of my edits:

• (→‎Widely accepted historical events: Fix Blainey citation, remove "failed verification" tag.)
• (→‎Widely accepted historical events: fill-out Rahner730, voorst15, voorst16 and DunnPaul35 citations, inlcuding quotations.)
• (Fixing typo raised by BracketBot)
• (Added "citation needed" template to first sentence in Lead.)

I see a few possibilities of how to handle this:

1. You could provide some diffs, to show how those edits are edit warring, or against consensus.
2. You could say "oops, I guess it wasn't edit warring or against consensus," and self-revert. Or,
3. We can take it to the article talk page (which is what you should have done to start with), and begin the dispute resolution process.

Of course, I could also just walk away from the article like you suggested, but... nah.
Ball's in your court. If I don't hear from you in a while, I'll post this conversation on the article talk page. Fearofreprisal (talk) 11:59, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

That is unfortunate, we edited at the same time so it may be an edit conflict where my edit removed more than intended. I'll look into it.Jeppiz (talk) 14:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I have now looked into it and I'm afraid I cannot revert. Most of what you added build on G A Wells, who is not an acceptable source under WP:RS. Wells was a professor of German with no academic authority on the subject of Jesus or indeed the entire time period. What he believes or doesn't believe is not relevant to the article.Jeppiz (talk) 15:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

@Jeppiz: Let me lay this situation out:

• I made four edits to the article, which included fixing a pre-existing citation that had failed verification, and improving three other pre-existing citations, by adding the relevant quoted text to the ref. All properly cited, and uncontroversial. See [18] [19] [20] [21]
• You reverted my edits, then came to my talk page, warned me that I was edit warring and editing against consensus, and suggested I "walk away" from the article.
• I asked you to either provide diffs substantiating your accusations, self-revert, or take the discussion to the article talk page. You did none of these.
• You responded that it must have been an "edit conflict" that removed more than you intended -- despite the fact that WP doesn't allow edit conflicts, so this is effectively impossible.
• After a little while longer, you responded that you can't revert, because G. A. Wells isn't a reliable source.
• You apparently didn't read the citations: they are from Van Voorst and Dunn (undisputed reliable sources.) I merely noted in the refs that each was responding to claims made by Wells. Further, the article has included citations to three of Wells' books for literally years, which is rather good evidence of a consensus that he is a reliable source.

I don't really care what your game is. I'm just tired of wasting time fighting with you over a few simple and uncontroversial edits. So, I'm moving this entire discussion over to the article talk page, and reverting. If you don't agree, we can move up through the dispute resolution process. Fearofreprisal (talk) 16:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

---

So, as I said above, I'm reverting the edits. Sorry to add to the noise level here. Fearofreprisal (talk) 16:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

For the record, Fearofreprisal has a valid point. I was in a bit of a hurry when I checked my edit (from a mobile phone apparently not displaying correctly). Looking at them now in further detail, I see I misunderstood a few. My apologies to Fearofreprisal. It was not badly intended, but I should have waited until I was a proper computer.Jeppiz (talk) 17:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Thank you. Fearofreprisal (talk) 17:12, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Criticism split

Hi, I've been following this all for a bit. I know in general Criticism sections are not advised, but with this article, the 'criticism' section was equal in size to the rest of the article. I found that a lot of problems would be solved by pointing out that there is criticism (and maybe making it a larger paragraph) here, and keeping the criticism located elsewhere. Perhaps this can allow the article be more focused and centered. If you completely hate it, feel free to undo my work, but I find this to be a lot more manageable.

I think in the long run, the criticism of research methods of Jesus will be a page no matter what. It is an important issue and perhaps could bring together different views of scholars across a wide range of research. Prasangika37 (talk) 17:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I am going to be a little bold and try to include the criticism of the Historical Jesus page into it and kill two birds with one stone, as it looks like someone nearly copy-pasted it. Prasangika37 (talk) 17:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Please don't change the Historical Jesus article until you achieve consensus. I think the proper place for this is in that article, not in a separate criticism article. Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Martijn Meijering that it's best to have a consensus first but also agree that the article is bordering on the ludicrous. I'm guessing there are few other articles where non-scientific criticism of an academic field is given the same amount of space as the actual academic field. Just as we don't provide nearly any space in evolution for creationists nor in Holocaust for revisionists, I don't really see the point in providing the "criticism" with more a sentence or two here. That is precisely the point of WP:FRINGE. I know that some (many) people have strong views about Jesus, but that should not matter one bit. When there is academic consensus about something, we usually report that. The fact that it's possible to find one or two experts who disagree is not really important (there are the odd fringe biologists who believe in creationism). Jeppiz (talk) 17:59, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Just making a bold change.. The page could use it, honestly. Lots of talking in circles and pretty fierce allegations between one another. Happy to have it reverted though and linked to the historical Jesus page. Prasangika37 (talk) 18:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

We agree that the size was excessive, and I've replaced the whole section with a wikilink to the section over at HJ from where it was copied. I hope that will satisfy Prasangika37's concern. That too is a bold move of course, and he/she or anyone else who objects is free to revert it. As for the criticism being non-scientific, check out the references. Nearly all of it comes from respected academics, including a historian and several prominent HJ researchers themselves. If you have further concerns about it, I suggest we continue the discussion over at HJ.Martijn Meijering (talk) 18:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Jeppiz - You're a master of awkward analogies, aren't you? Still, I'm impressed that you've managed to fall afoul of Godwin's law within less than 4 hours of your first post on this talk page. As a result, you've automatically lost all debates you were involved in. Sorry about that, but it's an internet rule. Can't be changed. Fearofreprisal (talk) 18:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi @Fearofreprisal: , are you willing to keep stuff like that out of here? Its a clogged-up enough talk page and would love some productive discussion! Granted I get your point, but why not just make the point without mocking ? Prasangika37 (talk) 18:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Frankly, there's enough tension here. I thought making a point via humor might be better. Fearofreprisal (talk) 19:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, but you're obviously touching people's nerves a little bit and you may want to be a bit more careful. Its tough for people to take jokes if they are viewing someone in a critical or fault-finding way. :D Prasangika37 (talk) 22:13, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

"Just as we don't provide nearly any space in evolution for creationists..." (Jeppiz). That's a good point. CMT has the same academic standing as Creationism and should be given no more than a bare mention.PiCo (talk) 00:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

This talk page is not the place for your personal opinions or original research. Provide a citation, or drop it. Fearofreprisal (talk) 00:19, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Of course Talk's a place for personal opinions, that's what Talk is for. And of course CMT has no academic standing - we already have citations for that in the article. PiCo (talk) 00:38, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:TPG: "Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject." Fearofreprisal (talk) 00:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Personal views on improving the article. Where's the personal view,anyway? CMT really does have no academic, and we do cite sources saying that PiCo (talk) 00:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

OR is allowed on Talk pages, that is for sure. Anyway, its not OR anyway because its not accepted. Check the sources.. Prasangika37 (talk) 02:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that there are only a handful of historians supporting historicity as well. It's certainly not comparable with the creationism vs. evolution situation, where it is simple to find sources supporting evolution. Numbers even approaching the list of scientists named "Steve" that support evolution would be impossible. With evolution, there's actual evidence. With the historicity debate, there's a few scraps of evidence and, outside of biblical scholars, not much investigation. We've found more scholars supporting CMT than we've managed to identify Hindus or Buddhists writing in favor of the historicity of Christ, but that's not saying much: there don't seem to be any of the latter.—Kww(talk) 03:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Heheh, thanks for the link to the Steve project. You make a good point, though I think it is more accurate to say that only a handful of historians have published about the subject or studied the arguments. I believe that if the article is to continue to exist, it should give an overview of the various opinions, with the pro-historicity view of the HJ researchers being the most prominent one. Martijn Meijering (talk) 09:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Another ANI Thread, Possible Arbitration, Possibly Working Things Out Without Arbitration

Well, yet another ANI thread has been opened. I would suggest, but some of the editors here obviously are not interested in reasonable advice, that, before opening yet another ANI thread, an editor ask a two-part question. First, what specifically am I proposing that the community should do to the editor about whom I am complaining? A block? An indef block? A topic-ban? A site-ban? If you can't give a specific proposed remedy, then just don't open the thread. Don't go to ANI for advice or only for a warning; go only to request a sanction, and know what sanction you are proposing. Second, am I, the original poster of the thread, setting myself up for one of the previously mentioned sanctions via boomerang? If yes, consider whether the benefit outweighs the risk. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

It appears that this article has the mix of content issues and conduct issues that cannot be effectively dealt with by dispute resolution, or by ANI, or by any remedy short of arbitration, unless some of the editors change their behavior. I have seen:

• Personal attacks.
• Assumptions of bad faith.
• Allegations of trolling (a personal attack).
• Suggestions of sock-puppetry.
• Walls of text.
• Battleground editing.
• Poorly substantiated ANI threads.
• Useless back-and-forth exchanges without listening.

With this history, if this article does go to the ArbCom, the result will almost certainly include discretionary sanctions, a draconian set of restrictions on editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

So, based on the likelihood that this article will wind up in arbitration, and the fact that the ArbCom sets a strict limit of 500 words for each statement, I suggest that each poster compose a statement of no more than 500 words stating specifically what is wrong with this article and what specific changes should be made to this article. If you omit all of the complaints about other editors, you will have more space to discuss improvements to the article. Can each editor propose what needs to be done to improve the article (not the editorial behavior)? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Any thread that commences with a sentence containing the words "some of the editors here obviously are not interested in reasonable advice" is not likely to end well. HiLo48 (talk) 00:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I think this article should be deleted since it looks like it's synthesis of HJ and CMT with a strong effort being made to legitimize the CMT. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 12:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd support that. PiCo (talk) 12:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I more or less agree. It used to be a triumphalist POV-pushing pro-historicity article, which has now been 'balanced' by including an excessive amount of material on criticism of HJ research. In addition, AFAIK there is no such field as Historicity of Jesus research and we've had interminable battles over this article. I don't think the world will be a poorer place without a Historicity of Jesus article. Martijn Meijering (talk) 13:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Heh, check out the categories that this article has been tagged with. High importance this, top article that. Martijn Meijering (talk) 13:13, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Given the paucity of unbiased sources due to the complete neglect this topic receives outside of Christian studies, deletion would be an excellent result. There's no way to build and maintain a valid article.—Kww(talk) 13:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Personally I don't know how, but could somebody please set the ball rolling?PiCo (talk) 13:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Those of you who believe the article should be deleted should consider drafting an ArbCom statement to that effect, and then voluntarily recuse yourself from any further editing of the article or talk page. It is a matter of fairness and respect towards those in the community who are interested in improving this article. Fearofreprisal (talk) 13:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

There is no reason why deletion has anything to do with an ArbCom statement. AFD and arbitration are two different processes. By the way, FOR, that sort of unhelpful statement is why some of the other editors complain. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:09, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I will do no such thing. If this article continues to exist, we have to make sure it conforms to our standards. Martijn Meijering (talk) 15:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I'm reluctant to get into this topic as I know from experience that it mainly interests two kind of people. The first are hardcore Bible-believing Christians who want to argue that the Gospels are historically reliable. The second are hardcore conspiracy-theorist atheists who want to argue that Jesus never existed. I'm not claiming all users fall into one of these groups (far from it), but those are the two sides that usually take an interest. Given that there is virtually no scholarly support for either group, it quickly becomes complicated as both struggle to discredit actual research and include fringe findings with no academic support. Virtually every academic in the field would agree that the person Jesus existed, that he was a Jewish wandering preacher with a small following, preaching his interpretation of Jewish law and eventually being crucified. Unfortunately, that is not sensationalist enough for most people, hence the poor state of the article. However, the fact that an article is bad is a reason to improve it, not to delete it.Jeppiz (talk) 14:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• My problem with that statement is "virtually every academic in the field", because that seems to be a group that is disproportionately Christian compared to the general population. People make a lot of Ehrman's quote, but that quote is basically "I, Bart Ehrman, believe that every responsible historian agrees with me", a statement with its own set of bias problems. What I would like to see is people either find a group of non-Christian, non-Muslim historians that support the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth or stop making the claim that virtually all historians support it. It would appear to me that virtually all historians are completely silent on the topic, and that's the problem. It's not that there's some overwhelming evidence for the myth theory or that there is no evidence at all for historicity. There just isn't much evidence one way or the other and there's a profound lack of unbiased sources evaluating what evidence there is.—Kww(talk)

I do see your point but I'm not sure I agree. To make a (bad, I admit) comparison, the fact that almost no lung doctor smokes does not mean they are wrong to say that smoking has negative effects. There is no reason to suppose that an academic is wrong just because of being Christian. The insinuation could even be insulting. Most of these academics agree that Jesus's was strikingly different from how its portrayed in the Gospels, something running counter to Christian believes. So quite clearly they are perfectly able to distinguish between their personal believes and science. The argument that "virtually all historians are completely silent on the topic" is, I'm sorry to say, appallingly bad. All academics have a narrow focus, so most academics are silent on any subject. Most historians are silent on the WWII, most historians are silent on Roman empire etc. As Wikipedians, we report what academics say. I'm the first to reject any article of book by a Christian author without academic credentials in the field. But what matters are those academic credentials, not belief or non-belief.Jeppiz (talk) 15:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Alternative to Deletion

Per WP:AFD, the main four guidelines and policies that inform deletion discussions are: notability (WP:N), verifiability (WP:V), reliable sources (WP:RS), and what Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT). It seems to me that none of these apply – rather, that this is a case of duplication with other existing (and better) articles on this topic/s.

We have been using this article as a disambiguation page of sorts, summarizing the other articles and directing readers thence for the detail – I was using the article World War II as a template. This was temporarily undermined by an editor who tried to change the topic of the article but failed. Then we had a trend of trying once again to make this into a full-fledged and balanced article, but we have once again come full circle and are once again concerned about duplicating other and better articles. WP:AFD recommends in these cases that we consider "Disambiguation" or "Redirection". I think that could be the solution. Comments please? Wdford (talk) 09:57, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I like it. Let's see what others say. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 11:41, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Redirect it and nothing is lost permanently. The long and tortured arguments over what "historicity" even means are an indication this is the best option. Ignocrates (talk) 17:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The question then, is "Would something clearly be lost in eliminating this page or redirecting it?" Prasangika37 (talk) 17:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I like it too. I support this version, I could support deleting the article altogether, and I could support improving and rewriting the article. Starting with the disambiguation version seems like the best approach to me, since the other steps involve lengthier consensus building. That can always happen later, but for now turning the page into a disambiguation page is a simple yet massive improvement. Martijn Meijering (talk) 21:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Request for Summaries of Requested Improvements

Can each of the contending editors of this article please (as noted above) provide a summary, in less than 500 words, of how they think that this article can be improved? Deleting the article and replacing it with a redirect is a valid summary. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

By the way, focus only on the article and not on the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• Proposal 1: Some of us have been using this article as a disambiguation page of sorts, summarizing the other over-lapping articles and directing readers thence for the detail. We then tried to make this into a full-fledged and balanced article, but we became concerned about duplicating other and better articles. Now deletion is once again being contemplated. Per WP:AFD, the main four guidelines and policies that inform deletion discussions are: notability (WP:N), verifiability (WP:V), reliable sources (WP:RS), and what Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT). It seems to me that none of these apply – rather, that this is a case of duplication with other existing (and better) articles on this topic/s. WP:AFD recommends in these cases that we consider "Disambiguation" or "Redirection". I think that could be the solution, and have therefore attempted a BOLD edit as an example of what it could look like. Wdford (talk) 16:56, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I think that your edit was useful in terms of proposing what should be done, but was done without consensus. If it is reverted, please do not restore it. Maybe it will be accepted. If so, good. If not, we can at least include whether to make the article a disambiguation as one of the questions in the RFC. Are there any other suggestions for improvement of the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I support this proposal. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 17:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I love what you did Wdford, for the time being. Personally that feels like it hits it on the head. Once seeing the article refined into that, it feels like it is just a conglomeration of a bunch of different articles and offers nothing 'unique', which makes it a breeding ground for problems and wasted time. Prasangika37 (talk) 18:10, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I support it too. It moves the argument to the concise descriptions of what is contained in the other articles. That's a discussion worth having, so that the intended purpose of the other articles is clear. Ignocrates (talk) 18:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I have restored User:Wdford's shortening and disambiguation of the article. It had been reverted by User:Fearofreprisal with the edit summary to see the talk page, but there was no talk page discussion of the reason for the revert. If the reverting editor is satisfied with the old long version, then at least a statement to that effect would be useful. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I did say to "see the talk page" in my edit summary -- and the talk page says "If it is reverted, please do not restore it."

You asked for a less than 500 word summary of how the article can be improved, and that is what I will provide you. You will have it within an hour or two.

However, until this matter is settled, including going through all necessary dispute resolution processes up to ArbCom, I'm requesting that you self-revert your edit, and return the article to its previous (full) state. The current disambiguation page is both misleading and inaccurate, and the consensus of a small number of editors here is not sufficient to justify the disruption that this change is causing. Fearofreprisal (talk) 20:35, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

When I said, "If it is reverted, please do not restore it", I was asking Wdford not to engage in an edit war. When I saw that there was considerable support for his or her revision, I restored the disambiguation. I have no intention of self-reverting it, which would only take the article back to its contentious state. If you think that the shortened article is misleading and inaccurate, please state why it is misleading and inaccurate. Several editors think that it is an improvement. If you disagree, we can put that question to an RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I will add that User:Fearofreprisal has not made any helpful suggestions yet about how to improve the article (and hasn't provided comments in an hour or two). Some editors have suggested that FOR is trolling; I will assume good faith that he has some constructive contribution to make to the article that he hasn't yet stated. I would make that comment on FOR's user talk page, but he blanks it rather than archiving it. (While that is permitted, it is not encouraged.) I disagree with the argument that the consensus of a small number of editors is not sufficient to justify the disruption that the shortening of the article is causing. The long article has caused disruptive unproductive discussions here and too many ANI threads. What does FOR want done? Nothing? The current article is contentious. Something? What? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Support I agree with Wdford. There is already an article on the Historical Jesus, making this article redundant. Jesus's historicity is not a disputed subject in academia, just like Julius Caesar's or Socrates's historicity is not disputed. Even for the fringe theory that Jesus never existed, there is an article (Christ myth theory). Given that we have an article about Jesus, an article that specifically talks about the academic consensus on him, as well as an article about the fringe theory that he never existed, it is very hard to see what this article brings to Wikipedia that is not covered in the other articles.Jeppiz (talk) 20:54, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support Wdford's position. What I believe would be the ideal solution (summarizing all available sources, sorted by academic and polemic) should result in enough material to be split off into multiple articles for each position. It would just be easier to redirect to the articles we already have on such positions and improve those instead. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:59, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• Rewriting it from the perspective that it is not a widely studied topic outside of Biblical scholarship and that there are vanishingly few unbiased sources actively stating that Jesus of Nazareth was a historical reality. Despite the protestations to the contrary, if one looks for non-Christian, non-Muslim sources discussing Jesus' reality, there isn't a real consensus for or against against it precisely because there are so few sources that discuss it at all. This article certainly should not embrace the CMT, but it shouldn't treat the writings of Christians and Muslims as if they were unbiased and neutral.—Kww(talk) 22:26, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

There is a difference between a point of view and a bias. When an author is going out of their way to twist things to fit their agenda, that is bias. Theological sources would obviously deserve to be treated as biased polemics, but treating otherwise academic sources as polemics just because an editor disagrees with the author's point of view is biased. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:59, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Your definition of "bias" is idiosyncratic. A bias is a tendency to decide in one direction rather than another, nothing more. To describe a source as "biased" doesn't mean it's a polemic. I've never encouraged, nor would I ever encourage, that we treat all Christian and Muslim historians as if they were writing polemics unworthy of consideration, only that we recognize them as possessing an inherent bias.—Kww(talk) 00:13, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

• Support Wdford's proposal to make this a redirect or diambig page.PiCo (talk) 00:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment from Fearofreprisal

• Indeed, I took the time to actually write a carefully thought-out proposal. It follows at the end of this post.
• Regarding the assertion that the Historical Jesus article makes the Historicity of Jesus article redundant: The two topics are distinct from each other. As a start, compare the first sentences of the two articles (I have removed the cites and wikilink alternate labels):

• The historicity of Jesus is the question whether Jesus existed as a historical figure, whether any of the major milestones in his life as portrayed in the gospels can be confirmed as historical events as opposed to myth, legend, or fiction, and the weighing of the evidence relating to his life. (Though no citations exist to support this definition, we'll go with it for argument's sake.)
• Historical Jesus refers to scholarly reconstructions of the life of Jesus, based on critical methods including biblical criticism analysis of gospel texts as the primary source for his biography, along with consideration of the Cultural and historical background of Jesus in which he lived.

The Historical Jesus lead is based largely on a citation to Dunn (Jesus Remembered), but I'll provide another citation that may help clarify things:

• What we call the historical Jesus is the composite of the recoverable bits and pieces of historical information and speculation about him that we assemble, construct, and reconstruct. For this reason, the historical Jesus is, in Meier's words, "a modern abstraction and construct."[22]

Let's compare the two:

• Historicity of Jesus: Historical truth of Jesus' life. Based only on historical evidence. Does not assume historical evidence is true. Addresses only that which is supported by historical evidence.
• Historical Jesus: Reconstructions of Jesus' life. Based on gospels, historical evidence, cultural context (and, to be honest, revelation.) Assumes gospels are true, unless otherwise proven. [23] Tries to create complete pictures, filling in the gaps with speculation. Creates a large number of disparate pictures (rabbi, prophet, sage, shaman, revolutionary leader, etc.)[24]

If, after having read this, you still think these two subjects can be effectively merged into one article... well, just tell me, and we'll have an RfC. I don't want to create another wall of text just because someone wants to tell me how wrong I am.

• Regarding whether the disambiguation page is an improvement: It's inaccurate, misleading, doesn't even address historicity, and the citations do not support the article text. The main question I have is whether WP:CONSENSUS trumps WP:VERIFIABILITY and WP:No Original Research. If you want to discuss this further, probably better to start a separate section.

Proposal from Fearofreprisal

TL,DR: Discretionary sanctions, DRN/RfC to get consensus on scope, flag/remove out of scope material, streamline DR process

“The dictionary definition of 'historicity” is 'historical quality or authenticity based on fact.' Historicity is a quality of a discourse perhaps, or even of an opinion. The most general concept would be something like this: the historicity of a claim about the past is its factual status.” [25]

Though the term “historicity” is often used by religious scholars, it has no special religious or theological meaning. The careful use of the term by the best known religious scholars suggests that they intend its meaning not be clouded with ideological subtext. When a scholar – secular or religious - speaks of historicity, they mean “what actually happened.” And when they speak of the historicity of Jesus they mean “what actually happened with Jesus” (or, perhaps more precisely, “the factual status of claims that have been made about Jesus.”)

The term “historicity of Jesus” needs no disambiguation, because it means just one thing. (At least, to scholars.) It should be self-evident that the topic (and scope) of the Historicity of Jesus article should focus on historicity – i.e., “what actually happened.” Yet WP editors have been loading the article with a strange synthesis of historical Jesus and Christ myth theory – topics that by their very definition are focused on speculation more than actuality. (See, for example, [26].)

For example, the article is rife with statements and citations about the consensus opinions of scholars, but provides no connection to the bases for those opinions. The reader is left to guess whether they spring from disciplined historical research, popular consensus, or even religious faith. An assertion that “most scholars” accept that Jesus existed, without further context, tells us nothing of historicity.

For years, WP editors have been arguing about how to fix this article. The answer unequivocally not to delete, merge or redirect the article, Nor is it to reject biased sources, declare everything but majority opinion as fringe, or ban editors with minority viewpoints.

Here is what I suggest:

• Apply discretionary sanctions. Without this, the article has no hope.
• Use DRN and RfC to get consensus on what “historicity” means, and to develop a statement of scope for the article, including citations for terms that are likely to be challenged.
• Add the new statement of scope to the article.
• Flag material that is out of scope, requires citations, or fails validation. Remove flagged material after 30 days.
• Clarify and streamline the dispute resolution process for content disputes (particularly with people whose primary contributions to the article are reverts.) An editor shouldn't hesitate to make a good-faith edit because he/she knows it's going to lead to an edit war and an intractable dispute resolution process.

Fearofreprisal (talk) 01:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration are not to be taken lightly, and that's the only way to get discretionary sanctions. My guess it that if a request is filed, it will be for the site ban of a single editor. Ignocrates (talk) 01:58, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The first sentences of the two articles are not much different actually – finding wording that differentiated them has been a big (and slightly artificial) task. Dunn’s quote as per FoR’s new opening sentence of the Historicity disambiguation article is not wrong, but the wording is not really representative of the consensus position – Dunn in fact appears to contradict this statement himself when he says elsewhere that these "two facts in the life of Jesus command almost universal assent" and "rank so high on the 'almost impossible to doubt or deny' scale of historical facts".

The current HJ article tries to distil “what can be known about what actually happened”, while openly admitting that the sources are purely documentary, that the authenticity of these sources is disputed to various degrees and that scholars do not agree with most of the Synoptic stories. As a result it largely deals with historicity as well. It can certainly be made better, if we bring across what was good from the old Historicity article, and if we state WHY the various scholars hold their various positions, rather than just quoting a slew of opinions.

I much prefer the Herzog quote about HJ being a “composite of the recoverable bits and pieces of historical information”, and I think we should use that quote in the lead of the HJ article.

The HJ section on Portraits is admittedly a bit speculative, but it is useful info although it probably needs to be streamlined a bit.

In conclusion, we can easily put the Historicity info into the HJ article, and make that a featured article. There is no need to keep two separate articles for this purpose. Wdford (talk) 12:39, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Citation for article that has been overlooked

Richard Carrier Wrote a peer reviewed book on the Historicity of Jesus, published by an academic press. We can stop saying it is a “fringe” theory “for people who spend too much time in their mother's basements”, because when you say that, you're throwing a LOT of people under the bus. I say again, this book has been peer reviewed and published by an academic press. We've got Blainy in here, and other known Christians, so why can't we have a known atheist? Someone please do something with this citation

“In my estimation the odds Jesus existed are less than 1 in 12,000. Which to a historian is for all practical purposes a probability of zero For comparison, your lifetime probability of being struck by lighting is around 1 in 10,000. That Jesus existed is even less likely than that. Consequently, I am reasonably certain there was no historical Jesus… When I entertain the most generous estimates possible, I find I cannot by any stretch of the imagination the probability Jesus existed is better than 1 in 3.” p. 600

Carrier, R. (2014). On the historicity of Jesus: Why we might have reason for doubt. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.91.107.206 (talk) 17:53, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the "1 in 12,000" claim, whether valid or not, is a tiny minority viewpoint -- but the actual research and analysis behind it is worth abstracting in the article. Sorry -- I don't have to book. Why don't you do it? Fearofreprisal (talk) 20:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Rather than putting Carrier in we should be taking Blainey out. The article should deal in general arguments, not appeals to authority. (Blainey's no authority.)PiCo (talk) 03:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Blainey should be taken out. He's not qualified to talk about ancient history AFIK. Carrier, a PhD in ancient history, however is. And he does soin his peer reviewed treatise on the historicity of Jesus (published by an acadetoo press). There is no reason he is not in the article. I won't do it unless there is full support, and even then I'd prefer a more experienced editor make the changes. I've seen top many reverts lately on the work of editors who aren't part of the club. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.91.107.160 (talk) 00:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Evading WP article deletion policy

@Wdford: @Robert McClenon: When you "shortened the article," you did a couple of things:

• You blanked most of the article content. This is equivalent to an article deletion. It's an evasion of the WP:Deletion policy. And it fits the WP criteria for vandalism.
• You created something you call a "disambiguation article." Yet, the article doesn't disambiguate anything. It merely points to related articles. And WP doesn't have disambiguation articles - it has WP:Disambiguation pages, which are not WP:articles, and do not contain encyclopedic content. You've created a frankenstein article that can't survive in its current state.

Please revert now. If you think there is consensus for deleting the article, go through the proper processes. You're experienced WP editors - I shouldn't need to tell you this. Fearofreprisal (talk) 01:56, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

First, what we are doing with this RFC can be seen as complying with the spirit of the WP:Deletion policy, because it has a 30-day period for determining consensus rather than a 7-day period, and is an appropriate case of WP:IAR. Second, you User:Fearofreprisal are engaging in a personal attack. You have been editing Wikipedia long enough to know what is not vandalism. Third, the article wasn't surviving in its previous state. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:17, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Odd... most of the recent major edits on the article were made by Wdford... and he's the one who blanked it because it "wasn't surviving."

Is it a WP policy to delete articles you don't like? Fearofreprisal (talk) 02:38, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

FOP, it's disruptive, anti-consensus, POV-pushing, IDHT behaviour like this that led me to believe you should be TBANned from "Historicity of Jesus, broadly construed". This is what I was asking for on ANI, but I thought it better to get the opinions of uninvolved parties first. This apparently led User:Robert McClenon to the good-faith but nonetheless incorrect assumption that I did not have a solid proposal for how to do with you. This talk page (and your own edit history) shows that you are only here to promote a fringe POV, and so are unwilling to compromise on said point. If you do not cease this disruptive behaviour immediately, someone else will almost certainly open a new ANI thread.

(And for anyone still potentially considering arbitration to be a better option, I should point out that the correct way to deal with a single user behaving disruptively in a single article area, in a manner that can be clearly demonstrated with diffs and is already almost-universally agreed upon, is not through arbitration. It is through a community-imposed topic ban. The place for that is ANI.)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:33, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

The problems on this page aren't limited to the behaviour of a single editor, nor are they even mainly about editor behaviour. This page and the related pages it links to have been disaster areas for a very long time. That isn't going to be solved by calling for topic bans. I hope we won't need arbitration, and think mediation should come first. I'm not convinced the time for that has arrived yet. A side effect of the various RfCs and ANI discussions is that we have gained many new (or returning old) eyes on target. Martijn Meijering (talk) 12:39, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

@Fearofreprisal: I haven’t deleted any useful content that I am aware of. As I made very clear, AFAIK all this material already exists in the many related and over-lapping articles, and this article now directs readers to all those places where they can find the content they presumably seek. If you are concerned that some important material has been lost completely, please point it out specifically, and we can easily correct that omission.

I don’t know of any wiki-policy that actually forbids disambiguation articles – if they fill a need then why not have them? Are you aware of any wiki-policy that forbids disambiguation articles?

If we need to add section headings or something to this article to avoid litigation, it can also be done without major ructions.

Here’s a thought – why don’t you create the article Historical actuality of Jesus by yourself, exactly as you want it to be. Once it’s done we will comment and contribute. If your new article avoids duplicating HJ or any of the others then it will be accepted by the consensus, and this "Frankenstein" article can be deleted without fuss. What say? Wdford (talk) 09:05, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

You're likely aware that I've opened a request for mediation on this issue, and have named you and Robert McClenon as parties. Provided you are willing, I believe it would be more productive to discuss it in that context. Fearofreprisal (talk) 09:33, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

You are probably aware that formal mediation is only called for once reasonable discussion on a talk page has broken down. As my edit has an 8-1 consensus thus far, maybe a bit more discussion here would be appropriate first? I responded to your points above, so perhaps you could start by addressing my responses and suggestions? Wdford (talk) 10:23, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

This goes well beyond a targeted T-ban, Robert McClenon. Point out the obviously false accusation of vandalism by a veteran editor and the inability to abide by a clear consensus, then ask for an indefinite block at ANI. Ask and you will receive I think. Ignocrates (talk) 12:49, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

@User:Ignocrates: I think you meant the above response for me, not RMcC, since it was me who was calling for a TBAN. You are probably right, but in my experience for SPAs (and let's face it, at this point FOP is essentially an SPA) a TBAN is essentially the same as an indef. It also (seems to be?) easier to get a TBAN than an indef, and also requesting an indef for someone who has such a long, distinguished and varied history of edits over the past six years seems like an AGF concern.</sarcasm> Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:12, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, my mistake! I was reading too fast. Ignocrates (talk) 22:10, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment First of all, the redirect was done with the best intention but has only lead to the problem being moved to Historical Jesus where a number of fringe theories put together by amateurs are masquerading as valid theories. As for the discussion here, it can be closed as there is a clear consensus for the current version. Consensus does not mean unanimity.Jeppiz (talk) 13:04, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Better to have the discussion in one place where the topic is more clear than in two places, no? It seems like its for the best for the time being, even though still slightly awkward. Prasangika37 (talk) 15:54, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, the new status quo makes it a whole lot easier to deal with fringe-pushing "mythicist" SPAs and IPs, and all disputes about the historical Jesus (as opposed to the historicity question) should have been taking place on that other talk page to begin with. This is much better. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 16:12, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Moving On

The attempted mediation process has collapsed, and it would appear that the consensus is thus to keep this article in the greatly-shortened version. As some technical purists might object to the unconventional format, I have also produced a “de-frankenstein-ed” version, with section headings inserted along with formal references to main articles - see here [27]. Should I upload that version for consideration, or should we leave it as is for now?

I note that neither Fearofreprisal nor John Carter have thus far responded to my suggestion to create a draft article called Historical actuality of Jesus, which might yet prove useful if it contains valuable material and avoids duplicating HJ or any of the other existing articles on the subject. Wdford (talk) 11:35, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I like it. Once again, well done! Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 15:26, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Regards consensus: There's no consensus yet. Until someone closes the RfC, we can't really move on to coming to a consensus on a course of action for this article.
• Regards your sandbox article: The first sentences of the lead and the "Scope of the topic" section are uncited, and appear to be original research.
• Regards your suggestion that I create a draft article called Historical actuality of Jesus: Considering that the title is synonymous with Historicity of Jesus, you're essentially suggesting that I create a content fork. No thank you. Fearofreprisal (talk) 18:18, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Fwiw, I agree with FoR here. There is not a WP:SNOW; therefore this RfC is still open and things may change. Also, as I pointed out at ANI, it's the timing of the RfM that was disruptive, not the RfM itself (given that the RfC is still open). There may yet be a formal mediation before this is resolved. Ignocrates (talk) 22:17, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

• Comment All other matters aside, the suggestion to create yet another article, Historical actuality of Jesus, seems like a terrible idea. What would be in that article that is not already in Historical Jesus or other closely related articles?Jeppiz (talk) 22:21, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Well that's what I was hoping to see - I personally don't think there is any content of value that is not already included in an existing article. However FoR did previously propose that all the "opinions" etc be stripped out, leaving the article to describe only the "evidence" etc. That is what the Historical Jesus article already does, although it also includes other sections full of opinions. I was hoping to see a stripped-down article that actually demonstrates the end-state that FoR demands and fights for, but is unwilling to actually describe. Presumably if this goes to RfM both parties would have to explain why they think their proposal is best for Wikipedia, and at that time FoR would have to explain what content s/he thinks it necessary to include and why. I thought we could avoid the time spent on RfM if all parties in good faith present their proposals and justifications upfront, but seemingly FoR would rather go to RfM than resolve the issue here. Pity. Wdford (talk) 23:10, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I just finished participating in a dispute resolution at DRN, which failed, but I learned about this essay written by the mediator: WP:1AM. I found it extremely helpful. The thing to guard against here is creating the impression there is a local consensus. Therefore, you might want to think about publicizing the RfC even more widely at the Village pump. Ignocrates (talk) 01:12, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Wdford: I've actually presented my proposals up-front repeatedly (though I did, for a while, resort to presenting the issues, and asking people for their opinions. The results were disappointing.) I continue to participate in this talk page, in the hope of resolving some of the issues facing this article.

I filed the request for mediation because I thought the presence of a mediator might allow a productive conversation with you and Robert McClenon -- not only without the hostility of this talk page, but also without the deafening silence that occurs when I mention basic policies (such as earlier in this thread, where I mentioned that two of the sentences in your sandbox article appear to be original research, and need to be cited.)

In any event, even if my RfM was premature, it was hardly disruptive. It resulted in no disruption to the article, and had it proceeded forward, it would have resulted in no sanctions against anyone, and no more cost of time than you've spent here. It would have cost you nothing, and might have lead to improving the article. Fearofreprisal (talk) 02:02, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

@FoR: I’m not going to repeat the same circular discussion about the plain English dictionary definition of the word “Historicity” – the fact that you bring it up yet again is tendentious. I have checked many scholarly works on this topic recently, and scholars do not bother to define the term “Historicity of Jesus” – they appear to assume that readers will apply normal English definitions, as we are doing here.

All you have actually presented up-front is the insistence that "the topic (and scope) of the Historicity of Jesus article should focus on historicity – i.e., "what actually happened."" You also stated that it should address "only that which is supported by historical evidence." Well, obviously. However your own favorite citation from Dunn says that this is not actually possible, because that evidence doesn’t exist anymore. So what actually do you propose to do differently? If you are going to remove all material that is in your opinion "out of scope", then what will be left? An article consisting of a philosophical definition of Historicity, three disputed mentions in Josephus and Tacitus, and nothing more? Or will you respect the weight of scholarship that says the baptism is also historically certain, based on the criterion of embarrassment? Please explain what content will be left in the article under your paradigm? An RfM is not needed if you are prepared to actually address issues, so stop evading the question and tell us all openly now once and for all - exactly what content do you propose to retain in the article? Wdford (talk)

My experience is that scholars use the term "historicity" in a careful manner, to preserve its normal meaning. Consider the sister term "historical jesus" which definitely has domain specific meaning.

You don't give me quite enough credit for presenting ideas up-front, But I'm typing on a pad tonight, so I won't be dropping in any diffs. But what you've presented seems representative of what I've said, with only a little trepidation. If you and I could have conversations of this sort more often we might not need mediation.

Regards the Dunn quote - there are others that say similar things. A long time back, Historical methods were looking like they were going to be bad news for the questers for the historical jesus. So, biblical historians invented new methods - e.g. Criterion of embarrassment. Should we toss them out of the article? Not Necessarily ... But I think it's important to include as much of a scholar's agenda and protocol as makes sense. Though there are limits. Revelation as a research protocol might upset some readers, and please others. But it might be hard to call it a historical method.

Forgive me if I didn't answer as well as possible. It's late and I'm tired. Fearofreprisal (talk) 09:54, 5 October 2014 (UTC) (And typing on a kepad is a pain. Edited 18:43, 5 October 2014 (UTC) )

OK, no rush. The RfC is currently standing at 11-2 in favor of a greatly reduced article, with the duplication removed and the detail all included in the various main articles instead.

I am actually surprised that you are fighting for the extended article, since you have argued all along that much of the extended content is “out of scope” and should be removed. If I understand you correctly it seems you would prefer to just have a one-paragraph article that says "The historicity of Jesus is the question of what actually happened back then, based purely on the reliable historical evidence. However there actually isn’t any reliable historical evidence as such, just some gospels that hardly anybody trusts and three mentions in non-Christian sources, all of whose authenticity is disputed to varying degrees. We therefore can know nothing about the real Jesus with confidence, other than that a Jesus-person probably existed around that time." If that is going to be all there is to it, we can add a few lines to the lead section of the disambiguation article, and the job is done. Unless there is some other content that you would wish to include? Wdford (talk) 07:34, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Sometimes I feel like a real sucker, letting myself get drawn into discussions like this.

I expressed my opinion on the RfC here: [28]

Until the RfC is closed, no possible good can come out of continuing this discussion. Fearofreprisal (talk) 10:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

disambiguation

I think we can either remove This is a disambiguation article or tag this article with {{-disambiguation-}}. Opinions? Bladesmulti (talk) 04:06, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

The page is an article page, not a disambiguation page. Those are two different things. Fearofreprisal (talk) 18:45, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia's standards, this isn't a disambiguation article. A disambiguation article is used when the term 'historicity of Jesus' is used in completely different senses. For example if 'historicity' had a meaning that he sweated a lot, then you could have a disambiguation page. But they're all using the terms in the same senses, so this isn't a disambiguation page. At most it's a WP:BROADCONCEPT article, but even that is pushing it.GliderMaven (talk) 13:44, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

There really is no such thing as a "disambiguation article". What this appears to be is either a botched refactoring, or an attempt to remove any significant discussion of the historicity of Jesus from this page. I'd like to think it's the former. -- Impsswoon (talk) 17:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)