Misplaced Pages

• Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
• New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

• Assume good faith
• Be polite and avoid personal attacks
• Be welcoming to newcomers
• Seek dispute resolution if needed

• Neutral point of view
• No original research
• Verifiability

• Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
• New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

• Assume good faith
• Be polite and avoid personal attacks
• Be welcoming to newcomers
• Seek dispute resolution if needed

• Neutral point of view
• No original research
• Verifiability

Q3a: Is "virtually all scholars" a phrase that can be used in Misplaced Pages?

The issue was discussed on the talk page:

• Based on this Misplaced Pages search the phrase is widely used in Misplaced Pages.
• The definition of the term virtually is shown by the Merriam-Webster dictionary in clear terms.
• The term is directly used by the source in the article, and is used per the WP:RS/AC guideline to reflect the academic consensus.

Q3b: What about asking on the reliability noticeboard?

Yes, people involved in the page can discuss matters, but an independent opinion from the reliable source noticeboard can further clarify and confirm the sources. An outside opinion was requested on the noticeboard. The outside opinion there (by user:DGG) stated that the issue has been discussed there many times and that the statement in the article (that virtually all scholars of antiquity hold that Jesus existed) represents the academic consensus.

Q3c: What about the books that claim Jesus never existed?

The internet includes some such lists, and they have been discussed at length on the talk page, e.g. a list of over 20 such books was addressed in this talk page discussion. The list came from a non-WP:RS website and once it was analyzed it became clear that:

• Most of the authors on the list were not scholars in the field, and included an attorney, an accountant, a land surveyor, a film-maker, as well as a number of amateurs whose actual profession was less than clear, whose books were self-published and failed the WP:RS requirements. Some of the non-self-published authors on the list were found to just write popular books, have no academic position and not scholars, e.g. Christopher Hitchens.
• Some of the books on the list did not even deny the existence of Jesus, e.g. Burton Mack (who is a scholar) holds that Jesus existed but his death was not due to his challenge to Jewish authority, etc. Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman's work is about the Old Testament and not really related to Jesus. Tom Harpur holds that Jesus existed but mythical stories were later added to the gospel narratives about him.

The analysis of the list thus indirectly shed light on the scarcity of scholars who deny the existence of Jesus.

Q3d: Do we have to survey the scholars ourselves?

The formal Misplaced Pages guidelines require us not to do our own survey. The Misplaced Pages guideline WP:RS/AC specifically states: "The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view." Given that the guideline then states: "statement in Misplaced Pages that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors." we should not rely on our own surveys but quote a scholar who states the "academic consensus".

Q3e: Why even mention the existence of Jesus in the article lead?

A: This was discussed on the talk page. Although scholars at large see existence as a given, there are some self-published, non-scholarly books which question it, and hence non-scholars who read this article need to to have that issue clarified. And note that the statements regarding existence and other attributes need to be kept separate and stating that "Virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus was from Galilee" would not be accurate, because scholarly agreement on existence is much stronger than on other items.

• Some of the most respected late-20th-century scholars involved in the study of the historical Jesus (e.g. Amy-Jill Levine, Geza Vermes, Paula Fredriksen) are Jewish. This trend is discussed in the 2012 book Soundings in the Religion of Jesus, by Bruce Chilton, Anthony Le Donne, and Jacob Neusner (ISBN 978-0-8006-9801-0, p. 132). While much of the older research in the 1950–1970 time frame may have involved Christian scholars (mostly in Europe) the 1980s saw an international effect and since then Jewish scholars have brought their knowledge of the field and made significant contributions. And one should note that the book is coauthored by the likes of Chilton and Neusner with quite different backgrounds. Similarly one of the main books in the field, The Historical Jesus in Context, by Amy-Jill Levine, Dale C. Allison Jr., and John Dominic Crossan (2006, ISBN 978-0-691-00992-6), is jointly edited by scholars with quite different backgrounds. In the late 20th and the 21st century Jewish, Christian and secular agnostic scholars have widely cooperated in research. The Muslim Reza Aslan wrote the number-one bestseller Zealot (2013).
• Regarding the existence of a historical Jesus, the article lead quotes Ehrman who is an agnostic and Price who is an atheist. Moreover, G. A. Wells who was widely accepted as the leader of the non-existence movement in the 20th century, abandoned that position and now accepts that the Q source refers to "a preacher" on whom parts of the gospels were based – although he believes that the supernatural claims were just stories that were then attributed to that preacher. That is reflected in his 2004 book Can We Trust the New Testament (pp. 49–50). While scholars continue to debate the historicity of specific gospel narratives, the agreement on the existence of Jesus is quite global.
• It is misleading to assume that Christian scholars will be biblical literalists who cannot engage in critical scholarship. Catholic and non-Evangelical Protestant scholars have long favoured the historical-critical method, which accepts that not all of the Bible can be taken literally. For example, the Christian clerics and scholars Michael Ramsey, C. F. D. Moule and James Dunn all argued in their scholarship that Jesus did not claim to be divine, Conrad Hyers, a Presbyterian minister, criticizes biblical literalism: "Literal clarity and simplicity, to be sure, offer a kind of security in a world (or Bible) where otherwise issues seem incorrigibly complex, ambiguous and muddy. But it is a false security, a temporary bastion, maintained by dogmatism and misguided loyalty."
• Finally, Misplaced Pages policies do not prohibit Buddhist scholars as sources on the history of Buddhism, Jewish scholars on Judaism, or Muslim scholars as sources on the history of Islam provided they are respected scholars whose works meet the general WP:RS requirements in terms of publisher reputation, etc.

• Hardly any scholars dispute the existence of Jesus or his crucifixion.
• A large majority of scholars agree that he debated the authorities and had "followers" – some scholars say there was a hierarchy among the followers, a few think it was a flat organization.
• More scholars think he performed some healings (given that Rabbinic sources criticize him for that etc., among other reasons) than those who say he never did, but less agreement on than the debates with authorities, etc.

Q6a: Was Jesus Jewish?

Yes, as mentioned in the article, but not in the infobox. An RfC at the Village Pump says to include religion in the infobox only if it's directly related to the subject's notability and there's consensus. Some editors want to include his religion in the infobox and others do not. With no consensus, the default is to leave the religion out of the box.

Q6b: Why is the birthplace not mentioned in the infobox?

The question came up in this discussion and there is no solid scholarly agreement on Bethlehem, so the infobox does not address that.

References

1. R.Kendall Soulen, Handbook of Biblical Criticism, Westminster John Knox Press (2001), p. 49
2. Hick, John (2006). The Metaphor of God Incarnate: Christology in a Pluralistic Age. Presbyterian Publishing Corporation. p. 27. ISBN 978-0-664-23037-1. Retrieved 5 January 2024.
3. Hyers, Conrad (Spring 2000). "Comparing biblical and scientific maps of origins". Directions: A Mennonite Brethren Forum. 29 (1): 16–26.
4. Hyers, Conrad (August 4–11, 1982). "Biblical Literalism: Constricting the Cosmic Dance". Christian Century. p. 823. Archived from the original on June 4, 2011. Retrieved 9 November 2012.

To-do list for Jesus: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2013-06-02

"Virtually all scholars"

The sentence "Virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed." is pretty unusual wording. I was going to change it but I saw the note on the article asking to leave comments here. Usually we would want to be a lot more precise than 'virtually all' which seems rather weasel word like (the virtually), and hard to back up even with the listed sources. Might I propose changing it to "There is little contention among scholars of antiquity that Jesus existed."? I think this gets across the point that most scholars agree Jesus is a historical figure, without using this 'virtually all' construction. Comments? Prodego 21:10, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

If we had a penny every time this is discussed... Please look at the archives for a loooong discussion on that. The source says that, and it has been discussed on talk, WP:RSN, etc. So please see that. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

That response doesn't actually address my question. Prodego 21:16, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, put it another way, my thinking is that virtually all is accurate, given that it corresponds to the source, and past talk page discussions also indicate that, so it is not just my thinking alone. History2007 (talk) 21:20, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

That phrasing is used because that is what scholarship says (published scholars of repute say that virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed). We've been over it ad nauseum... just trust us on this one this time. ReformedArsenal (talk) 21:18, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

In fairness we need a link to the archives in the FAQ so people do not have to search for them. I will try to get those FAQ links added. History2007 (talk) 21:22, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, well I don't think I've ever seen "virtually all" used in a Misplaced Pages article before, and I've edited for quite a long time. The fact that it is contentious is probably a sign that this wording is problematic, which is consistent with my impression. I'm curious if either of you have problems with my wording? Previous discussion doesn't prevent change, though I'll definitely want to look through that. Prodego 21:24, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually that was also discussed: Misplaced Pages uses that term all over. And this definition clarified the term, etc. And given that this page gets 400,000 views a month, a discussion here or there is not really contentious in the larger scheme. And I am sorry, but I think your wording deviates from the source. History2007 (talk) 21:31, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, and any wording that deviates ever so slightly from the source is likely to be attacked as inaccurate or hyperbolic. Not that using the same wording as the source precludes such attacks entirely, but it makes it much easier to reply. Huon (talk) 21:43, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

It is false that all scholars agree that Jesus existed. "Virtually all" is a weasel-word tactic. There is no poll from a reputable pollster. In fact, there is no poll at all, that I know of. There is no statement in a peer-reviewed, non-Christian journal saying "virtually all." In fact, nobody has produced an example of a peer-reviewed, non-theological article saying it is fact that Jesus existed at all. I'm not sure there is no such source, but none has been provided. All such sources are written for a popular audience, and usually the authors have a religious background. Many of the books are published by the Christian press, whose editors obviously aren't going to question whether Jesus was real. The wording should really be changed to "According to so-and-so, virtually all....". Humanpublic (talk) 23:50, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

"Virtually all" is the wording used by our reliable source, an academic published with a reputable publisher. We have Michael Grant, a classicist, saying the same thing. He does so in a book, not a journal article, but that's also a reliable source, and Orion Publishing is not a "Christian press". Neither is Cambridge University Press which published Dunn's essay that says the same thing. Of course there's Van Voorst, a scholar whose competence virtually everybody respects even if they disagree with him, who also says so. And there's Price who himself disagrees with existence but accepts he's in the minority.

This insistence on peer-reviewed articles strikes me as odd. Of course such articles make excellent sources - but so do textbooks. I cannot think of any reason to insist on articles over textbooks except to exclude the various textbooks whose content we may not like.

In summary this strikes me as beating a dead horse. We've been here repeatedly, the sources have been discussed at WP:RSN and accepted, we use wording that precisely corresponds to the source, and we're backed up by WP:RS#AC. There isn't even a hint of disagreement in reliable sources with the contested statement. In short, there's nothing to discuss here any more, and repeating the old refuted claims is useless. Huon (talk) 00:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. This won't fly. We have a whole article, Historicity of Jesus, dedicated to this, with the same phrasing and references, but lots more detail. Huon doesn't mention the Ehrmann ref, very current & from an agnostic. I note Humanpublic has produced no sources of his own.... Johnbod (talk) 00:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Humanpublic is expressing a personal opinion, given that the number of sources he has produced is zero. Note that a list of 20 possible opposing "authors" was proposed on talk - archived now, and the results were laughable: some were accountants, some attorneys, etc. This repeated statement sans source is sounding like a broken record now, and from an account that does not seem to be doing anything else. I now wonder if.... You know what I mean.... Humanpublic has said this for a few months now, but given that he has zero sources, whatever he says does not matter, and for one I think he can just be ignored, for in Misplaced Pages sources talk and ... nothing else matters. So for all I care Humanpublic can say the same again and again, be just ignored and will make no difference to anything. History2007 (talk) 04:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

In order for this discussion to get off the ground, you have to make an effort. Little of what I said is "a personal opinion." It is a fact that there are no peer-reviewed sources. It is a fact that Grant wrote popular books. It is a fact that Ehrman's training and background is evangelical and theological, regardless of his current belief. It is a fact that being a classicist does not make you an expert on what "all scholars" believe. Neither does being a professor of religion. A pollster is an expert on what all scholars believe, and this article cites no pollsters. Huon's comment about textbooks is out to lunch. No textbooks have been cited. None of what I just said is a personal opinion. Humanpublic (talk) 16:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, what?! How exactly is Van Voorst's Jesus Outside the New Testament not a textbook by a respected scholar published with a reputable publisher? What, precisely, makes Sacrifice and Redemption, published by Cambridge University Press, not an academic source?

By now we've arrived at scholars being rejected because they were evangelical sometime in the past. What's next, scholars being rejected because undeniably a grand-aunt was a Christian? And I'm particularly amused by the comment how being a classicist is insufficient - I remember hearing the same argument about biblical scholars, too. Who would be in a position to know the academic consensus?

If you want to make an effort to get this discussion off the ground, I'd suggest one of two routes: Either present a reliable source that actually supports your point of view, or go to WP:RSN and make the case that Ehrman, Van Voorst et al. are not reliable sources. I'd prefer the former because firstly it would be a genuinely new approach and secondly the people at RSN have better stuff to do than to tell incredulous editors yet again that Ehrman is an acceptable source for this statement. Huon (talk) 18:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Disputing the reliability of apparently good sources is a tactic in tendentious editing. Making original and unsourced claims about the sources falls under WP:No original research as well. The current wording is fine until reliable sources are produced claiming that more than a small minority reject the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth; then things will be divided into "these scholars say virtually all scholars agree, these scholars say that many scholars disagree." Since even Robert M. Price, who denies the existence of Jesus, admits that virtually all scholars agree on Jesus's historical existence, I doubt that's going to happen.

Continuing to ignore a glaringly obvious consensus, refusing to acknowledge what everyone has to say, is also a tactic in tendentious editing (and rude at that), especially since we could probably let it be known to Helen Keller without even using a Ouija board.

All claims intended to change articles require sources, or a demonstration that current sources are unreliable. When the consensus is that the sources are reliable, and one cannot actually point to any part of WP:RS or to any RS to show how the source is unreliable, disputing the reliability of that source is nothing short of disruptive. I seriously doubt that Talk:Evolution would entertain a Young Earth Creationist's similar behavior for long, and for good reason. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:40, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

As pointed out above, this discussion has already taken place both on this very talk page and on WP:RSN. HumanPublic is in effect acting as the new user:CUSH now, not hearing WP:HEAR. Are they the same users? Who knows? For this discussion to get off the ground again, as HumanPublic wishes, it needs this. That is not my department. History2007 (talk) 18:55, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Fact: No peer-reviewed non-theological sources. Fact: Virtually sources are popular books. Fact: Being a classicist (who writes popular books) or a prof of religion does not make you an expert on what "virtually all scholars" believe. Fact: No reliable polls of what "virtually all scholars" believe have been given. Fact: The vast majority of sources saying Jesus existed have a Christian, theological connection. Humanpublic (talk) 17:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

And sources with Christian theological connections are automatically not WP:RS... I think not. ReformedArsenal (talk) 18:02, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I would not even bother type too long a response to Humanpublic. By and large he needs to be just ignored. He has said the same again and again. It is not even worth running to WP:AN for WP:HEAR. He is best ignored I think. History2007 (talk) 18:06, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say anything is "automatically" not reliable. Compare to global warming and evolution. Are both easily documented in peer-reviewed academic journals? Yep. Are there reputable polls supporting the consensus among experts? Yes. Why no such level of support here, and why the aggressive attempt to stifle discussion of it? Humanpublic (talk) 15:41, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Your answers are here. Good luck. History2007 (talk) 15:54, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Humanpublic... the books we are referencing are most certainly peer reviewed and are not published without extensive editorial scrutiny. ReformedArsenal (talk) 18:42, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Books for a general audience aren't peer-reviewed. Editors aren't peers. That's why there are thousands of books advancing Intelligent Design, yet no peer-reviewed molecular biology articles. Please take the time to understand the ideas you're rejecting. Humanpublic (talk) 15:35, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about you, but every journal subscription I have includes a long list of reviewed books at the end (Including both academic and popular sources) that are reviewed by members of the academic society who publishes the journal. While it may be true that not every book for the general populace is peer reviewed, it is far from accurate to say that none of them are. As far as taking time to understand the ideas you are rejecting, I think between the two of us you seem to be the most guilty of that. ReformedArsenal (talk) 16:30, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you should take the time to read WP:RS a few times more to understand that references in Misplaced Pages do not have to be exclusively from peer reviewed journals in any case. There is no requirement like that at all. The use of these sources as WP:RS has been discussed again and again on this talk page and the RS board, where it was stated that any attempt to say this is not the scholarly consensus is "grasping at straws" - as you well know. And you have been told that almost as many times as there are water molecules in an ocean. Have you not figured it out yet? And you are well aware of the discussion of the list of books that suggest otherwise - so it is time to stop grasping at straws. Else, you should read WP:RS and the talk page discussions a few times more to grasp the issues. History2007 (talk) 16:09, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Move to close thread: Given the cyclic nature of this thread based on Humanpublic's repetition of the same issues again and again, despite their having been addressed in past discussions, I move to "close and archive this thread" in the spirit of the WP:SNOW essay given that it is just going to cycle again and again as a perpetual comment machine with no new issues that have not been addressed in the recent past. History2007 (talk) 17:13, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

ReformedArsenal: Book reviews aren't peer-review, obviously, since at that point the book has already been published. Please take the time to learn what peer-review is. I'm not saying peer-review is required, nor did I say that anyone with "Christian theological connections" is not reliable. Maybe this discussion seems circular because you're not actually responding to the concerns. Humanpublic (talk) 20:21, 24 December 2012 (UTC)