Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:49, 30 July 2010

Christianity: Jesus B‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is within the scope of the Jesus work group, a task force which is currently considered to be inactive.

Historicity of Jesus received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

The contents of Talk:Historicity of Jesus/Merged content 2005 were merged into Historicity of Jesus in 2005. The page is now a redirect to here. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history.

Archives

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Talk:Historicity of Jesus

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

Pauline Epistles

Alvar Ellegård finds the existence of Jesus, as described by the Church, disproved by the fact that Paul the Apostle, by many regarded as the founder of the Church, knew nothing of the existence of Jesus as his contemporary.

The paragraph above was deleted by Roy Brumback with this comment: A very weak argument from silence, if that, as Paul also says Jesus was killed in "this age" the age Paul lived in. Plus this guy's a quack if he used argument Paul wasn't aware of written gospels.

The evidence suggests that there were no written gospels when Paul was writing! Where did you get that idea John D. Croft (talk) 16:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It is a common idea, based on that Paul does not use text from the gospels in his letters. Would the other way round be more logical? Why? St.Trond (talk) 17:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

At the time Paul was writing, eyewitness accounts held an oral tradition. It was only when these eyewitnesses started dying and that rival versions of of Jesus teachings started circulating that "authoritative acccounts" started to be documented. Mark's gospel for instance seems to have been written from the point of view of reconciling the Jewish Nazarenes and the Pauline Christians. Matthew. written in Aramaic, was originally a Jewish Nazarene text, with later Greek additions. These additiions are in clear response to Yochanan ben Zakkai's teachings on Christ not being Messiah. John D. Croft (talk) 14:00, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

According to the same Bible, Paul also claimed that God was god of "this age". According to Martin Luther's Bible "this age" is "dieser Welt", i.e. this world which is the opposite of the afterlife. If no better arguments can be provided, then the paragraph on top here should be returned to the article. St.Trond (talk) 11:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was already established that we weren't going to include every non-specialist Jesus mythicist in this article? Anyway, the quote removed from the article doesn't make very much sense. The Church describes Jesus more so on the Gospels (which in many cases are independent witnesses from Paul) as opposed to Paul's references. How then would it follow that Paul's distance from the historical Jesus would render the Gospels "disproved"? Secondly, on what argument did Paul know "nothing of the existence of Jesus as hist contemporary"? Paul shows a continuity with Jesus' contemporary apostles (e.g. 1 Corinthians 15 or his disputes with Peter in Galatians and Acts, etc) as well as Jesus' family including James the brother of Jesus (see Matthew 13:55, Mark 6:3, Galatians 1:19, James 1:1, Josephus' Jewish Antiquities (20.9.1)). Finally, Ellegard's statement is based on an idiosyncratic thesis regarding Paul and the DSS (probably just as outrageous as that of Barbara Thiering.--Ari89 (talk) 14:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

It's also false. Paul clearly considers Jesus to have been a real historical figure, "born of a woman, born under the law." The quoted statement betrays ignorance on the part of the one saying it. Carlo (talk) 19:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Alvar Ellegård only found it disproved that Jesus and Paul were contemporaries. "Born of a woman" (what do you quote?) indicates that some may have considered Jesus being a myth at that time. There is no continuity, as is claimed by Ari89 with the apostles, with Jesus. Galatians 1:19: In the biblical context the "Lord's brother" is likely to be the "Lord's friar". St.Trond (talk) 15:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

No, the continuity is there - multiply attested to by Christian and non-Christian sources. You are going to have to do better than pleading ignorance to include every obscure and implausible Christ-myth argument.--Ari89 (talk) 16:50, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Alvar Ellegård also points to the title of the contemporaries of Jesus: "disciples" or pupils. The contemporaries of Paul are "apostles" or missionaries. How do you prove a continuity? St.Trond (talk) 17:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Non-experts say a lot of stupid things, don't they? --Ari89 (talk) 11:40, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Galatians 4:4. And with all due respect, I'm not sure that someone who doesn't recognize such a well-known and familiar Pauline statement should be holding forth on the subject of Paul's understanding of Jesus. Carlo (talk) 18:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Since it is Paul who said it, and the gospels were written only after Paul, we can agree upon that the "Jesus is a myth" tradition is as old as the tradition of the Church. Thus "Jesus is a myth" deserves the same amount of attention by for example this forum as the Church's tradition. St.Trond (talk) 20:19, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

How in the world do you get "Jesus is a myth" from "Born of a woman" which proves that Paul believed in the existence of a real human being called "Jesus" and contradicts the Jesus-mythists? Carlo (talk) 22:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

How do you get contemporary from "born of a woman"? St.Trond (talk) 05:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, aside from the problems of his arguments as far as I can tell the dude is an English professor and not a historian or Bible scholar. We already allow Wells and Doherty just to be fair to the mythicists, but other than them we should not be including the opinions of every non historian myther. Christopher Hitchens is for instance also a myther I believe but citing his opinions or arguments for his case would be equally as silly as citing some random English professor because neither one is a historian and this article is about the historical question of Jesus's existence. Other than the few amateur mythers we already cite the only non historians we cite are usually theologians saying what historians believe about the issue in general.Roy Brumback (talk) 17:00, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Roy, I think you are right. The "historicity" of Jesus, needs be needs to be written mainly from a historical perspective. Ret.Prof (talk) 19:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Would it help to have one article written purely from Biblical source material, and a separate article written purely from non-Biblical source material (secular stuff, not the old Church Fathers) and then simply cross-reference the two? Wdford (talk) 13:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

No because historians use both the "secular" materiel (although calling Josephus a secular historian is a laugh and Tacitus clearly included several religious stories and topics in his works, as did pretty much all ancient historians, so the term secular as it is currently used would probably not really apply to almost all ancient historians) and Biblical documents together in their research on the subject.Roy Brumback (talk) 18:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Does that mean there is no reliable evidence for the existence of Jesus, or for the work he is reported to have undertaken, other than the Bible itself? Wdford (talk) 08:47, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Not sure how you came to that conclusion. "historians use both the "secular" material and Biblical documents" What you said is basically the opposite of what Roy said. Additionally the term "bible" is semi-arbitrary, as canons vary from sect to sect, and didn't exist when the authors of the gospels were writing. Just because a text ended up being listed in a Cannon centuries later does not mean we should be suspicious of it any more than we should be of other ancient texts. -Andrew c  17:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Andrew. The word "secular" can be a relative term. Scholars need to study critically all material both canonical and non canonical. Please note that canon is not spelled cannon (unless you are talking about a very big gun) - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:01, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

"Just because a text ended up being listed in a Cannon centuries later does not mean we should be suspicious of it any more than we should be of other ancient texts"

Any text - modern or ancient - that speak about a man born from a virign and a holly spirit that died and resurected three days after is suspicious to any rational person. Guillermo ,Montevideo,UY (2010-01-19) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.40.169.18 (talk) 20:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Overhaul

Misplaced Pages has articles on the historical Jesus, the quest for the historical Jesus, and the belief that there was no historical Jesus (the Christ myth theory). Given all this it seems that this article should have a very narrow focus so as to avoid charges of content-forking. I propose that the article be overhauled so that it focus exclusively on examining the documents (and other evidences) utilized to establish the mere historicity of Jesus. Discussions of historical attempts to establish Jesus' historicity, details of the possible biographical reconstructions these sources might enable, and so on should be largely excised or integrate into more relevant articles. I've no problem taking the lead, but before I start I want to see if there are any major objections. So, are any major objections? Eugene (talk) 00:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

What specifically do you want to remove? Roy Brumback (talk) 20:43, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to shorten the lead to eliminate general discussions of the character of Jesus' life and ministry (that's historical Jesus), cut the section on "History of research" (thats quest for the historical Jesus), shorten the discussion of Josephus and Tacitus relative to Jesus (they already have dedicated articles), drastically shorten the "Jesus as a historical person" and "Jesus as myth" to very little more than links to the fuller articles on those topics, and I'd like to throw a couple more picture into the page. Eugene (talk) 20:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. Anyone else?Roy Brumback (talk) 21:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm happy with the concept. Wdford (talk) 21:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I approve. There is too much overlap here. I was about to start a thread about my reverted edits in "Myth" when I noticed there was a whole separate article dedicated to that. Sersun (talk) 09:17, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Mark Allan Powell

A pair of editors are trying to WP:CENSOR a statement from Mark Allan Powell in his book Jesus as a Figure in History (Westminster John Knox, 1998). The book is used as a text book in a variety of colleges and seminaries and Powell is the Historical Jesus section chairman of the Society of Biblical Literature. Please replace the text. I fear that if I do so too often I'll be dinged for edit warring.

Here it is: "A hundred and fifty years ago a fairly well respected scholar named Bruno Bauer maintained that the historical person Jesus never existed. Anyone who says that today—in the academic world at least—gets grouped with the skinheads who say there was no Holocaust and the scientific holdouts who want to believe the world is flat." Mark Allan Powell, Jesus as a Figure in History: How Modern Historians View the Man from Galilee, Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1998, p. 168 Eugene (talk) 21:44, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

This comparison was thoroughly rejected on the talk page, at FAC, and on AN/I, where Eugene was explicitly asked to stop raising it. See the Slanderous Accusations of Anti-Semitism thread, and click on show. SlimVirgin 21:52, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Neither FAC not AN/I are part of the DR ladder. As for the talk page, well, this is a different page, isn't it? Eugene (talk) 22:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

When you have several experienced editors and admins on AN/I asking you explicitly to stop making the comparison, that is very much part of DR and it would make sense to heed it. SlimVirgin 22:10, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I remember when you didn't mind the quote, so long as it was properly attributed. "You've changed, man!" What made you change your mind? And how is you new position not a violation of WP:CENSOR? Eugene (talk) 22:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

SV, can you please quote Wiki rules that say that AN/I is part of the content dispute resolution process? On the very page itself, it says that it's not. Or am I missing something? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 22:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

This is part of a long-running dispute over at Christ myth theory. It got howled out of there, so now Eugene, Bill and (if he hasn't yet he will soon) Ari are thinking "this is a different article, so it's okay here." Anthony (talk) 22:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Right on cue, Ari just reverted. Anthony (talk) 22:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Four different editors have now reinserted the material in question. Instead of just precipitating an edit war, try to build consensus for it's removal. Eugene (talk) 22:26, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that is nonsense. Contentious new material always needs consensus, not the other way around. WP:BRD You can't force new disputed material into an article. Is there consensus for this new material here currently? Clearly no. Please discuss it further and see if you can reach a compromise, or change minds on the talk page before re-instating. (and this business about possible forum shopping, or moving articles is a little concerning). -Andrew c  22:56, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Being bold is nonsense? (You probably didn't mean that, but that is how it came across.) New material that is contentious for emotional reasons does not require consensus - it requires reliable sources which, in this case, has been provided. If anyone disagrees with those RS's, then they MUST provide other RS's that counter them. Eugene and I (as well as others) are willing to discuss the differences we have with other editors, but if those opposing editors want to throw emotional arguments into the mix, then how seriously should they be taken and what do you suggest is the appropriate response? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter who is right. Avoiding an edit war is more important the The Truth. In a dispute, the longstanding version, before the contentious material was added takes precedent. Being bold is one thing. It is encouraged. However, re-instating a bold edit after it was reverted is NEVER, ever appropriate. WP:BRD (again). -Andrew c  01:14, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

An RFC would be quicker. Anthony (talk) 22:30, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I find it interesting that you said, "It got howled out of there". Is that what we've come down to, then? Howling away highly trained, and respected reliable sources, because they get some editors emotionally overwrought so as to avoid hurt feelings (and done so in the guise of neutrality)? Anthony, the CMT is not simply a minority position - it is ridiculed and treated with utter contempt by mainstream scholars.

Can you please give us an example of how this contempt can be communicated in a Wiki article without using direct quotes from, as I said above, highly trained and respected scholars? If you have an alternative, I give you my word that I'm willing to seriously consider other options, but right now, I just don't see any. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 22:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

"Can you please give us an example of how this contempt can be communicated in a Wiki article." You don't. This is an encyclopedia. A good encyclopedia says "It has little or no support in mainstream scholarship" or words to that effect. Provided, of course, you can get consensus for that view. Anthony (talk) 23:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

So, what you are saying is that if mainstream scholars ridicule and hold the CMT in contempt, then we are not to mention it? Is that correct? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Yep. I've been saying it from the second day I was at CMT Anthony (talk) 00:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

So, what is your reasoning for censoring the position of mainstream scholarship? Are you trying to portray the CMT as a legitimate, minority opinion? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 01:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I am criticising your argument for it being pseudo (which I take to mean not employing recognised historical method, or employing fraud). Anthony (talk) 10:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Who are you calling emotional, Bill? Anthony (talk) 23:20, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Just check out this thread (click on "Show"). Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:54, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

JBolden1517? Anthony (talk) 00:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The debate so far:
Eugene reverts existing para' and inserts contentious one copied from Christ myth theory where he couldn't get consensus.
Anthony restores reverted consensus paragraph, deletes "tendentious" one.
Eugene reverts.
Anthony restores.
Paul Barlow reverts with "the mainstream view is hardly tendentious"
Anthony restores with "You miss the point. It is not the view; it is the language. See Talk:Christ myth theory"
Bill reverts
SlimVirgin restores
Bill reverts
SlimVirgin restores
Eugene reverts
Anthony restores
(As predicted by Anthony half an hour before,) Ari reverts
^^James^^ restores
Bill reverts
Anthony goes to bed. Anthony (talk) 00:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Anthony, that is not the "debate so far". It's just an indication of a content disagreement. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 01:47, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Holocaust denial is a comparison generally upsetting to the people who are being compared with holocaust deniers. Therefore we shouldn't mention it unless there's a more important benefit to our readers. What is the overriding benefit from including a quote about it in this article? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 01:24, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

The "benefit" is that is portrays the CMT in its true light. Right now, the CMT is simply made out to be just a minority position. It's not. In non-technical language, it's crazy talk. Therefore, I ask you, and others, how can we present this current mainstream position without including direct quotes by highly trained and respected scholars?

Please keep in mind, however, that we are ONLY talking about the mere historical existence of a particular person. This has NOTHING to do with the miraculous claims of the New Testament, which is why I think that such a position is meeting so much resistence. That is, I think that some editors automatically assume that if Jesus existed in an historical sense, then that means that his miraculous deeds (as presented in the NT) are therefore true. Nothing could be further from the truth. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 01:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

In answer to your question, I thought the sentence Nevertheless, the historicity of Jesus is accepted by almost all Biblical scholars and classical historians, with its slew of sources, did the job quite well, with the added feature of not being offensive. I agree that a fringe position should not be presented as a minority position. In order to avoid that problem, comparisons with holocaust deniers don't apper to be necessary. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 02:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Exactly! As non-historicity seems to be one traditional Jewish reaction to Jesus, quoting Christian scholars that compare it to holocaust denial is extremely poor taste, to say the least. Vesal (talk) 11:27, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Bart Ehrman is not a Christian scholar. Also, mainstream Judaism views JoN as an historical person (as represented in the Talmud) so those Jews who don't accept his historicity are in the same basic camp as those who promote the CMT.

JWB, I have no problem with the sentence you quoted above if it was to appear in the lead - it is succinct and to the point. However, just how crazy the CMT is should be detailed in the Against the theory section of the article by direct quotes of highly trained and respected scholars. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

No, Bill. Misplaced Pages isn't here to show how crazy anything is. We're here to describe and explain, because Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox. And do so without unnecessarily hurting others. You're not showing necessity. You do want to avoid hurting others, right? Do you think this Holocaust comparison is not hurting others? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:12, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's take that principle to its logical conclusion: Should Misplaced Pages not call holocaust deniers "holocuast deniers", for fear of hurting the feelings of holocaust deniers? I think that the Institute for Historical Review has objected to having its members feelings thus hurt. Should Misplaced Pages really take such concerns seriously? Eugene (talk) 22:23, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

"You're not showing necessity." You're evading my point by focusing on only one aspect of it, Eugene. I've readily conceded that necessity would overrule hurt feelings. Now, Eugene, is it necessary to make the point by bringing up the Holocaust? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

JWB, I agree that it is not the job of Misplaced Pages to show how crazy something is because of an editor's POV. However, mainstream scholars view the CMT as crazy talk and it is our job to portray that scholarship accurately. So, to censor what mainstream scholars have said over and over again goes against WP:Fringe. Specifically (Bold-italic added for emphasis):

Ideas that have been rejected, are widely considered to be absurd or pseudoscientific, only of historical interest, or primarily the realm of science fiction, should be documented as such, using reliable sources. (See Misplaced Pages:Fringe#Notability_versus_acceptance.)

and,

Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic community. (See Misplaced Pages:Fringe#Notability_versus_acceptance.)

Therefore, if we don't include rather strong statements about the "craziness" of the CMT, it ends up being elevated from an almost universally ridiculed, contemptible, rejected theory to one of a minority, but historically legitimate, position.

Necessity. The point is that we do not want to offend people gratuitously. Is there anything that these holocaust comparisons really add of encyclopedic and pedagogic value? Vesal (talk) 22:33, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

No, of course we don't want to offend people gratuitously. But if such "offended people" are simply operating on emotions, then those emotions can be discounted in a Misplaced Pages article. After all, there are many Muslims who are offended at visual portrayals of Muhammad, but Misplaced Pages includes such portrayals for historical reasons. Check out FAQ # 2 about Muhammad (bold-italic and underline added for emphasis):

Might the images offend Muslims?

Yes, it might offend Muslims. Misplaced Pages recognizes that among many groups of Muslims, the depiction of Muhammad and other prophets is forbidden, and that some Muslims are offended when this prohibition is violated....

However, Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia that strives to represent all topics from a neutral point of view, and therefore Misplaced Pages is not censored for the benefit of any particular group. So long as they are relevant to the article and do not violate any of Misplaced Pages's existing policies, nor the law of the U.S. state of Florida, where most of Misplaced Pages's servers are hosted, no content or images will be removed from Misplaced Pages because people find them objectionable or offensive.

Isn't that approach reasonable? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 00:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Too cute by half, Bill. (For anyone else following this, I've recently been heavily involved at Everybody Draw Mohammed Day and its AfD.) I would oppose gratuitous images of Muhammad on Misplaced Pages and support those that are necessary to illustrate a point. Bringing up Holocaust denial is not necessary for the point being made. The principle is the same: Hurt no one if you can reasonably avoid doing so. I detest the idea of offending so many Muslims who sincerely believe the images are forbidden. I detest terrorizing and trying to kill cartoonists. Depending on how someone weighs both of those detestable things, and whether or not that person thinks having lots of people draw Muhammad will make it difficult for terrorists to target any particular cartoonists (along with a few other issues), that person will come down on one side or the other on whether "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" is a good idea.

But that's a discussion for a user talk page. The subject here is whether or not comparing CMT advocates to Holocaust deniers is necessary to make the point that their view is considered by many to be fringe, and whether the benefit of making the comparison outweighs the harm it does. "You're not showing necessity", Bill. Making comparisons to other topics isn't a substitute for that. Please either show it's necessary or drop it. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 03:21, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

JWB, let me ask you a straight forward question. Do you think that the CMT is a legitimate minority position? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 05:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, "legitimate" is not all that straightforward. I take it by "legitimate" you mean "could a reasonable, well-informed person honestly believe it"? I don't see how. But I don't think I'm required to do the research it would take to determine the exact reasons why someone with that belief is necessarily ignorant or unreasonable. Misplaced Pages only concerns itself with reporting on what the mainstream opinion is on a fringe theory. I think this is a fringe theory that, where it involves reasoning, involves faulty reasoning, and where it involves information, involves ignorance of some facts. I think it's entirely possible for an honest person to fall into either of those snares. I'm certain that comparing these people to Holocaust deniers isn't the best way to help them climb out -- the best way is to reduce the emotional content. Conveniently enough, Misplaced Pages policies and practices encourage that.

Now Bill, let me ask you -- yet again -- a more straightforward question: Why is it necessary to use the Holocaust-denial example? How many times have I asked it now? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Bill, I take it this is your comment above (no timestamp on it), and it does look like an effort to respond to my question, so I don't want to ignore it: "if we don't include rather strong statements about the "craziness" of the CMT, it ends up being elevated from an almost universally ridiculed, contemptible, rejected theory to one of a minority, but historically legitimate, position." It doesn't follow from that that we need to use the Holocaust-denial sample when there are other ways of making the point you want to make. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:15, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Bill that such a strongly worded (though particularly attributed) quote is necessary to demonstrate the level of fringiness involved. Despite the fact that essentially 0% of historians and New Testament scholars disbelieve in the historical existence of Jesus, studies indicate that a shockingly high percentage of the general public disagrees with the academic consensus. Members of that general public are likely to examine pages like this, and were they to see Dunn's quote that non-historicity is a "thoroughly dead hypothesis" they may be inclined to wonder, "Well, how dead is dead?" The Powell quote leaves no ambiguity. Eugene (talk) 06:10, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Once we get to the point where a reader is asking "Well, how dead is dead?" there is extremely little additional value in saying "It's so dead that some mainstream scholars make the following analogy that many find offensive ". It isn't the encyclopedia's job to add emotional emphasis. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

You should also consider how effectively your point gets across. When you make an analogy that sensitive. People tend to focus more on the disanalogies than the actual point. The talk pages are full with people asking how you can compare something happening 2000 years ago with something 60 years ago with photographic evidence. That's missing the point of the analogy, right? But when so many people keep missing the point as in the AN/I, one has to wonder that perhaps the problem is with the analogy. A good analogy should be such that the reader isn't distracted in this way and really understands the message being conveyed. Vesal (talk) 09:59, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone actually misunderstands the message being conveyed by this quote. I think certain editors are upset that the scholarly mainstream is this dismissive of the CMT and have feigned confusion to suppress it. (Not you, Vesal, but others.) Eugene (talk) 13:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Even so, the best way would be to have a matter of fact statement like: "the scholarly mainstream not only reject the thesis, but identify serious methodological deficiencies in the approach.(cite Herbert, CUP) For this reason, many eminent scholars consider engaging proponents of myth theory a waste of time, comparing it to a professional astronomer having to debate whether the moon is made of cheese.(cite Wright, OUP)" Or something like that. I don't think this is any less effective in conveying how marginal the theory is. Vesal (talk) 14:20, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think the Powell quote is punchier, but I could be happy with what you suggest. Eugene (talk) 14:27, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Good! Now that Eugene is fine with an alternative, I see a consensus to keep the Holocaust comparison out of the article. I support Vesal's alternative idea. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 16:08, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

As long as the craziness of the CMT is spelled out (as in CMT = Cheese Moon) than I'm ok with Vesal's idea. Now, are we four the only ones that are ok with that? Vesal, put your suggestion on the CMT talk page and let's see what happens. Also, can someone formalize the exact text that we are to use in this article? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:19, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Eugene, Bill, why don't you just explain the nature of Wells', Doherty's and the rest's fraud? That is, explain what makes their work fake, not actual history. So far, all you've said is they attribute probability differently to their opponents, which makes this fringe, not pseudo. That would be much more useful. Anthony (talk) 10:31, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Because that would be WP:UNDUE in this article. The specific problems with the views of men like Wells and Doherty should be detailed in the Christ myth theory article--which they are, in the "against the theory" section. Eugene (talk) 13:41, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. But that section you pointed to does not explain the nature of their fraud, why their work is not history. It is just a litany of people who disagree with them. Work. Don't just quote their opponents "It's pseudohistory! It's pseudohistory!" You're happy to believe them. Obviously. I and most open-minded readers am not. Show me the fraudulent, non-historical method. Anthony (talk) 14:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

If you think the CMT article does a poor job of this then add it to Bill's list. Eugene (talk) 14:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

It's already there: 2. Is the CMT pseudo-x? Anthony (talk) 14:52, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Whether the CMT is pseduoscholarship and how such should be explained in-text are two distinct issues. But let's discuss that on that article's talk page. Eugene (talk) 14:57, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

External Links

"External links in an article can be helpful to the reader, but they should be kept minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article." Since Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not an internet link directory, very high standards should be met by a link to qualify as germane. May I suggest that the following links, all save one promoting the opinion that Jesus never existed (ahistoricity not historicity of Jesus), belong more properly on the Christ myth theory page? Since this article already contains (as no doubt it should) a link to that article, these external links are not necessary. Indeed, the links in question are 'up and running' on the Christ myth page.

• Dan Barker. Debunking the Historical Jesus
• Doherty, Earl. The Jesus Puzzle, accessed April 16, 2010.
• Holding, James Patrick. Did Jesus Exist?, accessed April 16, 2010.
• www.JesusNeverExisted.com a Christ Myth advocacy website by Kenneth Humphreys, author of the book Jesus Never Existed.
• The God Who Wasn't There official website of the movie, The God Who Wasn't There

-- JALatimer 00:41, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I do not see anything in the External Links article that would justify censoring these links.

These external links are relevant to the ongoing debate over the reliability of the evidence for an historical Jesus.

Ostensibly, this article is supposed to be about the historicity of Jesus. If one came across this article without any knowledge of the current debate over the veracity of the sources that are used to make the claim that the accounts of Jesus are all based upon a single historical figure, one would think there is no debate whatsoever.

Despite the POV of the article itself (which sadly violates the Misplaced Pages standard of NPOV) it is worthwhile to provide the reader with websites that explore both sides of the debate over the historicity of the Jesus figure.

Dan Barker is a well-regarded expert whose book "Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America's Leading Atheists" does an excellent job of presenting the case against the historicity of Jesus. The link to this article provides a good summary of the arguments against the historicity of Jesus. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 01:39, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Please reread my comment and the External links policy page. I am not suggesting we "censor" these links, nor am I impugning the "expert" status of Mr. Barker, nor am I expressing an opinion about the truth or falsehood of the Christ myth theory. I am simply proposing that since the above-mentioned links do not "explore both sides of the debate over the historicity of the Jesus figure," but rather push one-sidedly the view that Jesus never existed, they be relegated to the article about that view. Since this article directly links to the Christ myth article, the information is still freely available. This online encyclopedia is not a link repository; it is also not a Fox News-style "we report, you decide" debate platform; it is an encyclopedia. The links I did not mention appear to be actual debates about the historicity of Jesus, thus grounding themselves in the scholarly context this article concerns. The links I did mention (save one) were just Christ-as-myth apologetics sites.

I am suggesting that 'germane' and 'minimal' are better standards than 'anything that is related' for link inclusion. Do you think we should include links to several 'birther' sites on the Barack Obama page? or should we fill the bottom of the Jehovah's Witnesses page with links to Christian sites defending belief in the divinity of Jesus? We just don't need these links. -- JALatimer 02:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with the Misplaced Pages standard, and you do make a good point that external links should be evaluated by that standard. The criteria are "minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article."

• Minimal - Four or five links seems pretty minimal to me. The total list stands at nine, a single digit number.
• Meritable - Each of these links is to a site that presents a viewpoint that is based on facts and evidence and meet the Misplaced Pages standard for notability.
• Directly relevant to the article. The article is very specifically about the historicity of Jesus. Each of the links is very specifically about the historicity of Jesus. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 03:43, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Considering that the external links section is visibly weighted towards the minority viewpoint, the burden of proof lies squarely on you to show how this article would be harmed in any way by the removal of the links in question, in other words, why these links should be included. There is no pressing reason to include them; rather, there are some good reasons to remove them. Right now, the bottom of the page looks like a attempt to 'guide' the ignorant masses to the 'truth.' You, no doubt, will lament the passing of these links as the passing of an opportunity to subtly proselytize for your POV, but I doubt the majority of readers will share your sorrow and anguish over my heinous 'censorship', especially since as I have already pointed out twice, the links in question are already on the Christ myth page.

On articles with multiple points of view, avoid providing links too great in number or weight to one point of view, or that give undue weight to minority views. Add comments to these links informing the reader of their point of view.

I am going to remove the links now. Remember that the burden of proof is on you: unless consensus develops to include these links, please refrain from re-including them. -- JALatimer 04:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I was just about to remove them so I agree. This is about the Historicity of Jesus (probably a sub cat of Historical Jesus) and not an argument for the fringe Christ Myth Theory. Yet the external links were majority related to advocacy of the fringe theory????? --Ari (talk) 04:14, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree with the removal. -Andrew c  04:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Removing these links makes this article less informative, but at the moment the opposition to them has the consensus, so that's fine. (Nice sarcasm BTW JALatimer. ;^))

Labeling those who question the historicity of Jesus due to the total lack of contemporaneous historical documentation and the questionable veracity of non-Christian sources in the 1st century C. E. as proponents of a "fringe theory" is really a misuse of the Misplaced Pages standard of fringe theory. The Misplaced Pages article on Fringe Theory is specifically about pseudoscience and theories that contradict the scientific mainstream not theories that offend a particular group of scholars with degrees in religion-related-fields from religious institutions. The standard of what is a "fringe theory" is evidence-based, not faith-based. For further explanation, please see what I wrote here: Misplaced Pages:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard Christ myth theory redux.

Thanks. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 04:59, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I am fine with labelling Christ mythicists fringe theorists, pseudo-historians and what not. That there are no academic historians arguing the hypothesis in any peer-reviewed academic sources, and those dealing with the historicity of Jesus dismiss it as pseudoscholarship is my own personal justification. That this opinion is verifiable in multiple mainstream sources is why I have no qualms about labelling the theory how it is labelled in the academy. But I guess when someone like Dan Barker with no historical or academic expertise is what you call a "well-regarded expert" I shouldn't expect your opinion to fall within that of actual well-regarded experts. I have to say, I do love your romanticised view of the CMT. Just objective evidenced based free thinkers going against blind religious bigots. If only that were the case.... --Ari (talk) 06:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

These links belong on the CMT page, as sources for the various viewpoints espoused therein. They do not belong here. NJMauthor (talk) 20:46, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Lack of Evidence

The very fact that it is debated whether Jesus historically existed is itself proof that the historicity of Jesus lacks evidence. Think why we don't debate on the historical existence of Alexander the Great or Julius Caesar who lived even before the time of the alleged Jesus! --Roland 23:55, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

But there isn't a lack of evidence as historians and NT scholars will tell you. Similarly, just like with Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great, there is no academic debate among scholars as to whether Jesus existed. I don't understand what your erroneous comment has to do with the article. --Ari (talk) 01:25, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

If you intend to promote Christianity, your best bet is to delete this article from Misplaced Pages. Because it is like the proverbial thief Jack who stole his neighbor's hammer and left a note there, "Jack did not steal your hammer." --Roland 08:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Title move?

Given the focus of the article, I feel that could be better to move this to Historical sources on Jesus or something on these lines. This would clarify better the focus and avoid redundancy between sections with the Historical Jesus article. --Cyclopia 13:46, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Identifying active Christian sources

Sources that are actively Christian need to be identified as such. It should be obvious that Christians are biased on the question of whether Jesus existed, and that potential conflict of interest is relevant to our readers. Noloop (talk) 05:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Facts are not attributed, only opinions are. Flash 05:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Factual claims made by biased sources should be identified as such. The claim in question is this: "essentially all scholars in the relevant fields agree that the mere historical existence of Jesus can be established using documentary and other evidence" The sole source for the claim that the existence of Jesus is undisputed is a theologian, and that is something the reader should know. Noloop (talk) 05:57, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

So according to you, no source can make a statement of fact in terms of religious matters? Per your logic, every source would be biased. Flash 06:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

That's not what I said.

No, that is not accurate, Noloop. Here is a nice list, including some atheists, establishing the facts:

That list needs to be collapsed somehow, as it makes the page hard to read. Is it intended to be a list of atheists who think there was a historic Jesus? If so, the first scholar is a mistake. GA Wells concludes that the evidence supporting a real Jesus anything like the Biblical version is weak. I'm afraid I'm not going to peruse the whole list--which you haven't done either, since you misrepresented the facts right off the bat--but you are certainly welcome to work non-religous sources into the article. Noloop (talk) 19:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I've replaced that list with a link to its source, as it made the page difficult to read: http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Bill_the_Cat_7/CMT_FAQ

I hope that settles the issue. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 06:14, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

This is wonderful, Bill. What do you think about adding all your post to Wikiquote? --Cyclopia 09:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I hate to disappoint you, but Bill the Cat 7 is not a reliable source of what the majority of scholars think. And, being in a minority is not the same as being fringe, particularly in the context of religion. If you can provide neutral and reliable evidence that the non-existence of a historical jesus is a fringe theory, then do so. By "neutral" and "reliable" I do not mean your interpretation of your research as found on your Talk page. Noloop (talk) 20:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

You talk about neutrality and reliable sources. Could you please provide truly neutral, unbiased and reliable sources proving that Jesus never existed? Antique Rose — Drop me a line 21:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Those sources don't exist, because you cannot prove a negative. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 21:15, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Discussion

So, then do you agree that Noloops claim that

The sole source for the claim that the existence of Jesus is undisputed is a theologian, and that is something the reader should know.

is wrong and that we don't need to identify the background of the sources? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 09:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I still think that identifying the background is very helpful, in this specific case exactly because it can stop people to think that there is a bias. If multiple academics with different religious/philosophical backgrounds all agree on the basis of facts, this is something that the reader should know, for the purpose of putting at rest any bias suspicion. --Cyclopia 11:09, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed it seems logical to provide the view from a broad range of scholars - because if even theologically divided authors agree then it must be a solid consensus :) --Errant Tmorton166 11:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

So you are proposing that sources from ANY single religious background cannot be trusted to make a statement of fact, and that they cannot be trusted to be non-biased in factual statements solely because of their religion?

Therefore, we must find atheist/non-religious sources which confirms every factual detail about Christian/Jewish scholarship in the last few hundred years?

Should we apply the same to history? Must we find Russian, Chinese and German sources which confirms every detail of American history? Flash 11:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

So you are proposing that sources from ANY single religious background; I'm sorry if you got that idea. If I was silly enough to say that then I retract it, there was no intention to say so.... you call this a fact, I am sure that it is - however it is not something easily verified by an individual without reasonable research, we have to rely on someone within the field to explain that a consensus exist. Someone saying "there is a broad consensus" is mostly opinion. Someone saying "there is a broad consensus because XYZ people all say ABC" is better. Several people saying the latter is best of all. If non-christian writers disagree on the consensus (I am assuming they don't) that needs to be addressed also :) --Errant Tmorton166 11:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Errant said, it is not something easily verified by an individual without reasonable research. Errant, all that needs to be done to make it easily verified is to cut the vast amount of quotes I listed above and paste them into a FAQ. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 12:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

No, that would be dangerous (misquotes, selective quoting etc.). BUT a selection of those sources seem absolutely fine to add as references for the statement.... I'm not sure why that would be/is being resisted? --Errant Tmorton166 12:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Dangerous? Do you think there are any misquotes above? When you have well-known scholars, such as the atheist Bart Ehrman, saying that they personally know thousands of scholars and yet not one of them subscribes to any part of the CMT, then what do you make of that? We also have academics here on Misplaced Pages, such as Ari who confirms that CMT proponents can't even get their position peer-reviewed because of the contempt that is held for the CMT. What else is needed to convince you (that can also be applied to other ancient historical figures)? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 12:28, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, if you meant that only a few quotes should be placed in the article, then that is certainly reasonable. But for a FAQ, which would be on the Talk page, the more quotes the better. There are lot of uninformed people that believe the CMT is a reasonable possibility. It isn't, and sometimes they need to see a bunch of quotes to convince them. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 12:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

An FAQ on the talk page is something I would consider overkill. It is dangerous because it is not the direct source and because quotes could be cherry picked (I'm 100% certain that is not the case because I have read many of those authors! but it means WP is acting as a direct source - which is problematic). I see no issue with using one or two of the sources you highlighted above in the article (not as quotes, again seems overkill/undue weight) in the article to support the "contentious" statement. --Errant Tmorton166 12:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Facepalm I must have the supernatural gift to be unable to be understood.

I have repeated several times that it's not a matter of "trust" or "reliability". I have repeated several times that an atheist source on the subject is no less prone to bias than a Christian or Jewish or Muslim one.

What I propose is that on a delicate issue as the one of the historical facts concerning Jesus, clarifying the background of scholars in cases in which (a)a statement is considered controversial (if not academically, by some section of the public) or (b)the scholar has a strong, explicit religious POV (e.g. is a prominent atheist spokesman; a bishop; a rabbi) , it provides context to the reader to know the background. Example: Bertrand Russell sympathized with the Jesus myth theory. Bertrand Russell was also a prominent atheist. To understand his sympathy in context, his background is a useful information.

In any case, I don't see what we gain by hiding such backgrounds. To write a sentence like (say) "Academic consensus from Christian,Jewish and secular sources is firm in establishing the historicity of Jesus" looks much more informative and gives much less space to climb for fringe theorists than "Academic consensus is firm in establishing the historicity of Jesus" citing a single source. --Cyclopia 11:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

So the vast amount of quotes I listed above was not enough to convince you that stating backgrounds was unnecessary? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 12:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what the mere number of quotes has to do with stating their background, and I find also difficult to understand such resistance to merely stating a relevant contextual background. --Cyclopia 14:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

If a consensus cannot be determined by numbers, then please explain how to determine if there is a consensus? There are a whole lot of quotes above that say that there is indeed a vast, vast consensus among scholars. Why is that so hard to accept? And since that is demonstrably the case, then inserting a "contextual background" is superfluous. I mean, why not just state "Scholars affirm such and such"? One's religious or non-religious background is irrelevant when the consensus is so huge (which includes both religious and non-religious scholars) and the object of that consensus is historical (non-religious) in nature. Isn't that reasonable? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 15:05, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Consensus is not only a matter of numbers. There is quality, not only quantity. The other factor is the composition of the sample. Obvious example: about half of Americans refuse the theory of evolution, yet it is overwhelmingly consensual in the scientific community, and that's why we assume that scientific consensus is there. Other example: In theory, one could cherry-pick quotes only from Christ myth theory literature and give the false impression that there is a consensus on their side. But yes, you are right, there is a vast consensus among scholars: and it is a consensus especially because, as you point, it includes both religious (of different backgrounds) and non-religious scholars. This is important: it means that despite the differences in the starting beliefs, all they acknowledge independently something very crucial. This has strong positive implications on the quality of such consensus, given that, yes, the object of the consensus is historical, but with enormous implications for several religions. So it is appropriate to add this, to make it clear to people that no matter what is your starting potential bias, they all arrive at the same conclusion, and as such we reassure the reader that it is not matter of editorial bias, it is not matter of cherrypicking, it is instead a real, solid consensus. With the bonus that any future Noloop can be pointed at that and reassured that everything is OK. --Cyclopia 15:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem including such an explanation in a FAQ. For example, check out old FAQ #4 from the Christ myth theory page. But to put it in the actual article is problematic, as stated by RF, Griswaldo, et al. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 16:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't seem problematic, because nobody pointed out any problem with it: all this discussion is a defensive "but we don't need that!" more than a "it is a problem because..." --Cyclopia 16:27, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Please reread Griswaldo and RF's comments. They state the problems clearly. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:36, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

At the cost of looking dumb, I read their comments and I can't find these dangling problems. --Cyclopia 19:20, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I can honestly say I do not like labels such as "atheist", "Christian" or "Jewish". When I read scholarly opinions, I want all notable opinions, and don't want such labels attached to scholars which implies that a person's religion dictates his/her opinion. Likewise, I don't want to see the label "American", "English" or "American-born" in history articles or labels such as "Blue Jays fan", "Former American League Player" attached to sports opinions. Frankly, people or organizations rarely write or make a statement on something they don't care about, so you could argue there is a bias in every source, and labelling every source, which can be done many different ways to imply different things, is counterproductive and POV. Flash 12:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

If you feel that dictates his/her opinion, that's your problem. I don't feel that it "dictates" anything, I feel it is a relevant contextual information because it may have a bearing on their opinion, for sure. Find me a Communist who thinks Communism is not a viable economical model. It is obvious that the belief/cultural background of a scholar is relevant when the subject of the studies is inextricably connected to such beliefs/background. To "care about" is different than "having strong beliefs". A gardener cares about roses, but (usually) doesn't think that roses are his Lord and Saviour. A Jesus scholar cares about Jesus, and may also think that Jesus is his Lord and Saviour, and to say that this is irrelevant to his Jesus studies is naive at best. --Cyclopia 14:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I think it is reasonable to say consensus is across a broad span of theological differences. There is a non-academic tendency to see religious history as biased by an authors beliefs - or the circle of authors/academics he/she associates with. I'm not altogether unconvinced that such biases exist when we get to the actual nitty gritty of this subject :) - but I doubt it exists for this broad statement. As the article is written for non-academic readers I'd support the idea of clarifying where the consensus rests (i.e. with everyone). The sources could be from anyone - just so long as there are a two or three from well respected academics it seems fine --Errant Tmorton166 12:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

@Cyclopia. There are a million different attributes we could identify any given human being by -- nationality, religious belief, gender, age, etc. It is not meaningful to mention any of these unless they are correlated with something else. If all Christ Mythers are atheists that is indeed meaningful information, though meaningful does not necessarily mean we should include it. When not being a Christ myther has no meaningful correlation with a specific religious affiliation then it is misleading to point to any specifically. Even if you identify a large group of affiliations. Why no Hindus? Why no Buddhists? Those are the questions one naturally asks because you've all of a sudden made religious affiliation significant by identifying it along with the mainstream POV. Suggesting we do so is simply bad science, if you believe the social sciences are so aptly named.Griswaldo (talk) 12:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

See above. There are a million different attributes, yes, but I am talking of ones which are inextricably linked with the subject study. See above reply to Flash. --Cyclopia 14:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

And that makes it good science how? Are we to assume bias in research that relates to gender conducted by men and/or by women? You claim to be a scientist but you operate in the realm of assumption when these are questions we can actually test empirically. For shame my friend.Griswaldo (talk) 14:25, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Are we to assume bias in research that relates to gender conducted by men and/or by women? : Well, this is simplifying the matter a lot, but, to also be simple in answering, yes. Have you ever heard of gender bias? --Cyclopia 14:29, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Not exactly. I asked if we are to "assume bias", and what you pointed us to in your link are conclusions about bias drawn from empirical studies that have tested gender bias. This is exactly my point, so thanks for making it real by way of example. Where are the conclusions drawn from empirical studies that have tested religious bias? You have none, you simply have your assumptions about it.Griswaldo (talk) 14:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you want sources about the obvious? Here we go: : "Indeed, these types of study are done best by those scholars who can bracket their own religious commitments or have none to bracket, as the whole sorry history of religious bias in biblical studies amply demonstrates. Practicing Jews and Christians will differ from uncompromising historicists, however..." --Cyclopia 14:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Also: "Jewish scholars uncovered Christian bias in supposedly objective scholarship", . --Cyclopia 14:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Funny enough given your example: "If male bias has been exposed by feminist readings of the Bible, Christian bias has appeared in sharp relief against the background of re-emergent Jewish scholarship" . --Cyclopia 14:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Lets not get too sidetracked over this. From an academic perspective the nitty gritty of historical research into Jesus is often weighted with religious (or anti-religious) bias. That's not a charge for every scholar in the field; but it is a common issue. However what we are discussing here is not the nitty gritty, it is a broad statement about the consensus on the existence of a historical figure in the role of Jesus. I'll say it now that from my experience of the field this consensus does exist. To me it seems a relevant point from the perspective of an article aimed at non-scholars/academics to clarify that this consensus is held by the full spectrum of scholarship as relevant to this field. Any wider discussion than that seems just discussing our perspectives (which is fascinating/interesting and I could do it all day - but seems off topic). As I see it:

• We need to discuss if such a distinction should be made explicitly in the article
• How many and what sort of sourcing is required for non-academics to be happy with the statement in whatever form.

My personal support is to include the spectrum and several sources (max 3) from reputable scholars preferably from across the spectrum. --Errant Tmorton166 15:11, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

@Cyclopedia (edit conflict)What exactly is Levenson referring to as the "whole sorry history of religious bias in biblical studies" because that remains entirely unclear -- is he really referring to the modern era of biblical criticism? Also please note that the matter at hand is not confined to "biblical criticism" ... since it relates to ancient history. The second quote refers to something that happened in the 1960s according to the author, who then goes on to point out that the result has been an increasing number of approaches and less "certitude" in biblical criticism. Less certitude meaning what? If there is less certitude but scholars still agree that one thing is certain ... that there was a Jesus of Nazareth, then what does that mean? The third books speaks of two overarching hegemonies that have been countered in recent years in biblical criticism, one patriarchal and the other Christian. None of these quotes actually address the issue at hand, which is not a matter of the "history of bias in biblical criticism" but whether or not there is a religious bias that influences ones views on the historicity of Jesus. Also, not to be nitpicky, but none of these are actually "empirical studies" of the contemporary field, but reflections by knowledgeable experts on the history of their field. It's not particularly informative to Google search for key words and then to throw in out of context quotes like this from google books. They do not address the lack of evidence that I've pointed to.Griswaldo (talk) 15:16, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Cyclopia, not Cyclopedia Oh please. There is ample explicit evidence above that religious bias is a problem in the scholarship of Biblical subjects. It is enough to admit that the field is not the shiny ivory tower of disinterested souls you seem to depict. Which is not surprising, since it is pretty obvious that, for example, if you are a Christian, you should be much more likely to suggest as historical things like the Resurrection (and viceversa, if you're not, you're probably less likely to accept it). --Cyclopia 16:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

"There is ample explicit evidence above that religious bias is a problem in the scholarship of Biblical subjects." No, that's your opinion. You basically want this article to reflect YOUR OPINION that the 99% who disagree with are all driven by bias. No - YOU are driven by bias. The article reflects scholarship. Carlo (talk) 19:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

You haven't read the above, havent' you? See sources linked above before saying that it is "my opinion". And I don't want the article to reflect "my opinion" (whatever it is -which opinion do you talk about?), I just want 1)source background to be properly identified and 2)a full spectrum of sources is given. --Cyclopia 19:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I made an edit to the lead and then came to the talk page to find this discussion. Have to say I agree with Cyclopia. It provides context to the references, and doesn't detract from them, so I really dont see the fuss on this at all. It's simple and expands the information provided to the reader in a meaningful way, one of the hallmarks of encyclopedic content. -- ۩ Mask 23:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Since both Christian and non-Christian scholars are in agreement, there is no reason to state "Christian". Also, using "Christian" implies a POV agenda on the part of Christians and therefore implies that they are not to be trusted. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 01:00, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

That seems very much in dispute on this talk page. Regardless of that issue however, I took the liberty of looking up the source for the lead edit at the college library here. It really is simply his assertion that its not, not any real evidence for that. Seeing as how the source doesn't actually show what is being alleged by the statement perhaps the compromise would be to simply delete his religious affiliation from the attribution? Im reverting back to the full version seeing as how there is some controversy about the way to handle this shown on this page, but i would not reflexively revert the mere deletion of his faith, should consensus show us that's the way to go. -- ۩ Mask 02:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source which contradicts the lead source? Flash 03:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

As mentioned I took the time at uni today to look up the source in the lead having waded into this from an ANI thread. Im not that engaged on the subject, nor particularly hung up on it, so no I dont but that doesn't change the fact that the source does not show what was being claimed. I see we've let the compromise sit for a minute, and thats fine with me. My main problem with the source is it amounts to the author of the book waving his hand and blindly asserting said thing. The work doesn't dive into what the shape of the consensus is, and indeed a few pages later talking about how secular history is predictably less rigid in its belief but still supported by a majority. Language like that implies a conflict of interest to my ear (as in he's weighting secular history less). -- ۩ Mask 03:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Contrary to what someone else said on this page, this is not my POV. Please read these quotes, which includes both Christians and non-Christians, and you'll see what scholars have to say. And keep in mind that NPOV is a core Wiki policy—consensus cannot override it. Therefore, if both Christians and non-Christians say the say the same thing, there is no point in adding "Christian" into the text and doing do is POV-pushing. Finally, if anyone is sincerely interested in what a well-known atheist scholar (Bart Ehrman) has to say about it, listen to this. It's worth your time. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 03:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

As mentioned in edit summary, thats covered by WP:SYNTH. You use what a source says, not combining multiple sources in an offshoot of WP:OR to form new information. -- ۩ Mask 03:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm walking away from this for the night, but unless the source for the statement gets changed I do think the compromise wording seems fine for the next 24 hours or so... I'll have access to the extensive library again tomorrow morning, there may in fact be a source that makes sense to use and allows the original wording to be kept. Will enjoy helping out :) - ۩ Mask 03:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Please be more specific. I'm not sure what you are talking about, since virtually all scholars agree that Jesus was a real, historical person. Note that we are talking about only his historicity—we are not talking about any claims of miracles, etc. Just a simple human being like all of us here. At any rate, have a good night (and please make an effort to listen to the Bart Ehrman interview link above. Have a good night. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 03:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Name Change

Shouldn't this be Historicity of Jesus Theory?

To take an unbiased approach shouldn't both this and the Christ Myth Theory have the same allocation of a theory?--Iankap99 (talk) 21:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

As I read it this page documents Christ Myth Theory, Historical Jesus and everything in between - including the relative acceptance of the various theories. It doesn't present any one actual theory. Or in other words, Christ Myth Theory is a sub-topic of this. --Errant Tmorton166 21:52, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Wikifaith?

Such religiously biased entries should go to Wikifaith.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Roland Longbow (talk • contribs) 02:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

So there aren't enough atheists to use them as sources that J exists?

"Why don't you use atheist scholars who say that it's obvious that J exists?" "There's no need, becuase these 30 scholars all agree that he did exist." Repeat, rinse, and wash. I'm getting the feeling that although no one wants to admit it, religious scholars are needed to source the main statement. If I'm wrong, add it to the actual article (not here). If I'm right, then the sources probably still meet our sourcing requirements, but at least we can get it out in the open. Again, add sources to article, then comment. Else, you cannot add sources, or don't want to, which is about the same to me. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

hear hear! athiest sources almost universally take the agnostic view that so little evidence exists we cant say one way or another. evangelicals cheer things like the ossuary of james then quietly stop talking about it after it was shown as a forgery. the look for evidence to support a conclusion, not look what the evidence leads them too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.229.204.47 (talk) 03:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know about all that, but again, let's put whatever info there is in the actual article. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:04, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

You fundamentally misunderstand the consensus process of WP. The bold edit to the previous consensus edit was objected to by immediately being reverted by three editors. Evidently, it does not have consensus - so we follow consensus building as per the diagram. You do not repeatedly revert to the non-consensus version hoping to edit war it in. Regarding the rant, I honestly have no idea what you are talking about so I will withhold my comments.--Ari (talk) 04:41, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I mean let's use atheist scholars as sources for the overwhelming scholarly consensus that J existed in some form. If that's not possible, lets acknowledge that and move the discussion forward. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:54, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Why use atheist scholars? Are you saying that Christians, Jews, Hindus and agnostics are no longer reliable sources because you personally don't share their worldview? There is no WP policy to the effect that prejudices reliable scholars in reliable sources because of their religious/non-religious background. Editors are meant to adhere to wp:NPOV. --Ari (talk) 05:03, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying any of that, and I know that WP's rules say a Christian scholar is just as reliable on the existence of J as an atheist scholar. But, this is a frequent talk page issue, so if atheist scholars don't think J existed, we can move on according to the letter of WP's rules, and not pretend that everyone agrees. Anyways, still waiting for something that can be added to the actual article. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

But Atheist scholars do agree Jesus did exist - that is why atheists such as Michael Grant, James Crossley and Maurice Casey can write books and journal articles about what Jesus said and did. That is why reliable scholars in reliable sources can make consensus statements about the state of play in Jesus research. Do you have a reliable source that makes statements contrary to the consensus statements? Do you (or these other editors) have a reliable source on historicity of Jesus stating "essentially all scholars - but atheists - in the relevant fields agree that the existence of Jesus as a historical figure can be established using documentary and other evidence."? If not, the debate is nothing but an editorial creation. --Ari (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Can we add citation to the article showing that atheist scholars agree that Jesus existed? If we can (and do), then my problem will be resolved. As far as WPs policies forbidding that, it's well within editorial discression, and attribution is a good thing. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

There is editorial discretion in creating debates that have no basis in any reliable sources? Atheist scholars are part of the academy so consensus statements apply just as much to them as they do to their Christian, Jewish or agnostic colleagues. So we do have a source that states atheist scholars agree. Check out Bill the Cat 7's FAQ which is packed full of many reliable sources that make statements that include atheists. --Ari (talk) 05:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

The reason it's a frequent talk page issue is that there is a great degree of ignorance regarding historical methodology as well as what it means to say that Jesus was an historical figure. Most people think that if they concede the historicity of Jesus, then that means that they must also concede his miracles and claims of divinity. Nothing could be further from the truth. There are plenty of atheists that can be quoted in order to convince the typical village atheist that scholars are extremely sure of Jesus' historicity. However, that sets up a dangerous precedent (as well as being un-Wiki regarding reliable sources) that says only non-Christians can be trusted to be unbiased.

So, providing a source and labeling it Christian/atheist/Hindu/etc is not the way to go. It would be far better IMHO (as well as following Wiki procedures) to simply create a fax explaining that ALL groups of scholars and virtually every single scholar in each group believes in the simple existence of Jesus. Then, when someone makes bogus claims, we won't have to start yet another long thread—we just point them to the FAQ. Thus, PF, I think this would satisfy your concerns. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 05:46, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I kinda mention it becuase of your FAQ. That things a wall of text (TLDR), hence it doesn't show what atheist scholars believe, or at least not in a useful way. Nice work on the DnD articles, by the way. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 06:13, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

FAQ #3 on my page actually addresses that. It says:

Question: Isn't the 'academic consensus' cited in the article just a lot of Christians pushing their religious POV?

Response: While many people who study the New Testament and ancient history are Christians, there are other scholars in these fields who are not. Special effort has been made in this article to include non-Christian sources in the demonstration of the academic consensus regarding the Christ Myth theory. Specifically, of the people cited in support of the scholarly consensus, Bart Ehrman, Michael Grant, Will Durant, Alan F. Segal, James Frazer, Morton Smith, Samuel Sandmel, and Joseph Klausner are not Christians. Other cited authors, such as John Dominic Crossan, Robert Funk, Marcus Borg, and Albert Schweitzer, while claiming a vaguely Christian identity, clearly fall well outside conventional Christian orthodoxy.

And just for the record, I'm not the one who compiled the list. I mean, I'm pretty familiar with the topic because I studied it informally about 20 years ago, but those FAQS required someone who was formally trained. At any rate, I'm not really inclined to create the FAQ for this page because 1) The next few weeks I will be very busy, and 2) I'd much rather edit D&D articles at this point. Gamers are much nicer people to deal with. And thanks for the complement. By the way, have you seen the movie The Gamers: Dorkness Rising. If not, watch it. It's hilarious. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 06:45, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: Bill's Response. So cite those and only those to support the academic consensus. They are reliable sources, and it will shut down this perennial "Christians would say that" chorus. Please. Anthony (talk) 10:32, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Look. Lets look at this from the point of view of policy. There is no reason for us to undermine the opinion/consensus of scholars solely due to their religion. I have argued in the past that citing a cross section of sources would be preferable because it shows how broad the consensus is. But it is not necessary. To make the statement all scholars in the relevant fields agree that the existence of Jesus as a historical figure can be established using documentary and other evidence we need more than one source passing WP:RS to support it - we have those, take your pick. It is impossible to claim that we cannot state it because currently all that is cited in support is a Christian source - if it passes WP:RS it is verified and we judge on that, not truth. To claim we need Atheist or Agnostic sources is dangerously close to a POV - it is most definitely preferable, but not mandatory. The only thing that would change that is if a large number (or even just a few particularly respected) non-Christian scholars in the relevant fields heavily disagreed in WP:RS's. If we can cite that disagreement then the sentence would require changing --Errant Tmorton166 13:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

We use attribution all the time, as policy recommends it when a source is reliable but possibly biased. I think we could do that here if they exist. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 14:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

So, if you're citing Hindu, atheist or agnostic scholars there is no need to attribute, because their religious orientation does not mandate the historical existence of Jesus. I know that Christian scholars can be rigorous, that of course they may be cited. But why, when you have equally solid non-Christian sources for the consensus view, insist on citing only Christian sources for consensus in the article, knowing it stokes this constant dispute? Nothing at all gained, much time wasted. Anthony (talk) 14:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Citing peer reviewed sources (as opposed to published books etc.) should remove the problem of source bias. Citing a broad range of sources will also remove this problem. So such sources should be preferred. --Errant Tmorton166 15:01, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment Please see WP:ASF regarding this kind of attribution. Mainstream scholarly point of views should not be attributed in this manner. This is exactly an example of how attribution is abused to suggest that something is not a mainstream POV, or to suggest that it is not a netural POV. Attributing statements that fall withing the scholarly consensus to a certain type of scholar should be avoided at all costs.Griswaldo (talk) 15:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, here we are again, at the same place we always end up. I just want it to be clear that regardless of numerous and constant concerns by tons of editors, editors prefer hiding behind the letter of WP's rules than to resolve this issue. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 17:43, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Here's a good way to do it. Global_warming#cnote_B - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 18:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't that help things enormously. Has one scholarly body published a consensus statement regarding the historicity of Jesus? Anthony (talk) 18:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

There's the Jesus Seminar, which isn't perfect at all. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

When even those in the Jesus Seminar reject the non-historicity of Jesus, that's saying a lot. Regarding Anthony's question about scholarly body, Ari would likely know. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

It will sound silly, but maybe we can say "Jesus existed got 95% red beads at the Jesus Seminar". I saw a lot of votes on specific sayings, but none on the big question. Also, Ari, are you following this? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 00:01, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The only people who think the Jesus Seminar as a group represent consensus are the Jesus Seminar. The fact that they can attribute a single saying to Jesus is evidence that through their stringent use of the historical critical method they have determined that Jesus didn't just exist, but he most likely said X, Y and Z. --Ari (talk) 04:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

(redent) What about "Regarding Anthony's question about scholarly body, Ari would likely know."? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:46, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

The role of a scholarly body is to facilitate scholarship not tell scholars what to believe. Reliable sources have made consensus statements to the basic fact that mainstream scholarship believes Jesus existed. We have no reliable source that states the consensus is any different . Ergo, we follow WP policy and the sources, not string together wp:OR arguments such as here.

Short version: no reliable source says anything contrary, editors do not invent qualifications of these consensus statements. --Ari (talk) 05:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

RfC

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. Within 24 hours, this page will be added to the following lists: Religion and philosophy History and geography When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the lists. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

I posted notice I was going to be opening this up 3 days ago to Griswaldo and Bill's talkpages, because they seemed most active in the opposing camp and neither seems to have drafted a response and I'm not going to hold off indefinitely, so I'm opening this up and posting links in the appropriate places (RfC lists, Village Pump). Since neither stepped up to write an opposing side, I welcome any editor who takes that position to draw up the response. We seem to have several (Myself, Cyclopia, Peregrine) editors stating that attribution should be required, and several (Gris, Bill, Ari) Saying it should not. The appropriate course now is to open it up to the wider community to determine consensus. -- ۩ Mask 17:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

The view that the lede should note the source

The language in the lede cites a evangelical Christian blanket asserting that the view Jesus existed is held universally without revealing possible bias from the source. Furthermore, the source does not provide any evidence that that is the case, but simply asserts it. A look deeper reveals an Agnostic position from many theologians and historians:

Reasons

Robert M. Price, a theologian with a PhD in The New Testament and a second PhD in Systematic Theology, explains that view well: "And in the case of Jesus Christ, where virtually every detail of the story fits the mythic hero archetype, with nothing left over, no "secular," biographical data, so to speak, it becomes arbitrary to assert that there must have been a historical figure lying back of the myth. There may have been, but it can no longer be considered particularly probable, and that's all the historian can deal with: probabilities"

Even Christian scholars acknowledge that all sources for the life of Jesus came generations after he lived. The Gospels were written, according to mainline theologians from the Christian faith, up to as late as 150 CE. And the Gospels are the closest any writings get, secular sources are all centuries after. This led David Noel Freedman, a Christian thologian writing in Bible Review magazine, December 1993 to remark "We have to accept somewhat looser standards. In the legal profession, to convict the defendant of a crime, you need proof beyond a reasonable doubt. In civil cases, a preponderance of the evidence is sufficient. When dealing with the Bible or any ancient source, we have to loosen up a little; otherwise, we can't really say anything." followed by "When it comes to the historical question about the Gospels, I adopt a mediating position-- that is, these are religious records, close to the sources, but they are not in accordance with modern historiographic requirements or professional standards."

Bertrand Russell, a historian in addition to being one of the most influential philosophers of the 20th century, laid it out quite plainly in his book 'Why I am not a Christian': "Historically, it is quite doubtful whether Christ ever existed at all, and if He did we do not know anything about Him."

Taking a look at another historian, rather then theologian, Earl Doherty pieces together early Christian culture to show a mythical beginning for Jesus, a work well regarded by many in the field. Religious Historian R. Joseph Hoffmann called it plausible, but that there is reason to hold the view. Richard Carrier, who holds a PhD in Ancient History, praised it in his review. Even those who do not support the view, such as Hector Avalos, called the work plausible, but pointed out it lacks the same hard evidence that the hypothesis Jesus was a real person does. A quote that sums up the text nicely for our purposes rests on page 141: 'Before the Gospels were adopted as history, no record exists that he was ever in the city of Jerusalem at all-- or anywhere else on earth.'

George A Larue, a Biblical Archeologist at USC and the first head of the Committee for the Scientific Examination of Religion, wrote that "We can recreate dimensions of the world in which he lived, but outside of the Christian scriptures, we cannot locate him historically within that world." in the compilation 'The Book Your Church Doesn't Want You To Read'.

Conclusion

In secular histories of Religion, there is a strong current, of not disbelief in the Historical Jesus, but agnosticism, that the evidence is not present to support the claim. I haven't even touched on prominent secular scientists who hold the view such as Dawkins, because this is out of their field, but I will throw that out there because those in such fields are well acquainted with standards of evidence and burden of proof. All in all, if the lede is going to place a simple, bare assertion that the view is universally held, the reader should be informed of possible bias in the source, through the simple attribution of the quote, eg: 'According to Christian Theologian xxx'

Discussion (2)

• This is utter nonsense. There are very, very few ancient historians or critical biblical scholars (you know, the people who went to school to specialize in scholarly methods related studying the New Testament times and location) who support this "agnostic" or non-history view of Jesus. You sure wrote a lot, but cherry picked basically the only people who have written about this topic in the manner you support (and many of them simply are not scholars or specialize in a relevant field). It's like citing a couple MDs who disagree with evolution, or an engineer or physicist who disagrees with Global Warming. If you look at the university level text books on this matter, or write to just about any other published scholars who teach undergraduate courses on this topic at secular universities, you won't find people that support this view. We site a source which says as much (or points out the near unanimity of scholars supporting a historical Jesus). There is absolutely no reason at all to not believe this source. Saying the source comes from an "evangelical Christian" is religious prejudice. Unless we have other sources accusing that source of bias, criticism from that angle is only representative of some anonymous Wikipedian's personal prejudices, nothing more. We have no reason to think that someone who is trained in a field of study, published in that field, is somehow magically unable to be professional simply because they are Christian. That sort of prejudice disgusts me, and I find attempts to push the POV that question the historicity of Jesus is akin to creationism, global warming denial, AIDS denial, (dare I say holocaust denial?) -Andrew c  17:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Comparing it to holocaust denial? Laugh. And I left out quite a few names (Elaine Pagels, for one, the Harrington Spear Paine Professor of Religion at Princeton University) who hold a 'we can't know, there arent enough sources from the time period' view just to keep it concise and avoid a TLDR. -- ۩ Mask 18:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I missed this comment. As for Elaine Pagels, she is a very notable and respected scholar in this field. She hasn't published any claims against the historicity of Jesus to my knowledge (and I'm pretty sure I would have known if she did). While perhaps not the best, most RS source, I found this, where Pagels says comments critical of various reconstructions of a historical Jesus (two paragraphs, starting with But now, given these discoveries, we are rewriting the history of Christianity). I think that, perhaps, is the sort of POV balance that could help this article. But even this skeptical Pagels presupposes the historical existence of Jesus. She's just pointing out that the conflicting reconstructions of a historical Jesus are estimates at bests, none without problems or selection bias. But then again, maybe we should discount Pagels arguments entirely because they were never published in a secular, peer reviewed academic journal ;) -Andrew c  17:19, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

RFC Comment The language used in the lead section is a little ambiguous, and perhaps that's what's causing some of the debate. It says that "essentially all scholars in the relevant fields" agree that Jesus existed. What is a relevant field? If the relevant field is Christian theologians, then it seems to be almost a self-evident truth. I would deprecate this sentence solely on these terms, and seek a better quote, ideally one that less ambiguously qualifies what kind of scholars believe what. Given that counterexamples of unbelieving, credible scholars have been produced by editors here, some actual evidence would be useful. A poll, however informal, would be preferable to Stanton's unsubstantiated declaration. (Is it unsubstantiated? I'm guessing, not having the source in front of me.) And if no such evidence exists, why not just do away with that phrase entirely? The lead section will look just fine without a declaration of how many people believe there's evidence for his existence. --RSLxii 21:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Another RFC Comment I've had a quick look at the article and the troublesome sentences, and I must agree with RSLxii. The sentence ""essentially all scholars in the relevant fields" is a little bald, but it may reflect current thinking by scholars. However, I think the Lead does only introduce the article, and doesn't do a thorough job of summarising it (as per WP:LEAD). A bit more context taken from the article would improve it, and a statement that mentioned the consensus (assuming there is one) which relevant scholars have should go after brief discussion of the sources and analysis. It may be useful to mention the nay-sayers, even if it were only to say that they were in a minority (bearing in mind WP:UNDUE) My only further comment is that if notable figures have at some time in the past had a view (you mention Bertrand Russell) , even if that view was subsequently shown to be invalid, I think that is notablility enough to be included; although the weight given to it in the article should reflect their impact on the Historicity issue. Major Bloodnok (talk) 22:06, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment @AKMask Actually, you might want to listen to this. Ehrman basically says that if one ignores evidence, then even the Holocaust can be denied. That's how sure scholars are about the historicity of Jesus. Therefore, Andrew C is correct in his assessment. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment @Bloodnok. To say "essentially all scholars" is accurate and, more importantly, verifiable. Even proponents of the CMT acknowledge it. And when both sides of the issue agree that that is the case, then hiding that fact is a violation of WP:NPOV as well as WP:Fringe. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:04, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

I decided to take search around and see if there were any polls regarding the issue. The most promising lead I found was this:

http://www.youngausskeptics.com/bbpress/topic.php?id=96

Does anyone want to try and track down more information about this survey?

Other than this, all I found were internet surveys, which are clearly not up to snuff:

http://www.answerbag.com/debates/jesus-historical-figure_1855544

http://atheism.about.com/gi/pages/poll.htm?poll_id=6793870036&linkback=

http://talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=7923

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/atheism-dir/69002-atheist-poll-there-historical-yeshua-2.html

http://www.topix.com/forum/topstories/TAAT95C1MK0DAHR4E

If actual polls can be cited, I feel they would be better sources than those listed in Bill the Cat's CMT FAQ page, which, though voluminous, seems to lack anything published in peer-reviewed or academic journals, and none of which are based any anything more substantial than "based on all the historians I personally know..." (correct me if I'm wrong, I didn't read every single quote word for word) --RSLxii 23:54, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

• long version. Short version:

1. Do any reliable sources explicitly challenge the consensus statement regarding mainstream scholarship? No.
2. Does original research and synthesis (e.g. misusing references to Freedman and Larue to advance a theory neither hold) take precedent over reliably sourced consensus statements? No.
3. Does the personal belief on the topic by philosopher Bertrand Russell in 1927 replace reliable consensus statements on the state of scholarship? No.
4. Do mainstream reliable sources from a wide range of religious and non-religious perspectives agree that there is a clear consensus within scholarship that Jesus existed as a historical figure? Yes. --Ari (talk) 01:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

What is the single best source ever for the consensus, and why? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:34, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

The quick answer is, Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources when available. The longer answers can be found here and here. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 04:17, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

That didn't answer my question at all. I've been here for over five years (written FAs, GAs, answered hundreds of WP:RSN questions, etc.), so I know those policies. Can you give me a non-TLDR that will easily convince me per those policies? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I guess I misunderstood. Can you please be more specific about what you are looking for? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 04:35, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe Peregrine Fisher wasn't talking in the abstract, but wants you to provide a specific source for a consensus statement regarding the historical Jesus. -Andrew c  04:37, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

(EC) Sorry for that last comment, it wasn't super helpful. Anyways, what is the very best single source that there is a scholarly consensus that Jesus existed? Is it "Graham Stanton, The Gospels and Jesus (2nd ed.), (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002) p. xxiii" (which is used right now in the lead)? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:40, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Ari would probably be the best person to ask. But, in my opinion, the statements by the CMT proponents themselves are pretty compelling. You can find them here. They even say that the CMT is dismissed with "amused contempt", "universal disdain", and held in "contempt". If that doesn't convince a person what the consensus is, then I really don't know what will. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 04:50, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

While perhaps convincing in arguments, I don't think citing fringe/controversial scholars in the lead (which arguably aren't reliable in terms of the topic of ancient history) is a good idea. -Andrew c  04:59, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. But I was just talking about a consensus, not what should be in the lead. Of course, no amount of evidence and facts will dissuade those who have there minds set on pushing a POV. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 05:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess I answered Peregrine's question below, by picking 4 items on your list that I thought met WP:RS. Let's see how long it takes for the bigots to come up with their own sourcing rules which exclude people based on where they went to school, or where they worship in their personal lives, etc...-Andrew c  16:55, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

NPOV tag

Please don't remove the NPOV tag again - it simply states that we are debating the POV (something that seems to be, indeed, still unsolved). --Cyclopia 19:38, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll remove the tag unless there is a specific reason stated for its inclusion. Can you please concisely state the reason? I mean, I don't see any POV discussion going on above that is not based on the claim that Christian scholars are unreliable sources. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:47, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

What is the claim and how well grounded it is, is not important -the claim could even be that Jesus comes really from Mars, or whatever silliness. But this claim is indeed being debated between editors continuously in the last week, in this talk page and elsewhere, by several editors. And your wording is misleading -I think nobody in this quarrel thinks that Christian scholars are unreliable, only that they are biased sources (a not-so-subtle distinction). Given that there is an unresolved NPOV dispute ongoing, regardless of what I, you, or anyone thinks of it, the NPOV tag is only appropriate. --Cyclopia 19:58, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Please cite some articles in peer-reviewed, secular journals that say it's a fact that Jesus existed. Noloop (talk) 05:41, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't recall any part of WP:RS requiring the sources be "peer-reviewed." Can you point to where that might be? I vaguely recall that some wikiprojects (like WP:MEDICINE) set higher standards, but I don't believe this article falls under any such criteria (and, I'll add Wikiproject criteria aren't actually binding in any event). As for secular...I'm not even 100% certain we could define what that means...Qwyrxian (talk) 05:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It just depends on the context. Peer-reviewed, secular sources are high-quality, which is what high controversy requires. In this case, the claim is being made that it is a fact that Jesus existed. That every expert says so, and to say otherwise is comparable to saying there was no moon landing or Holocaust. It is trivial to back up those facts with hundreds of peer-reviewed sources. If the existence of Jesus is as factual as the the existence of a moon landing, it should be equally trivial to back it up with a peer-reviewed secular source. Yet, nobody can. Instead, we get a lot of sources that essentially are theologians saying their religion is right. Not reliable. Noloop (talk) 06:15, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

No, like the moon landing or the Holocaust, sources PRESUPPOSE it's existence, and it isn't argued in peer-reviewed journals because there is no argument. You won't find peer-reviewed journals actually arguing that the holocaust occurred - it's a given. The alternative point of view is for nuts. Same for the existence of Jesus. The scholarly sources presuppose Jesus' existence, and don't even bother to address the other point of view, because it's fringe conspiracy stuff, and not even on the radar screen of real scholarship. Carlo (talk) 11:33, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I said nothing about "arguing." If you search google/scholar, you will find thousands of scholarly articles referring to the fact of the Holocaust, e.g. . You will find thousands of academic articles referring to various NASA projects, such as the moon landing. If you can find millions of people who saw Jesus existing on TV, I would accept that. Noloop (talk) 13:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Peer review, check. Secular, check. This took like 3 seconds worth of searching on JSTOR: John P. Meier "The Historical Jesus and the Historical Herodians" Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 119, No. 4 (Winter, 2000), pp. 740-746 -Andrew c  15:21, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

"Secular, check" huh? From Misplaced Pages: "John Paul Meier is a Biblical scholar and Catholic priest. " A Catholic priest...very secular. "The Journal of Biblical Literature (JBL) is one of three theological journals published by the Society of Biblical Literature (SBL).". Noloop (talk) 15:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC) P.S. For future reference: 1) just citing an article with term "Historical Jesus" in the title won't cut it, 2) what you really need to produce is a secular peer-reviewed statement that there is a consensus about it.

You are just moving the goal posts around. You first asked for a citation for "it's a fact that Jesus existed", but now that has changed to "a secular peer-reviewed statement that there is a consensus about it". You first asked for a secular journal, but now you are asking the contributor can't be Christian or something ridiculous like that. I found another source from a scholar from an Israeli/Jewish university published in the past 6 months, but I'm not sure if your prejudice goes against Jewish individuals as well. And then I don't know if you'll just move the goal posts again and again. I don't want to play any more part in supporting your prejudice, and I'm not convinced that anything will convince you. You have no evidence, outside of your despicable personal prejudices, that scholars are incapable of compartmentalizing, or that someone with a religious background can't publish in a secular journal (which is obviously not true because my example proves that the journal's editorial standards are different from your personal bias). I also have no idea what you think "theological" means. I really see this going no where fast. Sorry. -Andrew c  16:09, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

'The Journal of Biblical Literature', published by the Society of Biblical Literature, sounds like a perfectly good source of information to me. (Or at least it is for the period of Meier's article--it seems there are some recent changes to the society's mission). What does Meier say in his article? I can't access it. --RSLxii 16:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It is just an article discussing the historical Jesus' interaction with a mysterious group called the Herodians (associated with the Pharisees), and he concludes that the stories in Mk 3:6 and 12:13 most likely lack historicity. It is an article which clearly discusses the historical Jesus as a fact, presupposes it I guess, but it doesn't have the sought after "consensus statement". I wouldn't have wasted my time if I knew the question was going to change after the fact. -Andrew c  16:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

One of the "relevant fields" would be ancient history. A "secular source" would be, for example, one who does not fit one of the following criteria:(a) faculty of Christian or theological institutions, and/or (b) Christian clergy, and/or (c) were schooled in theological or religious institutions, and/or (d) avowed Christians. There is not adequate sourcing at this time to make the claim "all scholars in the relevant fields agree that the existence of Jesus as a historical figure can be established using documentary and other evidence." We must either provide the sources, or drop this statement from the article. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 16:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) In terms of this, I guess others have done a lot of work, since this apparently isn't a new issue, and on a quick glance, I'd say User:Bill_the_Cat_7/CMT_FAQ#FAQ_Question_.232 provides tons of good information. There is no requirement that citation on Misplaced Pages come from "peer reviewed, secular journals". In fact, many journal articles are primary sources, or represent something of a specialist's knowledge, and we are cautioned against citing such academic articles directly, instead favoring good secondary sources, review articles, and overviews that summarize. I haven't been through every source on Bill the Cat's list to figure out the religious background of each contributor, and the publishing forum, and I think that would be a waste of time, because these requirements aren't in Misplaced Pages's editorial guidelines, and I'm at this point convinced that Noloop has reached a conclusion, and no amount of arguing will change that, and a search for a mythical perfect source is going to be made impossible in order to support Noloop's forgone conclusions. Therefore, I'll settle with basic Misplaced Pages sourcing criteria. That said, looking through the list, Graham Stanton's The Gospels and Jesus, Christopher M. Tuckett in The Cambridge Companion to Jesus, Michael Grant Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels, James H. Charlesworth Jesus and Archaeology would all, IMO, fit the criteria of having a WP:RS to back up the claim that most scholars accept the historicity of a 1st century Palestinian religious figure named "Jesus" (just to name a few).-Andrew c  16:53, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Religiously biased sourcing

• The article says "essentially all scholars in the relevant fields agree that the mere historical existence of Jesus can be established using documentary and other evidence" The source is a book by a Christian theologian; not peer-reviewed. Many attempts to attribute it (i.e. treat it as opinion rather than fact) reverted.
• Factual statements in article: "The scholarly mainstream not only rejects the myth thesis, but identifies serious methodological deficiencies in the approach. For this reason, many scholars consider engaging proponents of the myth theory a waste of time, comparing it to a professional astronomer having to debate whether the moon is made of cheese. As such, the New Testament scholar James Dunn describes the mythical Jesus theory as a "thoroughly dead thesis".

• 105 contains three sources. The first publisher self-describes: "...proudly publishes first-class scholarly works in religion for the academic community...and essential resources for ministry and the life of faith.". The author's Web page says: "As we share our faith stories and listen to the faith stories of others... We come to understand our own experience of God better, and we come to recognize new possibilities for the life of faith". The 2nd publisher is "Trinity Press" (figure it out) and the third is... "Eerdmans publishes a variety of books suitable for all aspects of ministry. Pastors, church education leaders, worship leaders, church librarians... will find a wealth of resources here." .
• Source 106 is 76 years old, so there's little information. It does contain a chapter called "The Guiding Hand of God in History". It is out of date.
• 107. Published by Eerdman's (see above). Author is a theologian, founder of the Institute for World Christianity
• Source 108 is the Bishop of Durham in the Church of England, cited in a book called An Interdisciplinary Symposium on the Incarnation of the Son of God. Figure it out.
• 108 is a theologian: James_Dunn_(theologian). Publisher is Eerdman's, Christian press, etc. Not peer-reviewed.

That's a complete summary of the coverage in this article. The reader is told as fact that the non-historicity of Jesus is a fringe theory. Every single source for that claim is a theologian, and one is a bishop; 6/8 sources are from Christian presses. Obviously, no peer review. My attempt to remove the material was reverted. Noloop (talk) 15:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Andrew C has cited an article above that on a quick review seems to satisfy your sourcing requirements. As I pointed out numerous times before; the religion of the author is not relevant so long as it is a WP:RS --Errant Tmorton166 15:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

On the Fringe theory noticeboard, the goal posts have been moved. It's no longer OK for the journal to be non-religiously affiliated, and peer reviewed, but the publishing standard of Noloop and crew is superior to that of these journals, because they exclude priest teaching at a religious university. I don't want to continue discussing such matters with people who hold such vile religious prejudice. There is no evidence that one's religious background affects their ability to do their job as being prominent, learned scholars. One's gender identity, ethnicity, and political views also do not affect scholarship either. -Andrew c  15:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, this is one of the reasons I jumped out of this whole debate... not sure why I came back in retrospect --Errant Tmorton166 15:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Good thing the Misplaced Pages world does not revolve around Noloop's bigotry. We have no policies that say Christians are evil and cannot perform scholarship, or be cited by us. We have no valid policy based reason to exclude such information or sources. Please take your bigotry elsewhere.-Andrew c  16:12, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that it seems that 90% of the people who believe this fact are Christian. If it's a fact, why don't non-Christian historians believe it? Noloop (talk) 17:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

How am I to respond to numbers you made up? I was about to list off Jewish and agnostic scholars, but I'm not going to humor this line of argument. Unless we have a valid reason to think there is some sort of institutionalized bias coming from the Christian camp (and spilling into the Jewish/agnostic/etc camp), this is nothing more than your personal prejudices. You think there is bias, but luckily we shouldn't write articles based on what you think. only what notable, reliable sources have published. -Andrew c  17:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Name-calling, e.g. calling people "bigots" is really not helpful. The personal attacks on me, Noloop, and others, from Christians on these talk pages violate a number of Misplaced Pages rules, and it needs to stop. There is a legitimate concern about the quality of the sourcing for the statements made in this article. If these were Muslim scholars asserting that all the mainstream scholarship agrees that Mohamed rose to heaven on a winged horse, where "mainstream scholarship" was defined as Muslims who published their views in Muslim publications, you would probably see the problem. Demanding an objective standard for truth claims is not bigotry. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 17:20, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

As a diehard atheist I find some of the comments pretty bigoted. There is very little legitimacy behind the assertion that Christian scholars are considered non-authoritative on this. I've always argued that a cross section of sources should be used with preference - but not because the Christian ones are flawed or undermined by their religion. It should be very easy to do such sourcing. --Errant Tmorton166 08:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I've taken this to a reliable sourcing noticeboard: Noloop (talk) 17:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

PeaceLoveHarmony, your comparison is a strawman. There are tons of "Christian" scholars who say that Jesus miraculous resurrection, virgin birth, etc are not historical. There are only very few "scholars," if we can even call them that, who argue along evangelical lines regarding the historicity of the crazy stories in the gospels. Yes, if all the scholars we were citing were not using the historical method, and coming up with fanciful junk, then perhaps your argument would be on strong footing. But the likes of Crossan, Meier, Borg, Sanders, (Vermes, Eherman), etc all use historical methodology, and are respected scholars in their professional field. I don't appreciate unsourced, contrived efforts to discount professional scholars based on their religious background. If that isn't bigotry, then perhaps I am utterly confused about what has been going on. I've yet to see a reliable source making claims against a whole branch of scholarship. But I'm starting to think these arguments are along the lines of the ones Ben Stein made in Expelled accusing the system of peer review in biology of selection bias. Is there any evidence of institutionalized bias in the field of critical bible studies?-Andrew c  17:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Andrew, it doesn't matter if we are talking about stories of miracles, or just claims that someone existed; both categories are truth claims that are subject to objective standards of proof. Is there anything non-obvious about the assertion that one's faith can have an impact on one's ability to objectively assess evidence that threatens that faith? (There is a big difference between faith based simply on faith, and a belief in a scientific theory, based on empirical evidence. Belief in evolution, for example, is not a matter of faith; belief in Jesus is.) Where is the support for the claim that "essentially all scholars in the relevant fields agree that the mere historical existence of Jesus can be established using documentary and other evidence"? How can the claim be made when there are no secular ancient historians to back it up? Furthermore, there are a growing number of scholars who have published notable books and articles that describe in detail the poor quality of the evidence for the existence of a single Jesus as described in the bible stories that were written decades after his alleged life (stories which contain many contradictions). As I have noted previously, out of the 72 people that were quoted in the old FAQ that Bill the Cat keeps referencing, at least 66 of them (i.e. 92%) are (a) faculty of Christian or theological institutions, and/or (b) Christian clergy, and/or (c) were schooled in theological or religious institutions, and/or (d) avowed Christians. Can anyone find a secular reliable source asserting the universal certainty among all scholars of Jesus' existence? If not, this statement needs to be modified to reflect reality. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 19:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to discuss this more, but I feel like it is getting a bit off topic, and it may turn more into an internet forum debate, than what Misplaced Pages talk pages are intended for. I'm curious who the "growing number of scholars who have published notable books and articles" are. I'm curious why you think belief in Jesus is faith based. Is it your position that all historical inquiry is faith based? Or historical inquiry that lacks direct physical archaeology? or just history concerning religious figure or what. I'd also like to respond to one's faith can have an impact on one's ability to objectively assess evidence that threatens that faith. Care to take this to our talk pages?-Andrew c  21:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It's too bad there's no preview for this. The author, Robin Lane Fox, is an atheist. He seems to have good credentials (Oxford), and he might make some statements about scholars in general in his book. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

This is fun. My library has the 1992 edition, so I'll pop over there now to browse through it. -Andrew c  20:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Very cool.

We're already using Michael Grant (author) a bit (Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels), but he may have more. This isn't a reliable source site, but I think it may be quoting Grant directly from that book, or it may be summarizing.

"This sceptical way of thinking reached its culmination in the argument that Jesus as a human being never existed at all and is a myth.... But above all, if we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus' existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned. Certainly, there are all those discrepancies between one Gospel and another. But we do not deny that an event ever took place just because some pagan historians such as, for example, Livy and Polybius, happen to have described it in differing terms.... To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars.' In recent years, 'no serous scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary."

It sounds like Grant is an atheist, although I can't find an RS on that. This quote, if correct, is one of the better ones I've seen that directly says what scholars in general think, and why. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 20:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is quoting Grant directly. I'm pretty sure my library has that book as well, as I've looked through it years ago. BTW, I listed Grant in my 4 possibly good sources in the topic above ;) My only concern with Grant is it predates the resurgences of Christ Myth in popular works (not in actual scholarship, mind you) from the early to mid 2000s (Doherty, Frake and Gandy, Acharya S, etc), so I can imagine someone arguing that Grant is out of date because he hasn't considered those loons. I have also read on apologetic websites that Grant is an atheist, if that matters to some (not to me), but obviously the sourcing for that isn't reliable.-Andrew c  21:08, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Grant seems like the best we have. The one thing I'm concerned with is the single quotes and ellipses in that quote. It makes me think it may not be a direct quote. For instance, "To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars.'" The "To sum up" part may not be Grant, while the "'again and again" part may be Grant. Not sure. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 21:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed my library has the 1977 edition. I can stop over and get that one as well. -Andrew c  21:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

All the text comes from Grant, though it appears he is quoting other sources at times (the single quotes). After the first ellipses is a paragraph describing the history of the myth view, starting with early Christian docetism, and then the eighteenth century views onward "In particular, his story was compared to the pagan mythologies inventing fictitious dying and rising gods". Then is a paragraph with a couple more arguments, such as the idea that "mighty religions" don't necessarily derive "from mighty founders", i.e. Hinduism. And then a counter argument that the idea of rebirth mythical gods seems entirely foreign to the milieu of Judaism. Then the quoted text continues. The second ellipses omits two sentences: "That there was a growth of legend round Jesus cannot be denied, and it arose very quickly. But there had also been a rapid growth of legend round pagan figures like Alexander the Great; and yet nobody regards him as wholly mythical and fictitious." Emphasis in original. I can see why an apologist may want to omit saying a lot of legend grew around Jesus (ha). Finally, the single quoted elements I guess are associated with footnote 13: "R. Dunkerly, Beyond the Gospels (Penguin, 1957), p. 12; O Betz, What Do We Know about Jesus? (SCM, 1968), p. 9; cf. H. Hawton, Controversy (Pemberton, 1971), pp. 172-82, etc." I'm guessing the quoted parts are derived from those cited works, so not only is Grant presenting his own view, he is supporting it with other sources (although, as I said, earlier, possibly dated sources). Hope this helps. -Andrew c  23:24, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

The Unauthorized Verion by Robin Lane Fox

p.27

Whereas scientists have tested the stories of Creation to see if they correspond to the facts, it is for historians to test the stories of the Nativity to see if they correspond to historical truth. It is not that there was no Nativity or that Jesus was not a historical person. The question is merely whether the Gospels' stories knew when and where he was born.

p.285

those who do not accept the 'Christ of faith' are still confronted with four accounts which are attached to a person of history, Jesus of Nazareth, who lived, taught and died, and was believed to have related himself to the idea of a Messiah and a God who was already known. This historical Jesus is directly relevant to the future 'Christ of faith'; God was not believed to have raised just any old person from the tomb. What, then, can historians know about him? The secure minimum lies in actions which were publicly recognized and on which all Gospels agree....

p.243

When we come to the New Testament, we are within reach of primary sources. The texts tell us about people in a historical setting which we know independently: we do not face the problem of a Solomon or Joshua, and we need not wonder whether Jesus of Nazareth lived and could have visited the places which the Gospels name."

I haven't read the whole book, so I don't see any statement regarding a "consensus statement" of historians. But clearly Jesus' historicity is presupposed, and the author accepts a historical Jesus, even if many of the Gospel accounts lack historicity. Is any of this helpful? Want me to look through more. I have it checked out till November, but will probably return it in a day or so. -Andrew c  20:59, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

That is helpful. With those quotes on the talk page, we can use them whenever we want (since we have the page numbers). Then you can take it back to the library. If you're willing, check to see if he says anything about other scholars. Also, did he have succinct answer to "What, then, can historians know about him"? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 21:28, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

"The secure minimum lies" is the beginning of a long paragraph about the basic stuff that he believes is unambiguously historical. Namely "Jesus regarded the Twelve as a special group among his disciples" but we don't know who the Twelve are because their names are all different in different sources. "We also know that ... spoke in some sense about a kingdom of God". "The inscription on the Cross, a public fact, labelled him as king of the Jews" "We know that he came into conflict with some of the Jews, the he was arrested..., the he was put to death by the Roman punishment of crucifixion".

After the secure minimum paragraph, he goes on to "ways to move forward from the secure minimum". He discusses methodology a bit, touches on few other things, then devotes most of the rest of the section (page after page) discussing and analyzing Jesus' arrest, questioning, and execution. Also, he begins the chapter discussing sourcing, ancient contemporary historical writings, and the Gospels. In other chapters, Fox argues little bits and facts, such as "nothing yet found makes it likely that Jesus himself spoke fluent Greek". He attacks the historicity of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and the Garden Tomb as places for Jesus' historical burial/death. He says Jesus, like Jews, "observed the food rules and the Sabbath." Jesus taught in parables. Jesus did not "anticipate a written New Testament." Fox dates the crucifixion to the year 36, and discusses some of the possibly authentic and inauthentic sayings of Jesus. And so on. BTW, the format of this book is a bit odd, because the NT and the OT are discussed sometimes in different section of the same chapters, or sometimes there will be an OT chapter followed by a NT chapter. Instead of having a big OT section (say, the first half of the book), and a bit NT section (say the second half of the book), various topics, such as textual authorship, or archaeology are discussed in individual chapters which cover both NT and OT.-Andrew c  22:04, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

That is his "style" have you read Pagans and Christians yet, it has the same jumping around as you mention. The book is very unsympathetic to the Christians and I got the feeling that he wished Christianity had not supplanted 'old" roman culture. Hardyplants (talk) 22:11, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Hey Andrew, is that quote above (the one from page 243) an exact quote? I'd like to add it to my list of sources on my user page. Thanks. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 22:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, direct quote, unless I made a typo. -Andrew c  22:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion from RS/N

In the efforts to find a source acceptable to use, a quote from Dawkin's The God Delusion has been suggested. It would seem to satisfy all parties by my looking at it, making the assertion that the view Jesus existed is 'widely held' as well as acknowledging that there is conflicting evidence. The exact quote is "It is even possible to mount a serious, though not widely supported, historical case that Jesus never lived at all...." available on Google Books at this link. Any thoughts on using this to end the squabbling and come to a mutually agreeable solution? -- ۩ Mask 20:38, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

We can discuss ways of slicing it as well for the lede, something such as 'The view that Jesus did not exist is not widely held', or a more expansive cut to include more information (the one I would use, just to disclose) 'While there is evidence available to propose a serious theory that Jesus did not exist, the view is not widely held'. Both could be sourced to Dawkins, who would satisfy the problems many of us have with the sources used. -- ۩ Mask 20:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I hate to stir the pot, but I don't think Dawkins is a good source for citing, in the article itself. Dawkins is not a biblical scholar or ancient near-east historian. In fact, he has never been formally trained in any sort of history. He is a biologist. His opinion, in a popular work, seems like a bad place to source content related to the historicity of Jesus. We can do so much better. It's like citing an MD in the evolution article. I really think we can do better, but I'm not outright opposing if it would keep the peace.-Andrew c  21:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

It's always possible to cite more than one source. --RSLxii 21:17, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

We aren't quoting him on his own thoughts on the matter though, we are quoting him on the current thinking. He is almost uniquely qualified to answer that question, actually. His main recent field, the first Charles Simonyi Chair for the Public Understanding of Science, is entirely geared toward distilling current academic thought and making it accessible to the lay public. Thats one of the beauties of using this as the source, its not a statement from someone with a dog in the fight commenting on their own research, it sidesteps the whole question and just talks about current thought on the issue. -- ۩ Mask 21:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

So the fact that the man has admitted that he does not know any thing about history of theology and related issues and has said he has no interest in learning about his opponents arguments is a good source?! Hardyplants (talk) 21:32, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

If he were to comment on those topics, you'd be right. But he's not. He's commenting on what the state of thought in the field is. You can re-read the statement if it would help, since you seem to be mistaken about whats being said in it. -- ۩ Mask 21:39, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

How can "He's commenting on what the state of thought in the field is" if does not know any thing about the field. Hardyplants (talk) 21:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

As mentioned, he held the Chair at Oxford for the Public Understanding of Science making different fields of thought accessible to lay people. A journalist can interview a chemist on the potential application of new organic chemicals without knowing how to make them. His entire job for a decade was being well connected and familiar enough with the processes and jargon of academics to explain them to the public, like the journalist publishing a story on whats happening even if he can't duplicate it. Was that a better explanation? -- ۩ Mask 22:10, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe him more than someone who believes in God, just because he'd love to say the opposite. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 21:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

This issue aside, can you see the practical benefit of citing someone like Dawkins? Your average skeptical wikipedian is less likely to try to delete something that has Dawkins' implicit approval. And as I said before, we can always use more than one source. There are plenty to choose from. --RSLxii 21:47, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

So we have Dawkins saying that the Jesus as myth idea is not a "view widely held" held by who? Hardyplants (talk) 21:57, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

SO does this mean it would be appropriate for us to cite in the Evolution page a prominent Christian Theologian stating "You can make a serious case against Evolution, but the argument isn't widely supported". The fact is Dawkins doesn't know what he's talking about, isn't familiar with even basic mainstream historical and theological concepts and is probably largely just talking out of his ass. I would characterize this more as a grossly exaggerated mistruth aimed at pleasing his own audience rather then a point he would defend if he was pressed on it.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 22:13, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

I kinda think you could (barring what the evolution editors would do with your edit). A prominent Christian who opposed evolution, but had to admit that is was generally accepted, would be a pretty strong advocate in my opinion. Over there they probably have surveys of Christian's who are scientists and all sorts of ways of figuring out who thinks what. Here, we're more limited on sources, so we should take what we can get. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 22:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Hardyplants--good question. Dawkins says it's possible to make a case, but if you do, it wouldn't be widely supported. By whom? I imply he's talking about the people who would be liable to support such cases: "scholars in the relevant fields". A phrase I deprecated in my first post for being too ambiguous! But now I see that ambiguity in this case is unresolvable. There really isn't any hard evidence, just a general understanding that it's true, and a notable lack of scholars denying the fact. So whatever statement gets written up will have to be somewhat ambiguous. --RSLxii 23:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

What makes Dawkins particularly significant? To my knowledge, he's never researched it. There are scholars who have researched the matter, like GA Wells. Elaine Pagels is also important:

"The problem I have with all these versions of the so called "historical Jesus" is that they each choose certain early sources as their central evidence, and each presents a part of the picture. My own problem with this, as a historian, is that none of the historical evidence actually goes back as far as Jesus—so these various speculations are that, and nothing more. But what we can investigate historically is how the "Jesus movement" began. What the new research shows is that we have a wide range of teaching attributed to Jesus." --Elaine Pagels Professor of Religion, Princeton University. (MacArthur Fellowship, National Book Critics Circle Award, Guggenheim Fellowship, Rockefeller Fellowship)

AkMask, if it's skepticism you want, there was a starting point in this paragraph that I tried to add to Historical Jesus. . The fact is, peer-reviewed secular academic sources simply don't address this matter. Doesn't it seem like our readers should know that? Noloop (talk) 02:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we can let them know that they don't address the issue of whether Jesus was real or not because they don't think the matter is worth discussing because they all agree that he does. That would be fine be me.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 03:04, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

There are probably better Dawkins quotes to cover this - it's a little bit OR to extend what he said to the fact that most scholars agree he existed (call it.... implicit rather than explicit). It is fine for me but I suspect others would grumble :) --Errant Tmorton166 08:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Both the Fox and Grant works above seem far better sources, particularly for the lead (as their fields seem to be more directly related to the issue at hand), but Dawkins seems plausible. Dawkins may not be a historian, but he is, as others pointed out, an analyst of the field of science.Qwyrxian (talk) 08:48, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

We could probably find a Tillich quote also (Tillich was pretty skeptical of the legitimacy of the quest for a historical Jesus). I actually have in mind a peer reviewed essay about Tillichs work which basically ends up arguing that, while the wide consensus amongst religious scholars (inside and outside the church - it says this explictly) is that he exists, a small amount of people disagree; it then argues that theology should dissipate such doubt by looking at and debunking the theory rather than ignoring it. it's a great quote for our purposes but I hesitate to suggest it as a source though as it could be twisted to legitimize the Christ Myth theory (which it doesn't really do) - it is a little vague on details of who denies it ("the Historicity of Jesus has been and is denied by some") --Errant Tmorton166 08:57, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand your concerns, but I would provide the source anyway if possible -the fact that people can "twist" it is no reason for hiding it. --Cyclopia 09:35, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Hah, uh, I thought I had added a link (I'm sure I copied it in!!! sorry). Anyway here it is. Relevant quote:

(it's on page 143 of the journal) --Errant Tmorton166 10:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC

Thank you. I've read a bit the PDF and it is interesting also for another aspect of our debate: page 144 admits very clearly why Christian priests are biased sources on the subject:

--Cyclopia 11:31, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Once again, theology is no longer an aspect of historical Jesus research. Someone brought secondary sources around that stated this clearly and emphatically. Who was that I wonder? Oh now I remember it was the same editor who is making the argument just above me. This is ridiculous. Please stop synthesizing arguments based on dated materials and otherwise hypothetical situations.Griswaldo (talk) 11:59, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't quite understand what you're ranting about, but I simply was making the point that Christian scholars themselves (i.e. the author of the quote above) admit that Christians necessarily have a bias, since admitting the very remote possibility of the non existence of Jesus would make their faith crumble in pieces. Nothing to do with theology as a discipline. --Cyclopia 12:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is an interesting points. I think the article is quite clear in suggesting that the Christ Myth theory is pretty groundless - but argues that theology is ignoring the theory outright because they are (possibly) scared it will affect the underlying Christian faith. There are 2 caveats. Firstly I am not sure that identifies a clear bias; they ignore the topic, sure, but many historians or scientists ignore marginal topics because they see no merit in them. I read it as being akin to an evolutionary biologist ignoring the creation story because it lacks merit (something of an extreme example, I admit). Clearly it is an interesting point to raise though - I just think we need a much more explicit identification of bias to call it that outright. Secondly remember this is an article about a skeptic who so no merit in discovering historical Jesus written by someone who, as far as I have researched, is "agnostic" about the whole thing. So in a sense there is possible bias in the piece itself. It is on the latter grounds I find the admission of wide consensus interesting --Errant Tmorton166 12:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Meh, I just realised I am on a different article to the one I thought (Historical Jesus). I actually somewhat agree with the argument that the lead is badly worded. I think that there is no need to highlight any bias due to religion but it could be reworded to something like: most scholars agree that the existence of Jesus as a historical figure can be established using documentary and other evidence, although a few propose that he could instead be a fusion of earlier mythologies. We could base it on the above sources, seem reasonable? --Errant Tmorton166 12:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with you, it was only pointing out something relevant to the (meta) discussion. --Cyclopia 12:34, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Cool, yes I agree --Errant Tmorton166 12:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

The author is a Christian theologian. These articles assert Christianity is right and cite only Christian sources. Please cite some peer-reviewed secular sources saying it's a fact Jesus existed. Also, that article is almost 50 years old, and sentence fragments are not reliable sources. They are particularly unreliable when the relevant clause begins "although..." Noloop (talk) 14:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Your being awkward. There is no need for the source to be secular - this is discussed to death above - that is just your non-policy criteria. As a historical-jesus-skeptic this is a pretty good source from the perspective you have argued. and sentence fragments are not reliable sources. the whole article is there to be read - and has been by Cyclopia who seems to agree on it's veracity. I described what the article details and then provided the relevant direct quote. Just to be clear; this is not a Christian issue. It is a wording issue. There are a bazillion sources which discuss the wide consensus over Jesus' existence in some historical form. The idea he did not exist at all is an undeniably minor theory (again, as backed up in sources). There is a solid argument from removing "essentially all" from the lead and using "most" with a further qualification at the end of the sentence that a small number disagree that he existed at all. But there is not, as people far more qualified than me have told you, no reasonable rationale for demanding non-Christian sourcing :) --Errant Tmorton166 15:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

No, wait, there is a reasonable rationale for demaing non-Christian sourcing, and the source you provided above just demonstrates it: Christians admit explicitly that they can't even consider the possibility of the non-existence of Jesus, because it would simply imply they're no more Christians anymore. So the discussion above, if anything, makes it clear we need strongly secular sources. --Cyclopia 15:47, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Well; seeing as that source is be someone skeptical of the search for a historical Jesus doesn't that have the reverse set of issues :) There is no reason to demand strongly secular sources - just strong sources. Ultimately it is one line, a single sentence, that communicates the broad outline of the article. I think I proposed a reasonable compromise above --Errant Tmorton166 16:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

(reset) There is a very strong reason not to have Christians as 90% of the sources for a claim that Christianity is right. Noloop (talk) 16:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

You're misrepresenting the whole sentence; this is not a claim that Christianity is right. Rather, it is a statement about what consensus is held amongst scholars researching this area (i.e. the historicity of Jesus).... The issue of whether the Christian view is correct or not is a matter for the article. If the lead said "essentially all scholars agree that the Christian view of Jesus is accurate" then I would be with you 200% :) --Errant Tmorton166 17:51, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

You didn't quote a whole sentence. I don't have access to J-store, so I can't see the context of the quote, or even an independent clause. Noloop (talk) 01:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Islam

Ity would perhaps help matters if we has a efw Muslim sources. I reaslise thne I found was not that good, but so far its the best I have found. Any one else care to help (Noloop?).Slatersteven (talk) 15:11, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't think Muslim sources would help much (after all, Muslims believe in Jesus as a prophet). We need sources without a clear religious background and please please please your spelling --Cyclopia 15:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

True but it would do some one to addressing the concearns about an inbalcne of christian views.Slatersteven (talk) 16:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Noloop

There is a ban/topic ban proposal at AN/I. Slatersteven (talk) 16:01, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Lead Rewording

I do actually dislike the wording of the lead :) It's not especially well written (from both a grammatical and "scan" perspective). In addition an important point exists that there is minor dissent over the histocricity of Jesus which requires due mention. I propose the following:

While scholars often draw a distinction between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith (and debate what specifics can be known concerning his character and ministry) most agree that the existence of Jesus as a historical figure can be established using documentary and other evidence, although a few propose that he could instead be a fusion of earlier mythologies.

This addresses most of the legitimate concerns raised elsewhere. --Errant Tmorton166 17:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

What does the ref that comes after "documentary and other evidence" say, I wonder. Gbooks doesn't have a preview. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 18:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

No idea; it is the ref currently used in the lead. I'd support changing it for a more accessible source. --Errant Tmorton166 18:58, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I think we should use Michael Grant, as discussed a couple of sections above (the part that starts "This sceptical way of thinking reached its culmination"). Something like:

Scholars often draw a distinction between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith, and debate what specifics can be known concerning his character and ministry. Most scholars agree that Jesus existed, and there exists a large amount of evidence contradicting the theory that he is a myth,(Michael Grant book) although a few propose that he could instead be a fusion of earlier mythologies.

Well, that would need a good copyedit, but what do you think? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:12, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I have to admit a preference for my wording :P but I agree the Grant reference is much better. --Errant Tmorton166 19:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

You're wording is good, but it relies on that source we don't have access to. Mine still does a bit, too, unfortunately. We need a good source for the first part. Why don't you take a stab at a wording that uses Grant, if you want? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm almost positive I can find a citation for the first half in Ehrman, if you give me half a day (and if no one comes up with any silliness to discredit Ehrman based on his religious background, or lack there of ;) -Andrew c  23:45, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

simply saying "most" is misleading; the sources on Bill the cat's FAQ page suggest it's an overwhelming majority of scholars that supports the existence of a historical Jesus. Flash 23:55, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Stanton says "Today nearly all historians..." Grant says, while partially quoting someone else, "'no serous scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." These are strong conclusions, which I don't feel "most scholars agree" adequately sums up. Any other phrasing suggestions? The main Jesus article says "almost all Biblical scholars and classical historians...", this article currently says "essentially all scholars in the relevant fields..." I'd be OK with the wording from Jesus, or just following Stanton with "Nearly all..." but I'm open to more suggestions. Do the two who were working on the above wording agree that "most" could be improved on? -Andrew c  00:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Charles E. Carlston, "a view that no one holds in any case"; Bart Ehrman, "I don't think there's any serious historian who doubts the existence of Jesus"; Nicholas Perrin, "It is no surprise then that there is no New Testament scholar drawing pay from a post who doubts the existence of Jesus. I know not one."; Graeme Clarke, "Frankly, I know of no ancient historian or biblical historian who would have a twinge of doubt about the existence of a Jesus Christ - the documentary evidence is simply overwhelming." There are no contemporary academic works advocating the theory therefore scholars don't come across Price's latest polemic Jesus is Dead (American Atheist Press), etc. It is not something current in the academic debate, and "essentially all" seems to sum up the sources quite accurately. --Ari (talk) 03:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I see what you are saying r.e. most. I think we can used Stanton directly though . e.g.: While scholars often draw a distinction between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith (and debate what specifics can be known concerning his character and ministry) nearly all agree that the existence of Jesus as a historical figure can be established using documentary and other evidence, although a few propose that he could instead be a fusion of earlier mythologies. --Errant Tmorton166 10:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I am generally in agreement with the wording of Tmorton above. The main "dispute" is not about "did A Jesus exist", as we have correctly noted that mainstream scholarship overwhelmingly agrees that "A Jesus" existed. The area of dispute is about the extent to which the Biblical descriptions of the actions of that Jesus can be relied upon. Here scholars are more divided, with most accepting certain details to be true, but much disagreement over certain other details - the so-called "Christ of faith" aspects. To make the lead clear and unambiguous, I therefore propose a small tweak, as follows:

“Nearly all scholars agree that the Gospel accounts are based on a historical 1st century person named Jesus, whose historical existence can be established using documentary and other evidence, although a few propose that the character could instead be a fusion of earlier mythologies. However, many scholars draw a distinction between what can be reliably known concerning the character and ministry of the historical Jesus, and the less-reliable assertions about the “Christ of faith”.Wdford (talk) 11:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

That text does not explicitly say that nearly all historians believe that Jesus as a historical person existed, it is a bit ambiguous. Furthermore, I don't think it's a question of reliability in terms of the beliefs about the "Christ of faith", but what historians and scholars accept. Saying that one assertion is more/less reliable as a fact seems POV. Flash 13:47, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, my proposed wording explicitly says it THRICE, and leaves no ambiguity whatsoever. Secondly, exactly what "historians and scholars accept" varies from individual to individual, as some accept that the Christian writings are fully reliable and others accept that the Christian writings have been heavily edited over the millennia to further a specific agenda, and that not all of what stands there today is factually reliable. The current lead points out that the biography of Jesus is based on certain records, but does not mention that "historians and scholars" are at odds over how reliable those records actually are. I do not propose that[REDACTED] take sides, merely that the lead should properly summarise the fact that "historians and scholars" are at variance over certain of the core details of the biography of Jesus. I feel that the current wording is here ambiguous, and that my proposed wording summarises the facts more clearly for laypersons. Wdford (talk) 15:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Demonstrating academic consensus and Graham Stanton's assessment

The lead currently states:

essentially all scholars in the relevant fields agree that the existence of Jesus as a historical figure can be established using documentary and other evidence

It cites "Graham Stanton, The Gospels and Jesus (2nd ed.), (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002) p. xxii" as the source.WP:RS/AC establishes a fairly high bar for saying that there is academic consensus on a certain point. This is reasonable - after all, outstanding factual claims require outstanding support. Generally I imagine the ideal source is a survey, although consensus statement papers or National Academy reports might also squeak over that bar. Also, "all relevant fields" is vague and should be clarified. The Stanton source came up a while ago in Talk:Historicity_of_Jesus/Archive_21#Historians.2C_Cont., where Stanton was quoted as saying on page 145:

Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed and that the gospels contain plenty of valuable evidence which has to be weighed and assessed critically. There is general agreement that, with the possible exception of Paul, we know far more about Jesus of Nazareth than about any first- or second century Jewish or pagan religious teacher.

Does this demonstrate consensus? I certainly don't think so. Therefore, the statement should be attributed. However, perhaps page xxii has support for the statement, or perhaps on page 145 Stanton cites supporting evidence which was not in that discussion. II | (t - c) 22:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing to debate and no survey that needs to be done. The fact is that the virtually all scholars reject the CMT and those scholars that do support the theory acknowledge that fact. Consider these citations, for example:

• he view that there was no historical Jesus, that his earthly existence is a fiction of earliest Christianity—a fiction only later made concrete by setting his life in the first century—is today almost totally rejected.

G. A. Wells, The Historical Evidence for Jesus (Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 1988) p. 218

• It is customary today to dismiss with amused contempt the suggestion that Jesus never existed.

G. A. Wells, "The Historicity of Jesus," in Jesus and History and Myth, ed. R. Joseph Hoffman (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1986) p. 27

• "New Testament criticism treated the Christ Myth Theory with universal disdain"

Robert M. Price, The Pre-Nicene New Testament: Fifty-Four Formative Texts (Salt Lake City: Signature Books, 2006) p. 1179

• "Van Voorst is quite right in saying that 'mainstream scholarship today finds it unimportant' . Most of their comment (such as those quoted by Michael Grant) are limited to expressions of contempt."

Earl Doherty, "Responses to Critiques of the Mythicist Case: Alleged Scholarly Refutations of Jesus Mythicism, Part Three", The Jesus Puzzle: Was There No Historical Jesus?

Whether any editor here is not convinced by statements from both sides of the aisle is irrelevant. We must report the current level of consensus per WP:Fringe. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 23:33, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Wait, II, what is your concern? That we say essentially all scholars and Stanton says nearly all historians? I'm all for tweaking, and would accept that our wording can be improved, but I don't see how you are questioning that Stanton doesn't somehow support the notion that most (or more than most) scholars/historians accept a historical Jesus. You say you feel it should be qualified, how so? Something like Stanton claims all scholars...? Then when we cite Grant, do we need to change the qualification to Stanton and Grant claim... and why not throw in Van Voorst and Tuckett and Charlesworth... I mean it goes on and on. The only instance where I think qualification would be necessary is if there is an actual conflict like scholar X makes claim Y, while scholar A makes claim B. Is there an actual controversy here? Do you have alternative sources to demonstrate that Stanton, Grant, Van Voorst, Tuckett, Charlesworth et al. need to be qualified for the sake of scholar A et al.? Who exactly are we talking about here? -Andrew c  23:43, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

p.s. The best part of this is one topic up, we are discussing adding (or replacing) the citation with Grant... so if that happens, your comments regarding Stanton would be moot. -Andrew c  23:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

• I would argue that "essentially" and "nearly" are certainly not the same, and neither is "all relevant fields" an appropriate synonym for "historians" (critics have included philosophy professors, e.g. Wells, Michael Martin (philosopher)). My comments on Stanton are only loosely-related to the fact that Stanton is a theologian, so I'm not sure why you would say that my comments regarding Stanton are moot if replaced by Grant. Check out WP:RS/AC again. It's good policy to not allow individual scholars to speak for the entirety of their field without attribution except when the source is outstanding or particularly substantiated. Collecting sources does not overcome this requirement. That means that we do not accept either Stanton nor Wells' assertions of such an outstanding factual claim as factual. It is easy to write "everyone agrees with me" or "everyone disagrees with me". Substantiating it, not so easy. The phrase also significantly oversimplifies the discussion of what the "historical Jesus" was and whether it's really fair to call that historical Jesus "Jesus". Read this book review of Burton L. Mack's book. Even if some figure similar to Jesus existed, or someone with the name Jesus existed, that does not mean "Jesus Christ" as imagined by Christians existed. This is the sort of subtle point which is debated by scholars and rather glossed over in a POV manner in this article. It's also particularly difficult to make this statement - and speaks enormously about POV - when you've even got a theologian scholar Robert McNair Price who is a skeptic and says, quite reasonably (unlike this article!), that it's impossible to know. II | (t - c) 00:37, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
  • . This is the sort of subtle point which is debated by scholars and rather glossed over in a POV manner in this article. And this is the sort of thing I want to get into, instead of arguing on and on about how the skeptical/mythist view is more prominent than it really is ;P What specifically in the article do you find problematic? This article is nearly exclusively regarding the ancient sources regarding Jesus, so I'm curious to see what points you find POV (outside of the already mentioned sentence in the lead).-Andrew c  03:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

A fringe theory is discredited, not merely in the minority. Those authors are skeptical that Jesus existed. So, their statements don't mean they think skepticism has been discredited. Please provide a peer-reviewed, secular basis for calling the Christ myth theory pseudoscience, on par with Holocaust denial. Noloop (talk) 01:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

"Please provide a peer-reviewed, secular basis for calling the Christ myth theory pseudoscience, on par with Holocaust denial. "

Uh no, because we never said it was on par with Holocaust denial, nor is that point ever being made. A fringe theory is a theory that is held only by a fringe, therefore if only a few historians believe in CMT then it is a fringe theory. Period.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 01:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

It's been quite common in Historical Jesus talk. You should also review the Misplaced Pages policy on fringe theory. Lack of acceptance is not evidence of a fringe theory. Rejection is evidence of a fringe theory. The meaning of declaring something fringe in Misplaced Pages is that it deserves virtually no mention in the related articles. A label of "fringe theory" justifies exclusion. So. Please provide a peer-reviewed, secular basis for saying it's a fact Jesus existed. Noloop (talk) 01:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

There are 4 valid sources that say that directly above. I agree that we should be careful about who each of them refer to (i.e., "historians" ≠ "all relevant fields"). Now, I'm a Johnny-come-lately to this discussion, but you seem to be doing exactly what many people say you do--ignoring the valid sources that meet your concerns. Those 4 alone (I'm assuming they're reliable and accurate, having not looked at the originals myself) indicate CMT is a fringe theory. Your request for peer-reviewed sources has already been proven unnecessary per WP:RS, and your request for a secular one doesn't even really make sense--yes, we should reject strict reliance on sources published by church sources, but we should not reject sources by reputable historians/researchers just because they happen to hold a particular religious belief, assuming their peers accept them as valid researchers. I don't even know how we would know the religious beliefs of the people, unless they had self-identified. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment You may all wish to peruse the sources listed by a blocked editor on his talk page User talk:Eugeneacurry and that deal with this issue. The idea that something published by Oxford University Press would not be considered "secular scholarship" baffles the mind. For what it's worth I believe there is a Jewish source on that list that states "The "Christ-myth" theories are not accepted or even discussed by scholars today." Regards.Griswaldo (talk) 02:15, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

It should also be noted that finding reliable sources that even directly address Christ-myth theory is nearly impossible. Scholars simply assume Scholarship in this area starts from the premise that Jesus did exist to some extent or another, but does not necessarily agree on how much of the Jesus tradition is historically accurate. Basic historicity is taken for granted. This is true for the publications of specialists doing research on Jesus as well as more general religion publications such as text books and reference works. I just browsed all the 450 entries in ATLA Religion Database that were tagged with the subject heading "Jesus - historicity", and the Christ-myth theory is non-existant there (but for one essay discussing how Ernst Troeltsch had reacted to Drews' book and a couple of early mid century essays denouncing it). The fact that you cannot find any discussion of this theory, or this "perspective" on Jesus in major academic databases should be enough to stop this nonsense. Asking for a source that emphatically states this is a red herring.Griswaldo (talk) 03:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

"Scholars simply assume Jesus did exist to some extent or another" That is not very satisfactory for an article on the historicity of Jesus. The article would be rather short that way. "Did Jesus exist? Scholars simple assume he did. End of article." If we going to do it that way, it is probably better to delete the whole thing. Arnoutf (talk) 09:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Scholars don't simply assume. The fact that they can attribute a saying or deed to Jesus using the source shows that historical critical method not only demonstrates the existence of Jesus, but also his historical words/deeds. You cannot have a historical portrait of Jesus without establishing that Jesus existed. To expect scholars to say "I believe Jesus exists because of X, Y and Z" would be redundant as their work is already moving beyond that basic conclusion. --Ari (talk) 10:36, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Given what you both seem to infer from it, "simply assume" was a poor choice of words. I'm not sure why you both decided to pick on it though when the basic point is simply that no serious scholar questions the premise anymore. In other words the quote I found on the talk page I mentioned, "'The "Christ-myth' theories are not accepted or even discussed by scholars today," appears completely consistent with what I found when I looked at the afore mentioned database for peer-reviewed literature on historical Jesus research. If Christ Myth theories are "not ... even discussed by scholars today" one would be hard pressed to find the kind of quote Noloop is asking for. Arnoutf you also appear to assume something that is inaccurate when you suggest what this would mean for the entry. The point is that the "historicity of Jesus", as researched and debated in academia, does not concern the question of whether or not he existed but instead concerns what we can know about him based on the undisputed premise that he did exist. There is an extensive literature on his, and there appear to be several well defined movements in the "quest for the historical Jesus" as the field has undergone changes over the course of the last century. It should also be added that there is nothing strange about this at all, especially to anyone familiar with the sciences. Scholars, historians as well as scientists, don't reinvent the wheel ad infinitum Arnoutf.Griswaldo (talk) 11:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• The quotes by CMT proponents kinda settle the case that CMT has to be considered fringe for all WP purposes (regardless of the possible bias in the composition of the academic community, which is sadly something we cannot address at all). I would say these could be put in the lead with qualification (i.e. "Even CMT proponents like X and Y acknowledge that..." . On the User_talk:Eugeneacurry list: while 3 of the 5 authors are Christian pastors and/or theologians (Mark Stibbe, Charles Carlston, Schuyler Brown), the other 2 seem from a non-Christian background. However the position of George A. Wells is in the middle, because he today acknowledges the existence of "some" historical person that acted as a background for the Jesus story, but nothing more apparently (he is still considered a CMT proponent). After all, I would say that the Jewish source (Samuel Sandmel) is the strongest source, in terms of neutrality, in addressing the current concerns, even if having a proper, positive secular source is still missing. --Cyclopia 13:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• I've explained why there are no "positive secular sources". I'm sure there are several "neutral secular sources" who work from the foundations I've described above but feel no need to make declarations about the inaccuracy of a fringe theory. How many geologists declare positively that the earth is spherical and not flat? Noloops request is clearly ridiculous. Do you want to have a look at the results I did? Go to ATLA, or similar religion database, and search peer reviewed publications for "Christ-myth theory" (you wont find more than a handful) and then browse all the other publications on the "historicity" question. This whole argument is simply moot in the relevant fields. Anyone can see this. No qualifications of religious background and such are needed here.Griswaldo (talk) 13:42, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• Well, there is a whole discipline on measurement of Earth shape, so you can find a lot of positive declarations on the Earth shape. But that's not the point. I think we're close to settling the issue anyway -having a source not positively biased towards the existence of Jesus that declares such consensus was the critical point, and the CMT proponents above do the job of answering Noloop concerns with respect to WP:FRINGE. The Jewish source is a good non-Christian source as well. I would like to have also a secular (i.e. non-rabbi, non-imam, non-priest, non-theologian) working on the issue who is positively not a CMT proponent, because this would help to settle the issue also about scholarship bias, but that is not essential now (though I think it is a worthwile search). --Cyclopia 14:34, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• You didn't read the entire sentence it seems. Geologists do not positively state that the earth is spherical and not flat. Everyone who does historical research on Jesus positively affirms that he was a historical person in every single paper they publish. They write about Jesus as a historical person and pay no attention to suggestions otherwise. That's not different than Geologists not paying attention to the notion that the earth is flat. Consider the analogy in a fuller sense as well. Is a flat earth within the spectrum of theories discussed in geodesy? No. Are other finer aspects of the earths shape still under scientific scrutiny, apparently. Compare this to historical Jesus research. Is the Christ Myth theory within the spectrum of theories discussed in historical Jesus reasearch? No. Are other finer aspects of Jesus' historicity still under historical scrutiny, apparently.Griswaldo (talk) 14:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

It is nonsensical to insist that advocates of any theory consider theirown theory "fringe" in the context of Misplaced Pages. Misplaced Pages's definition of fringe is "discredited". Not "minority" and not "lacking acceptance." Discredited. The meaning for editing purposes is that the theory can--should--be excluded from mention except in articles dedicated to the fringe theory in particular. The quotes above--which are being given without any context--show that the authors acknowledge themselves to be in a minority. Here is what those authors say about the actual topic:

• I quite agree with Earl Doherty that the most important result of research carried out by writers like Wells, himself, Freke and Gandy, and myself, is the demonstration that the Jesus figure of the New Testament Gospels and Acts is a fiction, without any real evidential support. -- Professor Alvar Ellegard,Dean of the Faculty of Arts at the University of Goteburg
• Before the Gospels were adopted as history, no record exists that he was ever in the city of Jerusalem at all-- or anywhere else on earth. -Earl Doherty, "The Jesus Puzzle," p.141
• It is important to recognize the obvious: The gospel story of Jesus is itself apparently mythic from first to last." -Robert M. Price, professor of biblical criticism at the Center for Inquiry Institute (Deconstructing Jesus, p. 260)
• "...the earliest references to the historical Jesus are so vague that it is not necessary to hold that he ever existed; the rise of Christianity can, from the undoubtedly historical antecedents, be explained quite well without him; and reasons can be given to show why, from about A.D. 80 or 90, Christians began to suppose that he had lived in Palestine about fifty years earlier." Professor G.A Wells. (The Historical Evidence for Jesus)

To argue that the position of these scholars is that their own theories are discredited and deserve exclusion is incoherent. Noloop (talk) 15:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

And, for good measure:

The problem I have with all these versions of the so called "historical Jesus" is that they each choose certain early sources as their central evidence, and each presents a part of the picture. My own problem with this, as a historian, is that none of the historical evidence actually goes back as far as Jesus—so these various speculations are that, and nothing more. --Elaine Pagels Professor of Religion, Princeton University. (MacArthur Fellowship, National Book Critics Circle Award, Guggenheim Fellowship, Rockefeller Fellowship)

Please provide some peer-reviewed, secular sources that say it's a fact Jesus existed. Noloop (talk) 15:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• Noloop: I defended you in the AN/I because you helped bringing reasonable concerns. Don't make this effort useless by being as stubborn as some of your opponents were. WP:FRINGE says nothing about positively discredited (I looked for the word "discredited" in the policy: there isn't). WP:FRINGE says: We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study., and all sources above agree on exactly that, explicitly. So, as far as it goes for WP policies, we're ok. I have the feeling too that the field may be biased, but I'm far from being really knowledgeable on the field, so this remains just a POV of mine. Now, (to answer Griswaldo as well), I would really happy if we can find a peer-reviewed secular source who is positive on the claim of the existence of Jesus. Geodesy doesn't talk about the flat Earth, but when they release a new dataset on Earth 3D shape, it comes out it is not flat, so the question is directly addressed. This is more of an assumption here, as you stated: a very reasonable one, indeed, but it would be nice the same to come out with something clarifying the issue once for all. Call it an academic curiosity of mine, if you want: I feel Noloop concerns are mostly (if not perhaps completely) settled, stubborness of him aside. --Cyclopia 16:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

This conversation is getting too confusing for me to follow, but I figure I'd make a few points before I head out the door:

• Noloop's quote of Elaine Pagels isn't that useful, in my opinion. She seems to say that the speck on the horizon is too small to make out if it's a boat or an island, without addressing the issue of whether or not the speck exists. Maybe she means more than this, but I can't tell just from the passage quoted.
• A lot of scholars assume, a priori, that Jesus exists in their writings. But this strong conviction is not evidence that "essentially all historians and scholars believe Jesus existed", particularly if they are writing in theological journals. The strong conviction of many people that chocolate is the best flavor does not mean that essentially all people believe chocolate is the best flavor.
• Saying that "historians and scholars widely believe that Jesus existed" is not the same as saying "the Christ Myth theory is not widely accepted by historians and scholars". After all, there may be many who are agnostic on the issue (UPDATE: or, they may be like me and think that he *probably* existed). The quotes in Bill the Cat's FAQ page tend toward the latter statement, and I think you're better off using some phrasing of the latter.
• Imperfectly Informed came in with basically the same reaction as I did when I walked into this conversation. I would consider using a source like Dawkins, and refrain from using language like "essentially all" for this very practical reason--it will help keep bypassers from walking in and requestioning the issue.

--RSLxii 17:17, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Instead of doing a search for the word I used, actually read the policy:

Usually, mainstream and minority views are treated in the main article, with the mainstream view typically getting a bit more ink, but the minority view presented in such a fashion that both sides could agree to it. Singular views can be moved to a separate page and identified (disclaimed) as such, or in some cases omitted altogether....Articles which cover controversial, disputed, or discounted ideas in detail should document (with reliable sources) the current level of their acceptance among the relevant academic.... a lack of consideration or acceptance does not necessarily imply rejection, either; ideas should not be portrayed as rejected or labeled with pejoratives such as pseudoscience unless such claims can be documented in reliable sources.... Ideas that have been rejected, are widely considered to be absurd or pseudoscientific, only of historical interest, or primarily the realm of science fiction, should be documented as such, using reliable sources.

The idea of rejection is key. "Minority views are treated in the main article." It is untenable to designate departure from the Christian theological community a departure from the "mainstream" view. Please provide some secular, peer-reviewed sources that say it's a fact Jesus existed. The most basic indicator of being fringe is a lack of reliable sources. Please explain why George Albert Wells, Elaine Pagels, and Alvar Ellegård are unreliable. Noloop (talk) 17:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• Noloop, the point is simple. The view is treated in the main article(s). The view is treated as being clearly minoritary in every source, including CMT sources. Therefore we can and must talk of it as such, everything else violating WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. We of course should treat it, not hide it, but making it clear its status. And you have also been provided sources on such consensus that do NOT belong to the "Christian theological community": albeit more would be welcome, they are enough to settle that it is, indeed, a fringe view. Finally, no, lack of RS is not an indicator of fringe views. You can find tons of RS and Nobel prize statements on AIDS denialism, but it doesn't make it less fringe. What counts is academic consensus. --Cyclopia 17:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• You are simply wrong. Being minority is not the same as being fringe. The guideline makes that clear. We don't exclude minority views from articles.
• I agree the point is simple. If something is a fact, you can find non-Christians who believe it. Please cite some non-Christian, peer-reviewed sources that say it's a fact Jesus existed. Noloop (talk) 18:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• Nobody argues to "exclude" these view. They have to be in the article, described explicitly as minority views.
• For Misplaced Pages purposes, it is fringe. Again: WP:FRINGE says: We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study..

• The non-Christian sources have been given above. Have you read them? (I misread) We don't have that source yet, and I agree, it would be much helpful. But this doesn't change the point: the non-existence is considered by non Christian scholars as well a fringe theory (see above), and that's what we need to know to assess academic consensus. Is the academia on the subject biased? Perhaps. But we can't do anything about that. --Cyclopia 18:33, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

You lost me. The attempt to exclude the views has been the main issue for the last 10 days or so. Noloop (talk) 18:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I corrected the above. Exclusion has never been an issue, sourcing was. --Cyclopia 18:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I took these from user Eugeneacurry's (talk) page. (long list removed; see link to Talk page if interested)

Wikiposter0123 (talk) 19:31, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, please just give a link. A long list like that disrupts the flow of the page, making it hard to read. It also sets a bad precedent, since others (like yours truly) will feel entitled to paste in their long list and the whole thing turns into list-spam. What do you want say about the list? Most of those sources are Christian theologians. The exception, Bruce Ehrman, is probably the weakest agnostic you'll ever find. I don't think any of them are peer-reviewed. Noloop (talk) 19:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

1. Alvar Ellegård: Jesus One Hundred Years Before Christ - A Study In Creative Mythology, 1999 (p.35 2nd paragraph, p42: not the crucifixion , but the beginning of the "euaggelion" happened at AD 30-40, p. 67 2nd and 3rd paragraph, p. 70 last two sentences, etc, etc). ISBN 0-7126-7956-1
2. Graham Stanton, The Gospels and Jesus (2nd ed.), (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002) p. xxiii
3. Graham Stanton, The Gospels and Jesus (2nd ed.), (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002) p. xxiii
4. Graham Stanton, The Gospels and Jesus (2nd ed.), (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002) p. xxiii

• B-Class Christianity articles
• High-importance Christianity articles
• WikiProject Christianity articles
• Old requests for peer review
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment