Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:48, 4 September 2014

This page is not a forum for general discussion about personal beliefs, apologetics, or polemics. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about personal beliefs, apologetics, or polemics at the Reference desk.

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Historicity of Jesus. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Historicity of Jesus at the Reference desk.

view · edit Frequently asked questions Historical existence vs historical portraits Q 1a How is this article different from Historical Jesus? A: This article discusses the very basic issue of "existence of Jesus as a historical figure", not what he did and taught. On the other hand, the Historical Jesus article discusses the various aspects of what can be gathered about the activities of Jesus. In basic terms this article answers the question: "Did Jesus walk the streets of Jerusalem?" without addressing any details about what he said, did or taught as he walked the streets. The other article addresses broader questions such as "Was Jesus seen as an apocalyptic prophet by the people of his time?" which are beyond the scope of this article. Q 1b Why are there two articles? A: The two separate aspects of historicity vs historical portraits require different lines of reasoning. Historicity is largely a yes/no question: "Did he exist and walk?" while historical portraits are far more involved and are based on "historically probable events" with different scholars having different levels of confidence in various aspects of what can be known about Jesus. Moreover WP:Length has specific length limits (as in WP:SIZERULE) and there is enough distinct material in each article that combining them would create too large an article that would be too hard to read and follow. And in any case the articles have different academic focuses and while there is widespread agreement on existence (discussed in this article), that does not extend to the portraits constructed in the other article and these issues are logically distinct. Q 2 Is "virtually all scholars" a term that can be used in Misplaced Pages? A: Yes: Based on this Misplaced Pages search the term is widely used in Misplaced Pages. The definition of the term is shown by the Merriam-Webster dictionary in clear terms. The term is directly used by the source in the article, and is used per the WP:RS/AC guideline to reflect the academic consensus. Q 3 What about books that claim Jesus never existed? A: The internet includes some such lists, and they have been discussed on the talk page, the list in the box below is copied from the talk page discussion: List of books on non-historicity of Jesus This is a list of books typically presented on the internet as an overview of the authors who argue against the existence of Jesus, historicity of accounts, etc. Based on the analysis below, we can see how many "academics and scholars" there are here: Harold Leidner, 2000, The Fabrication of the Christ Myth. Leidner was a patent attorney (NY University Law school 1939) and amateur scholar. He was an attorney, not a scholar and wrote as an amateur outside the field of law. Robert M. Price: Deconstructing Jesus. 2003. Price is a biblical scholar, has training in the field and denies the existence of Jesus. However, he acknowledges (The Historical Jesus: Five Views ISBN 028106329X page 61) that hardly any scholars agree with his perspective on this issue. Hal Childs, 2000, The Myth of the Historical Jesus and the Evolution of Consciousness Childs is a psychotherapist (not a scholar in the field) but does not deny the existence of Jesus. His perspective is shared by a number of scholars who support the existence of Jesus, e.g. John Dominic Crossan who also said: "those who write biographies of Jesus often do autobiography, but think they are doing biography". Child's perspective is unrelated to the existence question. Dennis MacDonald, 2000, The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark. MacDonald is a scholar, but does not deny the existence of Jesus as a person, he just argues that the Gospel of Mark was influenced by Homeric elements. He also thinks the Book of Acts includes Homeric trends, but that is unrelated to the existence question. Burton L. Mack The Christian Myth: Origins, Logic, and Legacy. Social formation of myth making. Mack is a scholar who specifically supports the theory that Jesus existed as a traveling sage. Mack was a member of the Jesus seminar, believes that Jesus existed, but holds that his death was accidental and not due to his challenge to Jewish authority. Luigi Cascioli, 2001, The Fable of Christ. Indicting the Papacy for profiteering from a fraud! Cascioli was a "land surveyor" who worked for the Italian army. His book was self-published. His claim to fame was that in 2002 he sued the Church for inventing Jesus, but in 2005 his case was rejected. He was no scholar. Israel Finkelstein, Neil Silberman, 2002, The Bible Unearthed Finkelstein and a Silberman are archaeologists, but they do not deny the existence of Jesus. Their work is centered on archaeological themes and mostly addresses the Old Testament. Hardly anyone lists these two people as Jesus myth theorists. Frank Zindler, 2003, The Jesus the Jews Never Knew. Zindler (who seems to have been a biologist at some point) does not seem to have had any scholarly training or taught at any university on this topic. What he writes on the topic is all self-taught, not scholarly. Daniel Unterbrink, 2004, Judas the Galilean. Unterbrink is an accountant, and his book is self-published by iUniverse. Tom Harpur, 2005, The Pagan Christ: Recovering the Lost Light. Harpur (who is a follower of Gerald Massey) argues that Egyptian myths influenced Judaism and Christianity, but he does not deny the existence of Jesus. Harpur's theory is that Jesus of Nazareth existed but mythical stories from Egypt were later added to the gospel narratives about him. Francesco Carotta 2005, Jesus Was Caesar. Carotta does not deny the existence of Jesus, on the other hand he thinks Jesus existed but was Julius Caesar: a very unusual theory, but it does not deny the existence of Jesus. Joseph Atwill, 2005, Caesar's Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus It is not clear who Joseph Atwill is. He seems to have written one paper on the Dead Sea Scrolls with Eisenman, but he does not seem to have any scholarly background, apart from having studied Greek and Latin as a youth in Japan, according to a review website. No trace of his having been a scholar of any kind. Michel Onfray Traité d'athéologie (2007 In Defence of Atheism): Onfray, has a PhD in philosophy and was a high school teacher. He is critical of all religions including Judaism and Islam and thinks Christian doctrine was invented by Paul. Rather than focusing on the existence of Jesus his work deals with how religious doctrines were created and how they impact western philosophy. Kenneth Humphreys, 2005, Jesus Never Existed. I can find no evidence anywhere that Humphreys is a scholar of any type, and where he was educated. He just seems to run his own website, and his book is published by Historical Review Press, which is Anthony Hancock (publisher), whose specialty is Holocaust denial books. A really WP:Fringe item. Jay Raskin, 2006, The Evolution of Christs and Christianities Raskin has a PhD in philosophy, and has taught some philosophy and film making courses at various colleges. His book is self-published by Xlibris - "nonselective" in accepting manuscripts according to their Misplaced Pages page. Raskin is better known as a film-maker than a historian or philosopher and his movies have titles such as I married a Vampire. He is no scholar. Thomas L. Thompson, 2006, The Messiah Myth. Thompson is a scholar and a denier of the existence of Jesus. He is one of the very few scholars who still deny existence. Jan Irvin, Andrew Rutajit, 2006, Astrotheology and Shamanism From what I can find neither of these people are scholars and they seem to have a theory that religions are based on the use of narcotics: a pure WP:Fringe idea that seems to have been advocated by John Allegro as well. This is not scholarship, and these are not scholars. Roger Viklund, 2008. Den Jesus som aldrig funnits (The Jesus who never existed). Viklund is an amateur who self-published his book in Swedish and just has his own website. Not a scholar at all. Richard Carrier Not the Impossible Faith and Sense and Goodness without God. He has a PhD in history, but has no academic position and his books are self published by LuLu and Authorhouse. He runs his own website and may seen as a scholar or not, depending on perspective. Not clear what he does for a living. D. M. Murdock (Acharya S) The Gospel According to Acharya S is a self-published author and her web site says she has a B.A. degree. There is no claim or record of her ever having had an academic position and she is not a scholar by any measure. Earl Doherty Jesus: Neither God Nor Man - The Case for a Mythical Jesus is a self-published author. He has a B.A. but no advanced degrees and is not a scholar. Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy The Jesus Mysteries . Freke has a B.A. degree and Gandy an M.A. Neither has a PhD or had an academic position. Freke teaches experiential seminars. Neither is a scholar. So really there is one solid academic scholar here namely Thompson and then Price who can be called a non-academic scholar - given that he only teaches online courses on the subject (around $50 per course) at an online website with no campus. Note that G. A. Wells has softened his position of non-existence and now accepts the likely existence of a preacher mentioned in the Q source, although holding that the gospel narratives of his life/miracles are fiction. But just Thompson and Price do not make a long list. There are probably 1 or 2 more people with PhDs who deny existence (say Carrier, but who has no academic post) yet it is quite clear from this list that most of those mentioned are either amateurs or are scholars such as Mack who actually support existence. Most of these people are attorney/accountant/etc./etc. types and not scholars. The funniest one however was suggesting Raskin as a scholar. But anyway, the results speak for themselves. As a side note, just for your clarification, given that you seem to think the existence debate is still raging in academia I did another search. It again confirmed that the debate is really over within academia and only the non-scholarly types are still discussing it. The funniest part was this challenge a year ago. I did another search and it seems that based on this ABC news item in Australia as of now no one has found an opposing professor of ancient history or classics. And there are plenty of professors out there; many of them non-Christian. The exact challenge seems to be to find "a full professor of Classics, Ancient History or New Testament in any accredited university in the world who thinks Jesus never lived". And no one seems to have found such a professor. So it is intuitively pretty clear that the debate is over within academia, just as the references indicate. What I just wrote does not affect the article, but from an intuitive point of view should tell you that the debate is over within academia. Else we can all call John Dickson and get him to eat a page after all. There is yet one more scholar, namely Thomas L. Brodie, who in a recent 2012 book ("Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus" ISBN 978-1907534584) has argued that the coherence of 1 Kings 16:29 - 2 Kings 13:25 indicates that the Elijah and Elisha stories are a model for the gospels, and a mythical Jesus. Brodie is a scholar in the field, so now there is Price, Thompson and Brodie. His arguments are very different from the others, but this does not dramatically change the balance of scholarship yet, unless several other scholars follow him in the next few years, so only time will tell. As for Dickson eating a page, he does not have to yet, for just as the book came out Brodie either resigned or was fired from his position at the Dominican Biblical Institute, depending on which story in the press you believe. The list came from a non-WP:RS website and once it was analyzed it became clear that: Most of the authors on the list were not scholars in the field, and included an attorney, an accountant, a land surveyor, a film-maker, as well as a number of amateurs whose actual profession was less than clear, whose books were self-published and failed the WP:RS requirements. Some of the books on the list did not even deny the existence of Jesus, e.g. Burton Mack (who is a scholar) holds that Jesus existed but his death was not due to his challenge to Jewish authority, etc. Finkelstein and Silberman's work is about the Old Testament and not really related to Jesus. The analysis of the list thus shed light on the scarcity of scholars who deny the existence of Jesus. Q 4 What about contemporary sources and archaeological remnants? A: The article Christ myth theory discusses that issue in much more detail because it is more relevant to the denial existence issues. As stated there, and briefly in this article: In a global cultural context the existence and general life stories of historical figures such as Plato or Socrates are established by the analysis of references to them in later documents rather than by specific relics and remnants attributed to them. Although the followers of Jesus made an impact on their societies a few centuries after his death, the impact of Jesus on the society of his time was "practically nil" and hence no major relics can be expected given that there is no such evidence of nearly anyone who lived in the first century. There was a very low level of interest in and awareness of Christians within the general population of the Roman Empire at the turn of the first century and there is the lack of any discernible mention of them by Roman authors such as Martial and Juvenal, although Christians had been present in Rome since the reign of Claudius (41–54 AD) and both authors referred to Judaism. Specific issues regarding this topic are discussed at more length in that article. Q 5 But aren't these scholars who study Jesus all Christians anyway? A: This has been discussed on the talk page of this article, as well as a number of other talk article pages. There are 2 aspects to this: To begin with not all scholars involved in the historical Jesus research are Christians, and the article lede quotes Ehrman who is an agnostic and Price who is an atheist. Moreover note that G. A. Wells who was widely accepted as the leader of the non-existence movement in the 20th century, abandoned that position and now accepts that the Q source refers to "a preacher" on whom parts of the gospels were based - although he believes that the supernatural claims were just stories that were then attributed to that preacher. That is reflected in his 2004 book "Can we Trust the New Testament", pages 49-50. Some of the most respected late 20th century scholars involved in the study of the historical Jesus, e.g. Amy-Jill Levine, Geza Vermes, Paula Fredriksen, etc. are Jewish. This trend is discussed in the 2012 book "Soundings in the Religion of Jesus: Perspectives and Methods in Jewish and Christian Scholarship by Bruce Chilton Anthony Le Donne and Jacob Neusner (ISBN 0800698010 page 132). While much of the older research in the 1950-1970 time frame may have involved Christian scholars (mostly in Europe) the 1980s saw an international effect and since then Jewish scholars have brought their knowledge of the field and made significant contributions. And one should note that the book is coauthored by the likes of Chilton and Neusner with quite different backgrounds. Similarly one of the main books in the field "The Historical Jesus in Context by Amy-Jill Levine, Dale C. Allison Jr., John Dominic Crossan 2006 ISBN 0691009929" is jointly edited by scholars with quite different backgrounds. In the late 20th and the 21st century Jewish, Christian and secular agnostic scholars have widely cooperated in research. They continue to debate the historicity of specific gospel narratives, but the agreement on the existence of Jesus is global. Moreover, Misplaced Pages policies do not prohibit Jewish scholars as sources on the history of Judaism, Buddhist scholars as sources on Buddhism, or Muslim scholars as sources on the history of Islam provided they are respected scholars whose works meet the general WP:RS requirements in terms of publisher reputation, etc. Q 6 How can we say most scholars without doing a formal survey ourselves? A: In fact the formal Misplaced Pages guidelines require us not to do our own survey. The Misplaced Pages guideline WP:RS/AC specifically states: "The statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view." Given that the guideline then states: "statement in Misplaced Pages that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors." we should not rely on our own surveys but quote a scholar who states what the "academic consensus" may be. Moreover, in this case, after much discussion, no reliable source has yet been presented that presents a differing statement of the academic consensus, and opposing scholars such as Robert Price acknowledge that their views are not the mainstream. Q 7 Why are other historical facts less certain than existence? A: The difference is "historically certain" versus "historically probable" and "historically plausible". There are a number of subtle issues and this is a somewhat complicated topic, although it may seem simple at first: Hardly any scholars dispute the existence of Jesus or his crucifixion. A large majority of scholars agree that he debated the authorities and had "followers" - some scholars say there was a hierarchy among the followers, a few think it was a flat organization. More scholars think he performed some healings (given that Rabbinic sources criticize him for that etc., among other reasons) than those who say he never did, but less agreement on than the debates with authorities, etc. As the article states Amy-Jill Levine summarized the situation by stating: "Most scholars agree that Jesus was baptized by John, debated with fellow Jews on how best to live according to God's will, engaged in healings and exorcisms, taught in parables, gathered male and female followers in Galilee, went to Jerusalem, and was crucified by Roman soldiers during the governorship of Pontius Pilate." In that statement Levine chose her words very carefully. If she had said "disciples" instead of followers there would have been serious objections from other scholars, if she had said "called" instead of "gathered", there would have also been objections in that some scholars hold that Jesus preached equally to all, never imposed a hierarchy among his followers, etc. Scholars have very specific positions and the strength of the consensus among them can vary by changing just one word, e.g. follower to disciple or apostle, etc. Quotes Quotes on the historicity of Jesus Christ myth theorists 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? Jesus existed 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. Graham Stanton, The Gospels and Jesus (2nd ed.), (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002) p. xxiii It is certain, however, that Jesus was arrested while in Jerusalem for the Passover, probably in the year 30, and that he was executed...it cannot be doubted that Peter was a personal disciple of Jesus... Helmut Koester, Introduction to the New Testament, 2 (2nd ed.) (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2000) pp. 80 & 166 Even the most critical historian can confidently assert that a Jew named Jesus worked as a teacher and wonder-worker in Palestine during the reign of Tiberius, was executed by crucifixion under the prefect Pontius Pilate, and continued to have followers after his death. Luke Timothy Johnson, The Real Jesus (San Francisco: Harper, 1996) p. 121 here is substantial evidence that a person by the name of Jesus once existed. Robert Funk, Honest to Jesus: Jesus for a New Millenium (San Francisco: HarperSanFrancisco, 1997) p. 33 There are no substantial doubts about the general course of Jesus’ life: when and where he lived, approximately when and where he died, and the sort of thing that he did during his public activity. E. P. Sanders, The Historical Figure of Jesus (London: Allen Lane, 1993) p. 10 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. Graeme Clarke, quoted by John Dickson in "Facts and friction of Easter", The Sydney Morning Herald, March 21, 2008 In the academic mind, there can be no more doubt whatsoever that Jesus existed than did Augustus and Tiberius, the emperors of his lifetime. Even if we assume for a moment that the accounts of non-biblical authors who mention him - Flavius Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius, Pliny the Younger and others - had not survived, the outstanding quality of the Gospels, Paul's letters and other New Testament writings is more than good enough for the historian. Carsten Peter Thiede, Jesus, Man or Myth? (Oxford: Lion, 2005) p. 23 Rejection of CMT - early 20th century (first wave of CMT) The defectiveness of treatment of the traditional evidence is perhaps not so patent in the case of the gospels as it is in the case of the Pauline epistles. Yet fundamentally it is the same. There is the same easy dismissal of all external testimony, the same disdain for the saner conclusions of modern criticism, the same inclination to attach most value to extremes of criticism, the same neglect of all the personal and natural features of the narrative, the same disposition to put skepticism forward in the garb of valid demonstration, and the same ever present predisposition against recognizing any evidence for Jesus' actual existence... The New Testament data are perfectly clear in their testimony to the reality of Jesus' earthly career and they come from a time when the possibility that the early framers of tradition should have been deceived upon this point is out of the question. Shirley Jackson Case, The Historicity Of Jesus (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1912) pp. 76-77 & 269 I feel that I ought almost to apologize to my readers for investigating at such length the hypothesis of a pre-Christian Jesus, son of a mythical Mary, and for exhibiting over so many pages its fantastic, baseless, and absurd character... We must perforce suppose that the Gospels were a covert tribute to the worth and value of Pagan mythology and religious dramas, to pagan art and statuary. If we adopt the mythico-symbolical method, they can have been nothing else. Its sponsors might surely condescend to explain the alchemy by which the ascertained rites and beliefs of early Christians were distilled from these antecedents. The effect and the cause are so entirely disparate, so devoid of any organic connection, that we would fain see the evolution worked out a little more clearly. At one end of it we have a hurly-burly of pagan myths, at the other an army of Christian apologists inveighing against everything pagan and martyred for doing so, all within a space of sixty or seventy years. I only hope the orthodox will be gratified to learn that their Scriptures are a thousandfold more wonderful and unique than they appeared to be when they were merely inspired by the Holy Spirit. For verbal inspiration is not, as regards its miraculous quality, in the same field with mythico-symbolism. Verily we have discovered a new literary genus, unexampled in the history of mankind, you rake together a thousand irrelevant thrums of mythology, picked up at random from every age, race, and clime; you get a "Christist" to throw them into a sack and shake them up; you open it, and out come the Gospels. In all the annals of the Bacon-Shakespeareans we have seen nothing like it. Frederick Cornwallis Conybeare,The Historical Christ, or an Investigation of the Views of J. M. Robertson, A. Drews and W. B. Smith (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Library, 2009/1914) pp. 42 & 95 The historical reality both of Buddha and of Christ has sometimes been doubted or denied. It would be just as reasonable to question the historical existence of Alexander the Great and Charlemagne on account of the legends which have gathered round them... The attempt to explain history without the influence of great men may flatter the vanity of the vulgar, but it will find no favour with the philosophic historian. James Frazer, The Golden Bough: A Study in Magic and Religion, 7 (3rd ed.) (London: Macmillan, 1919) p. 311 There is, lastly, a group of writers who endeavor to prove that Jesus never lived--that the story of his life is made up by mingling myths of heathen gods, Babylonian, Egyptian, Persian, Greek, etc. No real scholar regards the work of these men seriously. They lack the most elementary knowledge of historical research. Some of them are eminent scholars in other subjects, such as Assyriology and mathematics, but their writings about the life of Jesus have no more claim to be regarded as historical than Alice in Wonderland or the Adventures of Baron Munchausen. George Aaron Barton, Jesus of Nazareth: A Biography (New York: Macmillan, 1922) p. x In the last analysis, the whole Christ-myth theorizing is a glaring example of obscurantism, if the sin of obscurantism consists in the acceptance of bare possibilities in place of actual probabilities, and of pure surmise in defiance of existing evidence. Those who have not entered far into the laborious inquiry may pretend that the historicity of Jesus is an open question. For me to adopt such a pretence would be sheer intellectual dishonesty. I know I must, as an honest man, reckon with Jesus as a factor in history... This dialectic process whereby the Christ-myth theory discredits itself rests on the simple fact that you cannot attempt to prove the theory without mishandling the evidence. Herbert George Wood, Christianity and the Nature of History (London: Cambridge University Press, 1934) pp. xxxiii & 54 I.e. if we leave out of account the Christ-myth theories, which are hardly to be reckoned as within the range of serious criticism. Alexander Roper Vidler, The Modernist Movement in the Roman Church (London: Cambridge University Press, 1934) p. 253 Of course the doubt as to whether Jesus really existed is unfounded and not worth refutation. No sane person can doubt that Jesus stands as founder behind the historical movement whose first distinct stage is represented by the oldest Palestinian community. Rudolf Bultmann, Jesus and the Word (New York: Scribner, 1958) p. introduction Such Christ-myth theories are not now advanced by serious opponents of Christianity—they have long been exploded ... Gilbert Cope, Symbolism in the Bible and the Church (London: SCM, 1959) p. 14 By no means are we at the mercy of those who doubt or deny that Jesus ever lived. Rudolf Bultmann, "The Study of the Synoptic Gospels", Form Criticism: Two Essays on New Testament Research, Rudolf Bultmann & Karl Kundsin; translated by Frederick C. Grant (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1962) p. 62 In the 1910's a few scholars did argue that Jesus never existed and was simply the figment of speculative imagination. This denial of the historicity of Jesus does not commend itself to scholars, moderates or extremists, any more. ... The "Christ-myth" theories are not accepted or even discussed by scholars today. Samuel Sandmel, A Jewish Understanding of the New Testament‎ (New York: Ktav, 1974) p. 196 In the early years of this century, various theses were propounded which all assert that Jesus never lived, and that the story of Jesus is a myth or legend. These claims have long since been exposed as historical nonsense. There can be no reasonable doubt that Jesus of Nazareth lived in Palestine in the first three decades of our era, probably from 6-7 BC to 30 AD. That is a fact. Walter Kasper, Jesus the Christ (Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1976) p. 65 Rejection of CMT - late 20th and early 21st century (revival of CMT) If one were able to survey the members of the major learned societies dealing with antiquity, it would be difficult to find more than a handful who believe that Jesus of Nazareth did not walk the dusty roads of Palestine in the first three decades of the Common Era. Evidence for Jesus as a historical personage is incontrovertible. W. Ward Gasque, "The Leading Religion Writer in Canada... Does He Know What He's Talking About?", George Mason University's History News Network, 2004 render highly implausible any farfetched theories that even Jesus' very existence was a Christian invention. The fact that Jesus existed, that he was crucified under Pontius Pilate (for whatever reason) and that he had a band of followers who continued to support his cause, seems to be the part of the bedrock of historical tradition. If nothing else, the non-Christian evidence can provide us with certainty on that score. Christopher M. Tuckett, "Sources and Methods" in The Cambridge Companion to Jesus (London: Cambridge University Press, 2001) p. 124 n attempt to show that Jesus never existed has been made in recent years by G. A. Wells, a Professor of German who has ventured into New Testament study and presents a case that the origins of Christianity can be explained without assuming that Jesus really lived. Earlier presentations of similar views at the turn of the century failed to make any impression on scholarly opinion, and it is certain that this latest presentation of the case will not fare any better. For of course the evidence is not confined to Tacitus; there are the New Testament documents themselves, nearly all of which must be dated in the first century, and behind which there lies a period of transmission of the story of Jesus which can be traced backwards to a date not far from that when Jesus is supposed to have lived. To explain the rise of this tradition without the hypothesis of Jesus is impossible. I. Howard Marshall, I Believe in the Historical Jesus (rev. ed.) (Vancouver: Regent College Publishing, 2004) pp. 15–16 A phone call from the BBC’s flagship Today programme: would I go on air on Good Friday morning to debate with the authors of a new book, The Jesus Mysteries? The book claims (or so they told me) that everything in the Gospels reflects, because it was in fact borrowed from, much older pagan myths; that Jesus never existed; that the early church knew it was propagating a new version of an old myth, and that the developed church covered this up in the interests of its own power and control. The producer was friendly, and took my point when I said that this was like asking a professional astronomer to debate with the authors of a book claiming the moon was made of green cheese. N. T. Wright, "Jesus' Self Understanding", in Stephen T. Davis, Daniel Kendall, Gerald O’Collins, The Incarnation (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004) p. 48 A school of thought popular with cranks on the Internet holds that Jesus didn’t actually exist. Tom Breen, The Messiah Formerly Known as Jesus: Dispatches from the Intersection of Christianity and Pop Culture (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2008) p. 138 Today only an eccentric would claim that Jesus never existed. Leander Keck, Who Is Jesus?: History in Perfect Tense (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 2000) p. 13 While The Christ Myth alarmed many who were innocent of learning, it evoked only Olympian scorn from the historical establishment, who were confident that Jesus had existed... The Christ-myth theory, then, won little support from the historical specialists. In their judgement, it sought to demonstrate a perverse thesis, and it preceded by drawing the most far-fetched, even bizarre connection between mythologies of very diverse origin. The importance of the theory lay, not in its persuasiveness to the historians (since it had none), but in the fact that it invited theologians to renewed reflection on the questions of faith and history. Brian A. Gerrish, The Old Protestantism and the New: Essays on the Reformation Heritage (London: T. & T. Clark, 2004) pp. 231 & 233 We do not need to take seriously those writers who occasionally claim that Jesus never existed at all, for we have clear evidence to the contrary from a number of Jewish, Latin, and Islamic sources. John Drane, "Introduction", in John Drane, The Great Sayings of Jesus: Proverbs, Parables and Prayers (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 1999) p. 23 It is the nature of historical work that we are always involved in probability judgments. Granted, some judgments are so probable as to be certain; for example, Jesus really existed and really was crucified, just as Julius Caesar really existed and was assassinated. Marcus Borg, "A Vision of the Christian Life", The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions, Marcus Borg & N. T. Wright (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 2007) p. 236 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 serious 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. Michael Grant, Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels (New York: Scribner, 1995) p. 200 I think that there are hardly any historians today, in fact I don't know of any historians today, who doubt the existence of Jesus... So I think that question can be put to rest. N. T. Wright, "The Self-Revelation of God in Human History: A Dialogue on Jesus with N. T. Wright", in Antony Flew & Roy Abraham Vargese, There is a God (New York: HarperOne, 2007) p. 188 We can be certain that Jesus really existed (despite a few highly motivated skeptics who refuse to be convinced), that he was a Jewish teacher in Galilee, and that he was crucified by the Roman government around 30 CE. Robert J. Miller, The Jesus Seminar and Its Critics (Santa Rosa: Polebridge, 1999) p. 38 Despite the prejudices and theological preconceptions of the evangelists, they record many incidents that mere inventors would have concealed—the competition of the apostles for high places in the Kingdom, their flight after Jesus' arrest, Peter's denial, the failure of Christ to work miracles in Galilee, the references of some auditors to his possible insanity, his early uncertainty as to his mission, his confessions of ignorance as to the future, his moments of bitterness, his despairing cry on the cross; no one reading these scenes can doubt the reality of the figure behind them. That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so lofty an ethic and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospel. Will Durant, Christ and Caesar, The Story of Civilization, 3 (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1972) p. 557 There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more. Richard A. Burridge, Jesus Now and Then (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004) p. 34 Although Wells has been probably the most able advocate of the nonhistoricity theory, he has not been persuasive and is now almost a lone voice for it. The theory of Jesus' nonexistence is now effectively dead as a scholarly question... The nonhistoricity thesis has always been controversial, and it has consistently failed to convince scholars of many disciplines and religious creeds... Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted. Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000) pp. 14 & 16 No reputable scholar today questions that a Jew named Jesus son of Joseph lived; most readily admit that we now know a considerable amount about his actions and his basic teachings. James H. Charlesworth, "Preface", in James H. Charlesworth, Jesus and Archaeology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006) pp. xxi–xxv Price thinks the evidence is so weak for the historical Jesus that we cannot know anything certain or meaningful about him. He is even willing to entertain the possibility that there never was a historical Jesus. Is the evidence of Jesus really that thin? Virtually no scholar trained in history will agree with Price's negative conclusions... In my view Price's work in the gospels is overpowered by a philosophical mindset that is at odds with historical research—of any kind... What we see in Price is what we have seen before: a flight from fundamentalism. Craig A. Evans, Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2008) p. 25 The scholarly mainstream, in contrast to Bauer and company, never doubted the existence of Jesus or his relevance for the founding of the Church. Craig A. Evans, "Life-of-Jesus Research and the Eclipse of Mythology", Theological Studies 54, 1993, p. 8 There's no serious question for historians that Jesus actually lived. There’s real issues about whether he is really the way the Bible described him. There’s real issues about particular incidents in his life. But no serious ancient historian doubts that Jesus was a real person, really living in Galilee in the first century. Chris Forbes, interview with John Dickson, "Zeitgeist: Time to Discard the Christian Story?", Center for Public Christianity, 2009 I don't think there's any serious historian who doubts the existence of Jesus. There are a lot of people who want to write sensational books and make a lot of money who say Jesus didn't exist. But I don't know any serious scholar who doubts the existence of Jesus. Bart Ehrman, interview with Reginald V. Finley Sr., "Who Changed The New Testament and Why", The Infidel Guy Show, 2008 What about those writers like Acharya S (The Christ Conspiracy) and Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy (The Jesus Mysteries), who say that Jesus never existed, and that Christianity was an invented religion, the Jewish equivalent of the Greek mystery religions? This is an old argument, even though it shows up every 10 years or so. This current craze that Christianity was a mystery religion like these other mystery religions-the people who are saying this are almost always people who know nothing about the mystery religions; they've read a few popular books, but they're not scholars of mystery religions. The reality is, we know very little about mystery religions-the whole point of mystery religions is that they're secret! So I think it's crazy to build on ignorance in order to make a claim like this. I think the evidence is just so overwhelming that Jesus existed, that it's silly to talk about him not existing. I don't know anyone who is a responsible historian, who is actually trained in the historical method, or anybody who is a biblical scholar who does this for a living, who gives any credence at all to any of this. Bart Ehrman, interview with David V. Barrett, "The Gospel According to Bart", Fortean Times (221), 2007 Richard takes the extremist position that Jesus of Nazareth never even existed, that there was no such person in history. This is a position that is so extreme that to call it marginal would be an understatement; it doesn’t even appear on the map of contemporary New Testament scholarship. William Lane Craig, "Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?", debate with Richard Carrier, 2009 The alternative thesis... that within thirty years there had evolved such a coherent and consistent complex of traditions about a non-existent figure such as we have in the sources of the Gospels is just too implausible. It involves too many complex and speculative hypotheses, in contrast to the much simpler explanation that there was a Jesus who said and did more or less what the first three Gospels attribute to him. James D. G. Dunn, The Evidence for Jesus (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1985) p. 29 This is always the fatal flaw of the 'Jesus myth' thesis: the improbability of the total invention of a figure who had purportedly lived within the generation of the inventors, or the imposition of such an elaborate myth on some minor figure from Galilee. Price is content with the explanation that it all began 'with a more or less vague savior myth.' Sad, really. James D. G. Dunn, "Response to Robert M. Price", in James K. Beilby & Paul Rhodes Eddy, The Historical Jesus: Five Views (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2009) p. 98 Since the Enlightenment, the Gospel stories about the life of Jesus have been in doubt. Intellectuals then as now asked: 'What makes the stories of the New Testament any more historically probable than Aesop's fables or Grimm's fairy tales?' The critics can be answered satisfactorily...For all the rigor of the standard it sets, the criterion demonstrates that Jesus existed. Alan F. Segal, "Believe Only the Embarrassing", Slate, 2005 Some writers may toy with the fancy of a 'Christ-myth,' but they do not do so on the ground of historical evidence. The historicity of Christ is as axiomatic for an unbiased historian as the historicity of Julius Caesar. It is not historians who propagate the 'Christ-myth' theories. F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? (6th ed.) (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003) p. 123 Jesus is in no danger of suffering Catherine 's fate as an unhistorical myth... Dale Allison, The Historical Christ and the Theological Jesus (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2009) p. 37 An examination of the claims for and against the historicity of Jesus thus reveals that the difficulties faced by those undertaking to prove that he is not historical, in the fields both of the history of religion and the history of doctrine, and not least in the interpretation of the earliest tradition are far more numerous and profound than those which face their opponents. Seen in their totality, they must be considered as having no possible solution. Added to this, all hypotheses which have so far been put forward to the effect that Jesus never lived are in the strangest opposition to each other, both in their method of working and their interpretation of the Gospel reports, and thus merely cancel each other out. Hence we must conclude that the supposition that Jesus did exist is exceedingly likely, whereas its converse is exceedingly unlikely. This does not mean that the latter will not be proposed again from time to time, just as the romantic view of the life of Jesus is also destined for immortality. It is even able to dress itself up with certain scholarly technique, and with a little skillful manipulation can have much influence on the mass of people. But as soon as it does more than engage in noisy polemics with 'theology' and hazards an attempt to produce real evidence, it immediately reveals itself to be an implausible hypothesis. Albert Schweitzer, The Quest of the Historical Jesus, translated by John Bowden et al. (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001) pp. 435–436 In fact, there is more evidence that Jesus of Nazareth certainly lived than for most famous figures of the ancient past. This evidence is of two kinds: internal and external, or, if you will, sacred and secular. In both cases, the total evidence is so overpowering, so absolute that only the shallowest of intellects would dare to deny Jesus' existence. And yet this pathetic denial is still parroted by 'the village atheist,' bloggers on the internet, or such organizations as the Freedom from Religion Foundation. Paul L. Maier, "Did Jesus Really Exist?", 4Truth.net, 2007 If I understand what Earl Doherty is arguing, Neil, it is that Jesus of Nazareth never existed as an historical person, or, at least that historians, like myself, presume that he did and act on that fatally flawed presumption. I am not sure, as I said earlier, that one can persuade people that Jesus did exist as long as they are ready to explain the entire phenomenon of historical Jesus and earliest Christianity either as an evil trick or a holy parable. I had a friend in Ireland who did not believe that Americans had landed on the moon but that they had created the entire thing to bolster their cold-war image against the communists. I got nowhere with him. So I am not at all certain that I can prove that the historical Jesus existed against such an hypothesis and probably, to be honest, I am not even interested in trying. John Dominic Crossan, "Historical Jesus: Materials and Methodology", XTalk, 2000 When they say that Christian beliefs about Jesus are derived from pagan mythology, I think you should laugh. Then look at them wide-eyed and with a big grin, and exclaim, 'Do you really believe that?' Act as though you've just met a flat earther or Roswell conspirator. William Lane Craig, "Question 90: Jesus and Pagan Mythology", Reasonable Faith, 2009 An extreme instance of pseudo-history of this kind is the “explanation” of the whole story of Jesus as a myth. Emil Brunner, The Mediator: A Study of the Central Doctrine of the Christian Faith (Cambridge: Lutterworth Press, 2002) p. 164 An extreme view along these lines is one which denies even the historical existence of Jesus Christ—a view which, one must admit, has not managed to establish itself among the educated, outside a little circle of amateurs and cranks, or to rise above the dignity of the Baconian theory of Shakespeare. Edwyn Robert Bevan, Hellenism And Christianity (2nd ed.) (London: G. Allen and Unwin, 1930) p. 256 When all the evidence brought against Jesus' historicity is surveyed it is not found to contain any elements of strength. Shirley Jackson Case, "The Historicity of Jesus: An Estimate of the Negative Argument", The American Journal of Theology, 1911, 15 (1) It would be easy to show how much there enters of the conjectural, of superficial resemblances, of debatable interpretation into the systems of the Drews, the Robertsons, the W. B. Smiths, the Couchouds, or the Stahls... The historical reality of the personality of Jesus alone enables us to understand the birth and development of Christianity, which otherwise would remain an enigma, and in the proper sense of the word, a miracle. Maurice Goguel, Jesus the Nazarene: Myth or History? (London: T. Fisher Unwin, 1926) pp. 30 & 244 Anyone who talks about "reasonable faith" must say what he thinks about Jesus. And that would still be so even if, with one or two cranks, he believed that He never existed. John W. C. Wand, The Old Faith and the New Age‎ (London: Skeffington & Son, 1933) p. 31 That both in the case of the Christians, and in the case of those who worshipped Zagreus or Osiris or Attis, the Divine Being was believed to have died and returned to life, would be a depreciation of Christianity only if it could be shown that the Christian belief was derived from the pagan one. But that can be supposed only by cranks for whom historical evidence is nothing. Edwyn R. Bevan, in Thomas Samuel Kepler, Contemporary Thinking about Paul: An Anthology (New York: Abingdon-Cokesbury, 1950) p. 44 The pseudoscholarship of the early twentieth century calling in question the historical reality of Jesus was an ingenuous attempt to argue a preconceived position. Gerard Stephen Sloyan, The Crucifixion of Jesus: History, Myth, Faith (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995) p. 9 Whatever else Jesus may or may not have done, he unquestionably* started the process that became Christianity… UNQUESTIONABLY: The proposition has been questioned, but the alternative explanations proposed—the theories of the “Christ myth school,” etc.—have been thoroughly discredited. Morton Smith, Jesus the Magician (New York: Harper & Row, 1978) pp. 5 & 166 One category of mythicists, like young-earth creationists, have no hesitation about offering their own explanation of who made up Christianity... Other mythicists, perhaps because they are aware that such a scenario makes little historical sense and yet have nothing better to offer in its place, resemble proponents of Intelligent Design who will say "the evidence points to this organism having been designed by an intelligence" and then insist that it would be inappropriate to discuss further who the designer might be or anything else other than the mere "fact" of design itself. They claim that the story of Jesus was invented, but do not ask the obvious historical questions of "when, where, and by whom" even though the stories are set in the authors' recent past and not in time immemorial, in which cases such questions obviously become meaningless... Thus far, I've only encountered two sorts of mythicism. James F. McGrath, "Intelligently-Designed Narratives: Mythicism as History-Stopper", Exploring Our Matrix, 2010 To describe Jesus' non-existence as "not widely supported" is an understatement. It would be akin to me saying, "It is possible to mount a serious, though not widely supported, scientific case that the 1969 lunar landing never happened." There are fringe conspiracy theorists who believe such things - but no expert does. Likewise with the Jesus question: his non-existence is not regarded even as a possibility in historical scholarship. Dismissing him from the ancient record would amount to a wholesale abandonment of the historical method. John Dickson, Jesus: A Short Life (Oxford: Lion, 2008) 22-23. When Professor Wells advances such an explanation of the gospel stories he presents us with a piece of private mythology that I find incredible beyond anything in the gospels. Morton Smith, in R. Joseph Hoffman, Jesus in History and Myth (Amherst, NY: Prometheus, 1986) p. 48 Of course, there can be no toleration whatever of the idea that Jesus never existed and is only a concoction from these pagan stories about a god who was slain and rose again. Joseph Klausner, From Jesus to Paul (New York: Menorah, 1943) p. 107 Virtually all biblical scholars acknowledge that there is enough information from ancient non-Christian sources to give the lie to the myth (still, however, widely believed in popular circles and by some scholars in other fields--see esp. G. A. Wells) which claims that Jesus never existed. Craig L. Blomberg, "Gospels (Historical Reliability)", in Joel B. Green, Scot McKnight & I. Howard Marshall, Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1992) p. 292 Dr. Wells was there and he presened his radical thesis that maybe Jesus never existed. Virtually nobody holds this position today. It was reported that Dr. Morton Smith of Columbia University, even though he is a skeptic himself, responded that Dr. Wells's view was "absurd". Gary Habermas, in Did Jesus Rise from the Dead?: The Resurrection Debate (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1989) p. 45 The data we have are certainly adequate to confute the view that Jesus never lived, a view that no one holds in any case Charles E. Carlston, in Bruce Chilton & Craig A. Evans (eds.) Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research (Leiden: Brill, 1998) p. 3 Although it is held by Marxist propaganda writers that Jesus never lived and that the Gospels are pure creations of the imagination, this is not the view of even the most radical Gospel critics. Bernard L. Ramm, An Evangelical Christology: Ecumenic and Historic (Vancouver: Regent College Publishing, 1999) p. 159 Comparison with Holocaust-deniers The very logic that tells us there was no Jesus is the same logic that pleads that there was no Holocaust. On such logic, history is no longer possible. 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. His birth, life, and death in first-century Palestine have never been subject to serious question and, in all likelihood, never will be among those who are experts in the field. The existence of Jesus is a given. Nicholas Perrin, Lost in Transmission?: What We Can Know About the Words of Jesus (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2007) p. 32 While we do not have the fullness of biographical detail and the wealth of firsthand accounts that are available for recent public figures, such as Winston Churchill or Mother Teresa, we nonetheless have much more data on Jesus than we do for such ancient figures as Alexander the Great... Along with the scholarly and popular works, there is a good deal of pseudoscholarship on Jesus that finds its way into print. During the last two centuries more than a hundred books and articles have denied the historical existence of Jesus. Today innumerable websites carry the same message... Most scholars regard the arguments for Jesus' non-existence as unworthy of any response—on a par with claims that the Jewish Holocaust never occurred or that the Apollo moon landing took place in a Hollywood studio. Michael James McClymond, Familiar Stranger: An Introduction to Jesus of Nazareth (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004) pp. 8 & 23–24 You know that you can try to minimize your biases, but you can't eliminate them. That's why you have to put certain checks and balances in place… Under this approach, we only consider facts that meet two criteria. First, there must be very strong historical evidence supporting them. And secondly, the evidence must be so strong that the vast majority of today's scholars on the subject—including skeptical ones—accept these as historical facts. You're never going to get everyone to agree. There are always people who deny the Holocaust or question whether Jesus ever existed, but they're on the fringe. Michael R. Licona, in Lee Strobel, The Case for the Real Jesus (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007) p. 112 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 Finley: There are some people in the chat room disagreeing, of course, but they’re saying that there really isn’t any hardcore evidence, though, that… I mean… but there isn’t any… any evidence, really, that Jesus did exist except what people were saying about him. But… Ehrman: I think… I disagree with that. Finley: Really? Ehrman: I mean, what hardcore evidence is there that Julius Caesar existed? Finley: Well, this is… this is the same kind of argument that apologists use, by the way, for the existence of Jesus, by the way. They like to say the same thing you said just then about, well, what kind of evidence do you have for Jul… Ehrman: Well, I mean, it’s… but it’s just a typical… it’s just… It’s a historical point; I mean, how do you establish the historical existence of an individual from the past? Finley: I guess… I guess it depends on the claims… Right, it depends on the claims that people have made during that particular time about a particular person and their influence on society... Ehrman: It’s not just the claims. There are… One has to look at historical evidence. And if you… If you say that historical evidence doesn’t count, then I think you get into huge trouble. Because then, how do… I mean… then why not just deny the Holocaust? Bart Ehrman, interview with Reginald V. Finley Sr., "Who Changed The New Testament and Why", The Infidel Guy Show, 2008 The denial that Christ was crucified is like the denial of the Holocaust. For some it's simply too horrific to affirm. For others it's an elaborate conspiracy to coerce religious sympathy. But the deniers live in a historical dreamworld. John Piper, Fifty Reasons Why Jesus Came to Die (Wheaton: Crossway, 2006) pp. 14-15 I just finished reading, The Historical Jesus: Five Views. The first view was given by Robert Price, a leading Jesus myth proponent… The title of Price’s chapter is 'Jesus at the Vanishing Point.' I am convinced that if Price's total skepticism were applied fairly and consistently to other figures in ancient history (Alexander the Great, Ptolemy, Cleopatra, Nero, etc.), they would all be reduced to 'the vanishing point.' Price's chapter is a perfect example of how someone can always, always find excuses to not believe something they don't want to believe, whether that be the existence of Jesus or the existence of the holocaust. Dennis Ingolfsland, "Five views of the historical Jesus", The Recliner Commentaries, 2009 The Jesus mythers will continue to advance their thesis and complain of being kept outside of the arena of serious academic discussion. They carry their signs, 'Jesus Never Existed!' 'They won’t listen to me!' and label those inside the arena as 'Anti-Intellectuals,' 'Fundamentalists,' 'Misguided Liberals,' and 'Flat-Earthers.' Doherty & Associates are baffled that all but a few naïve onlookers pass them by quickly, wagging their heads and rolling their eyes. They never see that they have a fellow picketer less than a hundred yards away, a distinguished looking man from Iran. He too is frustrated and carries a sign that says 'The Holocaust Never Happened!' Michael R. Licona, "Licona Replies to Doherty's Rebuttal", Answering Infidels, 2005

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Christianity: Jesus Top‑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 Top This article has been rated as Top-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. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Religion: Interfaith Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Misplaced Pages's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is within the scope of Interfaith work group, a work group which is currently considered to be inactive. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Jewish history High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish history, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish history 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.Jewish historyWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish historyTemplate:WikiProject Jewish historyJewish history-related High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Israel Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Israel, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Israel 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.IsraelWikipedia:WikiProject IsraelTemplate:WikiProject IsraelIsrael-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Project Israel To Do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : Rate the Unassessed Israel-related articles and Unknown-importance Israel-related articles. Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category and the tool's wiki page. Collaborate : Participate in WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration. Copyedit : Timeline of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict in 2005 Deletion sorting : Participate in discussions at WikiProject Deletion sorting/Israel. Expand : Ayala Procaccia, Diamond industry in Israel, Edna Arbel, Levin Kipnis, Rami Kleinstein, Sephardic Haredim, Zman Tel Aviv, Nachum Heiman, Public Defence (Israel), Prisoner of Zion, Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu, Day to Mark the Departure and Expulsion of Jews from the Arab Countries and Iran, Pre-Modern Aliyah See also Articles needing translation from Hebrew Misplaced Pages. Geographical coordinates : Add geographic coordinates to Israel articles missing geocoordinate data. Infobox : Add infoboxes to Israel articles needing infoboxes. Maintain : See Israel articles needing attention. Map : See discussion at Module:Location map/data/Israel. Add maps to articles in Misplaced Pages requested maps in Israel. NPOV : Jewish exodus from Arab and Muslim countries Photo : Add pictures to articles in Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Israel. Stubs : See Israel stubs. Update : Basic Law proposal: Israel as the Nation-State of the Jewish People Other : Translate to Hebrew : David Bar-Hayim, Guy Bavli, and Guy Oseary. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Ancient Near East Top‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ancient Near East, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of ancient Near East–related articles 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.Ancient Near EastWikipedia:WikiProject Ancient Near EastTemplate:WikiProject Ancient Near EastAncient Near East Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Judaism High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Judaism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Judaism-related articles 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.JudaismWikipedia:WikiProject JudaismTemplate:WikiProject JudaismJudaism High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. History Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the subject of History 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.HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Historyhistory Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Bible High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible 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.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Palestine Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Palestine, a team effort dedicated to building and maintaining comprehensive, informative and balanced articles related to the geographic Palestine region, the Palestinian people and the State of Palestine on Misplaced Pages. Join us by visiting the project page, where you can add your name to the list of members where you can contribute to the discussions.PalestineWikipedia:WikiProject PalestineTemplate:WikiProject PalestinePalestine-related Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43

Talk:Historicity of Jesus

This page has archives. Sections older than 15 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Include a balance of scholarly opinion on the matter

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

Attempted to remove some bias

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

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

But seriously:

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

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

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

What is historicity?

Maybe we should start at the beginning: Anyone here have an idea what historicity actually is? If so, would you care to share your understanding?

It's pretty important, because it's hard to go much further with this article if there's no consensus on this fundamental question. Fearofreprisal (talk) 20:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Pease read WP:NOTFORUM. We are an encyclopedia which deals start with sourced material. Therefore what we think is not important but rather what reliable sources dealing with the subject say that matters. Please provide some sources directly relevant to the topic at hand.John Carter (talk) 21:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

What on earth was the point of that reply? Completely pointless in my book. And aggressive to boot. Fearofreprisal has a very good point. If we don't agree on a universal, clear definition for the term, it's bound to lead to there being lots of argument of what should be in the article. Oh hang, that's what we already have! Right now, the article has a rather strange beginning, using the word "concerns" in a way that doesn't imply a terribly precise definition. Wouldn't it be nice if we had one? HiLo48 (talk) 22:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes it would be nice to have a sourced definition of the term which did not exist in the article when the question was asked and was added after the fact. Although the comment I am responding to seemed to have even less relevance I tend to believe that a scope determined by the way the phrase has been used in reliable sources as I have indicated below may well be a better indication than a definition of only one word in the title. That would probably agree with the sources that have used the full phrase as I have indicated below. John Carter (talk) 22:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The definition should be relevant to the topic at hand, namely, the historicity of Jesus. Using sources that do not mention Jesus, while certainly better than having no sources at all, clearly isn't the best solution, particularly in light of the sources mentioned below that seem to use the phrase "Historicity of Jesus" to refer to something other than a dictionary definition of historicity. Maybe some of those do us the favor of actually defining what they mean by that phrase? Huon (talk) 22:08, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

HiLo48: I'm not particularly bothered by John Carter's incivilityremarks. He's been sanctioned for it in the past, and he's admitted that he can't control his temper -- so I'll try to ignore it, and deal with the matter of building an encyclopedia.

John Carter: Regarding WP:NOTAFORUM -- it seems inapposite in this context. But, if it's important to you, here are some relevant citations to reliable sources regarding the definition of historicity:

• Wandersee, J. H. (1992), The historicality of cognition: Implications for science education research. J. Res. Sci. Teach., 29: 423–434.
• Harre, R., & Moghaddam, F.M. (2006). Historicity, social psychology, and change. In Rockmore, T. & Margolis, J. (Eds.), History, historicity, and science (pp. 94-120). London: Ashgate Publishing Limited.
• Jones, Michael S., "Lucian Blaga, The Historical Phenomenon: An Excerpt from The Historical Being" (2012). Faculty Publications and Presentations. Paper 1.
• Herbert Marcuse, Hegel’s Ontology and the Theory of Historicity, trans. by Seyla Benhabib (Cambridge, Massachusetts, London, England: The MIT Press, 1987)
• Bunnin, N., & Yu, J. (2004). The Blackwell dictionary of Western philosophy. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub
• William J. Hamblin, professor of history at Brigham Young University. Two part article on historicity
• Hall, J. (2007). Historicity and Sociohistorical Research. In W. Outhwaite, & S. Turner (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Social Science Methodology. (pp. 82-102). London, England: SAGE Publications Ltd.
• Hall, J. (2007). History, methodologies, and the study of religion. In J. Beckford, & N. Demerath (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of the sociology of religion. (pp. 167-189). London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

If that's not sufficient, I can give you more sources. Fearofreprisal (talk) 22:21, 20 August 2014 (UTC) Edited 23:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Huon: I agree that the definition of "historicity" should be relevant to the topic of "the historicity of Jesus." I have found no source, religious or secular, suggesting a distinct definition for historicity in the context of Jesus, but have found sources indicating that such a demarcation doesn't exist (See Hall, J. (2007). History, methodologies, and the study of religion. In J. Beckford, & N. Demerath (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of the sociology of religion. (pp. 167-189). London: SAGE Publications Ltd.) Fearofreprisal (talk) 22:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't actually see where Huon agreed with you although I do see how you continue yourself to continue to engage in personal attacks as per WP:NPA. I also believe notability as per WP:NOTABILITY may well be relevant as the works to be used to establish notability have to be significantly about the topic rather than just one topic among several they discuss. Although it is nice to finally see some sources I am far from sure that they necessarily establish this view as the most common usage of the title phrase or even potentially of the notability of that particular topic. John Carter (talk) 22:56, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article (See WP:NCC). Fearofreprisal (talk) 23:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

But they do apply to whether the article on a given topic should exist at all and I have not seen any evidence to date to indicate that there is necessarily sufficient demonstrated notability of the "historicity" of Jesus and certainly don't see how a source on Hegel's philosophy can be used to establish the notability of the historicity of Jesus. A review of the sources below however I believe would be more than enough to establish the notability of an article about the question of whether or not Jesus existed.John Carter (talk) 23:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

John Carter - It's just embarrassing when you make statements (such as "I...don't see how a source on Hegel's philosophy can be used to establish the notability of the historicity of Jesus") without even taking a moment to do a little research.

Hegel’s thought has profoundly influenced modern theology. This influence is often only implicit, but several theologians have sought to bring Hegel explicitly into the contemporary theological discussion. The most stimulating studies of this kind include:

• Hans Küng, The Incarnation of God: An Introduction to Hegel's Theological Thought as Prolegomena to a Future Christology, trans. J. R. Stephenson (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1987); xv, 601 pp. This profound and wide-ranging exploration of Hegel’s theological thought focuses especially on Hegel’s vision of the historicity of God’s being. You can also find a crisp summary of the book's argument in Hans Küng, Does God Exist? An Answer for Today, trans. Edward Quinn (Garden City: Doubleday, 1980), pp. 127-188.
• Eberhard Jüngel, God as the Mystery of the World: On the Foundation of the Theology of the Crucified One in the Dispute between Theism and Atheism, trans. Darrell L. Guder (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983); vxi, 414 pp. This brilliant work on the doctrine of God includes a detailed analysis of Hegel’s concept of the “death of God”, and of the significance of this concept for theological reflection.
• Peter C. Hodgson, God in History: Shapes of Freedom (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1989); 287 pp. This work offers a creative response to postmodern thought through a deep engagement with Hegel’s trinitarian and historical conception of God’s being. Hodgson is a leading authority on Hegel, and has been an editor and translator of Hegel's Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion.

And for a thorough exposition of Hegel’s theological thought, we now have Hodgson’s important new work: Peter C. Hodgson, Hegel and Christian Theology: A Reading of the Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005); 318 pp.

— 

Fearofreprisal (talk) 23:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I would think your jumping to conclusions might be even more embarrassing. WP:DUE and related pages are the most directly relevant guides here and it indicates that material for inclusion is judged based on the degree of attention given in independent reliable sources directly relating to the subject at hand. As none of the sources you indicate seem to relate directly to the subject of this article they cannot really be used to indicate relevance or degree of attention to give those ideas in this particular article. Some of us are trying to find sources specifically about this topic to help in such determination. Please allow us to do so without further disruption until we are finished. We do not need to engage in wholesale revisions immediately and that is generally a bad idea to act on anyway. John Carter (talk) 15:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The Incarnation of God, page 465 and 466 may be just the citation you've been looking for. Too bad you already decided that it can't be used, based on your odd interpretation of WP:DUE. Fearofreprisal (talk) 16:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

If you honestly believe that being mentioned on just two pages in a single book of clearly over four hundred pages is sufficient to establish the notability of that topic then I believe that it would very much be in your own interests to thoroughly acquaint yourself with all aspects of WP:NOTABILITY and also with WP:CIR. The comments in the last sentence are frankly beneath contempt and not deserving a direct reply as they seem to indicate you indulging in pure emotionalism. If you believe your interpretation is justifiable you could of course take your concerns to the appropriate noticeboard which in this case would probably be the NPOV noticeboard. Should you choose not to do so that could reasonably be seen as perhaps indicating that you may yourself expect a negative response there. John Carter (talk) 23:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

"Historicity” of Jesus or “Historicity of Jesus”?

The phrase seems to have been widely used as a phrase in the early part of the 20th century in works relating to the historical reality or lack of same of Jesus. JSTOR returns as early returns for a relevance search of the phrase in addition to reviews of the work The Historicity of Jesus by Shirley Jackson Case the following:

Is Belief in the Historicity of Jesus Indispensable to Christian Faith? by Douglas C. Macintosh The American Journal of Theology, Vol. 15, No. 3 (Jul., 1911), pp. 362-372

The Historicity of Jesus an Estimate of the Negative Argument by Shirley Jackson Case The American Journal of Theology, Vol. 15, No. 1 (Jan., 1911), pp. 20-42

Is Belief in the Historicity of Jesus Indispensable to Christian Faith? by Douglas C. Macintosh The American Journal of Theology, Vol. 16, No. 1 (Jan., 1912), pp. 106-110

THE HISTORICITY OF JESUS. IN COMMENT UPON THE THEORY OF PROF. WILLIAM BENJAMIN SMITH by Paul Carus The Monist, Vol. 20, No. 4 (OCTOBER, 1910), pp. 633-638

Is Belief in the Historicity of Jesus Indispensable to Christian Faith? by Shailer Mathews The American Journal of Theology, Vol. 15, No. 4 (Oct., 1911), pp. 614-617

Books on the Historicity of Jesus a review of The Historical Jesus by John M. Robertson and The Jesus Problem by John M. Robertson by Clayton R. Bowen The American Journal of Theology, Vol. 23, No. 3 (Jul., 1919), pp. 378-381

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE HISTORICITY PROBLEM by K. C. Anderson The Monist, Vol. 24, No. 4 (OCTOBER, 1914), pp. 634-636

and probably others

I think a reasonable case could be made that the phrase is maybe? among the more commonly used phrases to describe the topic of the matter of the existence of Jesus and may perhaps be the most commonly used phrase to describe that subject. It certainly seems to be according to the JSTOR returne above the most common use of the phrase as a phrase. John Carter (talk) 21:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOTAFORUM!!!! HiLo48 (talk) 22:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

John Carter doesn't like me suggesting that in starting this thread immediately after criticising someone else for doing something very similar he is acting as if he owns this article, so I won't suggest that. But I do really wonder why he did it? It's not helpful to have two threads on the one topic. Can we somehow merge the two? HiLo48 (talk) 22:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

It is not the same topic. That is about the definition of the term historicity. This is about the definition of historicity which basically no one has argued. This is about the use of the phrase as a whole which as I have said seems to be from what I can see about the most frequent use of the phrase as a specific phrase. While they both relate in a way to the definition of scope of this article they are on different topics. Although I do welcome the humor in context about "helpful" comments :) this thread as a separate topic seems tomore directly relevant to this particular article.John Carter (talk) 22:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

"That is about the definition of the term historicity. This is about the definition of historicity which basically no one has argued." You want to try explaining that again?

If you can find reliable sources to support your contention, then cite them. Otherwise, can you explain why everything you've said here is not WP:OR? Fearofreprisal (talk) 22:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I find the above commentary extremely hard if not impossible to see the logic of as it seems to be indicating that the fact that I have found sources specifically using the term which is the title of the article where others have not and despite that I am the one being accused of doing something "original." Pretty much by definition, if it is in relevant reliable sources specifically relevant to the topic it cannot be called "original." Please explain exactly how it is "original" for me to find extant reliable sources which use the phrase which is the title of this article.John Carter (talk) 23:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not original for you to find "extant reliable sources which use the phrase which is the title of this article." What is WP:OR (and WP:SYN) is your speculation ("I think a reasonable case could be made...") based the results of your JSTOR search. Fearofreprisal (talk) 23:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

On consideration, this pissing match seems like a real waste of time. Let's just say you win. Fearofreprisal (talk) 00:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

It isn't me who wins it is the policies and guidelines which determine content. If you could produce sources as WP:BURDEN pretty much requires of you to demonstrate the specific notability of the question of whether academics are capable of reviewing this question without being overwhelming influenced by personal bias no one would have any problems about seeing that article exist. You have yet to do that so far as I can see and I think it would probably be a more productive use of your time to attempt to find the sources to establish the notability of that topic than to continue what you have been doing here.John Carter (talk) 14:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request ( I honestly can't figure out what User:John Carter is trying to say. Especially that last comment. Help? ):

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Historicity of Jesus and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

I also cannot figure out from John Carter's comments exactly what he is trying to say. Especially the second sentence starting with "If you could produce..." is too long and very hard to understand. I would suggest that John Carter rewrite the last comment and especially the second sentence to say exactly what he means. I understand that the discussion has been going on for a long time and people might be a bit frustrated. Kingsindian (talk) 21:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Fear has been arguing for some time about how he believes the article's scope should be changed. When he was recently asked to present sources to support the specific notability of that topic he was at least to date unable to find any. That was more or less the topic of the last sentence. No one has any real objections to seeing such an article exist but it would be probably a different article than this one. Still waiting to finish the list of articles from the encyclopedia I mentioned earlier - I got around halfway through when the divinity school's library closed early because class isn't in session right now. John Carter (talk) 22:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

You said "sources to support the specific notability of that topic..." What topic? I really can't figure out what you're talking about. Fearofreprisal (talk) 23:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The one you have been wanting to change it to per the sections above. The one you have still so far as I can tell found no sources to establish the specific notabiity of. Regarding your difficulties of understanding, well, you seem perhaps to have had difficulties understanding such things as WP:NOTABILITY, WP:WEIGHT, and other similar subjects as well.John Carter (talk) 00:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: can you help here again? I'm not trying to be intentionally obtuse, but I still can't figure out what John Carter is talking about. Fearofreprisal (talk) 01:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Fearofreprisal and John Carter: I am afraid that after re-reading the whole section, I still have no idea at all what is going on, and even less of what John Carter is saying. His last 2-3 comments still make no sense to me. I accept that this is perhaps because I am unfamiliar with the topic and the discussion has been going on for a long time. But perhaps John Carter should consider the possibility that his statements genuinely do not make sense. Perhaps they do in his mind, but not here. To Fearofreprisal, feel free to list your complaint on 3O again, if you wish. I will not be making any more comments, because I don't seem to understand the whole topic.

Kingsindian (talk) 01:30, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Kingsindian. Fearofreprisal (talk) 01:46, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Several other opinions have been solicited as well. This section was started to establish one of the to date few ways I have seen this phrase used as a phrase in independent reliable sources. Unfortnately as a thorough review of the existing talk page would reveal that is not the definition or scope of the article Fear personally wants to see although as has also already been at least implied there seems to be a very real question whether he can establish the notability of that topic as per WP:NOTABILITY and other relevant guides. Therefore he seems to be arguing that this article's content should be changed to reflect the scope he wishes to determine based on the definition of the word historicity. This section is an early effort of an ongoing attempt to find out how the phrase is used and what phrases are used to describe which topics so to better determine application of WP:COMMONNAME and other relevant guides. It would be very helpful if Fear were to allow that effort to continue without further questionable demands for immediate gratification on his part. John Carter (talk) 15:54, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

You keep on saying "that topic," but you seem unwilling or incapable of saying what "that topic" is. Do you mean the "historicity of Jesus?" Fearofreprisal (talk) 16:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Please refrain from trying to put words in other people's mouths. It is rather dubiously acceptabɛe behavior. As you have apparently made no more attempt to review the extensive archives of this page than I have it would probably be best if we refrain from attempting to impose on our preconceived notions on what we as individuals think the initial scope of this article when it was first created was.John Carter (talk) 15:08, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I hope this might clear up some things

Ok, it's looking like the types of sources that have been used, suggested, mentioned, or even imagined could be placed on a spectrum:

1. Historicity only - Sources that discuss Historicity in particular but do not concern Jesus either directly or indirectly

2. Historicity about Early Christianity - Sources that discuss Historicity in particular but also focus on (or at least discuss) early Christianity

3. Historicity of Jesus - Sources that explicitly use the phrase "Historicity of Jesus" or at least "Historicity" and "Jesus" (particularly those where it is their main topic)

4. Jesus in History - Sources that discuss Jesus in the context of history (either for, against, or agnostic)

5. Jesus only - Sources that discuss Jesus without the context of history

For purposes of this discussion, I only mean sources that already meet WP:RS, so Billy-Joe-Bob's Sunday School website, while being type 5, is absolutely not what I have in mind for the following.

Sources of the third type, Historicity of Jesus sources, absolutely must be used in this article per WP:DUE and WP:NOR. It's so important that I must mention it out of order and in its own line.

At the other end of acceptability, type 5 sources (Jesus only), obviously do not belong here (as most of the other sources can establish that by "Jesus," we do not mean someone in the kitchen at my favorite restaurant). So far as I can tell, no one has any reasonable objections there.

I have seen disagreement over whether source types 1, 2, and/or 4 could be used or included. Type 1, Historicity Only, should only be used in explaining Historicity in the introduction if that none of the other sources define it. Any other use (such as using it to rationalize inclusion or exclusion of sources or comment on them) is OR (for being beyond mere summarizing a source in isolation). Type 2, Historicity of Early Christianity, probably isn't appropriate except where it discusses Jesus (again, either for, against, or agnostic). Type 4, Jesus in History, must either be included or excluded in its entirety (though with due weight). If we include it, we should not argue "this author holds X bias, or holds X position, and so cannot be included," but we should (as with all other sources) merely separate authors according to academic authors (those who hold any sort of position at an accredited academic institution, those published by academic publishers such as university presses or Routledge, and even those published in academic journals), popular authors (who meet WP:GNG just to keep things from getting trashy), and perhaps a middle category for higher-quality polemic groups such as Prometheus Books and Society of Biblical Literature (if we don't include them in popular authors due). It may be necessary to exclude all popular and polemic authors, but I can see this creating more problems in the long run with users trying to WP:RGW for their favorite author or POV.

If we are going to overhaul this article, we need to:

• gather all sources currently in the article, all sources purposed for the article, and all other sources that could be used in the article,
• classify them on the spectrum,
• exclude all type 5 sources, any type 2 sources that do not discuss Jesus (and, if any sources define historicity, all type 1 sources),
• establish whether or not we will include or exclude all type 4 sources collectively (not include some but not others),
• classify the sources according to academic, popular, and high-quality polemic authors,
• eliminate non-notable popular authors,
• come up with relevant quotes or summaries of individual authors, listing their credentials (whatever they may be),
• summarize portions of larger works dedicated to the subject (such as the Routledge Encyclopedia of the Historical Jesus, the primary focus of which, according to its Library of Congress data, is the historicity of Jesus) not to give undue weight but to fill out the article as more than a list of quotes,
• cobble it all together into an article.

I'm not saying this to discourage anyone by claiming "too much work" or anything like that, but merely listing each step to a high-quality (potentially good), reliably sourced, neutral article that should be acceptable to anyone who respects community consensus, who wants to prevent any particular POV from using this article as a soapbox, and who wants to make sure that this article maintains an academic focus. It will not satisfy anyone here to right great wrongs or present their views as WP:THETRUTH, but oh well. Rewriting the article by adding or removing a few sources at a time will end up with a half-assed piecemeal article as different folks try to continually balance it off. Either we re-write the whole damn thing from the ground up after we've gathered enough sources, or we accept that while the article may have flaws, it is heading in the right direction.

It may be necessary to create a talk subpage or a few (say "talk:Historicity of Jesus/source listing," "/source sorting," "/quote listing," and "talk:Historicity of Jesus/overhaul draft"; or at least "/sources and quotes" and "/draft").

Ian.thomson (talk) 16:37, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

FWIW I've been going through the first edition of the EotHJ and making a list of all its articles by title named subarticles and length. So far I don't see the word historicity used specifically in connection to Jesus per se although it is used in other contexts. After today because the divinity school library I'm using is closed on weekends while class is not in session. I'll check other religion reference sources and see if they ever use the phrase and what they use it to refer to as well. I do however seem to see a definite coverage of historicity of the gospels as potentially a separate topic. John Carter (talk) 17:05, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Let's get real. This article will not establish the truth or falsity of the historicity of Jesus, and it is not meant to. This article is not about WP:RGW, especially as regards the inclusion of , or about maintaining "an academic focus". The focus is religious, not academic, because that is the topic. WP:RSes are needed, religious AND academic. Their inclusion should be a focus of editing activity, not a focus of the article.

Nor is the article about WP:THETRUTH, whatever that might mean to any individual. Opinions are opinions, sometimes useful in cordial collaborative work, but never in an atmosphere of contention, ax-grinding, or "I'm right and you're wrong". But WP:THETRUTH is about editing. Still, the article is about opinions, conflicting opinions, held widely, by uninformed and informed alike, including Christians and atheists and scholars and academics and WP:RSes. After 2000 years, there is not enough extant "evidence", artifacts, or documents (few enough even in that time) to provide "facts" for any "proofs". I'm not sure anyone today could make an airtight case that Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin landed on the moon in 1969, though I am completely convinced they did and would consider it idiotic to reject what evidence there is. But be it that case, or Jesus' physical existence on earth as a human being, both depend in some (differing) degrees upon acceptance (or rejection) of personal testimony from the time, or as near as we can get to the time. No research or scholarly activity can do more than evaluate what survives, and that means no definitive answers, ever. Forget about objectivity. Everyone has predispositions and prejudices of one kind or another, and scholars are not exempt, even in their scholarly opinion. More useful is a skill called impartiality, which can be learned and developed. When one finds it in a source, the source becomes that much more reliable. It's not an absolute; it's a principle, and a goal. And I think that is a key element that editing activity on this article should focus on.

If we do so, then WP:NPOV will enable us to find neutral wording to express the broad range of opinions we can expect to encounter in the WP:RSes, both current, and those we wish to include anew. Likewise, we can better judge issues about WP:UNDUE or WP:OR or WP:IDHT or any of the multitude of other questions. But this continual whining about the current state of the article or its current set of WP:RS is just so much WP:POINTY-ness. Don't argue about a rewrite; instead, start to do the rewriting. Do it a piece at a time, in consultation, working through individual issues one at a time in order to achieve consensus and understanding. Overburdening article edits or discussions alike is disruptive even when it manages to be civil. There is no deadline on WP. Get off the reformer bandwagon and give sufficient time for the community absorb new issues that don't meet with immediate acceptance. This talk page's wall of text is unconstructive. Pick a starting point and stay focused. Big change requires priorities and steps. How about considering "historicity" in the title in the light of WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, especially naturalness? Evensteven (talk) 20:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Evensteven: You wrote "The focus is religious, not academic, because that is the topic." That's an example where a perfectly reasonable sounding personal opinion really needs to be backed up by a reliable source.

"...Strauss decisively combined the question of the historicity of God in the Hegelian-speculative sense with that of the historicity of Jesus in the historico-critical sense, so that the latter has since become one of the great, still unresolved issues of theology in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries."

— Hans Küng, The Incarnation of God: An Introduction to Hegel's Theological Thought as Prolegomena to a Future Christology, trans. J. R. Stephenson (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1987); xv, page 465, emphasis added.

While the historicity of Jesus is a major question in theology, all theologians that I've found who express an opinion on the subject agree that is a matter within the realm of history, not religion. (If you'd like more citations, I can provide them.) I'm certainly interested in seeing other citations that might disagree with this. But personal opinions devoid of reference to reliable sources have no place here or in the article.

Among scholars -- both religious and irreligious -- who actually express specific opinions regarding the historicity of Jesus, there is actually a surprising amount of agreement. The only time it gets confusing is when editors here cherrypick quotations that are based on "historical Jesus research," which are modern religious constructions based on the Synoptic gospels, rather than historical evidence (citations available.)

Regarding WP:NAMINGCRITERIA and "Historicity of Jesus" -- I believe the term meets all five criteria: Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Conciseness, and Consistency. If other editors want to dispute this, we can certainly discuss it. (Of course, I have citations available.)

Regarding "starting to do the rewriting" -- I've been doing just that, and and continue to do so. (In fact, I may be the only one currently making substantive, well-researched, NPOV changes to the article.) However -- other editors here have insisted that I discuss and gain consensus *before* I make changes, and they have deleted my edits for failing to do so. What would you prefer that I do -- make changes first and ignite an edit war, or discuss changes first, and create a "wall of text?"

Regarding priorities and steps: My next priority is the first sentence of the article -- which I have flagged as "needs citation." I plan to change it to reflect the majority scholarly viewpoint (with citations), but I can almost guarantee that a bunch of people will scream their heads off when I do. They won't offer any alternative wording or constructions, and won't offer any relevant citations. They'll just say "no, you can't change it, because 'consensus.'" So, what then? Fearofreprisal (talk) 22:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC) Minor Edit 22:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Ian.thomson: I think you're on the right track... mostly.

• Your category 1, "Historicity" is useful for definition purposes. I think you'll find that most theologists and historians are in fairly close agreement with respect to the definition of historicity, in a historico-critical sense.
• Your category 2, "Historicity about Early Christianity" is relevant only insofar is it concerns the historicity of Jesus, not otherwise.
• Your category 3, "Historicity of Jesus," is, of course, the heart of the article. But a source that discusses the historicity of Jesus may also discuss topics outside the context of historicity (e.g., the nature of Jesus.) How to you propose to handle these situations?
• Your category 4, "Jesus in History" confuses "historicity" and "history." If you need citations describing the difference, let me know.

Fearofreprisal (talk) 22:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Your opinions are, of course, your own concern but in no way supersede policies or guidelines, particularly considering that none of the statements you made above have been sourced and your history of demanding that this article conform not to policies or guidelines but to what is your own preconceptions of what it should be about. Regarding your continuing insistence that this article must be changed according to your own personal schedule, that belief is in no way supported by any policies or guidelines and is something that the ArbCom would certainly take into account were this matter to be brought to them. Your ongoing insistence that everybody else must act according to your time schedule is extremely problematic. You have been advised repeatedly that your time might be better spent trying to find sufficient sourcing to establish notability for an article on the "historicity" of Jesus according to your definition. That would be a more constructive use of your time than these problematic postings here, and your choosing not to do so suggests that you have concluded that you would not be able to establish sufficient notability and are thus attempting to game the system by insisting that the article must conform to your own personal views which rather clearly deviate from the consensus views of the other editors who have been involved to date. John Carter (talk) 22:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I've started Talk:Historicity of Jesus/sources. My main search was just "historicity of Jesus," followed by "historical Jesus," in both cases only grabbing sources that a quick glance left me with the impression that the work would try to make an argument regarding historicity (not merely historical context) even if that particular word was not used.

@Evensteven:, if we are to stick to sources that are religious but not academic, then this article needs to be renamed "theology of Jesus." This article, due to its title, should stick to sources that are concerned with the historicity of Jesus, which is an academic pursuit that may be sought by religious and irreligious alike. There are works that are both religious and academic, which, under the plan I gave, would not necessarily be excluded. Religiosity and scholasticism are perpendicular measures, not opposing forces. What would be excluded are purely theological works, which are more concerned with the meaning than the historicity. My proposal does not attempt to find "the truth," but merely give due representation to the various views in academia.

The problem is that everyone has been picking "a starting point" to focus on, instead of simply summarizing all reliable sources and giving them due weight. That's all we do, summarize sources with due weight.

As for claims of walls of text, are you innocent in that?

@Fearofreprisal:, books that discuss the historicity of Jesus among other topics still seem to be category 3. They discuss the historicity of Jesus, even if they discuss other topics.

I cannot imagine that we will need more than one category 1 source, only to define historicity in the intro, since additional sources would either be redundant or lead to WP:SYNTH. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't finish the list of articles from the encyclopedia today which basically means I won't be able to get back to it until next Thursday given my work schedule and the library's current hours. User:John Carter/Jesus contains all the articles and named subarticles I was able to go through. The book seems to be primarily about the "historical Jesus" and discussing matters which help place the historical Jesus in context all of which indicates that the source operates on the assumption that the book assumes the existence of a historical Jesus which it rather clearly seems to do. But there might be some use in having one of the articles by that name given the frequency with which the phrase is used. John Carter (talk) 23:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Ian.thomson: I agree such books are still category 3. I'm asking how to differentiate claims in these books that are historicity based, versus claims that are not. Fearofreprisal (talk) 00:07, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

You mean we should allow one set of opinions from one view and eliminate another set from another view, according to your own criteria. That is WP:THETRUTH, and WP:POINTY. You make a good case for that. Evensteven (talk) 00:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Though it's not clear what you're talking about, I'm pretty sure that's not what I meant. Fearofreprisal (talk) 01:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

You claim that books by Christian scholars are not "historicity based", whereas your list of books is. That is the truth as you see it. But the difference between the books is not based on historicity (or lack of it), it is based on your own criteria of what you believe in (or what you don't). Jesus' historicity is a central tenet of the Christian faith, and has been for centuries. The books' differences include only differences of starting assumptions (every one of the books has those), in what conclusions are acceptable or not, and in what techniques, attitudes, procedures, and information are useful in exploring the questions. Your books cannot disprove Jesus' historicity; there is only enough information available to call it into question (which they do). Books of Orthodox theology cannot prove Jesus' historicity (which they don't, and don't try to); there is only the information that is extant, and even if Christian books draw on some information which yours reject as unreliable, that information is still not enough for proof of the Christian view. But if Christian books draw conclusions or support views you regard as unreliable, that does not mean those views are pulled out of thin air. There are grave weaknesses in non-Christian books that dismiss what is known on the basis that other things are not known, and that expect documentation from an age when documents were rare and expensive, and will not seek out what it can find from sources it would prefer to ignore. Today, acceptance of personal attestation is the only way to prove that men went to the moon, and documents are one form of attestation. Somebody wrote them. And somebody always teaches and passes information to the next generation; they did in A.D. 1, and they do now, and no one can do without it. That means that, Christian or not, one always has to learn to sift, explore, and weigh the sources, scholarly ones as well as non-scholarly, and no one can produce a rock hard answer fit to survive testing. This is not physics, and even physics can only prove what is reproducible. Every human method has limitations. So this article has at least one major division of views (plus subdivisions) to sift and weigh and talk about in neutral language, based on sources from all views, supported by the methods of their own choosing. Present the criticisms of Christian methods if some scholars criticize them. Present the criticisms of non-Christian methods if some scholars criticize them. But present them. And build a neutral, balanced article, devoid of artificial eliminations based on your own assumptions and opinions. You are not allowed to limit and define according to your own taste, nor that of only a group of scholars. Describe their alternate views instead. Most of all, don't expect anything to be settled in anyone's favor. Evensteven (talk) 03:49, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:TLDR -- I stopped after the first sentence, which is a complete fabrication on your part. Fearofreprisal (talk) 05:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

@Evensteven:I owe you an apology. It was not a fabrication on your part -- it was a misinterpretation. You must have misread my statement "I'm asking how to differentiate claims in these books that are historicity based, versus claims that are not."

It's not "these books" that are historicity based -- it's the "claims." (I actually shouldn't have used the term "historicity based." Rather, I should have said "historicity related.")

For an example, consider James Dunn's book, Jesus Remembered. He discusses historicity at length, but he never brings historicity into, for example, the discussion of the birth narrative in Matthew. Yet, he does say that the birth narrative is "developed tradition" (Jesus Remembered, p. 341), which is an indirect assertion of its non-historicity. I absolutely support including reference to Dunn's discussions of historicity in the article (and I've added even more coverage of it in the article, see e.g., Historicity of Jesus#cite_note-3), but what about his comments on Matthew's birth narrative? Look at Virgin_birth_of_Jesus#Historicity for context. Though not perfect, it's a rather good discussion of historicity, and I could certainly envision Dunn's comments on Matthew's birth narrative fitting nicely there. Yet, there are examples which are more challenging.

For example, Ehrman: Yes, he wrote a whole book on historicity of Jesus -- but he started the book with the statement "Of course Jesus existed. Everyone knows he existed. Don’t they?" While I'm supportive of including Ehrman's analysis of the historicity of biblical events in the article, and I'm in agreement with including his conclusions resulting from his analysis, I'm a lot less enthusiastic about his opening statement. It is phrased as a presupposition, not as an assertion of historicity. (Unlike Dunn, a Christian whose writing reeks of balance and integrity, Ehrman's writings on the historicity of Jesus are admittedly apologetic--presenting only the "for" side of the argument, and ridiculing the "con" side.)

Bottom line: I don't claim that "books by Christian scholars are not 'historicity based.'" I am not trying to exclude books based on the religion of their authors. I am not suggesting that any scholars now cited in the article be excluded. Fearofreprisal (talk) 08:13, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

@Fearofreprisal:Accepted. What a relief! I am delighted that the cause was miscommunication rather than ill will! (I hate fighting those kinds of battles.) And I did indeed take your original words in a much different light than your corrected ones. I confess that I read over a large amount of text fairly quickly myself, and if in my haste I have misconstrued other material (as I may well have done) or misstated my intentions (always possible), then I must certainly apologize likewise for misleading you, and definitely for the harsh tone. I am indeed aggressive against POV pushing (which is what I thought I saw), but am always more than glad of the opportunity to return to constructive interaction. I am grateful for your discovery, and hope we may both put prior messages behind us. This latest from you is exactly the working approach I was seeking and trying to argue for, and what I expect of myself.

Even if I find some (specific) "scholarship" lacking (not painting a whole type of it), I too recognize that it exists and is reportable in balanced articles. While it can be more pleasant to read authors (like Dunn?) whose expressions are balanced, I don't object to apologetic writing either (like Ehrman?). There is also something to be said for stating the pro side of a case; it can clarify, and if one has already accepted a position's foundations from elsewhere, it can deepen understanding. I think ridicule as a technique often backfires on the author, who may be seen (rightly or not) as weak or shallow against opposition, but some opposition really deserves ridicule (like a denial that the year zero exists). So if Ehrman ridicules, we must understand that he sees his opposition in that light, and we (as readers) will then weigh the rightness of his opinion accordingly. Of course, as WP editors, we will recognize the nature of his case, and his ridicule, weigh its notability, and if needed, state the case in neutral terms. Balance is much more of a requirement in encyclopedia articles than it is in the sources it draws its material from. It's just that our job is rather easier when based on writing that uses an approach more like Dunn's.

But both approaches are capable of great integrity, yet specific use of the approaches may sometimes fall short of that goal. I do not know either Dunn or Ehrman enough to have any opinion about that in their cases. I do know that in dealing with matters that cross vast spans of history, and writings that were created along the way, we must also be aware of modern prejudices in favor of our current ways of approaching things. Every age has always loved its familiar approaches best, and has sometimes unduly elevated or disparaged that of other ages. We love our pseudo-scientific methods of analytical precision and minute examination far too much. It's not that they aren't useful tools; quite the contrary. But the medievals, for example, were much more focused on grasping the entirety of situations, "grokking" it (to use Heinlein's word), observing and describing more generally, and giving vivid impressions, often emotional and intuitive as well as cognitive. They weren't less intelligent or less motivated to make true (accurate) reports. They just used a different set of tools, to different purpose. Those tools provided more of some things and less of others. Medievals might look at a modern factual report as deficient in leaving out so many aspects of the human experience of things, and they'd be right, as far as that went. When I look at modern authors writing about a subject like the historicity of Jesus, I expect to find a scholarly awareness of differences like these, and if I don't, I consider such writing to fall several degrees short of its goals, much less its ability to be compelling. Evensteven (talk) 18:49, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

According to Ehrman, in the Christ Myth Theory camp there are just two or maybe three established scholars, in the camp "Jesus existed" there are thousands of established scholars, and there are some theologians who claim that historical investigation about Jesus is futile, but not because they would think that he did not exist (whether such truth is theological or historical). Ehrman did not make up these figures, he just reports them. So, obviously, he considers Christ Myth Theory as fringe. He cannot be blamed for that. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Not sure if you thought my comments were directed at Ehrman (or Dunn) or not; I was merely referring to them as examples of types of writers, as characterized by Fearofreprisal. Personally, I surely would agree that the Christ Myth Theory must be highly limited in time, space, and influence compared to "Jesus existed". I certainly do not intend to give argument in support for its notability, if that was in question. I do agree that all these historical investigations are futile, though I am firmly in the "Jesus existed" camp. Belief or faith in "Jesus existed", in my view, does not derive from historical proofs, and historical disproofs are not possible either. I think my opinion is entirely consonant with any Orthodox theology. As for the Bible, St. Paul said "If Christ be not raised from the dead, then our faith is in vain.", or close to that. And if he died, how did he manage to do so if he did not exist on earth? A question any Christian might raise. Evensteven (talk) 23:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Regards Christ Myth Theory: I don't see where it really fits in an article about the historicity of Jesus. Certainly, minority view points regarding specific issues of historicity belong in the article -- but the overall premise of "Christ Myth Theory" goes beyond mere non-historicity, to non-existence. While many Christian scholars are willing to accept the possibility of non-historicity, few are willing to go as far as accepting the possibility of non-existence. This is why a statement that Jesus existed is not the same thing as an a assertion of his historicity. And it's the reason started a talk page section, asking for reliable sources who equate the historicity of Jesus with the existence of Jesus -- though I was pretty certain none would be found. Fearofreprisal (talk) 00:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh. You understand now why I pay only minimal attention to such theories, hence why I was unaware of its claims to show "Jesus definitely does not exist". I do think that makes it more extreme, and very likely more fringe. But I think your original phrasing didn't make that point for you. It's akin to my comment in the section below about "lack of evidence is not itself evidence, not even evidence of a lack". Putting a negative on the front of a phrase does not always get you to its opposite, and putting negatives on the front of two phrases does not always produce a parallel relationship. I think more concrete ways of saying things can prove helpful. Abstractions can be so elusive of meaning. Evensteven (talk) 02:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

In two weeks I expect to perhaps start an RfC on this topic specifically inviting input from among others regular AfD editors about what they think the best statement of scope for this article is based on the evidence presented to date and if they think that a separate article whose scope is specifically limited to the definition of historicity that fear wishes to build an article around would be likely to remain a separate article based on the sources then available on that topic at the time of the RfC. I very much believe that their input would be very valuable in this matter.John Carter (talk) 14:52, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Need WP:RS citations that show "historicity of Jesus"= "existence of Jesus"

User:John Carter wrote "I think a reasonable case could be made that the phrase is maybe? among the more commonly used phrases to describe the topic of the matter of the existence of Jesus and may perhaps be the most commonly used phrase to describe that subject."

The only way to make this "reasonable case" is to find some verifiable citations from reliable sources that explicitly equate "historicity of Jesus" with "existence of Jesus." They should probably be peer reviewed or at least academic.

Absent such citation(s), all the statements regarding the "existence of Jesus" in the article need to be re-examined. Fearofreprisal (talk) 04:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

What complete and utter nonsense, word-twisting, and sophistry! Find in Saint Athanasius' "On the Incarnation" a distinction between the historicity of Jesus and His existence on earth as a human, physical and in every other way a human, born of a woman, who lived a life on earth that began with birth on a specific day and death on another specific day. There is none there, so it will be hard to find. The same is expressed in the Nicene Creed, prayed by Christians for at least 1500 years. The same is expressed throughout Orthodox theology, wherein neither Hegel nor others who question Jesus' historicity (=existence on earth) has had any influence whatsoever. If you think otherwise, find some. There is none, so it also will be hard to find. Modern treatments of the Christian view can be found in both of the most well-known books of Metropolitan Kallistos (Timothy) Ware: The Orthodox Church and The Orthodox Way, and are equally easy to find in the many books of Orthodox theology now available in English in bookstores and all over the Internet. And you want me (or somebody else) to do your work for you when the merest glance will provide a list a mile long?

But of course, you are looking to challenge the Christian view. Ok, go ahead. You just can't do it by saying the Christian view doesn't really exist, and doesn't really have sources. Of course, you might claim there are people who call themselves Christians and still don't hold with the view I described. Ok, you're probably right. Talk to them about what you both please and make what points you will, and if you win some points, perhaps that will please you too. It just won't have anything to do with the view of Jesus' historicity I have presented to you. And are you really trying to say that that view does not fall under the topic of this article? That view is huge, throughout history, and in the present. If this article doesn't deal with it, what article will?

Now that's something that can be considered here, but I would ask why it ought to be. After all, article titles are designed to allow the reader to get to his/her topic of interest in the easiest and most direct way possible. Rather than applying subtleties of dictionary definitions, we aim to use and follow common expressions and terminology. And the article content (topic) is defined by that common expression. What title would you propose for the topic you are targeting? It is arguably obscure and technical, so perhaps it requires justification as to notability or separability from this topic. Describe how this will benefit WP, please. Evensteven (talk) 04:42, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

This page is not a forum for general discussion about personal beliefs, apologetics, or polemics. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about personal beliefs, apologetics, or polemics at the Reference desk.

Fearofreprisal (talk) 07:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Yawn. My point exactly. Evensteven (talk) 07:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

It does seem clear from sources that at least some Bible scholars who hold the view "Jesus existed" don't do so on any sort of empirical basis, and are quite open about this. Samuel Byrskog, for instance, says that the most commonly understood meaning of "historicity" is "the verifiable past existence of certain phenomena", but he rejects this approach in favour of a definition about an examination of "historical perceptions of reality". He says: "The basis of our knowledge of the historical Jesus is therefore contextual ... What comes out at the end is a reconstruction of history, to be sure, but a reconstruction which is essentially an informed kind of reconfiguration, fictionalization, and narrativization of somebody we believe existed in the past."

According to James Dunn, "...the 'historical Jesus' is properly speaking a ninteenth- and twentieth-century construction using the data provided by the Synoptic tradition, not Jesus back then and not a figure in history." (Emphasis in the original).

William Hamilton says: "Jesus is inaccessible by historical means. All we can know (or need to know) is that he has come."

Our article is problematic because it attributes the views of Bible scholars more widely to "scholars of antiquity" and "classical historians" (based on extremely weak sourcing). But, moreover, it doesn't even seem clear that there is consensus that Jesus' existence is in principle provable, even within the narrower field.

1. Byrskog, Samuel (2011). "The Historicity of Jesus: How Do We Know That Jesus Existed?". In Holmen, Tom; Porter, Stanley (eds.). Handbook For the Study of the Historical Jesus. Leiden, The Netherlands: Brill. pp. 2183–2212.
2. Dunn, James (2003). Christianity In the Making Volume 1: Jesus Remembered. Cambridge, MA: Eermans. p. 126.
3. Hamilton, William (1994). A Quest For the Post-historical Jesus. New York: Continuum. p. 19.

Formerip (talk) 00:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Part of the perceived problem I regret to say may be in the eyes of the above beholder. For most of the history of that field most of what is called in some schools today "Ancient Near Eastern studies" is still called in other schools and has been called for most of its history "biblical studies" and by extension most of those involved historically in the field of ANE studies have been and still are in many areas called "biblical scholars." The use of the word "biblical" in fact does not even remotely generally indicate that the specific area of study involved has anything directly to do with the Bible itself.John Carter (talk) 21:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding my point, which doesn't really have to do with the structures of higher education institutions. The question of the existence or non-existence of Jesus is what that, in reasonably recent times, has only been substantively addressed by Bible scholars - that is, by people whose primary academic interests are connected to the study of the Bible as a text. Of the people who we might term "scholars of antiquity" or "classical historians", but who are not Bible scholars, AFAICT the number who have examined the question of Jesus' existence is zero. While it is perfectly probable that at least some of those do believe that Jesus existed, we have no way of actually knowing - my personal guess is that the majority would not consider it a question professionally relevant to them.

Our article, though, currently ascribes views held by Bible scholars to a wider academic community, and it does so on the basis of flimsy evidence. I would say this counts as distortion.

Moreover, it also seems that at least some Bible scholars take a position that Jesus existed only by adopting a slightly non-standard definition of "existed", and I would say our article is at fault for denying the reader that information. Formerip (talk) 23:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

FormerIP said "The question of the existence or non-existence of Jesus is what that, in reasonably recent times, has only been substantively addressed by Bible scholars - that is, by people whose primary academic interests are connected to the study of the Bible as a text." I have seen nothing from him or anyone else to provide any evidence for this assertion which leads me to suggest that your main point is at least so far as I can see unsubstantiated OR. We do not make a habit of making significant changes to articles on such flimsy bases. To suggest that the article is based on such views without providing any substantive sources to support them and to make changes to it on that basis would qualify in my eyes as significantly problematic. I am not myself an expert in the field but I would welcome anyone checking with Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Universities or similar editors who would know more on the subject to see if FormerIP's points would be counted as relevant by those knowedgable in the field.John Carter (talk) 16:50, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The article should present the information that is notable enough for inclusion, whatever the viewpoint. Views are certainly in play here, and while they need to be presented neutrally, they do need to be presented. How you evaluate a view does not enter into consideration.

As for "flimsy evidence", lack of evidence is not itself evidence, not even evidence of a lack. The evidence we have is what we have. Everyone must do with it what he/she can. I know of no Christian who has come to a belief in Jesus' existence on the basis of your evidence. Real belief does not consist of superficial statements or the result of logical sequences, not even for scientists. Real belief requires probing and hard work, and those who have not done that do not have it. Belief in God or Jesus comes by means of relationship, and is non-transferable. It would be pathetic to believe by means of independent evidence, which, perhaps, is why God has seen fit to make that impossible. I have made the point about impossiblity multiple times by now, and many, both with Christian views and without them, believe in that impossibility. Perhaps that tends to create the process by which historicity theories become fringe? Evensteven (talk) 00:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I've said before, this is not the place for personal opinions, apologetics, or polemics. As soon as the word "belief" shows up in a conversation here, it's a pretty good sign that the conversation has nothing to do with the article.Fearofreprisal (talk) 00:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I have to agree some of my comment wasn't about the article. It was about showing where I am coming from, to increase understanding of my positions and attitudes, which helps people to avoid difficulties in communications. So what was not about the article, was still in support of the editing. I have seen this to be useful elsewhere on WP, and elsewhere all over. And the opposing views here have not been without their own opinions, apologetics, and polemics. Sometimes one can learn to see one's own better after being exposed to someone else's. We all have to do what is necessary to get the work of editing done (by consensus), and that means dealing with other people, and often, ones who don't agree. It's not a neatly defined path. Evensteven (talk) 00:48, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm trying to focus on issues that are holding back the article (such as the conflation of existence with historicity), but sometimes the talk page turns into a big wall of text. (And I'm certainly guilty of creating a lot of it.) Fearofreprisal (talk) 01:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Granted, and I tend to the same, sorry to say. So, absolute avoidance being undesirable, may all our walls be built to good purpose, but on the appropriate scale! :) Evensteven (talk) 01:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Evensteven, you are correct that "lack of evidence is not itself evidence, not even evidence of a lack". But the problem is that our article currently presents information as factual for which evidence is lacking. It also lacks information which appears highly relevant and for which evidence exists. In other words, the article seems extremely one-sided at present. Formerip (talk) 01:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

In principle, that certainly sounds reasonable. So long as everyone is agreed as to the facts, evidence, and evaluation of presentation, it should be a breeze. Evensteven (talk) 01:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

The first sentence of the lead reads: "The historicity of Jesus concerns the analysis of historical evidence to determine whether Jesus of Nazareth existed as a historical figure, and whether any of the major milestones in his life as portrayed in the gospels can be confirmed as historical events." This might be better phrased as: "The historicity of Jesus is the question of whether Jesus of Nazareth existed (take out as a historical figure' - what else would he exist as?), and whether or to what extent the New testament writings (take out "any of the major milestones in his life as portrayed in the gospels" - it's not just milestones that are at issue but teachings, and it's not just the gospels) can be confirmed as historical events." Don't you guys have anything better to do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.23.133.25 (talk) 06:18, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

We seem to be making progress, albeit slowly. Ignoring all the froth and sticking to the article, I think a big issue still to be resolved is the so-called “conflation of existence with historicity”. To me it’s clear that if Jesus did not exist then nothing about him was historical, but if Jesus did exist in some form that does not mean the New Testament stories are all reliable – some may be reliable, some clearly are not, and nobody can say into which category much of the stuff belongs. Please could it be clarified on the talk page why the “conflation” is seen to be such a big deal? If we can sort that out, maybe the rest of the issues might flow a bit more smoothly? Wdford (talk) 09:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

It all comes down to what can be supported by citations to reliable sources. But, let me posit two ideas, for talk page discussion:

• “The dictionary definition of 'historicity' is 'historical quality or authenticity based on fact.' Historicity is a quality of a discourse perhaps, or even of an opinion. The most general concept would be something like this: the historicity of a claim about the past is its factual status."(I'm not arguing that this is an ideal definition, but it is a starting point.) So, you might consider the "historicity of Jesus" to be the historical quality or authenticity of claims about Jesus.
• Scholars studying biblical events understand historicity largely in the context of historical criticism. (You can read a short essay on historical criticism here: )

Given these two ideas, I think it's pretty clear that historicity is not the same thing as existence. Fearofreprisal (talk) 12:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not clear to me at all that there is a difference between the two. What in a nutshell is the difference between existence and historicity? Martijn Meijering (talk) 12:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

“Conflation of existence with historicity” is the kind of prose that makes eyes glaze over. What your readers want to know is whether Jesus existed at all (answer: most scholars say yes), and if so, how reliable is the NT picture of him (answer: nobody really knows). WHich is whjat you mean, but in reader-friendly language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.23.133.25 (talk) 01:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Mmeijeri: This is the essential problem: it's one thing to just assume that historicity and existence are the same thing, but it's another thing to actually provide citations to support that notion.

I can certainly provide citations showing that historicity and existence are related concepts -- but I can't find any that show they're the same thing.

As for the IP editor's comment: If readers want to know whether Jesus existed at all, they should go to the Existence of Jesus article. You might be familiar with that article -- it's the one that doesn't exist on Misplaced Pages. Fearofreprisal (talk) 14:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Readers of Misplaced Pages who don't like what they read are always free to start their own article, and frequently do.

The paragraph that Fearofreprisal inserted into the lead section (without consensus) states that "Historicity is the historical actuality of persons and events". The dictionary defines "actuality" as "The state of EXISTING in reality". In order to avoid extensive philosophical debates and stick to plain understandable English, we have therefore used the term "existence" instead of "actuality". Please clarify – what exactly is your problem with this? Wdford (talk) 16:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Check out WP:EDITCONSENSUS, and you'll see that I was fully correct in adding that paragraph to the lead section. But, I'm not suggesting it's perfect -- I think it does need fine tuning.

The only problem I have with what you're saying is that it's WP:SYNTHESIS. "Existence" is different from "existence in reality" (and, for that matter, "historical existence,") so you're going to end up in a philosophical rabbithole anyway. Can you provide any citations to reliable sources that might be helpful?

Fearofreprisal (talk) 19:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I already gave my source - the Oxford Dictionary is a reliable source for the meanings of words in the English language. I see that you now claim that "Existence" is different from "existence in reality" or "historical existence". Please can you provide a reliable source that substantiates this claim? Wdford (talk) 20:39, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

It seems the two are clearly synonymous in this context. It might be that it only seems this way, and that various subtleties mean they actually aren't, but that's an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. I think it is time to stop playing word games. Martijn Meijering (talk) 21:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Given that a definition of "historicity" appears problematic, why is there a need for the article to provide one? If readers don't know what it means, they can look it up. But for us to come up with our own definition, particularly if it is contentious, seems like original research, even if our definition ends up being really good. If there is only one really clear and obvious way of defining it, then we don't need to. If there is more than one way, then it is hard for us to know that our definition matches the defintion assumed by the sources, so the whole exercise could end up being misleading.

I think the article needs a more balanced presentation, but I don't see how going off on tangents about defining terms helps. Formerip (talk) 22:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Wdford - I've got no problem with the Oxford dictionary (Though it's not the OED.) Its definition of Historicity is actually incorporated into the second paragraph of the article.

When you take a definition that says "The state of EXISTING in reality", and say "that's just 'existence'", that's probably asking for trouble. Things can "exist" in many ways -- in mythology, dreams, legend, fantasy, and even history. (Certainly I have citations that show the above. Do you really need them?)

Meijering - I'm not the one who's saying that two words mean the same thing. The one making the claim (in the article) has the WP:BURDEN on that.

If the two words are seemingly synonymous simply based on context and ordinary usage, then the burden is on those claiming they are not the same. You cannot even identify what the alleged difference in meaning is. Martijn Meijering (talk) 00:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

FormerIP - There are already two articles that discuss historicity, in a general sense: Historicity, and Historicity (philosophy). The definition of the term isn't problematic -- but it is a college level term. This article doesn't need to come up with its own definition. It should use reliable sources for that. So far, no reliable sources have been found that say "historicity" is the same thing as "existence." Fearofreprisal (talk) 23:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

We may be talking at cross-purposes, but if there are not reliable sources for it, why not just leave it out of the article? Formerip (talk) 00:11, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with leaving things out for which there are no reliable sources. Fearofreprisal (talk) 01:09, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

We are obviously NOT talking about existence in dreams etc here - the opening sentence which defines the article very clearly spells out that the focus is "whether Jesus of Nazareth existed as a historical figure, and whether any of the major milestones in his life as portrayed in the gospels can be confirmed as historical events." Wdford (talk) 08:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

May I take us all back a half-step and ask what seems a basic question: If the title of the article is not clear and obvious to readers — whether it is vague, ambiguous, undefined, obscure, contentious, or unclear for any other reason — then why are we using it? Is there good reason to expect that readers of Misplaced Pages will be searching for that specific phrase?  Unician ∇  10:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

That's an excellent question. The answer is that the title is NOT vague, ambiguous, undefined, obscure, contentious, or unclear for any other reason. One editor recently appeared and started a fuss, but until then nobody else seemed to have a problem with it. That said, I have no problem in renaming the article if anybody has a better suggestion? Perhaps Existence of Jesus or Historical reliability of the New Testament stories? Maybe an even better option would be for the article to be split and merged into Historical Jesus and Historical reliability of the Gospels - the overlaps are substantial, and the rationale for retaining two separate articles is unclear to me? Wdford (talk) 12:02, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I am sending today a transcribed copy of the section from the Anchor Bible Dictionary article on Jesus containing the word "historicity" in the section title to a few of the editors here today. I think I mentioned that before and asked for email addresses but didn't get anyway so I'll send it out "cold". I have also started a page at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Christianity/Jesus work group/Encyclopedic articles containing the list of subarticles of the Jesus ABD article as an indicator of what relevant topics can be found discussed elsewhere. I expect to add material from similar reference books on the topic as I finish them. I think the name here is used as per WP:COMMONNAME and that probably any article title less than a full sentence long would encounter such problems. John Carter (talk) 14:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

It seems very clear that the article needs to be clarified what the point of the article is or else there will forever be loops of arguments. On the Historical Jesus page, it says "For information about the historical existence of Jesus, see Historicity of Jesus." It seems like this could be named "Historical existence of Jesus" and that would be more precise. I am not sure why people would want to understand or explore specifically historicity as something divorced from that discussion. If they want to know about the philosophical sense, as explained in the Wiki article here and elsewhere, it is how it has evolved historically over time. It doesn't seem that that is the thrust of this article and might better be 'Understanding of Jesus throughout History". Prasangika37 (talk) 02:28, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The point of the article is clarified precisely in the opening sentence, namely that the article "concerns the analysis of historical evidence to determine whether Jesus of Nazareth existed as a historical figure, and whether any of the major milestones in his life as portrayed in the gospels can be confirmed as historical events." How much more clear could it be made? Wdford (talk) 10:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's very clear. And if that is the article that this community wants to write, maintain, and contribute, I don't have an issue with that. It's one way of looking at it, a notable and valid subject, and there's no reason that one way can't be addressed in an article and appropriate information provided. It is not, however, the only way to interpret the title. If there is sufficient interest, there is room to create another article using a different approach. As currently expressed here, this is not the article I would have expected to see when coming to read it, nor the one I had potential interest in when I came to the talk page, and I find this angle uninteresting. That too is ok. Sometimes when there is a division of views that can give rise to asperity, it is more useful to present the views separately, because hopping back and forth between incompatibilities can also make for a lack of clarity. Perhaps this is an occasion to handle the views in this fashion. Evensteven (talk) 16:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Accepted. As a matter of interest, considering the dictionary definition of "historicity", which article/topic were you expecting to find based on this title? Wdford (talk) 18:02, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

And by what WP policy do you offer ridicule? Evensteven (talk) 19:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I am not offering ridicule, I am asking a relevant question. As one of the editors who is trying to resolve this issue of the article name, I am interested to know what other interpretations of the article name might there be? It seems plain enough to me, but if it is indeed ambiguous, then corrective action is obviously required. AGF. Wdford (talk) 20:28, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh really? And where did you get the idea that I have been arguing about the dictionary definition? AGF yourself. Evensteven (talk) 18:19, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

You haven't answered the question - which article/topic were you expecting to find when you clicked on this article originally? Wdford (talk) 23:34, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I see ridicule so much as a request for clarification. Personally I agree that there are probably variations on the title/scope matter other than the one recently put forward here and think it is a reasonable request which could be used in a hatnote or similar to provide links to other articles. Also I have to assume other editors might conceivably be interested in that other topic if they knew more clearly what it is. John Carter (talk) 19:39, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

"Historical Existence of Jesus" seems like a far more accurate and useful name given the fact that Historicity is apparently confusing and has a separate philosophical definition as I mentioned earlier. E.g. historicity in philosophy refers to the development of a concept through history. Its not a good source but https://en.wikipedia.org/Historicity_(philosophy) gives a brief insight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prasangika37 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

OK - shall we propose that the article be renamed "Historical Existence of Jesus"? I would however like to include not just the existence of the man, but also which of his actions/events are considered to be historical - otherwise a straight yes-he-existed article ends up looking like an endorsement of the gospel stories. Any comments please? Wdford (talk)

Still working on Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Christianity/Jesus work group/Encyclopedic articles but I would suggest that whatever the most commonly appearing article section scope in reference sources might be the best scope to use here.John Carter (talk) 21:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I googled "Historicity of Jesus" and I got 407,000 hits, I then googled "Historical Existence of Jesus" and I got 16,900,000 hits. Mmmmmmm…… Wdford (talk) 12:10, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Historicity of the gospels is only a redirect right now too. I could see moving the page to Historical existence of Jesus or something similar for clarity's sake. John Carter (talk) 16:19, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Wdford suggested the title “Existence of Jesus”; Prasangika37 suggested “Historical existence of Jesus”. Do editors generally prefer the second proposal as a clarification of the first? And what edge cases would be newly-included or excluded from the article by such a change?  Unician ∇  23:26, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Moving Forward Again

FormerIP has recently raised the concern that the article “currently ascribes views held by Bible scholars to a wider academic community, and it does so on the basis of flimsy evidence.” FormerIP also stated that the article “currently presents information as factual for which evidence is lacking. It also lacks information which appears highly relevant and for which evidence exists.” These concerns have been raised before, but before we got around to addressing them we got side-tracked.

Now the lead itself is becoming cluttered up with extensive quotes in all directions, which makes the lead huge and unwieldy. This will also need to be cleared up shortly.

As a start-point I have tried to simplify and focus things by grouping the summary of the actual evidence into its own dedicated section, by grouping the discussion about “what can be known or deduced” into a second section, and by temporarily removing any quotes which appear to be an unhelpful duplication, just to clear the deck. It needs to be cleaned up further, and some gaps filled in, but before we progress on which opinions to include or exclude, perhaps FormerIP can clarify their concerns and suggest possible solutions? Wdford (talk) 08:57, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Count me out. I'm giving up. That doesn't mean I don't have an opinion. I just see this now as a pointless area for discussion. Too many unchangeable positions and distractions. HiLo48 (talk) 09:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

It seems then that there are no serious objections to the sources being quoted here - is that correct?

Can we then move on to cleaning up the lead section, which has been progressively cluttered up with lengthy quotes and other details which should be in the body of the article only? Wdford (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

My objection to the way the Ehrman source is being used it is that it is a weak source for an extraordinary claim. No academics other than Bible scholars have, in recent history, published anything giving serious consideration to the question of whether Jesus existed. So any claim about what they believe on that question is extraordinary. The source used is a polemical book about why it is ever so wrong to question whether Jesus existed, popular history rather than strictly academic. This makes it a weak source, and so inappropriate. The solution I would suggest is not to reproduce polemic in Misplaced Pages's voice. I would further suggest that the article should be clearer that the question of Jesus' existence is one generally addressed only by Bible scholars and not by the wider academic community. Formerip (talk) 23:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Cleaning up the lead

Over the last month or so the lead section has become progressively cluttered up with a lot of detail that belongs in the body of the article. The lead section is supposed to summarize the content of the article, not duplicate it. I therefore propose to remove all excess detail from the lead section, and leave the lead section as a summary of the main points of content only. Wdford (talk) 12:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Good idea. I look forward to your changes. CorinneSD (talk) 16:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I sent to Wdford a copy of the Anchor Bible Dictionary subarticle on the historicity of Jesus. It is old but it still should be of some use.John Carter (talk) 18:37, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Please edit the lead. The lead is one of the longest I've seen, and its supposed to be a max of 4 paragraphs. Its pretty sprawling and I assume its not fitting anyone's needs. Particularly all the clarification over what Historicity of Jesus is and isn't seems like it could be summed up in a sentence or two and maybe mostly moved to the main body. The name 'Historical Existence of Jesus' name would also seem to remove a lot of the point anyway. It may prove useful to offer a lead up here if people are deeply passionate about the things they included in the lead, or maybe WP:BRD will bring about a nice synthesis. Prasangika37 (talk) 02:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Please review Misplaced Pages policy.

Template:Who

I've made an edit with Who tags at appropriate places. This tag is for placement after attributions to vague "authorities" such as "serious scholars", "historians say", "some researchers", "many scientists", and the like. No more saying "most scholars of antiquity". That is against the rules, and it's on all the Jesus pages, put there by the Misplaced Pages apologetics team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.91.107.217 (talk) 21:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

So, what do you expect, a list of 10 000 Antiquity scholars who subscribe to the historicity of Jesus? Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Ehrman said he knows thousands of scholars who believe that Jesus really existed, so we cannot name every scholar part of this majority. Quotation marks could be used for "vast majority" or "virtually any scholar of Antiquity", in order to make clear it is information being quoted from reliable sources, instead of claims made in Misplaced Pages's voice. There is a ban on Misplaced Pages editors employing weasel words, the reliable sources themselves don't abide by our ban. And these may still be cited when they make clear that they express a consensus view, since there is a limited number of ways of conveying such information and very long lists of names of scholars supporting a position aren't generally part of such ways. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

In his claims about thousands of scholars, Ehrman does not distinguish between religious belief and historicity. If you can find a citation where he talks about thousands of scholars who accept the historicity of Jesus, that would be relevant. But no such citation exists. Ehrman even dodges the question of historicity as it relates to his own opinion. Fearofreprisal (talk) 07:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Is it your contention that if someone has a religious belief, that it disqualifies them as a scholar? Evensteven (talk) 13:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

These who tags are absurd. Virtually all of the sentences so tagged have footnotes to sources. john k (talk) 13:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Tags can be much overdone. So can weasel words. I think we should be diligent in checking sources per Tgeorgescu's comment to be sure that "vague attribution" words do not have their source in editing. And even with source backing, I think it makes for a stronger article to depend less on such characterizations and focus more on the core of the research. If there is scholarly disagreement or controversy, it is often most useful just to say that much and only that much, and forget about weighing the balance in fine detail. The point to do that is in distinguishing between notable and fringe. More tends to make an article just look like a pointy WP battleground where multiple axes are being ground. Evensteven (talk) 13:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Please don't go down this path again, Evensteven. People that consider Jesus of Nazareth to be divine can still be scholars, but they are also biased. The two things are not mutually exclusive. Material from biased sources need not be excluded, but it does need to be clearly labeled and segregated.—Kww(talk) 14:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

And people that consider Jesus of Nazareth not to be divine are also biased. There really is no safe haven from viewpoint. We need to treat both sides with the same kinds of considerations. Clear labeling is fine, a part of dealing with the matter according to NPOV. Segregated can work too, if it helps to distinguish the viewpoints from each other. Evensteven (talk) 15:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I fully agree, but how are we going to identify which scholar falls into which camp, before we can begin to segregate them? Wdford (talk) 15:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Considering someone to not be divine is no particular obstacle to believing in his existence. I don't think that anyone has ever been divine, is now divine, nor ever will be divine, but I certainly believe that some people have existed, exist now, and will exist in the future. There would be a question of bias when it came to acceptance of miraculous events, but no particular bias when it comes to the question of simple existence.—Kww(talk) 16:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

In response to Wdford's reasonable question regarding how we tell which individuals on all sides may be driven by bias of some sort, the answer is, as I think he knows and is implying in the question, we can't do so ourselves. All we really can do is repeat wht others have said before. The most recent substantive overview of this topic in an academic source that I have found to date is the ABD subarticle I sent to him and some others and am willing to forward to anyone who gives me an address to sent it to. I am still looking for more recent sources, and will note here any I find as I find them. John Carter (talk) 16:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Editors are always expected to evaluate sources for bias. Every editor. Every source. Every topic.—Kww(talk) 19:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

And they are also expected to make a reasonable effort to take into account their own biases and to not attempt to right great wrongs according to their own biases. And I thought reasonable "evaluation" generally came after looking at it, rather than by making possibly peremptory judgmentson them? John Carter (talk) 19:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I second John Carter here. And in response to Kww, while what you say about predisposition to bias about existence is not fully inherent in disbelief in divinity, the distinction is somewhat theoretical in practice. The bias exists in many who reject divinity, Christianity, any number of other things perhaps. Also, there are different biases; existence and historicity are only two closely-related ones. While those are our current focus, others can have a bearing on them. Disbelief in Christianity is just as much a fully inherent bias as belief, and both have a bearing on belief in Jesus' historicity. So, Kww, I support your call for examination of every editor, every source, every topic, and add "every bias". I have not hidden my biases, and would encourage other editors here to do the same as regards the article topic. From time to time this cooperation has been asked for (not just by me), and has failed to be given in some cases. The community must weigh the needs for such examination and disclosure as regards both discussion and editing. Finally, to Wdford, we may be able to separate sources and we may not, via disclosure. The segregation approach will not work well without it, however, so perhaps we should consider that as we consider that approach itself. We must work with what we have, not what we want. Evensteven (talk) 21:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm certainly not trying to right great wrongs. I've just noted, time after time, that this article presents the opinions of a group of primarily Christian and Muslim scholars and takes those opinions as if they represent historians as a whole. Bear in mind that Christians are a minority group, and that Christians and Muslims (grouped together as the primary groups that believe in the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth) total only 55% of the world's population: scarcely more than half.

The simple lack of Buddhist, Hindu, and atheist historians that support these Christian and Muslim scholars is, in itself, evidence of the bias problem. If this were a topic that was actually well supported by historical evidence, one would expect that the proportion of historians supporting the historical existence of Jesus would roughly mimic the proportions of different religious beliefs among historians as a whole (which would, in turn, mimic the world population). Instead of that expected 55:45 ratio, we find 100:0. That's an overwhelming disparity. What's the alternate explanation to source bias? Why aren't we finding sources from non-Christian, non-Muslim sources that support Jesus of Nazareth's existence?—Kww(talk) 21:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I believe WP:BURDEN applies here. Feel free to produce any such sources as you can find, excluding of course converts from Christianity and Islam whose own biases are open to serious question, as well as any committed Buddhists or Hindus who are by their faiths probably opposed to a religion whose tenets are at best very hard to reconcile with Christianity broadly construed, and I suppose some Jews biased against Christianity on the grounds of Christian antisemitism would have to be excluded as well. But if you can provide such sources that could reasonably meet WEIGHT criteria I'm sure we'd all like to see them. :) John Carter (talk) 22:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

: Kww, bear in mind that atheists are a far smaller minority than Christians alone, much less the group who profess a major religious faith of some kind. And lack of evidence is not evidence. Lack of these other religious historians' support is not support of non-existence. And it is not lacking for any given reason. It is simply lack. Whatever your "expected ratios", I believe it was a particularly acute critic of Christianity who was also caustically disparaging about statistics: you have heard what Mark Twain had to say - "damned lies"? Your application of them here is far more ill-constructed than most that were floated even in his time, rife with assumption and unwarranted conclusions. Speaks of a bias problem to me. Of course, John Carter offers the suitable WP recourse. Evensteven (talk) 22:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

It would be easier to accept your protestations if you could actually point at even a handful of historians from different religious backgrounds that accept the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth. If there isn't source bias at play, both of you should be able to quickly produce a meaningful list of Buddhist and Hindu historians that align with the Christian historians being referenced here (and yes, Buddhists and Hindus are large groups, with numbers nearly equal to Christians and Muslims worldwide). Can you show me that handful? A few? Maybe two? I will stand by that 55:45 worldwide ratio as well. What reason would there be for the religious distribution of historians being substantially different from the religious distribution of the general population?—Kww(talk) 22:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Are we to take it from the above basically WP:IDHT comment above that you can not or will not produce any sources and are basically just being tendentious and/or disruptive? Please do not engage in the obvious fallacy of saying others have to do something to disprove an allegation you have yet to provide any evidence to support. You should know better by now. John Carter (talk) 23:10, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

John, I've been pleading with you to listen for a long time. I've heard what you are saying, but you are not engaging in return. You are asking me to prove a negative, which is impossible. I have searched. I cannot find any Hindu or Buddhist historians that support the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth. I therefore submit that there either aren't any or that they are extremely rare. What you need to do to counter my argument is produce a group of Hindu and Buddhist historians that do support the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. Not his divinity, his simple existence. There isn't a problem doing that with Muhammad, Joseph Smith, or Haile Selassie, to name a few other figures believed to be divine. Jesus of Nazareth appears to be an exception. Can you either demonstrate that he isn't an exception or provide any explanation for the exception other than source bias?—Kww(talk) 23:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

No, Kww, John needn't do that. Your argument is fallacious, as are your stat conclusions. It is you who need to supply your non-Christian (non-Muslim?) sources who do not support Jesus' historicity and get on with editing. There are two biases here, and about that you are being WP:IDHT. But there are ways to make contributions nevertheless. Evensteven (talk) 23:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

No, my logic is not flawed. You are asking that I provide sources of Hindus and Buddhists actively refuting the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. I'm not making that argument. I'm saying that the only historians making statements in support of his existence are Christian and Muslim. You are conflating a bias against his divinity with a bias against his existence and requiring active refutation as opposed to non-support. You accuse me of logic errors without demonstrating what they are and misread my arguments. What precisely is my statistical error? That only 55% of the world is Christian or Muslim? Or that we should expect the distribution of religions among historians to roughly mimic the distribution among the world's population? What force would you expect that drives the religious distribution among historians to be different than the world's population?—Kww(talk) 23:51, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, your logic is flawed. Your error is not in your raw data, it is in your conclusions based on the data. They are not statistical data collected and developed with the idea of supporting your thesis and they do not support that thesis. There are rules and processes that govern statistics in order to eliminate bias and improper conclusions, but you have gone looking for data to support conclusions already drawn - specifically that there is only one bias and that it is Christian/Muslim. Your expectation as to distributions is not validly drawn, not validly tested, and unsusceptible to your unscientific pseudo-analytic process. Non sequitur: it does not follow. Quod non est demonstrandum. It is not necessary to take the approach you are suggesting, and not necessary for John to find that type of source. And if they cannot be found, so be it. That does not put us in any bind here. I am saying that you can still present whatever sources you have to support your point of view, Hindu, Buddhist, atheist, or anything else. But those sources are also biased. As with Christian sources, they can be used and weighed accordingly. And that is what I am asking you to do, assuming that it is your inclination. Otherwise, WP:IDHT. Evensteven (talk) 01:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Evensteven -- The bias issue has been talked about over and over on this talk page. If you want to find the community consensus, just look the archives. My opinion is that bias isn't an issue: I'm more than happy with any scholarly viewpoint on historicity. I've even found that Christian scholars, when they specifically address historicity (versus belief), are forthright regarding the problems of historical evidence. But that's the catch: Too many WP editors want to include statements of belief in this article, rather than statements regarding historicity. Fearofreprisal (talk) 02:59, 3 September 2014 (UTC) Edited 05:05, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I am finding, with longer involvement at this page, that there seem to be many editors here for which bias is not an issue, for they do seem to have discovered that there are indeed WP mechanisms for dealing with bias which still permit effective and cooperative editing. Such was not the first impression, as I am sure one can understand. And I have already seen far too many places on WP where editors wish to place statements of their own belief, in other words, POV pushing. Bias is everywhere in the world, and one form we encounter on WP comes from editors who insist that their own POV is not biased, and push on that basis. When it comes to productive editing, and to measuring WP:RS, scholarly viewpoints are not the only ones that are valid to consider. But that is because (first) the unscholarly can still sometimes pursue a scholarly attitude with regards to close observation, articulate reporting, and a willingness to authenticate both strengths and weaknesses of process, insights, and materials, plus openness about their own work. The attitude can place more stress on how conclusions are drawn than on what the conclusions themselves are. It is a process designed to enhance a revelation of idea, in order to promote understanding. That's a principle of real scholarship. Too often scholars themselves fail to do this, while amateurs can succeed brilliantly at it. And of course, they can be Christian, or Muslim, or Jewish, or atheist, or any of an array of beliefs: both the successful and the not so successful. And so it is with WP editors too.

I will give you another of my biases. Whenever someone tells me that there is only one way to do something, or one process to reach an end, or one methodology to follow, or some restriction on what may be considered, what I see is a failure to seek and to explore, and ultimately an artificial hindrance to understanding. WP editing as a job requires understanding, and all the tools that can be brought to bear in order to achieve it. Understanding is not the same thing as being convinced, but it is certainly the starting point for resolving disputes. Each editor has not only the responsibility to pursue it, but is able to contribute according to the ability to achieve it. It's a skill. I recognize the misalignments that exist. But it's not a catch, except insofar as "this is what you get". Really, WP is the real world too, and we're all people with all that implies. We'll always have to deal with that. So, let's do our best. Evensteven (talk) 04:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Asking me to prove a negative while accusing me of IDHT and bad logic is laughable. The problem is that sources outside of the Christian and Muslim communities are not publishing material in favor of Jesus of Nazareth's historicity. I can't produce those sources that aren't talking about it, much the same as I cannot demonstrate that there are not sources describing Jesus as a lizard by providing a source. If you want to deny that the difference between 55% and 100% is a sign of a biased sample, I would suggest that the person that needs a statistics refresher course isn't me.—Kww(talk) 04:55, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Any chance of cutting back on the wall of text, and focusing on improving the article? Fearofreprisal (talk) 05:05, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd love to improve the article. First step is to qualify all references to "most scholars" and to generally qualify the support to indicate that it is predominantly Christian, with a striking absence of outside support. So long as we have editors that insist that I prove a negative before doing so, I'm at a loss as to how.—Kww(talk) 05:22, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, then, please do not misstate what I have said, and please do not do it repeatedly. I have made it quite clear that I am not asking you to prove anything, most especially not a negative. "Present whatever sources you have to support your point of view" is what I said. If your point of view requires the proving of a negative, and you can't do so, I don't know what we can do to accommodate your point of view here. But what I had in mind is presenting sources that contradict the Christian and Muslim viewpoint. Is that also impossible? I wouldn't think so. As for statistics, sorry, but I have a degree in math and a year's study specifically of statistics - enough for basics - and I do know what I'm saying. You're using them in a popular and ill-defined way inconsistent with the tools. If you claim otherwise, please tell me something about your findings: correlations found, confidence levels, that kind of thing. Better yet, provide a reliable source for the study and report on those results. What you've got is an intuition here, but it's not reliable. I've stated in a comment above how I think weasel words and tags should be regarded, and how to keep them both contained and non-weasel. I don't think I can back your "first step" as you describe it here. But maybe an example in an edit would help clarify your position. Who knows? We can bandy words here all day, but when we see the impact of one example, everything can become much clearer. Maybe there's less of a problem than supposed. Make a start. Try something. We'll get much further. What's to lose? An edit, reverted? I've needed to do that to myself a couple of times. It happens. But not every time. Cheers! Evensteven (talk) 07:02, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

You do understand the semantic difference between "people of other religious backgrounds are publishing papers opposing this" and "people of other religious backgrounds are not publishing in support of this", don't you? You seem to keep arguing with the former and providing critiques of the former when I'm only claiming the latter. All the statistical analysis in the world will fail if you don't understand the problem statement.—Kww(talk) 13:27, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I understand it. I don't attach significance to it. And I don't accept the reasoning behind the significance you attribute to it. Evensteven (talk) 16:54, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The charge of bias in the sources seems to be largely hypothetical here. There is a large pile of secondary sources, attesting that virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed. What scholarly sources contradict this? If none, then I suggest that this is not the place to right great wrongs. Kww needs to start writing and publishing his own papers on the subject, if he is unable to find scholars that agree with him. We just report what's out there. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:39, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Not hypothetical at all. Your "scholars of antiquity" are virtually 100% Christian. That's an anomalous concentration of Christians. If you found that the only people extolling the virtues of the Ford Fiesta were employees of the Ford Motor Company, would you insist on a rigorous statistical analysis of your sample before coming to the conclusion that you had a problem with source bias?—Kww(talk) 13:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

It's astonishing that you think there are no secular scholars of antiquity. But that's neither here nor there. If you have no source discussing this, then it would obviously be original research to point out this alleged bias in the article. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Can you show me a few of these non-Christian, non-Muslim "scholars of antiquity" that support the historic existence of Jesus of Nazareth? Seriously, for all the energy spent denying the existence of the problem, it should be simple to demonstrate the existence of counterexamples.—Kww(talk) 14:35, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

There are secondary sources in the article that already say this. Have you checked these yet? Is not Michael Grant a secular historian of some repute as well? Also, I am still waiting for your sources that challenge the neutrality of this material. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:54, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Which of these secondary sources are not published by Christians? What makes you believe Michael Grant was not a Christian? Judging from his quote about "Our Lord's Latin", he would certainly appear to be one.—Kww(talk) 18:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, we don't really know, and this is likely to run into no true Scottsman territory. That's what underscores the importance of secondary sources that review the literature. One of the sources has an unequivocal statement that virtually all scholars, both Christian and non-Christian, agree that Jesus was a historical person. Have you examined that source? Does it give references? Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

If it's simple, Kww, please show us how by demonstrating. But otherwise, it's not a problem anyway and not worth the time here. Evensteven (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Kww, you have said that you have been unable to find Hindu or Buddhist scholars that support the historicity of Jesus. Please indicate what sources you have found and what they say on the subject. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 17:07, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

One more time: I was unable to find Hindu or Buddhist scholars that support the historicity of Jesus. I can only show you my empty hands. There are no sources for me to show, because the problem I'm pointing out is the absence of sources. You are making the same conflation as Evensteven: not being able to find Hindu and Buddhist historians that speak in favor of historicity is not the same thing as being able to find Hindu and Buddhist historians that actively write in opposition to it.—Kww(talk) 18:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Please identify the sources you have consulted. Without identifying the sources you have consulted and indicating their specific position taken, be it positive, negative, neutral, or N/A, you donot give us any basis from which to determine WEIGHT according to those sources. John Carter (talk) 18:30, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Kww, if you even ask the question you can find people saying that Grant was an atheist, and nobody saying that he was a Christian. Besides, your hermeneutic of assumed bias is a big problem. If there were significant disputes within the field of Ehrman's and Grant's characterization of it, Then I would say that there is grounds for possibly disregarding their assessments. But your argument seems to me that you don't need to bother. I don't accept that. We're talking to prominent figures here; if people disagreed with these assessments, it wouldn't be hard to find the disagreement. So produce it. Mangoe (talk) 20:11, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

It turns out we do have reliable sources both inside and outside the field of biblical scholarship that question its methodological soundness and impartiality. See Historical_Jesus#Criticism_of_historical_Jesus_research. I'm not aware of similar statements about Grant. In any event, it's not reason enough to eliminate him as a reliable source, especially as he is one of very few historians who have written on the matter. We do need to say more about the backgrounds of the various people that we cite as sources, just as we do in the HJ article. We may need to improve on the prose in the Bold proposal that was recently Deleted, but we do need something like it. Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

LOL @ people thinking there's a "wikipedia apologetics team". A majority of wikipedia editors are atheists or agnostics.

This section appears to be the work of another person who watched "Zeitgeist" for the first time.Ordessa (talk) 18:22, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Kww, please supply a source that either describes/characterizes the problem you are relating or one which has brought it to your attention. It is not a problem for which there is any action to be taken here as long as you alone are the source. If your hands are empty, then I sympathize, but I cannot see how the article is affected, nor can it be so only on that basis. Evensteven (talk) 20:00, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you perhaps suggesting that the article should read "Some Christian scholars and former Christian scholars state that virtually all historians believe ..."? Wdford (talk) 20:08, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

If you're asking me, no I wouldn't suggest that. But perhaps Kww? Evensteven (talk) 20:12, 3 September 2014 (UTC) (Should have been obvious to me it wasn't addressed to me.) Evensteven (talk) 20:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

WEASEL is about "Unsupported attributions." It says, "the examples given above are not automatically weasel words." If a source says most experts support the historicity of Jesus, while very few contest it, then we can say that.

The fact that most historians who have studied Jesus come from cultures that are predominantly Christian is irrelevant, unless reliable sources say their background has influenced their judgment. Even the greatest skeptics, such as Richard Dawkins, say that he probably was an actual person, about whom numerous myths were added by his followers and their followers in he decades following his death. Dawkins provides numerous examples of similar cases he calls "Cargo Cults." Does anyone think that his background in a Christian country biased him toward Jesus?

The alternative is that a group of Jewish people invented Jesus. While it is possible, it seems like a less likely scenario.

TFD (talk) 20:24, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I tend to be sympathetic to these comments. Specifically: about "Unsupported attributions.", yes; "If a source says most experts support the historicity of Jesus, while very few contest it, then we can say that.", yes. But if another source contests the first one, well, there needs to be a community consensus to continue saying it, at a minimum. And as I said above, as a practical matter, I think it serves the quality of the article to employ these kinds of words only when it is quite clear and undisputed that they are accurate. In addition, it serves the editing community to minimize mention of intermediate levels of source support, as in "some", "a few", "a majority", etc. These judgments are more susceptible to argument, which wastes community time, and leaves the article open to outside criticism anyway. It's generally better just to stick to what is firm, and where it is not firm, to discuss the most prominent variants with a minimum of characterization. That also tends to support neutrality. Evensteven (talk) 20:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

"If a source says most experts support the historicity of Jesus, while very few contest it, then we can say that." Great! Now, all you need to do is find that source. Here's a clue: none of the sources cited in the article at this point say this. Fearofreprisal (talk) 21:59, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I need do nothing, although I may if I choose. In the mean time, how many sources now in the article do support the historicity of Jesus, and how many do not? While we're at it, how many Christian historians have there been throughout history, and how many do not support it? Yes, the guidelines/rules do not cover this. But are not legal codes' most familiar weak point their inflexibility? Editing consensus can help, although it's not a fail-safe either. What is? Is it really your contention that the statement is inaccurate? What do you suggest? Evensteven (talk) 22:22, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Fearofreprisal, not even the source that comes from Bart Ehrman's 2011 review of the literature about Jesus?Ordessa (talk) 22:54, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Evensteven - figure of speech. No one needs to do anything here, unless they want to include material in the article that's likely to be challenged. How many sources now in the article do support the historicity of Jesus? Those that I've looked up tend to be weak, cherrypicked, or mis-cited. As for Christian historians throughout history, consider this citation:

"The early church was also not interested in the historical figure of Jesus, that is, in the life and personality of the Jesus who walked and taught in Galilee. Kähler was right: the only Jesus who meets us through the pages of the Gospels... is the Christ of faith."

— James Dunn, Jesus Remembered, page 77)

Ordessa - If you mean Ehrman's 2011 book,Forged: writing in the name of God, it is, to start with, not a review of the literature about Jesus. But, beyond that, Ehrman never actually mentions historicity in that book. Read its table of contents, and you'll see that the book is about something entirely different. Fearofreprisal (talk) 01:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Again, will the apologetics team please review wikipedia policy. As far as the WHO tags, obvious Christian bias is irrelavent at this point. You can't say that "virtually all scholars", EVEN IF THE SOURCE SAYS THAT. That is not how Misplaced Pages works, and we're not making an exception because a few people are letting their religious beliefs undermine their integrity. Again, PLEASE REVIEW THE FOLLWING:

Usage This tag is for placement after attributions to vague "authorities" such as "serious scholars", "historians say", "some researchers", "many scientists", and the like. For example:

Markup Experts agree... Visual effect Experts agree... You may use either one of the following formats:

or

Use it when no specific examples of identifiable individuals from that group are named who could be used to verify the statements or beliefs attributed to the group. Preferably, the offending statement should be made more specific by identifying particular individuals and then either cited or tagged for needing citation. Similarly, the statement should be deleted if the claim about the group is sufficiently vague as to be unsupportable.

Use good judgment when deciding whether greater specificity is actually in the best interests of the article. Words like some or most are not banned and can be useful and appropriate. If greater specificity would result in a tedious laundry list of items with no real importance, then Misplaced Pages should remain concise, even if it means being vague. If the reliable sources are not specific—if the reliable sources say only "Some people..."—then Misplaced Pages must remain vague.

This tag will categorize tagged articles into Category:Articles with specifically marked weasel-worded phrases. This template is a self-reference and is part of the Misplaced Pages project rather than the encyclopedic content.

Thank you very much, and to whoever removed those tags, you're violating Misplaced Pages policy, and whoever has been going around saying "most (Christian) scholars" you can't do that. It's against the policy, but if you insist, that's fine. It just shows that you are willing to lie and cheat the system to protect what you view as Truth. Please actually read the policy. You simply can't say "most scholars" even if that's what the source says. Cherry pick some other quotations to try and get your point across. Dr. Richard Carrier's new peer reviewed book on the the myth of Christianity's central figure is a good place to start.

Dear Anonymous User,

Richard Carrier has a massive anti-religious, anti-christianity bias. He puiblishes via anti-religious groups. We're not going to shove your agenda into a wikipedia article.

Read a properly peer-reviewed book like Bart Ehrman's sometime. Or just pick up a history book.Ordessa (talk) 15:49, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Policy continuation

A break for editing convenience.

Fearofreprisal, to some extent, sources for many articles are cherrypicked: too many to include, pick most reliable, pick most notable, pick most focused on topic, pick the ones available to editors, etc. Do you mean something else? Mis-cited? Ok, that's a simple error that can be corrected by an edit. Pick one, correct it, and state the nature of the citing error. Weak in support? You might be right about some of them. Unfortunately, Dunn is not even talking about historicity at all, but about personal characteristics such as personality. "Christ of faith" I find to be a nebulous phrase, meaning I'm not sure what exactly. I'd have said the Gospels do a great deal more portraying of Jesus' actions: his words, his deeds, his teaching, where he went, whom he met, what they said, etc. But that's me, and that's the Gospels, and an observation about the Dunn quote alone. That considered, I ask again if your contention is that the statement is inaccurate. That's an exceedingly common reason to edit an article, all other considerations aside.

To unsigned editor above, to repeat TDK above, WP:WEASEL says "the examples given above are not automatically weasel words." There is no absolute ban. It also says it is about "unsupported attributions." One can't use such words (or any words) to weasel out of providing a source by making vague or ambiguous claims, nor to weasel out of editing to make the text clear. Not all material requires a source - we can probably say water is wet without attribution. Sources are for backing up material that is not so widely shared and may be challenged or reasonably challengeable, and that doesn't require weasel words to enforce. Some words are vaguer than others (how's that for precision?). Better language is to be sought always, not just to avoid POV claims. The most relevant, key item here is accuracy. Is the statement reflective of the actual situation it tries to describe? But a second is relevant: clarity. Although accurate, is there a better way to convey the situation than using the current words? I don't think we really need to invoke WEASEL to get at the root of whether or not to edit this statement. These other questions will do the job better. Evensteven (talk) 03:16, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

By "cherrypicked" I mean exactly what WP:CHERRYPICKING says: "selecting information without including contradictory or significant qualifying information from the same source and consequently misrepresenting what the source says." Regards Dunn: Beyond reading p. 77 of Jesus Remembered (which will clarify the term "Christ of faith", you should also read p. 126-126. The citation to p. 339 that's included in the article is cherrypicked: the "universal assent" is among Christians, not among scholars, and it is based on belief, not on historicity. Fearofreprisal (talk) 04:27, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok. Misrepresentation of what a source says is no good whatever form it takes. Find occurrences, edit, and say specifically what is the problem in each. Seems like straightforward editing to me. I've done that myself. Do you see a difficulty with that approach? Evensteven (talk) 06:52, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

No real difficulty -- except for the fact that such changes often get reverted rather quickly, by members of the "wikipedia apologetics team" (OK - it's not a team, but there is an informal group of Christian editors here who are knowledgeable of apologetics and WP policy, and who are highly dedicated to preserving the status quo POV of this article.) Fearofreprisal (talk) 08:57, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, POV is a separate question. It's always possible that one's own assessment of a source will conflict with someone else's, and even when there are points of view involved (when aren't there?) that doesn't make the challenge illegitimate. I've seen elsewhere (and in non-religious topics) where one or two editors with a strong POV feel that the editing community consists of an oppositional team when they are so challenged, but just because a community forms a consensus does not mean that they are staking out a ground and position to defend all comers either. I'm less familiar here than some other places, but I'm afraid I have not seen an unwarranted protectionist policy being pursued here, and simply offer that as my observation. I have also taken note of your position/interpretation/assessment of things, in which you distinguish Christians from scholars (as disjoint groups), and characterize writings as "based on belief, not on historicity" (also as disjoint possibilities). Sorry, but that's not a researched opinion, not impartial, and not even very reasonable (in my view). If you find resistance to an edit, this may well be the source of the resistance, and you should understand where that is coming from and why. The status quo of an article is never the point. But changes need to be improvements, not backward slides. It is not within your purview alone to decide what is or is not an improvement, and that is a central aspect of editing WP. So, right or wrong, we all have to expect some opposition from time to time, must know how to support our position, and must know to recognize and admit the weaknesses in our own position. That is taking a scholarly attitude, and it serves both ourselves and the articles. Evensteven (talk) 15:39, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be confused about what positions of mine are "researched opinion." But I don't want to encourage this wall of text to grow further, so let's skip it.

@Bill the Cat 7:, an editor who has done nothing but remove and revert edits here over the last 4 years, just reverted one of my edits (without discussion.) He's an example of the apologists on WP (see his page at User:Bill_the_Cat_7/CMT_FAQ.) The first thing on his user page is a link to "How to win a revert war." Fearofreprisal (talk) 16:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

It's been discussed endlessly. That the baptism of jesus and his crucifixion are historical event's are doubted by no one except by those who are trying to sell nonsense. Stop trying to introduce fringe ideas into a serious subject. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 17:01, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

You're a funny guy. I like how you make a completely POV statement, then throw in "fringe," as if that claim actually has any merit. But the citation at question is not related to historicity. Dunn (the source) does indeed discuss historicity, but this particular citation is not about it. If you want to include it, you need to show that it falls within the scope of historicity. Fearofreprisal (talk) 17:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Bill the Cat 7 - If you want to include this citation, all you need do is show that "almost universal assent" = "historicity." Otherwise, it's outside the scope of the article. Fearofreprisal (talk) 18:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect. If you want to remove a citation, you MUST get consensus. Any further reverts will be considered vandalism. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Fearofreprisal, topics often extend beyond a dictionary definition of a word, and there is always room for support or auxiliary material as long as the article is not overburdened. Artificial restrictions may not be made on the basis of narrow definition. Evensteven (talk) 18:55, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Bill the Cat 7 - it's an extraneous citation that has nothing to do with historicity. And do you really think I'm dumb enough to violate WP:3RR?

You just did. Martijn Meijering (talk) 19:34, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Evensteven - Before, you said "Misrepresentation of what a source says is no good whatever form it takes." The citation that Bill insists on including is not about historicity, is not representative of Dunn's statements on historicity, and isn't even referenced in the accompanying article text. WP:SCOPE allows it to be removed. But, since we're , any further action is probably needs to go through dispute resolution. Should be interesting -- Bill is an experienced revert warrior. Fearofreprisal (talk) 19:07, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with BtC's list that coming up with another list in the opposite direction wouldn't "fix". To the degree I can follow this, this seems to be about trying to get rid of any testimony to state of the field. This argument that Ehrman and Grant and any of what is a rather long list of people cannot act as experts on this is tendentious; until people within the field who testify to a different state are produced, this comes across as a campaign to hide what appears to be the truth by attempting to discredit what turns out to be a very large number of people. Mangoe (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Tendentious editing is exactly what I think is happening. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Fearofreprisal, WP:SCOPE allows it to be retained. "Artificially or unnecessarily restricting the scope of an article to select a particular POV on a subject area is frowned upon." Historicity is a term that identifies the heart of the topic, but as with many articles, it does not necessarily express its bounds. Things related to historicity are permitted, even if they are not directly historicity themselves. Your view is artificially restrictive and is apparently not shared. Consider "article scope, in terms of what exactly the subject and its scope is, is an editorial choice determined by consensus." And finally, "scope is to do with whether it even can be mentioned or summarised or not." It is not your decision alone as to whether or not this can be mentioned. Evensteven (talk) 21:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Christianity articles
• Top-importance Christianity articles
• WikiProject Christianity articles
• B-Class Religion articles
• Top-importance Religion articles
• WikiProject Religion articles
• B-Class Jewish history-related articles
• High-importance Jewish history-related articles
• WikiProject Jewish history articles
• B-Class Israel-related articles
• Mid-importance Israel-related articles
• WikiProject Israel articles
• B-Class Ancient Near East articles
• Top-importance Ancient Near East articles
• Ancient Near East articles by assessment
• B-Class Judaism articles
• High-importance Judaism articles
• B-Class history articles
• Mid-importance history articles
• WikiProject History articles
• Start-Class Bible articles
• High-importance Bible articles
• WikiProject Bible articles
• C-Class Palestine-related articles
• Mid-importance Palestine-related articles
• WikiProject Palestine articles
• Old requests for peer review