Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:28, 30 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.

Questions about an apparent logical fallacy

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

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

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)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also, your edits did change cited material ( ), 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)

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

RfC?

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

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

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

Look here , where I say:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Habermas redux

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RFCs (again)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hiriji:

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

Is Professor Gary Habermas a Reliable Source? Q&A

Ridiculous tag? Not

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Richard Carrier quote for article

With all of the discussion about what is, and isn't historicity, and the arguments coming from Christians that theologians are historians, and their bias is a non-issue, I was shocked to see above one user comment something along the lines of Richard Carrier cannot be included, because he is bias and anti-Christian. He has just published a new book, and it is peer reviewed and published by an academic press, so that should be the end of that. He is a PhD in ancient history, and he is not a Christian. This is the perfect source for unbiased historical analysis, because he doesn't fear that his soul will be burned for eternity if he uncovers the facts.

Could one of the more experienced editors do something with this paragraph from his new book, and add it to the article?:

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

Carrier, R. (2014). On the historicity of Jesus: Why we might have reason for doubt. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press.

I've got the book, so if anyone wants me expand on it, just ask your questions and I'll find quotes from the book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.91.107.195 (talk) 04:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Richard Carrier is certainly an interesting source, but he holds a minority position, maybe even a minority of one, and that needs to be stated. While it is true he doesn't need to fear for his eternal soul if it's true there was no historical Jesus, he is also a well-known self-employed new atheist activist and speaker, which might also be a source of bias. I think that like all other people we cite, we should add a brief description of his credentials and any potential sources of bias. Martijn Meijering (talk) 08:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Martijn here, provided we can source their credentials objectively (probably not hard) and provided we can identify their probable biases objectively (basically impossible?) Wdford (talk) 14:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Martin, the book is published by an academic press and is peer reviewed, bud. I don't get what your point is, are you saying it can't be included because it's not the position held by most theologians? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.91.107.165 (talk) 23:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Certainly not, I'm merely pointing out we cannot cite his opinions in Misplaced Pages voice. By all mean do quote him, but as an attributed quote and with proper explanation of his credentials and potential biases. Simply saying he has a PhD in ancient history (I think) and is a self-employed atheist activist and speaker would be enough as far as I'm concerned. Martijn Meijering (talk) 23:18, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

So when it's an atheist we point it out, but when it's a Christian: irrelevant? Do all the other authors who are confirmed Christians, say so? How is atheism a "bias"? You'd want people who are detached from the faith. Are Buddhists "bias" as well? Someone can add the information if they want, I don't have much faith in this article due to reverts by all of the apologists, and all these double standards for Christians vs. non Christians. I don't get why non-Christians are "biased". Almost all of the people saying Jesus is a real person are Christians. Atheism means you don't believe in magic, it doesn't mean you can't understand how history works. Christianity means you believe in magic, supernatural stuff, and by default that Jesus existed in real life. Wow, real objective. I'm done. I've done all I can, and I'll leave it to you editors to do the right thing. Good luck. This article is garbage and so are all the articles about Jesus and anything to do with Christianity on Misplaced Pages. That's because people don't understand that Christians aren't able to write about this stuff without letting their "faith" get in the way, and people like you don't understand what bias is, and the difference between a scientific approach and a faith based approach. You'll NEVER see a Christian "historian" saying Jesus didn't exist. But you may see a buddhist or atheist, or Hindu or other saying that. Why is that, bud? Doesn't that make you question your views on "bias"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.91.107.165 (talk) 00:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

No, we should do the same thing for Christians and everyone else, which is why I said "all people we cite" above. Also: kindly consider WP:CIVIL, I don't appreciate your calling me 'bud'. It looks as if you came here to pick a fight, which isn't very constructive. Martijn Meijering (talk) 00:24, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Dubious paragraph

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

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

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

Josephus testimonium flavium

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

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

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

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

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

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

Geoffrey Blainey

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Irrelevant sentence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Personal attack removed)

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

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

Sockpuppetry

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

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

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

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

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

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

Remove the "criticism" section?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(5-c) He was again quoted as saying of the canonical gospels: "they are not written by eyewitnesses who were contemporary with the events they narrate. They were written thirty-five to sixty-five years after Jesus’ death by people who did not know him, did not see anything he did or hear anything that he taught, people who spoke a different language from his and lived in a different country from him." Again, this has no relevance to the historicity question per se, but gives the impression that "since the gospels were not written by eyewitnesses, they are unreliable, and therefore cannot be used for historical research -- therefore, Jesus might not have existed". I'm sorry, but within the context of an article about whether or not Jesus existed there is no other way around it: this quote was being abused.

(5-d) He was again quoted about the canonical gospels' sources: "The sources of the Gospels are riddled with just the same problems that we found in the Gospels themselves: they, too, represent traditions that were passed down by word of mouth, year after year, among Christians who sometimes changed the stories—indeed, sometimes invented the stories—as they retold them." Again, this statement is completely true and accurate. Historians need to be careful with the gospels. However, this quotation does not belong in an article about whether or not Jesus existed historically.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And that's just two of them!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ANI discussion

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scope (first sentence of lead)

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

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

It was this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's an alternate construction for you to consider:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Specification that authors critical of HJ research methodologies...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Citation for article that has been overlooked

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• 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