Talk:Historicity of Jesus

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

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

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

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

When an edit is made, other editors have these options: accept the edit, change the edit, or revert the edit. These options may be discussed if necessary.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RfC

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

The view that the lede should note the source

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

Reasons

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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

Discussion (2)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• long version. Short version:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• (RFC comment) Bertrand Russell was a philosopher, not a historian. I thought that most reputable theologians regarded the gospels as written in the period 60-90 AD; Matthew and John are by eye witnesses; Mark may record what Peter preached; Luke collected information from reliable wintesses (see his prologue to Theophilus). Of course the surviving MSS are much later. Paul probably wrote his letters about AD 50-60. Certain skeptics who do not wish to find reasons for explaining away the evidence, because this is not a topic on which it is easy to take a neutral view. The lead seems to me to adopt a reasonably neutral postion on the subject. The opposing view is dealt with in the secion Jesus as a myth. I am not clear where the person who started this RFC is coming from, but WP is not the place for conducting a debate on this; it should merely be recording what scholars are saying. Anything else is contrary to the WP:NPOV principle. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:45, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

NPOV tag

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I said nothing about "arguing." If you search google/scholar, you will find thousands of scholarly articles referring to the fact of the Holocaust, e.g. [1]. You will find thousands of academic articles referring to various NASA projects, such as the moon landing. If you can find millions of people who saw Jesus existing on TV, I would accept that. Noloop (talk) 13:51, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

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

"Secular, check" huh? From Wikipedia: "John Paul Meier is a Biblical scholar and Catholic priest. " [2] A Catholic priest...very secular. "The Journal of Biblical Literature (JBL) is one of three theological journals published by the Society of Biblical Literature (SBL).". [3] Noloop (talk) 15:36, 28 July 2010 (UTC) P.S. For future reference: 1) just citing an article with term "Historical Jesus" in the title won't cut it, 2) what you really need to produce is a secular peer-reviewed statement that there is a consensus about it.

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

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

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

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

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

Religiously biased sourcing

• The article says "essentially all scholars in the relevant fields agree that the mere historical existence of Jesus can be established using documentary and other evidence" The source is a book by a Christian theologian; not peer-reviewed. Many attempts to attribute it (i.e. treat it as opinion rather than fact) reverted. [4]
• Factual statements in article: "The scholarly mainstream not only rejects the myth thesis,[105] but identifies serious methodological deficiencies in the approach.[106] For this reason, many scholars consider engaging proponents of the myth theory a waste of time,[107] comparing it to a professional astronomer having to debate whether the moon is made of cheese.[108] As such, the New Testament scholar James Dunn describes the mythical Jesus theory as a "thoroughly dead thesis".[109]

• 105 contains three sources. The first publisher self-describes: "...proudly publishes first-class scholarly works in religion for the academic community...and essential resources for ministry and the life of faith."[5]. The author's Web page says: "As we share our faith stories and listen to the faith stories of others... We come to understand our own experience of God better, and we come to recognize new possibilities for the life of faith"[6]. The 2nd publisher is "Trinity Press" (figure it out) and the third is... "Eerdmans publishes a variety of books suitable for all aspects of ministry. Pastors, church education leaders, worship leaders, church librarians... will find a wealth of resources here." [7].
• Source 106 is 76 years old, so there's little information. It does contain a chapter called "The Guiding Hand of God in History". [8] It is out of date.
• 107. Published by Eerdman's (see above). Author is a theologian, founder of the Institute for World Christianity [9]
• Source 108 is the Bishop of Durham in the Church of England, cited in a book called An Interdisciplinary Symposium on the Incarnation of the Son of God. Figure it out.
• 108 is a theologian: James_Dunn_(theologian). Publisher is Eerdman's, Christian press, etc. Not peer-reviewed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agreed. I've taken this to a reliable sourcing noticeboard: [10] Noloop (talk) 17:23, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

It's too bad there's no preview for this.[11] The author, Robin Lane Fox, is an atheist.[12] He seems to have good credentials (Oxford), and he might make some statements about scholars in general in his book. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:44, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

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

Very cool.

We're already using Michael Grant (author) a bit (Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels), but he may have more. This isn't a reliable source site, but I think it may be quoting Grant directly from that book, or it may be summarizing.[13]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Grant is an OK source, better than, say, the John Dickson (author) that Ari89 keeps inserting. He is an author of popular books, so his goal is to write stuff that sells and there's no vetting by a scholarly community. It would be nice to find some high-quality secular sources in academic presses. Noloop (talk) 01:52, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The Unauthorized Verion by Robin Lane Fox

p.27

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

p.285

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

p.243

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Suggestion from RS/N

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"The problem I have with all these versions of the so called "historical Jesus" is that they each choose certain early sources as their central evidence, and each presents a part of the picture. My own problem with this, as a historian, is that none of the historical evidence actually goes back as far as Jesus—so these various speculations are that, and nothing more. But what we can investigate historically is how the "Jesus movement" began. What the new research shows is that we have a wide range of teaching attributed to Jesus." [14] --Elaine Pagels Professor of Religion, Princeton University. (MacArthur Fellowship, National Book Critics Circle Award, Guggenheim Fellowship, Rockefeller Fellowship)

AkMask, if it's skepticism you want, there was a starting point in this paragraph that I tried to add to Historical Jesus. [15]. The fact is, peer-reviewed secular academic sources simply don't address this matter. Doesn't it seem like our readers should know that? Noloop (talk) 02:27, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

“ On the other hand, although it is true that the consensus of knowledgeable historians outside as well as inside the church does not consider the non-existence of Jesus a question worth raising, ”

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

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

“ For Christian theology to do otherwise would be in effect to allow itself to be determined by a possibility, which, if it proved an actuality, would entail a revolution in the nature of Christian faith, if not its destruction. It would thus already be the abdication of what is most distinctly Christian in the Christian confession, so to speak, before the battle had begun or the enemy come into view. Were theology to provide for this possibility it would thereby call in question its Christian character. ”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Islam

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

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

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

Noloop

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

Please note that this is now defunct as it was rejected. Please also note that Noloop has requested mediation, which was rejected because not all involved editors supported mediation. - MishMich - Talk - 22:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Lead Rewording

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

While scholars often draw a distinction between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith (and debate what specifics can be known concerning his character and ministry) most agree that the existence of Jesus as a historical figure can be established using documentary and other evidence, although a few propose that he could instead be a fusion of earlier mythologies.[16]

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

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

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

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

Scholars often draw a distinction between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith, and debate what specifics can be known concerning his character and ministry. Most scholars agree that Jesus existed, and there exists a large amount of evidence contradicting the theory that he is a myth,(Michael Grant book[17]) although a few propose that he could instead be a fusion of earlier mythologies.[18]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I see what you are saying r.e. most. I think we can used Stanton directly though . e.g.: While scholars often draw a distinction between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith (and debate what specifics can be known concerning his character and ministry) nearly all agree that the existence of Jesus as a historical figure can be established using documentary and other evidence, although a few propose that he could instead be a fusion of earlier mythologies.[19] --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 10:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Demonstrating academic consensus and Graham Stanton's assessment

The lead currently states:

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

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

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

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

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

• [T]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' [to engage the Christ myth theory seriously]. Most of their comment (such as those quoted by Michael Grant) are limited to expressions of contempt."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And, for good measure:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wait, you didn't give the full citations for those 3 individuals, but are they from "peer-reviewed" sources? I smell a double standard ;) -Andrew c ^[talk] 20:28, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

What is being excluded? Last time I looked: Historicity_of_Jesus#Jesus_as_myth.-Andrew c ^[talk] 20:26, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

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

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

Hi, please just give a link. A long list like that disrupts the flow of the page, making it hard to read. It also sets a bad precedent, since others (like yours truly) will feel entitled to paste in their long list [20] and the whole thing turns into list-spam. What do you want say about the list? Most of those sources are Christian theologians. The exception, Bruce Ehrman, is probably the weakest agnostic you'll ever find. I don't think any of them are peer-reviewed. Noloop (talk) 19:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

So, again, we have the unsupported and bigoted claim that scholars are to be accepted or not on the basis of their religion, and the downright humorous example of special pleading that the agnostic who disagrees with you just isn't agnostic enough!

It is abundantly obvious that your problem with the article is that it ISN'T biased and doesn't reflect YOUR POV.

Well, it doesn't reflect your POV because the scholars in the field don't Carlo (talk) 19:57, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Noloop, the relevant sources to settle the consensus issue have already been found. An agnostic source is even better, no matter how "weak" he is, still it is not a Christian source. So matter of consensus on CMT is settled. Now what we have to do is to put these sources in the articles to settle the issue for the next Noloops. I think once this is done we can happily close the discussion. --Cyclopia^talk 20:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

It always amazed me how many times I have to point this out. If you don't believe all the sources cited here saying historians hold Jesus was a real historical figure, just check out any other encyclopedia, like Brittanica or an old version of the now deceased Encarta and you'll find they make the exact same claim, that historians and other relevant scholars hold to the historicity of Jesus. Roy Brumback (talk) 20:51, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Please cite some peer-reviewed, non-Christian sources that say it's a fact Jesus existed. Ehrman is hardly neutral: he got all his degrees from Bible colleges and seminaries; the source isn't peer-reviewed. This is tedious. When "virtually all" historians believe X is a fact, it is trivial to find non-Christian peer-reviewed journals that say X is a fact. Yet, there is no such source in any of the four Jesus-related articles under discussion. Produce some secular, peer-reviewed sources that say it's a fact Jesus existed, or stop claiming they exist. Period. Noloop (talk) 23:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Speaking for myself: I am not claiming they exist. I claim they're irrelevant to the point into question. The CMT is considered a fringe theory (for WP purposes) even by those who work on it, and by non-Christian scholars as well. That's all. I appreciate your quest for such a source, and I would enjoy immensely if this source comes out, but it has nothing to do with the issue into question. --Cyclopia^talk 23:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

People can't think their own theories are fringe in the Wikipedian sense. A fringe theory is rejected; it is deserving of exclusion. The CMT advocates who say they are in the minority are not saying their theories deserve to be rejected and excluded from serious discussion. That would be incoherent. They are not saying their theories are fringe in the Wikipedian sense. Noloop (talk) 00:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

That a fringe theory "is rejected" factually is only your interpretation. It is not WP policy. I quote you for the third time WP:FRINGE: "We use the term fringe theory in a very broad sense to describe ideas that depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field of study.[3]" (emphasis mine). Please acknowledge this. You had reasonable concerns, but these have been discussed (not without difficulty) and finally settled. To continue seems a textbook WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT case.--Cyclopia^talk 00:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

It is not only my interpretation. The term "rejected" is in the policy, which I quoted above. Noloop (talk) 02:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

John Dickson

Ari89 has used this person repeatedly, as a factual source for claims about the fact of Jesus' existence, and the "consensus" among historians.:

John Dickson is ... current senior minister of St Andrew's Anglican Church, Roseville, Australia, and an Honorary Associate of the Department of Ancient History at Macquarie University. He is also co-founder and director of the Centre for Public Christianity, a media company that seeks to "promote the public understanding of the Christian faith".His books focus on the relevance of Jesus in the contemporary world

Ari has inserted this source despite previous objections, due to neutrality. It sure is odd that Ari keeps making claims about what all historians believe, but keeps sourcing them only to Christian theologians. Noloop (talk) 00:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I admit, I have used the consensus statements of various ancient historians, including John Dickson, repeatedly on Wikipedia. Of course, it is no crime but this personalised objection to Dickson seems like a serious charge for Noloop. I note that you complain when Biblical scholars are cited, and now that a professional ancient historian is cited you call him a "Christian theologian". I have accepted that the only way to please you would be to find a source that states that "the view that Jesus did not exist is the bees knees, and every free-thinking rational scholar who despises Christianity knows it to be true with complete certainty" but sadly, such a consensus does not exist. It does not exist according to scholars that identify as Christian, Jew, agnostic and atheist. Just some statements about John Dickson:

1. John Dickson has a PhD in ancient history from a secular university. (I know, not important to point out the latter but some editors define Christian education as an unforgivable sin.)
2. John Dickson is a Senior Research Fellow in the ancient history department at Macquarie University where he lectures and teaches Early Christian and Jewish studies. He also supervises theses on these topics including the historical Jesus.

I don't think any more needs to be said. --Ari (talk) 00:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

You can find creationists and AIDS denialists with much better credentials (including Nobel Prizes), so the Ph.D. or fellowship is not as informative as it seems. But we found above that there are non-Christian sources that give such consensus (despite Noloop stubborn refusal to admit that), and these should be added to the article to avoid further POV suspects. --Cyclopia^talk 00:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

How flattering of you to again compare Dickson to pseudoscholarship. We can categorically reject anyone through such childish means. --Ari (talk) 00:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not rejecting him, I only pointed that your posting of credentials is irrelevant to the point. --Cyclopia^talk 00:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

You only accept him when non-Christians agree with him, big difference ;). Credentials are quite relevant - that is why we can trust Dickson, Ehrman, Charlesworth and whoever else we cite in this article. If your criticism holds true, Ehrmam's credentials are meaningless because an AIDS denialist may also have credentials! I hope that this is the end of it.--Ari (talk) 00:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Apparently nothing is relevant if you're religious. 1) Publishing in peer reviewed journals = irrelevant, 2) graduate degrees = irrelevant, 3) faculty positions = irrelevant, 4) the esteem of other scholars = irrelevant, 5) making claims that are so basic that they are repeated by pretty much every tertiary reliable source touching upon the subject = irrelevant. The only thing that appears to be relevant to when it comes to the study of religion is one's own religious affiliation. In academia that perspective = horse manure. Wikipedia is not academia of course, but thankfully Wikipedia has policies and guidelines to help us sort this type of stuff out. Pray tell us what policies and guidelines support such a perspective? It would seem that in terms of reliability and determining mainstream scholarly consensus WP:V and WP:NPOV emphasize the very things that don't appear to count when a scholar has personal religious beliefs so I'm a bit perplexed by this. Please help.Griswaldo (talk) 01:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

No. 4) and 5) are very much relevant, instead, and that is the point. 1) , 2) and 3) can be relevant to a degree, but they're not indications that we have to take their position as golden truth, because you can find subjects verifying 1) , 2), 3) for all kinds of fringe claims. I live in Cambridge, UK: where also a Nobel prize who thinks that telepathy and ghosts exist has a faculty position and is fellow of Trinity College. What distinguishes Dickson from Josephson is that Dickson states what is the consensus, and Josephson does not. That's what I wanted to point: that credentials alone do not make a source relevant by fiat. Now, about Christianity, the argument has been repeated ad nauseam, and it's that a Christian has, by definition, a very precise bias on Jesus existence. But now, I don't see why we're still flaming about this. I am perfectly OK with Dickson as a source, if we also add sources with a non-Christian background, and since we have found these sources for this claim, all we have to do is add them, and put the issue to rest. --Cyclopia^talk 02:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, the reason why you can make that list of irrelevancies, is that some people think that being a Christian makes you biased on the existence of Jesus. Almost all the comments on this page can be summarized in one of two ways. "I'm right because being a Christian does not make you biased with regard to this topic". "No, I'm right, because being a Christian does make you biased with regard to this topic". Rinse, repeat. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

PF, nobody here has asserted your fist "No, I'm right..." statement. Rather, being a Christian (or an Atheist, Hindu, Jew, Muslim, etc) does not invalidate, or lessen, one's scholarship skills. Thus, one's religion/philosophy has no bearing on Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources. Those on the other side of this issue, such as Noloop, however, indeed do believe your second "No, I'm right..." statement, as is abundantly evident. Just FYI. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 02:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

That's one problem, but it goes a little deeper than that. Editors are saying there is widespread consensus on the fact of Jesus' reality in the community of secular, peer-reviewed history journals. Then they cite almost nothing but non-peer-reviewed, non-secular theologians. There is a disconnect between what is being said and done. The disconnect matters, because if something is a fact--truly a fact--it is easy to find widespread attestation in peer-reviewed secular sources. Noloop (talk)

That's where you're wrong, Noloop. First, no editor here is saying "there is widespread consensus on the fact of Jesus' reality...." It's the abundant reliable sources that say that. Second, no one here but you (and perhaps a few others) thinks one's religion/philosophy has any bearing on one's historical skills and/or reliability. And I didn't think there was such a thing as a "secular, peer-reviewed history journal". What's it called? "Atheists & Agnostics R Us Historical Review—Trust Us And Not Theists (Especially Christians) Since They Are Obviously Biased And Are Thus Incapable Of Telling You The Real Truth"? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 03:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

You are asserting it as a factual statement in articles; therefore, you think it's a fact. Examples of secular, peer-reviewed journals of history are Comparative Studies in Society and History, Past and Present, and Journal of Social History. Noloop (talk) 15:37, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

We have a rule where we use attribution for biased sources. That's where it comes into play. "Fox news said Obama is the worst President ever." - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Since that's begging the question, I'll go ahead and ask. Are you saying that if a scholar is a Christian, then a statement, for example, should read, "Joe Blow, who is a Christian, says such and such"? Or if the subject is, say, a history of Antisemitism, it must read, "Jewish historian Joe Blow says such and such? Is that what is meant by attribution? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 03:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Not sure about your examples, but attribution means just naming the source, not describing them. "Fox News said...", not "Conservative media company Fox News said..." Then the reader can decide for themselves. Blue links that explain why someone is important are nice, but not required. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Then how about we just stick to "historian Joe Blow said..." or "The scholar Joe Blow said..." and forget about "Christian", "Christian scholars", and "Christian historians"? Are you ok with that? Is everyone ok with that? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 03:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm OK with that. It can just be "Joe Blow said..." as far as I'm concerned. The reader can look into whether they're a historian or a Christian or whatever on their own. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Guys, can we stop that all? We reached an agreement, if I understand correctly. We can use both Christian and non-Christian sources, because both point in the same direction and thus in this respect they are equally valid. We can use attribution for both so that the reader is explicitly informed that there is consensus on the CMT being not the mainstream position as acknowledged from all the spectrum of backgrounds, so people like me, Noloop and others can sleep nicely. This is it. It seems we are not going to agree on the bias thing, but we can use both sources to make the issue moot, once for all. Is this OK? Can we finally put all this drama at rest? I would love to invite everyone to a beer discussing further the issue of religious bias on the subject, if you like, but can we now finish here? --Cyclopia^talk 02:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec) What kind of beer? Ummmm...never mind. I'll drink any kind, even Coors Light. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 03:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

We probably should stop, but I'm not sure this is an area of wikipedia where the drama ever stops. I've been watching it for six months, and it hasn't changed much in that time. Anyways, I can't even remember exactly what compromise we are going with. Is there a dif where it was implemented. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:54, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I have to concur. I can't follow the details of the discussion clearly enough to make the edit myself, but it is abundantly clear to me that consensus has been achieved. It is possible that Noloop still disagrees; luckily, consensus does not require 100% agreement. I recommend that someone (Ari or Cyclopia seem the people with the best grasp on what's going oon)add the sources you all seem to agree are sufficient; if one misses something, the other can add. At this point, it's nearly impossible to figure out what's going on, because nothing is actually changing on the page. Someone who thinks they understand what happened please please be bold, make the edit, and then after the edit is made we can figure out if further changes need to occur. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Editing, at last!

Ok, I started to implement the result of the last pain in this diff. It is not perfect for sure, but before reverting it/shredding it to pieces, please let's discuss peacefully here. Features of the edit I'd like to highlight are:

• Included the "from several backgrounds" wording, to clarify it is not the position of a single background
• Added Sandmel quote, as the one unambiguously coming from a clearly non-Christian source. Identified as such. to make it explicit to the reader.
• Added the CMT proponents quotes, to ensure the readers that they too, honestly, acknowledge their minority
• Substituted "essentially all" with "consensus": it is more accurate (it refers to the academic situation, not to mere numbers)

I think it is a step forward. Comments/suggestions obviously welcome. --Cyclopia^talk 19:39, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

hypothethical books as evidence?

How do theoretical books that may have existed count as evidence alongside the NT? Presumably this refers to the theory that there was a source which underlay the synoptic gospels - the evidence for which is mainly in the textual analysis of these gospels (but confined to the NT). In which case, the NT is the evidence for anything that might be concluded about them - and from them. So, the NT is the source. Why attribute these as being some other source for historical evidence beyond the source derived from? Or does this refer to some other documents? Either such documents are listed (in which case they are already listed), or not listed (in which case, why not list them rather than some hypothetical document the existence of which can presumably not be demonstrated beyond hypothesis?). - MishMich - Talk - 16:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Such a book would not be RS becasue we could not verify it. We could refer to sources that discuse such a work ,but we could not source the work itslef.Slatersteven (talk) 16:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The issue is not about WP:RS - as it is not even a source - the issue is whether any WP:RS has claimed that a hypothetical source provides evidence beyond the documents used in developing the theory that such a source existed. I can grasp the heuristic potential of such a hypothesis, but not that it provides evidence that is not in the other sources (as that evidence is ultimately derived from those sources). Sources that discuss the existence of the source would not be relevant, as that would be WP:SYNTH, as that would be about the source rather than the topic (unless they discuss the source in terms of the evidence it yields - although as a hypothetical source, presumably this would be hypothetical evidence; in that case we would have to qualify the statement that the evidence derived is hypothetical evidence, rather than evidence per se). Shall I leave the hypothetical source, and clarify that it yields hypothetical evidence, or remove the hypothetical source and leave the evidence status for other sources as it is? - MishMich - Talk - 17:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

We can find a source for that in all probability. It's one of my gripes with the whole Jesus historicity research field actually. With that said there is quite extensive research into the existence of such documents and they do form part of the evidence used; the sentence does not do a great job of explaining that. I think we need a) a WP:RS to source it and b) to tweak the sentence so it is more clear what is meant. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 17:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that, so it probable that there is a source that will substantiate that a hypothetical source yields evidence beyond that available in the sources that stand as evidence that such a hypthetical source exists? Fine, I'll leave that up to you to find this. I think you would be best inserting something about that in the text, as it would make for quite a convoluted sentence in the lead, which would be undue as it would not be about the topic, but the evidence that a source is part of that evidence. In the meantime, I can delete the dubious comment, as it does not seem to relate to anything in the text itself, and stands without any citation to verify it. - MishMich - Talk - 17:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

It;s been a while since I studied this - but I'll have a look through my bookshelf and see if anything springs out at me from memory :) Deleting it, for the moment, seems fine. I'm actually surprised it is not dealt with in the body --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 18:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Me too. I have clarified the text in the lead, as it keeps getting re-inserted with more references. if this is about Q, then we might as well say Q. Similarly 'gnostic documents' - which? Amongst later Jewish and other are we discussing Nag Hammadi and Dead Sea Scrolls? why not say that? These things can be linked to, so if the reader wants to know what these are, he/she can follow the link. My books are all going to into boxes as I type, in preparation for moving to another continent, so I cannot look up my own books on Gnosticism, the Qumran community, Bible commentaries or theology - and it is several years since I read them.- MishMich - Talk - 19:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The sayings source Q and the historical Jesus has been added as a source, which I think is sufficient (I don't actually have the book but luckily know somone who did and they checked it out for me) --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 21:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The cited chapter of one is about Q, and this is what I figured was meant. I think it works better now, as it is not so oblique. Logically, I am not clear how positing Q adds to what is in the sources it is deduced from in terms of evidence - although I do appreciate how establishing what Q might have said could help separate the wheat from the chaff of the gospel narratives. So, not providing new evidence, it could help focus on what is known and what is gloss. I am not convinced that calling Q a document is accurate, as there is no evidence for that, so prefer to leave it as a source (when I studied this stuff there was no evidence that there was a written document rather than an orally transmitted narrative), Q is still a term given to a hypothetical source which is treated as if it were a document. - MishMich - Talk - 22:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The addition of more Chrisitan sources and publishers, in response to concerns, e.g. "essentially all historians"

The contested sentence in the lead has now become: "essentially all historians believe that the existence of Jesus as a historical figure can be established using documentary and other evidence.[1]"

• Please provide a peer-reviewed, secular basis for such a sweeping claim. It is different from saying that most scholars believe Jesus existed.
• Sources haves been added, all of them Christian theologians. This, in response to widespread concern about near-exclusive sourcing to the community of Christian theologians.
• In addition to Stanton (a theologian, not peer-reviewed), the sources are:
• 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, "a view that no one holds in any case". The sentence fragment "a view no one holds" is unclear. Again, saying "everyone" believes Jesus existed differs from saying everyone believes it "can be established using documentary and other evidence."
• John Dickson, Jesus: A Short Life (Oxford: Lion, 2008) 22-23. This is the "co-founder and director of the Centre for Public Christianity, a media company that seeks to "promote the public understanding of the Christian faith". The publisher, Lion, is a Christian press: " specialising in Christianity, fiction, the church, the Bible". [21]

Folks, it is one thing to have a different opinion from others. It is quite another to continue ramming your opinion down the throats of others. Concern has been raised about the near-exclusive sourcing to the theological community. Please respect the concern, even if you don't agree with it.

If "essentially all historians" believe this, it should be easy to find statements from the community of essentially all historians. Instead, there are only sources from the Christian theological community. Noloop (talk) 17:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I replaced it with scholars as it was before. Again, as before, there is no requirement for secular sourcing. Quit pushing this relentless POV. It is making it very very very hard to argue for a rewording and broader range of sources. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 18:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

As above: I believe instead that there is a very strong case for including non-Christian sources along with the Christian ones, even if only to settle the issue. I'll dig in the discussion and add the relevant ones. --Cyclopia^talk 19:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I just changed this statement to "the vast majority of scholars who specialize in the study of biblical history believe that the existence of Jesus as a historical figure can be established using documentary and other evidence." If we say "scholars who specialize in the study of biblical history", or some such similar wording, we at least are being more specific than just saying "scholars in the relevant field". Let's name what that relevant field actually is. It is not correct to say "all historians" since many, if not most, historians have not studied this issue and have no official opinion on the matter. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 20:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Be careful everyone, you have now changed a cited statement. Does the cited source say "scholars who specialize in the study of biblical history" or the original wording. Can anyone with the sources cited let us know what they exactly say, otherwise we risk having an inaccurate cite, and having accurate citations is far more important than achieving wording consensus among editors. And since no one has produced any source contradicting the original wording, just trying to pacify people who object to the statement isn't enough of a reason to mess with cited information. Roy Brumback (talk) 20:32, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I understand your concern, but the previous statement was not supported by the cites. I think the citations have been updated and more were added. I think the current statement accurately reflects what we can conclude from the current citations. All of the citations are individuals who are expressing their opinion that a majority of a certain group of people believes in an historical Jesus. Both the old version and the current version made an inference about the definition of that certain group of people (i.e. old version: "all scholars in the relevant fields" vs. new version: "scholars who specialize in the study of biblical history" ). The sentence may still be overstating the case for a current consensus view on the historical Jesus; the cites all predate recent publications by Christ Myth Theory proponents Freke, Gandy, Price, and Doherty. The quote from Price is in the past tense, reflecting what Price believes the vast majority of scholars believed in the past. Nevertheless, I think this current phrasing may be a reasonable compromise. I am open to hearing other opinions, as always. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 22:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I think we are tweaking the wording for this sentence, and we have much agreement on the sourcing. I don't think continued claims for standards above and beyond WP:RS from Noloop should be responded to further, per WP:SHUN. a peer-reviewed, secular source is not requred for WP:RS. We have found and discussed at least half a dozen different sources from a diverse group of sources published in different prominent, university and/or otherwise scholarly presses (especially Grant!, though that hasn't been added to the article yet). There is no suggestion from any source to believe anything otherwise. We have a couple individuals who hold minority views regarding the historicity of Jesus, but they are saying nothing of the state of the majority view (except for when the do!). This is not a situation where some scholars say X in the majority, while others say Y is the majority. Per WP:RS, we have no conflict in our cited sources, and we have no VALID reason, per Wikipedia policies, to discount the plethora of sources we have found. OK, time to move on. -Andrew c ^[talk] 22:33, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

What we have is an article that asserts its a fact Jesus existed and that is sourced almost entirely to Christians. Noloop (talk) 01:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Almost. That's a big improvement. --Cyclopia^talk 01:58, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't assert it's a fact he existed, it asserts that's what the majority of scholars and historians think, and they are not giving their opinion they are asserting a numerical fact, that the majority of group x concludes y. Do you have any evidence to the contrary? And these are people who spend all their professional lives dealing with historians and biblical scholars, so they would be experts on what the people in those fields conclude. Again, your only argument seems to be you don't trust them. If so, prove those statements false. Roy Brumback (talk) 02:04, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

"Jesus' historical existence is established using the New Testament documents, the theoretical Q source upon which the synoptic gospels may have been based,[2][3] statements from the early Church Fathers, brief references in histories produced decades or centuries later by pagan and Jewish sources, gnostic documents, and early Christian creeds." The article treats the existence as a fact. It does this by making factual references that involve Jesus, and by treating the idea that it's not a fact as a fringe theory. It does this mainly based on Christian sources. And, the fact that the sourcing is almost entirely Christian is hidden from the reader. Noloop (talk) 02:32, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Do you know why this is "hidden" from the reader? Because wikipedia DOES NOT GIVE A SHIT. Is the source reliable? Yes? Then its ok. Period. End of story. Game over. That's it. There exists no policy, regulation, or even wiki-essay that says the bias of a source should factor into the acceptability of that source. Nor is there any policy that demands we make the reader aware of this bias - which is, by the way, your own personal opinion that they are biased. How many of these Christian historians were non-religious, recieved their education, concluded that Jesus was a real person and THEN became Christian? You cannot in any way reasonably call into question their motivations for believing Jesus was a real person. I will reiterate one more time - that most of the sources provided are Christians is about as relevant as the color of an elephant. They are WP:RS and that is all we need.Farsight001 (talk) 04:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Comment on progress so far

Sorry I've been missing the last few days, just started a new job that necessitated some 12 hour days for the first week. I just wanted to comment that it seems like you all have made substantial progress, and while there exists some tweaking still left to do, im actually quite pleased with how the lede reads now and just want to, well, congratulate us on hammering out a consensus. -- ۩ Mask 21:50, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anything has changed. Could be wrong. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 22:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I see a lot of changes thanks to Cyclopia and others. A definite improvement on the ongoing fiasco.Griswaldo (talk) 22:05, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I see refs added, but not much change in the text.[22] Maybe you guys are talking about the refs, or I'm missing something. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 22:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Why does "change" in the text have to happen to make progress? I believe the progress was made in the discussion and in clarifying various things like the fact that there are non-Christian references to use. Then those references were put in place.Griswaldo (talk) 22:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I notice you guys have completely ignored my points. Again, check any other encyclopedia and they make the exact same claims, and they are "secular peer reviewed sources". And we now have a claim with a cite to a source that probably doesn't make the claim as this article words it, making it an inaccurate citation. Can you find any source that claims "bible history scholars" only hold this position, if not it's not going to stand. And a new point: You are not going to find any polls of historians in peer reviewed history journals about how many hold to the historicity of Jesus as journals don't poll scholars generally, they publish new research about their subjects, and since the historicity of Jesus has been a dead issue for almost a century now, there are not going to be any articles on it period. However you can find articles on the historical Jesus, showing who Jesus "really" was is a live issue, which means those editing the journals clearly hold to his historicity in a minimum sense of his having existed. And again, no one has produced any source refuting the claims made, only complaints they are made by Christians or theologians, which ignore claims made by Grant for instance, who is neither.Roy Brumback (talk) 22:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure to understand completely your complaint -Is a wording like "consensus between scholars" correct in your opinion? What is important is conveying the gist of the sources. --Cyclopia^talk 22:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

No, what is important is correct citation. The article currently says "scholars who specialize in the study of biblical history believe". That's not what the original citation said, nor is it what the footnote regarding the source says. It says things like "no one" "scholars" in general, and that non historicity is "almost totally rejected". Now I don't have those sources so I don't really know what they say, but the current wording claims only biblical history scholars hold this view, and that probably isn't accurate. The footnotes for the sources seem to imply far more scholars than that hold to the historicity of Jesus.Roy Brumback (talk) 22:51, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

That parts going to stay in, its actually my primary example of progress. My concern has never been to strip out historical jesus being accepted the lede, but to convey the point that the consensus he existed is derived almost exclusively from sources which seem highly likely to contain bias - not that they do, just that there is a distinct possibility. More information for the reader. Using biblical historians in the lede accomplishes this in a way acceptable to enough people on this talkpage to operate as the consensus agreement. -- ۩ Mask 22:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

It's going to stay in even though it might not be accurate because you like how it sounds? It will only stay in if you can find a source to back it up. Your move. Roy Brumback (talk) 23:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

No, it might help if you read the earlier RS/N thread though. There was a strong consensus that 'scholars in the relevant fields' as a wording was much, much to broad. The original source we have from Stanton (as I mentioned a week ago, a book I actually took the time to go find) backs up biblical scholars agreeing. Sorry if that was longwinded, just catching you up to speed. -- ۩ Mask 23:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I apologize if I missed your comment a week ago. Could you please review what Stanton says? Are you suggesting the he talks about Christian bias, or says only members of the Christian "boys club" agree about a historical Jesus? I know people can quote mine, so I'd like to know the full context of the highly quoted nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, which seems to suggest just the opposite of what you have been implying. -Andrew c ^[talk] 00:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we're getting a little confused! :) I do agree that there is a substantial minority position, but down here in this section we're just arguing about using the appellation 'biblical historians', which Stanton mainly concerns himself in the book, not historians at large. Using 'biblical historians' achieves the goal I was shooting for with attribution of the quote (i.e. a way to note potential bias in the source of that consensus. down a couple sections we're discussing the wording of the mention of the other view (that there isnt enough evidence to make a definitive statement on the hisoricity) in the lede. -- ۩ Mask 01:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

It seems vastly better to use more of the other sources for the sentence, rather than limit ourselves to the direct wording of a single source. That seems a dangerous move. It also seems accurate to be specific over scholars/historians. In general there is no consensus amongst scholars or historians because the vast majority do not work in the field - in fact any consensus/opinion they do hold is entirely separate to a consensus amongst biblical scholars because they are not specifically authoritative in that area (so their opinion could derive from other means). --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 23:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Protection

Why has the article just now been protected? I have not seen any obvious problems in the past 24 hours.- MishMich - Talk - 22:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Noloop asked it on RPP. I asked the protecting admin to reconsider, given that we just reached some consensus, and he decided to keep protection but only for 24 hours. Let's not make a big fuss on this. --Cyclopia^talk 22:31, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

It could be a bonus; we now have a 24 hour window to mull on the current wording (which seems a good improvement) and figure where to go next. I reckon we should seize this as an advantage. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 22:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

No consensus has been reached on the new version, and why not leave it as it was, which was the version that consensus had been reached on over several years of debating this topic? And by the way, we're not debating the neutrality of this article, we're debating whether it is factually accurate to claim the majority of historians hold to the historicity of Jesus, so maybe the tag should be changed. And again, you can't seem to produce any sources countering the claim that that is what the consensus among historians is. Roy Brumback (talk) 22:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, for the record, I'm on your side of this..... and, yes, consensus was reached on most of those edits. --Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 23:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

For one, it's abundantly clear the old version no longer has consensus. So no, we should not leave it at that version while we work this out. The article is a work in progress and will gradually emerge as a new consensus version. -- ۩ Mask 23:15, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

But there is no consensus on any new version, so why leave them up? Why not leave it alone until some new consensus is reached? Roy Brumback (talk) 02:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Going Forward

Ok, with the 24H protection in place it might be a good opportunity to mull over the current state of the lead and consider what issues are resolved and what are outstanding. Let me take a quick stab. I think we have resolved:

• The issues of the mention of theoretical documents and how to source that
• Consensus that Christian sources are acceptable provided they sufficiently pass WP:RS but that a secular or peer reviewed source, as an addition, would be a good improvement to make.

What I think lise unresolved or at only quickly growing consensus:

• Settling on a secular or peer reviewed source to use
• Settling on the exact wording of the lead statement (about academic consensus)
• Deciding whether brief mention of counter theory is relevant in the lead or if it is undue

In terms of the latter I think it would improve the sentence - because we could split it into two (as someone higher up suggested) and show what the alternative fringe/non-consensus theory is. Thoughts?--Errant Tmorton166^(Talk) 22:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

It should be mentioned, but not at the level of undue weight. My primary concern has already been addressed (as I mentioned in a follow-up above) so I'm rather amenable to a compromise for the exact wording of this. -- ۩ Mask 23:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Explicitly stating the Q source gets around this to some extent - although I am still uncomfortable as to how this provides evidence beyond what is in the source(s) that are evidence for the hypothesis. I can see how it might narrow down what is known, but that is qualification of evidence rather thand evidence itself. I am glad that somebody has engaged with this problem, rather than knee-jerking.

I have no doubt that Jesus existed, but it is important that we do not mislead readers as to the allegiance of those who talk about this, and that there are those who have different opinions. - MishMich - Talk - 23:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The allegiance? Are you guys really saying that you think what they assert is false, that most experts on the subject think Jesus really existed, and if so why, as you have not provided any evidence to the contrary? And Van Voorst for instance clearly says "Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it (Jesus myth) as effectively refuted". He's claiming not just biblical scholars but classical historians, who would be experts on all classical history, not just biblical history. If you're only argument against this statement is he's a New Testament scholar so he has some nefarious allegiance, than that's not an argument at all, but if you want everyone to know where the info comes from without simply clicking on the footnotes then why don't we just say "Michael Grant asserts x, Van Voorst asserts y" and then everyone will know with no additional effort who is claiming this and make up their own minds accordingly. As soon as you guys start changing what they have said to pacify those who refuse to believe what a Christian says about the state of scholarship on the issue, then we're making inaccurate claims. Again, just one source claiming something to the contrary of say what Van Voorst asserts would help your case, but those who object have provided no such source. No matter what you tweak about the wording int the intro, someone, likely me, will just put the claims of those who assert what it originally said in the article anyway somewhere else (like it already does at the end of the article) so what's the point? And we list pretty much every scholar who thinks he didn't exist, what more could we do? Roy Brumback (talk) 02:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Lead:

"While scholars often draw a distinction between the Jesus of history and the Christ of faith (and debate what specifics can be known concerning his character and ministry) the vast majority of scholars who specialize in the study of biblical history believe that the existence of Jesus as a historical figure can be established using documentary and other evidence."

This is different from saying "The majority of scholars agree that Jesus existed." Yet, that's all the sources seem to support. Some of the sources here are CMT advocates, who might agree on a popularity of belief, but not that the belief is "established using documentary and other evidence"

Isn't "majority of biblical scholars" better than "the vast majority of scholars who specialize in the study of biblical history"

When I google "biblical history" I get information about the history of the Bible--not what is intended.

None of the sources are high-quality. One of them is 60 years old. Dickson has been objected to elsewhere, and was a contentious addition by Ari89.

Contextually, it seems very clear we are misinforming the reader if we imply that secular, academic research routinely refers to the fact of the existence of Jesus. Noloop (talk) 06:21, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Theoretical documents

I don't have an easy source that says all of this: historical existence is established using the New Testament documents, the theoretical Q source upon which the synoptic gospels may have been based, statements from the early Church Fathers, brief references in histories produced decades or centuries later by pagan and Jewish sources, gnostic documents, and early Christian creeds. in one neat place. But then after thinking, I don't think we need one. That sentence is basically summarizing the table of contents. We discuss "New Testament writings", "Early Church fathers", "Greco-Roman sources", "Jewish Record", "Gnostic texts", and "Ancient Christian creeds". We just don't have a section discussing the sources behind the gospels. So instead of coming up with one or two sources to add in the middle of the sentence to support the one clause about theoretical source documents, I think we should instead not worry about adding citations to the lead (WP:LEADCITE), and instead add a paragraph or maybe even a subheader (so it shows in the ToC) about this issue. Ehrman devotes maybe 4 pages on this in Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet... (1999) Oxford pp.80ff. Stuff like "One of the most controversial and talked-about sources that scholars have used for studying the life of the historical Jesus is, oddly enough, a document that does not exist..." and also discusses the special material in Matthew and Luke, and "We do not know, for instance, whether M (or L) was only one source or a group of sources, whether it was written or oral." and sums up "These Gospels were based on earlier sources--such as Q--that can be reconstructed, at least to some extent". Meier in A Marginal Jew (1991) Doubleday p. 43ff also discusses Q, M, and L: "In short, our survey of the Four Gospels gives us three separate major sources to work with: Mark, Q, and John. I call these sources "major" to contrast them with the two minor and problematic sources, Namely, M and L." I'd think both of these could be used to write about how theoretical documents are important in sourcing the historical Jesus. -Andrew c ^[talk] 00:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi guys. I think the onus of identifying the source is completely on us(editors). We don,t have to make it appear as if the whole world/whole world community of all scholars, believes in the historicity of jesus, even if some source is trying to do so. If we think that the historicity of Jesus is taken as granted only by a narrow band of scholars,(i.e. christian scholars), we can say so because the onus of properly identifying the sources for the historicity of Jesus is on us editors. There is no need to source the identity of sources and there is no need to identify sources the way someone else has done it. I hope I have got myself understood clearly.Civilizededucation (talk) 02:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

No, if you wish to claim only Christian scholars conclude Jesus was a historical figure you have to provide evidence for such a claim, which would say something like the majority of non-Christian scholars think he's a myth. Now it's up to you to find such a source. Roy Brumback (talk) 02:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Umm... please be more careful where you all are placing comments. This talk page is already all over the place, and these comments have nothing to do with my proposal, nor the discussion relating to the fact tag on the "theoretical documents" clause in the lead. Thanks for your care. -Andrew c ^[talk] 03:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, nowhere else to answer him. We can certainly use the Q hypothesis as we have to as all historical Jesus scholars use it, so leaving it out would leave out the state of the scholarship relating to the historicity of Jesus. Roy Brumback (talk) 03:16, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree that if the details of Q are in the text and TOC, you do not need a source in the lead - however, there was no such reference, and that is why that was tagged. Now it has sources, but I think a brief entry that deals with how Q is arrived at, and how it operates as evidence beyond the sources it is derived from, would be helpful. Then the citation in the sentence in the lead could be considered redundant, I guess (although I am in favour of sourcing everything anyway, to make it bullet-proof - especially in the lead, as the lead tends to attract most attention).

In terms of the suggestion that this statement asserts this existence in some way, I do not read it that way, I see it as saying that these sources are used to establish his historical existence in a certain way (but I am familiar with primary sources listed, so when I see the list, I read that with a pinch of salt). That could need qualifying, to avoid misunderstanding, something along the lines of 'scholars working in this area establish the historical existence of Jesus using...' That is affirmed by the sources, and and would do no harm, as it might help avoid misunderstanding in future. - MishMich - Talk - 07:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I wrote this in my long paragraph above, but I think we do need to rephrase the sentence in the lead, so it doesn't imply that every scholar uses all the sources we discuss in this article. It's more like a list of any source that any scholar has discussed, so we probably need to rephrase to make that distinction clear. I find it odd to have two citations in the middle of a sentence, when the rest of the sentence isn't cited in a similar manner, and I don't think we necessarily need sources in the lead, but I guess it isn't hurting anything either. Anyway, this is what I'm working on:

The four canonical gospels were based on earlier, no longer extant sources.(Ehrman (1999) p.83) Famously, the most common solution to the synoptic problem, which explains the interrelation of Mark, Matthew, and Luke, is the two-source hypothesis which posits the authors of Matthew and Luke both used Mark and a theoretical Q source as the basis of their gospels. Scholars also suggest the material unique to Matthew and Luke represent independent source traditions, usually called M and L, whether they actually represent a single source or multiple sources, an actual document or oral tradition.(Erhman (1999) p.80ff; Meier (1991) p.43ff) The Gospel of John, often seen as the product of more than one author or redactor, has been suggested to have a number of written sources behind it as well, such as the signs or semeia source, a source for the discourse narratives, and a source for the passion narrative.(Ehrman (2004) pp.166ff; Koester (1990) pp.250ff) An important aspect of identifying sources underlying the gospels is that they may qualify as independent lines of inquiry when it comes to the criterion of multiple attestation.(Meier 1991, p. 174)

Is this on the right track? Suggestions, improvments, etc? Are we missing anything? Are we saying too much. -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:01, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I want to add a concluding sentence: The importance of identifying sources underlying the New Testament documents is that they may qualify as independent lines of inquiry when it comes to the criterion of multiple attestation.(Meier 1991, p. 174) Does the criterion of multiple attestation need more explanation, as it may be jargon with which our readership is not familiar. With all that, does anyone object? Any suggestions, comments, or improvements before I take it live? -Andrew c ^[talk] 01:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

It may be jargon, but providing a wikilink to a page that explains what this is, then the reader can follow that link if they want to know what it means. So, I don't see this as a problem. - MishMich - Talk - 09:06, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

The above text looks good, it summarizes well the general idea in a clear fashion. Hardyplants (talk) 21:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I saw some edit warring in the lead, should we discuss that further. I realize Q is by far the most important, most notable, and most discussed hypothetical document, but should we mention in the lead the "other sources behind the gospels" besides Q per our discussion above and the paragraph I proposed. Or is it more simple to just mention Q? We don't name Josephus or Tacitus, but instead mention Jewish and Roman histories. We don't name specific church fathers, we don't mention specific new testament books, or gnostic books, or single out any creeds. So why out of all the sources discussed in the entire article are we singling out Q in the lead? Isn't enough just to add a line among the list of others regarding hypothetical sources behind the gospels?? -Andrew c ^[talk] 21:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree, I refactored that and added sources due to the incipient edit war between Noloop and another guy, but your solution seems much sensible. --Cyclopia^talk 21:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

This was the lead before some started adding tags to it:

The lines of evidence used to establish Jesus' historical existence include the New Testament documents, theoretical source documents that may lie behind the New Testament, statements from the Church Fathers, brief references in histories produced decades or centuries later by pagan and Jewish sources, gnostic documents, and early Christian creeds.

The lead should be a summery of the article and the references are best placed in the body. Hardyplants (talk) 21:49, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I would strike produced decades or centuries later. I'm for replacing The lines of evidence used to establish Jesus' historical existence include... with Evidence for the historical Jesus includes ... as it is more concise, less verbose. And I would favor changing gnostic to apocrypha, as that is the word found in the parent section title, and surely not every non-NT text is "gnostic", and furthermore people debate about how gnostic Thomas. Main point being, I like theoretical source documents that may lie behind the New Testament as it doesn't single out Q over M or L or any of the John sources, so the format is more in line with the rest of the list.-Andrew c ^[talk] 22:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Sources

(EC, and maybe completely off topic) I hate to sound like Noloop, but have we still come up short on a secular peer reviewed source that says that Jesus existed? It is a bit weird that that source doesn't exist. Or maybe it's behind a paywall, and no ones looked. I kind of think the latter, but I'm not paying myself. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:19, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

It's not that they say he existed, it's that the majority of historians and expert scholars on the subject say they conclude as historians that he existed. Peer reviewed sources saying that do exist as I've pointed out three times now. Brittanica says it, but it is behind a paywall. I'll go look up a written copy at my local library tomorrow probably, and the Encyclopedia Brittanica is certainly peer reviewed and "secular". Encarta also made the same claim but it's now defunct and you can't see any old versions online, but check out archive 23 under theologian vs. historian (yes, these objections have been brought up for years and for years no one has ever been able to show any evidence contradicting the claims that almost all historians hold Jesus really existed) where you'll see I linked to the encarta article making the claim and the editor who was challenging the claim of most historians conceded encarta said as much (but then of course said that was irrelevant). And again, since this is a dead issue among historians you are not going to find any journal articles about the subject, unless you go back to the beginning of the 20th century. Roy Brumback (talk) 03:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Most journal articles (and thus "peer reviewed" articles) are about particular biblical pericopes, or about a specific issue regarding the historical Jesus. More general overviews on the historical Jesus are published in monographs, books, textbooks, etc, which aren't "peer reviewed" but are often published by very prominent, university/scholarly presses. IMO, the 4 sources I pointed out above all meet WP:RS, and the often repeated sourcing "requirements" seem to go above and beyond WP:RS are often based on personal religious prejudice on behalf of anonymous internet users. I'll grant that I have yet to find a statistical analysis on what sort of scholars accept Jesus' historicity and how many, in a peer reviewed, or otherwise, source. But I did post an example of a single peer reviewed article in a secular journal which discussed a specific issue regarding the historical Jesus (which presupposed Jesus' existence), but Noloop didn't consider the journal secular enough because it didn't ban authors based on their religion or some other bigotry. So I gave up really searching, because I felt like the goal posts were being moved, good faith was not being assumed, and I thought WP:RS was already met. -Andrew c ^[talk] 04:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

It isn't a sticking point with me at all. If they don't exist, as far as we know, then maybe we can just tell Noloop that, and that it isn't relevant barring a contradictory statement by a RS. He just keeps asking, and I think we have an answer of some sort. Also, I would like to not here the word "bigot" anymore. Even if someone is bigoted, saying the word means they've baited you well, which reflects poorly both ways. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Bigot is a loaded word, but if he really objected to a journal simply because anyone who wasn't an agnostic or atheist was allowed to contribute (which would be pretty much all academic journals) he certainly seems to have a serious problem with anyone who isn't an agnostic or atheist. Roy Brumback (talk) 04:49, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what he thinks, but as you say, it's a loaded word, and the only thing that using it will cause is possibly getting some good faith editors to have sanctions levied against them, which I don't want. Basically, instead of using loaded words, we need to explain what we mean in non inflammatory words. It's a weird system, but the way to "win" the game of wikipedia is to always remain calm with what you write. Especially if you don't feel calm. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

It's bad form for statements that amount to "Christianity is right" to be sourced mainly to Christians. We should avoid that. If we must have text that consists of Christians saying Christianity is right, the reader should know it. We should identify the sourcing. There's nothing bigoted here. Substitute "liberal" for "Christian" in what I just said, and I will still agree with it. It's just fair. Noloop (talk) 07:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with this statement, so i just want to point out that we now have attribution to biblical historians in the lede, which implies, somewhat explicitly, a christian source. These are not scholars studying the bible as literature but as a historical source, which tends (overwhelmingly but not universally, I don't want to paint with TOO broad a brush, just a moderately sized roller) to be the domain of believing christians, that they implicitly accept the Capital-T-Truth of the source document. That part of the dispute has been more or less resolved to everyones satisfaction with one exception, Roy. We have reached consensus, no small task on this talkpage. Since we now have the attribution resolved, Im assuming it meets with your approval as well, but I could be wrong on that. We need to move on to the next dispute, with the exact wording of the myth hypothesis in the lede. I do hope since we have demonstrated our ability to work collaboratively and get past the battlefield mentality, to see that we are all working to improve the project no matter our viewpoint, that Phase II of this process will go more quickly. -- ۩ Mask 07:28, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

This is not true at all. There are plenty of historians who believe that the Bible contains useful historical information without believing in the "Capital-T-Truth of the source document". I'd also dispute that there's such a clear distinction between studying the bible as literature and studying the bible as history. The biblical texts were obviously written in a time and place, and studying them can give us an understanding of that time and place whether or not the text itself is giving an accurate history. john k (talk) 15:38, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

You agree that saying Jesus simply existed and is not wholly a myth is equivalent to saying Christianity is true (that he rose from the dead, God and Heaven exist, ect...). Really? I'd like an answer to that one please. And when I do produce a "secular peer reviewed" source soon saying most scholars hold this, that he at a minimum existed, then what. And there is no consensus as to the wording. Please tell me who exactly agrees to it as it currently stands, as Andrew doesn't, neither does Bill the Cat or Carlo, and that's almost half the discussion right there. And what other wording besides the truth that you can count the Jesus-myther scholars on your fingers do you want to put in. Call them a "minority" maybe? We already list them all by name in the article, how much more can we do. You guys have not produced one valid reason for questioning the sources assertions, just complained that you don't trust Christians, and you have not produced one source to the contrary, and we have no source claiming what the article currently asserts in the intro. Again guys, just find one valid source claiming something else. Just one. Otherwise, the article should clearly go back to the previous wording. Otherwise it not only will conflict with the sources but itself as well and any future addition with someone saying the same thing about how many scholars hold to Jesus's historicity (I know the Historical Jesus for Dummies book makes the same claim, it's peer reviewed and published by a secular company, and was cited here before being edited out, but I'll be putting it back in soon). Again, just one source to the contrary. Good luck. Roy Brumback (talk) 08:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I know there has been a lot of discussion, so maybe this was missed, but let's not forget that a good number of us liked citing the NON-CHRISTIAN Michael Grant to bolster our sentence in the lead, although that citation was never entered into the article (despite talks of doing so). The second we introduce Grant to support the sentence, we stop relying on only Christian sources... So I don't see why we are still talking about this, when there was strong support for Grant days ago (see #Lead Rewording and #Religiously biased sourcing).-Andrew c ^[talk] 13:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

And what evidence do you have that if someone uses the Bible as a history source, not an inerrant history source mind you, but just a source that automatically implies they are in the domain of believing Christians. Put differently, what evidence do you have that the majority of non Christian historians don't use the Bible at all to investigate history, especially the history of the Jews? Roy Brumback (talk) 08:27, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Roy.Until you produce a “secular, peer reviewed” source, we don’t have it. Why should we make it appear that the whole world/all scholars believes in the historicity of Jesus? Why should we misinform the reader by making our sources look broader than they actually are. We know that they come from a narrower band (i.e. Christianity). Even the source of the claim “essentially all scholars ….” should be properly identified so that the reader may be able to form an informed opinion.Civilizededucation (talk) 10:34, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

First, fact statements are not attributed to any source, they are just presented as fact. That's why you don't see sentences such as, "according to American historian x, America did y on date z." Facts do not need to be cited by sources with different backgrounds, which is why we don't have Russian, Chinese and German sources confirming every detail of American history. Furthermore, we have secular sources anyway. Peer reviewed sources would be nice but is in no way a requirement. Flash 11:05, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that you can equate 'Jesus existed' with 'Christianity is right', Noloop. Christian scholars have made a case for Christianity being sustainable even had Jesus not existed in the way Christians tend to believe he did, and there are Jewish as well as Islamic commentators who affirm he existed, but do not believe the significance or nature of that existence in the way Christians have tended to historically.

We do not attribute facts, but the question is whether this existence is a universally held truth or a belief. To say that because certain scholars take this to be a fact begs that question really. We do not attribute a statement about US independence was gained in such-and-such a year because that is a fact that can be proven in certain ways and is not disputed. If we were to work on an article on Palestine, and a Palestinian scolar argued that Israel does not exist as a legal entity, and we could find no Palestinian scholar that said it did exist - my bet is we would want to mark that clearly as a POV of such authors, rather than a fact. This is the same, although the belief amongst such scholars is pretty near universal (it would be unlikely that any academic would be funded by the institutions involved to try and disprove this), it is still their POV that the historical record evidences this 'fact'. So, it needs to be clearly attributed, as it is not a 'fact' in the way other facts are arrived at - it is fact derived primarily from documents that promulgate certain beliefs about an individual. Independence of the US is based on legal documents that still exist - Jesus' existence is 'proven' (primarily) by evangelists recollections and through access to source(s) recounting the eye-witness reports from the time. - MishMich - Talk - 12:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

The fact I'm referring to is that almost all scholars accept the existence of a historical Jesus, and that CMT is rejected by almost all scholars. That fact does not need to be attributed as the opinion of "Christian scholars". Flash 12:39, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Also the majority of Muslim scholers (and I will go as far as to say all untill a sources can be found saying otehrwise) bleive in his exsistance. So to say that the majority of scholers who bleive i his exsistance are chritian is not true. Lets stop then western bias.Slatersteven (talk) 12:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure, it would be appropriate to talk about this as (all/most?) scholars in the relevant fields accepting this - clearly not 'all scholars' accept this, as few scholars outside the field seem to take any view on this.- MishMich - Talk - 21:31, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

oh no, not this s**t again - Folks, I would love to find the peer reviewed source above. I think that in this specific issue the background is very relevant and I believe that there could be a religious bias in scholarship. But as far as the encyclopedia is concerned, we do not need to dive in the issue anymore. We already have found, after ten days of painful discussion for both sides, non-Christian strong sources that document the consensus between scholars. That is what we need. I agree also on making explicit, whenever possible, the background of sources. But we don't need such a source to put at rest the CMT issue for the encyclopedia purposes. --Cyclopia^talk 12:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

also are thre any peer reviewd journels that say that the majority of historians who study the subject are chrisitan, or is it just the opinion of some edd?Slatersteven (talk) 12:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Cyclopia.Griswaldo (talk) 12:56, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

No, if our sources on CMT rebuttal have a background limitation, we should let the reader know about it.Civilizededucation (talk) 14:15, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Do the majority of non-christian historians accepct the christ myth thoery?Slatersteven (talk) 14:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

(after EC) 1) that is not part of WP:RS or any other Wikipedia guideline. It reminds me of a user who wanted to put a disclaimer that any study sourced to say the Lancet or the WHO at Abortion needed some sort of "pro-choice" disclaimer in front of it. 2) That isn't even true. We've been discussing the use of the non-Christian Grant heavily, and we have comments from other non-Christian sources as well, so any claims of a Christian conspiracy are ignoring a number of previously discussed sources. -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:24, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I never said that the majority of non christian scholars accept the CMT. The issue is proper identification of sources and identification of their background limitation. Why should we misinform the reader by making our sources appear broader than they are when we know that they have a background limitation? As yet, I can't see any strong non christian sources.Civilizededucation (talk) 14:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

So if a amjority of non-chrisitan sources have not accepted then its fair to say that majority of historians do not accept it.Slatersteven (talk) 14:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry if I seem impatient. This has been going on for quite awhile, and when I see "I can't see any strong non- christian sources" I feel like you just haven't been looking hard enough. But I know there is a lot to read on this page. Michael Grant is a non-Christian source which makes a very strong statement regarding the state of scholarship in a WP:RS. Needless to say, there are also countless non-Christian scholars of the historical Jesus, Ehrman and Vermes come to mind as two of the biggest names in the field, but I guess they haven't published a tabulation of who believes what and what are their religious backgrounds are, though Ehrman has made clear statements in interviews/debates, as cited in Bill's FAQ. Furthermore, we have Wells, who is mostly in the JM camp, making published statements the view that there was no historical Jesus... is today almost totally rejected. So when you keep repeating that you think there are "background limitations" to our sources, I strongly disagree (although I will concede that not all of our discussed sources have made it into the article yet). But I hate even humoring this line of reason, because I don't believe Wikipedia policy supports such suggestions in the first place. It should be good enough that the individuals we cite hold multiple degrees from prominent institutions, that they are employed by some of the top universities in the world, and that reliable scholarly presses have published their works, with no sourced criticism. And that last point is important. Sure, anonymous dudes on the internet can look at a source and say "I think it is biased and problematic", but when it comes down to it, only published criticisms should count. If we have no reason to question these sources outside of the personal preferences of some anonymous internet dudes, then I don't know why we keep discussing this over and over. -Andrew c ^[talk] 15:07, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Some principles of high-quality sourcing, from WP:RS:

1. "Briefly: published scholarly sources from academic presses should be used.
2. "Material such as an article or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable. If the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses, generally it has been at least preliminarily vetted by one or more other scholars.
3. "Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view. A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs. Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals. (emphasis added)
4. Somebody mentioned using Encyclopedia Britannica as a source: “Encyclopedia Britannica or Encarta, sometimes have authoritative signed articles written by specialists and including references. However, unsigned entries are written in batches by freelancers and must be used with caution.”

Combining #2 and #3 ==> secular and peer-reviewed is the preferred source for this topic. The RFC [23] above brought two editors not part of the regular brouhaha in these articles. Both were supportive of the idea that the source should be mentioned, if there's a reasonable suspicious of bias. Christian theologians are biased about whether their Savior has a basis in reality. Noloop (talk) 01:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC) Noloop (talk) 01:37, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

For an overview of the topic, which rejects some of the above arguments, noting that all sides have their own biases [24]. Hardyplants (talk) 03:12, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I kindly disagree with your assessment of WP:RS (which we don't really need to quote here, at least in that depth). First, you are focusing on only the reputable peer-reviewed sources clause, and ignoring the well-regarded academic presses clause. Second, I do not believe you have established that #3 translates to "secular". I believe #3 has been set up to exclude joke journals like Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons or Journal of Creation / CRSQ that have a claim of a "peer-review" process. I would need a better explanation of your line of reasoning to get to the conclusion that #3 above should exclude various sources we have suggested (such as Stanton or the Journal of Biblical Literature). And I'll repeat myself that I disagree with your notion of a reasonable suspicious of bias in regards to individuals who happen to be Christian, and I'll refer to SLR's long comment at ANI explaining why. Cheers! -Andrew c ^[talk] 20:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say we should exclude people; I said we should include people. If we have to rely heavily on Christian sources for a factual statement, acceptance of that fact may not be as widespread as it seems. "Care should be taken..." with overtly Christian sources, as item #3 above says. That also means we should avoid heavy reliance on presses like... "Eerdmans publishes a variety of books suitable for all aspects of ministry. Pastors, church education leaders, worship leaders, church librarians... will find a wealth of resources here.". I documented the sourcing problem above, in Talk:Historicity_of_Jesus#Religiously_biased_sourcing. Every single source there is overtly Christian. We should find an equal number of high-quality secular sources, and if we can't, we should mention to the reader that that sources are predominantly theological Noloop (talk) 02:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Your claim of "particular point of view" doesn't even begin to apply here. Unless, of course, you want to question articles in Science because the hold it pushes the point of view that truths found through scientific method are more valuable than those that aren't. Or reject Time magazine articles on politics, because they push the view that the decisions and actions of individual politicians have more impact on the world than the generalized actions of classes or groups of people. Furthermore, as someone pointed out, you have a tendency to prefer peer-reviewed journals and exclude book length works, even though the works are still vetted by the community (if published by a reliable press).Qwyrxian (talk) 03:04, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "Care should be taken..." with overtly Christian sources. How do we determine if a source is overly Christian? The section you link to above does a poor job discussing Stanton, and I don't think you have ever discussed Grant (and I'd propose keeping Stanton, and adding Grant, to support the sentence we are working on regarding the majority view supporting Jesus' historicity). That said, I'd concede avoidance of Eerdmans in lieu of better sources. I think you do have some valid points for sure, but I think you are using too broad of a brush stroke which ends up nixing valid "secular" scholarship. -Andrew c ^[talk] 03:53, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Examples of overtly Christian sources are priests (John P. Meier) , bishops (NT Wright), and publishers like Eerdmans and Theological Studies, Inc.: a Jesuit-sponsored journal of theology. That's not a limit; don't accuse me of moving goal-posts if I develop it later. Noloop (talk) 06:27, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

in An Historian's Review of the Gospels, 'Atheist' historian Michael Grant completely rejected the idea that Jesus never existed. Secular scholar Will Durant, who left the Catholic Church and embraced humanism, also dismisses the idea in Caesar and Christ that jesus never exsited .Slatersteven (talk) 12:59, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

So Stanton is OK now? Oxford University Press is clearly a notable, scholarly, "secular" publisher, and I'm pretty sure he wasn't a priest (not that I'll concede that that matters). I guess this is settled then! Also, I don't understand why you can discount a source solely based on the author being a priest. You have simply asserting the claim, with no substantiation. I can equally assert that being a priest does not automatically discount someone from using the historical method, or publishing peer-reviewed article in secular, notable journals who don't reject submissions on the sole criteria of whether they are a priest or not.-Andrew c ^[talk] 15:29, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about "OK" or not OK. I said nothing about discounting solely or "automatically" on the basis of anything. I quoted WP:RS. Noloop (talk) 23:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Going Forward: New Sources

Andrew has added several sources from the Christian community. We need to reach an agreement. I am saying we need to collaborate. It is no good to have this discussion until it peters out or somebody gets fed up, and then people go back to editing the way they want, and then others figure there is nothing more to be said and start reverting, and so on. I listed some principles of high-quality sourcing above. they are straight from WP:RS. All Jesus articles rely heavily Christian sources, both author and publisher. Very few have anything in the way of peer-review. As far as I can tell, there are no sources from secular, peer-reviewed presses--despite the claim that such sources are widespread. Please stop using people like John P. Meier and publishing houses like Trinity Press for the time being. It is not that they intrinsically bad. It is that the article is already very overweighted in them, and they are predisposed to promote a particular view. Noloop (talk) 03:56, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Ummm. No. Just no. You don't get to dictate a religious litmus test above and beyond WP:RS. I can understand trying to avoid using presses and authors that have no reputation for scholarship, but the only and I mean ONLY thing you have said against Meier is that he is a priest. I don't know your problem with Koester, but these are top names in the field, not uncritical zealots. I can understand needing care for making consensus statements regarding ALL scholarship's belief in a historical Jesus. But for minute details on the ancient documents, the sources I provided are top notch, and I have seen NO valid reason for exclusion. Again, as I have said in the past, no need to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Just say no to religious litmus test. Examine the sources based on their scholarship, not their religion. I really thought we were getting progress, but it seems like the above arguments are no more developed than what you were saying 2 weeks ago. -Andrew c ^[talk] 04:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

• I didn't say anything about a litmus test.
• I didn't say anyone is a zealot.
• I didn't say anyone should be excluded.
• I said we should follow WP:RS and strive for balance between religious and secular sources. The problem with Meier IS that he is a priest. He is not neutral on the existence of Jesus. I pointed out the article is sorely lacking in secular sourcing.
• You keep saying academia is full of secular, peer-reviewed research on these matters. You keep failing to produce a single example. Noloop (talk) 04:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I think there is no need to exclude any of the present sources. We only need to properly attribute and to identify Christian sources as such. Why let them hide their bias behind designations like "scholars", etc..... ? This step alone should go a long way in making the article NPOV.Civilizededucation (talk) 11:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

We have taken this to numerous boards adn none that I can see have agreed to this. Also if we lable christian sources we will also need to label athiest and non-chrisitan sources too. Also to those who want more neutraiity, find the sources then. Nuetraility does not mean we represent information i a way POV we represnt it in was way that refelcts the RS. So if RS do not say something is boas neither can we.Slatersteven (talk) 11:57, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no consensus to start labeling scholars by religious affiliation. It would not improve, but in fact fly in the face of WP:NPOV to do so. Adding those kinds of labels implies that religious affiliation is meaningful, that there is a known "bias" as you put it. No reliable sources have ever been produced to suggest that such a bias exists. It is not up to us to decide it does. When is this going to stop?Griswaldo (talk) 12:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, Noloop, the only problem you have stated you have with Meier is that he IS a priest. So what? This is rather frustrating. Read the content I posted. Is it false? Is it inaccurate? Are these scholars lying? Are they mistaken? Do you have any conflicting sources, or any reason to believe the information I added and citations, are not up to Wikipedia standards? If you are OK with citing some "religious" sources, whatever that means, then why are you making a fuss about my last post. I also cited Erhman, mixing secular with what you'd call "religious". I am taking care to cite expert scholars, and it is frustrating that you don't recognize that in any regard, and are simply raising this fuss, not over scholarship or any valid criticism, but instead over religion (what I call a litmus test... as I can't see how it can be construed in any other fashion). If you can't recognize that someone can happen to be Christian, and who also can be a leading expert in their field of secular biblical history/biblical criticism, then I really don't know how to move forward. If you aren't saying we should exclude Christians, then why raise a fuss over my latest additions?? These are prominent, notable scholars. The content I added isn't disputed in any way. I don't why I need to hold each source up to your personal religious litmus test to decide whether we should use them or not, and I don't think I need to go out of my way to research the religious background of all my sources in order to find someone that meets your religious standard. -Andrew c ^[talk] 12:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

If I may answer to Andrew_c and Griswaldo for Noloop, since I share some of his concerns:

• not over scholarship or any valid criticism, but instead over religion: Some editor has argued that a Christian agnostic on the existence of Christ can exist; as far as I've seen, if true, this is relegated to a few particular theologians. In the vast majority of cases, Christians will obviously have a bias when talking about Christ, because of their background. It's not that I am anti-Christian: I would raise the very same issue for Islamic sources on Islam articles, Scientologist sources on Scientology articles, Buddhist sources on Buddha-related articles, etc.
• If you can't recognize that someone can happen to be Christian, and who also can be a leading expert in their field of secular biblical history/biblical criticism, then I really don't know how to move forward. - I can recognize it in full. What I'd ask is for balancing the background of sources. I understand you think it's irrelevant, but other editors (me, Noloop, Elen of the roads, etc.) think it isn't. So, in your case, it should be no problem: for you, sources are always sources, regardless of their background. In my case it helps making the article more balanced.
• Adding those kinds of labels implies that religious affiliation is meaningful, that there is a known "bias" as you put it.: Since a few editors think it, well, why not adding them? People like you, that happen to think that is means no bias, won't be put off by the label. People like me will find what they feel is an important background and contextual information. I see no reason in either case for hiding this information. --Cyclopia^talk 12:53, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually this is a misunderstanding of my position. I am agnostic on the issue of whether or not religious affiliation means bias, and will remain agnostic until I see some peer-reviewed literature that confirms or disputes this bias. We can describe scholars in a million ways (gender, age, nationality, religious affiliation, etc.). Until any of these are rendered meaningful to the contemporary debate of the historicity of Jesus by qualified experts (e.g. not Wikipedia editors) we do not start applying these labels. That fact that some editors believe that such affiliation is correlated with bias, only re-affirms the fact that the label is inappropriate because it might suggest the same correlation to other editors, once again without verification. That is in fact a violation of WP:NOR as well as WP:NPOV. It is also essentially the same as using "weasel words".Griswaldo (talk) 13:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Some of us might want to have a look at this- Confirmation bias.Civilizededucation (talk) 13:21, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

It is (i bleive) generaly accepted on wikipedia that most sources will in some have have a bias. That has never been a reason as far as I am aware (except here) to point out any potential (and remeber its only potential, not clearly proven) bias.Slatersteven (talk) 13:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Indeed there is bias everywhere, but we do not deal with potential biases, we deal with known biases, or at least notably argued biases. We also accept the fact that due to our reliance on reliable sources we are going to reproduce the biases of these sources, if and when such biases exist.Griswaldo (talk) 13:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, perhaps it doesn't answer explicitly to your concern, but this (page 2) is a strong clue anyway: "Finally, the widespread conception of the historian as a neutral interpreter is becoming harder and harder to defend. The historian, unfortunately, is frequently unable to distinguish between what her office as a historian enables her to discover and her decision as a human being about her proper relationship to the events of that discovered past". If events=life and history of Jesus and relationship with Jesus=religion, it comes out pretty obviously. --Cyclopia^talk 13:45, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

These general types of statements do not help us sort the wheat from the chaff when it comes to what relationships are meaningfully exposed. To go by what only seems "obvious" to us is to succumb to exposing what we believe is the "truth" as opposed to what we can verify in reliable sources. I believe that matter has been settled in policies like WP:V and expounded upon in essays like WP:TRUTH.Griswaldo (talk) 14:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I would add that if the bias is obvious (I.e. of course christians will belive in christ) we do not need to pont out such bias, the reader will see it. If the bias needs ppointing out its not that obvious then that might be becasue its not there in the first place.Slatersteven (talk) 13:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

To let the reader see it, it has to be explicit the root of this potential bias.--Cyclopia^talk 13:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

This pretty much settles the quest of Griswaldo for bias in Historical Jesus scholarship: this, chapter 14: The oft-touted "subjectivity" of historical Jesus research is simply a function of the fact that, unlike certain other forms of New Testament scholarship, the link here is still patent between who the particular scholar is, including the social groupings to which she or he belongs,and the preferred form(s) into which the Jesus data have been made to fit". --Cyclopia^talk 13:58, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The context of that quote is not clear in your comment. It is not referring to the basic question of a historical Jesus but referring to the particular shape of the quest for the historical Jesus amongst scholars of different types. As several editors have stated before, there is a wide range of conclusions drawn about the "historical" Jesus amongst scholars who all believe Jesus did exist. It is this variety the author is discussing, and not, once again, the basic question of historicity. If I'm wrong I'd like to see a quote to the contrary from the source because I was unable to find one. Now, if and when specific issues of disagreement have been discussed in terms of various affiliations then clearly I'm all for bringing those affiliations to light. I remain, as I stated above, agnostic however to the actual application of labellings that we have been discussing now for too long, and that is specifically in relation to the statement that Jesus of Nazareth was indeed a historical person.Griswaldo (talk) 14:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't referring to the existence of Jesus -we know from the old discussion that this particular issue is settled, and I am not going to revisit it again. But the source is explicit in (i)making clear that there is an "oft-touted subjectivity of historical Jesus research" and (ii)the social background of the scholar has a bearing in scholarship produced. So, in general, this source supports that we should, editorially, make it clear the affiliations of the scholar, because it is known that, in general, they can shape scholarship (I would go as far as including this reference in the article, actually). In general I can see no reason not to make it clear, at this point. --Cyclopia^talk 14:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Also it does not say the bias may come just from chrisitsn, its seems to be talking avbout all possible bias. Foe example he talks about the issue of jesus Jewisness, and the bias in the approach to that. Thus he seems to be talking not about bias in the examination of jessu's reality, but bias in describing who and what he was. So all this source can be used for is to say that there is bias, not from whence the bias origionates. Nor can we use (as far as I can see) the source to say there is bias in the scholership behind the search for jesus, it does ot seem to say that. only that there is bias in research into who he was, not his exsistance.Slatersteven (talk) 14:17, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) To re-ground the discussion in WP:RS:

• "Material such as an article or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable. If the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses, generally it has been at least preliminarily vetted by one or more other scholars.
• "Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view. A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs. Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals. (emphasis added)

Thus, peer-reviewed, secular sources are preferred. Care should be taken when citing priests and Christian presses. Observing this is not saying anyone should be excluded, there should be a litmus test, or anything like that.

• Everybody says acceptance of historicity is widespread in all scholarly communities.
• Every source is either from an author of popular books or the Christian scholarly community.
• If something is a significant historical fact, it is easy to find non-Christian historians mentioning it in peer-reviewed journals. Julius Caesar is analogous in fame and era. Is it hard to find matter-of-fact references to him in high-quality secular sources? Don't think so.
• The article needs more secular sources; it doesn't need more and more and more religious ones.

Regarding bias, there are two kinds. First, religion is bias. If you have a religious belief X, you are not neutral about X. It is not analogous to being an African-American or a woman, or any of those examples. It is not even analogous to being liberal or conservative. None of those groups eschew logic and scientific method in forming their beliefs. Faith is a declaration that your mind is made up, period. That's bias. The other kind of bias in this article is more mundane, analogous to a political belief. If we wrote an article on socialized medicine, we wouldn't cite only liberals. Sometimes, we would identify a source as liberal. That doesn't mean we exclude liberals or have a litmus test. It's just a matter of alerting the reader to the background of the source. Noloop (talk) 14:44, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Ther is such an atciel and I can find (after a quick scan) no such labels, establiashing potential bias of sources.Slatersteven (talk) 14:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I am taking all this too personally, because it seemed like you were specifically referencing content and sources that I added yesterday (after making a proposal on the talk page with no comment days ago....) What do you propose we do when we are citing Meier and Ehrman to support the idea that the two-source hypothesis is the most common solution to the synoptic problem, and that Q, Mark, M and L also represent source traditions behind the gospels (citations #21 and #22)? Do we say "Christians and agnostic scholars claim X..." or do we just need to qualify the Christian? or, as I propose, we have NO reason to point out the Meier is "Christian" in the context of the content I added yesterday. I'm all fine and dandy with you guys continuing this RS/Christian bias stuff that's been going on for weeks (well, actually, I'd prefer it not continue on indefinitely.. but that is beside the point). I'm only trying to ground this in actual content, since I felt like actual content and sources were what spurred the creation of this thread. Can't we agree that we should be able to cite notable, prominent, mainstream scholars in a field, regardless of their religious affiliation when it comes to matters outside statements of faith/dogma? -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:59, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

"Material such as an article or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable. If the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses, generally it has been at least preliminarily vetted by one or more other scholars."

By the way a type of source being preferd does not mean (and no policy requires) that we identify the biase of sources. It would be a good idea for soome secualt sources to be found, but its is not required. Sslo for you ppoint to bbe valid you would have to deminbstate that "Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals." has this been demonstated? Also I note that on Women's rights in Saudi Arabia there is no labaling of muslim sources to indicate potential bias.Slatersteven (talk) 15:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I think Noloop has made a good point about the sources and his reference to the WP policy is valid. At the very least, we should try to work into the article somewhere something about the fact that the vast majority of the scholars who believe in the historical Jesus are Christians or have their degrees from Christian and/or theological schools. Can we find sources to back that up, so it is not WP:OR? This would also be good to put into the Christ Myth Theory article. PeaceLoveHarmony (talk) 15:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

What we should try to do is find more secular sources such as http://www.atheists-for-jesus.com/index.php, not label those we have. Also I would suggest that if we do this we would have to do this on all pages where such bias might exists. Also we have Dr. Robert Eisler http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=LnEqFoNwVGcC&pg=PA79&dq=atheist+says+jesus+existed&hl=en&ei=39taTP2aG9WNsAbB8ZyTAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=consensus&f=false to use as a source. So lets stop asking to label sources and actually do some work to improve the article by finding sources that fit policy and not push POV.Slatersteven (talk) 15:41, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't follow this line of reasoning. We don't need to find obscure scholars to cite just to please atheists. If scholar X says Y and scholar A says Y, how do we decide whom to cite, if they are saying the exact same thing. I'd say that we should cite the more notable of the sources, or the source that is more scholarly (more citations, better methodology, better publisher), or the source which is cited more by other sources. There are a number of determining factors, NONE of which is a religious litmus test. We shouldn't look past X, and cite A instead on the basis of religion, especially if they are saying the same thing and X is more notable than A. I was trying to get this discussion centered on actual content, not hypotheticals. Slatersteven. The block of text that I added yesterday that cites Ehrman, Koester, and Meier, do you think that it doesn't fit policy? Do you think I was POV pushing? Is there any reason not to cite Meier in regards to the specific content I added? -Andrew c ^[talk] 16:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

how do we decide whom to cite: We shouldn't decide. We should cite both. --Cyclopia^talk 16:32, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

So are you saying we need to find an atheist to cite along side a Christian in order to present any information as neutral? And if we can't dig up some obscure atheist, then we have to say "Christian scholars argue that Y..."? What if it's the other way around? How do we present information that is only found in the writings of obscure atheists? -Andrew c ^[talk] 16:38, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Can we move away from this abstract and generally ideologically-driven (or seeking) debate and talk specifics? Who are the most important historians writing on Jesus? To my knowledge, the leading (most respected by other 1st century historians) scholars are Sanders, Vermes, Meier, Ehrman and Fredricksen, and many would add Crossan. I know others here have mentioned some other names, but in my own readings these are the most commonly and most highly praised. If you think you know a historian who is a bona fide expert (fluent in Aramaic and Koine Greek, knows the sources, well acquainted with archeological and comparative data) who has written something significant about Jesus who is not on the list I just mentioned, who is it? By all means add the name! Slrubenstein | Talk 17:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I think we should also attribute atheists as atheists.Why hide their bias too?Civilizededucation (talk) 17:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Civilizededucation above. --Cyclopia^talk 18:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Religion is biased. Atheism is not. An atheist is not predisposed by faith to believe there was no historical Jesus; a Christian is predisposed to believe there was. That's why we need to find secular, peer-reviewed sources for these articles. A theologian publishing in, say, Classical Antiquity [25] is a better source than the same theologian publishing in Theological Studies, Inc.: a Jesuit-sponsored journal of theology [26] or Eerdmans ("...publishes a variety of books suitable for all aspects of ministry. Pastors, church education leaders, worship leaders, church librarians, and lay people will find a wealth of resources here"). Yet, we have tons of the latter and little of the former, in violation of WP:RS. A neutral expert from a neutral publisher is obviously better. Why don't we just assert it's a fact God exists. The sourcing used here would be equally supportive. By the definitions in use in these articles, atheism is clearly a fringe theory. Noloop (talk) 19:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

If you regard atheists as unbiased, still, what is wrong with attributing atheists as such? When you first started this discussion, you yourself were asking that the sources be attributed, why change mind now?Civilizededucation (talk) 19:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Agree again with user above. An atheist can be biased in desiring to show that Jesus does not exist and that therefore religions acknowledging this existence are wrong -to pursue an ideological agenda. Being myself a member of an atheist organization, I sadly know for sure that some atheists can be sometimes as ideologically driven as theists. But even if not so, I see no problem in attribution. --Cyclopia^talk 19:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Atheists are just as biased as anyone else (especially the militant ones). To say otherwise is to display a profound naivete and arrogance (i.e., as if they are superior to theists).

Good job flatly contradicting an opinion without responding to any of the reasons given. Your suggestion that I'm naive and arrogant is equally constructive. Of course, people who are atheists can be biased. Beekeepers can be as biased. Scientists can be biased. That isn't the point. Atheism, the belief system, is not biased. Atheism doesn't assume as a matter of faith--regardless of fact and logic--anything about the existence of historical anything. Christianity does. Thus, Christians can be assumed to lack neutrality on the existence of Jesus. Atheists cannot be assumed to do so. Next you're going to announce that it is a "display of profound naivete and arrogance" that articles on evolution are 100% science and 0% religion. Noloop (talk) 22:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

This has gotten off track. Or at least it seemed to have started as a comment on specific new content, but no one seems to want to talk about that anymore. If anyone has specific issues with the section I added yesterday or the sources I used or the lack of qualifying text, please raise them 2 topics up Talk:Historicity of Jesus#Theoretical documents. Thank you. -Andrew c ^[talk] 20:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

The article misinforms the reader. It presents a picture of the scholarship as being grounded in the world of peer-reviewed, secular academic research. In fact, the research in this article is grounded in the world of Christian theologians and popular books. It is dishonest to hide that. Editors here insist belief in historical Jesus is widespread in mainstream academia, and yet keep failing to produce any secular, peer-reviewed sources for anything. WP:RS explicitly recommends avoiding reliance on sources that promote one particular view. Noloop (talk) 22:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

You are dishonest, you are the one who wants to use this article to lie. I suspect your dishonest comes from your blind adherence to your POV, or your bigotry against Christians, but instead of making these kinds of false blanket statements you should point to specific historians and look at what they wrote and identify the bias in what they wrrote. I have yet to see you provide any "evidence." Slrubenstein | Talk 13:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Or how about some sources that say that the majority of historians who support the reality of Jesus are chrisitan (I notice we are still ignoring Islam here, please stop this western-centric bias please).Slatersteven (talk) 13:22, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

How is this for you: [27] Hardyplants (talk) 22:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

So, in response to the concerns raised here, Hardyplants promptly adds to the article: " According to Edgar V. McKnight, the non gospel books of the New Testament do not contribute much to our picture of Jesus, but they do confirm the historicity of Jesus." The press is Mercer University, which describes itself as "committed to an educational environment that embraces intellectual and religious freedom while affirming values that arise from a Judeo-Christian understanding of the world." The author is, of course, a Christian theologian. This is the source for a factual statement about the existence of Jesus. Noloop (talk) 22:40, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, this is getting off-track. There is no reason to attribute to a historian that they are an atheist or a Catholic or a Methodist, unless we are quoting work that is specifically promoting that point of view. Anything that involves Jesus being born of a virgin, or one with God, or resurrected I would say is clearly pushing a Christian bias. To say that Jesus aspired to restore the Kingdom of Judea independent of Rome is neither a Christian nor an atheist view. To say that Jesus thought that a apocalyptic Kingdom of God would be restored soon (i.e. that his is a prophet but not God, and was not resurrected) is neither a Christian nor an atheist view. To say that Jesus was a revolutionary stirring up the landless or poorest of the peasants against a Jewish elit is neither a Christian nor an atheist view. There are a whole range of views different historians have expressed that are neither a Christian nor atheist views.

Before we worry about how to identify views, and certainly instead of all this disruptive editing that does nothign to improve the article, lets just identify top historians writing about Jesus that we can draw on. I mentioned several: Sanders, Vermes, Meier, Ehrman and Fredricksen, and many would add Crossan. Noloop, Cyclopia, if you know of better historians, more respected among specialists, who have written on Jesus, please please just name them, share with us their findings. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:00, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

WP:RS is not concerned solely with who is important. I've quoted it twice above. The article misleads the reader. Christians are biased on the existence of Jesus. You argued that a wide range of views on historical Jesus are not Christian views. The problem is that the only sources for those views are Christian theologians and the authors of popular books. So, it seems that they are not views found in secular peer-reviewed academic sources. Noloop (talk) 17:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Robert Price is a prominent Christian who does not believe Jesus ever existed. And the authors I cited, including Meier, are assigned in undergraduate and graduate university history courses, so I am not talking about books written for, or exclusively for, a popular audience. Your secular/Christian POV campaign is just a red-herring. E.P. Sanders received a Doctorate in Theology from union Theological Seminary, and you seem to be ingorant enough to think that makes him a theologican. In fact, he was a historian who taught at Oxford and then Duke University, two of the best universities in the world. He was also made a Fellow of the British Academy, which puts him in the upper echelons of British scholarship. You can call his history of Jesus as the views of a Christian theologian in a popular book. That just proves that you are ignorant, bigoted, or for some other reason a POV pusher. The University of Notre Dame may be run by the Catholic Church, but it is nevertheless considered a fine university in the US and the members of its faculty are well-respected by scholars throoughout academe; its students are not just Catholic, they include Jews and even atheists. John Meier may be a priest, but the books he wrote are well-respected by all historians with any expertise on the subject, anywhere, and his arguments are presented using criteria that non-catholics (Jews, atheists) can agree to, which is in fact why many people admire his work. He makes it clear that whether one believes Jesus committed any miracles is a theological question he cannot and will not address, and it is not a historical question. Your ignorance and bigotry shows clear: you have not read these books, or you do not understand them, and I do not think you know or understand much about academic history at all. Or you just do not care. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:40, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

In any event, this section is on "new sources" and this is now the third time I have asked you to propose a new source and the third time that you have not. I think you cannot because you are ignorant about this topic. But if you propose a source, do not propose one because it has a POV you like. Propose a work that is well-respected by historians who have expertise on the history of 1st century Roman-occupied Judea. Now, can you do that? If you cannot, just stop writing stuff in the "new sources" section. You are wasting our time. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:43, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Another ANI

Edds might like to comment here [28]].Slatersteven (talk) 15:36, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Archiving

Regarding the recent archiving of talk page threads, I think it might have been better if they remained on the active page because they are very much part of an ongoing discussion and it would be difficult to understand or find out which are connected with the ongoing discussion. Maybe we should just place a list of links to the threads that are connected with the ongoing discussion.Civilizededucation (talk) 06:33, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Titles

For some reason the titles "Dr." were attached to a mention of Geza Vermes and L. Michael White. I am not sure why these are the outlier. I removed them and Wikiposter0123 reverted the removal here on the basis that they have doctorates. Yet so do most of the in-text attributions in this article and as far as I am aware of it is never the standard to prefix everyone with "Dr." So, any reasons against again removing them? --Ari (talk) 00:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Basic MoS issue. WP:CREDENTIAL. --Andrew c ^[talk] 00:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

You do realize you are looking at a naming convention that applies solely to how to refer to someone in their own biography and not how to refer to people in general? In one's biography you shouldn't refer to them as Dr. So-and-so because the article itself should inform the reader that they have a doctorate. However in an article like this adding Dr. to let the reader know they have a doctorate is perfectly acceptable. I would also be fine with stating something like "Biblical scholar so-and-so" or "Biblical historian So-and-so" but as it stands you have provided the opinions of two people, Geza Vermes and L. Michael White, but haven't informed the reader as to why their opinions matter.

If you notice other people are introduced as being scholars such as: "Shlomo Pines and a few other scholars" let's the reader know that Shlomo Pines is a scholar. "Biblical scholar Bart D. Ehrman wrote that:" informs us that Bart D. Ehrman is a biblical scholar. I have however noticed some problems with this article. "In contrast, Charles Guignebert, Professor of the History of Christianity," this introduction of Charles as a Professor of history comes after he has already been mentioned multiple times; the reader should be made aware of his position the first time he is mentioned.

Still others have no indication of why their opinion on a matter is important at all and we should start introducing them in the article with info on what they study.

Basically to sum up my point: If you're not going to include Dr. then please indicate that they're a scholar in their field.Hope I've clarified my position.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 04:51, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

That is why we have links to articles about them, otherwise articles and wikipedia would fill up with redundant information about their credentials every time they are used as a source. Hardyplants (talk) 06:52, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

So the reader must go to another page to confirm someone's credentials?Wikiposter0123 (talk) 07:21, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

It very much depends on context, in my opinion, but if "credential" equals merely "has a Ph.D.", then yes. --Cyclopia^talk 12:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

"References"

The bibliography under the heading "References" is sufficiently confusing and seems to have developed in order to POV push. What is its purpose? To provide full citations of works referenced or as further reading? If for referenced works, it tends to have nothing to do with those works actually cited. If for further reading, it is most definitely not neutral. What is the selection criteria? A third of the references advance the fringe theory that Jesus did not exist. Talk about undue weight. These works are by amateurs and even include self-published works. I started correcting this by Noloop has taken to obstructing it.

So:

1. Is it a reference list or further reading list?
2. What references should be added/removed?

--Ari (talk) 00:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

General references are for works that relate generally to the content. See the policy and guidelines. The works you removed related to a section of the article and the topic as a whole. In an amazing coincidence, the works you deleted happen to disagree with you on the content. The rest of your comment is antagonistic. People who disagree with you are not POV-pushing obstructionist. You need to assume good faith. Noloop (talk) 15:06, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Add/Remove

As I noted above, a third of the works in the list are related to advancing the theory against the historicity of Jesus. As I am sure we can all now agree, this view is fringe among academic studies. This reference/further reading list should reflect this instead of giving undue weight.

For removal:

• Drews, Arthur & Burns, C. Deslisle (1998). The Christ Myth - No mention in the article and a fringe theory published in 1910.
• Ellegård, Alvar Jesus – One Hundred Years Before Christ - no mention in article and a fringe theory by a non-specialist.
• Leidner, Harold (1999). The Fabrication of the Christ Myth - no mention in article and a fringe theory by a non-specialist.

In the interest of giving the fringe theory a voice (generally for the sake of the peace in clear contravention to wp:undue) the best to keep would be Price and Wells, although there is no reason to list more than 1 of their books. --Ari (talk) 00:48, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Just to note, Alvar Ellegård is not a non-specialist in this regard, he's a world-class linguist who analyzes close-source (the dead sea scrolls, in particular) to deconstruct them and look at what the linguistics and grammar can tell us about their creation. His conclusion drawn from that that they were typical mythic archetypes drawn not from eyewitnesses or even secondhand sources but a oral tradition mixed with some corruptions of Zoraster myths, is entirely in his specialty. No opinion on your other points, but you might want to be a little more careful before discounting things on the basis of 'they dont know what they're talking about'. -- ۩ Mask 03:11, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd been fine with their removal if they're not actually referenced in the article.Wikiposter0123 (talk) 04:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Being an academic in English linguistics is not a speciality within ancient history, ancient languages and biblical studies. Therefore, he is not a specialist in the field no matter what special pleading you present. --Ari (talk) 07:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

He's an academic in linguistics, not specifically english linguistics, and writing on the linguistics of the sources, that is in fact his field. Also, the misuse of a logical fallacy is amusing but besides the point. -- ۩ Mask 16:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, not an expert in the field. --Ari (talk) 23:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

• I'd be all for redoing all the footnotes for consistency, and would propose, that if we were to keep a reference section that a) it only contains works used as references b) possibly create further reading for the other, or outright delete if not notable and c) if a work is fully referenced in the reference section, us a summary style in the footnote, to reduce redundancy and page size. -Andrew c ^[talk] 05:05, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good.--Ari (talk) 07:31, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The actual citations are contained in the footnotes. General references are in the the "Reference" section. It is format (one of many) specifically endorsed by policy. Ari89 didn't actually apply a consistent principle to his deletions, other than deleting books that question the historicity of Jesus. Noloop (talk) 15:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

While the MoS does not proscribe how we present footnotes and/or reference sections WP:FNNR, and leaves that up in the air, and up to individual article discretion (with talk page consensus), it is clear that "general references" not cited directly in the text belong in a "Further reading" section. -Andrew c ^[talk] 20:00, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I was removing works by amateur non-experts that were not referenced in the article. That was quite consistent. --Ari (talk) 23:35, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

That section has many works, pro and con, that are not cited in the article. Renaming it to "Further Reading" would be fine. Selectively deleting books based on what they say isn't acceptable. It is not agreed upon that disputing the historicity of Jesus is a fringe theory, in the Wikipedian sense that Holocaust denial and the flat earth theory are fringe theories. It is a minority view that deserves inclusion. 04:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

We can't simply rename the section, because we need to decide what books ARE being used, and which are not first. Has anyone done that? Do you have a list? I think we should work on at least separating them out, and creating a "Further reading" section. Once we have that section, then we can discuss how the editing community feels about the specifics.-Andrew c ^[talk] 12:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Jewish Sources

Since almost all, if not al, major critical historians consider the Testimonium Flavianum to be inauthentic, I think it is highly misleading to discuss it as the first relevant passage from Josephus. I think this gives it undue weight. I frankly think it should just be in a footnote. But if it must be in the section on Josephus, I think that First we shoul ddiscuss what josephus almost certainly wrote, and only at the end mention what he almost certainly did not write.

Second, I think the whole section on the Yeshu stories in the Talmud should just be deleted. I know of no historian who uses these as source on Jesus' life. I know of no historian who sees them as evidence that Jesus existed (Yeshu is not Aramaic for Jesus). Scholars debate whether they are about Jesus at all, but those scholars who do see them as refering to Jesus see them not as referring to a historical figure but to a Christian belief. For example to fact that the Talmud refers to a Jesus who was killed as Passover time is evidence only that Jews knew about a Christian belief. in fact, there is a great deal of material in Rabbinic literature on Christianity, and one excellent secondary source, Daniel Boyarin's Dying for God on Rabbinic views of Christianity. But the point is, these stories are about Christians and Christians beliefs.

The Talmud was edited in Babylonia (i.e. not in Judea, not even in the Roman Empire - in a place where there were no Christians) in the 5th century based on material that dates from the 3rd and 4th centuries. It is not a primary source on Jesus any more than St. Augustine's Confessions are a primary source about Jesus. Seriously. The article cites Eusibius, but goes to great pains to show how Eusibius's sources were people who talked to people who were or could have been eye-witnesses. There is no such chain of authority in the Talmud. The Talmud presents the stories about Yeshu just as that: stories in circulation. It does not claim to have any evidence, and it does not provide a source for the story.

Every other source provided either claims to be eyewitness, or contemporary, or based on eyewitness accounts through a chain of named individuals. Among such sources, the Talmud sticks out like a sore thumb. I am not accusing the Talmud of being a spurious primary source, I am saying the talmud doesn't even claim to be a primary rouce or to be quoting a primary source or to be relying on a primary source. To include it in this article is at best gratuitous and actually I think makes a mockery of the whole article.

Perhaps people working on this article need to make a decision I think the original authors of the article did not think through: is this meant to be a compendium of every source that mentions Jesus that was written maybe before the fall of the Roman Empire? Or should it provide an account of all the actual primary sources used by historians who debate whether or not Jesus existed? I think it should be the latter; I think any primary source included has to be pegged to a secondary source that discusses the hsitoricity of Jesus. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I not agree on the Testimonium Flavianum, except that it has problematic christian interpolations that crept in and there is general agreement amongst historians that they can get at much of the authentic text. I agree completely that the Talmud is historically worthless when in comes to the Jesus of history, as Slrubenstein says in was composed outside any window of value. Any mention that it might have about Jesus, is a response to gentile Christian proselytizing that occurred after the first century. 12:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Meier devoted 10 pages to the TF, and ~2 to the shorter passage. Meier also concludes that if you bracket the 3 clear Christian interjections, "the most probably explanation of the Testimonium is that... it is what Josephus wrote". I'd be fine switching the order of how we present the two passages, as Meier discusses the shorter first as well. As for the Talmud, Meier devoted just over 4 pages on that. Ehrman likewise accepts a non-Christian basis for the TF, and likewise discusses it in his book. Ehrman also covers the Talmud (and concludes they are too late, too reactionary to be of any historical value). I'd disagree with SLR that this article should be about the sources used by historians exclusively. I think most overviews of the historical Jesus discuss these sources, if only to write them off or disqualify their reliability, and I think in this historicity article we should do likewise. I have a more inclusive approach, I guess (and I think my approach follows reputable source's discussion of the ancient literature dealing with Jesus). -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I would then say this: the TF should have its own section and begin by saying that the author is unknown, that it is found in Josephus, and say something about when it was composed. Obviously someone wrote, it, i don ot contest that, but who and when? I just think it is too problematic to make it a prominent part of the Josephus section. As for approaches to the article, I would just like to see thoughtful discussion, I won't demand any one position. Nevertheless, neither of you have said anything that I think justified keeping the Talmud material in the article. Why not include St. Augusting then? Or Origen? Slrubenstein | Talk 16:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I thought my justification was good. Prominent, cited sources cover the Talmud, but they don't cover Origen. Isn't that reason enough? :) -Andrew c ^[talk] 19:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Maybe i misunderstood, according to you Ehrman dismisses the Talmud as a source, so shoultn't we? That a good scholar cites a source only to say it is no good as a soure annot mean it is worth inclusion. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I just think is scholars are devoting time and space to discussing these topics, it belongs in a holistic discussion concerning the sources, even if the majority view is the source is inauthentic, or too late for historical method, or discount it for other reasons. I guess I'm an inclusivist like that. As for deletions, I just think we should not include the sources that get little to no scholarly discussion, and it is my opinion that the Talmud meets my personal threshold for inclusion based on my vision/scope of this article. I can totally understand if people disagree. I just thought it would be simplest to check if our cited sources discussed these topics. Meier discounts Thomas, after devoting a whole chapter to the topic. So should we not include Thomas (or is that a bad comparison because someone like Funk/Crossan think the world of Thomas, where I can't cite anyone who cares about the Talmud). -Andrew c ^[talk] 00:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Then perhaps we should divide this article into two major sections: one on sources historians use in arguing for Jesus' existence or in reconstructing his life, and ones that scholars have considered and rejected. I realize there is a grey area in the middle but I am less concerned with how we handle that. My concern is that misixng up sources from both of these broad categories misleads readers, and also is a bad way to organize an article. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Just for further reference, Theissen and Merz discuss the James verse in Josephus first before the TF (which, BTW, they conclude "the second version of the revision hypothesis is the most probable...") Then they discuss the "rabbinic sources: Jesus as one who leads the people astray (bSanh 43a). They present both sides: Maier who argues none of the rabbinic material goes back to Jesus, and name Jesus was added later to certain passages during the formation of the Talmud; Klausner who finds "at least some old and historically reliable traditions in the Talmud". I don't see any of the above sources splitting up content based on what the majority rejects and what they accept, but for an encyclopedia, such a format may be helpful to the reader. I'm ambivalent on that front. I'm going to at least re-order the Josephus stuff (and maybe create subheaders), if that's OK. Strike that, basically the whole section is on the TF. Maybe the one sentence could be moved up....-Andrew c ^[talk] 13:11, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, I think that the interpollated text in the TF needs to be set off more clearly. Real Josephus scholars do not include it in Josephus and to present it as if it is "Josephus" is disingenuous - I am not talking about the whole TF but the lines that all major scholars agree were added later by someone not named Flavius Josephus.

As for the Talmud, you have not convinced me. So far you mentioned Meier's four pages - but what does he say? Andrew, it is not enough to say that a historian "refers" to them. If every historian referred to them only to conclude that they were uninformative as to whether Jesus really existed or if he did, what he did, I would say we should delete the section. The fact that an expert concludes that "this material is not important" is an argument to delete the material, it is hardly an argument to include it. If Ehrman concludes "they are too late, too reactionary to be of any historical value," that is NOT a reason to keep them, it is a reason to delete them. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

My point is, leading scholars may not accept them as authentic or what have you, but they feel that there is a big enough minority out there that it does warrant discussion (unlike, say the JM hypothesis, which Meier and Ehrman do NOT discuss). Klausner is the name that is brought up as a defender of some historical value (though little) in the Talmud. I guess I could phrase it like this. Is Klausner fringe and should be ignore completely, or minority and should be mentioned, with due weight? I'm siding with Meier and Ehrman and Theissen in that it deserves mention, but maybe as an encyclopedia, we don't need to be as complete and thorough as them. But then, do we need to mention Thallus, Lucian, and Celsus? Acts of Pilate? The early Creeds? Even Tacitus.... Perhaps we should write the section and make it a lot shorter? Maybe not include the quoted passages...-Andrew c ^[talk] 17:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

There is a whole article on this, Yeshu. I would create a new section called highly questionable sources or highly controversial sources or rejected sources or something like that - any of these lables applies to the Talmud as a historical source on Jesus. For the Talmud, I would say According to Klausner ... and provide a direct quote so we know exactly what and how much value he puts on this material and why. Then I waould have a second sources saying, "Most historians, such as Meier and Ehrman, reject the Talmud as a relevant source on Jesus." And then a third sentence, "For a detailed account, see "Yeshu" and I would do the same for any source people have proposed to use and most historians reject. I think anything else is misleading and CERTAINLY violates UNDUE. Slrubenstein | Talk 12:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Dead Sea Scrolls

The analysis that the Dead Sea Scrolls "shows" the actuality of the New Testament is an opinion and needs to be attributed as such. Wikipedia doesn't believe it is a fact that the Dead Sea Scrolls mean anything as far as the authenticity of the New Testament. That is an expert's opinion, and should be attributed. Ari89 and HardyPlants have decided this is a good new topic for an edit war. Noloop (talk) 15:15, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I would like to hear more about the justification for keeping in anything about the Dead Sea Scrolls - I do not think they say anything about Jesus. They might belong in a differetn article, on the cultural context for Jesus' life, but they predate Jesus and are not sources on Jesus and indicate nothing about Jesus' historicity. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:22, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I am pressed for time over the next few days. here is one argument for inclusion [29]. They are used in presenting the Gosples as having historically representive data. Since the Gospels and other NT documents are the well head of information on Jesus. So they are used to show that the NT sources have a context in location and time. A number of events in the later half of the 1st century changed the way Jews understood and interpeted their place in the world and how they related to their religious texts. I agree that for now the Dead Sea Scroll section, along with a number of other sections need to be tied together with more cohesion with the article topic, and given time I can work on how historians sift historical data from the Gospels and how historians confirm or reject textual events, sayings, stories, etc. Hardyplants (talk) 20:23, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

"That is an expert's opinion, and should be attributed." How do you know the citation (with multiple references by different scholars) is only an individual experts opinion that must be attributed? Have you read the citations or did you just decide it was a single opinion? --Ari (talk) 23:40, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Again, why is something citing BOTH Brooke and Chadwick "according to Chadwick..." --Ari (talk) 07:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree that scholars generally agree that the DSS help us better understand the landscape in which a historical Jesus lived. But they do not established the historicity of Jesus. A summary of discussions of these sources in relation to Jesus might better belong in this article: Cultural and historical background of Jesus .

I am trying to make a larger point: we have two articles, this one and that one, which both link to the Jesus article as representing historian's views. I do not think they should be merged 9too long) but it has been some time since they were removed from the Jesus article and turned into their own articles and I think it is time to discuss the relationship between the two. What should the difference between the two be? There is no obvious answer to this question.

• This article can be a discussion of the sources, and that article should be about actual accounts of a "historical Jesus" - that would be logical, but then perhaps this article should be renamed to be Historical sources relating to Jesus.
• Or, this article could be about specific arguments as to why historians believe Jesus existed, and the other article can be a reconstruction of the "historical Jesus."
• Or, maybe one of you has another idea about how to distinguish them

These two articles are clearly related. They ought to complement one another. I do NOT think anyone has a clear idea of how and why they should be different and I am suggesting now is a good time to have that conversation. Then it will be much easier to know what does and does nto belong in this article. Slrubenstein | Talk 09:05, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Meier discusses Qumran in 2 paragraphs, saying "All this has not kept some imaginative scholars from seeing Jesus and John the Baptist in certain Qumran texts". and he cites Thiering of all people as his example. Ehrman doesn't even discuss this and says that in the DSS and Philo "Jesus is never mentioned". Ehrman later gives a more detailed background of the DSS and discusses them as giving "contextual credibility" to apocalyptic material of Jesus. Theissen and Merz are silent on DSS as a source for the HJ. Based on that alone (which may not be a good criteria, granted), I'd suggest keeping DSS discussions out of this article, and instead in Cultural and historical background of Jesus. -Andrew c ^[talk] 13:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Edgar V. McKnight

Can we have some sources that say Prof McKnight is a practsing chrisitan pleasehttp://books.google.co.uk/books?id=9FBv-c8siSwC&pg=PA375&lpg=PA375&dq=Edgar+V.+McKnight&source=bl&ots=A0ePhxJ9Og&sig=gBN39JwhyA01Ebj1SE6cAusJiYY&hl=en&ei=zhNcTNSwKJ280gT34_Bj&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=9&ved=0CDEQ6AEwCA#v=onepage&q=Edgar%20V.%20McKnight&f=false.Slatersteven (talk) 13:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

The question is, what perspecticce does he take when he writes about the Bible? Does he have training in history or literary criticism, for example? Slrubenstein | Talk 14:37, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

No the question is do any RS sugest he does. Its not for us to judge sources, just report what they say.Slatersteven (talk) 14:42, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

And then we have to find a RS that says that your RS is an RS. And then we have to find an RS that says that your RS for the RS is an RS. And then we have to find a RS that says that your RS for the RS for the RS is an RS. And then we have to find a RS that says that your RS for the RS for the RS for the RS is an RS.

The question is, is McKnight a reliable source. Using policy as a guideline, it is indeed our job to figure that out. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Well given that he meets all the criteria (he is a respected accadmic in the field with a large body of work) yes he is RS. Now in what way does he fail ?Slatersteven (talk) 15:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, Slatersteven, I actually have to say that you are perhaps right that we cannot determine what is a RS just on our own, but I have one method I find very useful: how often do other historians cite him? If they discuss his own ideas, do they accept them as reliable scholarship, or do they examine them critically, as controversial, or do they reject them? One can always find a small circle of scholars who always cite one another with copious praise. That is why the larger and more diverse a number of scholars cite person x's work, the more respected that work is. If you know that two scholars sometimes disagree but agree on certaibn things, that is meaningful too.

I also think it is useful to talk about the book or the article rather than the scholar. Many authors of great work have also published crap, and all their peers know it. So let's be careful and ask how widely cited a book is, how well respected a book is, what views or arguments that book makes. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)