Talk:Historicity of Jesus

The answer to your question may already be in the FAQ. Please read the FAQ first.

Neutrality tag on this article

A tag which says "The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page" has been sitting on this article since October 2013. According to Template:POV "This template should not be used as a badge of shame. Do not use this template to "warn" readers about the article" but that appears to me to be how it is being used here. I don't like these tags, they seem to more or less say "this article is crap". Template:POV also says "The editor who adds the tag should discuss concerns on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies. In the absence of such a discussion, or where it remains unclear what the NPOV violation is, the tag may be removed by any editor." It shouldn't just sit there without any discussion of what action can be taken to remove it.Template:POV says : "An unbalanced or non-neutral article is one that does not fairly represent the balance of perspectives of high-quality, reliable secondary sources. A balanced article presents mainstream views as being mainstream, and minority views as being minority views. The personal views of Wikipedia editors or the public are irrelevant." There is absolutely no question that the mainstream view is that the bare existence of Jesus as someone who was crucified by the orders of Pontius Pilate, as stated in the Gospels, the Jewish historian Josephus and the Roman historian Tacitus, is a fact of history. The contrary position, there was never such a person, is an extreme minority view. The personal views of Wikipedia editors or the public are irrelevant. So what is the problem here, and how can we resolve it and take that tag off this article?Smeat75 (talk) 04:06, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

This is the original comment which was removed and archived, along with the entire discussion to Talk:Historicity_of_Jesus/Archive_32, by Lowercase sigmabot III on December 10, 2013 at 03:46:

Both in this article and in the Christ Myth Theory, multiple authors are quoted to give the opinion that virtually all scholars believe that the Jesus of the New Testament did in fact exist, at least as a man. The quotes normally give not reasons, just that everyone agrees that he did. However, in this article, George Blainey is semi-quoted with regard to the notion that a few people support the Christ Myth Theory. He is shown to have said that his life is "astonishingly documented" with with numerous books, stories and memoirs written about him. However, per the information in this very article, there are no secular books, stories or memoirs written about Jesus. Only secular sentences and paragraphs are listed here. So Blainey has to be referring only to Christian stories. He is using an "astonishing" amount of Christian documents, to show what he feels is the unquestioned historicity of someone the Christians believe to be a God whom they worship. When I noted that he could only be referring to Christian documents, it was reverted. Wickorama (talk) 02:45, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Some searching through the page history suggests the tag was last inserted by user Wickorama on October 21 2013. He quite properly added a Talk section with this diff, but that has since disappeared. I have some concerns of my own, but let's deal with this issue first. I'll leave a message on Wickorama's talk page too. Martijn Meijering (talk) 10:03, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

The 'dispute' tag still tainting this article is disappointing in view of the lack of scientific content in all the counter-arguments posted here to date while the article is brimming with scientific facts. This has been going on for a year without a shred of real evidence posted to refute the facts in this article. It seems Wikipedia is keeping the tag to humor the emotional non-scholarly outbursts of lay readers, which is sad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.2.126.179 (talk) 06:24, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

There are certainly neutrality issues when it comes to the use of the Criterion of Embarrassment argument. It is a deeply flawed argument - particularly how it is used in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.66.86 (talk) 12:51, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

There are also cases where some of the things being presented in the article as evidence are proven interpolations or frauds, but are being backed up with citations from apologists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.27.8.209 (talk) 23:36, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Which "proven interpolations or frauds" and which "apologists" do you mean IP 173, and IP 86, if this is a different person, WP editors are not supposed to decide that arguments used by scholars are flawed, or not, but just summarise what reliable sources say.Smeat75 (talk) 12:33, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

REMOVE NPOV.

All in favor? 62.12.14.26 (talk) 06:11, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Nope. I think the article is still far too deferential to biblical scholars, and misrepresents the scale of scholarly support for their theories and discipline ("most scholars of antiquity" for instance). Martijn Meijering (talk) 09:53, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Do you want the tag just to sit on the article like that forever Mmeijeri? The "most scholars of antiquity" is sourced to a quote from a 2011 book,"Forged", by Bart Ehrman "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees". Ehrman is the leading expert in the field today and not a Christian, the book the quote is from says more than half the New Testament is forged.Smeat75 (talk) 11:37, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I say it should be removed. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 12:03, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

No, I don't want it to sit there forever, which is why you see some recent comments from me up-thread. I want to see the underlying problem be resolved so the tag can be removed. Ehrman is certainly one of the leading experts in the field of Historical Jesus research, but that doesn't mean we should follow his lead in misrepresenting the level of scholarly support for his views and those of his colleagues. Saying "most scholars of antiquity" is highly misleading, because most of the scholars who have published on the matter are in fact biblical scholars, with only a handful of (ancient) historians (Grant, Akenson). I'm not aware of large numbers of scholars from any other disciplines that might fall into the category of "scholars of antiquity" that have weighed in on the matter.

The partiality I note is not about whether Jesus existed or not, and I'm not a CMT proponent. Rather, it is about the scholarly credibility of HJ research, which is not above doubt, neither inside the field, nor outside it. Akenson for instance, is scathing about the scholarly qualities and lack of impartiality of HJ research, though he allows for rare and commendable exceptions. We also have quotes from various other prominent HJ researchers that the field is really historically informed theology, not real history. Using the term "scholars of antiquity" has the effect of hiding the well-justified suspicion of bias. I think the article should say "biblical scholars", or maybe just "scholars", because the reader will readily assume it means those scholars who have written about the matter without implying there are lots of others besides biblical scholars. Or we could have an attributed quote from Ehrman instead. Martijn Meijering (talk) 13:56, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I've left another quick message of Wickorama's Talk page to notify him of the discussion. Let's at least deal with his objection before we dismiss it. I didn't see enough details, but it sounds as if he unintentionally violated WP:SYNTH, and was annoyed his edit was reverted. Martijn Meijering (talk) 14:13, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree that saying "most scholars" is misleading. It should be something to the effect of "virtually all" to the point of anyone who seriously disagrees is firmly in the realm of fringe. Anything short of that is simply WP:OR. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 15:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure who you're agreeing with, since I'm not saying "most scholars" is misleading. If you said "virtually all biblical scholars", that would be fine. But your reply basically says "let's side with the biblical scholars and pretend they represent scholarship in general". In my view that exactly demonstrates the completely biased nature of this article. There is a debate between biblical scholars on the one hand (puffing themselves up as most "scholars of antiquity") and CMT proponents (mostly popular authors) on the other hand. The biblical scholarship side accuses the other of being insufficiently aware of the scholarly literature and generally lacking scholarly credentials, while the CMT proponents accuse the biblical scholars of being beholden to religious interests or biased by faith commitments. And even among those who believe in historicity there are plenty of sources that cast doubt on the impartiality and historiographical qualifications of biblical scholars. To present one side as the voice of scholarship (let alone "most scholars of antiquity") is blatantly biased. Martijn Meijering (talk) 15:52, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

We have discussed this many times now Martijn and it is not only biblical scholars who agree that Jesus existed but historians also, I have asked many times for historians who doubt it and no one ever gives me a name. The answer is usually "historians don't discuss it at all" (except for when they do, such as Michael Grant and Robin Lane Fox) but Egyptologists do not bother to refute "space aliens built the pyramids" either and "Jesus did not exist" is on that same level of extreme fringe theory. I would not have a problem with using Ehrman's exact words ("every competent scholar of antiquity") and attributing it to him.Smeat75 (talk) 16:26, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

There's a big difference between not discussing it at all and supporting it. I agree it's quite possible that historians take it as seriously as space aliens (i.e. not at all) and therefore don't publish about it. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if that were the case, but without a quote to that effect we're guessing. BTW, is Fox the historian who was cited in a newspaper interview as not knowing any historian who disputed historicity? If so, he is the closest we have to a reliable source for historians, which still does not amount to "most scholars of antiquity". Besides, is there any doubt that Ehrman is trying to exaggerate support for historicity? Why choose the term scholars of antiquity if >99% of the people he has in mind are in fact biblical scholars? Why not use the more precise term? Surely it's not on account of the handful of other scholars who support historicity? Also note that among our sources Ehrman is the one who makes the most sweeping claim. An attributed quote is fine with me and to be impartial we should probably also add a note that virtually all biblical scholars dismiss the CMT with contempt. If we don't, it makes Ehrman's statement look like an isolated opinion, when in fact he represents a popular view among HJ scholars. I think this would be a major step in the right direction. In addition we should probably include neutral summaries of the various criticisms between the parties in the debate. If we add balancing material, properly attributed where necessary, we may not have to delete anything. Martijn Meijering (talk) 19:59, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

No that was not Robin Lane Fox, I have been looking for that, it is something Akhilleus found at some point, I will keep trying. Lane Fox is a very eminent classical historian who does not address the "existence" question explicitly but is quoted in the article as saying "Jesus was born in Galilee" which of course is not the standard Christian teaching at all.

By the way, NPR, which I would call a reliable source, calls Ehrman a historian - "Bart Ehrman, historian and professor of religious studies" [1]. I think it is very wrong to somehow think that because someone is a religious studies professor they cannot be a historian also. Not saying you say that Martijn.There was also a newspaper story about a radio presenter who made a comment in Australia that it was questionable that Jesus ever existed and two professors of Roman history wrote a letter and said no, it is not dubious at all.[2] - "two of Australia's best known Roman historians, Professors Alanna Nobbs and Edwin Judge. "In our judgment," they wrote, "the second part of your statement is quite far from reality." They explained, "While historical and theological debates remain about the actions and significance of this figure, his fame as a teacher, and his crucifixion under the Roman prefect Pontius Pilate, may be described as historically certain."Smeat75 (talk) 02:00, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, those sound like very interesting sources, I'll have a look at them. Thanks! Martijn Meijering (talk) 10:21, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

I found what you were asking about and put it into the article, it is a quote from Graeme Clarke, professor of classical history at Australian National University - [3] - "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." Smeat75 (talk) 15:27, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Smeat75. Even if we could know definitively that Clark's beliefs are true, and that all or virtually all ancient and biblical historians didn't have "a twinge of doubt about the existence of a Jesus Christ", that would only serve to make an Ad Populum argument toward the existence of a Jesus Christ. I think that a significant contributor to the on-going dispute is that certain information seems to be presented as if it is scientific knowledge without the proper backing. In order to say that a conclusion is scientific fact, in this case the conclusion that there existed a Jesus Christ, it would have to be demonstrated that that conclusion was the product of scientific methodology. If the title of the article was "Opinions of biblical and ancient scholars on the existence of Jesus Christ", then the requirements would be less stringent and concluding Clark's belief's to be scientific fact would only require a scientific process to ascertain the beliefs of biblical and ancient scholars. In the case of an article titled "Historicity of Jesus", which addresses the conclusion that Jesus Christ actually existed, it is not simply necessary to demonstrate that biblical and ancient scholars believed it to be so, but to explain how it was demonstrated that Jesus Christ existed such that it is scientific fact for everyone. That is, it must be demonstrated that the conclusion came from a scientific process, and it would be appropriate to reference sources that make such a claim.

I believe that the dispute could be resolved if it was clearly explained in the article which conclusions about the existence of Jesus Christ are scientific fact and which aren't intended to be. The claim that "there existed a Jesus Christ" would need to be supported by scientific evidence to be purported as scientific fact: As such, the burden of proof would be on the claimant, not the counter claimant. It is not required to prove that Jesus Christ did not exist, only to show that no one has proven with scientific certainty that Jesus Christ did exist. Since it would likely be impossible to present evidence that there existed a Jesus Christ that was definitively testable (given the material available), it isn't really a question that can be answered with much scientific certainty in the first place. A discussion of the level of scientific certainty that is even possible at all might be a great way to open the article.Blackthorne2k (talk) 07:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I am not sure that "scientific certainty" can ever be applied to history and especially to ancient history. The article (and this talk page) says over and over why historians of ancient / classical history have no doubt about the fact of the execution of Jesus at the orders of the Roman authorities and that is because it is multiply attested by the Gospels, Tacitus and Josephus. Anyone who knows a little about classical/ancient history will know that there is nothing unusual at all about knowing about all sorts of major things - wars, Kings, empires, entire civilisations - from one reference in a work from antiquity, a note scribbled in the margins of a manuscript by a medieval scribe, a shard of pottery. To have as many references to the crucifixion as we do (and of course if Jesus was put to death he had to exist first) is very unusual and makes it as close to hard fact as anything from ancient history can be.Smeat75 (talk) 02:31, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Smeat75, I agree that it is probably not possible to reach total scientific certainty about matters that took place in ancient history. However, I think you would agree that different conclusions about ancient people, empires, kings, civilizations etc... carry with them different levels of certainty based on the scientific methods that could possibly be applied. For example, the claim "there existed an ancient civilization to the north of the African continent 5000 years ago" carries with it the potential to apply a myriad of scientific methods to test such a claim; given the immense amount of relevant material. Likewise the claims "There existed a king Tutankhamun", "There existed a Socrates" and "There existed a Pope Eutychianus" all carry with them different potentials for scientific certainty, by which I mean certainty based on scientific methods, given what is available to test. I do not want to make any assertions about the material available to the question of the existence of a Jesus Christ, but the article has been described in the talk page as "brimming with scientific facts". My point is that I believe the source of the dispute, at least in part, is due to a perception that the tone of certainty conveyed by the article is out of step with the sources provided. Furthermore, that the dispute could be resolved, at least in part, by looking at the type of claims that are being made in the text relative to the level of certainty the quoted experts intended to convey.Blackthorne2k (talk) 07:25, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

It's not our job to evaluate the evidence, since we're not supposed to be doing WP:OR. Our job is to summarise reliable sources and notable opinions and to do so from a neutral point of view. Martijn Meijering (talk) 06:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Obviously. However in order to be neutral we need to properly present the “facts” in context. It’s impossible for any sensible person to take a source seriously when they say things like “the documentary evidence is simply overwhelming”. The so-called evidence here consists of a) the gospels, which are not independent, not original and which blatantly contradict each other; b) two mentions in Josephus whose own authenticity is seriously questioned; c) a passing mention in Tacitus which is reporting hearsay, which doesn’t actually mention Jesus and which may well be talking about a completely different individual, and d) the “criterion of embarrassment”. Not only is this not overwhelming, it’s not even strictly speaking "evidence" per se. Instead of merely reporting a poll of non-neutral opinions, perhaps we can better comply with wikipolicy by describing in the lead the actual “evidence” on which the historicity is being judged by said scholars, so that readers can be properly informed? If anybody wants to argue that the lead is already too long, then we can certainly delete or slim down some of the other paragraphs currently in the lead – this issue is surely the most central to the article topic? Wdford (talk) 08:23, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

When views on the facts diverge, we give a neutral summary of the various notable views. In other words, instead of saying X is the case, we say S1 says X, S2 says X' and S3 says Y. I think we now have fairly strong evidence that the CMT is not taken seriously by historians, and the article should mention this. If people like Price disagree strongly on the reliability of the Testimonium Flavianum, then we can mention this, but we cannot fail to mention the opinion of historians, now that we have strong evidence of that opinion. What we can, and in my opinion should, do however is to make sure that the article reflects the difference in scholarly effort from the sides of biblical scholarship and historians. With a few notable exceptions historians have not closely studied the matter or the arguments of mythicists, presumably because they don't think it's worth their time. The article should not lead the reader to believe historians have studied the arguments between mythicists and HJ scholars closely and based their conclusions on that. We have not seen scholarly publications by historians on the subject, just strongly expressed views in popular media. The reader can interpret this however he wants, perhaps the CMT is just so ridiculous that it isn't even worth thinking about (though we should probably mention that Grant does think the question of historicity is a nontrivial one), perhaps historians are being rash. Either way it is not our job to make the decision for the reader. Martijn Meijering (talk) 13:37, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. What wording would you propose should be added to the lead to achieve this? Wdford (talk) 14:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposal: delete all religous-inspired sources

I think all sources of biblical scholars (Bible studies belong to religious studies - not to the historical branch of science) should be deleted. The article is far from Encyclopedic standards and should either be a) cleaned up and made unbiased b) according to scientific method (ie. a statement like "all scholars agree that Jesus existed" .. and then giving only Bible scholasts as sources is just ridiculous - mainly because it is widely accepted that there are no secular texts referring to a Jesus of Nazareth).

If we can't do this, I propose deleting the entire article to restart with a clean slate. The current article is just a mess. Maybe splitting the article into a Pro/Contra would help82.171.192.178 (talk) 15:08, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't look like you even read the article to me. Michael Grant and Robin Lane Fox are not "Bible scholasts".Smeat75 (talk) 15:17, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I did and I prefer you wouldn't make such strange assumptions. Even though reading the article is pretty cumbersome. This has to be the most painful to read article on wikipedia at this moment, and I would seriously consider a rewrite just to improve the readability of the article. Also, I did not state the article consists only of Bible scholars. So I'm not sure why you are mentioning 2 random classicists. 82.171.192.178 (talk) 21:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

They are not "random", they are two of the most eminent classical historians of modern times and they both state unequivocally that Jesus existed. Find some un-random classicists who say something different and then they can be quoted in the article. I am getting deja vu here, this strongly reminds me of another, now blocked user, who no matter how many times you told her Michael Grant was not a pastor or a priest or a theologian, would simply repeat that all the sources for Jesus' existence were "bible scholars". If you accept Lane Fox and Grant are not "bible scholars" why do you keep saying,as twice below, that the sources for this article are "bible scholars"? Here is a question for you. Forget about "bible scholars", please give me the names of historians, classical historians, historians of ancient Rome, or just historians, who do not think that the passage in Tacitus is confirmation of Jesus' existence and crucifixion by Pilate. I have asked this question on these threads for years now and no one has ever given me a single name or source. Maybe one day I will be surprised. When I say "historian" I mean with academic credentials and published in reliable sources, not bloggers or self-published authors.Smeat75 (talk) 00:12, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Also I mean historians from the last fifty years or so, not a hundred years or more ago. The question of Jesus' existence is simply not taken seriously any more by any scholar of competence.Smeat75 (talk) 00:19, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

I am getting a Deja Vu too. You remind me of a typical ignorant evangelist that i knew on a crusade in wikipedia and trying to push his religious views into science and history as fact. I have even seen some ignorants deny the clear link between Christianity and the absorption of Pagan rites. See, I can use an ad hominem too, but it is not very neat is it? So let's just try to keep it civil.

Some statements you made make me doubt how much you really know about History as a field of study - perhaps you should refrain from this wiki subject all together. 1) Tacitus as a source is for Jesus' existence is unreliable. This is a logically deducible fact. Tacitus was not even born when Jesus was crucified. He simply stated what Christians were saying at those times and thus it must be dismissed as hearsay. Now on the other hand, he is a good source when it comes to what Christians believed. Can you see the difference? 2) Saying that no modern historical scholar doubts the existence of a-person-whose-existence-is-not-proven is ridiculous. No unbiased, financially independent, modern historian would make such a statement (unless he wanted to sell some books to a religious crowd in the States). 3) Proof that something did not happen/exist is always more difficult than stating that something did exist, both in the courtroom and in science. Thus, unless we see some good primary sources about this guy's existence we should simply dismiss all theorycrafting evangelical (=/= in the personally religious sense) scholars. That is what I meant to say. The page is inflated with dubious source-references at this moment. That is why i felt that your comment ("but WAAIT THERE IS A CLASSICAL HISTORIAN IN THE LIST" - paraphrased^^) was pretty much out of the blue. How good these 2 classicist were (they are far from the 'best known') is a topic of discussion (espescially when it comes to their Bible histories), but beside the point.

summary: Please no ad hominems + with regard to the burden of proof certain sources on the page should be re-evaluated.--82.171.192.178 (talk) 14:23, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

The above is all original research and would not be allowed in the article under WP policy. I did not ask for your opinion on these matters but for modern historians who question Jesus' existence and dismiss the Tacitus passage as worthless.Smeat75 (talk) 14:49, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Read question 5 in the FAQ. Actually, read the entire FAQ. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 17:07, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

I read it. But the FAQ is honestly scholastic gibberish at this point and as far as I know article-related FAQ's are not golden-standards to which editors must adhere.82.171.192.178 (talk) 21:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

POV forks are discouraged, maybe even forbidden on Wikipedia. Since the subject is mostly studied by biblical scholars, there's no way we can remove them and still have a serious article. Besides, all notable views have to be included and represented from a neutral point of view. Furthermore, biblical scholarship isn't even the same thing as theology, though it is true that most biblical scholars have or once had religious affiliations, which may bias their opinions. Because of this the article often mentions a person's religious/philosophical affiliations. Similarly, because the scholarly credentials of mythicists are sometimes challenged, credentials are often also mentioned. We should take care neither of these qualifications is used to promote or disparage, and only to enable the reader to make up their own mind. Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:13, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

You make an excellent point regarding credentials. On my history-faculty the researches regard Bible-studies as pseudo-science since their scientific method seems to regard the Bible as dogma. In a way, there is a certain theological core around which Bible scholarship is built (I have yet to see a Bible scholar who works according to science and says: "Jesus doesn't exist since there is no evidence of him existing").

In its current state the article simply says "Jesus exists, because Bible scholars say so. Period." This is wrong on so many levels.82.171.192.178 (talk) 21:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source saying that historians doubt the historical qualifications of biblical scholars, then that can (and should) be mentioned. I'm not aware of any such source, but I'd love to hear about it if one existed. Nevertheless the views of biblical scholars would remain notable and would still have to be given due weight and be represented from a neutral point of view. It is a long-standing and fundamental Wikipedia policy that we judge views by whether they are notable and verifiable, not by whether we think they are true. Martijn Meijering (talk) 21:08, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Come to think of it, I am actually aware of one such source, Akenson, but he does not claim to speak for the majority of historians. Martijn Meijering (talk) 21:10, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

I think trying to find a general 'opininio scholaris' is not always the best thing when it comes to subjects in which a reasonable group is a clear minority. I mean this without bias, but if let's say... 70% is Christian and 30% secular, absolute consensus about certain qualifications become hard if not impossible to attain. Rather, we should look at the quality of the source and the position they are trying to defend - and determine the value of the source from there. I will help you with finding more sources next week, sadly I have finals coming up and they are my priority right now :) 82.171.192.178 (talk) 14:23, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

"I think trying to find a general 'opininio scholaris' is not always the best thing when it comes to subjects in which a reasonable group is a clear minority." ... Where have I heard that argument before? There's a reason we stick to mainstream academia.

Also, reverse your position here and the inherent bigotry of it will become apparent. Imagine if someone said we should remove all sources by atheists from the abiogenesis article since they have a(n ir)religious stake in the subject. Nevermind that there are Christians and atheists on either side of the fence on both subject (look up some of the folks for Panspermia if you doubt me regarding the atheists who doubt abiogenesis) and that it's completely ignorant to assume that only Christians (or some sort of secret Christians) affirm the plausibility of a Roman-Palestinian Jewish messiah-claimant with a dead-common name, related to people with more dead common names. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:55, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

The dispute tag seems to be retained merely to humour certain lay readers.

The fact that the 'dispute' tag is still tainting this article is disappointing in view of the lack of scientific content in all the counter-arguments posted here to date while the article is brimming with scientific facts. This has been going on for a year without a shred of real evidence posted to refute the facts in this article. It seems Wikipedia is keeping the tag to humor the emotional non-scholarly outbursts of lay readers, which is sad — Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.2.126.179 (talk) 06:28, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

It is true that tags are not supposed to be used that way, just sit on an article for months or years, but serve as an indication to editors that there is an active dispute in progress which they are invited to participate in and resolve and then remove the tag. [tag]"This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. You may remove this template whenever any one of the following is true:

There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved.

It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given.

In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant. So you or anybody else would be quite justified in removing the tag as there is no discussion going on about it. I am not going to as I am quite sure someone else would simply slap it right back on and I don't feel about arguing about it at the moment. There are editors who would not be satisfied unless the article were re-written from what would really be a non-neutral point of view, which would be that there is no reason to think there was ever such a person as Jesus.Smeat75 (talk) 12:01, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I think that some of the dissatisfaction with the neutrality of the article has to do with the anecdotal nature of some of the quotes that are used as sources. Most do not appear to mention any scientific research to support the claims made in the quotes. Many are quotes of an expert saying how most people in their field feel about a given issue. This is not the same as an expert citing a scientifically sound poll or survey of a given field of experts. While the claims made in the article may very well be factual and true, it seems like they should be backed up by something more quantifiable than quotes from people, even experts, who are speaking anecdotally about their experiences. Just my humble opinion; I don't want to upset anyone or disrespect anyone's feelings on the subject. My goal is to resolve the dissatisfaction behind the above mentioned dispute. Thank you for listening.Blackthorne2k (talk) 00:58, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, there has not been any scientific poll done of the experts, or any survey, nor as far as we know is there likely to be in the near future. This is true, of course, of most issues in Wikipedia and if we were to wait for such a poll to be conducted we would be waiting for ever. Then we would have to wait until the various parties argue about the validity of the poll and its methods, who counts as an expert, etc. What we have, however, are the clear opinions of a number of experts in the field who say that the view expressed is widespread and nearly universal, and no experts who suggest that this is not the case. These opinions are not "anecdotal" - they are professional scholarly opinions. There really is no serious dispute here, and the dispute tag does not contribute anything. --Rbreen (talk) 10:48, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Rbreen, thank you for responding. My issue isn't with the veracity of the views expressed, but rather with the presentation of the sources and the quality of the article. The most qualified expert can make the truest statement, but if it is not based on sound methodology, it is still anecdotal and unsound as an argument. In the US, expert's conclusions that are not based on scientifically-sound methodology are not admissible in court; regardless of their veracity. When Ehrman says "...virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees", just as when you say "This is true, of course, of most issues in Wikipedia...", we don't get any indication of the methodology used to come to those conclusions whatsoever. I'm not saying that those conclusions are wrong, just that the article is flawed and that this could provide some insight into the source of the dispute and its potential resolutions.Blackthorne2k (talk) 03:22, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

"...we don't get any indication of the methodology used to come to those conclusions whatsoever." Just out of curiosity, what does any of that have to do with a neutrality tag? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 12:53, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for responding, Bill the Cat 7. I was addressing 196.2.126.179's concern that the dispute tag was not present for valid reasons. Our goal, as I understand it, is to resolve the dispute so that the tag can be removed. If we don't put some effort towards a shared understanding of the issues and concerns that led to the placement of the tag in the first place, we don't have much hope of reaching a resolution and it will stay put forever. As I said above: "I think that some of the dissatisfaction with the neutrality of the article has to do with the anecdotal nature of some of the quotes that are used as sources. Most do not appear to mention any scientific research to support the claims made in the quotes." My statement about the indication of methodology, or lack thereof, was in response Rbreen's concerns about the issues raised in my initial post. I'm happy to discuss any concerns you may have as well.Blackthorne2k (talk) 21:27, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

As posted above as well - the threads seem to overlap: In order to be neutral we need to properly present the “facts” in context. It’s impossible for any sensible person to take a source seriously when they say things like “the documentary evidence is simply overwhelming”. The so-called evidence here consists of a) the gospels, which are not independent, not original and which blatantly contradict each other; b) two mentions in Josephus whose own authenticity is seriously questioned; c) a passing mention in Tacitus which is reporting hearsay, which doesn’t actually mention Jesus and which may well be talking about a completely different individual, and d) the “criterion of embarrassment”. Not only is this not overwhelming, it’s not even strictly speaking “evidence” per se. Instead of merely reporting a poll of non-neutral opinions, perhaps we can better comply with wikipolicy by describing in the lead the actual “evidence” on which the historicity is being judged by said scholars, so that readers can be properly informed? If anybody wants to argue that the lead is already too long, then we can certainly delete or slim down some of the other paragraphs currently in the lead – this issue is surely the most central to the article topic? Wdford (talk) 08:25, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

It’s impossible for any sensible person to take a source seriously when they say things like “the documentary evidence is simply overwhelming”.It is a frequent complaint on these articles that all the sources are "bible scholars" or priests or pastors or ministers of religion etc. This is a classical historian saying he has no knowledge of any classical historian who has any doubt about the existence of Jesus because of overwhelming documentary evidence and your contention is that he doesn't know what he is talking about. WP editors' opinions do not matter, the opinion of an emeritus professor of ancient history and archaeology does. The Josephus passages are not thought to be inauthentic any more, but to have had a couple of phrases added by scribes to an authentic passage. You dismiss the Tacitus passage as "hearsay" but modern historians do not, it is not known where Tacitus got that very specific information, ancient historians do not give their sources but Tacitus was a Senator and is known to have consulted the Senate archives for his writings and was also one of the Quindecimviri sacris faciundis, a board whose job it was to supervise foreign religions in Rome. I have no idea why "mythicists" say "Tacitus doesn't mention Jesus and might be talking about someone else" , historians do not say that, there was not some other person executed by Pontius Pilate in Judea during the reign of Tiberius who inspired a cult of ("evil, abominable, detested" according to Tacitus) followers in Rome called "Christians".Smeat75 (talk) 12:24, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

It’s impossible for any sensible person to take a source seriously when they say things like “the documentary evidence is simply overwhelming.” What we think about the level of "documentary evidence" is irrelevant. And whether we want to take scholars seriously or not is also irrelevant. What scholars say about the overwhelming evidence is verifiable and anyone who disagrees is considered a quack at worst and fringe at best. Therefore, using a neutrality tag for the purpose of one's personal rejection of what the experts say is a misuse of the tag. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 13:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Ah yes, more of the usual. Tacitus was undoubtedly well informed for his day, but Tacitus was not in Judea during the period in question, and cannot claim to know exactly who or what Jesus of Nazareth was or claimed to be. No original manuscripts of his works exist and we are relying on copies – the accuracy of which is unproven. Per those copies Tacitus writes what he has heard/read – that somebody named "Chrestus" was crucified and that a cult has been named after him. Tacitus makes zero mention of Jesus of Nazareth. Also, there were in fact many cults in Judea in those days, and many rabble-rousers were crucified. It’s thus quite possible that the Chrestus of Tacitus was not in fact Jesus of Nazareth – only Christian writings say he was the same person, and those writings are known to have been extensively reworked over time to support specific POV’s. Re Josephus – to say that "a couple of phrases were added by scribes to an authentic passage" is the same as saying "the passages are unreliable as evidence", unless and until you can demonstrate which phrases were added. I seem to recall that the contentious additions were those referring to Jesus? You can certainly quote this particular classical historian as having made this ridiculous statement, but to ensure neutrality we should also describe the "overwhelming evidence" to which this chap refers, so that readers can judge for themselves his level of neutrality and reliability. Otherwise, it seems to me that the lead is not really neutral. Wdford (talk) 13:36, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Ah yes, more of the usual radical atheist temper tantrums. Please keep your original research to yourself. Wikipedia isn't interested. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 13:46, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Jesus was a nobody as far as most of his contemporaries were concerned; almost no one cared if he lived or died, except a handful of lower class adepts. Like millions of real people who did exist, he left no trace in the Roman records (birth, trial, death). As Bart Ehrman says, even Pontius Pilate, who was the most important person in the area left no documentary evidence, except one inscription. So, if Pilate is so shallowly attested, why believe that Pilate really existed and Jesus didn't? As far as we know, all ancient historians who testified that Pilate did exist could have relied on hearsay. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:00, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

(reply to Wdford above) -:The article does say what the overwhelming evidence for the execution of Jesus and therefore his existence is, over and over. The Gospels, Josephus and Tacitus. I refer you to the greatest contemporary scholar on Josephus, Feldman, who is Jewish, and supports the authenticity of most of the Josephus passage. It is not for you or me to analyse on WP what authorities say but to summarise neutrally what they say. That is the meaning of neutrality and reliability in WP terms, not whether we think an emeritus professor of classical history and archaeology makes ridiculous statements in his own field or not.Smeat75 (talk) 13:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Exactly, Feldman "supports the authenticity of most of the Josephus passage". Just not the parts of the passage that biased Bible scholars cling to. Epic. So seeing as how the lead is supposed to summarise the key elements of the article, we should certainly summarise in the lead that the historicity of Jesus is based only on some non-neutral Gospels, a disputed Josephus passage and a Tacitus passage that doesn't even mention Jesus, but that most Bible scholars and one classical historian feel this constitutes "overwhelming evidence" of historicity. That would be accurate, neutral and in line with wikipolicy. I trust that there are no objections? Wdford (talk) 14:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Your trust is misplaced.Smeat75 (talk) 14:29, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

How come? Do you have a cogent reason for refusing to be accurate, neutral and in line with wikipolicy? Wdford (talk) 15:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Your suggestion is not accurate or neutral, and WP:OR is not in line with Wikipedia. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 16:55, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

You are wrong on all counts - it seems your POV is creeping through here. Wikipolicy says that the lead must summarise all the main issues in the article. In an article about the historicity of something, the basis on which that historicity is evaluated is surely a main issue, if not THE main issue. The fact that the lead of the article has until now merely quoted a biased informal opinion-poll and has neglected to summarise the actual info is a serious weakness. I am merely suggesting that the lead should also include a summary of this key info, which is already in the article. Do you have an actual cogent reason to continue to ignore wikipolicy? Wdford (talk) 17:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't object to summarizing the evidence, but Bart Ehrman needed a whole book for presenting the evidence and the ways scholars look at it to the general public, and I doubt that we can do better on three or four pages. Tgeorgescu (talk) 17:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

There are some absurd requirements being put forward here. Where an expert in a particular subject expresses a view on that subject - including describing the consensus of opinion in the field - that is normally adequate for Wikipedia purposes. If that opinion is challenged by other experts, we should quote that counterbalancing view. That is not the case here. We have several scholarly experts who say that the belief that Jesus existed is almost universal in scholarship, and no scholarly expert who says that it is not true. Any reasonable person must conclude that that is an accurate description of the consensus. Of course there is no scientific opinion poll. That is simply not how things work in the world of academic scholarship. To insist that, until such evidence is presented, the consensus view cannot be presented, is not just unreasonable, it is palpably obstructive. It is a requirement far beyond what is reasonable in the circumstances.

Perhaps those who insist on such an impossible standard would like to consider the following. The Gospel of Luke says Jesus was born during the census of 6 CE, whereas the Matthew account places it before the death of Herod ten years earlier. As anyone familiar with the subject knows, modern scholars accept that Luke got the facts wrong. Unfortunately, fundamentalists who refuse to admit a Gospel writer could make stuff up keep trying to insist their pet theories be given equal weight. Several committed editors insisted on defending the scholarly view, and it is supported by a couple of expert quotes which, as in this article, state that this is the consensus. There was no opinion poll done. If you want to insist on such evidence, we must go back and let the fundamentalists have equal time for their wacky theories. Is that what you actually want?--Rbreen (talk) 21:20, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I agree, if Wikipedia would cease to reflect the scholarly consensus and would second guess mainstream scholars, this would open a can of worms which would me impossible to close. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

All I am saying is that the lead should accurately summarise the facts contained in the article. Instead of merely parroting the Bible scholars - who may or may not themselves be "wacky" - we should also add a summary of the facts. I don't think it will require 4 pages - I'm sure it can be done in a paragraph. The only reason for resisting this would be an attempt to conceal from the readers the paucity of the factual basis on which the Bible scholars base their expert opinions. As most readers will skim the lead to get the answer they seek and not bother to wade through all the opinions in search of the actual facts, leaving this info out of the lead amounts to NPOV and is thus not neutral. So, let's add a summary of the facts in ADDITION to the opinions of the Bible scholars, and then we will have a balance - the actual "evidence" as well as the opinions of the scholars. Wdford (talk) 08:23, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Since when did fringe ideas on a article that is itself not fringe have to be summarized in the lead? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 11:22, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Wdford, you really are being disingenuous. The Wikipedia approach is based on the idea of citations from reputable scholars - which you describe as 'parroting their opinions'. Because, presumably, you think their opinions are wrong - based on 'a paucity of facts'. Evidently this paucity is clear to you but not, apparently, the numerous experts. Sadly, Wikipedia rules say that articles must be based on parroting the opinions of academic scholars, and not on those of ordinary editors who know better.--Rbreen (talk) 20:46, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Wdford wants to tell the readers "the facts" about "the paucity of the factual basis on which the Bible scholars base their expert opinions." The article now has quotes from classical historians (not "Bible scholars") Michael Grant, Robin Lane Fox, Graeme Clarke and Alanna Nobbs who say there is "very abundant evidence" for Jesus' existence, "the documentary evidence is simply overwhelming" and " his crucifixion under the Roman prefect Pontius Pilate may be described as historically certain." And the reason why they say this is also repeatedly stated, as for instance by historian, as NPR describes him, Bart Ehrman "the existence of Jesus and his crucifixion by the Romans is attested to by a wide range of sources including Josephus and Tacitus." It is not the place of WP editors to acquaint readers with "the facts" of why these world authorities in their field are basing their conclusions on a "paucity" of evidence and making "ridiculous" statements that no "sensible person" could possibly take seriously.Smeat75 (talk) 11:52, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, and I cannot see how any selection of appropriate "facts" could be anything other than original research.--Rbreen (talk) 21:51, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Smeat75 and Rbreen, would you think that it would be inappropriate to address in the article the amount of material that is available regarding the factual existence of Jesus Christ relative to the amount of material available regarding the factual existence of other ancient historical figures such as Tutankamen, Claudius or Aristotle? I don't mean any judgment of the amount of evidence/material by us the editors, but well sourced statements about what evidence/material is available so that the reader can get an understanding of the amount of material that experts have to work with in this case; relative to what experts have to work with in other cases.Blackthorne2k (talk) 02:42, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

WP works on the basis of reliable sources Blackthorne, you would have to find RS that compare the available evidence for the existence of Jesus relative to those others, not compare them yourself, that would be original research.Smeat75 (talk) 12:44, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, if there are reliable sources that compare the evidence, there is no reason why they should not go in the article.--Rbreen (talk) 19:04, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Smeat75 and Rbreen, I do not mean that we as editors would would make comparative judgements about the amount of evidence available for the existence of Jesus Christ vs the existence of other ancient figures. As I said above "I don't mean any judgment of the amount of evidence/material by us the editors, but well sourced statements about what evidence/material is available so that the reader can get an understanding of the amount of material that experts have to work with in this case; relative to what experts have to work with in other cases."

By this I mean that we would not make any statements about there being better or worse evidence for any one historical figure vs another. Rather, we would say something to the tune of:

"Historical experts make their determinations as to the actual existence of historical figures based on the material and evidence available; with different amounts of material and evidence being available in different cases(citation possibly needed, possibly not). In the case of historical figures where contemporary material is available for testing, techniques such as radiocarbon dating and fiber analysis can be used (citation). For example, in the cases of Tutankhamen and St Luke the Evangelist, physical remains such as bones and teeth are available for a wide variety of testing methods including radiocarbon dating and DNA analysis(citation)(citation). In the case of Jesus Christ, historical experts make their determinations through analysis of ancient writings such as those of Josephus and Tacitus(citation)."

Such a passage would not violate Wikipedia's policies on Original Research. Would you agree, Smeat75 and Rbreen? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackthorne2k (talk • contribs) 19:32, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

We really don't need that amount of detail, but I see nothing wrong with explaining that the process may involve assessing different sources (What's that about Luke the Evangelist, by the way? Has a body been found? Given that little is known about the identity of the author of the Luke Gospel - not even his or her name - I fail to see the relevance). But there is no reason not to point out that given the absence of physical evidence, the question of the existence of Jesus (not "Jesus Christ", please - that's a religious term) is assessed mainly by literary evidence (including the Gospels and especially the writings of Paul, which is surely a much more valuable source than Tacitus or Josephus). It should be made clear that those kinds of sources are the only ones for most people in the ancient world. Tutankhamun is a very rare exception. --Rbreen (talk) 00:08, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that Tut was a rare exception. We have ample "overwhelming" evidence for the existence in that time period of Herod, Tiberius, Vespasian, Titus and Josephus himself. Also Herodotus, Cleopatra, Alexander the Great etc etc etc, and even older people like the Ramesses dynasty and the Shang emperors of China. Their existence really is "as certain as anything historic can ever be." On the other hand, large characters for whom there are many stories but no "evidence" are regarded as legendary, such as King Arthur and Beowulf and Hercules. Jesus has left nothing behind, and is believed to have existed based on some self-contradicting cultic texts written by others, then much amended over time by persons with a massive POV and no hard evidence, plus a few passing mentions in three disputed third-party texts. That is what we need to clarify - the belief in a historical Jesus is based on fraud and rumour alone, with zero evidence, and those scholars who claim his historicity in "certain" are not being neutral. It's fine to say "most Bible scholars BELIEVE the texts are reasonably authentic", but in order to be neutral ourselves we should also mention on what these BELIEFS are based. Wdford (talk) 09:16, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Rbreen, I'm happy to talk about the Luke issues with you, but Luke is not important to the point I'm making and I don't want the discussion to get off topic. We can use any of dozens of historical figures to achieve the same purpose. My point is that the article is misleading as it is. It gives the impression that the same degree of certainty is possible in the case of the actual existence of Jesus as with all historical figures. In order to be less misleading, I am proposing that we are clear about the amount of evidence that is available to be used by historical experts to make conclusions in this case; relative to other widely discussed historical figures. I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion that the amount of detail I'm suggesting is excessive. The article discusses the opinions of scholars ad nauseam. It would only take a modicum of text to make clear the relative amount of material those scholars used to make their determinations. To the question of Tut, I would agree that the case is exceptional in the sheer amount of material available, but there are plenty of cases of historical figures where contemporary material can be used to support conclusions of historicity. Again, I plan to make no qualitative statements about the amount of material used to make conclusions about the historicity of Jesus. My issue is with the quality of the article.Blackthorne2k (talk) 03:57, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Luke is absolutely central to the point I am making because the point is that if we do not base the article of the consensus of opinions among scholars - whether or not we like or agree with the consensus - then we open the door to everyone rehashing every argument with their personal theories by saying, "Okay, whatever, the experts say this, but here's the evidence that shows they're wrong". That's a recipe for chaos and nonsense.--Rbreen (talk) 09:26, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Having said that, if you can find a reliable source which outlines, in a neutral way, the degree to which the argument for the existence of Jesus is in line with that for other historical figures, I see no reason why it should not be cited. I'm not sure if such a source exists, but it would be useful.--Rbreen (talk) 09:53, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Rbreen, firstly, please read this article about the different methods, including DNA analysis, that have been used by experts as the basis of conclusions about Luke. This will show you what I was talking about. I am not making the case that Luke's historicity has been determined with 100% certainty, but only that there were contemporary materials, or at least claimed contemporary materials, that could be tested by experts as part of the evidence on which they would base their conclusions. Please keep in mind that Luke was not important to the point that I was making. Any historical figure with contemporary physical material could be used in place. As of yet, you haven't responded to the point that I am making. No one suggested anything about saying anything remotely like "Okay, whatever, the experts say this, but here's the evidence that shows they're wrong". I made it very clear that I have no intention of making qualitative statements about the conclusions of experts or the amount of evidence used to make those conclusions. My intention is to make clear to the reader the type and amount of evidence available in this case, relative to cases of other widely discussed historical figures. In other words, we should be honest and clear about the amount of material and evidence available for experts to use in making conclusions about the actual existence of Jesus; relative to the amount of material and evidence available for experts to use in making conclusions about the actual existence of other widely discussed historical figures. All statements about the amount of evidence available for one historical figure or another can be easily sourced properly.

We can easily say, while staying well within Wikipedia policy, something like I said before:

"Historical experts make their determinations as to the actual existence of historical figures based on the material and evidence available; with different amounts of material and evidence being available in different cases(citation not needed). In the case of historical figures where contemporary material is available for testing, techniques such as radiocarbon dating and fiber analysis and even DNA analysis can be used (citation). For example, in the cases of Tutankhamen and St Luke the Evangelist, evidence such as personal possessions and even physical remains are available for a wide variety of testing methods including radiocarbon dating and DNA analysis; on which experts can base or contribute to their conclusions(citation)(citation). In the case of Jesus, historical experts make their determinations as to his actual existence through analysis of ancient writings(citation)."

That is nothing at all like "Okay, whatever, the experts say this, but here's the evidence that shows they're wrong". And before you bring up Luke as a reason to object to the whole paragraph, please keep in mind that we could replace Luke with any ancient historicity case where possessions, remains or other physical contemporary material is available. Also please be aware that we are making no judgements about what material is available, nor about the conclusions that may be drawn. We are only being clear about the amount of material available for experts to judge in this case relative to others. We don't need one singular source expressing that whole idea to make a proper contribution to the article. We only need to ensure that each statement made is properly sourced where needed.Blackthorne2k (talk) 01:20, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

The article you link to about the relic of "St Luke" quotes the scientist in charge as saying "there is no way to tell if it was the Evangelist Luke." All it shows it that is not impossible. Whereas the experts on ancient history say things like J D Crossan's "That (Jesus) was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be, since both Josephus and Tacitus... agree with the Christian accounts on at least that basic fact." It is really quite simple, the crucifixion of Jesus is as much a historical fact as any other, due to attestation in multiple documentary evidence.Smeat75 (talk) 01:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Smeat, I'm not sure that you read my entire post. Please look at the line where I said "And before you bring up Luke as a reason to object to the whole paragraph, please keep in mind that we could replace Luke with any ancient historicity case where possessions, remains or other physical contemporary material is available." As to Crossan's statements, I am going to be starting a new thread addressing his statements in the near future. In the interest of avoiding clutter, I would like to discuss that matter there. I would still like to hear your input on the proposed language, assuming that we could replace Luke with another ancient figure (with testable contemporary material).Blackthorne2k (talk) 03:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I have read the article about "St Luke" and I have finally stopped laughing out loud. Are you sure you're not a Christian apologist trolling us all? You quote a credulous article which proves that a body claimed to be that of the (probably legendary) "Saint Luke" is of someone who lived in the Middle East in the later Roman Empire. That narrows it down to about 20 million people. I can see what your problem is here. You think that physical evidence like bones and teeth are better evidence than literary sources like Josephus and the Gospels because these things are real, unlike the other stuff which is made up. I am an archivist so I am naturally more favourable to written sources but surely everyone knows that documentary records, no matter how compromised - and they all are, to some extent, but then that's the historian's skill, to get behind that - are better evidence precisely because they are constructed human sources, and unintentionally betray all sorts of useful information. That is how all the scholars whose conclusions you deride work. Now, if you want to talk about physical contemporary material for Jesus, I have a shroud I can sell you. I'll even throw in John the Baptist's head for free ...

--Rbreen (talk) 21:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Rbreen, I'm going to have to ask you to stay professional here. Our tone should reflect the respect we have for Wikipedia. I'm sure you read when I said: "And before you bring up Luke as a reason to object to the whole paragraph, please keep in mind that we could replace Luke with any ancient historicity case where possessions, remains or other physical contemporary material is available." I'm perfectly willing to defer to your expertise on Luke. Besides, we are probably a lot closer in our views on the Luke article than you think. The only importance of the reference was that there were claimed pieces of physical, testable evidence that, even while unable to be disproved by modern scientific testing, didn't provide much certainty. I meant it to be in contrast to the (admittedly unusual) certainty in the case of Tut. I think it is fair to say that I have attempted in earnest to respond constructively to every concern you have raised, and it is only appropriate for everyone, including yourself, to respond in kind. I think we are coming toward a collaborative spirit below and we should all seek to maintain that. My religion is NOT relevant to the discussion and inappropriate to bring up, even tongue-in-cheek. Since you did bring it up, I'm happy to admit that I personally think there was very likely a Jesus of Nazareth and it would be positively unsurprising if he were also a spiritual leader and even crucified as the story goes. Perhaps even more, but that would be the jurisdiction of a different article.

I don't doubt your expertise as an archivist. I also don't want to undervalue historical documents nor the skill of the historian in drawing out the meaning and significance. That very skill, even art, is of tremendous value to our understanding of our own place in history. Furthermore, when someone of your expertise and experience reads this article, they will understand the methods that are used and what degree of certainty is even possible in this or any other case of historical actuality.

Wikipedia, however, is not a publication exclusively for expert archivists, scholars or historians. The vast majority of people who visit this article are going to be normal people and not experts. As such, they will not necessarily understand the context of the statements that are given, nor the actual message that the experts intend to express. As the article stands it gives the impression, perhaps more than the impression, that the same methods and level of certainty are possible in all questions of historical actuality. The reader needs well-known examples like Tut's exceptionally high levels of material and certainty, and Luke's low certainty in spite of tested material in order to understand a case like this; with material that is very plentiful in some senses and non-existent in others.Blackthorne2k (talk) 07:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I am generally in support of Blackthorne2k’s proposed wording, and certainly of his/her objectives, and I propose that the final paragraph of the lead be reworded as follows:

Since the 18th century a number of quests for the historical Jesus have taken place, and historical critical methods for studying the historicity of Jesus have been developed. Unlike in cases such as Tutankhamun, where the actual body was found along with many artefacts, and the case of Octavian, where the ashes were lost but his existence is attested beyond doubt by a vast portfolio of works and records, the existence of Jesus can be assessed only by the study of literary works. In addition to various Biblical sources such as the Pauline Letters and the Synoptic Gospels, only three passages in non-Christian sources are available to scholars as support for the historicity of Jesus. These are two passages in the writings of the Jewish historian Josephus, and one passage in the writings of the Roman historian Tacitus. The authenticity of all three passages is disputed, but currently a majority of scholars believe that all three passages are at least partially authentic.

Comments please? Wdford (talk) 16:03, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

So, let me see: the existence of Octavius is beyond doubt, because even though there's no body, there's a "vast portfolio of works and records". Whereas with Jesus, there's no body, but there is a vast portfolio of works and records, which clearly puts his existence in serious doubt. I'm having difficulty following the logic there.

You are struggling to follow the logic because you are not being as neutral as you should be. There is no "vast portfolio of works and records" for Jesus. There are no works at all. There are four main Christian cultic texts, which happily contradict each other on virtually every important point. There are some cherry-picked letters ascribed to some "apostles", some of which even Bible scholars agree are forgeries, while other such "letters" were discarded because they didn't meet the POV. Then there are a mere three non-Christian texts, whose "evidence" is again disputed. There is a lot more "literary evidence" supporting the existence of Hercules or Krishna, but they are not considered to have been "real" by scholars (although they do of course have many believers.) Wdford (talk) 17:07, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

No, you're the one not being neutral here. Personally, I don't think there is a vast portfolio of works and records for either figure. There exist a variety of documentary sources for both, each of which yields useful information once the bias of the authors and the context of their creation can be taken into account. Your terminology shows your problems with neutrality: it is full of subjective value judgements marked out with scare quotes. You deny that the sources for Jesus are 'works'. Instead they're 'cultic texts' and 'cherry-picked letters'. These are your judgements. Who is to say what is a "work" and what is "cherry-picked"? Do you think Suetonius and Tacitus subjected their work to peer review? These sorts of appraisals are best left to the experts. Which is why we cite experts in the text and not the evidence - or "evidence". That's where it becomes original research. Which is what I have been saying all the time. --Rbreen (talk) 21:28, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

You completely misunderstand what I mean by "works". When I used the word above I was referring to stuff they actually built that we can still see today, not to books. Herod the Great built many structures that survive today (see Herodian architecture), Octavian built an entire empire whose structures are still evident, Jesus built nothing. Herod the Great’s family tree is widely documented and understood, Octavian’s family tree is widely documented and understood, Jesus’ family tree is unknown except for the two genealogies in the gospels, and these genealogies contradict each other to a large degree. Herod the Great’s life and deeds are thoroughly documented in 3rd-party texts, Octavian’s life and deeds are thoroughly documented in 3rd-party texts, Jesus’ life and deeds are sketchily documented in the gospels – which contradict each other on major points – as well as three disputed passing mentions in 3rd-party texts.

Herod the Great’s existence is certain beyond doubt, based on overwhelming evidence. Octavian’s existence is certain beyond doubt, based on overwhelming evidence. Jesus’ existence is no better documented than Hercules, and less well documented than that of Krishna and Harry Potter. The current canon of the Bible is known to have been selected from a larger collection of possible content, and other letters and manuscripts that gave contradicting messages were left out, declared heretical and burned – this cherry-picking is not disputed. Suetonius and Tacitus may or may not have subjected their work to peer review – they very possibly did.

I understand that some scholars believe Jesus’ existence is "as certain as anything could be", but this is patently wrong. This is not my WP:OR, since a range of scholars have made that same comment – and Carrier etc continue in that belief as we speak. Now we can repeat the endless debate over whose scholarly credentials entitle them to speak on the matter, or we can just clarify on what evidence these scholars base their conclusions, and let the readers understand it properly. I agree with your suggested paragraph below – let’s focus on that. Wdford (talk) 17:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Works for me. --Rbreen (talk) 21:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Response to WDford above- the authenticity of the Tacitus passage is not disputed. A very few scholars questioned its authenticity a hundred years ago or so, but not any more. Its value is sometimes questioned because since ancient historians did not discuss their sources, it might merely be hearsay. Then again, it might not. And WP could not say "the existence of Jesus can be assessed only by the study of literary works" as though there is something unusual about that, not at all, what is unusual about the case of Jesus is that there is so much documentary evidence, in the word of the Emeritus professor of classics quoted in the article, it is "overwhelming".Smeat75 (talk) 04:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

WDford, I think that your proposed passage is a step in the right direction, but I would prefer you nixed the "beyond a doubt" language. Rbreen, I addressed the Tut reference in my reply to your remarks above, but I do think that we are moving toward a workable collaboration.Blackthorne2k (talk) 09:41, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Richard Carrier

I've just come across this article by Richard Carrier about the historicity of Jesus that may be of interest for us for this page. It names a few scholars who believe the subject is worthy of renewed attention. BTW his new book on the historicity of Jesus is apparently available for pre-order now, and will be generally available by the end of the month. Martijn Meijering (talk) 22:05, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. The Josephus "evidence" is not really worth much, unless you are biased in favor of a certain POV. Considering Tacitus, I have noted frequently that Tacitus never mentions Jesus of Nazareth, he only mentions in passing somebody named "Chrestus". I am not fussed by the spelling, but I note at Suetonius on Christians that Suetonius also mentions that Christians were followers of "Chrestus", who was apparently a rabble-rouser of some note in about AD49. As usual a variety of Experts fell over each other finding explanations for this, but as its the same spelling as used by Tacitus, it lends credence to the theory that the passing mention in Tacitus was not referring to Jesus of Nazareth. Since we do not have the works of Tacitus anymore, merely a copy that was made by a Catholic scribe in a Catholic monastery a millennium later, the opportunities for the monks to have "clarified" the statement are obvious, and the authenticity of the passage is rendered that much more questionable. Was Tacitus referring to the "AD 49 Chrestus" of Suetonius instead? Smeat will no doubt refer us again to a range of Experts who affirm the Tacitus reference is authentic and refers to Jesus, but neutral scholars are inclined to be more open-minded about this. Wdford (talk) 12:12, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

More fringe speculations. Thanks, but no thanks.

Richard Carrier's ideas are discussed in the article on the Christ myth theory and that is the place for them.Smeat75 (talk) 12:36, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

It is not neutral to avoid mentioning these ideas here. Martijn Meijering (talk) 12:55, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE:"Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserves as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth). To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject." The Christ myth theory, a fringe theory held by a tiny minority of reliable sources, is mentioned in this article and with a link to the article devoted to those views in line with WP guidelines.Smeat75 (talk) 13:09, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

An article about a debate cannot present only one side of that debate. Obviously more space should be devoted to views that have more support than to those that have less, but we do need to give an overview of the whole range of views, together with indications of who holds those views. I don't think we need to go into the specifics of Carrier's ideas here, but I find it interesting that he mentions a number of reputable scholars who hold various views on the CMT, ranging from agnosticism is warranted, through CMT is probably false but deserves more scrutiny, to CMT is probably true. These views need to be briefly mentioned. In addition we naturally also need to mention the majority view among critical biblical scholars, the majority view among historians, the traditional religious view and perhaps others. There are a couple of notable individual views we need to mention separately. Several prominent HJ scholars have said (current) HJ research is mostly historically informed theology. The historian Akenson believes current HJ research is generally marred by bias and unsound scholarly methodology, though in his view that is not inherent in the subject itself which could be practiced properly. He also reaches similar conclusions as most biblical scholars. Grant believes the question of historicity is nontrivial and deserves careful attention, but also feels it has been answered conclusively. There's an interesting collection of papers reacting to Ellegard's CMT book. It is interesting because it directly addresses the relationship between historians and theologians in the context of the historicity of Jesus. Martijn Meijering (talk) 13:43, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

And that article does not say anything about Tacitus Wdford, your original research has no place in the article according to WP policy.Smeat75 (talk) 12:40, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Not really original - see e.g. the following from Gordon Stein PhD: [4] Wdford (talk) 16:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Did you see the editor's note at the top of that article Wdford? An editor from "The Secular Web" has the honesty to inform their readers that "Even if those views were true in 1982 they are not true today". Doubting the authenticity of the whole of the Josephus passages and the value of the Tacitus one is very old-fashioned now, at least among the experts. One of the best things about WP is that it is easy to keep it up to date, we don't need to go back into the past and dig up discredited ideas that no longer represent the mainstream when we can quote the leading authority in the field right now, Bart Ehrman,(not a Christian), who says : "Tacitus's report confirms what we know from other sources, that Jesus was executed by order of the Roman governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, sometime during Tiberius's reign."Smeat75 (talk) 17:56, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

It's not an article. It's a blogpost. It therefore fails WP RS. It might be included if Carrier were a recognised expert, but he isn't (his training is in the history of scientific thought in the Roman Empire, not in biblical studies or philosophy, and he only speaks Latin, possibly a little Greek, and English - not Aramaic). It might even be worth including if he got his facts right, but he doesn't (for example, Thompson is not a theologian, and Carrier does not have 'several' peer reviewed articles in Biblical studies - he has I believe 3 PRAs in total and only one of them, on Origen and the literary metaphor of the solar eclipse, is in biblical studies). In any case, that particular post seems to have been up for a while and doesn't appear to have made any difference to the historicist research position.86.143.62.32 (talk) 17:01, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

No Smeat75, that phrase is not saying the idea itself is discredited, it is merely saying that some (not all) scholars think there may have been an original Josephus paragraph which Christians later frauded-up, and thus calling all believers "ignorant" is unfair. Not at all what you claim, is it? So no I am not committing WP:OR, I am referring to ideas that have been posed by scholars. And since the Tacitus work was found in a Latin translation not an Aramaic translation, and since Josephus never wrote in Aramaic, how does this disqualify Carrier? Wdford (talk) 22:39, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't talking about Carrier, I was talking about the article you provided a link to which has a disclaimer from the editor that says "Nobody thinks this any more". Anybody can look and see what it says. Those ideas about the inauthenticity of the Josephus passages and the valuelessness of the Tacitus one are indeed discredited, read Bart Ehrman, Louis Feldman and others, they are the current experts.Smeat75 (talk) 01:55, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think anyone disputes that the main Josephus passage has been interfered with - that's been accepted scholarship for well over a century. But even since the work of Shlomo Pines in (I think) the 1970s, the broad consensus among scholars is that the original passage mentioned Jesus. There's another Josephus passage of course which has generally had readier acceptance.--Rbreen (talk) 00:17, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that is correct, here is the paper published by Pines in 1971.[5] He discovered Arabic manuscripts of Josephus without the passages that had long been identified as the most suspicious "he was the Messiah" "if indeed it be proper to call him a man", instead of saying Jesus was crucified "at the suggestion of the principal men among us" it says ""Pilate condemned him to be crucified". Since then more or less all experts agree that the main Josephus passage is authentic with a few phrases altered by Christian scribes, the article Wdford cites uses as its main source a book written in 1838.Smeat75 (talk) 02:16, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

My intention was to firmly establish that my comments are not WR:OR - I presume that this has been thoroughly established? Now the issue is to clarify that the "overwhelming evidence" is not overwhelming at all, and that only scholars who support that POV claim that their POV is overwhelmingly supported. There is no scientific evidence here, just personal opinions about how much of a frauded-up passage is fraud. Neutrality requires that this be made clear in the lead as well. Wdford (talk) 08:50, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Wdford, you are confusing the issue. You are saying that the Josephus reference is not worth much, which was a common enough view fifty years ago, whereas the broad modern view is that, while we accept that it has been sexed up, we can be reasonably sure of the original form. Your interpretation is outdated. Personally, although I agree the reconstructed passage is probably authentic, I still find Josephus very weak evidence, because we don't know his sources. But I can't put that in the article because it's just my view. Modern scholars consider it valuable evidence, and that's the view the article naturally reflects. You seem to have difficulty with the concept of original research - you say 'the issue is to clarify that the evidence is not overwhelming'. But it is not. That's your view. It's original research. You want the article to reflect your views of what is important despite the fact that you cannot produce any evidence that there is a substantial body of scholarly support for your view.--Rbreen (talk) 11:11, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Rubbish, its not WP:OR because I am citing scholars, so please put that accusation back in your bag for next time. This is not a dead opinion, people today still contest this. WP:NPOV says that where an issue is contested we must state as such. All we need to do is add to the lead that other scholars have contested the so-called evidence, and why. Smeat75 will now obviously parade a list of non-neutral Bible scholars etc saying that everyone shares their POV despite evidence to the contrary, and Bill will use the word "fringe" for the umpteenth time, but the facts are clear that this issue is contested, and the rules are clear that to cover up this fact would not be neutral. Wdford (talk) 16:21, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Wdford I think you should read WP:OR. "Original research" in WP terms does not mean "saying something that no one in the world ever did before" that would be almost impossible in the case of "Did Jesus really exist?" anyway. When you say, as in the post in the previous section above at 09:16, 21 June 2014 , we need to clarify - the belief in a historical Jesus is based on fraud and rumour alone, with zero evidence, and those scholars who claim his historicity in "certain" are not being neutral" you show that you do not understand what WP original research is, such a "clarification", WP editors pointing out that the most eminent classical historians in the world base their writings and statements on fraud and rumour and that emeritus professors and distinguished scholars are "not being neutral", would be OR in its purest form. I think you should also have a look at WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT as you continue to insist that the sources are all "Biblical scholars" who base their "non-neutral" statements on personal "BELIEFS" when it has been pointed out numerous times now that Michael Grant, Robin Lane Fox, Graeme Clarke and Alanna Nobbs are not "Bible scholars" but classical historians (and very respected and eminent ones).Smeat75 (talk) 17:32, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say we should cite the blogpost itself, but do I think it is very interesting for the range of views it mentions. It shouldn't be too difficult to find appropriate citations for the scholars mentioned. Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:16, 19 June 2014 (UTC)