User talk:Vanished user 2345

If you edit on article such as Christ myth theory, Historicity of Jesus, and the like, please watchlist this page. From time to time I have some bit of information that you might be interested in. Also, feel free to ask questions, though be aware that I might not respond for a day or two. Issues and threads will generally remain on this page for about a week.

Issues with Articles

Historicity of Jesus

Sourcing Controversy

As it stands, the first paragraph of that article includes the following sentence: "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) 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.[1]"

That statement has recently come under attack on the grounds that the citation provided is biased and needs to be contextualized in such a way that identifies the faith persuasion of the author. The source in view here is Graham Stanton, The Gospels and Jesus (2nd ed.), (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002) p. xxiii. The relevant quotation is "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."

While the publisher should be enough to convince all reasonable people that there's nothing tricky going on, nevertheless it could easily be strengthened with these additional sources:

• "Apart from a few Soviet ideologists and some humanists, whose interest is more anti-religious than historical, hardly any serious scholar today denies that Jesus existed."

Schuyler Brown, The Origins of Christianity: A Historical Introduction to the New Testament (rev. ed.), The Oxford Bible Series, (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1993) p. 19

• "I want to say first of all that I am taking it for granted in this chapter that we can actually speak of an historical Jesus. As Graham Stanton has recently written: 'Today nearly all historians, whether Christian or not, accept that Jesus existed and that the gospels contain plenty of valuable evidence which has to be weighed and assessed critically.'"

Mark W. G. Stibbe, John as Storyteller: Narrative Criticism and the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992) pp. 67-68

• "The data we have are certainly adequate to confute the view that Jesus never lived, a view that no one holds in any case"

Charles E. Carlston, "Prologue", in Bruce Chilton & Craig A. Evans (eds.) Studying the Historical Jesus: Evaluations of the State of Current Research (Leiden: Brill, 1998) p. 3

• "[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

• "In the 1910's a few scholars did argue that Jesus never existed and was simply the figment of speculative imagination. This denial of the historicity of Jesus does not commend itself to scholars, moderates or extremists, any more. ... The "Christ-myth" theories are not accepted or even discussed by scholars today."

Samuel Sandmel, A Jewish Understanding of the New Testament‎ (New York: Ktav, 1974) p. 196

With these additional sources, the statement in question will be supported with two books published by Oxford University Press, one from Cambridge University Press, one anthology published by Brill (a serious academic publisher), and then two more sources from less impressive publishers. Also, with the Wells and Sandmel citations, the assertion of the existence of a scholarly consensus will now be connected to two different non-Christian authors: one an atheist (and formerly the most famous denier of Jesus' historicity!), the other a Jew.

If someone thinks that these additional sources would be helpful, I've written out the text below; simply copy the source text and paste it over the article's first paragraph:

The historicity of Jesus concerns the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth. 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) 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.

For Noloop, Regarding Fringe and "Discredited"

"This dialectic process whereby the Christ-myth theory [i.e. the view that Jesus never existed] discredits itself rests on the simple fact that you cannot attempt to prove the theory without mishandling the evidence."

Herbert George Wood, Christianity and the Nature of History (London: Cambridge University Press, 1934) p. 54

"Early in the present century a number of scholars, working along a variety of lines, began to demonstrate that Jesus never lived. Their views have received so much attention in certain quarters that some reference must be made to them here; but among responsible scholars they are entirely discredited, and it is worth recalling that one of the weightiest refutations of them comes from a source by no means biassed in favour of traditional theology, in a volume entitled The Historical Christ, by Dr. F. C. Conybeare, and published by the Rationalist Press."

G. S. Duncan, "The Historical Value of the Gospels", in Walter Robert Matthews (ed), The Christian Faith (London: Eyre and Spottiswoode, 1936) p. 109

"First there is the Christ-myth school of criticism. ... In Germany it was disposed of by a galaxy of great German Biblical critics headed by von Soden.In England it was hopelessly discredited by F. C. Conybeare in his volume The Historical Christ. In America, Professor Shirley Jackson Case and Professor Thorburn dismissed it with costs. Its latest exponent in France appears to be P. L. Couchoud. Nevertheless, having been almost entirely eliminated from academic lecture halls, the Christ-myth theory survives, and even thrives, in secularist labour circles. It exhibits a variety of forms, but all its exponents are agreed in one conclusion: that there is no Jesus of history."

in Thomas S. Kepler (ed), Contemporary Thinking about Jesus (Nashville: Abingdon-Cokesbury Press, 1944) p. 22

"Whatever else Jesus may or may not have done, he unquestionably* started the process that became Christianity… UNQUESTIONABLY: The proposition has been questioned, but the alternative explanations proposed—the theories of the 'Christ myth school,' etc.—have been thoroughly discredited."

Morton Smith, Jesus the Magician (New York: Harper & Row, 1978) pp. 5 & 166

"Price uncritically embraces the dubious methods and results of the Jesus Seminar, adopts much of the (discredited) Christ-Myth theory from the nineteenth century (in which it was argued that Jesus never lived), and so forth."

Craig A. Evans, Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2008) p. 25

-Eugene (talk) 16:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Christ Myth Theory

"Historians", Again

Someone has yet against deleted "classical historians" from the lead of Christ myth theory on the grounds that it isn't sufficiently well sourced.[1] For everyone's convenience, here are some sources.

• Although Wells has been probably the most able advocate of the nonhistoricity theory, he has not been persuasive and is now almost a lone voice for it. The theory of Jesus' nonexistence is now effectively dead as a scholarly question... The nonhistoricity thesis has always been controversial, and it has consistently failed to convince scholars of many disciplines and religious creeds... Biblical scholars and classical historians now regard it as effectively refuted.

Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000) pp. 14 & 16

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

Graham Stanton, The Gospels and Jesus (2nd ed.), (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002) p. xxiii

• I think that there are hardly any historians today, in fact I don't know of any historians today, who doubt the existence of Jesus... So I think that question can be put to rest.

N. T. Wright, "The Self-Revelation of God in Human History: A Dialogue on Jesus with N. T. Wright", in Antony Flew & Roy Abraham Vargese, There is a God (New York: HarperOne, 2007) p. 188

• While The Christ Myth alarmed many who were innocent of learning, it evoked only Olympian scorn from the historical establishment, who were confident that Jesus had existed... The Christ-myth theory, then, won little support from the historical specialists. In their judgement, it sought to demonstrate a perverse thesis, and it preceded by drawing the most far-fetched, even bizarre connection between mythologies of very diverse origin. The importance of the theory lay, not in its persuasiveness to the historians (since it had none), but in the fact that it invited theologians to renewed reflection on the questions of faith and history.

Brian A. Gerrish, The Old Protestantism and the New: Essays on the Reformation Heritage (London: T. & T. Clark, 2004) pp. 231 & 233

• [Robert] Price thinks the evidence is so weak for the historical Jesus that we cannot know anything certain or meaningful about him. He is even willing to entertain the possibility that there never was a historical Jesus. Is the evidence of Jesus really that thin? Virtually no scholar trained in history will agree with Price's negative conclusions...

Craig A. Evans, Fabricating Jesus: How Modern Scholars Distort the Gospels (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2008) p. 25

• Some writers may toy with the fancy of a 'Christ-myth,' but they do not do so on the ground of historical evidence. The historicity of Christ is as axiomatic for an unbiased historian as the historicity of Julius Caesar. It is not historians who propagate the 'Christ-myth' theories.

F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? (6th ed.) (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003) p. 123

• Even the most critical historian can confidently assert that a Jew named Jesus worked as a teacher and wonder-worker in Palestine during the reign of Tiberius, was executed by crucifixion under the prefect Pontius Pilate, and continued to have followers after his death.

Luke Timothy Johnson, The Real Jesus (San Francisco: Harper, 1996) p. 121

• I don't think there's any serious historian who doubts the existence of Jesus. There are a lot of people who want to write sensational books and make a lot of money who say Jesus didn't exist. But I don't know any serious scholar who doubts the existence of Jesus.

Bart Ehrman, interview with Reginald V. Finley Sr., "Who Changed The New Testament and Why", The Infidel Guy Show, 2008

• I think the evidence is just so overwhelming that Jesus existed, that it's silly to talk about him not existing. I don't know anyone who is a responsible historian, who is actually trained in the historical method, or anybody who is a biblical scholar who does this for a living, who gives any credence at all to any of this.

Bart Ehrman, interview with David V. Barrett, "The Gospel According to Bart", Fortean Times (221), 2007

• "I want to say first of all that I am taking it for granted in this chapter that we can actually speak of an historical Jesus. As Graham Stanton has recently written: 'Today nearly all historians, whether Christian or not, accept that Jesus existed and that the gospels contain plenty of valuable evidence which has to be weighed and assessed critically.'"

Mark W. G. Stibbe, John as Storyteller: Narrative Criticism and the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992) pp. 67-68

-Eugene (talk) 18:20, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Ellegård

At some point in the recent past, Alvar Ellegård was added to the info template on Christ myth theory. I'm not aware of any serious historians or biblical scholars that class Ellegård as an advocate of the CMT and I haven't been able to find any through Google Books or Google Scholar.

Further, when one turns to Ellegård's own works one find such statements as this:

'My own hypothesis about Jesus differs in certain important respects from those of [Aruthur] Drews and [Paul-Louis] Couchoud. They consider the Jesus figure as wholly a product of the religious imagination. [G. A.] Wells and I think that Paul's letters show that he and his audiences took it for granted that Jesus was a real person, though he might have lived a long time ago. My own contribution is to identify this figure of the remote past with the Essene Teacher of Righteousness, revealed to us in the Dead Sea Scrolls. ... Further, I suggest that Paul's congregations were in fact already existing Essene (or para-Essene) ones. Thus Jesus was their revered founder and teacher, who had probably lived in the second or early first century BCE. Accordingly, though the Gospels are entirely fictional in their portrayal of Jesus as an itinerant preacher and wonderworker, accompanied by twelve disciples, Paul's Jesus was indeed a historical figure, namely, the Essene Teacher of Righteousness."

Allvar Ellegård, "Theologians as Historians", Scandia Vol 59, No. 2 (1993), pp. 171-172

Given all this, Ellegård's inclusion in the Christ myth theory article is not only unsourced but stands in actual contradition of Ellegård's own published material and is therefore not only a violation of WP:OR but also, given how disreputable the CMT is seen to be by modern academics, a possible BLP violation as well. Eugene (talk) 05:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

General Discussions

My Short-Comings

TLDR, and I don't like you as an editor, but you shouldn't have been blocked. Please come back. I'll add this page to my watchlist to see what happens, because it was a bit of a travesty what happened to you (I'm assuming you can't respond on my talk page. If you can, feel free to). - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 03:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Well I love you too. But it's nice to know that at least some people, even those who aren't fans (or perhaps especially those who aren't fans), think that I should be unblocked. Out of curiosity, what was it about my editing that you didn't like? Knowing might help me avoid problems in the future--assuming I'm every released back into the general population. Eugene (talk) 03:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, you were just too certain of your positions on how the article should be, and didn't entertain doubters enough (in my opinion). Just theorizing, but maybe some people without good faith hardened you, and later when people who were editing in good faith came along, you were dismissive of them. It's a common problem on controversial topics, where people defend so long they almost take the offensive by accident. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 04:55, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

You're probably right. The Christ myth page seemed to be receiving a never-ending stream of editors with obvious fringy agendas. (I've since learned that at least one semi-notable internet based mythicists was noisily complaining on his blog about the coverage Wikipedia was giving his hobby horse.) Everytime I and the other good faith editors finally wore one of these guys down with policy based objections and good sourcing, some new hyper-skeptic showed up and the burden of breaking through the bubble of clique-think began all over again. I guess that I just became jaded and short-tempered.

Looking back on it I realize I was being stupid at times. My dealings with SlimVirgin are a good example. Now that I've had a chance to "cool down", I see that I was being intractable about stupid stuff that shouldn't really have bothered me. I mean, I don't really like her prose (it seems overly wooden and stenographic to me) but I could have let that sort of stuff slide so as not to give her the impression that I was opposing her just for the hell of it. I lost the ability to rationally pick my battles and that led to the trouble I'm in: every hill seemed good enough to die on. Eugene (talk) 05:18, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

That's mildly well said, but not perfect. Your emotions are coming through in what you write, and not in a good way. Regardless of how you really feel, you apparently need to parse you comments in your mind more before you post them. Just saying because I don't like involved admins blocking an enemy, so maybe you can show the error in that.

So, remember to be unfailingly polite, and the worse someone else behaves, be even more polite. That really screws them up. ;-) Maybe someone will think I'm teaching you to WP:BAIT, but if you do what I say, no one will ever be able to prove anything, and it actually makes editing better. Anyways, what I'm saying is keep your feelings to yourself, and make comments that explain your position, not comments that show how you feel. Even though we're on different sides of the CMT sourcing issue, this technique helps to keep it all civil. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 05:35, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

My Header

I find your header offensive. It says, "My crime, you ask...sufficed to say I had an argument with a powerful woman." I don't think what you did is a "crime" and I don't think the gender of the person had anything to do with it. I suggest you remove or change this as it makes you look even sillier. If the editor in question was a man, would you have written, "I had an argument with a powerful man." Be honest. We both know you would not. Perhaps you need to ask yourself why it matters that this person is a woman. Is it because you treat women with less respect than men? You conclude with, "Ask me a question, perhaps I'll know the answer." I'll bite. Do you know yourself? Viriditas (talk) 11:05, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Really, "offensive", that doesn't seem a bit over the top? In any event, yes, had I run afoul of a highly influential and prodigous (in terms of editing) male admin I probably would have said "powerful man" as well. As for whether my antagonist's gender had any bearing on my being blocked, I can only point to the comments of those who initially sought and continue to support such a block: "Attracting and retaining female editors has been identified as an issue by the Foundation, and [a] wishy-washy response to this behaviour will just make that harder." [2] "Keep blocked. There's recently been some discussion on the Foundation-L mailing list about the challenges [involved] in attracting new editors, particularly women, to participate in Wikimedia projects." [3] Given comments like these (and the hearty "agree per X" they received) I suspect that, had I written my poorly motivated but neveretheless non-attack article ([4], [5], [6]) about a male admin, I probably would have been warned or temporarily blocked--not indefinitely blocked. But since SlimVirgin is a woman, my actions were treated differently. That's fine, though, jerky stuff hurled at women should be treated differently; in a perversely comforting way my experience demonstrates that chivalry isn't dead, even on Wikipedia. Even so, I would have though that a month long period of exile would have been enough; much to my aggravation it seems the community disagrees. Eugene (talk) 14:49, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Block: Enacted 6/19/2010

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abuse of editing privileges.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

I am blocking you because you created an article about another user in the middle of an edit war with that user. This encyclopedia must have a minimum amount of integrity that is based on the creation of articles in good faith on encyclopedic topics - and not to use encyclopedia articles as a form of attack against editors.Slrubenstein | Talk 20:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

First Unblock Request (6/22/2010): Declined

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Vanished user 2345 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I've thought it over a bit and discussed the matter with my wife some and I'd now like to request that I be unblocked.

Before I get to the apology I want to briefly indicate what I'm not conceding, not because I'm trying to be difficult, but because I don't want my statement to be taken as some sort of disingenuous, purely tactical, volte face: I still maintain that the content of the article I wrote concerning SlimVirgin was policy compliant. I further maintain that the article itself would have been a valuable addition to Wikipedia. And I further maintain that I had every intention of going through all the appropriate channels to see the article get into the mainspace, channels that I knew would scrutinize the article quite closely for instances of meanness and other wrong-doing on my part.

But even so, after getting one too many raised eyebrows and knowing looks from my wife in our conversations on this matter, I've come to accept that while the article's content may have been innocent, the act of its creation was not. I allowed my long-standing frustrations with another editor, frustrations brought to a head by recent disagreements over the John Polkinghorne article and the ensuing 3RR report, to partially motivate me. Some small part of me got a giddy little thrill from hitting "save page" on my article, for I suspected that some small part of its subject would be irked by it.

As such, my actions weren't entirely honorable; I recognize that now. I'm sorry and I won't do it again. Eugene (talk) 18:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The ANI discussion is not in favor of unblocking you.  Sandstein  04:57, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Second Unblock Request (7/29/2010): Declined

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Vanished user 2345 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

It's been more than a month now and, with the "heat of the moment" fully past, I'd like to once again request that I be unblocked. Creating the page on SlimVirgin was a foolish mistake--both in terms of my timing and motives. I understand the community's response (especially now that I'm more fully aware of the background to this matter) and recognize the wisdom implicit in its decision. I've apologized to SlimVirgin personally and I can honestly say that I bear her no ill-will. I think that I have a lot to offer Wikipedia in terms of content and sourcing in my particular area of expertise and I'd be perfectly comfortable submitting to some sort of probationary civility restriction if need be. Eugene (talk) 21:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Decline reason:

The ANI discussion failed to show any substantial support for unblocking . T. Canens (talk) 03:08, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.