Talk:Jesus

Bahai views

I think the following sentence should be removed from the lead: "Bahá'í scripture almost never refers to Jesus as the Messiah, but calls him a Manifestation of God, a concept that refers to intermediaries between God and humanity, serving as messengers and reflecting God's qualities and attributes." The Bahai Faith is only one of many religions that might have views about Jesus, and compared to Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, they are quite a small and marginal sect. Mentioning their views of Jesus in the lead is a bit like mentioning Scientology views of the subject. Ywreuv (talk) 01:25, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the Bahai are small, but do not have the loony bin reputation of Scientology. If there is a section on them, they need to be briefly mentioned per WP:LEDE anyway. History2007 (talk) 01:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I just don't agree. Bahai is a very small sect. Including them in the lead implies that they are as significant as Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, which they certainly aren't. And it's not a question of how "loony" their views are or are not, which is a matter of opinion, anyway. To me they aren't any better than Scientology. Ywreuv (talk) 04:22, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

The page on Abrahamic religions lists them. But anyway, let us see if there is consensus for removing it. My guess is that removing it is invitation for debate later. History2007 (talk) 07:25, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Ahmadiyya

This was copied here from Dougweller's talk page

Its found that you have been reverting my edits in various articles which are related to Ahmadiyya sayin 'Wikipedia can't state that this is a separate religion as they consider themselves Islamic'. I know this topic is on discussion. But let me put some light to it. May be this has been pointed by many already, but I take this opportunity to notify it again. If what you said is taken as the criterion, explain the given situations:

• Few practicing Jews considers themselves as Christians believes in Jesus as a prophet while denying 'Jesus' as son of God. Who are they according to Wikipedia or you for that matter?
• A serial killer considers himself as a cop. While killing hundreds of people he even wears a cop uniform. Who is this guy for Wikipedia if he finds a place in?--Truebrother (talk) 12:26, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Those aren't comparable, and in any case we have enough reliable sources - by our criteria although probably not by yours -- saying Ahmadiyya is Islamic. If you can find the same for your examples I'd be surprised. We don't separate out Latter Day Saints from Christianity, although personally I don't think Mormons are Christians (note I'm not a Christian so I have no stake in that debate). Dougweller (talk) 12:40, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

As you mentioned Mormons, in Wikipedia they are considered as followers of another religion called Mormonism even when they self-identify as Christians. Also in Jesus article ( and in many other articles) there is no sections as 'Mainstream Christianity' and 'Jehovah's Witnesses view' but there is Mainstream Islam and Ahmadiyya view. Why this double standard on Islam is allowed and prevailed in Wikipedia? Isn't this a discrimination?--Truebrother (talk) 13:30, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Nope, Mormonism is in the category "Christian new religious movements". Dougweller (talk) 13:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

So whats your take on adding sections as 'Mainstream View' and 'Jehovah's Witnesses view' under 'Christian Views' in Jesus article?.--Truebrother (talk) 13:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't care. I suspect some people might be concerned as to how you defined 'mainstream Christian'. Dougweller (talk) 14:12, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, some people (myself included) would say that the Christadelphians addition by Truebrother was bordering on WP:POINT given the issues above, and that they have all of 50,000 members. So a tiny groups is running against WP:Due. This should really be discussed on the Jesus talk page, but I happened to see this. If that door is opened, there will be 50 subsections there for 50 different Christian groups, and a multi-party nightmare when the various groups debate it. I think True brother should self-revert. History2007 (talk) 14:56, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect to your opinion, whether there is 50 different christian groups or not, its a fact that there are different views on Jesus inside Christianity itself. So in an article about Jesus in Wikipedia, trying to give a notion that Christianity has a common view about Jesus is not at all fair. Especially when relatively, a common view possessing religion like Islam on the topic is shown by sections. We cannot try to hide a fact fearing that a multi-party nightmare could arise. What if few more groups like Ahmadiyya comes up in future proclaiming themselves as Muslims but having different views on Jesus, will us be forced to remove Ahmadiyya view from the article fearing the same nightmare? Actually my edit was not against but for WP:Due.--Truebrother (talk) 15:33, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

WP:Due requires proportional real estate based on the weight of the item. The Christadelphians are much smaller than Calvinists, Eastern Orthodox, Mormons, etc. and are getting more real estate. That is against Due. History2007 (talk) 15:38, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Correct, but this discussion should be at Talk:Jesus so others can see it. Dougweller (talk) 16:18, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The Christadelphians section was copied from the main Christadelphains article without any modification or improvement I can see, not even relating Christadelphian views of Jesus to others or explaining how they deviate from the "mainstream" - the "mainstream views" section which was previously the section on all Christian views does, in fact, cover non-mainstream positions such as Nontrinitarianism. Besides, we already have more specialized articles on Jesus in Christianity and Christian denominations which might be an appropriate location for this kind of information, but for obvious reasons the main Jesus article cannot hold every sect's view in full detail. In summary, this is redundant, overly detailed and pointy. For those reasons I've removed it. Huon (talk) 16:47, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

So how does the sectional division of 'Islamic views' are justified here? There is specialized article like Jesus in Islam as well. Also if the edit wasn't relating Christadelphian views of Jesus to others or explaining how they deviate from the "mainstream", we should have tried to make the requirements by re-editing it instead of reverting it. Knowing there is different views inside Christianity about Jesus, there should be at least a section that talks about non mainstream christian views in general on Jesus if not Christadelphains view.--Truebrother (talk) 17:09, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

It seems that you just acknowledged the WP:POINT issue. And again, this is a "top level article" like automobile. Not every small car manufacturers will get a section there History2007 (talk) 17:14, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I just don't understand why WP:POINT guideline is raised against me often? I just tried to get a consensus that there shall be no discrimination of any sort in Wikipedia. My questions are actually unanswered here if the mere answers with WP:POINT is not considered. If any edit is not proper, shouldn't we make it clear? or is it responsibility of a single user who previously edited it?

When it's a top level article, it should be taken cared more than any other articles. How does Ahamdiyaa view becomes prominent while Nontrinitarian views become small and irrelevant?--Truebrother (talk) 17:39, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, WP:POINT is raised because, if I understand you correctly, you added a section which you probably agree isn't appropriate to raise awareness of another section which you also consider inappropriate - that's precisely "disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point". Secondly, as I said, non-Trinitraian views are already covered in the article, in a level of detail that seems appropriate for this article.

More to the point, I actually agree that the Ahmadiyya section is also much too detailed for this article. I excpect there's a separate section for Ahmadiyya because the rest of Islam shows less diverse opinions on Jesus than, say, Christianity, and having a separate section allows us to avoid couching the main Islam section in caveats such as "most Muslims". I'm not sure WP:WEIGHT supports mention the Ahmadiyya position at all in this article (that section's sources seem to be a mixed bunch of primary and/or unreliable sources, reliable sources not about Ahmadiyya views, and some few reliable sources which actually discuss that section's topic), but I'd say a short paragraph in the "Islamic views" section should suffice to point out the differences. Huon (talk) 18:15, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

For over two years, I had been trying very hard not to open the Ahmadiyya Pandora's box... Now it is open... It is way overweight... Not that bothers me that much, but it is way over WP:Due. History2007 (talk) 18:22, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

If you already had an idea about Ahmadiyya section being inappropriate, why didn't you clean it? This is like 'I wont eat and wont let you eat' kind of attitude. With due respect, this WP:POINT is very tricky one, we can use it to keep false information in Wikipedia as it demands compulsory acceptance on consensus made by majority (even if its wrong). And I guess the root problem here lies on whether Ahmadiyya is part of Islam or not. Until and unless a consensus on that is reached, issue here cannot be solved. And knowing Ahmadiyya talk page is the right place to discuss it, i hereby retain myself from further edits in 'Jesus' article. Also would like to note that the initial article before my first edit was better than what it looks now. My mistake--Truebrother (talk) 18:49, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

The trick is to tolerate a certain "distance from perfection", else you will spend all your life on Wikipedia and will end up checking your watchlist on your iPad during your own funeral. That was why I tolerated the Ahmadiyya item. As for its being part of Islam, this is probably not the place to decide it - but let us note that they believe in Muhammad and their article starts with the line "Ahmadiyya (Arabic: أحمدية‎; Urdu: احمدِیہ) is an Islamic reformist movement". My guess is that they are not Confucian.

But what has become clear here is a reiteration of past discussions that:

• the views of specific Christian denominations or Islamic splinter groups should not get separate sub-sections.

This was discussed on talk before about Christian groups, and my suggestion is that the Ahmadiyya section should fold into the Islamic section as a single paragraph. If the Protestants or Anglicans do not get a sub-section, neither should the Ahmadiyya. History2007 (talk) 19:13, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

I have gutted the Ahmadiyya section and cut it down to a single short paragraph. The sources were even worse than I expected; the only one I had hoped would prove a reliable secondary source on Ahmadiyya views, Eastern definitions: a short encyclopedia of religions of the Orient by Rice, doesn't seem to mention the movement at all (as far as I can tell using Google's snippet preview; unfortunately my local library doesn't carry the book). Removing the irrelevant sources, the broken link and the clearly fringe sources left us only with the writings of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad himself. Huon (talk) 00:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Wife from new papyrus

According to this this, Jesus may have had a wife. I know there have been allegation before, but this seems firmer. Now I'm not saying to mention as gospel (no pun intended) fact that he had a wife, but to work in somewhere about scholarly suggestions that he could have. Lihaas (talk) 22:34, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Not a new idea. As of over 100 years ago, Orson Hyde had been saying Jesus had 3 wives, at least... As for the papyrus it is just announced, and in a year or two at least 50 papers will get written on it. So time will tell if the academic community will buy it. Remember the James Ossuary? Until it has been looked at by a few scholars, too early to do a new Orson Hyde on it, I think. History2007 (talk) 22:44, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

What that papyrus is proof of is that someone in the 2nd century thought it worth saying that Jesus had a wife, not he did. PiCo (talk) 13:27, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Breaking news: a new scrap of papyrus has been found: the line after 'Jesus said: "My wife..." continues as "...hath gone to the West Indies!" (And apparently Peter then says: "Jamai..." something). PiCo (talk) 04:42, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Lead bold names

Reading the faq above in regards to the name there seems good reason to keep it as such, however, perhaps we can mention in the lead the alternatives names (which are notable even if less common) Isa/Yehoshua?Lihaas (talk) 22:37, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Length tag

There is a length tag now, and it may be partially right, in that some material has accumulated, although articles like Russia are also comprehensive like this one. I think some sections such as Depictions of Jesus may be trimmed given the Main link, etc. There used to a script that measured text length for use with WP:LENGTH. Does anyone remember where that was? That needs to be measured before we can see what needs to be done. Thanks. History2007 (talk) 08:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed that wesplit off pages without removing content, and that then leaving a "main" link with a summary here would improve readability" to get all the content to the reaer.(Lihaas (talk) 10:30, 19 September 2012 (UTC)).

But do you remember where that javascript is to measure it, so we know if/how much it is stepping over the guidelines? History2007 (talk) 10:33, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think I ever encountered that script, but according to the page history the article is currently at about 250KB. Of course that's total size, including wiki markup, not just content size, but halving the article's size probably would still have it larger than WP:Article size suggests. Huon (talk) 17:16, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

OK, it is here now, Wikipedia:DYK#Eligibility_criteria and the markup, references etc. must be excluded. There was one that did not require installation, this one seems to require installation. History2007 (talk) 17:44, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Actual size is less than half of the 250k you found Huon, it is at 104k without markups, Russia being 94k. So somewhat larger than Russia and just over the limit of WP:Length. So if we compress about 15% to 20% or so by moving to Main (easy to do) it will be ok. The depictions and title attributions sections are the easiest to manage - in fact the title attributions was here first, then got expanded and replaced what used to be in that article, etc. So not hard to do at all. History2007 (talk) 07:39, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, I moved some items such as depictions, archeology, etc. to the outside Main articles and did some minor trims and it is now less than 77k, below the WP:Length limit. So can remove tag. History2007 (talk) 09:29, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

A suggestion

Scrap it and start over. PiCo (talk) 13:35, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

You mean Wikipedia, or just this article? History2007 (talk) 13:58, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Should Christ redirect here?

There was a move and redirect which attempted to point Christ here. Does that make sense? The related discussion is taking place now and suggestions will be appreciated. History2007 (talk) 00:54, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

Misleading, promotion of Christianity

"Jesus, also referred to as Jesus of Nazareth, Jesus Christ or simply Christ (i.e. Messiah), is the central figure of the Christian religion, whom a majority of Christian denominations worship as God the Son incarnated.

"The large majority of modern historians agree that Jesus existed as a Jewish teacher from Galilee in Roman Judaea, was baptized by John the Baptist, and was crucified in Jerusalem on the orders of the Roman Prefect, Pontius Pilate

This opening is misleading. It equates "Jesus" with "the Messiah" and with a person baptised by John the Baptist etc. The sources do not state that a large majority of modern historians agree that the Messiah existed and was baptised etc. If there is agreement, it is that there was a historic figure on which the Christian relgious figure is based (to an unkown degree). Also, none of the sources are an actual poll of "modern historians", but rather Christians publishing in Christian publishing houses expressing their opinion about what is "universally accepted." Humanpublic (talk) 19:28, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

See the discussion 3 or sections above, and WP:RS/AC as well. History2007 (talk) 19:31, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying that Jesus is not commonly referred to as Christ? Do we really need to trot out a source for such an obvious statement? A Google search shows everything from the Catholic Encyclopedia to Jesus Christ Superstar calling him "Jesus Christ". We also don't claim that the Messiah existed; the article explicitly says Jesus existed as a Jewish teacher from Galilee in Roman Judaea. Furthermore, we don't need a poll of modern historians; History2007 already pointed to WP:RS/AC. The scholars we cite on the academic consensus about Jesus' existence include Bart D. Ehrman who is, according to our article, an agnostic; his publisher HarperCollins isn't what I'd call a "Christian publishing house". Huon (talk) 19:51, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

He's also not a historian and therefore unqualified to make pronouncements on an alleged consensus among historians. In addition we have real historians (Akenson) who make scathing comments about the lack of impartiality of "historical" research by biblical scholars, as well as prominent NT scholars (John P. Meier for instance) who say that NT scholars are doing theology and calling it history. Martijn Meijering (talk) 19:57, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

So is Robert M. Price not qualified to say that almost no one agrees with him? Do give us a break here. And again, based on an injection of sanity here have all the historians who think Jesus did not exist been on vacation the last 10 years? Is that why you do not have a single reference to say many of them say so? History2007 (talk) 20:09, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Of course he is, but he is not a historian, but a biblical scholar. He is qualified to say that very few biblical scholars agree with him, and I'm not aware of anyone disputing that. As for historians being on vacation, it does look as if there are no real historians who have made pronouncements on a consensus among historians. And that is what we require for a matter-of-fact statement in Wikipedia. Otherwise we can only present it as an opinion, in this case a widely held opinion among the members of a certain profession (NT scholars). We certainly have enough sources for that. We have zero sources so far that historians agree. Your mistake is that you are treating NT scholars as if they were historians, but they're not. In the words of John P. Meier: I think a lot of the confusion comes from the fact that people claim they are doing a quest for the historical Jesus when de facto they’re doing theology, albeit a theology that is indeed historically informed. Go all the way back to Reimarus, through Schleiermacher, all the way down the line through Bultmann, Kasemann, Bornkamm. These are basically people who are theologians, doing a more modern type of Christology [a faith-based study of Jesus Christ]. Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:17, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Existence is distinct from "historical Jesus" and his portraits, as explained to you again, and again and again Martijn. G. A. Wells and Richard Dawkins think the same that all of these people are inventing tales in the Bible but they do not deny existence. You are beginning to sound like user:Cush on this. Not supplying any references about lack of existence just saying I do not believe this. History2007 (talk) 20:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Now, I went to see what Donald Akenson actually says. Akenson does not deny existence of Jesus. He is just critical of the details of the narrative of the gospels. So referring to Akenson in the context of non-existence is incorrect. And of course John Meier is a strong supporter of the existence of Jesus. I did not even have to look that one up. Meier's reconstruction of the Testimonium Flav. which supports the existence of Jesus is widely used by other scholars. Again, Meier disagrees with others on the details of gospel narratives, but he supports existence. So quoting Meier in the context of non-existence is totally inaccurate because Meier is widely known to supports existence. History2007 (talk) 03:30, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

It seems we are talking past each other. I'm not arguing against existence now, nor have I ever. I'm agnostic on the issue, sometimes leaning one way, sometimes the other, but never feeling very sure of myself. And note that even Price doesn't deny that existence is a serious possibility, it's just that on balance he leans towards mythicism and sees (or imagines if you prefer) massive bias and self-deception among biblical scholars. I have no problem with the article saying that Mythicism is a view held by only a tiny minority. That's true, well-sourced and all sides agree on it.

My problem is that we are allowing factual statements about an academic consensus among historians to stand without a proper reference. Stanton is a fine reference for a consensus among theologians or scholars of religion (and I'm well aware of the difference, my father is a professor emeritus of classics and theology, I have many church ministers among my extended family, and a couple of theologians, we've had all sorts of scholars at birthday parties for as long as I can remember), but not about a consensus among historians. For that we would need a professor of (ancient) history. Otherwise the article misrepresents academic opinion, falsely suggesting the issue has been studied much more widely than in theology departments.

Note that I'd also be opposed to quoting as fact a hypothetical statement by Price that the majority of historians are agnostic on the issue. Even if they are, Price is not qualified to speak authoritatively (from a WP point of view) on the matter. At best it could be quoted as an opinion by Price, but only if it was considered notable, which for this article it probably shouldn't be.

As for Akenson and Meier (and Davies earlier), I didn't quote them in support of non-existence, but as additional evidence that NT scholars are not generally to be considered historians. To that I could add Morna Hooker (Stanton's predecessor as Lady Margaret's Professor of Divinity), R. Joseph Hoffmann and others.

My complaint would be solved by replacing the term "historians" with "biblical scholars", which is undeniably correct and more precise than "historians", or by turning the text into a quoted opinion, not by saying anything about mythicism. Martijn Meijering (talk) 16:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

The current term is "scholars of antiquity", which seems appropriate. The consensus among all scholars with relevant specialties, be they historians, Biblical scholars, or whatever else may be relevant is that he did exist; Ehrman uses that exact phrase (and he's certainly in a position to know that consensus), Grant speaks of "serious scholars" without limiting himself to a certain specialty, and the other sources we cite for the consensus seem to be along similar lines. We shouldn't be more precise than our sources. Huon (talk) 16:42, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Can you supply any evidence that Ehrman should be considered a historian rather than a biblical scholar? I agree on Grant. I also agree with not being more specific than our sources, but also with not implying something to the reader that isn't true. Don't you find the scathing criticism from Akenson and the criticism from NT scholars the least bit worrying? Martijn Meijering (talk) 16:56, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, scholars of antiquity is what the first source says. And the same notion is confirmed by people across the board from a classicist like Grant to a biblical scholar like Stanton. I really can not figure out what Martijn is saying here, he is saying "I'm not arguing against existence now, nor have I ever" and then seems to be arguing against a statement of it. Then he says: "Akenson and Meier (and Davies earlier), I didn't quote them in support of non-existence, but as additional evidence that NT scholars are not generally to be considered historians." None of those sources said that - none. Meier himself is a biblical scholar but just like some economists criticize some other economists he is criticizing some of his colleagues. There are physicists who accuse others of ignoring cold fusion data etc. And the term historian is not even used in the article, the term is "scholars of the antiquity" which includes classicists and biblical scholars. And being against a statement by Price that he thinks people oppose him is just mind boggling given that Martijn has consistently failed to produce any sources that support his position. Zero sources, just personal opinions. Zero sources, just Martijn's personal opinions.

Zero sources? I mentioned Perrin, Davies, Meier, Akenson, Hoffmann, and Hooker in support of NT scholars not generally being historians. You mentioned Stanton, who is not a historian and therefore does not qualify, in support. You are the one with zero sources. Martijn Meijering (talk) 16:53, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

And Martijn, for Heaven's sake look at how inconsistent your own statements are. In one breath you say:

• I have no problem with the article saying that Mythicism is a view held by only a tiny minority. That's true, well-sourced and all sides agree on it.

In the next breath you want to imply that generally the only people who support existence are biblical scholars, leaving open the window that there are hundreds of non-biblical scholars who deny existence. Is that not inconsistent? You have already admitted that there are only a handful of people who deny existence, yet want a statement that goes against the sources, and which suggests there are plenty of historians out there who oppose existence. And of course you have zero sources to support your position. Is this not enough? Is this not enough? History2007 (talk) 19:06, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

It's not inconsistent and I have supplied several sources, whereas you have supplied none. Huon on the other hand mentioned Grant, who certainly qualifies. I knew he believed in the existence of Jesus, not that he had made remarks about an academic consensus to that effect. If we can dig up a quote, then that would be great.

I'm amazed it's even necessary, but let me explain the logic to you, it's really quite simple. I object to a statement that paraphrases "the majority of historians believe in the existence of Jesus", not necessarily because it is false, but because it is unverified (at least until we find a source, and Grant would qualify). As you know, Wikipedia is not about truth but about verifiability.

And even if it were to be false, its logical opposite would be "a minority of historians believe in the existence of Jesus", not "a majority of historians disbelieve the existence of Jesus". The opposite of belief is not just belief to the contrary, it also includes the possibility of agnosticism. And that's what I believe to be the case: the vast majority of historians have not studied the issue at all, and do not have a professional opinion on it.

It would be misleading to suggest the issue has been studied much more widely than in departments of religion or divinity, which in itself should make us wonder about bias, quite apart from the evidence to that effect from the major players in the field that I mentioned. Akenson and Grant are exceptions, there simply aren't many historians who have published about the matter at all, the output seems to come almost exclusively from biblical scholars. If you say that a majority of historians agree that Jesus existed, then the ordinary reader will come away with an impression that it's not just professors of divinity and NT scholars who hold that opinion, but that many professors of history have studied the issue and come to the same conclusion. That has not been demonstrated and in fact I believe it to be false, and therefore I strongly object to a formulation that implies it. Maybe I'm all wrong about it, but I'm not the one saying my opinion should be stated as fact in the article, and the onus is on the person proposing the claim. Note that merely reporting the claim as a claim would not be problematic at all, yet you appear to object to that, for reasons I cannot fathom.

As for wanting a statement which suggests there are plenty of historians out there who oppose existence that is simply not true. I want something like "the majority of biblical scholars believe in the existence of Jesus" which would suggest precisely zero about what historians or wider scholarship might think. What on Earth makes you think that a statement about biblical scholars could allow one to make inferences about historians? It does no such thing, any more than it implies anything about the views of astronomers, housewives or aircraft mechanics. Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

The article says exactly what Ehrman says: "Virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed". So that statement has a clear source and Ehrman is a solid WP:RS source. That is simple. Making the statement that "virtually all biblical scholars believe that Jesus existed" is an incorrect representation of the academic consensus because it deviates from the source. And Van Voorst says: "biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of non-existence of Jesus as effectively refuted". So modifying what he say at will based on your desires is also deviation from the source. So the statements are fully sourced. And Van Voorst is a totally WP:RS source and the standard work on the subject now - really. On page 162 of his book Michael McClymond relies on it, and calls it the "best recent discussion on the topic". And on page 154 of his book, after reviewing the historical issues, Craig L. Blomberg states: "The fullest compilation of all this data is now conveniently accessible in Robert E. Van Voorst, Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence". So Van Voorst is a great WP:RS source for this article. Richard Carrier matters not, but even Carrier endorses Van Voorst.

Now you say you want to

• suggest precisely zero about what historians or wider scholarship might think

Why? Why suppress what they think when we have WP:RS sources that say what they think. Why can the opinions of wider group of scholars not be stated when we have multiple WP:RS sources for it, and none against?

Trust me: "suggesting precisely zero what a wider group of scholars might think" is not the way to develop an encyclopedia. That can not be done in Wikipedia. The goal here is to inform the reader, not suggest zero. Trust me on that one. History2007 (talk) 17:32, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't patronise me young man. And don't twist my words. You falsely accused me of wanting to imply something false about the views of historians, and I demonstrated I didn't simply by showing my proposed wording didn't imply anything about historians. My proposed wording would make a true, relevant and well-sourced statement about the views of biblical scholars. If you want to add anything about the views of historians, then go quote some historians. Good luck with that because apart from Akenson and Grant very few historians appear to have published on the issue. Ehrman most certainly does not qualify. Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Young man? I wish, I wish... As I said, I am ok with "scholars of antiquity" which is exactly what the source states and the page states. Ehrman is widely used in Wikipedia, even on the Christ myth theory page. He is totally WP:RS, and is widely used in Wikipedia on the topic. And I absolutely maintain that your approach of "saying precisely zero" about the larger audience will deviate from the sources. I absolutely maintain that. You can not just pick a "half sentence" out of Van Voorst. The sources are not silent on the wider group of scholars. Again, "suggesting precisely zero what a wider group of scholars might think" is not the way to develop an encyclopedia. History2007 (talk) 17:54, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Very well, I take back the "young man" and limit myself to "don't patronise me", because that's exactly what you did. And if you want to address me by my first name (you're welcome), kindly do me the courtesy of telling me your own first name. Martijn Meijering (talk) 16:17, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Martijn Meijering asked for a citation from Grant; that's already in the article. I begin to find this discussion a little strange. Why the insistence on Ehrman's status as "not a historian"? We don't claim he is one himself, do we? (In fact, we no longer mention "historians" in that entire paragraph, and I do think that's an improvement.) But whatever specialization Ehrman personally may have, he's certainly in a position to speak with authority on the academic consensus among all scholars of antiquity. We can go to the reliable sources noticeboard for another opinion on Ehrman's status as a source on the academic consensus in these closely related fields, but I don't think that's necessary. And Ehrman is just one of almost a half dozen reliable sources on this single point - not on the existence itself, but on the consensus about the existence. Regarding the historians Martijn Meijering mentioned above: As long as none of them commented on the scholarly consensus, they're irrelevant to this discussion. The plural of "anecdote" is not "data"; we need more than a list of individual opinions to question multiple sources explicitly commenting on the majority opinion among scholars. Martijn Meijering also asked me whether I find the scathing criticism from Akenson and the criticism from NT scholars the least bit worrying. I haven't read Akenson or those NT scholars, so I'm in no position to be worried by them. But unless and until their criticism is accepted as valid by the academic mainstream we should not give them undue weight just because we personally agree with that criticism. If they manage to re-open the debate about the existence of some historical Jesus and we have a source to that effect, great, let's add it. Do we have such a source? Huon (talk) 18:35, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

(Neutral observer opinion) I think this whole debate is horse puckey and the sooner we get to WP:ARBCOM for a decision about the "Existence of Jesus" controversy [sic] the better. History2007: I hope you will forgive me for unwatching this one page, because this particular article is too unwieldy and controversial to be saved by any one editor. (The sooner you admit that for yourself, the more time you will save for other worthy endeavors.) Elizium23 (talk) 18:40, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Does Arbcom rule over minor issues content like this? In any case, Martijn is the only one arguing about the sources not being qualified. Arbcom is an amazingly loooong endeavor and takes for ever. I hope this can be resolved here if other editors comment and consensus can be reached. History2007 (talk) 18:47, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

From my subjective observation point it looks very much as if I'm talking to a wall here. We shouldn't need to think about Arbcom before we've even begun to have a factual discussion. I'm trying to make a precise point, and you appear to be responding to a point I didn't even make. I'll take my share of responsibility for the lack of effective communication, but no more than that. From where I'm standing it doesn't look as if you're making much of an effort.

To repeat, I'm not criticising the sources offered as being qualified to speak to a majority of biblical scholars holding a certain opinion. They're absolutely fine for that. I'm not arguing existence itself either way. I'm merely addressing whether the sources offered meet the criteria of [[WP::AC]] among scholars of antiquity and to me it seems that very clearly they do not, because 1) they appear to be almost exclusively limited to the much smaller subgroup of departments of theology or religion and therefore not representative of the larger group and 2) the statements they make (with the exception of Ehrman) are not logically equivalent to the statement in the article. Grant for instance speaks of "scholars" without being specific and only addresses scholars who have actually taken a position.

I agree with Huon's point that scholars of antiquity is an improvement over historians, but I contend it is still too broad and unsupported by the quotes that have been offered. I'll be happy to be better informed if I'm mistaken, but I see no real engagement with my arguments. It's hard to have a discussion if your arguments are being ignored instead of responded to. My concern is emphatically not to promote mythicism, as I said I'm agnostic on the issue, and I don't even care too strongly either way, though I'd be curious which of the two is true.

My goal is to make sure that what the article says does not mislead the reader into believing the issue has been more widely studied than it really has been, and I contend the article stil does that. In my opinion the change to "scholars of antiquity" was an improvement, but more is needed. Perhaps you disagree and that is fine, but why on Earth wouldn't you want to help me to address these concerns? Surely it would be for the better of the article to improve neutrality and accuracy?

Maybe I'm not hearing some of your own concerns accurately either, in which case I'd be happy to learn about them. Martijn Meijering (talk) 16:33, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that Ehrman is out of his depth when he asserts that "virtually every competent scholar of antiquity" agrees that Jesus exists? And that Van Voorst, who speaks not just of biblical scholars but explicitly of classical historians, likewise doesn't know what he's talking about? And that when Grant in a book written in his role as a historian and so named talks about "scholars", that's not meant as a more general term than "biblical scholars", or that there might be a significant number of people who think Jesus didn't exist but somehow don't publish on the topic? And that Price, who is an expert on historicity, somehow is unaware of a widespread sentiment that agrees with his own position? I have ... problems with that, in particular since one would expect that if all the biblical scholars misrepresented the consensus among other relevant scholarly branches someone would speak up and set the record straight - the record on the consensus, that is, and despite History2007's repeated questions we have seen no source to that effect.

Maybe we disagree on a more basic level about what "academic consensus" means. Of course Grant only speaks of those scholars who have published on the subject - because firstly, there's no way to know what the others think unless you happen to ask them in person, and secondly, if they haven't published, their opinion is utterly irrelevant for the academic consensus. Similarly, I'd have thought it self-evident that Ehrman's claim about "virtually every scholar" technically also holds only for those who have actually published on that question. After all, an archaeologist specializing in the Peloponnesian War who has never published on Jesus is also a "competent scholar of antiquity", but his opinion on Jesus' existence is just as irrelevant for the academic consensus as that of a nuclear physicist.

I've asked the RSN for input on whether or not Ehrman, Van Voorst and the others are reliable sources on the academic consensus among more than just the biblical scholars. Should I have failed to clearly express your concerns, please correct me over there. Huon (talk) 19:06, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

I'll do that if necessary, but I resent the fact that you jump to bringing in others before constructively replying to my arguments first. Martijn Meijering (talk) 19:14, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually Huon, 2 sections above that I had posted on WP:RSN asking for opinions also. And I suggest that there should be just one post there. History2007 (talk) 19:15, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, I agree that there should be just one section at the RSN; I've removed mine and instead commented on History2007's. Secondly, since I believe we all agree that the article gives a faithful rendition of what Ehrman says, the question of whether Ehrman is qualified to speak about the scholarly consensus among all scholars of antiquity or not seems central to the dispute. I say he is because scholars usually do know what happens in closely related fields, and Ehrman, Van Voorst and the others wouldn't make claims about the wider community if they didn't mean it or didn't know what they're talking about. (Besides, he got it published with a reputable publisher.) Martijn Meijering apparently says he isn't because he and the rest of the biblical scholars only talk among themselves and ignore (or are ignorant about?) other related fields where publications on the issue might be comparativley scarce (except Van Voorst who explicitly mentions the classical historians). I don't think either of us is likely to convince the other any more than we've been able to do so over the past few weeks. Getting more input thus seemed the natural course of action and not something to be resented - I tried to be as neutral as possible so the people at RSN could take an unbiased look. Besides, I explained yesterday that the RSN seemed the next step to me but for my belief that we didn't need to bother them with what I considered a trivial question. Since Martijn Meijering seemed to disagree with my answer to that question, I took the next step. Why is that a problem? Finally, I believe I did address Martijn Meijering's arguments, but maybe we're talking so much at cross-purposes that we don't even understand each other's arguments any more - and my solution would once again be to bring in someone new who may understand both arguments. Huon (talk) 19:53, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Even if you accept that scholars from a neighbouring field qualify in general (which seems like an enormous and undesirable widening of the criteria), or in this particular case (but then why?), there remains the matter of John P. Meier (a major biblical scholar in Historical Jesus research) who says his field has been "doing theology and calling it history", the historian Akenson who has published on the Historical Jesus, and who has been scathing about the lack of impartiality and sound historical methodological soundness amount HJ scholars. They too ought then to be considered as scholars on the subject and they impeach the argument that biblical scholars should be considered historians. I've named several other respectable sources and I'd be happy to provide details of their statements. Martijn Meijering (talk) 00:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Does any of them dispute the statement that the vast majority of scholars agrees Jesus existed? They seem to argue that the vast majority is wrong, but they also seem to agree that the field is almost unanimous in its opinion. Also, I do accept that scholars who write about the general consensus on a question that squarely falls within their area of expertise should be treated as reliable sources. Otherwise we'd be second-guessing published scholarly sources, and once we start that, where do we stop? Huon (talk) 02:18, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

None of them do. But my line of argument was not to offer a list of scholars holding a dissenting view. I don't understand why you and History2007 seem to think that was my line of argument, because it would be totally illogical. You don't disprove a majority of scholars hold a certain opinion by offering examples of scholars who dissent. At best that would prove the agreement isn't universal, which isn't good enough to disprove the statement. Besides, by WP policy we aren't supposed to count sources ourselves, but to rely on an assessment by scholars in the field. My line of argument is that the range of scholars considered in the statement has been drawn too widely, and that the sources that have been offered are not RS for that whole range. In other words, I disagree with your assertion that the issue falls squarely within the area of expertise of the scholars that were mentioned. Either additional sources should be supplied (my personal belief is no such scholars exist, but I'd be happy to be proven wrong), or the statement about a consensus should be limited to the people who have actualy published on the matter, who are almost exclusively biblical scholars and only a handful of scholars from other fields. My attempts at a better formulation have not met with approval though. Martijn Meijering (talk) 02:40, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

There is no problem at all with posting on RSN. And from what I have seen Martijn Meijering wants to "modify Ehrman's quote", as I explained below, and that can not be done, based on Wikipedia policy. If professor A writes Europe, his quote can not be changed to say half of Europe. History2007 (talk) 20:02, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

The alleged quote is not in fact a quote, but an attempted summary of what various writers say. As I said, I have no problem with presenting it as a quote by Ehrman, in other words a report, an opinion by a named source. This is standard WP policy. Martijn Meijering (talk) 00:49, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Attribution is usually only required when the statement is controversial, but there are lots of sources corroborating Ehrman's statement (though not in exactly the same words) and none contradicting it. WP:RS/AC requires that statements about the academic consensus be sourced, but it doesn't require us to only use quotes about the scholarly consensus. Huon (talk) 02:18, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

My preference is not attribution, I only mentioned that as a possibility because History2007 objected to changing the wording on the grounds that it didn't precisely match the source (but how on Earth how could it, with multiple sources each using their own wording?). The exact wording is only relevant in an attributed opinion, so I think his objection is flawed. If History2007 insists on sticking to Ehrman's reading rather than a fair summary of the various sources he should present the exact reading as an attributed quote. Martijn Meijering (talk) 02:40, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Again, there are multiple scholars who say the same thing. The problem started with your attempt at saying "exactly zero about the wider audience". This is a straightforward situation: Hardly anyone with an academic position disputes the existence of Jesus. That is what Ehrman/Van Voorst etc all say. Why is all this long dance necessary? History2007 (talk) 05:00, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

lead paragraph

i was just going to make a couple of slight changes to the lead and read a message that said that it was necessary to explain here first - all it is is i dont think 'self-described' Messiah is quite right, - that was more a label put on him surely by others, than he went round saying 'im the messiah' - in the gospel of Thomas he says the one who said 'no one can say who you are' is the closest to the truth didn't he? , - and then i think the bit about 'the awaited messiah of the OLd testament' - is very un-nuanced - was there a set view of what the title meant, and what the various books of the OLd Testament all led readers to await? it needs more nuanced expression somehow imo. Sayerslle (talk) 15:46, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree, the "self described" item is probably left over from long ago, and the whole issue of whether he called himself Messiah is totally non-historical. In fact, there are only 8 things that scholars "roughly" agree on 4+4: "He was baptized by John the Baptist. He called disciples. He had a controversy at the Temple. Jesus was crucified by the Romans". Then that: "He was a Galilean. His activities were confined to Galilee and Judea. After his death his disciples continued. Some of his disciples were persecuted". Even then some argue that he never called disciples. So exactly as you stated that part is somewhat of an over generalization and needs a fix. The issue is that it probably came from the Historical Jesus article, which is mostly incorrect and was not the place to get things from. So I think you are right. History2007 (talk) 16:12, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Seeking opinions on sources

Based on past and present discussions, it may be a good idea to seek opinions on the use of sources within this page, specially with respect to existence. The sources and statements in question are:

• A: Bart Ehrman: "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees" B. Ehrman, 2011 Forged : writing in the name of God ISBN 978-0-06-207863-6 HarperOne Press page 285

• B: Robert M. Price agrees that this perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars: Robert M. Price "Jesus at the Vanishing Point" in The Historical Jesus: Five Views edited by James K. Beilby & Paul Rhodes Eddy, 2009 InterVarsity Press Press, ISBN 028106329X page 61

• C Michael Grant states that "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." in Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels by Michael Grant 2004 ISBN 1898799881 Rigel Publications page 200

• D Robert E. Van Voorst states that biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of non-existence of Jesus as effectively refuted. Van Voorst, Robert E (2000). Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence. William B. Eerdmans ISBN 0-8028-4368-9 page 16

• E James D. G. Dunn "Paul's understanding of the death of Jesus" in Sacrifice and Redemption edited by S. W. Sykes (Dec 3, 2007) Cambridge University Press ISBN 052104460X pages 35-36 states that the theories of non-existence of Jesus are "a thoroughly dead thesis"

• F Richard A. Burridge states: "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more." in Jesus Now and Then by Richard A. Burridge and Graham Gould (Apr 1, 2004) ISBN 0802809774 William B. Eerdmans Press page 34

• G Graham Stanton in The Gospels and Jesus by Graham Stanton, 1989 ISBN 0192132415 Oxford University Press, page 145 states that "Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed"

My view is that Ehrman is a really well established professor in the field and Harper Collins is certainly WP:RS. Price (an atheist) is making a statement that assesses the field as relates to his view (directly related). Grant is a highly respected scholar - and no one here is disputing him anyway. Van Voorst's book has been called the "best recent discussion on the topic" and "The fullest compilation of all this data". Dunn, Burridge and Stanton are highly decorated professors with books by reliable publishers.

Moreover, I think it is essential to observe three points:

• There are no opposing sources whatsover. No one is saying that there are sources that dispute Ehrman's statement, or Van Voorst's quote, etc. There is no opposition whatsover in terms of other WP:RS sources to what the sources say.

• These scholars are not expressing their own opinions, bu are providing a survey of the Academic consensus per WP:RS/AC. The only methodology they are using is counting how many people are on each side of the debate

• All of these scholars (almost all well established professors) are intimately involved in the field. They are not new to the topic.

I think these are totally WP:RS sources.

Comments from other editors will be appreciated. History2007 (talk) 19:47, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

one of the books listed in the bibliography at the end - E P Sanders, the Historical figure of Jesus - Paul Johnson called it 'a non-dogmatic study of the evidence by a leading expert' - so maybe using Sanders as a source would be good to add to the others , he is widely respected - the other sources seem fair enough too as you say- and i think from what i've heard said elsewhere- by John Romer on the TV series 'Testament' for eg.- the sentence in the lead as it stands is fair enough imo. Sayerslle (talk) 21:31, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes, as you said Sanders is widely respected, and a non-believer. Further down, the page currently says: "both E.P. Sanders and Paula Fredriksen support the historicity of the crucifixion, but contend that Jesus did not foretell of his own crucifixion, and that his prediction of the crucifixion is a Christian story" And Fredriksen is also highly respected and a non-believers, as is Geza Vermes who is also quoted. So there are plenty of respected scholars who are quoted. The reason for using the 8 sources above, however, was that they are not even expressing their own view, just "counting how many scholars there are on each side of the debate" per WP:RS/AC. And as you said the statements they make are consistent, reasonable by modern scholarly standards and have no conflict with any sources we have seen. History2007 (talk) 21:39, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I'd say we're overdoing it if I hadn't watched the discussion about the statement supported by all those sources. They are clearly reliable; the scholars we cite are experts in their field and should know the consensus among their colleagues, and no sources dispute the conclusion they draw. What more could we possibly want? Huon (talk) 23:41, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Of course they're reliable when it comes to their colleagues, I object to wording that goes beyond that circle. Martijn Meijering (talk) 19:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Two points: First, it must be clarified that biblical scholarship is distinct from theology and as the Oxford Handbook of Biblical Studies states it includes archaeology, Egyptology, textual criticism, linguistics, history, sociology and theology. So these authors are fully immersed in the field and know who writes what.

I don't think I said or implied anything about theology, the term I used was biblical scholarship or NT scholarship. I'm well aware of the difference as I pointed out to you earlier. If you think the article needs to spell that out more clearly, then I'm not stopping you. Martijn Meijering (talk) 02:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Secondly you can not (really not) modify what a source says and take half of what it says. Let me clarify this with an example:

• Professor A (who teaches in Germany) writes that Lake Ladoga is the largest lake in Europe.

• You think he does not necessarily know of the lakes in Spain and should only talk about lakes in Eastern Europe.

• You do not have any professor B who says there is a larger lake anywhere in Europe. So no source disputes professor A.

You cannot modify the quote by professor A to say "Lake Ladoga is the largest lake in Eastern Europe". You can not do that. And that is specially true if there is not even one source that disputes what professor A states. Moreover, we have six other sources that confirm what professor A states.

This is not the situation we're in. It's not that professor X makes a factual statement Y, it's that professor A makes a statement about a consensus of scholars in field B holding opinion C. The situation we're dealing with is statements about an academic consensus, for which WP has specific rules, which I mentioned to you before, after having pointed out my line of argument was emphatically not what you just said. And in fact right below you go on to mention the self-same criteria! Martijn Meijering (talk) 02:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:RS/AC:

Any statement in Wikipedia that academic consensus exists on a topic must be sourced rather than being based on the opinion or assessment of editors.

You can not use your own assessment of the scholarly consensus. If professor A said Europe, you cannot modify it to say half of Europe based on your own assessment. That is Wikipedia policy. History2007 (talk) 19:40, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Why do I have to keep pointing out that I was arguing precisely that the sources offered do not meet the standards WP sets for making statements about an academic consensus, rather than offering my own assessment. You accuse me of offering my own assessment, when in fact I was insisting we shouldn't and should instead use WP's specific criteria for this case. In this vein I'm claiming your set of sources do not support the very wide consensus that is being alleged. Your complaints of not getting sources contradicting "opinion C" amounts to asking for personal assessment of a consensus, precisely what you've argued we shouldn't be doing! Martijn Meijering (talk) 02:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Analysis of whether the quoted sources support the statement

New section so as not to disrupt the flow of arguments made by History2007.

It is my understanding that in order to make a statement S "a majority of scholars in field X hold opinion Y" WP verifiability criteria require a quote from a source RS who is a) a reliable source on field X who b) actually states S, as opposed to some vaguely similar statement or as opposed to merely stating Y. It is not generally sufficient that RS is a reliable source on a related field. As an example, we would not generally accept a physicist as a RS on mathematics. Nevertheless additional evidence might be produced to demonstrate that specific individuals from neighbouring fields do qualify. It is my understanding that Grant is an example of this.

If I'm wrong about these things, then I'll be happy to be better informed, especially if people go about it in a friendly way, instead of shouting down legitimate and sincere concerns.

Now, let me go through the quoted sources one by one and explain where I think they do not meet the standards. If my understanding above about the required criteria is defective, then all this may be moot, but let's get to that when people have had the opportunity to respond.

But before I start, let me stress that I consider all these scholars fine sources that have valuable things to say that ought to be quoted in the article. My concern is to find a wording that doesn't misrepresent the strength of academic opinion on the matter. Even if you don't share the concern yourself, I hope you'll agree that the concern is at least legitimate, in that if the wording were to mislead ordinary readers as to the strength of academic consensus, then that would be a bad thing.

The statement S that we are considering is "Virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed." The trouble here is that scholarship of antiquity is not a single field, it includes classics, ancient history, biblical scholarship and who knows what, and scholars are not generally competent in all subfields. For example, the average ancient historian is not generally expected to be up to speed with the details of thinking among biblical scholars. I think that generally speaking classicists ought to be allowed as reliable sources on opinions among classicists etc, and that additional evidence would be needed to quote them on the thinking among biblical scholars.

Again, maybe I'm wrong about this, but hopefully you'll at least see where I'm coming from before you run to Arbcom or wherever before having engaged my arguments.

Now on to the sources.

• A: Bart Ehrman: "He certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees" B. Ehrman, 2011 Forged : writing in the name of God ISBN 978-0-06-207863-6 HarperOne Press page 285

The statement S clearly does match what is said in the article, but while Ehrman is a scholar of antiquity, he cannot be expected to speak for all scholars of antiquity, in particular ancient historians or classicists. He does look like an excellent source for biblical scholars. That still leaves us in need of additional sources for the other subfields.

• B: Robert M. Price agrees that this perspective runs against the views of the majority of scholars: Robert M. Price "Jesus at the Vanishing Point" in The Historical Jesus: Five Views edited by James K. Beilby & Paul Rhodes Eddy, 2009 InterVarsity Press Press, ISBN 028106329X page 61

No evidence has been offered that Price has supported statement S. He is merely paraphrased as saying his views runs against the majority of scholars, presumably those who have published on the matter. It says nothing about the vast majority who haven't, while statement S does. Price's claim is far less sweeping than S. In addition, Price is a biblical scholar, so again we only have the subfield of biblical scholarship covered.

• C Michael Grant states that "In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." in Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels by Michael Grant 2004 ISBN 1898799881 Rigel Publications page 200

Grant is a classicist and historian and therefore covers two bases. Again, he makes a far less sweeping statement than S. He says nothing about a majority of scholars of antiquity, instead he refers to the much, much smaller group of scholars who have published on the subject.

• D Robert E. Van Voorst states that biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of non-existence of Jesus as effectively refuted. Van Voorst, Robert E (2000). Jesus Outside the New Testament: An Introduction to the Ancient Evidence. William B. Eerdmans ISBN 0-8028-4368-9 page 16

Van Voorst covers biblical scholarship, but not classical historians. Again, he makes a far less sweeping statement than S. No mention of the vast legions of scholars of antiquity who are neither biblical scholars nor classical historians or of the vast majority who have never published on the matter or those who are professionally agnostic on the issue.

• E James D. G. Dunn "Paul's understanding of the death of Jesus" in Sacrifice and Redemption edited by S. W. Sykes (Dec 3, 2007) Cambridge University Press ISBN 052104460X pages 35-36 states that the theories of non-existence of Jesus are "a thoroughly dead thesis"

Again, a biblical scholar, though this time with an even more sweeping statement. The brief quote doesn't allow further analysis.

• F Richard A. Burridge states: "There are those who argue that Jesus is a figment of the Church’s imagination, that there never was a Jesus at all. I have to say that I do not know any respectable critical scholar who says that any more." in Jesus Now and Then by Richard A. Burridge and Graham Gould (Apr 1, 2004) ISBN 0802809774 William B. Eerdmans Press page 34

Yet another biblical scholar. He merely states that he doesn't know any respectable critical scholar who disagrees, which is not the same as saying virtually all scholars of antiquity agree. Maybe he doesn't know enough people, or not outside the field of historical critical bible scholarship, or perhaps the vast majority of scholars of antiquity don't hold a professional opinion on the matter.

• G Graham Stanton in The Gospels and Jesus by Graham Stanton, 1989 ISBN 0192132415 Oxford University Press, page 145 states that "Today nearly all historians, whether Christians or not, accept that Jesus existed"

Stanton is a biblical scholar, not a historian, so his statement on historians doesn't count. He doesn't make any statement about other scholars of antiquity, so he's no help there either.

Now, don't get me wrong. It's not as if these fine gentlemen have nothing important to say. I think that together they amply demonstrate something that to the best of my knowledge no one has disputed:

The vast majority of scholars who have published on the issue of the historicity of Jesus have come out in favour of it. Only a small group of serious scholars and a somewhat larger group of nonserious scholars dispute it.

I'd be happy with that statement, but that's not what S says. In my opinion S enlists vast legions of scholars in support of historicity who have never published on it or even studied it. That's what I want to change, and I believe I should be able to count on your help to find a form of words that alleviates my concerns, or at the very least that you don't sabotage this or go running off to Arbcom or whatever to quash discussion. My initial proposal to change the wording to "biblical scholars" didn't meet your approval, and I'd love to hear other constructive suggestions.

Another thing that deserves to be mentioned, or at the very least not denied by implication, is that while the vast majority of scholars who have published on the issue have been professional "scholars of antiquity" and that by definition every serious scholar from another field who has studied the matter is at least a nonprofessional "scholar of antiquity", the scholars tend to come from one very specific subfield, namely biblical scholarship. It is true that there have been scholars from other fields (modern history, ancient history, classics, English literature and no doubt others), but they are a tiny minority among a vast majority of biblical scholars, just like mythicists are a tiny minority among scholars in general. Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:18, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

So the long and short of it is this: You think the situation is described by:

• I: The vast majority of scholars who have published on the issue of the historicity of Jesus have come out in favour of it.

• II: Only a small group of serious scholars and a somewhat larger group of nonserious scholars dispute it.

The first problem is that you do not have a source for "I". But you have effectively conceded that all the sources above are totally valid. Again, in terms of the above, you can not (really not) construct your own quote that ""Lake Ladoga is the largest lake among all lakes in Europe which have been measured by a team of geologists". If professor A has a quote Q that says "Lake Ladoga is the largest lake in Europe", you cannot perform interior decoration on his quote to construct quote Q2 to fit your personal assessment. Secondly, there are no "nonserious scholars". I think you mean to refer to "popular writers" who do not hold academic positions. They are generally called popular writers, and in terms of scholarship, they matter not. History2007 (talk) 21:24, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Statement S was not presented as a quoted opinion, and does not represent a common quote, but a summary of various views. The wording is certainly very different from what the other sources than Ehrman have said, which is not surprising since they all use different wording.

As for "conceding" a point, I have never disagreed that these are fine sources to use in the article, and I have repeatedly said they are fine. What I did and do say is that they do not meet what I believe to be the technical criteria (reliable source from the field in question, clear statement about a majority of opinion among the whole group for which it is being claimed) for the claim about academic consensus among a certain group of scholars as it is currently worded. It's fine to disagree on the specifics, and even better to see if we might reach agreement. I'd be fine with changing the wording of the claim, or with turning the claim into a quote by a named source rather than a sourced statement per standard WP:NPOV procedure. It doesn't help if you react to strawman arguments I didn't make and have repeatedly and emphatically denied making or even agreeing with. You didn't like my suggestions, perhaps you have suggestions of your own. I'd like to think we all have the same goal here, to serve neutrality and verifiability.

You didn't address my point about the individual scholars not being qualified to act as a RS about the whole group (scholars of antiquity) for the which the claim of censensus is made, nor the fact that except for Ehrman and Dunn they don't even make the sweeping statement. More importantly, you show no sign of constructively helping me address a sincere concern. Instead you seem to be responding combatively. You didn't like my initial suggestion of saying "biblical scholars", nor my second attempt at a rephrasing that addresses my concerns. Perhaps you have constructive suggestions of your own?

I didn't understand your point about nonserious scholars. Grant says very few serious scholars have disagreed with historicity. I don't know of a better term for the group of scholars whom he does not take seriously than nonserious scholars. Maybe it's not an important point, but I'd like to make sure I understand your point. Martijn Meijering (talk) 01:10, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I have addressed your point N times now, with N rapidly approaching infinity. I think Ehrman is totally qualified to address the issue and his statement is exactly right. And I think the distinction you are making about their specialties is absolute nitpicking, artificial and surreal. I am sorry that is exactly what I think.

Look:

• These professors (Ehrman, Grant, Van Voorst, etc.) all read the same journals that Goggle Scholar and Google books search. There are just a few major universities, a few major books and these professors do not have to go to Mars to find out which scholars support the historicity of Jesus and which do not. That is clear to everyone on this planet.

• Everyone mentioned here (the professors) and the editors who type here, and the other Wikipedia articles all "agree" on the same thing: only a handful of people with PhDs (or perhaps even less) who teach at universities deny the existence of Jesus.

So trying to denigrate these professors based on their specialties, reconstruct what they say by adding long qualifiers, etc. is surreal, artificial and incorrect, specially when there are no opposing sources. I am sorry, that is exactly what I think. History2007 (talk) 04:53, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

I came back with a hunch that I had perhaps misunderstood your request for an opposing opinion, and that you were asking for an opinion contradicting consensus rather than one contradicting existence. But I see you are back to your snooty, intransigent and uncooperative attitude. You still haven't addressed my sincere concern or offered any help. Either offer to help or kindly get out of the way.

I am not denigrating these professors, I have repeatedly said positive things about them. I am not questioning whether they can do a Google search, but that is not the relevant criterion, since you and I can do a Google search too and that emphatically is not enough ground for a statement on consensus as WP:RS/AC clearly states. The question is not whether Ehrman can do a Google search, it's whether he is a reliable source on historians and I contend it is far from obvious he is. I'm open to persuasion he is if additional evidence is offered, or if you engage with my argument instead of simply repeating your own. That way you might lead me to see the error of my ways, or to clarify my argument and either way increase understanding.

Let me add another consideration to the mix: I believe Ehrman himself, and if not him then other prominent HJ researchers, have criticised the historian Richard Carrier as being unqualified to offer an opinion on the historicity of Jesus because he is a historian, not a biblical scholar with knowledge of Aramaic, Hebrew and Syriac. So are we to believe that Ehrman is qualified to speak about historians because he is a biblical scholar, but historians aren't qualified to speak about biblical scholars? That's a strange double standard. And by your reasoning, is Ehrman qualified to address the opinion of a majority of the combined set of biblical scholars and nuclear physicists, being a member of that combined set?

Why is it that you are so defensive about Ehrman's qualifications to speak about historians and scholars of antiquity in general? Why insist on Ehrman's wording and not choose Grant's formulation instead? Martijn Meijering (talk) 15:06, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

* Everyone mentioned here (the professors) and the editors who type here, and the other Wikipedia articles all "agree" on the same thing: only a handful of people with PhDs (or perhaps even less) who teach at universities deny the existence of Jesus.

A point I have made several times myself. But that is not what the statement "a majority of scholars of antiquity hold that Jesus existed" says, the latter is a much more sweeping statement. And yet you appear to insist on the sweeping statement, despite my concern it will mislead people as to the size of the academic consensus. Maybe you don't share my concern, but why not help me alleviate it? What harm could possibly come of it? I don't see any, but if you do, kindly speak up. Martijn Meijering (talk) 15:13, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Again, as stated before, you have no basis for your view that 7 scholars listed above are not capable of counting how many people there are on each side of the debate. The only way they could not know that is if there are scholars they are unaware of, or journals they are unaware of. And where are these hiding scholars who oppose historicity? And why is it that the likes of Ehrman, Van Voorst or Grant are unaware of them or their views? Are these other scholars on Mars? Do we need to send the Mars rover to look for them? No.

As all sources and lists indicate, there are "a handful of academics" (or less) who deny historicity and you have directly admitted that they are a "tiny minority". Do you have "a few sources" that per WP:RS/AC state that a good number of scholars of antiquity have stated that they are agnostic on the existence of Jesus? Or is that your "personal opinion?" The long and short of it is that you seem to think these 7 professors are not capable of counting the number of people on each side of the debate, and based on your own superior knowledge you know better and need to remedy their errors. That is not so. History2007 (talk) 15:57, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

No academic still teaching at a major university denies the existence of Jesus

Given the length of the discussion above, I think a more solid analysis would be in order, instead of abstract discussions. So here is a list compiled from the Wiki page on Christ myth theory which lists the main proponents of the myth theory as G. A. Wells, Alvar Ellegård, Robert M. Price, Thomas L. Thompson, Richard Carrier and Earl Doherty. I have also done other web searches.

The list makes it clear that

• "not a single academic still teaching at a major university denies the existence of Jesus."

If any editor here knows of any other academics, please enlighten me. I would like to know.

Here is the list:

• Alvar Ellegård: He was a professor of English and died in 2008.

• Robert M. Price: He has a PhD is theology and is a biblical scholar. He is said to be teaching at the "Johnnie Colemon Theological Seminary", an organization not notable enough as of this writing to have a Wikipedia which seems to be just a website without an actual campus or actual classes, or any higher education accreditation. He also teaches at CFI Institute which does not seem to be a university of any type, and mostly teaches online courses or summer classes. Price can be considered a scholar, but he does not teach at a major institution. He acknowledges that hardly any one agrees with him.

• Thomas L. Thompson: Was a professor of theology in Sweden (now retired) and denies existence. Thompson's arguments were never accepted by the academic community at large and he worked as an interior decorator for over a decade until he found a position.

• Richard Carrier: He has a PhD, but is not an academic and does not teach at any university. Carrier's professional occupation (beyond his blog) remains unclear.

In this list there are only two clear ex-academics who deny existence: Ellegård and Thompson plus Price who is a biblical scholar and may be considered a scholar, but not an academic really. That makes 3 at best. R. Joseph Hoffmann supports Gnosticism, but is not a direct denier of existence and listed as a supporter of existence by the Wikipedia page on Christ myth theory.

Are there 30 scholars out there who deny existence? No. Do any of them still teach at a major institution? No. Even if Carrier is considered a scholar, that is still less than a handful of deniers, but none of these people is currently holding an academic position at a major institution.

G. A. Wells is a professor of German. He was (and is) widely acknowledged as the leader of the Christ myth theorists. Wells no longer denies the existence of Jesus. Wells did a U-turn in his last book after the evidence from the Q source documents had been explained to him.

There are also academics such as John P. Meier, Donald Akenson and Hector Avalos who have criticized the methods used in biblical studies but none of these on their own denies the existence of Jesus, and Meier is a strong supporter of existence. Paula Fredriksen considers the Christian gospels to be mostly fiction but she firmly supports the existence of Jesus. There are hardly any academics (depending on if one counts Price in or out, etc.) that deny existence and still teach in a major institution.

Then there are the popular writers generally listed as Earl Doherty, John Allegro, Acharya S, Christopher Hitchens, Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy. None of these writers has a PhD, none has been an academic and Doherty and Acharya own the small publishing companies that self-publish their books. There are also a number of non-academics who write popular or self-published books to support existence, but none of these matter in terms of "academic support", either way.

So really, there is no "academic support" for the non-existence of Jesus among professors who are still teaching at major institutions. If there are a significant number of professors who deny the existence of Jesus, they must be teaching on Mars, and perhaps the Mars rover will find them soon. But there are certainly no professors teaching at Harvard, Princeton, Oxford, Cambridge, Stanford or Berkeley who deny the existence of Jesus. That seems certain.

If there are professors currently teaching at major institutions who deny the existence of Jesus, please do inform me. Thank you. History2007 (talk) 05:52, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

There's no archaeological evidence to support the historicity of Jesus Christ, a Magical Figure to do with Religion and The Bible. It does not make any difference what scholars think and believe, the evidence shows there is no evidence for a historical Christ. The Bible is a collection of contrived documents founded on religious faith. The established Church was not founded on historical provenance but rather on what people preferred to believe. Mention all these points to University scholars who BELIEVE in a historical Jesus Christ and they all remain silent. This Wikipedia article is a product of religious propaganda. Nittoditto (talk) 12:20, 28 September 2012 (UTC)