Talk:Historical Jesus

Way too many weasel words for an article of this import

This article seems to go to great pains to remind us over and over how universal the acceptance of Jesus is among scholars then only provides half a dozen articles (mostly written by christians), as someone who's studied history I can say that scholars are nowhere near universal in this accpetance. The main arguments, that the baptism and crucifixion are real, is based on no more than a bunch of fairly tall assumptions, namely that a single, unsupported and questionable reference from Josephus, the absence of any contemporary accounts denying his existence and the completely baseless assumption that Christians wouldn't make up such an embarrassing story for their leader (the most ridiculous assumption of the lot in my opinion, plenty of cults portray their leaders as victims, look at Mormonism or Scientology, its called begging for sympathy). Fact is there is no reason to assume any more than that at least 1 itinerant cult leader was wandering around Judea at the time, hardly an odd occurrence in the Iron Age Levant. This article has clearly been hijacked.

Proposal to Merge

We have two overlapping articles – Historicity of Jesus, which supposedly discusses the existence of Jesus of Nazareth as a historical person, and Historical Jesus, which is apparently about the historical reconstructions of Jesus’ life. The overlaps are substantial, and neither topic can be properly discussed without bringing in material already covered in the other article. At the same time there are vast numbers of other articles which discuss the events of the gospels in minute detail – often overlapping with each other. I propose that we merge these two articles into a single article that specifically focuses on “how much of what we read about Jesus is regarded as actual historical fact”, and that all the rest be left to the dedicated articles on the various points, with appropriate summaries and links only. Wdford (talk) 10:24, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose WP:SIZE alone makes this a non-starter; following that both articles are too big and should probably be split further (which I don't propose). On the simple count, this article is 123KB, the other 89KB even with a huge chunk (66K) still in wiki-limbo (see previous section). The "Historicity" is largely about the sources for the basic existence, and this about the interpretations of them, which seems a sensible division, though some rearrangement might be possible. Johnbod (talk) 12:38, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
• Support The size of the articles will reduce drastically once we start deleting all the duplication and off-topic waffle. We can also eliminate all the material that rehashes existing articles, such as the Christ myth theory, the various quests and the Historical reliability of the Gospels, and reduce those sections to summaries with links. A lot of this material is simply duplicating those articles, and if anything useful remains it can be added where it fits best. What should remain in this combined article is a discussion of the 8 things that are apparently semi-historical, and a summary of the discussions that underpin those assumptions. Wdford (talk) 15:43, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Note - this is the nominator!

• I disagree, and I'm not impressed with your editing style, which removes far too much. For example, the Christ myth theory section here is already a very short summary; if you think it is too long you are wrong. Johnbod (talk) 15:51, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• Comment The bigger problem will not be whether to merge or not, it will be what the article will be titled. I foresee a firestorm from either side based upon whether "Historicity" (the "perceived" discussion from the basis of Christ being a true figure) or "Myth" (the "perceived" discussion from the basis of non-existance) is selected as the merged title being such a hot topic as that it will never be resolved. Maybe this is the real reason for two articles...? Ckruschke (talk) 19:29, 10 September 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

The proposal is not to merge anything with Christ myth theory (itself 82KB). I could imagine Historicity of Jesus being retitled something like Historical sources for the life of Jesus. Johnbod (talk) 20:10, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification John! Ckruschke (talk) 17:53, 11 September 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

• Support I don't necessarily support a straightforward merge of content from historicity of Jesus to historical Jesus, but I don't support the existence of an article called "historicity of Jesus" because there is not a serious discussion within academia about Jesus' existence; the idea that he didn't is (to put it mildly) non-mainstream, and covered in great detail at Christ myth theory. The "historicity" article, though, has tons of citations to NT scholarship and makes it look as if scholars spend a lot of time establishing that Jesus existed. This is not true to what scholars do, and in fact, in portraying arguments that scholars have made for other purposes as arguments for Jesus' historicity, the article arguably has WP:SYNTH problem.

I think Ckruschke raises a good point about why there might be two articles. The reason that there is a split between historical Jesus and historicity of Jesus is because there are a lot of people on the internet who think that Jesus didn't exist, and a steady stream of these folks come to Wikipedia to complain that any article based on mainstream NT scholarship has a Christian agenda. Seen this way, the Christ myth theory and historical Jesus articles are a troll magnet or honeytrap. Even so, the articles shouldn't misrepresent the sources, and any article that makes it look as if there is a substantial academic debate about Jesus' historicity is misrepresentation.

I do think that moving historicity of Jesus to sources for the life of Jesus or something similar would go a long way towards solving the problem. That's not a merge, really, but my "support" here really means that I'd like to see a change to how these articles are arranged. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:30, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

As I've said above, Christ myth theory explains the arguments of "mythers", and states that very few scholars now accept these, but it has virtually nothing on why they don't. The academic debate is not exactly dead, and the "popular" debate very much alive, and these arguments need to go somewhere. Johnbod (talk) 02:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

And you should also mention that there are a great many more people who might accept that a Jesus-person existed, but who also know that much of what the gospels claim about Jesus is fiction, pious or otherwise. If you persist in framing the debate in "all or noting" terms, then you will constantly have that vast number of people constantly bombarding your article with all the sources who state clearly that the Jesus of the gospels is fiction. If you absolutely insist on side-stepping all that scholarship in this article, then there will have to come one day an article entitled Non-historicity of the gospel Jesus to accommodate all the scholarship which refutes the virgin birth, the three wise men, the infant massacre, the census, the flight to Egypt, the miracles, the resurrection and the ascension - i.e. all the elements which elevate a Jewish teacher into a god-man. Maybe we should start by creating that article? Wdford (talk) 23:39, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps we should. Afaik, what material we have on this is scattered around the various Gospel episode articles - but then that's what you want to do to these ones it seems. Johnbod (talk) 02:05, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Once again, I think you misunderstand my intentions. I am not trying to scatter material, I am trying to consolidate it, to make it coherent and to eliminate duplication.

It is clear that there are three main views of the Jesus issue – A) Jesus was a man-god as per the gospel stories; B) Jesus is a mythical construct, as were (apparently) Zeus and Osiris; C) A Jesus-person did exist, as a Jewish Martin Luther who tried to reform the practice of Judaism but timed it badly and got squashed by the Romans in passing, and then a lot of theocratic twaddle was layered onto his story by Constantine etc for their own purposes. There are various other nuances around and between as well.

I have noted on various articles, including the Christ Myth Theory, that many editors get stressed because Option C is not properly represented. I understand why it keeps getting deleted from those articles, but I don’t agree that this is productive.

I hear you on the Christ Myth article, and my solution would be to present the counter-argument in that same article, but it seems you prefer another route. Fine, I’m not married to that idea, but I then propose a whole different approach, as follows:

Step 1: The Christ Myth article be left largely alone for now, but a strong statement be made in its lede to the effect that “while scholars agree that a Jesus-person existed – see article x for details - scholars also agree that the bulk of the gospel stories about him are fiction – see article z for details.” I think that would go a long way toward solving that problem permanently.

Step 2: The Historical Jesus article be revamped as a list of the gospel elements, with each element having a brief discussion of “is this historical fact – yes/no, and reasons/references”. E.g the virgin birth – not factual, because Vermes says etc etc. Was baptized by John – considered to be factual, because Ehrman says etc etc.

Step 3: The Historicity of Jesus article then be revamped purely to say that Jesus did actually exist, although it’s clear that much of the gospels are fiction, because Tacitus said etc etc. I perceive that this is your preference – correct me if I’m still not getting it.

Step 4: The existing Jesus article is then cleaned up by eliminating duplication where appropriate.

All four articles can then cross-reference each other closely, and people trying to get the full picture can read four clear and coherent articles to get the full picture.

I would still prefer to merge Historical Jesus and Historicity of Jesus once they are both cleaned up, because I perceive there to be a great deal of overlap, but we can talk about that when we get there, depending on WP:SIZE etc.

What do you think? Wdford (talk) 09:48, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I can't say I have noticed this "stress" on talk pages myself, and most WP complaints about some large topic not being covered are from people who haven't found their way to the right material, sometimes our fault, sometimes theirs. In the case of your "C" I agree there is (afaik, and rather surprizingly) no main article on this sort of view, and there should be. But it seems a different topic and should have a new article, which would be mostly concentrating on the period after "32 AD". Perhaps there is a further subject, on material said to be mythical in the New Testament. Both would be hugely complex, and very long if done at all properly, & I can't see any of the three existing articles providing much of a starting point. No doubt much of the material is around in other articles already. Historical reliability of the Gospels has some, though Historical reliability of the Acts of the Apostles is very narrowly-focused. On diffusion I was referring to your "I propose that we merge these two articles into a single article that specifically focuses on “how much of what we read about Jesus is regarded as actual historical fact”, and that all the rest be left to the dedicated articles on the various points, with appropriate summaries and links only" above. Johnbod (talk) 14:16, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Comment more or less agree with Akhilleus here. Having looked at a few reference books on religion lately, I do see that they rather frequently describe the sources on the life of Jesus as a separate topic. Those reference sources might be enough to establish notability of the sub-topic, and I do think that, in general, the distinction between the modern academic views of Christ's life and the specific material relating directly to the separate topic of the historical sources for the life of Jesus is sufficiently different and to have enough material to probably merit a separate standalone article. John Carter (talk) 18:49, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose The subjects are sufficiently different that a merger makes no sense. It would compound an already difficult to manage situation. Fearofreprisal (talk) 02:19, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I agree with editors Johnbod and John Carter's reasoning on this matter. Alatari (talk) 05:35, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose Following a comparison of the way these subjects are described in other languages to resolve Wikidata conflicts, we must keep a clear distinction between the concepts of Jesus as a religious figure, Jesus as a historical person (no matter whether each reader believes he was real) and Historicity of Jesus, the study of modern findings regarding the evidence for a historical Jesus compared with an analysis of ancient texts about him (religious or not). Perhaps some cleanup of the Historicity article may help, but a merge would be a huge endeavour and would certainly confuse readers. — JFG ^talk 19:08, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
  • JFG, would you mind clarifying what you think the distinction between the articles historical Jesus and historicity of Jesus is? Because as far as I can see, the historical Jesus article tells us about concepts of Jesus as a historical person based on modern analyses of the evidence for a historical Jesus--and that evidence is ancient texts. So I'm having trouble seeing a separation between the two articles. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:03, 30 October 2013 (UTC)
    • This article now contains every detail of value that is or was included in the Historicity of Jesus article. Read in conjunction with the Jesus article, the Sources for the Historicity of Jesus article, the Historical reliability of the Gospels article and the Christ myth theory article, I think it now covers the subject adequately. There is no longer a need for the merger. Wdford (talk) 17:36, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

All HIstorians do not agree

I would like to note that this article claims: "Virtually all historians agree" Yet in the references next it lists a historian who doesn't agree.

I am not a historian, yet question the very existence of Jesus because of the severe lack of information that he did. I also question his very name as it was listed in Matthew as supposed to be "Emmanuel". It would seem more appropriate for someone this article to state: "Most historians agree" as there are some who do not. I question the validity of this article when they use such definitive statements such as "Virtually all" (Even with Global Warming, most people understand that "most climatologists agree" ... not all, which is the correct way to say this as we know there are a scant few who disagree)

It seems that most historians who work on religious history are religious themselves and have a bias toward believing that Jesus was a real human even if they do not take the bible literally. I have a difficult time believing that "Jesus" was a real human as there is only evidence from religious texts or writings long after "he" supposedly died that claim that he did. If you take away the duplicated, implausible, & ridiculous miracles, there really isn't much reason left for there to be an actual historical human named "Jesus". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emeraldsforest (talk • contribs) 12:19, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

1) "Virtually" obviously implies "a majority less than 100%" and thus one dissenting quote clearly fits within the bounds of the definition.

2) If you spend a little time looking at the scholarship, you'd see that even most atheists freely admit that the Jesus of the Bible was a real person. The debate is over his divinity.

3) Suggesting that the removal of Jesus' divinity somehow removes the possibility of his humanity would mean, to follow your logic, that if we were to take away the history of someone's job, family, and name, that that that person would somehow cease to exist. This is obviously not true.

4) Your comment about a "severe lack of information" about Jesus implies you've spent no time actually looking at the scholarship so I'm not sure you are commenting from any actual position other than naked POV, which of course has a hard time flying in Wikipedia. Sorry... Ckruschke (talk) 18:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC)Ckruschke

You should not speak in the name of atheists. The Jesus of the Bible is an invention, what remains is little proof and lots of religious texts with no historical value. Your Point 3 seems a misunderstanding: removing Jesus Bible facts leaves only a normal person, which is little proof for anything. The problem is that the historical Jesus is just a person with two facts: baptism and death.83.52.210.16 (talk) 00:35, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, is the "historian who doesn't agree" mentioned by Emeraldsforest Robert M. Price? Because I would hesitate to call him a historian, unless we're using a broad definition. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:32, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

From my own understanding, it seems its not just the divinity that is in question - many of the gospel stories are in serious doubt. The historicity of the census, the magi and the star, the virgin birth, the massacre of the babies, the flight to Egypt, the miracles, the resurrections, the details of the trial, the reasons for the execution, the resurrection of Jesus and the ascension are all deemed to be "non-historic', and even elements such as having disciples seems to be challenged by some. The objective consensus seems to be that very little of the gospel accounts can be believed, other than that Jesus (whatever his real name) did exist, lived in that area, was baptized and was executed. Wdford (talk) 07:54, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Pretty sure the Imperial Roman census is in a different category of historicity from virgin birth. Cynwolfe (talk) 14:22, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Generally speaking, yes they are. I was referring of course to the particular census which Luke claims caused Joseph to load the heavily-pregnant Mary onto a donkey for a few weeks in order to visit Bethlehem from their supposed home in Nazareth - which census could not have taken place in the time period described by Matthew, and which would not in any case have required Joseph to leave his home to pay his taxes in a neighboring country. Wdford (talk) 18:14, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Wdford this article does not say that the account of the census in Luke is historical in fact it says "Most scholars agree that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, that he debated Jewish authorities on the subject of God, performed some healings, gathered followers, and was crucified by Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate" so anything not on that list may be assumed not to have agreement.Smeat75 (talk) 18:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Does the article actually say "virtually all historians"? I think it says things like "scholars" and "biblical historians", which are fine with me. Martijn Meijering (talk) 18:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Historical Jesus

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Historical Jesus's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Dunn303":

• From Historicity of Jesus: The Historical Jesus in Recent Research edited by James D. G. Dunn and Scot McKnight 2006 ISBN 1-57506-100-7 page 303
• From Jesus: Borg, Marcus J. (2006). "The Spirit-Filled Experience of Jesus". In Dunn, James D.G.; McKnight, Scot (eds.). The Historical Jesus in Recent Research. Eisenbrauns. p. 303. ISBN 978-1-57506-100-9.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 16:22, 2 November 2013 (UTC)