Talk:Historicity of Jesus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I understand that some scholars believe Jesus’ existence is "as certain as anything could be", but this is patently wrong.Wdford you keep repeating on this talk page that emeritus professors of classics and leading ancient historians are "patently wrong", issue "ridiculous" statements, base their conclusions on "fraud and rumour" and so on. Please see WP:NOTFORUM, that is not what talk pages are for, and I am going to ask at WP:BLPN if it is a violation of policy on WP:BLP.Smeat75 (talk) 19:55, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

I have raised the question here [1].Smeat75 (talk) 19:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

A few points One I remember reading some years ago (I can try to find the source if required) that our first documentary evidence of Alexander the Great is 400 years after the fact but no one seems to disbute his existence. And there are more than a few times the internal list of leaders of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church disagrees dramatically with independent historical accounts for unknown reasons. It is I think not unreasonable to say in these cases the comparative lack of contemporary historical documentation isn't what Western scholars are used to but is on a par with several similar cases like Pontius Pilate for the academics in that particular field to find as "compelling evidence" or some similar phrase. John Carter (talk) 21:11, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

John Carter, My goal is to make it clear to the average reader what methods of testing and verification are possible in this case relative to other well known cases. As it stands, I believe that the article lacks the language to give the average reader the context necessary to understand the intent of the individuals who are quoted. So far, I haven't heard anything substantive in terms of why that would be inappropriate.

I'm not sure if I understand entirely what you are proposing, but I think that explaining what academics in various fields say is "compelling evidence" would be a good strategy only if there was some explanation as to that field's criteria for "compelling evidence". Otherwise, the ordinary reader would not have the context to understand the spirit of the quote.Blackthorne2k (talk) 01:44, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Historical methodology is not within the scope of this article. In my opinion, providing a link to the historical method would be appropriate. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 13:59, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree with Bill. The historical methodology used in this instance is SFAIK not unique to this instance and probably doesn't bear much coverage as per WP:WEIGHT unless specific evidence to the contrary is presented. Having said that one or more of the sometimes huge reference books on this broad topic might have content and references to support a stand-alone article on the topic of the historical methodology of Jesus and/or the NT era and it might be worthwhile to check them.John Carter (talk) 15:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

The comparison with Alexander the Great is quite instructive. Even for a military leader who conquered the entire known world, there are only a few inscriptions, a couple of references in royal archives and fragments of eyewitness reports from his own lifetime. Almost everything known about him comes from books written hundreds of years later. An itinerant prophet in an obscure province who had been put to death as a trouble maker by the Roman authorities would not have had monuments or inscriptions put up to him, and Roman historians would have had no interest in such a person. Historical methodology says " If a number of independent sources contain the same message, the credibility of the message is strongly increased" and that is even more true for ancient history than modern as such multiple independent attestation as the crucifixion as exists from the Gospels, Tacitus and Josephus is exceedingly rare for an event from antiquity, which is why anyone who knows anything about it says things like "overwhelming" documentary evidence.Smeat75 (talk) 17:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

I am not making reference to a minority viewpoint so I think we are clear in terms of "coverage as per WP:WEIGHT". My intention is, in the interest of making steps toward resolving the dispute that is the subject of this thread, to provide a small amount of information about the types of methodology used so that the average reader can properly understand the context and intention of the quotes. There are plenty of articles with a small section that may overlap another article and is not necessarily unique to a given instance.Blackthorne2k (talk) 09:42, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

All of the above is perfectly true. However in order to be neutral, we should also mention that the authenticity of all this "overwhelming evidence" has been challenged. That's all we are trying to achieve here. I am not aware that the authenticity of the writings or monuments of Herod or Octavian has been challenged? Wdford (talk) 11:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Smeat75, Re-reading your post above from June 27th, I think that you touched on a couple of important points: Firstly, that the number of sources and their independence can contribute to, or presumably withdraw from, the credibility of a message. I think that this is very much in line with my suggestions about degrees of certainty. You mentioned Alexander the Great as a well known example by which people could have a reference point to understand the degree credibility or certainty in this case. Are you opposed to using a similar technique in this article to give the average reader a reference point for the level of credibility or certainty present or possible in this case? Secondly, you mentioned language like "overwhelming" coming from experts who are describing the documentary evidence. My concern is that the article is not clear that those experts are making those judgements relative to other cases that are determined solely through documentary evidence. When the average person reads a quote like "That (Jesus) was crucified is as sure as anything historical can ever be", they do not have enough information to understand that Crossan is not talking about surety in the same sense as a case of historicity where there are additional types of evidence available. He clearly is not intending to say that the historicity of the crucifixion of Jesus is as sure as the Battle of Gettysburg. We all know that those are very different questions, but the wording of the article would suggest otherwise. Whether or not you agree, can you understand what I am getting at, and do you have any ideas that could add to the clarity with which I am concerned? Thank you.Blackthorne2k (talk) 01:30, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I am not entirely sure that I do understand what you are getting at, but all I can say is that you need reliable sources to add material to the article. I can compare the evidence for Jesus' existence to Alexander the Great's here on this talk page but I couldn't do it in the article space because I am not a reliable source. If you can find a reliable source that clarifies the material in the way you would like it can be summarised in the article.Smeat75 (talk) 12:50, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

• Re: "You may remove the template if...There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved." Obviously it would have to be the NPOV noticeboard, since there'll never be consensus on anything on this talk page. As WP:ANRFC for a formal closure, if necessary.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:39, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Richard Carrier

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

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

More fringe speculations. Thanks, but no thanks.

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

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

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

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

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

Not really original - see e.g. the following from Gordon Stein PhD: [2] Wdford (talk) 16:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, that is correct, here is the paper published by Pines in 1971.[3] He discovered Arabic manuscripts of Josephus without the passages that had long been identified as the most suspicious "he was the Messiah" "if indeed it be proper to call him a man", instead of saying Jesus was crucified "at the suggestion of the principal men among us" it says ""Pilate condemned him to be crucified". Since then more or less all experts agree that the main Josephus passage is authentic with a few phrases altered by Christian scribes, the article Wdford cites uses as its main source a book written in 1838.Smeat75 (talk) 02:16, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Smeat75: have you posted your concerns about Carrier and his theories at WP:FTN and WP:RSN? If not, I see no reasonable basis to exclude him as a reliable source for this article. On another note, your comments here, though impeccably researched and thoughtfully written, are pretty clearly apologetic and polemic. Fearofreprisal (talk) 08:51, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Analysis of historical evidence

The lead says this article concerns "the analysis of historical evidence to determine whether Jesus of Nazareth existed as a historical figure, and whether any of the major milestones in his life as portrayed in the gospels can be confirmed as historical events."

And, that brings me to this paragraph in the lead:

Most modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed,[5][7][8] but scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the Biblical accounts,[12] and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.[9][10][11] There is a significant debate about his nature, his actions and his sayings, but most scholars agree that Jesus was a Galilean Jew who was born between 7-4BC and died 30–36 AD,[13][14][15] that he lived in Galilee and Judea and did not preach or study elsewhere,[16][17][18] and that he spoke Aramaic and perhaps also Hebrew and Greek, although this has been disputed.[19][20][21][22]

Nothing in this paragraph has anything to do with the analysis of historical evidence. It's merely meta-statements. It says that "most" scholars (whoever they may be) agree about some things. Not very helpful.

The paragraph seems to exist in the lead merely to establish a POV that mitigates any individual analyses of historical evidence. It's largely copied (both text and citations) from other somewhat related articles, and is out of place here. So I'm removing it. Fearofreprisal (talk) 10:22, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

That paragraph summarizes the scholarly consensus and its strength on various historicity issues, in line with WP:RSAC. In short, it summarizes the results of that "analysis of historical evidence", as performed by the experts. And yes, it presents a point of view, the point of view taken by the vast majority of scholars, fully in line with WP:NPOV. For comparison, the lead of the global warming article similarly summarizies the academic consensus. "Not very helpful" amouts to WP:IDONTLIKEIT and is not a valid reason for the removal of relevant, well-sourced content. I'll restore it. Huon (talk) 20:58, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Mmeijeri did before I could. Huon (talk) 20:59, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

This article is not concerned with the consensus of whether Jesus actually existed, or whether the events portrayed in the gospels actually occurred. It is concerned only with "the analysis of historical evidence to determine whether Jesus of Nazareth existed as a historical figure, and whether any of the major milestones in his life as portrayed in the gospels can be confirmed as historical events."

The truth is, hundreds of millions of people believe Jesus existed, and the episodes in the gospels occurred, irrespective of historical evidence. So, a statement that "most scholars agree" that Jesus existed is not surprising, but it has no real relevance here.

So, let's look at that paragraph again:

Most modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed...

No analysis here -- just opinion. And there's no indication that the these scholars came to their belief based on analysis of historical evidence, or based on faith. (A hint might be found in the opinions by the cited sources that scholars who disagree with them are not "competent", "serious", or "respectable." Disparagement of differing opinions raises a big red flag regarding reliability.)

...but scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the Biblical accounts...

Not a very enlightening statement.

...and the only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.

There is discussion of this subject matter in the body of the article, but this sentence does not present an NPOV summary. Should be fixed or removed from the lead.

...There is a significant debate about his nature, his actions and his sayings...

That's not relevant to this article. It goes in the Historical Jesus article.

...but most scholars agree that Jesus was a Galilean Jew who was born between 7-4BC and died 30–36 AD, that he lived in Galilee and Judea and did not preach or study elsewhere, and that he spoke Aramaic and perhaps also Hebrew and Greek, although this has been disputed.

Again, this is a summary of majority opinion, providing no analysis. This sentence provides no historical evidence to confirm these claims as historical events. There is limited further discussion of this subject matter in the body (for example, no discussion of Aramaic.) This should be either removed from the lead, or moved to the body, and expanded with actual analysis and evidence.

I'm going to let this comment sit for a day, to see if there's further discussion. The paragraph can be rewritten, though there's not much that's salvageable. Fearofreprisal (talk) 11:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

WP is a collaborative effort and it is not up to one editor to decide what is relevant, "salvageable" or "enlightening". The lead summarizes the rest of the article. You say:"(A hint might be found in the opinions by the cited sources that scholars who disagree with them are not "competent", "serious", or "respectable." Disparagement of differing opinions raises a big red flag regarding reliability.)" That is completely wrong, we do not as WP editors decide whether something is from a reliable source on the basis of whether we like it or not or think it is rude or something. Reliable sources = for instance, a holder of an academic position writing on his field, a book published by Oxford University Press or other academic press, an academic journal, the New York Times or The Guardian. Unreliable source = for instance, a self-published book, an entry on a personal blog, an article in a tabloid newspaper.Smeat75 (talk) 12:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Smeat75: No, I'm not wrong. But, here's a thought: Why not focus on improving the article? Fearofreprisal (talk) 19:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the paragraph in question needs a rewrite. The first nine-word statement of fact, "Most modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed", is not appropriately supported by the three sources given. The authors quoted are clearly intending to make a statement of personal opinion based on their experiences and recollection; rather than a statement of fact based on empirical research. This is not to say that their opinion is not valid or valuable, but that the wording should be clear that the quotes are anecdotal statements of opinion; not conclusions based on quantifiable or repeatable methodology. Furthermore, the three quotes are from popular titles. They would likely sit in the Religion/Spirituality section of book stores and are more infotainment than academic works. This doesn't mean that the author isn't qualified or information within isn't valid. Lots of very qualified scholars write infotainment at some point in their careers. However, the quotes should not be presented as if they are from academic works that had to withstand peer review prior to publishing.Blackthorne2k (talk) 05:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Please see WP:RS:Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both There is no one more authoritative in the field of the New Testament and its relation to history than Bart Ehrman or classical studies (ie ancient Greece and Rome including the Roman empire which included Jerusalem in Jesus' lifetime) than Michael Grant. It doesn't matter where those authorities made those statements (and both of those books, which I have actually read more than once, are far from "infotainment", that is insulting). I would not object to the statement being attributed to Ehrman, the foremost authority of today: "According to historian Bart Ehrman, virtually every modern scholar of antiquity agrees that Jesus existed". The other editor says above "there's no indication that the these scholars came to their belief based on analysis of historical evidence, or based on faith." That is not true, Ehrman and Grant did not/ do not have any "faith" and based everything they wrote on historical evidence, that is also insulting.Smeat75 (talk) 18:12, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Smeat75: I won't dispute the reliability of Ehrman or Grant within their fields of study, but I've seen no evidence that any person cited in this article is a reliable source for determining whether other sources are "competent", "serious", or "respectable." As for your proposed statement: From what I can tell, this article isn't about opinions on whether Jesus existed. If you think I'm wrong, I'm sure you'll tell me. Fearofreprisal (talk) 19:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

We seem to be going round and round on this one, with Blackthorne2k and Fearofreprisal seeking to shift the goalposts until they can manage to exclude the simple, plain fact that - as far as anyone can reasonably ascertain - the clear consensus among scholars of the ancient era is that Jesus was an actual person. When clear evidence is presented of this, we are told that the actual sources contradict the expert view, that they are not appropriate scholars, that their views are 'infotainment', it's just personal opinion, that no scientific study has been done, etc., etc. We have good - certainly not perfect, but in Wikipedia we do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good - evidence that the overwhelming scholarly view is that Jesus existed. We have not the slightest piece of evidence that there exists a substantial body of scholarship that disputes this view - not even personal opinion or infotainment in support. The desperate need some editors have to get around the inconvenient evidence - which happens to contradict their personal opinions - is tiresome, and there seems no good reason why Wikipedia should indulge them. But, of course, that's just my personal opinion. --Rbreen (talk) 22:31, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Rbreen: Are you suggesting that this article is about opinions on whether Jesus existed? If so, then it should probably be renamed. Fearofreprisal (talk) 19:24, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

What we have are the points of view of our reliable sources, then we summarize those. That's actually all that we are allowed to do, per WP:V. That's true for any article. Every article is supposed to cover just the points of view that experts for the topic affirm (one might say "opinion" in place of "point of view", but "opinion" has a specific meaning in WP:NPOV). So that "Most modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed" is one point of view which a significant set of reliable sources affirm in their discussions of the historicity of Jesus. And because no significant set of reliable sources contradict this point of view, that means we assert directly per WP:ASSERT. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 20:33, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

Atethnekos, This issue is about WP:SCOPE, not WP:NPOV. Conclusory statements regarding Jesus' existence are out of scope. Fearofreprisal (talk) 19:59, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

That's simply false. The concept of a conclusory statement is not part of any policy or guideline. Any statements, including conclusory statements, may potentially be supported by reliable sources and therefore included in the encyclopedia according to NPOV. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 20:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Possibly you could explain your understanding of the scope of this article? Fearofreprisal (talk) 07:05, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

The topic is the historicity of Jesus. So the scope would be: claims made according to WP:NPOV of the sort which are included in the reliable sources for that topic. The one issue is technical space, where if the article is too long for technical reasons, sub-topics can be kept in sub-articles, in which case the main article would merely link to it and summarize it if desirable. For example we do that with Sources for the historicity of Jesus. --Atethnekos (Discussion, Contributions) 08:07, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Rbreen, It's good to have you back. I'm still waiting on your response to my last post on June 24th addressing your concerns about the relative amounts of material (Tut, Luke, historian's skill, etc.). I actually thought we were working our way towards some common ground and mutual understanding. Furthermore, I'm going to have to ask you again to maintain a constructive tone. There is no desperation here and no one is "moving goalposts". My concern is with the clarity and quality of the article as well as the propriety of the sources relative to the statements made. It would not surprise me if there were sources that justified the claim I mentioned above. The problem is that the sources provided do not. I think you could take a cue from Smeat75. While Smeat may disagree with me, he is maintaining a mature and constructive tone. In spite of the difference of opinion, Smeat understood what I was getting at and offered a constructive solution. That is how we work at Wikipedia.

Back to the sources. "Infotainment" is not a pejorative. There can be a fantastic amount of good information in popular titles that people read for entertainment, like the three books mentioned above. The point is that they are not academic titles and are not subject to peer review or editorial oversight the sense that a textbook or journal would be. I don't doubt the qualification of the authors, nor the truth of the claim, but those specific works would not be reliable enough to support such a direct statement. The "(Author) says..." format that Smeat75 suggested would be more appropriate for such a title. Beyond that, the quotes don't intend to convey that those conclusions are the result of empirical methods. I would like to suggest something like: "The eminent scholars Ehrman, Grant and Burridge have said that the majority of scholars in their field agree that Jesus existed." Is that so terrible, folks?Blackthorne2k (talk) 04:48, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

So can I assume that no one is opposed to the wording change I suggested immediately above?Blackthorne2k (talk) 11:33, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Eminent is a WP:PEACOCK term. Martijn Meijering (talk) 11:50, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Blackthorne2k - your proposed wording change doesn't accurately represent the citations, or their context. Fearofreprisal (talk) 12:31, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Scope of this article

The WP:SCOPE of the Historicity of Jesus article is spelled out in its first sentence. Here it is, formatted for clarity:

The historicity of Jesus concerns the analysis of historical evidence to determine

• whether Jesus of Nazareth existed as a historical figure, and,
• whether any of the major milestones in his life as portrayed in the gospels can be confirmed as historical events.

I don't see any significant ambiguity is this. Material is within the scope of the article if it concerns these things. Material is outside the scope of the article if it doesn't concern these things. Fearofreprisal (talk) 02:06, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Statements regarding whether Jesus existed are out of scope for this article. The above statement of scope says that the article concerns "the analysis of historical evidence to determine whether Jesus of Nazareth existed..." It does not say it concerns "whether Jesus of Nazareth existed."

Large swaths of the article are statements of opinion on whether Jesus existed. They should either be removed, or moved to the Existence of Jesus article (if someone wants to create that.) Fearofreprisal (talk) 04:13, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

No way you can turn this article into a platform for WP:OR. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

By "historicity of Jesus" we simply mean "a presentation of the scholarly consensus in respect to the real existence of Jesus". Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:00, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu, WP:SCOPE and WP:OR are entirely separate things. I'm a little mystified about how you got the impression I was suggesting turning the article into a platform for WP:OR

I've already, at the top of this section, included a word-for-word recitation of the existing scope of the article. If you want to change this scope, it will require WP:CONSENSUS.

In your purported scope, "a presentation on the scholarly consensus" is your interpretation of WP:POLICY. It appears that what you are suggesting for the scope is "the real existence of Jesus." Is this right? Fearofreprisal (talk) 17:38, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/historicity Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:42, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu, I'm trying to understand what you're getting at.

• Do you disagree with what I've presented as the scope, or do you just not like it?
• Are you suggesting that that I'm misconstruing the scope as including material on "the analysis of historical evidence to determine whether Jesus of Nazareth existed..." but not the more general "whether Jesus of Nazareth existed."? If so, can you suggest the proper construction?
• Are you suggesting that "the real existence of Jesus" is actually the current consensus scope, or are you suggesting it to replace the current consensus scope? In any event, can you suggest any reliable third-party sources who claim to have any knowledge of the real existence of Jesus? (I don't know of any.)
• Do you disagree with my statement that "Statements regarding whether Jesus existed are out of scope for this article?" If so, let me suggest this: Statements regarding whether Jesus existed that are explicitly and exclusively based on the analysis of historical evidence are in scope. Is this acceptable? If not, can you suggest a better construction? Fearofreprisal (talk) 22:14, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't see the problem. I do not see that we could not speak of the real existence (historical actuality, actuality meaning it really happened) of Jesus without implying that one cannot speak of the real existence of Julius Caesar. When Bart Ehrman says that the existence of Jesus is one of the most certain facts of ancient history, he means that Jesus really existed. Of course, he also says that historians do not have absolute certainty about past events, but set forth explanations of what probably happened based upon historical evidence. So, if you want, he means that it is almost certain that Jesus really existed. All the points made inside the article have to be based upon reliable sources and we apply WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE. As I told before, Ehrman needed a whole book for introducing to the public the historical evidence for the existence of Jesus and the ways scholars see this evidence. We cannot outsmart Ehrman on just three or four pages, that's why a deep analysis of the evidence, bordering upon original research, probably doesn't belong in our article. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:12, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Or, to put it bluntly, scholars analyze the historical evidence for Jesus, we simply report what they published. We don't analyze ourselves this evidence, since that it forbidden. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:19, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

None of which has anything to do with WP:SCOPE. Fearofreprisal (talk) 07:07, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be some misunderstanding here. You have latched onto the word "analysis" and apparently want to discard anything from the article that does not fit your understanding of that word, but you would have to get consensus to do that, which I feel you are unlikely to achieve.Smeat75 (talk) 13:52, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

"Article scope, in terms of what exactly the subject and its scope is, is an editorial choice determined by consensus." WP:SCOPE Smeat75 (talk) 14:34, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Smeat75, my understanding of the word "analysis" is its common meaning. What is your understanding of the word? Fearofreprisal (talk) 17:36, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

You keep repeating that what you call "opinions" (and are actually evaluations and assessments by the relevant authorities, experts and scholars of the subject) as to whether Jesus existed or not are out of the scope of this article but I do not go along with that. The second part of the sentence you have quoted says "whether Jesus of Nazareth existed as a historical figure and whether any of the major milestones in his life as portrayed in the gospels can be confirmed as historical events" so they are directly relevant.Smeat75 (talk) 19:27, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Smeat75: Keep repeating? No, I just asked you what your understanding of the word "analysis" is. You didn't answer.

The second part of the sentence you mention is a dependent clause. The first part of the sentence is the independent clause. My guess is that you already knew this.

The independent clause includes the phrase "analysis of historical evidence":

• What does "analysis" comprise? Google said "Detailed examination of the elements or structure of something, typically as a basis for discussion or interpretation." Any common dictionary definition is fine with me.
• What "historical evidence"? The dependent clause tells us it is any that is relevant to determining whether Jesus of Nazareth existed as a historical figure, and whether any of the major milestones in his life as portrayed in the gospels can be confirmed as historical events. Fearofreprisal (talk) 22:07, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

After not seeing any comments on this for a few days, I want to follow up, to be certain that there is no significant dispute on the current scope (as stated in the article), or how I am construing it. If you disagree with my construction, don't just tell me I'm wrong -- propose your own construction. Preferably something more specific than a mere restatement of the article topic. If necessary, we can move up through the dispute resolution process.

Eventually, quite a lot of irrelevant material may need to be removed from the article. Better to speak up here than start an edit war later. Fearofreprisal (talk) 05:08, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

OK, Fearofreprisal, I'm an outsider who stumbled on this by chance but I'll quickly summarise the problem for you. You are interpreting the first scope to mean direct interpretation of the original sources, which is why you are being accused of turning it into an Original Research problem. Whereas what the others want to do is summarise what scholars have said about those sources, which is what Wikipedia requires them (us) to do. You seem to consider secondary sources are, and I quote, 'statements of opinion on whether Jesus existed' and 'irrelevant material [that] may need to be removed from the article'. When somebody pointed out that what you wanted to do is not permitted, you started talking about scope rather than engaging with Wikipedia policy. I am afraid, and as I keep saying elsewhere to people who object to articles that fly in the face of their sincerely held religious or political views because they rely on such works, that Wikipedia can only summarise secondary sources. I don't know enough about the ancient world to comment definitively on this particular issue, but I'm happy to accept the views put forward here that there is sufficient evidence that (1) a person called Jesus existed and (2) there are certain events in his life that can be traced with reasonable accuracy. If you know of reliable (please note that word) sources to the contrary, please bring them forward.

If you cannot, perhaps (looking at some of your other comments here) you should ask yourself why you are more interested in the views of men like, say, Earl Doherty (who is generally believed to be completely unqualified despite his unsupported claims of a BA awarded fifty years ago) or Richard Carrier (chiefly famous for accusing his critics of suffering from various mental illnesses, and who despite being in his mid-forties has never held an academic position nor had a book survive blind peer review, and whose only peer-reviewed article cites David Irving as a reliable source, dismissing without explanation the views of a High Court Judge that Irving is a Holocaust Denier as 'popular belief') rather than the views of Ehrmann (who speaks the relevant languages and the majority of whose work is assessed by both employers and publishers as being of high quality, although his overall oeuvre is variable) or Grant (who had a highly successful career as first an intelligence officer, then a lecturer, then a university administrator, and finally a writer). Appeals to authority are always a little dangerous, but when all authorities agree on one thing, they are usually doing it for a reason, and that reason is that it's the best explanation of the available evidence that they have, and new evidence would be needed to change their views. Again, the article needs to reflect that. Mining in the original sources for 'new' evidence for this article with a clear agenda and a lack of expertise would be the best possible recipe for disaster.

And with respect, perhaps you should remember that bias, including an inability to see bias, is not a fault confined to Christians.86.169.1.243 (talk) 09:53, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Well said IP 86, and I would add that we are under no obligation to come to this page every day or so and repeat what we have already said in answer to Fearofreprisal. WP operates by consensus and I do not see anyone on this talk page agreeing with that editor's interpretation of "scope of this article" or anything else.Smeat75 (talk) 12:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

IP86 - You misrepresented what I said regarding scope, didn't offer any alternative construction, and spent a lot of time writing about things that have nothing to do with scope.

Smead75 - You're under no obligation to do anything. But if you don't participate in the discussion, you can't complain that I failed to seek consensus when this ends up on the administrator noticeboard (Which is almost certain to happen.) Fearofreprisal (talk) 09:04, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

@Fearofreprisal: The SCOPE of this article is fine as it stands. Perhaps you might focus your efforts on improving the CONTENT instead. Otherwise, maybe consider starting a new article called Inherent religious bias in historical Jesus scholarship, and see how much support you manage to attract. Remember to comply with WP:RS and WP:V. Wdford (talk) 09:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Actually, it turns out that RS have already provided us with plenty of evidence for that, see the HJ page. If Fearofreprisal focused on adding counterbalancing sources and mentioning the evidence of bias instead of trying to remove reliable sources, then we might actually make progress. Martijn Meijering (talk) 11:37, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

if you don't participate in the discussion, you can't complain that I failed to seek consensus when this ends up on the administrator noticeboard (Which is almost certain to happen.) Please do not interpret a day going by without other editors countering your posts here as a sign that everyone now agrees with you. Constant repetition of the same points just clutters up a talk page, which is not intended as a debating forum but a place to make suggestions for improving the article. I don't know what you think taking this to the administrator's noticeboard would achieve.Smeat75 (talk) 14:41, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Wdford - I've been writing about scope, not specific content. But that's next. Historical Jesus is different from historicity of Jesus, as described by the third paragraph of the article. As for WP:RS and WP:V - I've been contributing to WP for a dozen or so years. I'm not going to forget its basic policies.

Mmeijeri - I have no intention whatsoever of removing reliable sources. But, as explained in WP:SCOPE: "What reliable sources say about material that is out of scope for the decided-upon subject is largely irrelevant to that article and can be removed or moved to another article."

Smeat75 - Actually, time going by without other editors presenting alternative viewpoints does tend to validate my viewpoint. The fact that you've responded to my posts without actually dealing with the issue of scope pretty much shows that you agree with me on that subject. I suspect that at some point, when I remove some out of scope material that another editor particularly cherishes, and it turns into an edit war, it's going to end up on the administrator's noticeboard. Fearofreprisal (talk) 19:28, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

time going by without other editors presenting alternative viewpoints does tend to validate my viewpoint. No it doesn't. The fact that you've responded to my posts without actually dealing with the issue of scope pretty much shows that you agree with me on that subject No I don't. Several editors have made it clear that they do not agree with your attempt to impose your own definition of "scope of this article", in fact everyone but you as far as I can see. You just declare yourself to be unsatisfied with what we have said. WP does not work that way.Smeat75 (talk) 19:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

'IP86 - (1)You misrepresented what I said regarding scope, (2) didn't offer any alternative construction, (3) and spent a lot of time writing about things that have nothing to do with scope.'

(1) is false. Your exact words were: 'Statements regarding whether Jesus existed are out of scope for this article. The above statement of scope says that the article concerns "the analysis of historical evidence to determine whether Jesus of Nazareth existed..." It does not say it concerns "whether Jesus of Nazareth existed." Large swaths [sic] of the article are statements of opinion on whether Jesus existed. They should either be removed, or moved to the Existence of Jesus article (if someone wants to create that.)' What you propose in saying that is essentially a list of original sources used by historians working on the existence of Jesus, with the very clear subtext that you would add your own commentary on them and remove that of the experts who have some dim idea of what they are talking about. If I have misunderstood what you intended, then you need to express yourself more clearly.

(2) I know, it's terribly mean of me to not bother to propose anything more constructive than to follow Wikipedia policies. I would come up with proposals to change said policies so they could accommodate your worldview, but I'm too busy with paperwork ahead of the new academic year which starts next month (where does the time go?) and in any case in light of your behaviour, which I took the trouble to check out, I suspect it be a task somewhat beyond my powers.

(3) I was trying to show you why everyone who reads your contributions is bewildered by your attitude. Maybe I should have expressed myself more clearly and said, straightforwardly, that you are blatantly pushing a POV that is not only clearly indefensible but scarcely credible even if WP policies were not as they are.

I do hope that helps clear matters up for you.86.169.1.243 (talk) 14:53, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Preconceptions on Historicity

The one and only characteristic that literally all Christian denominations share is a belief that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person.

But it's not a matter of belief; it's something deeper that Christians rarely think about consciously, but accept as self-evident. It is no less than a first principle -- a foundation upon which the cornerstones of belief are placed. No matter how a Christian's beliefs may shift and change over time, that foundation remains unchanged.

It's hard -- possibly impossible -- to find a Christian who doesn't accept the existence of Jesus as being beyond question. It's even be hard to find an ex-Christian who doesn't. Or for that matter, a New Testament scholar.

That's a problem here. Most of the people cited as sources in this article are not only scholars, they are Christians or ex-Christians. There's no evidence that any of them have found a solution to the conflict of writing about a subject on which they have incurable preconceptions.

I don't see any easy fix for this. But I think it needs to be addressed. Fearofreprisal (talk) 09:19, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:GREATWRONGS. Tgeorgescu (talk) 10:49, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Sure... for my next trick, after I fix Christian preconceptions, I'm going to bring peace to the Ukraine and Gaza. Well... maybe not. I'm not trying to fix anything but some problems in the article.Fearofreprisal (talk) 17:12, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

The preconceptions here are those of the editor, who insultingly assumes that scholars cannot do their jobs of objectively assessing historical evidence but are driven by personal prejudice (and that "It's even be hard to find an ex-Christian who doesn't [accept the existence of Jesus as being beyond question.])" How do you know that? And for the nth time, there are quite a few classical historians referenced in the article, they are not' all "Bible scholars" or "New Testament scholars" etc.WP editors are not supposed to address things or fix things, only to summarise what reliable sources say.Smeat75 (talk) 15:06, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Tg/S75, Well said!! Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 16:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Smeat75: Your post is incivil. Please consider going back to reword it.Fearofreprisal (talk) 17:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I didn't detect any incivility in Smeat75's part. I see frustrated disagreement with your tendentious editing, and a faux-civil accusation of incivility by you for disagreeing calling out your honestly bigoted assumption that Christians and former Christians are inherently too brain damaged to engage in "real" historical research ("real" being whatever you personally believe). But I'm just a dumbass Christian, so what do I know? Ian.thomson (talk) 17:26, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

What do you know? Apparently, how to make posts that add nothing of value to the conversation.Fearofreprisal (talk) 18:13, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

A lateral move at worst for this discussion. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:18, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Fearofreprisal, Smeat75 was being frank, not uncivil. Wikipedia - fortunately - does not work the way you want it to. It summarises the scholarly consensus. You can't simply sweep that aside by blithely assuming that everyone who agrees has 'incurable preconceptions'. You appear to have some obvious preconceptions of your own.--Rbreen (talk) 22:17, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

We'll be going around in circles until we properly address the issue of bias. That does not mean disqualifying all Christian or formerly Christian scholars, but we do need to acknowledge there is an issue. Our sources even say that. Martijn Meijering (talk) 22:21, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

True. There are reasonable questions about the true independence of the thought of what might be called cultural Christians of a sort as well as, I suppose perhaps the underlying principles or beliefs of those who somewhat iconoclastically reject or on rather weak evidence call into question a belief the accuracy of which has seemingly very rarely if ever seriously questioned, even in time periods that maybe or probably had access to information not available to us 2000 later. John Carter (talk) 22:55, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I am so tired of editors saying "Call this guy a reliable source on this subject? He says himself that he's a Christian! a "Bible scholar", this one's a pastor for goodness' sake, that one's actually a member of the Church of England synod, well they are all obviously biased" that I would almost suggest taking every statement sourced to any but scholars who are officially labelled "historians" out of the article, but I don't think that would be fair to the reader. The assumption that Christians cannot be objective historians just seems like prejudice to me. John Dominic Crossan, for instance, who is quoted in the article as saying the crucifixion is as certain as anything in history "maintains the Gospels were never intended by their authors to be taken literally . He argues that the meaning of the story is the real issue, not whether a particular story about Jesus is history or parable. He proposes that it is historically probable that, like all but one known victim of crucifixion, Jesus' body was scavenged by animals rather than being placed in a tomb. Crossan believes in vision hypothesis "resurrection" by faith but holds that bodily resuscitation was never contemplated by early Christians." He is quite notorious among biblical scholars for suggesting these things, why do editors assume he is blinded by bias when it comes to the fact of the crucifixion?Smeat75 (talk) 13:19, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Smead75: There is no reason why Christians cannot be objective historians, except on the sole question of the existence of Jesus. That is because the definition of Christianity is built upon the existence of Jesus. Christian scholars may disagree about the historicity of gospel events, but they don't disagree about the existence of Jesus. Fearofreprisal (talk) 18:11, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't know about others, but I for one am certainly not saying that. In fact I explicitly disagreed with it in my post above. Martijn Meijering (talk) 13:54, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions as to how to address the issue of bias that you identify Martijn?Smeat75 (talk) 14:28, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't have a full answer to that, but see my June 19 post above. Also, I think we need to have something similar to the criticism section in the Historical Jesus section. Copy paste doesn't seem like a good idea, but a short sentence and a hyperlink could do. The article should make clear that HJ research isn't just another branch of science, but that there are major doubts about methodology and the potential for bias. It should also clearly spell out the difference between HJ scholars and historians in general. It should mention that very few historians have published about the matter or have even studied it, including some of the recently added historians that emphatically reject the CMT. This doesn't mean we don't have evidence that historians (with very few exceptions) dismiss the CMT, but we should clearly differentiate between HJ researchers and historians. Martijn Meijering (talk) 12:35, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

In the first post here, I suggested that, for Christians, acceptance of the existence of Jesus is beyond question - a first principle. While I did get called prejudiced and bigoted, no one actually disagreed with me.

Apparently though, my implicit point was too subtle: If Christian scholars accept the existence of Jesus as a first principle, they may not qualify as reliable third party sources regarding that subject.

But, it doesn't really matter, because what what reliable sources say about material that is out of scope is irrelevant to the article and can be removed. Statements regarding whether Jesus existed are out of scope for this article.

I created a section on scope on this talk page the other day at Talk:Historicity_of_Jesus#Scope_of_this_article. It's a better place to continue discussion of what's in or out of scope. Fearofreprisal (talk) 03:53, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

For Christ-mythicists, denial of the existence of Jesus is beyond question - a first principle. It would be equally dogmatic if third parties and neutral scholarship did not have their own views on the issue, but it is more blindingly dogmatic (to the point of bigotry) to insist that third-parties and neutral scholars are really just touting a Christian POV when they disagree with Christ-mythicism.

If an editor cannot accept that the reliability of a source is a matter of scholarship rather than sectarian complaints, the editor may not qualify as competent or neutral enough to edit articles pertaining to that subject.

But, it does matter, because this article is about the academic (not religious or religiously antireligious) consensus regarding whether Jesus existed. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:27, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Robert M. Price is maybe one of the few or perhaps sole academics who seems to have maybe starteed from a really unbiased position, effectively saying that Jesus deserves as close scrutiny as Joseph Smith. Unfortunately, he seems to gloss over the vast discrepancy in the amount and quality of currently availableand surviving documentation between the two eras in doing so. If we have an article and I'm fairly sure we could/should on the current broad lack of documentation from that era, that could be mentioned with Price. John Allegro might be mentioned as an example of the prejudiced deniers.John Carter (talk) 18:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Ian.Thompson: You said "For Christ-mythicists, denial of the existence of Jesus is beyond question - a first principle." If this has any factual basis, please provide a citation. (For citations supporting my statement regarding Christian acceptance of Jesus Christ existence, you can start with Christian and Christianity, and follow-up with most of the citations in Historicity of Jesus.) Regarding "touting a Christian POV": I've never seen a citation where a source claimed his or her belief in Jesus existence was based on scholarship, and not Christian POV. Further, I've never seen a citation where such a source claimed to be neutral. If you can provide any such citations, please do. I suspect they will be hard to find.

Consider the example of Bart D. Ehrman, who is oft cited here and in the article. He has, to my knowledge, never suggested that his acceptance of the existence of Jesus Christ is in any way dependent on or derived from the analysis of historical evidence, or derives from anything other than his background as a fundamentalist Christian and theologian. To the contrary, in the forward to Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, Ehrman is quite clear that he's always accepted the existence of Jesus as being a given. "Of course Jesus existed," Ehrman writes, "Everyone knows he existed. Don't they?" The book is a spirited apologetic in defense of Jesus' existence, but it does not conclude that Jesus existed; it starts with his existence as its very premise. While Ehrman is a scholar of note, and his analysis of the historical evidence is valuable and worth citing the article, he doesn't try to hide the fact that his opinion of Jesus' existence is not based on scholarship. Fearofreprisal (talk) 03:44, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Your last conclusion is fringe, weird, extreme and wrong. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

We very rarely label mainstream academic consensus. That leads to similarly ridiculous arguments which question whether the earth is round, whether Alexander the Great ever existed, and whether Battlefield Earth (film) is the greatest film ever made. The simple fact that few if any rational people doubt something is true does not give us cause to label it a preconception. John Carter (talk) 20:58, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Provide citations. Fearofreprisal (talk) 20:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

What an odd statement for you to make, conesidering I don't know that to date you have provided a single sourcewhich explicitly supports your apparently OR conclusion of academic bias yourself. John Carter (talk) 21:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Bart D. Ehrman states that the existence of Jesus and his crucifixion by the Romans is attested to by a wide range of sources including Josephus and Tacitus. - a sentence from the article. You are attacking a leading scholar's integrity.Smeat75 (talk) 21:13, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Brainwashing: educational practice disapproved by the speaker. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu - You said my conclusion was "fringe, weird, extreme and wrong." Then you made an arcane comment about Brainwashing. You know how things work around here -- don't say things like that without providing some evidence.

John Carter - "ridiculous arguments which question whether the earth is round?" Reliable sources, expressing scholarly opinions, do not think that an argument about whether the Earth is round is ridiculous. (Especially since the Earth is, contrary to the majority view, not round.)

I actually said nothing about academic bias. I tried to make the point that for Christians, the existence of Jesus is a first principle -- the foundation for their belief. Nothing radical there -- it's the definition of "Christian." For a Christian scholar, it's possible to undertake academic research regarding the historical evidence related to Jesus, without any need to reach the question of his existence. That is, you can look at historicity, without considering non-historicity. And there's good reason to do this: Michael Grant's statement (cited in the article) that "no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus" hints at how radioactive this subject is: Scholars are afraid of even postulating non-historicity, much less concluding non-historicity. Ehrman points out anyone on the wrong side of the subject is unlikely to be able to get a teaching job in an established department of religion. In his books, he stays on the traditional side ("Of course Jesus exists!), dismissing the possibility that a competent scholar might find the other side worthy of consideration.[4] (Though this is getting harder for him to do with a straight face.[5])

Regarding citations: I already provided them. I quote: "For citations supporting my statement regarding Christian acceptance of Jesus Christ existence, you can start with Christian and Christianity, and follow-up with most of the citations in Historicity of Jesus." I also cited Ehrman's Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth.

If you'd like more sources supporting what I've been writing about, here you go: Ehrman actually provides a deep well of material disputing his own points (though it might not have been his intent), including Huff Post article, How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee, Forged: writing in the name of God, [6], and more. Michael Grant, Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels, and Richard A. Burridge, Jesus Now and Then are already cited in the article. Many of Robert M. Price's writings are on point, including The Christ-Myth Theory and Its Problems, Incredible Shrinking Son of Man: How Reliable Is the Gospel Tradition?, [7], [8], [9], and [10]. Richard Carrier's books Proving History: Bayes's Theorem and the Quest for the Historical Jesus, On the Historicity of Jesus: Why We Might Have Reason for Doubt, and his blog at [11] cite this. And there is Richard Davies at [12], Thomas Brodie, Beyond the Quest for the Historical Jesus: A Memoir of a Discovery, and Is This Not the Carpenter? The Question of the Historicity of the Figure of Jesus, edited by Thomas Thompson and Thomas Verenna. (Regarding questions of WP:RS WP:UNDUE WP:FRINGE WP:NPOV on any of these sources: They're not cited in the article yet, but if someone wants to raise an issue ahead of time, we can run them, one by one, through dispute resolution.)

Smeat75 - Regarding your quote from the article: "Bart D. Ehrman states that the existence of Jesus and his crucifixion by the Romans is attested to by a wide range of sources including Josephus and Tacitus."

Personally, I think that whoever pulled that quote out of it's proper context made Ehrman look lame. But that doesn't mean it's out of scope for the article. I can't figure out on what basis you thought I'd want to remove it. Fearofreprisal (talk) 08:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting that you want to remove that sentence from the article, I don't know what you want to do. I was responding to your attack on Ehrman's integrity : Consider the example of Bart D. Ehrman... He has, to my knowledge, never suggested that his acceptance of the existence of Jesus Christ is in any way dependent on or derived from the analysis of historical evidence, or derives from anything other than his background as a fundamentalist Christian and theologian....his opinion of Jesus' existence is not based on scholarship. There is the analysis you keep asking for in that sentence, it is really quite simple. Multiple independent attestation of an event from antiquity is "very abundant evidence" (Michael Grant), "overwhelming" documentary evidence (Graeme Clarke), makes Jesus' crucifixion and existence "historically certain" (Alana Nobbs) and "as sure as anything historical can ever be"(J D Crossan). Regarding "mythicists", there is a link in the article to Christ myth theory where those ideas are discussed and, following WP:UNDUE the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give undue weight to it, the link to Christ myth theory is enough, actually according to that guideline it is more than enough. "There was not really such a person as Jesus" has the same academic credibility as "the earth is flat" or "space aliens built the pyramids" (not discussed or mentioned in the article on Pyramids of Giza.Smeat75 (talk) 11:39, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Smeat75 - First, you're saying that I'm attacking Ehrman's integrity. I don't know where you get that. Is it because I provided citations that show his opinion on the existence of Jesus is not based on scholarship, but instead is a starting premise for his writing? That's no attack on his integrity: That's just quoting what he says. In any event, I've got no need to attack Ehrman's integrity when so many reliable sources are already doing it. I can provide you a nice selection of critical citations, including some that impugn his fact checking and accuracy. Here's one that puts him in his place nicely.[13] If you want more, no problem. It's not like they're hard to find.

Next, you start referring to historical analysis methods and other general claims of scholars regarding the significance of evidence. Then you go on to Mythicists, then quickly shift to comparing existence of Jesus (a matter of religious and historical debate) with the shape of the earth (a matter of science.) FWIW, the Earth is neither flat nor round. It is a Geoid.

So far as I can tell, you're trying to advocate a one-sided POV, without it sounding like you're engaging in apologetics, while I'm trying to avoid the issue of POV for the moment, and focus instead on the basic issue of scope -- that, to fit in this article, material must be explicitly based on the analysis of historical evidence by reliable third party sources. Fearofreprisal (talk) 15:07, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Did you read the page you linked to? [14] Do you realise it is a fundamentalist Christian site (there is a hint in the fact that it is called "apolgeticspress") which is criticising Ehrman for daring to suggest that about a third of the New Testament is forged? Did you just look around for anything that attacks him? You say I am "engaging in apologetics" (ridiculous) and then you post a link to an actual apologist site???? Smeat75 (talk) 16:25, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Basically, he affirms a conspiracy theory that learning Christian theology is a form of brainwashing so powerful that it compels even ex-Christians to hotly believe they have to affirm the historicity of Jesus. Tgeorgescu (talk) 18:31, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Smeat75 - Of course I read the page I linked to. I was merely providing an example link to show that Ehrman is often criticized. I can provide more, but there's no reason to.

Tgeorgescu - what are you talking about? Sounds like WP:OR to me. Fearofreprisal (talk) 19:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Source and Context

Lets be clear about this. Just about every single source cited in this article comes from a theologically educated biblical scholar. A biblical scholar is not a trained literary critic, nor an archaeologist, nor an epistemologist. Almost every source cited derives theoretically from antiquarianism, theological studies and old school biblical studies, wrapped in a layer of US mainstream Protestantism seeking validation through conservative archaeological and literary studies of the period, people and texts. It is myopic, and has been repeatedly analysed, shown wanting and abandoned by many other scholars. This article needs diverse, verifiable, and reliable sources from outside of this tiny but very vocal thread of historical-criticism. Additional information has been added to the section Myth Theory. Additional material from a broad array of current scholarship will be added across this article. Claims that "most scholars" agree have no validity in any social science. That is not how it works. Academia is not a democracy. Get used to it. --IseeEwe (talk) 01:55, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Next: WP:UNDUE:"Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserves as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth). To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject." WP:UNDUE concerns the entire range of scholarly study of a subject. It DOES NOT say you can pick one thread out of the cloth of historic and archaeological studies, grounded in one singular theory, and call that the scholarly community. The scholarly community in this case includes all disciplines with a connection to the study of Syro-Palestinian history and pre-history, including anthropological archaeology, linguistics, literary theory, critical theory, and the philosophy of science. It DOES NOT reside solely within the purview of US biblical historians, and 15 people voting on Wikipedia. --IseeEwe (talk) 02:30, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Just about every single source cited in this article comes from a theologically educated biblical scholar. No it doesn't and that section you put in, saying why "bible scholars" are no good was irrelevant and reached a ludicrous conclusion "There exists no widely or generally accepted proofs (outside of biblical scholarship) of the existence of Jesus as a historical figure." That is just wrong, the classical historians quoted in the article say the crucifixion is "historically certain" because of "overwhelming" documentary evidence.Smeat75 (talk) 05:17, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

You are throwing out red herrings, and making up things that I did not say. If there is a problem with the references talk about it. Just FYI -I hardly think biblical scholars are "no good". In fact I think their work is an absolutely critical component of approaching the real historic Jesus. But they are not the only approach. To deny the opinions and input of others is to close our minds to perspectives that improve our own work. We must be open to, and discuss the perceptions we do not like. They strengthen our academic discipline, help us to find new ways to explore our interests, and improve our research. --IseeEwe (talk) 19:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Removal of my edit was done without consultation or discussion. I see academic bias, fiat decision making, and a POV problem here Smeat75. I have already requested external review. Do not remove the new material until this is resolved above you. --IseeEwe (talk) 19:37, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Undue means that you do not take a source that the majority of the scholarly community rejects and present it on equal ground. WP:NPOV and WP:NOR means that you do not get to say "well any scholar I personally disagree with must be be a religiously biased pseudo-scholar and not a real historian," which is the entire basis for your edits here. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:55, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

"Disingenuous" means you narrowly define the scope of scholarship and exclude every scholar that disputes your premisses. Its also called gerrymandering. This crowd is very good at it. If you choose to only discuss this matter within a single narrow slice of academia devoted to this very position, then you will find consensus. More broadly, there is no consensus on this matter, and there are entire disciplines that reject the methodology used. The entire field of historic archaeology, for example, is premised on the inability of texts to discern reality. This is not a trivial set of scholars whom you can marginalise by fiat. The POV problem is inherent in the context of the position taken by this article. It is exclusive, biased and non-representative. --IseeEwe (talk) 20:09, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The Nitty Gritty

Line One "The historicity of Jesus concerns the analysis of historical evidence to determine whether Jesus of Nazareth existed as a historical figure, and whether any of the major milestones in his life as portrayed in the gospels can be confirmed as historical events." There is no citation. It is biased solely towards Christian biblical texts and research goals, and ignores the questions and contributions of other disciplines, other period texts and non-historical evidence. Shall we fix it? --IseeEwe (talk) 02:41, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

What do you propose as an alternative Line One? Wdford (talk) 13:11, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I would take a broadly inclusive and neutral tone along the lines of: '"The "historicity of Jesus" concerns research and discussion about the actual existence of Jesus and the many events ascribed to his life, within a number of academic fields including, theology, religious studies, history, Biblical studies, comparative literature, archaeology, philosophy, anthropology and sociology."--IseeEwe (talk) 18:59, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The first sentence defines the scope of the article. It's based on consensus, not on citation. In any event, one can't actually research the actual existence of Jesus, because there are no primary sources extant. One can only research and analyze the historical evidence -- which is what the scope currently says. Fearofreprisal (talk) 22:48, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm half with you. The definition is inaccurate, as is the framework of "historical evidence". Academic historians don't read the work of other historians to understand the past. They look to primary sources. Here, the article implies that the study of the writings of ancient "historians"(writers of the past) is a legitimate route to understanding the real past. That is a truly questionable claim, but also not necessarily untrue. What is being called "history" by legitimate historical-critical biblical scholars is that which they "discover" through their investigations in conjunction with many disciplines: literary studies, theology, sociology, linguistics, etc... The history being discussed did not exist on its own, it was created by these disciplines. One very legitimate route to finding Jesus is to spend ages sorting through the language of the extent texts. Another is to search for other period texts. Another is to examine non-textual physical evidence as with archaeology. Another is to examine ones spirit for guidance -as with belief. Etc.. Many editors of this page claim that only one stream of one academic tradition, from one culture (and mostly from one language group) is a viable route to knowledge about this issue. The entire point of my effort is to broaden the discussion to include the weighted opinions of others with equal claim to valid scholarship on this matter. The issue seems to be that the judges of inclusion, dismiss anything outside of historical-critical biblical studies. This is unacceptable. --IseeEwe (talk) 23:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you could propose a specific addition, with references, that could be considered as an individual edit? I.e. you could then proceed one edit at a time, and if there are no substantive justifications to exclude it then each edit could be added in one by one? 41.135.66.149 (talk) 10:37, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps you should create a separate section in the article for your "other disciplines", so as to clearly distinguish them from the historical critical methods that seem to be the basis here, and so that there is less confrontation between the conclusions of the adherents of the different disciplines? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.135.77.136 (talk) 10:43, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

The opening lines give the impression that this will be an article that focuses on the existence of Jesus as a fact. This gives the article a seeming tone of scientific validity. Statements of fact must withstand tests of verifiability that are the same for everyone; in other words a method. While there is a lot of discussion in the article about the ultimate conclusions that scholars have drawn about the factual existence of Jesus, there is little to no discussion of the methods used to come to those conclusions and the degrees of factual certainty that they offer. The article steers clear of any measurement of certainty that is valid in a scientific sense. Furthermore, the article focuses heavily on assertions made by scholars about the number of other scholars who agree with them. Again, there is no mention of the methodology that they used to arrive at such conclusions about the consensus of scholars. A survey would at least have a clear definition of "scholar" and a margin of error. If no survey exists, and the author is speaking anecdotally, the wording should make that clear.

The beginning of the article presents itself as if it will be scientific in nature or that it will at least addresses the science related to the issue. As it stands, the opening lines are misleading. I can't say exactly what the opening lines should be, but they clearly should be in step with what the article actually offers.Blackthorne2k (talk) 12:19, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Do we have a new sockpuppet?

If so, I suggest he / she put a sock in it because it will only result in a ban after taking up a lot of our time. Martijn Meijering (talk) 15:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Sure looks that way. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 15:48, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you should gather up your diffs, and go over to WP:SPI, and see what the admins think. Fearofreprisal (talk) 19:35, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I doubtt it's a sock, but there are other noticeboards for tendentious disruptive POV pushers. John Carter (talk) 00:26, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not a sock. I guess. Actually, I am not sure what that even really means. The only POV problem I see in this article is that it is almost entirely derived from historical-critical biblical studies and excludes everyone else. I find that odd, and frankly a bit insulting, as a former academic from outside of biblical studies, but inside first century Roman archaeology.--IseeEwe (talk) 19:22, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to post an incident on WP:ANI, or any other noticeboard you like. Fearofreprisal (talk) 03:19, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Let me get this straight, a two week old account pops up out of nowhere displaying similar views to those of Fearofreprisal + a massive bunch of edits adding a tag about Canadian English and goes on to launch an RfC? Nothing suspicious there, right? Martijn Meijering (talk) 13:23, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Don't talk about me in the third person. I'm standing in the room. I started by just doing little edits, out of interest, and to learn how things work. Then, I bumped into this crazy little article, which just happens to fall within the focus of my own previous academic career, so I could read between all the lines and found nothing but academic arrogance, exclusivity and bias. Its not on. --IseeEwe (talk) 19:22, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Be polite, and welcoming to new users/ Assume good faith / Avoid personal attacks / For disputes, seek dispute resolution /This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. References are provided. Your narrow snap shot of the ongoing academic debate about this question excludes the research, opinions and findings of entire fields of study -which you openly disparage. I am including those opinions. More will follow. This article needs a complete rewrite. The current position taken is but one slice of the research being undertaken, and represents one school of thought, and frankly one country and language. It is not sufficiently reliable, rigourous, neutral or inclusive. I expected this response from the watchers of this article and have requested direct first level external oversight through [Wikipedia:Requests for comment] from editors in various fields. I will escalated this as required. --IseeEwe (talk) 19:13, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Now, who was it that first outright said that Fearofreprisal and IseeEwe were socks? Fearofreprisal interpreted this section as a personal attack before he was ever mentioned, and then IseeEwe felt the need to defend himself despite not being named either. They doth protest too much, methinks. And even if they are not socks, that they have reason to believe their the ones being talked about is rather indicative of a guilty conscience, an unconscious recognition that they are two POV-pushers going against consensus. Ian.thomson (talk) 19:50, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Consensus is not required. The edit is referenced and reflects valid studies by legitimate scholars. You resort solely to accusations, and reverts, but you do not discuss the edits. --IseeEwe (talk) 20:01, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Ian.Thompson, Mmeijeri- if you suspect my account is a sock, then request a WP:SPI. I consider your comments to be harassment. Fearofreprisal (talk) 22:54, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Hey Fearofreprisal, I've asked the dispute coordinator to invite you into the discussion and to comment. Please respond. This is turning into a great debate. I have no fear of the haters and the shouters. There have been so many commentators over the last few months trying to bring objectivity to this article and the same 6 haters shouting everyone down. I will continue to escalate this until it is resolved. This article is the kernel of a wildly non neutral POV which has been spread to numerous other Jesus articles. Its like the Congressional IP situation in Washington. Slight tweaks to articles, leading to slow encroachment, and utter distortion. Time for everyone to push in the same direction, at the same time. --IseeEwe (talk) 02:57, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Edits Suggested, References, Dispute Resolution

I have made an edit, fully referenced, inclusive of opinions from outside of biblical studies from valid and well-respected academics who are experts in their fields. I have not attempted to change one single word of the current article. I have provided value add to the reader about the diversity of scholarly opinions in this area. These scholarly opinions also represent a value add to biblical scholarship in that they assist it to understand its failings, gaps, errors and methodological problems. The edits provided do not disparage the biblical study approach to the topic, nor do they attack it. They critique it, and provide additional reference points from a broader set of interested scholars. The comments above and around this matter, and the revert comments, do not address any of the pertinent matters raised, and there has been no discussion here in the Talk page of the material. I have experienced only snide comments, accusations, disengagement and refusal. Vocal members of this editorial group assumes bad faith and use only one POV. I have requested external review Wikipedia:Requests for comment from third party uninvolved editors. I have asked that the suggested edit be left until their review and comments are considered. This has been subverted. I have now requested moderated dispute resolution Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. --IseeEwe (talk) 20:44, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Requesting Dispute resolution only hours after a proposed Bold edit was reverted seems unreasonable to me. Martijn Meijering (talk) 23:15, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Refusing to discuss, casting aspersions, mean spirited commentary, rudeness and fiat decisions is what is unreasonable. --IseeEwe (talk) 23:59, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Your suggestion that I'm one of several "haters" who oppose any efforts to address the issue of bias is utterly preposterous. If you check my posting history you'll see that I've long been very critical of religious bias in several articles relating to Christianity. Martijn Meijering (talk) 03:16, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

You immediately called me a sock puppet and did not communicate with me at all. Content matters aside, this editorial group, and I include you, is extremely introverted, rude and self-important, and has a long history of killing off new ideas and the opinions of others. --IseeEwe (talk) 03:50, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Making a bold edit that everyone made clear is against consensus also seems unreasonable. As does placing the responsibility of establishing consensus to remove the material on the editors who already established said consensus. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Bold edits have been made many times here, and then deleted by fiat. Who is everyone? You and 4 others? I have seen months of discussion about this. People with different data try to make a change and the same people keep deleting it, and then come together to hold off the "interloper". This is a cabal, which seems to be largely composed of very passionate loyal followers of a single school of Protestant theology-informed biblical exegesis. To claim that that is the full extent of the academic debate is ludicrous. I reviewed many of the citations in this article (they exist for a reason you know, they are not decorative). Every single one I examined is a Protestant, American theologian trained in biblical exegesis. This article and this discussion needs external, unbiased, moderation and possibly even some level of direct intervention. Discussion within the framework of those who have created this monstrously biased page is apparently useless. --IseeEwe (talk) 23:56, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Not everyone is completely against the new version. I support it also. The article is tagged NPOV since October and this new version addresses that issue. Ignoring historian, archaeology and anthropology academics from outside the biblical historian field is a flaw in the article leading to the NPOV tagging. Alatari (talk) 01:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll amend that. I support investigating the 14 new sources and reevaluating if they go towards resolving the long standing NPOV tag. The final section would need massive rehashing. Alatari (talk) 01:25, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I just checked Trigger's A History of Archaeological Thought, and p. 72 is misrepresented to an absurd degree. It does not deal with "biblical scholars trained in a combination of biblical exegesis, theology, art history, ancient languages, and or history", as claimed in the first paragraph of IseeEwe's "Diverse Opinions of the Investigation of Jesus as a Historical Figure" section; rather, it deals with "European antiquarians" of the 15th-18th century. Not really a comment on anything resembling modern scholarship. I haven't checked the other references, but this does not bode well. Huon (talk) 02:33, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Nice try. The comment pertains specifically to classical archaeology and antiquarianism, and as you would see from reading the book is applied to much of the current approach of NT scholarship and other so-called "historical" approaches, which scholars like Trigger and others profoundly critique. Personally, I find it fascinating that 18th century classicism and antiquarianism still resonate within NT scholarship. Why so vague you ask?: that would be because the citation is to a concept. Unlike NT scholars, many other disciplines, like archaeology and the philosophy of science, don't run around quoting each other's sentences, and arguing over whether or not it is an "i" or an "e". Citations are used to reference the ideas of others, and to give them credit. This is precisely why this article is a problem -it considers only text-based approaches valid. --IseeEwe (talk) 02:49, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Let me see if I understand you correctly: You're saying it's entirely appropriate to take a page talking about the opinion of antiquarians and archaeologists of the 15th-18th century and cite it for the current opinion of biblical scholars? I'd call that a WP:SYN violation at best. If Trigger explicitly says that current biblical scholars still adhere to the same basic tenets, why didn't you cite that page? Where does Trigger say so? Huon (talk) 03:11, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree here. This will be simpler if we list all 14 sources, link them for viewing and add a sentence to why the source is relevant. WP:SYN is clear that if the source doesn't reach a conclusion about the topic at hand then we can't use it. It becomes WP:OR for us to apply work that doesn't at least cursorily discuss biblical archaeology. If the source is criticizing paradigm and research methods then it needs to refer to archaeology and historical work related to the bible ^Alatari (talk) 03:42, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Let me see if I understand you Huon? Protestant scholars trained in theology in the US have exclusive expert authority about every single discipline (linguistics, archaeology, history, critical theory, ancient languages, exegesis, etc.) where they touch upon the historicity of Jesus. Do I understand you correctly? This is madness. I will not debate academia, scholarship or sources with you. My resort to dispute resolution is about this little cabal taking the piss out of every editor over the last 6 months trying to add value to this article. Once this little nightmare is sorted out, then we can have a proper discussion without abusing, pushing away or attacking the goodwill and integrity of every single interested editor Alatari, Fearofreprisal, Wdford, Tgeorgescu, Blackthorne2k, Wickorama, Woerkilt, Themoother, Sparkveela, Lyingforjebus, BaSH PR0MPT, Edit Centric, Spirit469, Saddhiyamawho who has shown up at this page over the last several months and suffered at the hands of your abusive gang of ill-tempered dilettantes. --IseeEwe (talk) 03:46, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

So your reply to asking you for a specific source for the claims you added to the article is personal attacks? No, you didn't understand me correctly, and I somehow doubt you can supply a diff where I suggest that only scholars with a specific national or religious background should be considered. You may want to take a look at WP:BOOMERANG. Huon (talk) 09:40, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Literally dozen of respected scholars have been cited by me and others in their contributions. No matter the source, no matter the field, they are rejected out of hand. This is bias of the worst sort -cynical, blind and angry. The "field" of study and the conditions of engagement will not be set on your terms. This article should include all perspectives: from faith-based to scientific. You can not make a claim to final authority. --IseeEwe (talk) 16:22, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, I cannot say that I suffered abuse here. About Bible scholars and archeology not being upon the same page I know a source: Israel Finkelstein's bestsellers. But even he admits that they should join forces and relies himself upon Bible scholarship. Otherwise, WP:VER is not negotiable, either your sources say what you claim they say, or they don't. Tgeorgescu (talk) 11:59, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

In my field, archaeology, most people don't even talk about it because it is considered so fundamentally fringe. No trained archaeologist would sign off on the comments in this article, ever. They are not evidence based -they are considered thought games. The point of my request is to expand the very narrow framework in which this discussion is being placed. Authority over the discussion and contents of this article can not reside within on academic paradigm. To this group of editors the citations do not matter -they are systematically dismissed for any number of made up reasons. --IseeEwe (talk) 16:22, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

So, what kind of archaeological evidence there could possibly by about the existence of Jesus? To this date there isn't any and likely there will never be such evidence. So all archaeologists could say as archaeologists would be "we can neither affirm nor deny the existence of Jesus". This matter simply isn't amenable to archaeological investigation. By joining forces Finkelstein meant the study of David's kingdom (or lack of it) and establishing who David and Solomon really were. The only archaeological evidence for David is "bytdwd", therefore the historical David can only be recovered from analyzing the Bible, so wily-nilly Finkelstein got on the turf of historical criticism (aka Bible scholarship). Archeology can in this case only provide a falsification of certain claims about David having an empire and render plausible some ways of critically analyzing the Bible. That's in fact what Finkelstein did in his bestsellers. Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:17, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Archeology could reveal anachronisms in the gospels and other sources. For instance, some claim that archeological evidence shows that Nazareth was uninhabited in the early first century, though others dispute that. Even if it were proven, that doesn't settle the issue but it could help elucidate relationships between sources and help identify interpolations. Martijn Meijering (talk) 22:43, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

My god. Now you claim to be able to discuss archaeology as well, and put it in its place. Does your intellectual arrogance know no bounds? It does NOT matter what you think. It only matters that respected archaeologists and sociologists and experts from a dozen disciplines do have a valid perspective and must be included in this discussion. That others can not support that Jesus existed, despite the best efforts of biblical scholars to do so, is not a reason to exclude them, it is a critically important part of the discussion. Your route, is not the only route to understanding this question. That you claim to have sole authority to this topic is insulting and unsupportable. --IseeEwe (talk) 02:54, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

You seem to have a reading comprehension problem as well as an attitude problem. I did not attempt to put archaeology in its place, I opposed Tgeorgescu's remarks that archeology wasn't relevant, in other words I actually supported your position. I never claimed to have sole (or even any) authority, don't put words into my mouth. Your behaviour here is uncivil and highly disruptive and it is high time someone intervened. Martijn Meijering (talk) 03:00, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Profound apologies Martijn Meijering !! My comment was to the dismissive comments of guy above you pretending to know what archaeologists think and how they develop knowledge. I'm still working out the use of the writing tools, and unsure of the protocol with placement. It really was not directed at you. Sorry about my incompetence with the use of the ":::" and all that. I fully agree with your comment, in fact I believe that it goes farther, and that archaeology and other tools can help mitigate against the inherent biases of sole reliance on the historic record. --IseeEwe (talk) 23:08, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, then you tell me how archeology or sociology could prove or disprove the existence of Jesus. That is of a man who would have been completely forgotten and would have left no visible trace in history as millions of other real men of his time, if he were not a doomsday cult leader, cult which later became a religion. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Request for comments: Inclusion of more than "theological historical criticism" scholarship

There is considerable discussion in this forum about the inclusion of so-called "minority" opinions. Basically it boils down to, whose citations represent a valid contribution? There has been considerable push back over many months and years to the inclusion of scholarship that falls outside of the one school of thought protected within this article: namely biblical scholarship based almost exclusively on theological historical-criticism. From a broader academic perspective, inclusive of seminal archaeologists, philosophers and different types of biblical scholars, the positions in this article are challenged. Please review to assess and validate the inclusion of other scholarly opinions in this article as found, for example, at Historicity of Jesus#Diverse Opinions of the Investigation of Jesus as a Historical Figure. --IseeEwe (talk) 03:00, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment: Of course such sources should be included, where they satisfy WP:RS and are not WP:FRINGE nonsense.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:36, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm for including other sources, and for WP:DUE inclusion of other views -- but not turning it into "Only scholars who say Jesus didn't exist while dismissing anyone else as a fundamentalist theologian," which is the direction that the combined efforts of IseeEwe and Fearofreprisal have shown. The only factor religion should play is that the sources should be from academic publishers and not Sunday school sources, but that does not mean treating folks like Bart D. Ehrman as if they're Bible-thumpers. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:24, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

This is disingenuous rhetoric. This editor has systematically attacked, berated and poked fun at the suggested contributions of many editors over the last 6 months (at least). Look at the threads of discussion. At this time, the article almost exclusively cites one school of thought. Wider perspectives are rejected for any of a number of reasons. My contribution did not remove or change a single element of the rest of the citations or text. I added a two or three words, and then added a section outlining a selection of diverse opinions in the matter. There are far more opinions about this than mine, including those based on faith, literary criticism, sociology and anthropology. No other opinions are allowed in this article by this small and tight knit group of editors. The article should be rewritten top to bottom to include a wide array of perspectives in the matter.--IseeEwe (talk) 16:07, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Your accusations are a damn lie and a personal attack. I'll admit that I've pointed out when tendentious POV-pushers have tried to push fringe views on the article, which would primarily be you and the account that many believe you are a sockpuppet of, but I wasn't active on this page before May. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:39, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Also, your edits did change cited material ([15] [16]), explicitly to cast existing sources as non-scholarly while presenting your views as what "real" academia believes. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:43, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

You can scream and point fingers all you wish. You attacked and deride my suggested edits by repeatedly deleting my entries, by refusing to communicate with me, by snidely calling into question my independence, and by pointing in every direction but at yourself for this problem. You wrote, and I quote, "... multiple users have told you that you're violating (WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE)" when not one person had communicated with me. To Fearofreprisal you wrote "you've been told before that your view is against consensus, if not common sense." That comes across to a new editor as a pretentious and demeaning personal attack on the integrity and intelligence of the editor. You wrote about me and Fearofreprisal "...they are two POV-pushers going against consensus." That is a horrid assumption to make, without any communication with me at all. You maintain a scholarly superficiality, but you act like a bully and a spoiled child. --IseeEwe (talk) 02:45, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Deleting your entries is not an attack, it's common for POV material. Accusing me of attacks without evidence is a personal attack. By adding those changes, you refused to acknowledge the communications going on on this page. It is your responsibility to justify your edits on the talk page. And accusing me of not communicating with you after responding to an entire section I wrote detailing what was wrong with every individual citation is bad faith at best (that is, without insulting your intelligence). Course, you didn't even acknowledge any of the points, but instead chose to hypocritically attack my intelligence. Your edits are quite clearly against the consensus quite visible on this talk page, and if you needed a personal message to understand that (not that you've demonstrated that you understand that, though I acknowledge that that appears to be by your own will rather than a lack of capacity) after being reverted by almost everyone but Fearofreprisal, maybe you should consider writing elsewhere.

Fearofreprisal is attempting to remove a source regarding the historicity of Jesus from an article on the historicity of Jesus on the grounds that it's outside the article's scope. That is against common sense. Have you even tried to consider why so many users are telling you to stop? Can you for a moment quit making paranoid attacks and maybe look at some of the guidelines that are being cited, or bother to understand some of the reasons they're being cited?

Still, I do apologize for not leaving a message asking you to read the talk page to see existing discussion that explains why your edits were reverted, even though your behavior indicates that it wouldn't have mattered. I mean, really, if you would have listened then, you'd listen now. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:29, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Ian.thomson -- your straw man arguments are funny, but not credible. No one has proposed anything like what you've said. Fearofreprisal (talk) 16:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Straw man? No, just calling a spade a spade. You've been calling for treating all sources that consider Jesus's existence as plausible as religiously biased (even attempting to argue that Erhman, who presents problems for your paradigm, is outside the scope of this article), and IseeEwe's edit carried those intentions out while presenting only the denial of plausibility as the only position held by secular academia. Your arguments on the matter have not even been archived yet, and your and IseeEwe's actions are still in the first page of the history. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:39, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

The arguments you're attributing to me are fabrications or distortions on your part. But I'm certain that you'll disagree, so just show me the diffs. As for IseeEwe: I have nothing to do with him or his posts. Fearofreprisal (talk) 21:56, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

• Clarification needed - @IseeEwe: Any chance we could have examples of the specific citations in question here? The Diverse Opinions of the Investigation of Jesus as a Historical Figure section seems to have been deleted. NickCT (talk) 15:10, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I believe that the section still exists in the history of the page. I am too new here to tell you how to access it. I requested that it be left on the page until after external review. That request was ignored. If you review the history of discussion on the talk page you will see a pattern. A new editor comes along with a suggestion (any suggestion) pushing for neutrality and diversity of opinion, and they are shut down by the same small group of editors. This is a systematic abuse of Wikipedia. No matter the citations provided, everything that falls outside of the one chosen paradigm is rejected. The article should be rewritten top to bottom to include a wide array of perspectives in the matter. There can never be a single claim to authority. If we allow this group to dominate the page (and other associated pages) then we are hermetically sealing off what could be a lively and engaging article. Too many well intentioned, articulate, engaged and interested people have been pushed off this page --IseeEwe (talk) 16:07, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

• I think minority is a misdescription. Scholars who believe Jesus Christ to be a divine being are too biased to be considered reliable in this context. The article should focus on objective historians, be they atheist, Jewish, Buddhist, Wiccan, whatever, so long as they don't believe that treating Christ as a fictional being would invalidate their beliefs. An article that found that most non-Christian, non-Muslim historians considered Christ to be an actual historical fact would be compelling. An article that finds that most Christians don't believe that they have been worshiping imaginary beings has no value.—Kww(talk) 00:10, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Misused reliable sources and completely irrelevant polemics in the removed edits

In these removed edits, there are a number of good sources cited for claims they do not make.

• Avalo's The End of Biblical Studies, which is as much a polemic as anything from a seminary, is cited as beyond his views, when he admits that he is mostly arguing against an entire field. Due weight would be (at most) noting his arguments as his alone, except where he is cited by other authors or repeats the arguments of other authors.
• Reed's Archaeology and the Galilean Jesus is cited for the claim that the archaeological community denies a historical Jesus. Reed at no point tries to argue that there is no historical Jesus, but specifically condemns seminary practices of only grabbing archaeological evidence to support their views instead of interpreting Jesus in light of archaeology. In fact, he writes as though he assumes Jesus's existence was at least plausible -- "The importance of the nature and character of Galilee as the location of Jesus' life and teachings is recognized across the board in the contemporary debate over the historical Jesus."
• Richard Price is cited for the claim that those outside of western scholarship deny a historical Jesus, a claim that the work doesn't support. Price argues that there is no evidence for Jesus, and so he believes we at least cannot affirm any plausibility (if not deny it), but he does not pretend that it is anything like the whole of non-Western scholarship. The book cited, The Historical Jesus: Five Views, would be good to cite as a whole, instead of cherry picking one favored view out of many.
• Thompson's Is This Not the Carpenter? is one of the few works that approaches being correctly cited -- however, its claims are not as universal as are presented in the article, even by the book's own admission.
• Davis's Shifting Sands only mentions Jesus twice, the first mention only discussing why Palestine is important to people, the other a citation, neither addressing the historicity of Jesus.
• The following sources are not about Jesus or Roman Palestine at all: Hodder, Trigger (even in later editions), Finkelstein, Gero, Lowenthal, Lucas, Thompson's The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives, Hanbury-Tenison's Hegel in prehistory, Wylie's When Difference Makes a Difference: Epistemic Diversity and Dissent, and Levy -- Their inclusion would be WP:OR at best, though more apparently polemic.

Ian.thomson (talk) 17:37, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Whatever. I accept that you are unable to understand 21st century approaches to critical theory -as dumbed down as I wrote them. My complaint and request for dispute resolution is not about your references. I can pull yours to pieces as epistemologically flawed from their fundamentals. My dispute is about the systematic and purposeful exclusion of the views of multiple WP editors over many months, and the rejection of the views of scholars outside of theologically based biblical exegesis. The article is labelled as having a non neutral point of view, as noted at the top of the Talk page. It has been repeatedly challenged as far back as you check the archived talk pages. This is pure academic deceit of the worst sort. AFTER this is moderated and resolved, then we can layer into the article the relevant perspectives, and debate the references in each for their value and weighting. --IseeEwe (talk) 01:52, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

"I accept that you are unable to understand" -- After all your complaining about personal attacks, you come out with that? Hypocrite.

Read WP:No original research. If you're not directly paraphrasing or summarizing a cited work, don't add it.

Your addition unacceptably misrepresented sources to give undue importance to what you believe.

The dispute was instigated by your POV-pushing. Yes, the article wasn't perfect before, but your misuse of sources was not an improvement. Ian.thomson (talk) 11:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you think that I will stand here and allow you to do to me what you did earlier, and have done to others in the current discussions, and that the other editors in this cabal have done in the past to perfectly acceptable recommendations from others. You are all over the map. You lunge from ignoring comments, to personal attack, to lies, to snap reversions, to misrepresentation, to refusing to engage, toWP:lawyering, to semantics and back again. Do you really think I will let you attack on your own terms without responding? Get real. You and your cohort have dominated and bullied editors here for months. This is going to Mediation for content, and I am dragging everyone of you to ANI, as recommended by the DRN coordinator. This article is not owned by you and needs to be freed from your arrogance and disdain for the views of others. --IseeEwe (talk) 23:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

The problem is rather simple: your edits are either verifiable or unverifiable, those sources either explicitly discuss the historicity of Jesus or they don't. These matters can be quickly evaluated by anyone who has access to an university library. If it turns out that you have indulged in original research and created this huge fuss around it I will propose a topic ban for all history, theology and religion articles. Again, it is not me who says that you did that, but in the case you did it, you have completely misbehaved. In the case that these allegations turn out to be false, it is Ian.thomson who completely misbehaved. But you both cannot be right at the same time. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Author doesn't understand what he posted is not Historicity, But is the history of Jesus according to folklore. The article is incorrect. I'll explain.

Historicity is a noun (Person, place or thing) Websters dictionary describes it as "historical actuality". Oxford dictionary describes it as "the historicity of bible narrative".

The author is confusing fact and fiction and is grouping reading material that is clearly fiction as fact. It goes wrong from the very first sentence where it says "The historicity of Jesus concerns the analysis of historical evidence..." Then cites sources from scholars and bible reference to validate the statements made. Biblical sources of evidence does not mean it is historically accurate as Websters dictionary defines it. Using biblical sources of information for the Historicity of Jesus in this method is as Oxford defines is "the historicity of bible narrative".

Therefore the article in itself is misleading from the first sentence, Either the author is a christian and assumes the bible is correct for this article or the author misunderstands the meaning the word evidence versus the word faith.

I recommend

A) Change name of topic to "Historicity of Jesus according to bible narrative" B) Delete this article and add any needed changes to the history of Jesus wikipage C) Just delete the article. D) Delete and use sources of information that can be deemed historically accurate outside the bible and rewrite it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.58.13.250 (talk) 22:24, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh boy, I don't know how I missed that. I'll go ahead and delete this article right away. While I'm at it, would you like me to delete any other articles? OK - maybe not.

If you'd like to help improve this article, you're going to need to do some more homework, and try to build consensus for change. It ain't easy. But your help would be welcomed. Fearofreprisal (talk) 02:06, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

As it stands this article is about "Historicity of Jesus according to Historical-Critical Biblical Exegesis". I believe that past editors seeking to make changes perceived the scope as far greater then the content would suggest. To be inclusive of the diverse views that readers themselves hold on this matter from faith-based to space alien fringe crazy is a reflection of the real world of belief and the social sciences. All these views have meaning -even those that most would find ridiculous. It's also a matter of perspective. Many different types of scholars of history, philosophy etc.. would think this article is already fringe. As it stands the current material offends everyone, except for a single narrowly defined scholarly community. However, the material is also perfectly respectable as far as it pertains to biblical exegesis. That's a valued perspective, and it should not be removed. But the exclusion of other authorities and knowledge claims is unacceptable. --IseeEwe (talk) 02:13, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Theology should be rendered when notable, but it does not aim to establish objective facts, but just subjective beliefs to be affirmed by a certain church. Judging by the amount of study devoted by those who aren't Bible scholars to writing about the historicity of Jesus, we may say that as a rule of thumb they don't give a rat's ass for doing scholarship on this issue. So this leaves us with the problem that the only scholarly community who cares about the historicity of Jesus are the Bible scholars. You ask why other scholars aren't included. It is because they do not give a rat's ass about the problem. Besides, Wikipedia does not state the views those who believe to be contacted by space aliens as fact or having equal validity with scholarship, when it writes about them it obeys WP:FRIND and states in big shinny letters that they are fringe views. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:16, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Ehrman citation

I would like to see this citation in context:

In a 2011 review of the state of modern scholarship, Bart Ehrman (a Historical Jesus scholar and former fundamentalist apologist turned secular agnostic) wrote: "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. page 285

Does anyone have a copy of the book, where they can copy the text surrounding the cite? Fearofreprisal (talk) 03:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I would like to know a few things about this quote: 1) Does Ehrman express his definition of a "competent scholar of antiquity"? Does this mean all professional scholars? 2) Is Ehrman intending to make a statement of fact or opinion? That is, did he come to this conclusion about the beleifs of "virtually every competent scholar" based an empirical method or is he intending to speak anecdotally about his experience and recollection? 3) As a popular and not academic title, does this book have substantive oversight, fact-checking and peer or at least editorial review? Publisher's weekly described this title as having a pervasive tone of sensationalism. How much caution should be exercised when using this book as a source?Blackthorne2k (talk) 21:11, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Ehrman can be heard on YouTube saying that he knows thousands of Antiquity scholars and none of them hold the view that Jesus did not exist. E.g. search for Barth Ehrman Infidel Guy. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:57, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I recall we had a consensus that if we are going to use the phrase "most scholars of antiquity" it should be presented as an opinion by Ehrman. The page doesn't reflect this, maybe we reached this consensus on a related page like Historical Jesus or Christ Myth Theory. Martijn Meijering (talk) 00:03, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Tgeorgescu - That's not a direct answer to my request (to see the citation in context.) But, I think it's valuable.

Can you provide a link to the YouTube video, and the time where he says this? I don't have time right now to go through the 428 results that your search criteria return. Fearofreprisal (talk) 00:39, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Ian.thomson

@Ian.thomson: - At User_talk:Ian.thomson, you say:

"I have made my religious and philosophical beliefs open because if I was trying to enforce any sort of secondary agenda (which I am not), I would be smart enough to hide the reasons behind that agenda... I am more concerned with keeping the articles I view within the guidelines than I am with bullying anyone."

Can you explain your agenda in calling other editors things such as hypocrite, tendentious, bigoted, dogmatic, POV-pusher, liar, sockpuppet or paranoid, or fabricating "quotations" of things they never wrote? Fearofreprisal (talk) 00:05, 6 August 2014 (UTC)