Talk:Historicity of Jesus

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

RfC?

I indicated 2 weeks ago that I thought it reasonable to start an RfC, perhaps specifically dealing with (1) the scope and title of this article, (2) whether a separate article dealing with Fear's preferred definition seems to have the required notability based on the evidence so far provided, and (3) to determine, roughly, how much WEIGHT to give that topic here. Opinions? John Carter (talk) 20:55, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

What is my preferred definition? Please do tell me, I'm interested to know. Fearofreprisal (talk) 21:21, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

if you were really interested in helping the article along, you would state your preferred definition openly, and allow it to be debated. The fact that you continue to demand changes, without explaining what changes you wish to see, is a cause for some concern. Why don't you state you preferred definition for the record? Wdford (talk) 19:22, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Look here [1], where I say:

Wdford -- Since this section is about changes to the scope of the article, and you've actually proposed a changed scope - unrelated to the topic of the article - I'll also propose a changed scope:

The scope of the Historicity of Jesus article should be the Historicity of Jesus.

I'm interested in hearing comments in favor of or opposed to this. Fearofreprisal (talk) 22:46, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Notice that I originally addressed that directly to you, and even put it in a quotation box, to avoid misunderstanding? Is that "open" enough?

Now, ask John Carter what he thinks my preferred definition (of the scope) is. I think you'll find it hilarious.[2]

As for "explaining what changes [I] wish to see": Really? Do you need me to provide diffs, including your responses to what I wrote?

Fearofreprisal (talk) 22:02, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I believe the above comment seems to be based upon one individual's interpretation of the stated scope of the article based on his view of the meaning of the title. As others have already seen, the Anchor Bible Dictionary in its subsection which runs to roughly two pages of transcribed text uses the word "Historicity" in its title but says nothing about the question of academic bias in the study of Jesus. Also, as was indicated elsewhere the recent Encyclopedia of the Historical Jesus" whose articles are listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Jesus work group/Encyclopedic articles is specifically cataloged by the Library of Congress classification in "Historicity", but does not mention the issue of academic bias in the field to any degree I could see. I believe the repeated refusal to apparently even acknowledge that one individual's opinion of what the title means is not necessarily supported by outside academic sources is maybe the most "hilarious" thing taking place here. John Carter (talk) 15:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

This was not a good faith suggestion for improving the article, this was the contribution of a troll. PS: I was not actually proposing a change of scope, that accusation was just more of your trolling, which you appeared to have based on the assumption that a dictionary is an unreliable source of definitions. Do you have an actual point to make? Wdford (talk) 00:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Circular. Not helpful. Here is a reminder of what scope is all about. Evensteven (talk) 00:07, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Wdford - Suggesting that the scope of the article is (or should be) "historicity of Jesus" *is* a good faith suggestion for improving the article. Again, do you need diffs of where I've talked about this?

As for you not proposing a change of scope, let me quote you:

The question thus is: should we rename this article Scholarly opinions on the historicity of Jesus and narrow the scope, or should we keep it as is? The rules say that unless we have a consensus to change the scope, the scope of the article remains as is.Wdford (talk) 16:23, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Please take your "trolling" accusations to my talk page. They're really not appropriate here. Fearofreprisal (talk) 00:26, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

More trolling. I clearly stated that the scope of the article should remain as is described in the opening sentence, unless a consensus emerges to change it. The opening sentence clearly describes the scope as being the "Historicity of Jesus." You made no effort to offer an improvement, you merely disputed the reliability of dictionaries. Wdford (talk) 00:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Prejudicial mistatements of the statements of others for the purposes of indulging in straw man arguments is a serious violation of decorum and continued indulgence in such behavior can and often is looked down on at ANI or ArbCom. John Carter (talk) 15:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Ridiculous tag? Not

@Slawekb: In your edit comment [3], you wrote Widely accepted historical events: removed ridiculous tag. A quotation was given to verify what this source says. "Not in citation given" refers to... that quotation? Possibly you should have checked the source, as I did? The article contains a direct and intentional WP:POV misquotation of the source. Fearofreprisal (talk) 20:22, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

If you had the exact quotation at your disposal, then I am puzzled to say the least why you would have added a {{verification failed}} tag instead of just correcting the quotation in the first place. Surely there is simply no excuse for that. Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:59, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Sławomir: There are a couple of reasons: First, I've found that my edits get reverted a lot by people who never contribute a thing to this article. So, I thought it was better if someone else did the edit, rather than starting an edit war. Second, I was looking at a bunch of citations, and thought it better to just tag 'em all, and sort them out later.

Rbreen: As for citation 55 -- I don't have a problem with the quote per se (other than the use of "and" instead of "or"), but footnote 35 in the source amends the quote, using the qualifier "known to me." There's a big difference between a scholar saying certain claims have never existed, versus saying he doesn't know of any such claims. I reverted the tag (just the tag, not the addition you made to the cite), until someone can figure out how to incorporate this qualifying language in a way that won't get kneejerk reverted.

By the way, early Christians had a tendency to suppress or interpolate any writings which might not support Jesus' historicity, so I'd say that the claim "In antiquity, the existence of Jesus was never denied by those who opposed Christianity" is extreme, and fundamentally unprovable. It might be made more reasonable to change the article text to something like: "Van Voorst has stated that he knows of no cases in antiquity where pagans and Jews who opposed Christianity denied or even questioned Jesus' historicity." Fearofreprisal (talk) 22:30, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Historian of ancient history Robin Lane Fox states "Jesus was born in Galilee".[5][not in citation given] Did you actually read this and find it wasn't in the citatino given? Because she does say it here link

It's unclear whether she's talking about a historical or theological context. Well, it seems clear that she's talking in a thological context, because saying "Jesus was born in Galilee" is something only a Christian would say. Is your problem with the citation that she means it in the sense of "according to Christian mythology, Jesus was born in Galilee". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.91.107.165 (talk) 01:12, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Read the relevant edit comment [4] Author refutes this statement at end of next paragraph. Calls it "historical impossibility.". Fearofreprisal (talk) 05:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

That's embarrassing for the Christian apologists, isn't it? An outright lie. Leave it up for all to see the lengths they will go to to evangelize Jesus. And they say Richard Carrier must be biased because he's not a Christian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.91.107.220 (talk) 23:45, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The source says that the story of the first Christmas is a historical impossibility, taken together with the purported worldwide census. And it says that the Crucifixion was a historical fact. Well, you can't crucify a man who has not ever been born! Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:20, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that is what the source says. And what did the edit say the source said? Was that you who made that edit? Can you find out who it was? Because they don't belong anywhere near Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.91.107.206 (talk) 17:47, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Richard Carrier quote for article

With all of the discussion about what is, and isn't historicity, and the arguments coming from Christians that theologians are historians, and their bias is a non-issue, I was shocked to see above one user comment something along the lines of Richard Carrier cannot be included, because he is bias and anti-Christian. He has just published a new book, and it is peer reviewed and published by an academic press, so that should be the end of that. He is a PhD in ancient history, and he is not a Christian. This is the perfect source for unbiased historical analysis, because he doesn't fear that his soul will be burned for eternity if he uncovers the facts.

Could one of the more experienced editors do something with this paragraph from his new book, and add it to the article?:

“In my estimation the odds Jesus existed are less than 1 in 12,000. Which to a historian is for all practical purposes a probability of zero For comparison, your lifetime probability of being struck by lighting is around 1 in 10,000. That Jesus existed is even less likely than that. Consequently, I am reasonably certain there was no historical Jesus… When I entertain the most generous estimates possible, I find I cannot by any stretch of the imagination the probability Jesus existed is better than 1 in 3.” p. 600

Carrier, R. (2014). On the historicity of Jesus: Why we might have reason for doubt. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press.

I've got the book, so if anyone wants me expand on it, just ask your questions and I'll find quotes from the book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.91.107.195 (talk) 04:11, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Richard Carrier is certainly an interesting source, but he holds a minority position, maybe even a minority of one, and that needs to be stated. While it is true he doesn't need to fear for his eternal soul if it's true there was no historical Jesus, he is also a well-known self-employed new atheist activist and speaker, which might also be a source of bias. I think that like all other people we cite, we should add a brief description of his credentials and any potential sources of bias. Martijn Meijering (talk) 08:56, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Martijn here, provided we can source their credentials objectively (probably not hard) and provided we can identify their probable biases objectively (basically impossible?) Wdford (talk) 14:06, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Martin, the book is published by an academic press and is peer reviewed, bud. I don't get what your point is, are you saying it can't be included because it's not the position held by most theologians? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.91.107.165 (talk) 23:12, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Certainly not, I'm merely pointing out we cannot cite his opinions in Wikipedia voice. By all mean do quote him, but as an attributed quote and with proper explanation of his credentials and potential biases. Simply saying he has a PhD in ancient history (I think) and is a self-employed atheist activist and speaker would be enough as far as I'm concerned. Martijn Meijering (talk) 23:18, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

So when it's an atheist we point it out, but when it's a Christian: irrelevant? Do all the other authors who are confirmed Christians, say so? How is atheism a "bias"? You'd want people who are detached from the faith. Are Buddhists "bias" as well? Someone can add the information if they want, I don't have much faith in this article due to reverts by all of the apologists, and all these double standards for Christians vs. non Christians. I don't get why non-Christians are "biased". Almost all of the people saying Jesus is a real person are Christians. Atheism means you don't believe in magic, it doesn't mean you can't understand how history works. Christianity means you believe in magic, supernatural stuff, and by default that Jesus existed in real life. Wow, real objective. I'm done. I've done all I can, and I'll leave it to you editors to do the right thing. Good luck. This article is garbage and so are all the articles about Jesus and anything to do with Christianity on Wikipedia. That's because people don't understand that Christians aren't able to write about this stuff without letting their "faith" get in the way, and people like you don't understand what bias is, and the difference between a scientific approach and a faith based approach. You'll NEVER see a Christian "historian" saying Jesus didn't exist. But you may see a buddhist or atheist, or Hindu or other saying that. Why is that, bud? Doesn't that make you question your views on "bias"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.91.107.165 (talk) 00:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

No, we should do the same thing for Christians and everyone else, which is why I said "all people we cite" above. Also: kindly consider WP:CIVIL, I don't appreciate your calling me 'bud'. It looks as if you came here to pick a fight, which isn't very constructive. Martijn Meijering (talk) 00:24, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Dubious paragraph

Please remove the following paragraph: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 for some figures in ancient history, the available sources are all documentary. In conjunction with 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 the authenticity of all three passages has been disputed to varying degrees, most biblical scholars believe that all three are at least partially authentic.

It is not sourced, and it is vague. First off, who are the "most biblical scholars" and what parts do they believe are/aren't authentic? This paragraph violates so many wikipedia policies it is not even funny. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.121.225.190 (talk) 04:48, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

As per policy, the lead summarizes the content of the article. If you read the article you will see all the sourcing etc there. We can add all of that to the lead, but will it make things better, or will it just clutter things up again? Wdford (talk) 06:55, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Josephus testimonium flavium

Guys, it's time update the information about this Christian interpolation in the work of Josephus. Here is the scholarship on the item:

"Analysis of the evidence from the works of Origen, Eusebius, and Hegesippus concludes that the reference to "Christ" in Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 20.200 is probably an accidental interpolation or scribal emendation and that the passage was never originally about Christ or Christians. It referred not to James the brother of Jesus Christ, but probably to James the brother of the Jewish high priest Jesus ben Damneus." More Info: vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 489-514 Journal Name: Journal of Early Christian Studies

Sources: Journal of Early Christian Studies vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 489-514 http://www.academia.edu/2329601/Origen_Eusebius_and_the_Accidental_Interpolation_in_Josephus_Jewish_Antiquities_20.200 http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/2946

As you can see there is no mention of an "authentic nucleus". It was talking about a totally different Jesus. 1 in 26 people in that time and place were named Jesus, so this should not come as a surprise. The citation needs to be included to balance the vague, misleading language currently in the article which states " Testimonium Flavianum, is most likely not authentic in its entirety, it is broadly agreed upon that it originally consisted of an authentic nucleus, which was then subject to Christian interpolation or forgery"

Could one of the more experienced editors include the above mentioned citation from Richard Carrier's published work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.91.107.165 (talk) 23:45, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Probably need to clean up the Josephus_on_Jesus article first. Then the Sources for the historicity of Jesus article. After that, this article can be dealt with. Fearofreprisal (talk) 04:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Geoffrey Blainey

Hey guys, I think citations from Geoffrey Blainey ought to come with the disclaimer: *Christian

Apparently, he believes in magic, and believes that the resurrection of the dead body of a man actually happened. He certainly can't be trusted about anything he says with regards to historicity of Jesus. Peruse these two stories about him with regards to his belief on the resurrection of a dead body.

"Blainey applies the test of an empirical historian before concluding that, by the standards of the first century AD, the voluminous accounts of Jesus' life count as reasonable documentary evidence. Jesus did exist. He hedges his bets on the resurrection, giving ample voice to its sceptics, but notes that Christ's virtual presence in the minds of his disciples gave Christianity an edge over older, less dynamic competitors."

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/arts/gadfly-geoffrey-blainey-comes-to-praise-christianity-not-to-bury-it/story-e6frg8n6-1226179886632?nk=ee1ed1034064ef12a6f53ad1a537deff

"Apparently, Blainey 'hedges his bets' on the resurrection as an historical event giving 'ample voice to its sceptics'."

http://citybibleforum.org/city/brisbane/blog/jesus-history

So from what I understand, his religion doesn't affect his bias, but Richard Carrier, because he doesn't believe in magic, is "bias" and sould have an asterisk beside his name? That's fine, but as long as you put an asterisk beside the name of Blainey and his ilk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.91.107.165 (talk) 00:41, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Its a bit hard to tell if you're just trying to be inflammatory or you are trying to make a point that actually matters to you? The whole "Actually happened.." criticizing Christian view betrays anything you're trying to propose.. Prasangika37 (talk) 02:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

It's not hard to tell, after you've spent some time on pages like this. Pages like this seem to attract radical atheist POV warriors who have an emotional stake in denying god in general and jesus in particular. Just a heads up. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 13:10, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

What POV, dogmatic bullshit! Back to the topic. In his home country (also mine) Blainey is seen as the conservatives' historian. His opinions are wheeled out whenever the right wing of Australian politics wants to "prove" something. His view are not universally well respected. Using him here does damage to the the cause of those trying to prove Jesus existed. HiLo48 (talk) 19:21, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Irrelevant sentence

"There is no evidence today that the existence of Jesus was ever denied in antiquity by those who opposed Christianity."

This sentence is irrelevant. Why would people deny someone who they've never heard of? We don't have records of people going around saying Zeus wasn't real, does constitute evidence for the existence of Zeus? Also, cited to the encyclopedia of THEOLOGY, not an encyclopedia, not a history book, it is about theology.This is called Christian apologetics, it is irrelevant to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.91.107.165 (talk) 01:00, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

It's true that the claim you've quoted is an intellectually sloppy argument on the part of the source, but your point about “someone who they've never heard of” is not actually among its (multiple) flaws. Given that ancient opponents of Christianity had heard enough about Christianity to oppose it, there is some reasonable likelihood that they had heard of Jesus.  Unician ∇  10:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Obviously people don't deny the existence of someone they've "never heard of", but that's not what the sentence says. It clearly refers to people who are aware of Christian beliefs. Your next sentence about Zeus has no logical relation to the first, since people who deny Zeus have obviously "heard of" him. However, Zeus is not a person. Denying the existence of supernatural concept has no resemblance to denying the existence of a historical person. Paul B (talk) 11:04, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

But to the believers, Zeus was actually "real", as was Jupiter, Neptune etc. They were notorious for incarnating as humans (and animals), impregnating human women and generally causing mayhem among humans. For much of the Old Testament, the fight was that the pagan gods were powerless before the Jewish god, not that the pagan gods did not exist - King Solomon himself happily worshipped pagan gods alongside his Jewish god. The people of that time would not have had issues about the "reality" of Jesus, anymore than they would have questioned the "reality" of Mithras or Isis. That doesn't indicate that Jesus really existed, anymore than Zeus or Apollo really existed. Wdford (talk) 11:22, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Wow. A truly long list of non sequiturs. The reality attributed to Jesus is of an historical human being, being born, living and dying. It has no resemblance to stories of Mithras, Isis or Zeus. Paul B (talk) 11:27, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I must respectfully disagree. The parallels to the ancient people would have been clear and obvious - it's only modern Christians who perceive there to be no resemblance. Wdford (talk) 12:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Both Pliny's and Josephus's accounts are of a normal person who founded a "sect", not of a magical being. They were perfectly capable of distinguishing between mythological and historical figures. Paul B (talk) 15:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Anyway, the sentence should definitely stay. Its a very useful point and is well cited. Its very helpful to see that at the time, there was not a commonly-held disbelief in Jesus's existence or even sometimes-held. I think it helps the article and is factual. Regarding the point that no one would have commented on it, how can we authoritatively assume that? Surely there are examples in texts of people 'disbelieving' myths or mythical creatures. We have two RS, as fact, saying one thing and we have speculation on the other hand. Seems like we are left with leaving it. Prasangika37 (talk) 02:28, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Much of what is being said here is original research. If the sentence stays, it should be a cited quotation. And it should include the context that the authors merely disclaim knowledge of such evidence. (As noted in the Van Voorst footnote.) Fearofreprisal (talk) 04:47, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Now that we've solved that problem, can we add the point that mythicists such as Zindler claim that the most ancient understanding of Jesus was that of the docetists and that they agreed with the mythicists that he never existed? (笑) 182.249.241.42 (talk) 02:19, 25 September 2014 (UTC) (Hijiri88's phone)

This talk page section concerns the statement in the article There is no evidence today that the existence of Jesus was ever denied in antiquity by those who opposed Christianity.[54][55]

In citation 54, Rahner says "in antiquity it never occurred to anyone, even the bitterest enemies of Christianity, to doubt the existence of Jesus." In citation 55, Van Voorst says "no pagans or Jews who opposed Christianity denied Jesus' historicity or even questioned it." Both Rahner and Van Voorst are essentially saying "there is no evidence." Yet, the Docetism article includes a very strong analysis of just such evidence.

As a result, the existing statement in the article regarding "no evidence that the existence of Jesus was ever denied in antiquity" is inaccurate, and needs to be removed. Further, the discussion in the Docetism article, particularly Docetism#Christology_and_theological_implications should be summarized in this article. Fearofreprisal (talk) 06:11, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I SO want to quote The Princess Bride right now... Docetism is irrelevant to the historicity question, since docetists by definition believed that Jesus is an immortal divine being, exists now as he did in history, and he appeared in the world in a form that seemed (Gr: dokeo) to be that of a human. Read a book, please, and stop trolling this talk page. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:21, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed)

From the Docetism article: In Christian terminology, docetism... is defined narrowly as "the doctrine according to which the phenomenon of Christ, his historical and bodily existence, and thus above all the human form of Jesus, was altogether mere semblance without any true reality." Based on this, docetism is directly relevant to early Christian beliefs about the historicity of Jesus. (unsigned comment by Fearofreprisal (talk · contribs))

No comment ( ;-) ) on the first paragraph I removed. As for the second, please read WP:NOTSOURCE: do not use other Wikipedia articles as sources, especially when I just provided you with a better definition based on lectures by Ehrman, Martin, etc. If you get from our article on docetism that it refers to a belief in the non-historicity of Jesus, then our article has failed in its purpose. 182.249.204.174 (talk) 10:04, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Just to shine a little sunlight on this: User:Hijiri88 deleted the following comment above:

Hijiri88, you have long history of personal attacks and incivility - Though I have no way of knowing whether this is related to your past use of to the point where you've had to use sockpuppets and ultimately change your user name change. So I really don't take much that you say very seriously.

He replaced it with a WP:RPA template and a hidden note, saying:

I (Hijiri88) removed this regurgitation of personal attacks associated with the site-banned user JoshuSasori. It seems pretty obvious Fearofreprisal has now joined the ranks of users who have received emails from JS, who has a long history of both block-evasion and abuse of Wikimedia's email service. Per AGF, we'll assume Fearofreprisal only read the email, naively believed it, and didn't respond. Further indication of off-wiki collaboration with banned users, though, will be taken to ANI, or directly to one of the admins who have already dealt with this issue in the past.

I have no idea who JoshuSasori is, but I think the users here should know that, based on his talk page, Hijiri88 seems to get involved in a lot of is pretty well known drama. Fearofreprisal (talk) 19:18, 26 September 2014 (UTC) Edited 01:51, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Since when am I "well known [for] creating drama"? Where did you get this idea? You have never interacted with me before other than on this talk page. You appear to be the one creating the drama here... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:36, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Remove the "criticism" section?

Now that the dust has mostly settled, can we discuss this? The section basically serves no purpose in this article except to give the (false) impression that some scholars who criticize others' ideas on who and what Jesus was reject the historicity of the man himself. Schweitzer didn't deny historicity. Neither does Crossan. Or Ehrman. Of Meier. Does ANYONE cited in the section? Ehrman at least is on record as having been bewildered at the false characterization as a mythicist. Is Wikipedia one of the websites giving this false impression? Discussion of controversies surrounding Christian apologetics masquerading as HJ research DOES belong on Wikipedia ... in the appropriate article. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:25, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Outrageous suggestion, blatant POV-pushing. The section should stay. It doesn't at all suggest that certain scholars reject historicity, it says that there are serious methodological deficiencies and issues of bias in HJ research, which goes precisely to the heart of the POV dispute we're having. Martijn Meijering (talk) 14:33, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Removal is a bad suggestion and the claims you made about the section are inaccurate. Thumbs down. Blackthorne2k (talk) 15:47, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

@User:Mmeijeri: What POV am I pushing? That Jesus of Nazareth existed? I was under the impression we were all on the same page on this point. My questions to you are: Why do we need to point out in this article that there are "serious methodological deficiencies and issues of bias in HJ research", when we already have a whole article devoted to HJ research? What does that have to do with the historicity of Jesus? What kind of impression do you think devoting 20% of our historicity of Jesus article to this content gives our readers? Do you seriously think this is relevant to the topic? Or are you trying to give this kind of impression?

The POV that HJ research is just a branch of history, that biblical scholars are in fact historians (and for some reason should preferably be called historians rather than biblical scholars) and that the CMT is a fringe theory. If you were right on this, we would have to state the opinion of people like Ehrman in Wikipedia voice. But since you're not, we need to present these as attributed notable opinions while pointing out the criticism that many HJ researchers themselves as well as at least one historian who has published on the subject have made of HJ research. Martijn Meijering (talk) 19:51, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

The CMT is fringe. And that's not POV. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 20:15, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

BtC7: You have a well-documented obsession with CMT, so it's pretty hard to take anything you say about it seriously. Fearofreprisal (talk) 21:25, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

@User:Blackthorne2k: What inaccurate claims did I make? I said this section's inclusion within the context of the "historicity of Jesus" articles gives the impression that the scholars cited deny the historicity of Jesus. I would present these facts to back my point up:

(1) On March 20, 2012, Bart Ehrman published the book Did Jesus Exist?.[5]

(2) Said book's introduction states (on page 4) "My wonder only increased when I learned that I myself was being quoted in some circles -- misquoted rather -- as saying that Jesus never existed".[6]

(3) Said book (per the rest of the introduction) was Ehrman's first public foray into discussion of the Christ myth theory, the question of the historicity of Jesus, and so on. He had written another book about the historical Jesus, in which none of these topics were mentioned even once.

(4) Immediately before Ehrman's book was published, our present article looked like this.

(5) In said version of our article, Ehrman's name was mentioned five times:

(5-a) He was quoted as saying "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." No real problem here.

(5-b) The second mention was in the context of the Pauline epistles. The line read "According to Ehrman, the practice of Christian forgery has a long and distinguished history." What does this have to do with the historicity of Jesus? Paul didn't write the pastoral epistles -- so what? Why was this here?

(5-c) He was again quoted as saying of the canonical gospels: "they are not written by eyewitnesses who were contemporary with the events they narrate. They were written thirty-five to sixty-five years after Jesus’ death by people who did not know him, did not see anything he did or hear anything that he taught, people who spoke a different language from his and lived in a different country from him." Again, this has no relevance to the historicity question per se, but gives the impression that "since the gospels were not written by eyewitnesses, they are unreliable, and therefore cannot be used for historical research -- therefore, Jesus might not have existed". I'm sorry, but within the context of an article about whether or not Jesus existed there is no other way around it: this quote was being abused.

(5-d) He was again quoted about the canonical gospels' sources: "The sources of the Gospels are riddled with just the same problems that we found in the Gospels themselves: they, too, represent traditions that were passed down by word of mouth, year after year, among Christians who sometimes changed the stories—indeed, sometimes invented the stories—as they retold them." Again, this statement is completely true and accurate. Historians need to be careful with the gospels. However, this quotation does not belong in an article about whether or not Jesus existed historically.

(5-e) He was also cited as reasserting Schweitzer's apocalyptic prophet view of Jesus. No real problem here, either.

(6) All of the above quotes were taken out of their appropriate context, since Ehrman had not used them in a discussion of the historicity (a discussion he had not been aware existed, per his 2012 introduction).

(7) The current version of the article mentions him only three times.

(7-a) One of his undergraduate textbooks from more than a decade ago that is quite difficult to access is cited as stating that the crucifixion is attested by a wide range of sources including Josephus and Tacitus. The source is tagged with a "need quotation to verify". Not going back to find out who added the tag, it certainly looks like a violation of WP:POINT: Ehrman's popular book on the historicity of Jesus is readily available for an affordable price, and it backs up the statement just as well. Requesting quotations for bloody-obvious facts like these is inappropriate.

(7-b) He is quoted as saying "it is hard to imagine a Christian inventing the story of Jesus' baptism since this could be taken to mean that he was John's subordinate". I don't dispute this, and it probably does belong in this article, as well as in the Historical Jesus article.

(7-c) He is cited as stating that given the scarcity of sources, it's difficult to establish anything beyond the bare bones of Jesus' life story. This is true. But in the present context of an article about whether Jesus existed or not the statement is inappropriate, as it is almost certain to give the reader the wrong impression.

As demonstrated above, the situation is a lot better than it was just before Ehrman published his historicity book. At that time, our article quoted him numerous times, giving the very strong impression that he either denied the historicity of Jesus or held views sympathetic to the mythicist. He had to write and publish a 300-page book on a subject that clearly does not interest him, with one of his expressed goals being to quell false rumours about his views. After said book was published, the out-of-context quotes were (gradually?) removed, to the point where the article no longer gives that deeply negative impression. However, other scholars who have not devoted their valuable time to menial pursuits like writing entire books on the subject of "Jesus existed. Get over it!" do not have this privilege. Meier's name appears four times in the article: two of the citations are tagged with "not in citation given" even though these are, as the title says, "widely accepted historical events", and the view attributed here to Meier would almost certainly be verifiable in one source or another (whoever tagged the citations was being WP:POINTy by not doing so themselves, imo); the other two quote him as claiming that a lot of so-called HJ researchers are in fact doing theology, not history -- this is a valid point, but out of context it gives completely the wrong impression of the man and his view. "Many HJ researchers are theologically biased, therefore HJ research is a bunch of bunk" is a view clearly espoused by many people on this talk page, but it is not the view espoused by Meier. Meier devoted 20 years to writing 3,000+ pages of Historical Jesus research: he clearly is not opposed to HJ research per se and he should not be quoted out of context as "criticizing" HJ research.

And that's just two of them!

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 18:09, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:TLDR - From what I read before I gave up, you seem to believe that you can build consensus through a wall of text on the talk page. Fearofreprisal (talk) 19:35, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Historicity is not just about the existence or non-existence of a historical figure. It is about the degree of confidence one can attach to the historical events and statements reported as being uttered by a historical figure. Thus the statements about the criticism here is valid and important. John D. Croft (talk) 23:00, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Then why are there two articles on that topic? "Historicity of Jesus" and "Historical Jesus" are treated as separate (although related) topics in the literature -- why does well over half of this article need to be devoted to either (a) speculations by some scholars about how much of the gospel material is historical or (b) criticism by other scholars of said speculations?

Another problem that might be brought up is that when Ehrman, Meier and others criticize a certain form of Christian apologetics that masks itself, they are not criticizing Historical Jesus research as a whole (they themselves practice it). If we need to include criticism, we should at least put it in the correct context. "Licona claims the resurrection is historically verifiable. Ehrman and Martin have criticized this view for not adhering to standard historical method." kind of thing. We should not be lumping them all together in arbitrary "pro" and "con" groups.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:32, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

The criticism of HJ research does not apply to the discipline as a whole in the sense that they do not say it cannot be practiced in a historically appropriate way, just that by and large it currently isn't being done that way. As for the length of the criticism section, that may be a problem, but that's something we can solve after we fix the POV problem. Some of us have expressed doubts whether we need to have a separate article of the historicity of Jesus in addition to the HJ and CMT articles. Martijn Meijering (talk) 06:26, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Part of the problem here is there is a deep ambiguity in this article. Is it about the historicity of Jesus (=Jesus existed)? In which case, how is it different to the Christ Myth article, which should then logically be a subset of it? Or is it about the historicity of the details of the life of the historical Jesus, in which case, how is it different from the Historical Jesus article? As a result the Criticism section is also ambiguous. In most cases, the criticisms expressed seem to relate to the methods used by biblical scholars to construct a Historical Jesus - which is fair enough. But if this gives the impression that there exists a body of historical writers who question, on historical grounds, whether Jesus existed at all. And that is simply not the case. The Christ Myth Theory is fringe, as has clearly been established. So, which kind of historicity are we writing about, and why should it have its own article? --Rbreen (talk) 00:52, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree our current division into three articles is problematic. If the current criticism section gives the impression that the writers quoted question the historicity of Jesus, then that must be corrected, because with few exceptions they don't. That should be easy enough to fix and I'd be very happy to work with you to find a form of words that solves this. As for the CMT being fringe, I must respectfully disagree that that has been established. There are a number of serious scholars who subscribe to it, consider it a possibility or at least think it deserves more scrutiny. To be sure these form only a tiny minority, and we must not imply otherwise, but they're still serious scholars. Martijn Meijering (talk) 01:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Martijn, that clarifies things, although I am not sure if it is the view of everyone here. On the question of what difference there is between a tiny minority and a fringe, I am not convinced but willing to consider the possibility.--Rbreen (talk) 01:36, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

ANI discussion

User Hijiri has fired off another of his many complaints at a noticeboard when he doesn't get his way, and not for the first time without notifying the Wikipedians who are involved (Fearofreprisal and yours truly this time) even though this is required by policy. Wikipedians here may want to follow the discussion. [7]Martijn Meijering (talk) 13:12, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

"we have a few cited scholars who support the CMT"

"we have a few cited scholars who support the CMT" Dispel my ignorance - who are they? PiCo (talk) 14:19, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Ellegard, Wells (to a degree), Carrier, Price, Brodie. The Christ Myth Theory article contains more names, but these are the respectable ones among those who have actively published about it. Also see [8] and [9]. To be sure these only constitute a tiny minority, but we aren't suggesting otherwise. Martijn Meijering (talk) 14:38, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

What establishes their credentials as scholars? Academic posts, higher degrees in a relevant field, that sort of thing? (Just give me their full names and I'll look them up). PiCo (talk) 16:58, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the quickest way to find that information is on the Christ Myth Theory page. Carrier's view of the evidence is stated here [10] in what looks like a somewhat respectable trade publication for biblical historians. They have respectable academic qualifications, but all these authors have something that makes them look somewhat unusual. They either no longer have tenure, are retired, have published outside their original area of professional expertise or are atheist activists. I've long argued for including enough information about authors to help the reader identify possible sources of bias or lack of scholarly qualifications, and CMT proponents should of course be held to the same standard. Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:21, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

If I may make a personal remark, I'm really happy you have started working on this page. I've long followed your edits on pages related to religious subjects and your occasional spats on POV issues and had been hoping you would join us here eventually. Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:21, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Scope (first sentence of lead)

(Splitting existing thread as it takes in two subjects) BTW, FoR didn't like my revision of the topic sentence (first in the lead). I thought it was rather good and helpful. What do you think? PiCo (talk) 17:00, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I didn't look at it closely, but I didn't see anything wrong with it. I will look at it more closely. I think FoR needs to come up with concrete objections of his own when reverting a bold edit, and leave it to others to do so if he merely suspects they will. Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

It was this:

• The historicity of Jesus is the question whether Jesus of Nazareth existed as a historical figure, whether any of the major milestones in his life as portrayed in the gospels can be confirmed as historical events as opposed to myth, legend, or fiction, and the weighing of the evidence relating to his life. (The historicity of Jesus is distinct from the related study of the historical Jesus, which refers to scholarly reconstructions of the life of Jesus based primarily on critical analysis of the gospel texts).[1][2][3] PiCo (talk) 17:12, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

What I like about it is that it establishes 3 distinct topics to look at in the body of the article.PiCo (talk) 17:13, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

I have a problem with defining the "historicity of Jesus" as it was before, or even as you changed it. To understand why, substitute another person's name for Jesus in the sentence. Let's say... George W. Bush. (I'm not being absurd here: historicity is a quality of all humans. Even humans who are still alive.) With this substitution, the sentence would say:

The historicity of George W. Bush is the question whether George W. Bush existed as a historical figure, whether any of the major milestones in his life as portrayed in the gospels can be confirmed as historical events as opposed to myth, legend, or fiction, and the weighing of the evidence relating to his life.

This doesn't make much sense, does it? Since we're going to the trouble of trying to fix the first sentence, I've taken another stab at it, as follows:

The historicity of Jesus concerns the question of whether traditions about Jesus of Nazareth can be determined to be historical (as opposed to myth, legend, or fiction), through the analysis of historical evidence.

Now, I don't think this is perfect, but it's pretty good. It cleanly merges your 3 topics into 1, without limiting the scope of the article, or creating any POV problems. Fearofreprisal (talk) 09:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

PiCo: Since you already reverted my change, I'll let you read what I've written above, and decide what to do. A couple of details:

• Jesus "existence," the "major milestones in his life as portrayed in the gospels," (and, for that matter, *all* events about Jesus portrayed in the Bible, the apocrypha, the Quran, and the Book of Mormon), are "traditions about Jesus" that are subject to questions of historicity. So, I'm suggesting using the term "traditions about Jesus" to refer to such claims collectively. Do you have a better or more clear and unambiguous term in mind?
• Historical analysis (whether Historical method or Historical criticism) doesn't consider the existence of a historical figure separately from the events in that person's life. They are taken together, to paint a picture of a unique individual. If you want to break this into two distinct topics, I'd like to see some citations to support it.

Let me know what you think. Fearofreprisal (talk) 10:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the comparison with George Bush is a false one. "The historicity of George W. Bush is the question whether George W. Bush existed as a historical figure." But nobody does question whether George existed. Try instead King Arthur: "The historicity of King Arthur is the question whether King Arthur existed as a historical figure." That makes perfect sense. Or you could substitute Buddha, or Ulysses, or a hundred others. George and Jesus are different classes of beings.

"The historicity of Jesus concerns the question of whether traditions about Jesus of Nazareth can be determined to be historical." Elide that: "The historicity of Jesus concerns...whether traditions about (him)...are historical." That doesn't address the basic issue of whether he existed. Jesus' existence isn't a tradition, it's a question some people ask.

The traditions about Jesus - the historical record - is the second and third part of my formulation. If the answer to the question of his existence is "overwhelming opinion in affirmative" (as it is), then the next question is, "on what evidence do we (or the experts) come to that conclusion?" The answer is the New Testament literature, plus a tiny amount of Roman writings, plus our knowledge of the Jewish and Hellenistic milieu of the time. So we do a brief overview of that evidence.

Finally, having established what the evidence is, we ask: "How far can it be trusted? Which parts are most reliaable, which parts least?" Opinions on that differ, and we have to register that.

The article needs to be a lot shorter, and a lot more readable - it suffers from that perennial Wiki problem of being written by people who spend too much time in their mom's basement. PiCo (talk) 13:36, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

George and Jesus are not "two different classes of beings". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.91.107.206 (talk) 17:36, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I like fear of reprisal's work better. It doesn't have as many a priori assumptions, and it is simply more objective. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.91.107.206 (talk) 18:06, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

• "I think the comparison with George Bush is a false one." The same definition of historicity applies to all humans, living or dead.
• "George and Jesus are different classes of beings." Not for the purposes of historicity.
• "That doesn't address the basic issue of whether he existed." But it does address the basic issue of his historical existence.
• "Jesus' existence isn't a tradition." Our understanding of Jesus' historical existence is based on tradition. Fearofreprisal (talk) 20:43, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Here's an alternate construction for you to consider:

The historicity of Jesus concerns the historical actuality of claims about Jesus of Nazareth, based on the analysis of evidence using historical methods.

Fearofreprisal (talk) 06:19, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

That's so turgid as to be meaningless. "Historical actuality"? What's that? I had a look at the article it links to ("historicity"), but it's no better - two barely relevant sources for a related term that also means nothing. we need to use language readers can understand.PiCo (talk) 06:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

"Historical actuality" is the Merriam Webster dictionary definition for "historicity."

If you're no longer interested in discussing this issue, we can just leave the first sentence as it is for the time being. However, WP:BURDEN still applies: All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is satisfied by providing a citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.

Please provide that citation. Fearofreprisal (talk) 10:27, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Specification that authors critical of HJ research methodologies...

... aren't themselves mythicists is most appreciated.

@User:Mmeijeri: I like your edits from a little while ago. If we are going to include citations of scholars who are skeptical about some of the more ... "credulous" HJ models out there in this article, then we should definitely specify that they all affirm historicity.

My initial problem, though, remains. I think that unless someone actually thinks we should WP:MERGE the Historical Jesus article with this one, we should try as far as possible to keep the two separate. Discussion of basic information that is (near-)universally agreed on about the historical Jesus (born in Nazareth, baptized by John, crucified by the Romans under Pontius Pilate), and the methodologies by which historians came to these conclusions, is of course good. But 930 words on "Widely accepted historical events" (by the way "Jesus was a Galilean" is not an "event" -- why can't we say "facts"), 1,499 words on "Methods of research", and 874 words on "Criticism of Jesus research methods" = 3,203 words devoted to essentially HJ material, while the entire article is only 4,172 words long.

Can you see where I am coming from here? I don't think you are a mythicist (it's why I amn't trying to get you TBANned as a fringe POV-pusher), but the problem is that the way the article is laid out now appears (Gr. dokeo ;) ) to favour the mythicist position. The article is supposed to be essentially about the question of whether Jesus existed and the evidence for such (i.e., the historicity of Jesus), but devotes much more time and effort to detailed and lengthy discussion of the unreliability of the gospels, the fact that a lot of so-called historians are actually more interested in Christian apologetics than history, that modern scholarship is completely awash as to exactly who the historical Jesus was, etc., etc. The casual reader who goes through this article from start to finish is going to get completely the wrong impression.

I stand by my earlier speculation that when Ehrman wrote in 2012 that some people were misquoting him as denying the historicity of Jesus, at least some of the people he was referring to got their information from this Wikipedia article, since at the time it definitely gave that impression. (I know FoR claimed above that he didn't read that speculation, but I am sure that is what he was referring to when on ANI he accused me of "OR". I should specify that WP:NOR refers to article content: presenting hypotheticals and original-but-reasoned arguments on the talk page is completely acceptable under Wikipedia policy; adding the text "who is a Christian" or "who is a former fundamentalist apologist" after the names of every contemporary scholar mentioned in the article could much more accurately be called OR.)

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:49, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, as I've said I believe our current division into three articles is problematic, although I don't know what the appropriate division would be. If the historicity article is to remain, then I agree our current criticism section is far too long. In addition it duplicates what is said in the HJ article, which is undesirable because it will then be difficult to keep the two synchronised. I don't remember who introduced it, but I believe it was intended as a temporary measure, with the intent to summarise the content to a more appropriate length. Right now I am more concerned about the issue of bias. You are correct that I'm not a CMT advocate (I do find it an intriguing theory that has more merit than I thought it had and deserves more scrutiny). My big issue is that the scholarly bias that has been mentioned here (partially confirmed by a friend of my father's, a retired professor of ancient history) has 'infected' the article, something I find worrying.

I don't know why you think mentioning a person's background is similar to OR. We rely on sources for that information, and we don't draw any conclusions from it ourselves. For instance if we introduce N.T. Wright as a New Testament scholar and former bishop, we are simply providing factual information on issues that scholars have mentioned as potential sources of bias. Of course that information is intended to help a reader identify potential bias, but doesn't lead the reader towards a specific conclusion. Had we said N.T. Wright agrees event such-and-so in the bible didn't happen, and he's a former bishop and a Christian apologist, so you can't suspect him of being overly skeptical here, then that would be OR. The other day I asked my father about a chapter about his own theological views in a scholarly work he had written. He had included it to help the reader identify any potential religious bias on his part. I asked him if this was customary in his field, and he said it wasn't, but it struck me as useful and similar to what we've been doing here. To be sure, we do have to be careful to choose our words judiciously, so as not to nudge the reader towards OR conclusions of our own. Martijn Meijering (talk) 14:57, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

So what IS the scope of this article? If it's just whether Jesus existed or not then I need to cut back the sentence I'm currently arguing about with ToR. And if it's that, then shouldn't it be merged with the Christ Myth article? PiCo (talk) 13:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I think at least the answer to your latter question is "yes". The fact is that the majority of legit scholars (read: everyone except Ehrman, once, in 2012) completely ignore the idea that Jesus never existed, so we don't have all that many sources with which to discuss the "theory". Its advocates believe in it on mostly religious grounds (even if they don't admit it), and they are the only ones who generally discuss their ideas and their relation to mainstream scholarship. I haven't frankly read out CMT article, because I personally believe that it will eventually get merged in here without my input.

As to your first question: I honestly don't know. There have been literally thousands of words devoted to that subject here and in this page's archives (and despite what my off-wiki stalker will tell you, only a tiny portion of that was me). I'm actually inclined to expand the scope in the sense that I'd like to see some discussion of how Jesus' miracles, and in particular the resurrection, are generally rejected by historians on the grounds that "history can only demonstrate what probably happened in the past, and miracles are by definition the least likely occurrence" (I'm paraphrasing one of Ehrman's debates with Licona, and Martin essentially agrees). The first question I'd have if I was a general reader from a Christian background was "wait -- if historians generally believe Jesus existed, does that mean the resurrection is also a historical fact?". This point should be clarified in the article. I'm not sure why the word "resurrection" doesn't appear once in the article right now: are we trying to accommodate both fundamentalists and radical atheists by leaving the historical consensus on this point unstated?

As for the "criticisms of research methods", I think I've already made my views on this section clear. Even though nothing in the section is factually inaccurate, in the context it is misleading, it doesn't serve any real purpose to this article, and the only reason it is included is to accommodate Wikipedians who are clearly, let's just say, "skeptical" about the historicity of Jesus. The section should be removed, with any pertinent information migrated elsewhere in the article.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Then can I suggest that we start with the very irreducible minimum, Did Jesus Exist? A section on that, saying that the overwhelming opinion of scholars in the field is that he did. It would also have to say what grounds they use to come to that conclusion, which would bring in ToR's area of concern. Can we think about doing this? PiCo (talk) 15:12, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

"Did Jesus Exist?" - Which Jesus are you referring to? Please be specific. (Serious answers only, please.) Fearofreprisal (talk) 20:52, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Citation for article that has been overlooked

Richard Carrier Wrote a peer reviewed book on the Historicity of Jesus, published by an academic press. We can stop saying it is a “fringe” theory “for people who spend too much time in their mother's basements”, because when you say that, you're throwing a LOT of people under the bus. I say again, this book has been peer reviewed and published by an academic press. We've got Blainy in here, and other known Christians, so why can't we have a known atheist? Someone please do something with this citation

“In my estimation the odds Jesus existed are less than 1 in 12,000. Which to a historian is for all practical purposes a probability of zero For comparison, your lifetime probability of being struck by lighting is around 1 in 10,000. That Jesus existed is even less likely than that. Consequently, I am reasonably certain there was no historical Jesus… When I entertain the most generous estimates possible, I find I cannot by any stretch of the imagination the probability Jesus existed is better than 1 in 3.” p. 600

Carrier, R. (2014). On the historicity of Jesus: Why we might have reason for doubt. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix Press. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.91.107.206 (talk) 17:53, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the "1 in 12,000" claim, whether valid or not, is a tiny minority viewpoint -- but the actual research and analysis behind it is worth abstracting in the article. Sorry -- I don't have to book. Why don't you do it? Fearofreprisal (talk) 20:48, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Rather than putting Carrier in we should be taking Blainey out. The article should deal in general arguments, not appeals to authority. (Blainey's no authority.)PiCo (talk) 03:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Another ANI Thread, Possible Arbitration, Possibly Working Things Out Without Arbitration

Well, yet another ANI thread has been opened. I would suggest, but some of the editors here obviously are not interested in reasonable advice, that, before opening yet another ANI thread, an editor ask a two-part question. First, what specifically am I proposing that the community should do to the editor about whom I am complaining? A block? An indef block? A topic-ban? A site-ban? If you can't give a specific proposed remedy, then just don't open the thread. Don't go to ANI for advice or only for a warning; go only to request a sanction, and know what sanction you are proposing. Second, am I, the original poster of the thread, setting myself up for one of the previously mentioned sanctions via boomerang? If yes, consider whether the benefit outweighs the risk. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

It appears that this article has the mix of content issues and conduct issues that cannot be effectively dealt with by dispute resolution, or by ANI, or by any remedy short of arbitration, unless some of the editors change their behavior. I have seen:

• Personal attacks.
• Assumptions of bad faith.
• Allegations of trolling (a personal attack).
• Suggestions of sock-puppetry.
• Walls of text.
• Battleground editing.
• Poorly substantiated ANI threads.
• Useless back-and-forth exchanges without listening.

With this history, if this article does go to the ArbCom, the result will almost certainly include discretionary sanctions, a draconian set of restrictions on editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

So, based on the likelihood that this article will wind up in arbitration, and the fact that the ArbCom sets a strict limit of 500 words for each statement, I suggest that each poster compose a statement of no more than 500 words stating specifically what is wrong with this article and what specific changes should be made to this article. If you omit all of the complaints about other editors, you will have more space to discuss improvements to the article. Can each editor propose what needs to be done to improve the article (not the editorial behavior)? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:55, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Any thread that commences with a sentence containing the words "some of the editors here obviously are not interested in reasonable advice" is not likely to end well. HiLo48 (talk) 00:01, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I think this article should be deleted since it looks like it's synthesis of HJ and CMT with a strong effort being made to legitimize the CMT. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 12:28, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd support that. PiCo (talk) 12:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I more or less agree. It used to be a triumphalist POV-pushing pro-historicity article, which has now been 'balanced' by including an excessive amount of material on criticism of HJ research. In addition, AFAIK there is no such field as Historicity of Jesus research and we've had interminable battles over this article. I don't think the world will be a poorer place without a Historicity of Jesus article. Martijn Meijering (talk) 13:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Heh, check out the categories that this article has been tagged with. High importance this, top article that. Martijn Meijering (talk) 13:13, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Given the paucity of unbiased sources due to the complete neglect this topic receives outside of Christian studies, deletion would be an excellent result. There's no way to build and maintain a valid article.—Kww(talk) 13:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Personally I don't know how, but could somebody please set the ball rolling?PiCo (talk) 13:30, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Those of you who believe the article should be deleted should consider drafting an ArbCom statement to that effect, and then voluntarily recuse yourself from any further editing of the article or talk page. It is a matter of fairness and respect towards those in the community who are interested in improving this article. Fearofreprisal (talk) 13:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

There is no reason why deletion has anything to do with an ArbCom statement. AFD and arbitration are two different processes. By the way, FOR, that sort of unhelpful statement is why some of the other editors complain. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:09, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I will do no such thing. If this article continues to exist, we have to make sure it conforms to our standards. Martijn Meijering (talk) 15:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• Comment I'm reluctant to get into this topic as I know from experience that it mainly interests two kind of people. The first are hardcore Bible-believing Christians who want to argue that the Gospels are historically reliable. The second are hardcore conspiracy-theorist atheists who want to argue that Jesus never existed. I'm not claiming all users fall into one of these groups (far from it), but those are the two sides that usually take an interest. Given that there is virtually no scholarly support for either group, it quickly becomes complicated as both struggle to discredit actual research and include fringe findings with no academic support. Virtually every academic in the field would agree that the person Jesus existed, that he was a Jewish wandering preacher with a small following, preaching his interpretation of Jewish law and eventually being crucified. Unfortunately, that is not sensationalist enough for most people, hence the poor state of the article. However, the fact that an article is bad is a reason to improve it, not to delete it.Jeppiz (talk) 14:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

• My problem with that statement is "virtually every academic in the field", because that seems to be a group that is disproportionately Christian compared to the general population. People make a lot of Ehrman's quote, but that quote is basically "I, Bart Ehrman, believe that every responsible historian agrees with me", a statement with its own set of bias problems. What I would like to see is people either find a group of non-Christian, non-Muslim historians that support the historicity of Jesus of Nazareth or stop making the claim that virtually all historians support it. It would appear to me that virtually all historians are completely silent on the topic, and that's the problem. It's not that there's some overwhelming evidence for the myth theory or that there is no evidence at all for historicity. There just isn't much evidence one way or the other and there's a profound lack of unbiased sources evaluating what evidence there is.—Kww(talk)

I do see your point but I'm not sure I agree. To make a (bad, I admit) comparison, the fact that almost no lung doctor smokes does not mean they are wrong to say that smoking has negative effects. There is no reason to suppose that an academic is wrong just because of being Christian. The insinuation could even be insulting. Most of these academics agree that Jesus's was strikingly different from how its portrayed in the Gospels, something running counter to Christian believes. So quite clearly they are perfectly able to distinguish between their personal believes and science. The argument that "virtually all historians are completely silent on the topic" is, I'm sorry to say, appallingly bad. All academics have a narrow focus, so most academics are silent on any subject. Most historians are silent on the WWII, most historians are silent on Roman empire etc. As Wikipedians, we report what academics say. I'm the first to reject any article of book by a Christian author without academic credentials in the field. But what matters are those academic credentials, not belief or non-belief.Jeppiz (talk) 15:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Articles for Deletion

The advice page on articles for deletion. Read it and we can discuss what to do. PiCo (talk) 14:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Boy, that's a lot of text. I hope there are some volunteer AfD consultants out there. Martijn Meijering (talk) 14:51, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

References - heavily biased

The end of this article suggest a large number of references. Quite inappropirately, a large number of them are fringe writings from conspiracy theorists with no academic background in the subject, in other words references that would never satisfy WP:RS. This includes works of people such as G A Wells, Alvar Ellegård etc. These people were professors of linguistics. Being a professor of one area does not confer competence in unrelated areas. Presenting such a number of books advocating WP:FRINGE theories fails WP:UNDUE, it is comparable to adding a lot of books denying the evolution to the article on evolution.Jeppiz (talk) 15:09, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Not at all, these are the most prominent ones advocating the CMT, and you cannot have an article on the historicity of Jesus without mentioning the CMT. Richard Carrier has a PhD in ancient history and a few peer-reviewed publications to his name. Wells and Ellegård are / were respected academics, and Wells has been cited sympathetically by R. Joseph Hoffman, who is on a level with many of the biblical scholars we do cite. Dismissing the CMT as a conspiracy theory is an outrageously non-neutral POV for this article. Biblical scholars, a few serious academics from various fields publishing outside their main area of expertise and less than a handful of historians are the only sources we have. Martijn Meijering (talk) 15:29, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but you quite clearly do not understand the relevant policies at Wikipedia. Yes, we should mention it and we do. But it remains a fringe theory with almost no academic support and it is a quite strong case of WP:UNDUE that more than half of the given references are from the fringe. Wells and Ellegård are / were respected academics in lingustics. What they had to say is relevant in articles on Germanic philology. Being an academic is not a carte blanche to being an authority on any field.Jeppiz (talk) 15:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Rudeness objection, kindly remain WP:CIVIL. I am quite familiar with the policies, thank you very much. I've already said that the size of the criticism section is excessive. I've never said that academics are RS on every subject, in fact I've objected strongly to misrepresenting biblical scholars as historians, even though no doubt some do qualify for that. The reason that Wells and Ellegård are notable is because they are both respected academics and prominent among proponents of the CMT, which has to be mentioned, even if only briefly. If we restrict our sources to just the historians, we're down to Akenson, Grant and Carrier who have published on the matter, and Nobbs and Lane Fox on the statement that the CMT is rejected by nearly all historians. It seems to me that on a historical topic which has seen hardly any activity by actual historians we can't do much better than either summarising all notable opinions, reviewing any debate there may have been and the relative levels of support for the various theories, or deciding not to have a separate article on it. Martijn Meijering (talk) 16:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I have no intention to be uncivil, and my suggestion was made in good faith. I'm sorry that I have to repeat it. Regardless of whether you believe you understand the policies or not, it's clear that you don't. That not uncivil, just an encouragement to read the policies. You continue to insist that "The reason that Wells and Ellegård are notable is because they are both respected academics and prominent among proponents of the CMT". Sorry, but no. That Wells and Ellegård are/were "respected academics" is of no relevance, as they were not academics in any field even remotely connected to this area of research. WP:RS is not, as you appear to believe, something you have or haven't. No academic is an WP:RS on every topic. If an someone is a well "respected academic" on Shakespearean literature, it still does not make them a WP:RS on fusion energy and no matter how great their personal interest in fusion energy as a personal hobby, they become no more of an RS in that field just because of their PhD in English literature. Whether you like this, or agree with it, is irrelevant. It's equally irrelevant how prominent an amateur is among other amateurs, it's not a popularity contest. If you edit Wikipedia you have to comply it. Or if you want to challenge the rule, go ahead and do it, but this is not the place for that.Jeppiz (talk) 17:20, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

You continue to misrepresent my position, I'm not suggesting that Wells and Ellegård are reliable sources on the historicity of Jesus, or that academics are RS outside their professional field of expertise. In fact, I explicitly denied that was my position in my previous post. Kindly take my word for it when I state what is and isn't my position. My position is that Wells and Ellegård are notable, which is not the same as a reliable source, and therefore can only be used in attributed citations, and not in Wikipedia voice. They are notable because the CMT is on topic for this article and they are prominent proponents of it. Their prominence derives in part from things like book sales, citations and media attention, and in part from the fact that they are respected academics, unlike say Acharya S. or Earl Doherty. They're also not self-published or blog-only nutcases. Other scholars have interacted with Wells and Ellegård in a way that AFAIK they haven't with these other two or the nutcases. Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:32, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry if I misunderstood you. Then back to my original point. WP:UNDUE applies to the entire article the recommended references. Right now, a fringe view is strongly overrepresented in that section.Jeppiz (talk) 17:41, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

More obstruction

I made a few fairly straightforward edits to the article earlier today, and the following is what ended up on my talk page:

---

Kindly stop edit warring at Historicity of Jesus. You are aware that you do not have consensus for the edits you propose, yet you continue to ignore the consensus on the talk page to push your own ideas. If you cannot get consensus, then just walk away from the article. Continuing in the same way will result in nothing except you being blocked.Jeppiz (talk) 09:43, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

@Jeppiz: You reverted four of my edits:

• (→‎Widely accepted historical events: Fix Blainey citation, remove "failed verification" tag.)
• (→‎Widely accepted historical events: fill-out Rahner730, voorst15, voorst16 and DunnPaul35 citations, inlcuding quotations.)
• (Fixing typo raised by BracketBot)
• (Added "citation needed" template to first sentence in Lead.)

I see a few possibilities of how to handle this:

1. You could provide some diffs, to show how those edits are edit warring, or against consensus.
2. You could say "oops, I guess it wasn't edit warring or against consensus," and self-revert. Or,
3. We can take it to the article talk page (which is what you should have done to start with), and begin the dispute resolution process.

Of course, I could also just walk away from the article like you suggested, but... nah.
Ball's in your court. If I don't hear from you in a while, I'll post this conversation on the article talk page. Fearofreprisal (talk) 11:59, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

That is unfortunate, we edited at the same time so it may be an edit conflict where my edit removed more than intended. I'll look into it.Jeppiz (talk) 14:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I have now looked into it and I'm afraid I cannot revert. Most of what you added build on G A Wells, who is not an acceptable source under WP:RS. Wells was a professor of German with no academic authority on the subject of Jesus or indeed the entire time period. What he believes or doesn't believe is not relevant to the article.Jeppiz (talk) 15:02, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

@Jeppiz: Let me lay this situation out:

• I made four edits to the article, which included fixing a pre-existing citation that had failed verification, and improving three other pre-existing citations, by adding the relevant quoted text to the ref. All properly cited, and uncontroversial. See [11] [12] [13] [14]
• You reverted my edits, then came to my talk page, warned me that I was edit warring and editing against consensus, and suggested I "walk away" from the article.
• I asked you to either provide diffs substantiating your accusations, self-revert, or take the discussion to the article talk page. You did none of these.
• You responded that it must have been an "edit conflict" that removed more than you intended -- despite the fact that WP doesn't allow edit conflicts, so this is effectively impossible.
• After a little while longer, you responded that you can't revert, because G. A. Wells isn't a reliable source.
• You apparently didn't read the citations: they are from Van Voorst and Dunn (undisputed reliable sources.) I merely noted in the refs that each was responding to claims made by Wells. Further, the article has included citations to three of Wells' books for literally years, which is rather good evidence of a consensus that he is a reliable source.

I don't really care what your game is. I'm just tired of wasting time fighting with you over a few simple and uncontroversial edits. So, I'm moving this entire discussion over to the article talk page, and reverting. If you don't agree, we can move up through the dispute resolution process. Fearofreprisal (talk) 16:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

---

So, as I said above, I'm reverting the edits. Sorry to add to the noise level here. Fearofreprisal (talk) 16:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

For the record, Fearofreprisal has a valid point. I was in a bit of a hurry when I checked my edit (from a mobile phone apparently not displaying correctly). Looking at them now in further detail, I see I misunderstood a few. My apologies to Fearofreprisal. It was not badly intended, but I should have waited until I was a proper computer.Jeppiz (talk) 17:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Thank you. Fearofreprisal (talk) 17:12, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Criticism split

Hi, I've been following this all for a bit. I know in general Criticism sections are not advised, but with this article, the 'criticism' section was equal in size to the rest of the article. I found that a lot of problems would be solved by pointing out that there is criticism (and maybe making it a larger paragraph) here, and keeping the criticism located elsewhere. Perhaps this can allow the article be more focused and centered. If you completely hate it, feel free to undo my work, but I find this to be a lot more manageable.

I think in the long run, the criticism of research methods of Jesus will be a page no matter what. It is an important issue and perhaps could bring together different views of scholars across a wide range of research. Prasangika37 (talk) 17:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I am going to be a little bold and try to include the criticism of the Historical Jesus page into it and kill two birds with one stone, as it looks like someone nearly copy-pasted it. Prasangika37 (talk) 17:49, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Please don't change the Historical Jesus article until you achieve consensus. I think the proper place for this is in that article, not in a separate criticism article. Martijn Meijering (talk) 17:52, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Martijn Meijering that it's best to have a consensus first but also agree that the article is bordering on the ludicrous. I'm guessing there are few other articles where non-scientific criticism of an academic field is given the same amount of space as the actual academic field. Just as we don't provide nearly any space in evolution for creationists nor in Holocaust for revisionists, I don't really see the point in providing the "criticism" with more a sentence or two here. That is precisely the point of WP:FRINGE. I know that some (many) people have strong views about Jesus, but that should not matter one bit. When there is academic consensus about something, we usually report that. The fact that it's possible to find one or two experts who disagree is not really important (there are the odd fringe biologists who believe in creationism). Jeppiz (talk) 17:59, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Just making a bold change.. The page could use it, honestly. Lots of talking in circles and pretty fierce allegations between one another. Happy to have it reverted though and linked to the historical Jesus page. Prasangika37 (talk) 18:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

We agree that the size was excessive, and I've replaced the whole section with a wikilink to the section over at HJ from where it was copied. I hope that will satisfy Prasangika37's concern. That too is a bold move of course, and he/she or anyone else who objects is free to revert it. As for the criticism being non-scientific, check out the references. Nearly all of it comes from respected academics, including a historian and several prominent HJ researchers themselves. If you have further concerns about it, I suggest we continue the discussion over at HJ.Martijn Meijering (talk) 18:05, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Jeppiz - You're a master of awkward analogies, aren't you? Still, I'm impressed that you've managed to fall afoul of Godwin's law within less than 4 hours of your first post on this talk page. As a result, you've automatically lost all debates you were involved in. Sorry about that, but it's an internet rule. Can't be changed. Fearofreprisal (talk) 18:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi @Fearofreprisal: , are you willing to keep stuff like that out of here? Its a clogged-up enough talk page and would love some productive discussion! Granted I get your point, but why not just make the point without mocking ? Prasangika37 (talk) 18:57, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Frankly, there's enough tension here. I thought making a point via humor might be better. Fearofreprisal (talk) 19:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, but you're obviously touching people's nerves a little bit and you may want to be a bit more careful. Its tough for people to take jokes if they are viewing someone in a critical or fault-finding way. :D Prasangika37 (talk) 22:13, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

"Just as we don't provide nearly any space in evolution for creationists..." (Jeppiz). That's a good point. CMT has the same academic standing as Creationism and should be given no more than a bare mention.PiCo (talk) 00:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

This talk page is not the place for your personal opinions or original research. Provide a citation, or drop it. Fearofreprisal (talk) 00:19, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Of course Talk's a place for personal opinions, that's what Talk is for. And of course CMT has no academic standing - we already have citations for that in the article. PiCo (talk) 00:38, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:TPG: "Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views on a subject." Fearofreprisal (talk) 00:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Personal views on improving the article. Where's the personal view,anyway? CMT really does have no academic, and we do cite sources saying that PiCo (talk) 00:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

OR is allowed on Talk pages, that is for sure. Anyway, its not OR anyway because its not accepted. Check the sources.. Prasangika37 (talk) 02:13, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that there are only a handful of historians supporting historicity as well. It's certainly not comparable with the creationism vs. evolution situation, where it is simple to find sources supporting evolution. Numbers even approaching the list of scientists named "Steve" that support evolution would be impossible. With evolution, there's actual evidence. With the historicity debate, there's a few scraps of evidence and, outside of biblical scholars, not much investigation. We've found more scholars supporting CMT than we've managed to identify Hindus or Buddhists writing in favor of the historicity of Christ, but that's not saying much: there don't seem to be any of the latter.—Kww(talk) 03:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Heheh, thanks for the link to the Steve project. You make a good point, though I think it is more accurate to say that only a handful of historians have published about the subject or studied the arguments. I believe that if the article is to continue to exist, it should give an overview of the various opinions, with the pro-historicity view of the HJ researchers being the most prominent one. Martijn Meijering (talk) 09:27, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Alternative to Deletion

Per WP:AFD, the main four guidelines and policies that inform deletion discussions are: notability (WP:N), verifiability (WP:V), reliable sources (WP:RS), and what Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT). It seems to me that none of these apply – rather, that this is a case of duplication with other existing (and better) articles on this topic/s.

We have been using this article as a disambiguation page of sorts, summarizing the other articles and directing readers thence for the detail – I was using the article World War II as a template. This was temporarily undermined by an editor who tried to change the topic of the article but failed. Then we had a trend of trying once again to make this into a full-fledged and balanced article, but we have once again come full circle and are once again concerned about duplicating other and better articles. WP:AFD recommends in these cases that we consider "Disambiguation" or "Redirection". I think that could be the solution. Comments please? Wdford (talk) 09:57, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

I like it. Let's see what others say. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 11:41, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Request for Summaries of Requested Improvements

Can each of the contending editors of this article please (as noted above) provide a summary, in less than 500 words, of how they think that this article can be improved? Deleting the article and replacing it with a redirect is a valid summary. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

By the way, focus only on the article and not on the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• Proposal 1: Some of us have been using this article as a disambiguation page of sorts, summarizing the other over-lapping articles and directing readers thence for the detail. We then tried to make this into a full-fledged and balanced article, but we became concerned about duplicating other and better articles. Now deletion is once again being contemplated. Per WP:AFD, the main four guidelines and policies that inform deletion discussions are: notability (WP:N), verifiability (WP:V), reliable sources (WP:RS), and what Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT). It seems to me that none of these apply – rather, that this is a case of duplication with other existing (and better) articles on this topic/s. WP:AFD recommends in these cases that we consider "Disambiguation" or "Redirection". I think that could be the solution, and have therefore attempted a BOLD edit as an example of what it could look like. Wdford (talk) 16:56, 1 October 2014 (UTC)