Talk:Historicity of Jesus

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

Christian bias?

This article wants to present Christ mythicism as a crackpot (rather than just a fringe, but nonetheless legitimate) theory, despite the fact that there are several Biblical scholars that hold degrees who could to various extents being called Christ mythicists, and the fact that there is no "smoking gun" evidence of a historical Jesus - just Occam's Razor-based arguments like the criterion of embarassment.

The article also quotes many seminaries and blatantly biased sources in favor of the historicity of Jesus's life and miracles.

Thevideodrome (talk) 00:21, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Can you name some such scholars? I've been looking, and I find some respectable advocates of the Jesus-myth theory in various forms in mostly pre-1980 literature. I see a lot of (ironically) Christian Biblical literalists asserting the existence of such scholars, largely in order to construct a strawman textual critic to knock down. But otherwise, the only figures I see are not serious people.

Richard Carrier is not a serious scholar. His poorly thought-through invocation of Bayes' theorem as an approach to history would prove that - (Hint: if you have to invent your own historical method to demonstrate your claims, Bayes' theorem would assert you are almost certainly wrong) - even if his lack of credentials and peer reviewed publications on the subject didn't.

Richard M. Price is a serious scholar - of HP Lovecraft, at least. I'm not honestly sure of his qualifications for Biblical textual studies. On Biblical issues, to claim he holds a "form of the Jesus-myth theory" does injustice mostly to the people who hold the theory for real, since what he claims is that the existence of a historical Jesus is irrelevant if you do not assert the historical existence of a supernatural Jesus. His claim is that if we built a statue of a man in a WWII uniform and put a plaque on it commemorating a dead WWII soldier named "Bob", we could assert very safely that there was a "Bob" who died in WWII, but would it be accurate to say the statue honours him?

Earl Doherty has been so thoroughly trashed for his misunderstanding of his source material that he really does qualify as a crackpot.

Any I missed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.84.215.34 (talk) 09:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

Many quoted sources are priests/ministers/clergy, or teachers at seminaries

Date of this post: 14th July 2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.111.101.48 (talk) 01:41, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Is it appropriate that so many of the sources quoted in this article are either clergy or teachers at seminaries?

Here are the Wiki profiles of several of the quoted sources in the "Events generally accepted as historical" section:

Priests, Preachers or Ministers: 1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Dunn_%28theologian%29; 2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Burridge_%28dean%29

3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Rahner 4) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dominic_Crossan (former priest) 5) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_P._Meier

6) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Witherington_III

Teachers/professors at seminaries: 7) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy-Jill_Levine 8) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andreas_J._K%C3%B6stenberger 9) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Allan_Powell 10) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dale_Allison 11) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_E._Van_Voorst

This list covers as far as the paragraph below the bullets in the "Events generally accepted as historical" section - so about half that section. I'm sure the same pattern is repeated through the entire article. Indeed, many of the above sources are quoted repeatedly in this section, which pads out the references and, from my above sample, constitute, I estimate, more than 50% of the quoted sources in that section.

This strikes me as extremely problematic with respect to the article's credibility. For example, it is by definition not possible for a Christian cleric, priest, preacher or minister not to believe in the historicity of Jesus. So in a very literal sense, it is not possible for these sources to say anything other than what they are saying in their books/articles. That does not feel intellectually satisfying. I believe a similar - if less acute - issue arises with teachers at seminaries, the very existence of which presupposes the veracity of religious texts.

I am not an expert on any of this, and make absolutely no accusation whatsoever of bad faith, bad scholarship or inappropriate credentials regarding any of the people above.

As others have noted, this article already has several shortcomings, and I feel the undermining of its credibility with the use of many of these sources is a part of the problem. Personally, I would remove all clerical sources and debate the issue of seminary teachers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.111.101.48 (talk) 01:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Interesting anecdote about this: There was a 6 July 2015 edit that changed "According to New Testament scholar James Dunn" to "According to New Testament scholar and Christian preacher James Dunn." Thos edit was almost instantly undone by ScrapIronIV with the explanation "WP:UNDUE." When asked on his talk page for a further clarification, ScrapIronIV explained that adding "Christian preacher" amounted to at attempt to discredit James Dunn, and an attempt to smear all Christian academics (this exchange has since been deleted from the talk page). Interesting that the first explanation (WP:UNDUE) arguably makes no sense at all, and the further clarification (attempted discrediting) has absolutely NOTHING to do with the first explanation. Further, it's rather astounding that being accurately described as a Christian preacher is seen by an editor as a smear. Strange things going on here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CC00:67E0:6CF9:6672:2194:509D (talk) 04:17, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Christ myth fundamentalists have brought this up time and again, and each time they fail to provide useful suggestions in line with the site's policies and guidelines (which represent site-wide consensus) or even in a local consensus of editors involved in this article.

Mentioning Dunn being a preacher is like mentioning that Robert M. Price is a Cthulhu mythos author -- irrelevant to the issue at hand.

The claim that Christians by definition can only assume the historical existence of Jesus is wrong -- see Tom Harpur. Heck, The Christian Community almost drops the idea of a historical Jesus as well. The argument that Christians can only assume Jesus existed and cannot reliably assess any evidence regarding Jesus's historicity assumes that Christians are robots programmed to deny any piece of history that conflicts with a literalist reading of the Bible. That Theistic evolution is the norm for Christians (outside of America, and still common there) and all but the official position of the Catholic church (one of the most infamously rigid sects) should demonstrate otherwise. But if that is not enough, by the same reasoning, Christians could supposedly only assume that Abraham existed since the Bible lists him as Jesus's ancestor: and yet modern scholarship has come to conclude that there is no evidence for a historical Abraham thanks to Thomas L. Thompson (a Christian) and John Van Seters (a Bible scholar). If mainstream academia was truly split about the Christ myth theory, Christian scholars would take the same approach: regarding the figure in question as lacking historical evidence, whether they think the figure was purely mythical (as Kuhn does) or just completely lost in time (which is actually the initial assumption of many Christians I've spoken with).

Insisting that scholars who happen to be Christian should be removed from this article from this is like insisting that "atheist scholars" be removed from the Evolution article: a bigoted tactic used by zealous drive-by pov-pushers feigning neutrality because they're dissatisfied that their personal beliefs (be it Christ mythicism or Young earth creationism) are not the dominant view of mainstream academia. Ian.thomson (talk) 05:15, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

There are some inaccuracies with your comparisons. Simply being Christian is not enough to raise a flag of concern regarding a conflict of interest. However, working in or being employed by an organization whose existence is centered around claims regarding the subject matter, could be concern for a conflict of interest. If a historian happens to be Christian or Atheist, it's of no relevance to their ability to do research. However, if the persons livelihood exists within an organization that has vested interests in a particular narrative, then this is when it becomes an issue. Your last comparison is a false equivalency. Atheism has absolutely nothing to do with evolution, and therefore there is no conflict of interest. Now, the conflict of interest aspect is nothing that I've personally pursued, but it does actually have some merits when most of the article is written by clergy whose entire life, education, and position exist within institutions with vested interests in the existence of their deities. However, what I've eluded to earlier is the quality of the sources being used for this article and ones like it. Of these sources, how many of them have actually gone through a nationally or internationally recognized process of peer review? That, in my opinion, is a much more poignant matter to start at when trimming down some of the obvious POV that exists in the article.Scoobydunk (talk) 05:58, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Dressing it as an issue of employment by Christian institutions does not change the issue that it assumes that Christians (in this case arranged into a faceless organization) must hold particular positions regarding history -- Unless you can demonstrate that the organizations that employ the listed authors specifically requires employees to recognize Jesus as a historical figure in the same sense as Tolstoy or Nietzsche, and cannot be lost in time as Abraham. I.E. those organizations need to show that they hold the position "Jesus was a historical figure, this is provable and proven," not merely "We subjectively believe Jesus was historical, but are not concerned if objective archaeology cannot demonstrate this."

Otherwise, the COI argument could be expanded to include authors who are employed by publishing firms that have a vested interest in discrediting religious beliefs however possible, even when doing so involves holding positions against mainstream academic consensus. And I don't want to get rid of authors like Price or Carrier (who should be cited in this article), I want all accredited academics in here regardless of their position. Removing accredited academic authors is not the solution to addressing any POV issues -- adding more accredited academic authors is.

The comparison with the evolution article is that there are drive-by IP editors in both articles who come in to argue that authors of X belief (which overlaps with the mainstream academic position but is not required to) should be removed because the IP is dissatisfied that Y belief is not the mainstream academic position.

As for the peer-review issue, what percentage of the works in the Julius Caesar article are peer-reviewed? Or is it enough for that article that the historians cited are professionals in the relevant field, many of their works published by University presses? Ian.thomson (talk) 06:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I would say a more apt analogy would be that of an academic writing a book about the development of some idea in American politics, say climate change, and have a citation of this book failing to mention that the author is employed by the Republican Party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CC00:67E0:6CF9:6672:2194:509D (talk) 10:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Ian.thomson, you are once again conflating "bias" with "certainty". All "bias" means is that the source is more likely to choose one position over another in the face of ambiguous evidence. I'm hard put to see how anyone could seriously argue that doesn't apply to a Christian theologian studying what little historical evidence there is relating to the existence of Jesus. There's evidence of his existence, certainly, but any source that described it as conclusive or incontestable would be fringe in the opposite direction of a fervent myther.—Kww(talk) 14:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

There are many academic sources that do describe Jesus' existence as conclusive and incontestable, and it's hardly just Christian theologians saying that. --Akhilleus (talk) 14:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I'd appreciate if you took the time to read WP:QS and see that "conflict of interest" when regarding the reliability of sources is a serious issue that is explicitly defined in one of the pillars of Wikipedia Policy. Here it says the sources are questionable if they have an "apparent conflict of interest", which means it doesn't have to prove beyond shadow of a doubt that the conflict exists, only that there is a propensity for its existence. Clearly when you have authors whose entire professional carrier exists within a religious institute and their current position is in a leadership role of that church, then there is an apparent financial conflict of interest in disproving the existence of a fundamental figure responsible for the foundation of the institution. So this isn't me "dressing" up an issue, it's part of WP policy and my distinction is perfectly clear. I explicitly explained how just being Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Atheist, etc is not enough to invoke concerns regarding a conflict of interest, but being employed in a relatively high position of an organization that financially benefits from a specific position/narrative can be enough to argue an apparent conflict of interest.

Regarding peer-review, red herring arguments about Julius Caesar's article are irrelevant to this article. WP policy requires that the strongest and most reliable sources be used when they are available. This is especially the case when reliable sources disagree on a certain issue. When that's the case, the strongest sources are used and those sources are defined by WP policy as peer-reviewed scholarly articles. If there was a serious contention within the Caesar article among sources, then the strongest sources would be examined and the article would reflect what those strongest sources say. If sources have equivalent reliability but still disagree on a particular issue, then we reflect what those different positions are and give them the appropriate weight within the article based upon how prevalent they are within those reliable sources.Scoobydunk (talk) 17:19, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Wait, are people seriously using Amy-Jill Levine as an example of a scholar whose work might be problematic because she works at a (Christian) seminary? Did anyone read her biography?

It seems that some editors here want to evaluate sources for bias and include or exclude them from the article on that basis. That's not what policies like neutral point of view tell us to do. Wikipedia articles are supposed to reflect significant viewpoints published by reliable sources. For this topic, that means the article should reflect what academic sources are saying about Jesus' historicity. Many of the scholars producing those sources will hold positions at seminaries and divinity schools, or departments of religion or theology in colleges or universities. Really, where else would you expect these scholars to work? If this article is going to be an accurate reflection of what reliable sources say on the topic, it must include sources by people who work at seminaries, div schools, etc.: these are some of the most well-known and widely-cited scholars on the topic. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I see no inherent problem with citing such scholars. I do find it remarkable that identifying a Christian preacher, for example, is considered "WP:UNDUE." Let's back away from the straw-man that scrutinizing some sources amounts to advocating for their elimination as sources. Such is not the case. Why is it not OK, in the context of this article, to identify Christian preachers as such, or identify other Christian apologists as such? Why is it a smear, or WP:UNDUE?"

As I tried to explain when you asked the same question on my talk page, there is no need when the scholar is not notable for that - comparatively minor - detail. In particular - (again, as I said before) - Dunn has four degrees (two of them doctorates), has written seventeen books, is a Fellow of the British Academy, was president of an international body of study, was dedicated a festschrift... He is noted for his academics. The fact that he occasionally preaches is immaterial. Maybe we should add that he goes fishing on Saturdays? Scr★pIron^IV 16:27, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

WP:QS explicitly explains how a source can be a questionable source when there is an apparent conflict of interest. Bias is certainly fine and sources are allowed to be biased, but bias related to a conflict of interest is NOT fine and can cause a source to be a questionable source which limits its usage on Wikipedia. When you ask about where those scholars are suppose to work, they could work in the same capacity as any other researcher, scientist, or historian. They can live off of their own authorship or, like many, take positions in teaching at universities that don't create a clear conflict of interest.Scoobydunk (talk) 17:19, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Are we still talking about James Dunn? Because he wasn't at a seminary—he's an emeritus professor of theology at Durham University, which has no affiliation with a religious denomination. I think this talk of conflict of interest is bunk, but it doesn't apply to Dunn's place of employment in any case. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Never once have I mentioned Dunn, I've only spoken to addressing potential conflicts of interests in defense of another editor's comments and using the strongest sources available for article development. So I'd ask that you not misrepresent my comments. I disagree with your statement and don't think that talking about applicable WP policy is "bunk" and those policies deserve to be taken seriously and adhered to, as opposed to being ignored.Scoobydunk (talk) 00:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

This discussion seems to come up about once a month, and (with no offence intended), is almost always started by users who seem to know very little about the academic field at hand. First of all, virtually all academics in the fields believes the person existed, so it is by no means a "Christian" position. Second, a lot of the academics in "Christian" institutions have published, extensively, about views that are in stark contrast to accepted Christian doctrine, showing that they have no problem expressing views that are non-Christian, even "anti-Christian" (in the sense that they are difficult or impossible to reconcile with Bible-believing Christianity). In short, none of the accusations brought up all the time hold up to even the briefest scrutiny. Unfortunately, these accusations almost always come from conspiracy theorists convinced there is some "Christian conspiracy". Such a belief is only possible by an almost completely ignorance of how diverse the studies of "Jesus" are.Jeppiz (talk) 16:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

There sure is a lot of picking of the low-hanging fruit here. Please avoid the straw-man constructions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.49.105.46 (talk) 16:51, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Gladly. In a nutshell: there is no substance whatsoever in the claim that the institution a person works for disqualifies them, there is plenty of evidence to the contrary.Jeppiz (talk) 17:38, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

We're not discussing what academia says about the historicity of Jesus. We're discussing the quality of sources prevalent in the article. So please refrain from your strawman arguments as they are not constructive in this conversation.Scoobydunk (talk) 17:19, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Well, if you necessarily want to get personal instead of discussing content, I can only reply that not only are none or your comments in this discussion constructive, they also indicate that you're either not capable or not willing of hearing any argument with which you don't agree. As for the actual matter at hand, I pointed out that the accusations brought up here are quite simply wrong. There are a lot of academics working at "Christian" institutions whose research directly contradicts Christian doctrine, giving the lie to the accusation that people working at such institutions couldn't publish what they want.Jeppiz (talk) 17:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Another response filled with baseless assertions and not a single WP policy cited that refutes what I've said.Scoobydunk (talk) 00:46, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Actually, Scoobydunk, academia is the source of the sources; What academia says is precisely what we report. If you can't see that, maybe you should take up fishing. Or preaching. Oh, wait a minute - you already are. Academia wins. Scr★pIron^IV 17:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

We report what academia says based off of the most reliable sources available as per WP policies concerning reliability. Thanks.Scoobydunk (talk) 00:46, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

• Hello everyone - I was the one who started this discussion last night. Apologies if the topic has come up before, but I checked the Talk tab and couldn't see a discussion on it.

I'll make 2 assertions - each of which I believe to be true - and see what people make of them: a) 100% of the priests & seminary teachers quoted in this article confirm the historicity of Jesus. b) <100% of the non-priests & non-seminary teachers quoted in this article confirm the historicity of Jesus. / In combination, those two things do not feel intellectually satisfying to me. It leaves a slightly unpleasant taste. Thought experiment: If priests are as wholly legitimate a source as anyone else, then it means this article could in theory become a Featured Article by only using priests as sources. At that point we'd have a situation where a Featured Article about the Historicity of Jesus is 100% sourced from priests, 100% of whom would agree that Jesus was historical. These sources would not only all come to the same conclusion, they would all also earn a living from institutions who's central tenant they've just confirmed. According to the internal logic of the thought experiment & above assertions, none of this would be a problem. I make no comment on substance, but from an approach POV this all feels not quite right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.111.101.48 (talk) 02:09, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

The "priests" who are cited in this article are not cited because they're priests. They're cited because they have solid academic reputations. You don't get to be a fellow of the British Academy, as James Dunn is, unless your scholarship has impressed a broad audience—I'm pretty sure admission to the British Academy involves a review of the candidate's scholarship by a panel of academics outside the candidate's field. That holds true (or at least it should) of anyone else cited in this article—their scholarship is cited because it has had a substantial impact on the field (as can be illustrated by things like citation indices). So yeah, if the article were entirely sourced to scholars who were also clergy or otherwise held an official position in a religious organization, that would be ok as long as 1) the sources represented important academic views on the topic and 2) no prominent views were left uncovered. However, I'm pretty sure that an article with such sourcing would leave out some prominent scholars, e.g. Bart Ehrman. So, as is the case with many thought experiments, it doesn't quite match reality... --Akhilleus (talk) 02:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Let's say there is a climate scientist, George. George has impeccable credentials, is widely published on climate change, and his views both help shape, and are reflective of, mainstream science of climate change. George is frequently cited in both general and academic writings on the topic. Additionally, George is a member of a religious group called the "Church of the Divine Wind of Retribution," whose followers believe that global warming is a physical manifestation of a divine spirit, whose wrath will cleanse the earth of evil. George advocates for this religion.

There seems to be a school of thought that says, regardless of the impeccable nature of George's writings, when citing George it is reasonable to mention his affiliation with the Church. Then there is a school of thought that there is no need to alert a reader to George's embracing of a religion whose existence relies upon the existence of anthropomorphic climate change. A straw-man would be a debate over the quality of George's climate scholarship (which neither side is challenging in the context of this discussion). Rather it is whether or not his religious views be noted in citations, and considered when attaching a weight to his citations.2602:306:CC00:67E0:45BC:7D60:EAE6:9471 (talk) 11:52, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Haven't read all of the above, but I'll make a couple of observations. First, it's reasonable to, at certain times, note the affiliation of the source. This is done already in articles at Wikipedia. One example is Secular morality where the following attributions are noted before the material:

• "Popular atheist author and biologist Richard Dawkins..."
• "Greg Epstein, a Humanist chaplain at Harvard University..."
• "Popular atheist author and Vanity Fair writer Christopher Hitchens..."
• "Christian writer and medievalist C. S. Lewis..."
• "Christian theologian Ron Rhodes..."
• "Peter Robinson, a political author and commentator with Stanford's Hoover Institution..."

In articles where there are strong feelings and opinions on various sides, it can be useful for the reader who may not be very familiar with the subject matter to understand the context of the source. My second comment is that this can be overdone, of course, and it is probably not necessary to attribute every citation in this article in this manner. But to do so in some places is not out of place, IMO. Bart Ehrman [no attribution here] appears to agree as well that someone's worldview can be relevant in How Jesus Became God: "Most New Testament scholars are themselves Christian and they naturally tend to take the Christian view of the matter." --Airborne84 (talk) 20:12, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

I agree with the comments above. In fields where there is controversy, in particular, it may be very relevant to point out if opposing sides take opposing views. To take a completely different example: the history of Transylvania is hotly contested, both Romanians and Hungarians argue they were there first, and both can find some support in some acceptable sources. There is a strong divide, where (unsurprisingly) most Hungarian academics publish in support of the Hungarian view and most Romanian academics in support of the Romanian view. Pointing out the origin of an academic in that dispute then becomes relevant. In this article, the situation is very different as there is no academic dispute over the historicity of Jesus. Quite the contrary, there is a very strong academic consensus that Jesus existed. Trying to present this consensus as something else, for example an ongoing academic discussion, would directly contradict WP:NPOV, which is very clear that fringe theories must no be included in mainstream articles.Jeppiz (talk) 21:07, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Though a consensus among academics that Jesus probably existed in some capacity, there are huge discrepancies regarding which claims are true and which ones are not true. There is also criticism over the methods scholars employ to reach their conclusion on the historicity of Jesus which is relevant to this article. I haven't seen anyone on this thread propose any fringe theories about the existence of Jesus and have only seen people arguing for a more representative and transparent article.Scoobydunk (talk) 04:11, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Airborne84 you make a great point. In the case of this article, such clarification about affiliation should probably be used when addressing the main topic (did Jesus exist). Also, affiliation is certainly relevant when statements assessing opposing viewpoints to strong statements. A possible dysfunction here among some is the knee-jerk reaction to attribute such suggestions, edits and discussions to some sort of advocacy for Christ myth theory, which might be understandable, but not necessarily useful.Jrwsaranac (talk) 21:49, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

In the end, all of this discussion is academic. Any attempt at cleaning up the article, or adding nuance, will not get by the censors. Even an attempt to remove one of the many versions of "Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed" from the article will be met with doom. Has anyone read the FAQ article? Even that is filled with straw-man statements to refute. It's all hopeless, I'm afraid.Jrwsaranac (talk) 16:39, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Airborne84 Indeed your point is valid and relevant. The sources listed on the historicity of Jesus are priests, bible scholars/theologians (all obviously with affiliations that are in conflict with any claim of impartiality) and the only historian cited on the claim that there is a "near universal consensus" actually does not support it in the source cited. (https://books.google.com/books?isbn=0465024971 , p48 - no mention of Jesus nor of any sort of near universal consensus... - Maybe I should create a new section here for this issue?) I think there is a need for the position of more historians, after all historicity it is their domain. Apeximius (talk) 12:35, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Please feel free to suggest which historians you think should be included. As long as they satisfy WP:RS (ie, a expert on Irish history or Namibian history would not be RS), I'm sure they could be added. As for the opposition to "priests, bible scholars/theologians", it seems to be a prime example of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. If there are priests cited just because they are priests, I agree they should probably be removed.Jeppiz (talk) 21:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

It is a matter of expertise and affiliation. I'm still lacking an answer on the matter of the previously mentioned Robin Lane Fox's book. Should I initiate a separate discussion for that? Apeximius (talk) 07:47, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Apeximus is quite right to say that the citation to Robin Lane Fox is erroneous. I don't see anything in his book that directly supports the text in our article that there is near universal agreement that Jesus existed historically, but on p. 508 of the cited book, Lane Fox writes "Whatever the truth of the first Easter, the Crucifixion, at least, is a historical fact, arguably datable to the year 36." Obviously, if Lane Fox says that the Crucifixion is a historical fact, Lane Fox takes Jesus' existence as a given; but this is not identical with saying that there is universal scholarly agreement that Jesus existed. Of course, there are many other sources that do say there is near-universal agreement about this... --Akhilleus (talk) 22:41, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Exactly, I changed the page to p. 508 to reflect that. --Apeximius (talk) 23:51, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

As can be seen at Talk:Historicity_of_Jesus/Archive_34#Almost_universal_assent, the original quote was "near universal assent" (not "consensus" as it currently stands in the article) is from a completely different book. I'm still trying to find out how and why the source the quote was from was removed, and the quote altered, but I need to get dinner. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:18, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

• The "near universal consensus" comes from Richard Carrier's peer reviewed book, I added the source at the same time I changed the line. The text before that said, "near unanimity" which is not actually supported by any of the sources. However, 2 sources use the word "consensus", so I changed the article to reflect consensus. This got reverted, so I compromised and directly quoted from Carrier so it would be less likely to be reverted again.Scoobydunk (talk) 07:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

Bart Ehrman has a quote like that. I'll look it up over the weekend and put it in somewhere. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 11:59, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

The sentiment is already stated, we don't need another quote saying the same thing.Scoobydunk (talk) 22:58, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

As it is: The Article is based on what theologians, religionists (WP:COI!), some historians think or believe.
As it should be: The Article is based on what historians and archaeologists can provide evidence for.
WP policy is generally flawed, because it bases WP:RS on the assumed reputation of academics and not on the actual merit of their work.
So if anyone has evidence for primary sources for Jesus prior to Paul's letters (mid 50s, >20 years after Jesus' supposed execution), please add references to it to the Article. ♆ CUSH ♆ 23:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Jeppiz This is what I was referring to: WP:COI, not WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Apeximius (talk) 00:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Article that's probably in already

But I'm not sure. wapo article 2014 - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Logan (1842) is a reliable source

Given Wikipedia: Identifying reliable sources § Biased or opinionated sources;
Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.

The proposed citation, labeled as [-Logan cite-] in the following article extract, is a valid citation:

The Christ myth theory is the proposition that Jesus of Nazareth never existed, or if he did, he had virtually nothing to do with the founding of Christianity and the accounts in the gospels. [-Logan cite-]

• [-Logan cite-] Mitchell, Logan (1842). The Christian mythology unveiled, lectures. Cousins. p. 151. Jesus Christ in the New Testament, has no reference whatever to any event that ever did in reality take place upon this globe; or to any personages that ever in truth existed: and that the whole is an astronomical allegory, or parable, having invariably a primary and sacred allusion to the sun, and his passage through the signs of the zodiac; or a verbal representation of the phenomena of the solar year and seasons. (Image of Title page & p. 151 at Google Books) {{cite book}}: External link in |quote= (help)

74.136.159.171 (talk) 22:49, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I noticed this reversion as well. The source appears to be a lecture transcript that is published in Princeton University's library, though I'm not entirely sure of the nature of the text. The addition to the article is sourced as per WP policy. Therefore, the burden of proof lays on Jeppiz to explain why it's not a reliable source, instead of just asserting it in a edit comment. I'm not sure how lectures are treated, or if this is even a lecture, but I feel it is necessary that opponents explain and quote the parts of WP:RS that regard this type of source as unreliable. I will say, it's not equivalent in reliability to peer reviewed sources, but neither is the Basic Books source that's currently in the article, next to where this source was included. They appear to be of equal reliability, unless a WP policy can be shown to say otherwise.Scoobydunk (talk) 23:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Jeppiz that it is a fringe or tiny minority viewpoint at best and no reliable source at worst, but it can be nevertheless accepted per WP:SELFPUB. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

The idea is: it is not a reliable source for the existence of Jesus, but it is a reliable source for what mythicists believe. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:49, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Is it, though Tgeorgescu? Who was Logan Mitchell? Why is this WP:DUE here? Please see below Jeppiz (talk) 18:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

The mainstream view is: Jesus, the founder of Christianity, was a real person whose life story got hugely embellished. The difference is that mainstream scholars do not equate "hugely embellished" with nonexistence. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:03, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Your assertion is incorrect. First, Jesus is not regarded as the "founder of christianity". Christianity didn't exist until much later after his believed death. Also, the consensus amongst scholars is that a person named Jesus existed, but there is no consensus to the events he is accredited with in the Bible. The source in question isn't speaking to the "real" or historical Jesus, he's speaking to the "Christ in the New Testament". The source is saying that the character in the New Testament can not be tied to any historical person or any historical event. Now, his minority opinion might be accurately limited to his comments regarding the astronomical allegory, but this is not what your comment addressed.Scoobydunk (talk) 02:26, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

note: second printing —Mitchell, Logan (1881). "Lecture 5". Religion in the Heavens; or, Mythology Unveiled. Freethought Publishing Company. pp. 125–126. Jesus Christ in the New Testament, has no reference whatever to any event that ever did in reality take place upon this globe; or to any personages that ever in truth existed: and that the whole is an astronomical allegory, or parable, having invariably a primary and sacred allusion to the sun, and his passage through the signs of the zodiac: or a verbal representation of the phenomena of the solar year and seasons. (Image of Title page & p. 125 & p. 126 at Google Books) {{cite book}}: External link in |quote= (help) 74.136.159.171 (talk) 01:02, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

About the edits by the IP SPA

An IP whose single purpose on Wikipedia is to put forward the Christ myth fringe theory has been very active on this page. About this "Logan Mitchell" whom the IP inserts all over the board, who has this person? When did Logan Mitchell live? What was his education? And most of all, how is a fringe theory put forward 160 years ago an unknown person with no demonstrated expertise in the area WP:DUE? Jeppiz (talk) 18:08, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Like the Gospels, it is likely an Anonymous work. 74.136.159.171 (talk) 19:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

note: Wheeler, Joseph Mazzini (1889). "Mitchell (Logan)". A Biographical Dictionary of Freethinkers of All Ages and Nations. Progressive Publishing Company. p. 229. Mitchell (Logan), author of Lectures published as The Christian Mythology Unveiled. This work was also issued under the title Superstition Besieged. It is said that Mitchell committed suicide in Nov. 1841. He left by his will a sum of £500 to any bookseller who had the courage to publish his book. It was first published by B. Cousens, and was republished in '81. (Image of p. 229 at Google Books) {{cite book}}: External link in |quote= (help) 74.136.159.171 (talk) 19:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I would very strongly suggest the IP editor read such content related pages as WP:WEIGHT, WP:FRINGE, and conduct related pages like WP:DE and WP:TE. There is a significant difference between something being possibly a reliable source in general, a reliable source for content in a particular article, and representing a viewpoint of sufficient significance that it meets WP:WEIGHT requirements for any particular article. From what I can see to date, the primary concern regarding his editing relates to the last of those points. John Carter (talk) 19:32, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Not having had any relevant reply, I repeat my question: Who was Mitchell, what education did he have? It seems an IP is currently pasting in 160 year old material from an obscure and unknown person just to make a WP:POINT. I second the opinion of John Carter above. Jeppiz (talk) 19:46, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

The previously presented information is the only extant information I am aware of concerning Mitchell. Thus what education he had is currently unknown. 74.136.159.171 (talk) 20:01, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I don't pretend to evaluate here whether it is WP:UNDUE, but as most mythicist literature could be considered WP:SPS, WP:SELFPUB might apply. Including or excluding the source should be subject to consensus. We already know that mythicism is WP:FRINGE, so we cannot simply reject a fringe source from an article about its fringe view. At least, if it is to be removed, it has to be done on other grounds than being fringe. One reason could be because it is dated, another reason could be because it cannot be shown to be notable, another reason could be is because most mythicists nowadays ignore the book (this would have to be proven, though). Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:45, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

I would assume the articles in the "Encyclopedia of Unbelief" and "New Encyclopedia of Unbelief" relating to the existence of Jesus would probably be the best indicators of the current positions of the mythicists. I've actually in the past looked at the article in the first named, and don't remember seeing this particular book mentioned, although I could be wrong. I would think the second, "New" one would be the best indicator of the current position of the mythicists, although I don't have really easy access to it. Maybe it could be gotten at WP:RX, though. John Carter (talk) 20:54, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

alternative source: Dupuis (1872). THE ORIGIN OF ALL RELIGIOUS WORSHIP. pp. 286–287. [T]he incarnation of Christ is that of the Sun, that his death and resurrection has likewise the Sun for object, and finally that the Christians are indeed nothing else but worshippers of the Sun, like the Peruvians, whom they caused to be murdered, ~I now come to the great question to know: whether Christ has ever existed, Yes or No?" If it is intended by this question to ask, whether Christ, the object of the worship of the Christians, is a real being or an ideal one; he is evidently a real being, because we have shown him to be the Sun. There cannot be any doubt about, that anything is more real than the luminary, which "lighteth every man that cometh into the World." It has existed, is still existing and shall exist yet for a long while to come. If it is asked: whether there ever existed a man, charlatan or philosopher, who called himself Christ, and who had established under that name the ancient Mysteries of Mithras, of Adonis, &c., it is of very little importance to our work, whether he may have existed or not. Nevertheless we believe, that he did not, and we think, that in the same manner, as the worshippers of Hercules believed, that a Hercules, author of the twelve labors, had actually existed, and that they were mistaken, because the hero of that poem was the Sun, so also the worshippers of the Sun-Christ are mistaken, by giving a human existence to the personified Sun in their legend; because ultimately, what guarantee have we of the existence of such a man? The general belief of the Christians since the origin of that sect, or at least since the time that these sectarians wrote. But evidently those admit only a Christ. who had been born in the womb of a Virgin, who had died, descended into Hell and resuscitated; the one whom they call the Lamb, which has redeemed the sins of the World, and who is the hero of the legend. We have however proved, that this same one is the Sun, and not at all a man, let him be philosopher or charlatan; and yet such is their ignorance, that they would no more agree, that it is a philosopher, whom they worship as God, than they would consent to recognize the Sun in their Christ. (Image of Title page & p. 286 & p. 287 at Google Books) {{cite book}}: External link in |quote= (help) 74.136.159.171 (talk) 22:24, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

74.136.159.171, you have not yet addressed why we should include any of these obscure writings from 160 years ago. They exist, and so what? We don't even know who wrote this book and they don't appear to add anything to the subject other than saying that some random guy living 160 years ago thought something that virtually no scholar believe in today. What you're doing here is akin to somebody digging up a book by some unknown priests from before Darwin and insisting they be added to evolution. Once again, what does these writings add to the article? Jeppiz (talk) 22:58, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Do you have the same Objection to Dupuis ? The origin of all religions, or the universal religion, (1795). Reissued in 1822 and 1835-1836. Mitchell appears to be repeating the Astral claims of Dupuis. 74.136.159.171 (talk) 23:13, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Once again, I suggest you familiarize yourself with the pages I already linked to above. There seems to be a rather serious disconnect between what you want to add to the article and the existing content policies and guidelines of the project. On that basis, I suggest that you read those pages I linked to and maybe develop a better grasp of how we structure the content here. John Carter (talk) 23:24, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Per Due and undue weight: If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; extant—Tom Harpur, Pier Tulip, Edward van der Kaaij, D. M. Murdock (a.k.a. Acharya S). 74.136.159.171 (talk) 23:55, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but that is not what the policy is about and none of them are significant in any way. It's possible to find "famous" people who deny evolution or the holocaust, and they will yield hits on Internet as their supporters write about them. For an adherent to be prominent, some kind of actual qualification is required. Just having an opinion and writing self-published books does not make someone prominent in a field. Jeppiz (talk) 11:21, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

There is no majority viewpoint for CMT, as per Due and undue weight. —If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; 74.136.159.171 (talk) 15:30, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

note: Acharya S; Murdock, D. M. (1999). "The Sun of God". The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold. Adventures Unlimited Press. pp. 110–111. ISBN 978-0-932813-74-9. The Sun of God Within the Sun Book or Holy Bible was incorporated by such priestcraft the most consolidated version of the celestial mythos ever assembled, the story of the "son of God." First, we have seen that "God" is the sun. Second, in Job 38 the stars are called "sons of God"; hence, one star would be a "son of God," as well as the "son of the Sun." Thus, the son of God is the sun of God. The solar mythos, in fact, explains why the narratives of the sons of God previously examined are so similar, with a godman who is crucified and resurrected, who does miracles and has 12 disciples, etc.: To wit, these stories were in actuality based on the movements of the sun through the heavens. In other words, Jesus Christ and the others upon whom he is predicated are personifications of the sun, and the gospel fable is merely a repeat of a mythological formula revolving around the movements of the sun through the heavens.

note: Harpur, Tom (1 October 2005). The Pagan Christ: Recovering the Lost Light. Dundurn. p. 57. ISBN 978-0-88762-829-0. The birthday of Jesus Christ was first celebrated by the earliest Church in the spring of the year. But in 345, Pope Julius decreed that the birthday (nobody knew any precise date for it, suggesting again that the entire thing was pure myth) should thenceforth be held on December 25, three days after the "death" of the winter solstice and the same day on which the births of Mithras, Dionysus, the Sol Invictus (unconquerable sun), and several other gods were traditionally celebrated. [...] But the birth of the Christian Saviour is not the only event tied to so-called Pagan astronomical/astrological roots; the greatest Church festival of all, Easter Day, the moment of Christly Resurrection, is also similarly linked. Easter occurs on different dates each year because, like the Jewish Passover, it is based upon the vernal equinox, that dramatic moment when the hours of daylight and the hours of darkness at last draw parallel and then the light finally and triumphantly wins out. Thus Easter is always fixed as the first Sunday after the first full moon following the spring equinox. It's a cosmic, solar, and lunar event as deeply rooted in religious traditions originating from sun-god worship as one could conceivably imagine. Traditional Christianity, I have come to realize, has forfeited a great deal of its vital historical connection with the natural world and the cosmos as a whole by a deliberate downplaying of the significance of this solarlunar connection. 74.136.159.171 (talk) 05:03, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

How much of this, particularly the mythological aspects, are already covered in the more appropriate article for that content, specifically, Jesus Christ in comparative mythology? There is, and has been for some time, question about the various stories that have accrued over the years around Jesus, but the historicity of the stories about Jesus is a rather different subject than the historicity of Jesus as an individual. John Carter (talk) 14:14, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Just to be clear, do you understand that no additional content is being added to to the main article, merely an already extant definition is getting a second source citation from a viewpoint that is held by a significant minority —ref>Mitchell, Logan (1842). The Christian mythology unveiled, lectures. Cousins. p. 151</ref 74.136.159.171 (talk) 15:05, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I regret to say I don't see a logic to that. If something is already reliably sourced, there is no particular reason to add a second source, unless the topic is etremely controversial, and, honestly, I don't think this is. John Carter (talk) 15:09, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Do you agree that the view point of a significant minority is represented by Mitchell ? 74.136.159.171 (talk) 15:17, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Definitely not. The field has developed a lot in 160 years, so Mitchell is not representative. Besides, there is no "significant minority" in this area. The academic field almost universally agrees in rejecting CMT and I see no reason even to include it in this article, except perhaps in a sentence, as it's entirely WP:UNDUE. We don't give much space to creations in articles on evolution either, or to those denying the moonlandings happened, or to "birthers" in articles about Obama. Jeppiz (talk) 18:32, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

There is no majority viewpoint for CMT, as per Due and undue weight. —If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts— Rather, there are only viewpoints held by a significant minorities in CMT. Why does your claim that the unicorn is pink have more weight then the claim that the unicorn is orange. 74.136.159.171 (talk) 19:19, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Are you proposing the removal of an entire section from this article ? —Historicity of Jesus § Christ myth theory— 74.136.159.171 (talk) 19:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I think it should be removed. There is no subsection for Creationism in evolution, no subsection of Obama being a Muslim or born in Kenya etc. Nor should there be. There are people holding those opinions, some of them even "prominent" in other ways, but none of those view (and many others) have any more academic support than CMT. Of course we should keep the CMT article, but bringing up CMT in other articles seems undue.Jeppiz (talk) 20:04, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Jeppiz. Remove the section and be done with it. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 01:05, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

And I support removal of the section as well. The various forms the myth theories themselves have very little to do with the matter of historicity, and on that basis inclusion of much information on them in this article is probably excessive. Certainly, it can and should be discussed in this article, but not necessarily as a separate lengthy section, and just pare it down to what it had been before the recent discussion. John Carter (talk) 01:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

The CMT is discussed in multiple peer reviewed scholarly sources. This merits its inclusion in the article. A simple Google scholar search yields multiple academic journals that discuss the CMT. It doesn't have to be a majority viewpoint to have a section in the article and the fact that numerous scholars examine the CMT when discussing the historicity of Jesus gives it sufficient weight to merit it's own section, so long as it accurately reflects scholarly viewpoints about it. We're talking about a section that's like 5 sentences long compared to other sections that are paragraphs in length. I find it deeply concerning that editors are claiming it's "lengthy" and advocating it's removal when it's directly part of the discussion regarding the historicity of Jesus and has had academic support. Whether the viewpoint is widely held is irrelevant to the fact that it is widely discussed in academia.Scoobydunk (talk) 01:26, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Of course, unfortunately, damn near everything about Jesus and his time is discussed in multiple peer reviewed scholarly sources, and there are, unfortunately, a rather large number of them for this topic. Particularly considering that there is a major article already dealing with the topic, which is already also a separate section in the Jesus article, I think that there is some reason to believe that it may well qualify as a separate subtopic, independent of the Historicity, and, honestly, I tend to think that is the way it tends to be presented. I haven't checked the article history, but I think restoring the material to whatever had been more or less the last consensus level of stable content on the topic would be not unreasonable in this instance. John Carter (talk) 01:40, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Please take note that the +cite for Carrier (2014), has the weight of an elephant, compared to the weight of 2 mice for the other two basic book citations —in regards to Due and undue weight. 74.136.159.171 (talk) 02:11, 17 September 2015 (UTC)