Talk:Historicity of Jesus

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also, your edits did change cited material ([1] [2]), explicitly to cast existing sources as non-scholarly while presenting your views as what "real" academia believes. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:43, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Actually, you'd be surprised to know that some Christian fundamentalists do not like the historical Jesus approach and say that it is a bankrupt enterprise, there being no retrievable historical Jesus, so Christians have to be content with the Christ of faith, since that's all they're ever gonna get on this planet. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:21, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

For them "Jesus really existed" is a theological truth they learn from the Bible, not a fact contingent upon the consensus among historians. There is a difference between theological truths and historical truths, and since they argue that the historical truth can't be known in this respect, they are content to affirm the theological truth about the existence of Jesus. Tgeorgescu (talk) 00:29, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

• Comment in response to RFC: I only looked in for the RFC. The subject is of no interest to me, but I cringed on receiving the Call. Not because I don't comment on RFCs on topics that don't interest me, but because of a dreadful foreboding that the article and talk pages would turn out to be very much as in fact they turned out to be. My smallness of faith blinded me to the possibility that a greater insight might emerge, namely that WP has a weakness (several in fact) and in particular in this context, that we need a formal court of appeal or similar mechanism to decide disputes speedily, decisively, cleanly, and where appropriate, conditionally. No hissy fits, no slanging matches, no bullying, and not too much weaseling or grandstanding. There must be thousands of articles on non-trivial topics, not just groupie slanging matches on the merits or demerits of a particular backyard rock group, where settling the matter currently amounts to a shouting match with the outcome depending on who can manipulate the edit warring tactics more skilfully or with more stamina. Some people engage in such matters as a personal matter of entertainment, and much joy may it afford them, but it is no part of our duty to indulge them, rather than contribute to a constructive encyclopaedia. Many of the conflicts have to do with matters of science, many with politics, and many with various forms of superstition, though some amount to simple malice or vandalism. I don't know whether there is any sort of movement towards a general court of appeal that could settle disputes, especially POV, OR etc, first rapidly, then formally if necessary, but if there isn't, there should be. The current arbitration mechanisms are too cumbersome and far from decisive enough to be effective (witness this article for one example). It would do a great deal for the quality of WP and the respect it should deserve if something of the type could be instituted. As matters stand, looking at the quality of a lot of the supporting citations in the squabble in this article, I find a great darkness of the spirit descending upon me. If it should occur to anyone that we should be looking into agitation for anything of the type that I lament the absence or inadequacy of, let me know. Don't bother to call me just to tell me that anyone has found evidence for the existence of the son or for the non-existence of Caligula or for better citations for this particular article. JonRichfield (talk) 08:42, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
• Response to RfC All peer-reviewed research bearing on this subject constitutes reliable sources. The article should aim to represent major points of view in a balanced way. Individual publications at odds with the mainstream can be given attention if they have had impact. Valid measures of impact include the response caused within academia as well as news coverage outside it.

Generally, sections that are entitled "criticism of mainstream opinion" or some such are discouraged - rather, their contents should be remarked within sections covering aspects of the subject or evidence UNLESS they constitute entirely different self-contained theories. The main reason, as I see it, is that this results in better flow and understanding for the reader. However, sometimes such "criticism" sections may be an unfortunate and inevitable first step towards acceptance of valid inclusion. Regards, Samsara (FA • FP) 03:06, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• Response to RfC Especially within a Historicity of Jesus page, it does seem appropriate to include various view points that are peer reviewed, as Samsara has pointed out. It seems people are primarily concerned of something being too one-sided, and that is where the desire for certain parts to be left out come from. I would imagine some strictly historians or archaelogists might be appropriate, while someone who is just a philosopher might not be very helpful as that opens a gigantic can of worms. Seems like both sides of the discussion though are being a bit too unreasonable and vicious and there is a middle way available. Lets see some examples perhaps and help weigh in? What is getting deleted, for example, that feels uncomfortable? Prasangika37 (talk) 01:00, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Include a balance of scholarly opinion on the matter

It may come as a surprise that some scholars actually discount the existence of Jesus, but this article should describe the debate. I see at least three sections: 1) Jesus as the divine Son of God, worker of miracles, teacher of eternal truths; 2) Jesus as an influential leader of the Middle East; 3) Jesus as a fictional invention representing truths held sacred by specific groups.DonaldRichardSands (talk) 11:04, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Attempted to remove some bias

I've attempted to remove some bias, by specifying the credentials of provided sources, providing sources of dissent, and making clear which are claims and which accepted facts. Edit was immediately reversed. To ColorOfSuffering and Ian.thomson, how about letting the facts speak for themselves? Is your religion so fragile?? Also, note that revisions are auto-undone by multiple people, instantly, implying 1) a bot, and 2) a collusion to make edits impossible without the editor violating edit-war rule.Roguetech (talk) 15:24, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Why “a bot, and a collusion”? Why not multiple bots, colluding with each other?

But seriously:

1. Roguetech, there were no recent edits made under your name, although there were some made by 205.143.246.80. If that was you, you might want to be a bit more consistent about using one ID or the other, as there are potential problems in using both.
2. ColorOfSuffering did not revert either of your edits; check the page history.
3. Reverts were not instant; in fact, they weren't even within the same minute. All the timing proves is that a human editor took three long, leisurely minutes to press one “undo” button, which does not seem super-human.
4. Since there were no “multiple people”, there was no collusion.

WP:BRD. You were bold. Someone else reverted. Now you get to discuss. But please don't start out with the assumption that we're all out to get you.  Unician ∇  16:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Roguetech, I also checked the edits and reversions, and found I agree with the reversions. The writing was not encyclopedic, and also not neutral, and furthermore not backed up by WP:RSes. What's more, it removed content without reasons cited. It's not the religion that is fragile, it's the editing. Evensteven (talk) 17:08, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Oof...what a land mine this article has become -- I think I may have been caught in the cross-fire. I was merely removing a duplicate reference from the article space, nothing more. When I edit, my religion is spelled out entirely in the Manual of Style, which makes it terribly fragile (though I prefer the term imperfect). I hope you guys are able to come to a consensus about this, because I think the topic is fascinating, and there's some great, recent scholarship which I feel merits consideration in this article. I also feel that some past scholarship has been flawed, but I don't know enough about that to say for sure. But I understand the contentiousness of this article, seeing as this topic discusses not just the divinity, but the entire existence of a key religious figure. Anyway, godspeed...and I love you all. ColorOfSuffering (talk) 18:30, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

What is historicity?

Maybe we should start at the beginning: Anyone here have an idea what historicity actually is? If so, would you care to share your understanding?

It's pretty important, because it's hard to go much further with this article if there's no consensus on this fundamental question. Fearofreprisal (talk) 20:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Pease read WP:NOTFORUM. We are an encyclopedia which deals start with sourced material. Therefore what we think is not important but rather what reliable sources dealing with the subject say that matters. Please provide some sources directly relevant to the topic at hand.John Carter (talk) 21:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

What on earth was the point of that reply? Completely pointless in my book. And aggressive to boot. Fearofreprisal has a very good point. If we don't agree on a universal, clear definition for the term, it's bound to lead to there being lots of argument of what should be in the article. Oh hang, that's what we already have! Right now, the article has a rather strange beginning, using the word "concerns" in a way that doesn't imply a terribly precise definition. Wouldn't it be nice if we had one? HiLo48 (talk) 22:00, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes it would be nice to have a sourced definition of the term which did not exist in the article when the question was asked and was added after the fact. Although the comment I am responding to seemed to have even less relevance I tend to believe that a scope determined by the way the phrase has been used in reliable sources as I have indicated below may well be a better indication than a definition of only one word in the title. That would probably agree with the sources that have used the full phrase as I have indicated below. John Carter (talk) 22:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The definition should be relevant to the topic at hand, namely, the historicity of Jesus. Using sources that do not mention Jesus, while certainly better than having no sources at all, clearly isn't the best solution, particularly in light of the sources mentioned below that seem to use the phrase "Historicity of Jesus" to refer to something other than a dictionary definition of historicity. Maybe some of those do us the favor of actually defining what they mean by that phrase? Huon (talk) 22:08, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

HiLo48: I'm not particularly bothered by John Carter's incivilityremarks. He's been sanctioned for it in the past, and he's admitted that he can't control his temper -- so I'll try to ignore it, and deal with the matter of building an encyclopedia.

John Carter: Regarding WP:NOTAFORUM -- it seems inapposite in this context. But, if it's important to you, here are some relevant citations to reliable sources regarding the definition of historicity:

• Wandersee, J. H. (1992), The historicality of cognition: Implications for science education research. J. Res. Sci. Teach., 29: 423–434.
• Harre, R., & Moghaddam, F.M. (2006). Historicity, social psychology, and change. In Rockmore, T. & Margolis, J. (Eds.), History, historicity, and science (pp. 94-120). London: Ashgate Publishing Limited.
• Jones, Michael S., "Lucian Blaga, The Historical Phenomenon: An Excerpt from The Historical Being" (2012). Faculty Publications and Presentations. Paper 1.
• Herbert Marcuse, Hegel’s Ontology and the Theory of Historicity, trans. by Seyla Benhabib (Cambridge, Massachusetts, London, England: The MIT Press, 1987)
• Bunnin, N., & Yu, J. (2004). The Blackwell dictionary of Western philosophy. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub
• William J. Hamblin, professor of history at Brigham Young University. Two part article on historicity
• Hall, J. (2007). Historicity and Sociohistorical Research. In W. Outhwaite, & S. Turner (Eds.), The SAGE Handbook of Social Science Methodology. (pp. 82-102). London, England: SAGE Publications Ltd.
• Hall, J. (2007). History, methodologies, and the study of religion. In J. Beckford, & N. Demerath (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of the sociology of religion. (pp. 167-189). London: SAGE Publications Ltd.

If that's not sufficient, I can give you more sources. Fearofreprisal (talk) 22:21, 20 August 2014 (UTC) Edited 23:11, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Huon: I agree that the definition of "historicity" should be relevant to the topic of "the historicity of Jesus." I have found no source, religious or secular, suggesting a distinct definition for historicity in the context of Jesus, but have found sources indicating that such a demarcation doesn't exist (See Hall, J. (2007). History, methodologies, and the study of religion. In J. Beckford, & N. Demerath (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of the sociology of religion. (pp. 167-189). London: SAGE Publications Ltd.) Fearofreprisal (talk) 22:41, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't actually see where Huon agreed with you although I do see how you continue yourself to continue to engage in personal attacks as per WP:NPA. I also believe notability as per WP:NOTABILITY may well be relevant as the works to be used to establish notability have to be significantly about the topic rather than just one topic among several they discuss. Although it is nice to finally see some sources I am far from sure that they necessarily establish this view as the most common usage of the title phrase or even potentially of the notability of that particular topic. John Carter (talk) 22:56, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Notability guidelines do not apply to content within an article (See WP:NCC). Fearofreprisal (talk) 23:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

But they do apply to whether the article on a given topic should exist at all and I have not seen any evidence to date to indicate that there is necessarily sufficient demonstrated notability of the "historicity" of Jesus and certainly don't see how a source on Hegel's philosophy can be used to establish the notability of the historicity of Jesus. A review of the sources below however I believe would be more than enough to establish the notability of an article about the question of whether or not Jesus existed.John Carter (talk) 23:18, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

John Carter - It's just embarrassing when you make statements (such as "I...don't see how a source on Hegel's philosophy can be used to establish the notability of the historicity of Jesus") without even taking a moment to do a little research.

Hegel’s thought has profoundly influenced modern theology. This influence is often only implicit, but several theologians have sought to bring Hegel explicitly into the contemporary theological discussion. The most stimulating studies of this kind include:

• Hans Küng, The Incarnation of God: An Introduction to Hegel's Theological Thought as Prolegomena to a Future Christology, trans. J. R. Stephenson (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1987); xv, 601 pp. This profound and wide-ranging exploration of Hegel’s theological thought focuses especially on Hegel’s vision of the historicity of God’s being. You can also find a crisp summary of the book's argument in Hans Küng, Does God Exist? An Answer for Today, trans. Edward Quinn (Garden City: Doubleday, 1980), pp. 127-188.
• Eberhard Jüngel, God as the Mystery of the World: On the Foundation of the Theology of the Crucified One in the Dispute between Theism and Atheism, trans. Darrell L. Guder (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1983); vxi, 414 pp. This brilliant work on the doctrine of God includes a detailed analysis of Hegel’s concept of the “death of God”, and of the significance of this concept for theological reflection.
• Peter C. Hodgson, God in History: Shapes of Freedom (Nashville: Abingdon Press, 1989); 287 pp. This work offers a creative response to postmodern thought through a deep engagement with Hegel’s trinitarian and historical conception of God’s being. Hodgson is a leading authority on Hegel, and has been an editor and translator of Hegel's Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion.

And for a thorough exposition of Hegel’s theological thought, we now have Hodgson’s important new work: Peter C. Hodgson, Hegel and Christian Theology: A Reading of the Lectures on the Philosophy of Religion(Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005); 318 pp.

— [3]

Fearofreprisal (talk) 23:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I would think your jumping to conclusions might be even more embarrassing. WP:DUE and related pages are the most directly relevant guides here and it indicates that material for inclusion is judged based on the degree of attention given in independent reliable sources directly relating to the subject at hand. As none of the sources you indicate seem to relate directly to the subject of this article they cannot really be used to indicate relevance or degree of attention to give those ideas in this particular article. Some of us are trying to find sources specifically about this topic to help in such determination. Please allow us to do so without further disruption until we are finished. We do not need to engage in wholesale revisions immediately and that is generally a bad idea to act on anyway. John Carter (talk) 15:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The Incarnation of God, page 465 and 466 may be just the citation you've been looking for. Too bad you already decided that it can't be used, based on your odd interpretation of WP:DUE. Fearofreprisal (talk) 16:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

If you honestly believe that being mentioned on just two pages in a single book of clearly over four hundred pages is sufficient to establish the notability of that topic then I believe that it would very much be in your own interests to thoroughly acquaint yourself with all aspects of WP:NOTABILITY and also with WP:CIR. The comments in the last sentence are frankly beneath contempt and not deserving a direct reply as they seem to indicate you indulging in pure emotionalism. If you believe your interpretation is justifiable you could of course take your concerns to the appropriate noticeboard which in this case would probably be the NPOV noticeboard. Should you choose not to do so that could reasonably be seen as perhaps indicating that you may yourself expect a negative response there. John Carter (talk) 23:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

"Historicity” of Jesus or “Historicity of Jesus”?

The phrase seems to have been widely used as a phrase in the early part of the 20th century in works relating to the historical reality or lack of same of Jesus. JSTOR returns as early returns for a relevance search of the phrase in addition to reviews of the work The Historicity of Jesus by Shirley Jackson Case the following:

Is Belief in the Historicity of Jesus Indispensable to Christian Faith? by Douglas C. Macintosh The American Journal of Theology, Vol. 15, No. 3 (Jul., 1911), pp. 362-372

The Historicity of Jesus an Estimate of the Negative Argument by Shirley Jackson Case The American Journal of Theology, Vol. 15, No. 1 (Jan., 1911), pp. 20-42

Is Belief in the Historicity of Jesus Indispensable to Christian Faith? by Douglas C. Macintosh The American Journal of Theology, Vol. 16, No. 1 (Jan., 1912), pp. 106-110

THE HISTORICITY OF JESUS. IN COMMENT UPON THE THEORY OF PROF. WILLIAM BENJAMIN SMITH by Paul Carus The Monist, Vol. 20, No. 4 (OCTOBER, 1910), pp. 633-638

Is Belief in the Historicity of Jesus Indispensable to Christian Faith? by Shailer Mathews The American Journal of Theology, Vol. 15, No. 4 (Oct., 1911), pp. 614-617

Books on the Historicity of Jesus a review of The Historical Jesus by John M. Robertson and The Jesus Problem by John M. Robertson by Clayton R. Bowen The American Journal of Theology, Vol. 23, No. 3 (Jul., 1919), pp. 378-381

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF THE HISTORICITY PROBLEM by K. C. Anderson The Monist, Vol. 24, No. 4 (OCTOBER, 1914), pp. 634-636

and probably others

I think a reasonable case could be made that the phrase is maybe? among the more commonly used phrases to describe the topic of the matter of the existence of Jesus and may perhaps be the most commonly used phrase to describe that subject. It certainly seems to be according to the JSTOR returne above the most common use of the phrase as a phrase. John Carter (talk) 21:55, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOTAFORUM!!!! HiLo48 (talk) 22:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

John Carter doesn't like me suggesting that in starting this thread immediately after criticising someone else for doing something very similar he is acting as if he owns this article, so I won't suggest that. But I do really wonder why he did it? It's not helpful to have two threads on the one topic. Can we somehow merge the two? HiLo48 (talk) 22:36, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

It is not the same topic. That is about the definition of the term historicity. This is about the definition of historicity which basically no one has argued. This is about the use of the phrase as a whole which as I have said seems to be from what I can see about the most frequent use of the phrase as a specific phrase. While they both relate in a way to the definition of scope of this article they are on different topics. Although I do welcome the humor in context about "helpful" comments :) this thread as a separate topic seems tomore directly relevant to this particular article.John Carter (talk) 22:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

"That is about the definition of the term historicity. This is about the definition of historicity which basically no one has argued." You want to try explaining that again?

If you can find reliable sources to support your contention, then cite them. Otherwise, can you explain why everything you've said here is not WP:OR? Fearofreprisal (talk) 22:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I find the above commentary extremely hard if not impossible to see the logic of as it seems to be indicating that the fact that I have found sources specifically using the term which is the title of the article where others have not and despite that I am the one being accused of doing something "original." Pretty much by definition, if it is in relevant reliable sources specifically relevant to the topic it cannot be called "original." Please explain exactly how it is "original" for me to find extant reliable sources which use the phrase which is the title of this article.John Carter (talk) 23:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not original for you to find "extant reliable sources which use the phrase which is the title of this article." What is WP:OR (and WP:SYN) is your speculation ("I think a reasonable case could be made...") based the results of your JSTOR search. Fearofreprisal (talk) 23:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

On consideration, this pissing match seems like a real waste of time. Let's just say you win. Fearofreprisal (talk) 00:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

It isn't me who wins it is the policies and guidelines which determine content. If you could produce sources as WP:BURDEN pretty much requires of you to demonstrate the specific notability of the question of whether academics are capable of reviewing this question without being overwhelming influenced by personal bias no one would have any problems about seeing that article exist. You have yet to do that so far as I can see and I think it would probably be a more productive use of your time to attempt to find the sources to establish the notability of that topic than to continue what you have been doing here.John Carter (talk) 14:48, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request ( I honestly can't figure out what User:John Carter is trying to say. Especially that last comment. Help? ):

I am responding to a third opinion request for this page. I have made no previous edits on Historicity of Jesus and have no known association with the editors involved in this discussion. The third opinion process is informal and I have no special powers or authority apart from being a fresh pair of eyes.

I also cannot figure out from John Carter's comments exactly what he is trying to say. Especially the second sentence starting with "If you could produce..." is too long and very hard to understand. I would suggest that John Carter rewrite the last comment and especially the second sentence to say exactly what he means. I understand that the discussion has been going on for a long time and people might be a bit frustrated. Kingsindian (talk) 21:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Fear has been arguing for some time about how he believes the article's scope should be changed. When he was recently asked to present sources to support the specific notability of that topic he was at least to date unable to find any. That was more or less the topic of the last sentence. No one has any real objections to seeing such an article exist but it would be probably a different article than this one. Still waiting to finish the list of articles from the encyclopedia I mentioned earlier - I got around halfway through when the divinity school's library closed early because class isn't in session right now. John Carter (talk) 22:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

You said "sources to support the specific notability of that topic..." What topic? I really can't figure out what you're talking about. Fearofreprisal (talk) 23:01, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The one you have been wanting to change it to per the sections above. The one you have still so far as I can tell found no sources to establish the specific notabiity of. Regarding your difficulties of understanding, well, you seem perhaps to have had difficulties understanding such things as WP:NOTABILITY, WP:WEIGHT, and other similar subjects as well.John Carter (talk) 00:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Kingsindian: can you help here again? I'm not trying to be intentionally obtuse, but I still can't figure out what John Carter is talking about. Fearofreprisal (talk) 01:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

@Fearofreprisal and John Carter: I am afraid that after re-reading the whole section, I still have no idea at all what is going on, and even less of what John Carter is saying. His last 2-3 comments still make no sense to me. I accept that this is perhaps because I am unfamiliar with the topic and the discussion has been going on for a long time. But perhaps John Carter should consider the possibility that his statements genuinely do not make sense. Perhaps they do in his mind, but not here. To Fearofreprisal, feel free to list your complaint on 3O again, if you wish. I will not be making any more comments, because I don't seem to understand the whole topic.

Kingsindian (talk) 01:30, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Kingsindian. Fearofreprisal (talk) 01:46, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Several other opinions have been solicited as well. This section was started to establish one of the to date few ways I have seen this phrase used as a phrase in independent reliable sources. Unfortnately as a thorough review of the existing talk page would reveal that is not the definition or scope of the article Fear personally wants to see although as has also already been at least implied there seems to be a very real question whether he can establish the notability of that topic as per WP:NOTABILITY and other relevant guides. Therefore he seems to be arguing that this article's content should be changed to reflect the scope he wishes to determine based on the definition of the word historicity. This section is an early effort of an ongoing attempt to find out how the phrase is used and what phrases are used to describe which topics so to better determine application of WP:COMMONNAME and other relevant guides. It would be very helpful if Fear were to allow that effort to continue without further questionable demands for immediate gratification on his part. John Carter (talk) 15:54, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

You keep on saying "that topic," but you seem unwilling or incapable of saying what "that topic" is. Do you mean the "historicity of Jesus?" Fearofreprisal (talk) 16:20, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Please refrain from trying to put words in other people's mouths. It is rather dubiously acceptabɛe behavior. As you have apparently made no more attempt to review the extensive archives of this page than I have it would probably be best if we refrain from attempting to impose on our preconceived notions on what we as individuals think the initial scope of this article when it was first created was.John Carter (talk) 15:08, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I hope this might clear up some things

Ok, it's looking like the types of sources that have been used, suggested, mentioned, or even imagined could be placed on a spectrum:

1. Historicity only - Sources that discuss Historicity in particular but do not concern Jesus either directly or indirectly

2. Historicity about Early Christianity - Sources that discuss Historicity in particular but also focus on (or at least discuss) early Christianity

3. Historicity of Jesus - Sources that explicitly use the phrase "Historicity of Jesus" or at least "Historicity" and "Jesus" (particularly those where it is their main topic)

4. Jesus in History - Sources that discuss Jesus in the context of history (either for, against, or agnostic)

5. Jesus only - Sources that discuss Jesus without the context of history

For purposes of this discussion, I only mean sources that already meet WP:RS, so Billy-Joe-Bob's Sunday School website, while being type 5, is absolutely not what I have in mind for the following.

Sources of the third type, Historicity of Jesus sources, absolutely must be used in this article per WP:DUE and WP:NOR. It's so important that I must mention it out of order and in its own line.

At the other end of acceptability, type 5 sources (Jesus only), obviously do not belong here (as most of the other sources can establish that by "Jesus," we do not mean someone in the kitchen at my favorite restaurant). So far as I can tell, no one has any reasonable objections there.

I have seen disagreement over whether source types 1, 2, and/or 4 could be used or included. Type 1, Historicity Only, should only be used in explaining Historicity in the introduction if that none of the other sources define it. Any other use (such as using it to rationalize inclusion or exclusion of sources or comment on them) is OR (for being beyond mere summarizing a source in isolation). Type 2, Historicity of Early Christianity, probably isn't appropriate except where it discusses Jesus (again, either for, against, or agnostic). Type 4, Jesus in History, must either be included or excluded in its entirety (though with due weight). If we include it, we should not argue "this author holds X bias, or holds X position, and so cannot be included," but we should (as with all other sources) merely separate authors according to academic authors (those who hold any sort of position at an accredited academic institution, those published by academic publishers such as university presses or Routledge, and even those published in academic journals), popular authors (who meet WP:GNG just to keep things from getting trashy), and perhaps a middle category for higher-quality polemic groups such as Prometheus Books and Society of Biblical Literature (if we don't include them in popular authors due). It may be necessary to exclude all popular and polemic authors, but I can see this creating more problems in the long run with users trying to WP:RGW for their favorite author or POV.

If we are going to overhaul this article, we need to:

• gather all sources currently in the article, all sources purposed for the article, and all other sources that could be used in the article,
• classify them on the spectrum,
• exclude all type 5 sources, any type 2 sources that do not discuss Jesus (and, if any sources define historicity, all type 1 sources),
• establish whether or not we will include or exclude all type 4 sources collectively (not include some but not others),
• classify the sources according to academic, popular, and high-quality polemic authors,
• eliminate non-notable popular authors,
• come up with relevant quotes or summaries of individual authors, listing their credentials (whatever they may be),
• summarize portions of larger works dedicated to the subject (such as the Routledge Encyclopedia of the Historical Jesus, the primary focus of which, according to its Library of Congress data, is the historicity of Jesus) not to give undue weight but to fill out the article as more than a list of quotes,
• cobble it all together into an article.

I'm not saying this to discourage anyone by claiming "too much work" or anything like that, but merely listing each step to a high-quality (potentially good), reliably sourced, neutral article that should be acceptable to anyone who respects community consensus, who wants to prevent any particular POV from using this article as a soapbox, and who wants to make sure that this article maintains an academic focus. It will not satisfy anyone here to right great wrongs or present their views as WP:THETRUTH, but oh well. Rewriting the article by adding or removing a few sources at a time will end up with a half-assed piecemeal article as different folks try to continually balance it off. Either we re-write the whole damn thing from the ground up after we've gathered enough sources, or we accept that while the article may have flaws, it is heading in the right direction.

It may be necessary to create a talk subpage or a few (say "talk:Historicity of Jesus/source listing," "/source sorting," "/quote listing," and "talk:Historicity of Jesus/overhaul draft"; or at least "/sources and quotes" and "/draft").

Ian.thomson (talk) 16:37, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

FWIW I've been going through the first edition of the EotHJ and making a list of all its articles by title named subarticles and length. So far I don't see the word historicity used specifically in connection to Jesus per se although it is used in other contexts. After today because the divinity school library I'm using is closed on weekends while class is not in session. I'll check other religion reference sources and see if they ever use the phrase and what they use it to refer to as well. I do however seem to see a definite coverage of historicity of the gospels as potentially a separate topic. John Carter (talk) 17:05, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Let's get real. This article will not establish the truth or falsity of the historicity of Jesus, and it is not meant to. This article is not about WP:RGW, especially as regards the inclusion of [insert your favorite list of WP:RS], or about maintaining "an academic focus". The focus is religious, not academic, because that is the topic. WP:RSes are needed, religious AND academic. Their inclusion should be a focus of editing activity, not a focus of the article.

Nor is the article about WP:THETRUTH, whatever that might mean to any individual. Opinions are opinions, sometimes useful in cordial collaborative work, but never in an atmosphere of contention, ax-grinding, or "I'm right and you're wrong". But WP:THETRUTH is about editing. Still, the article is about opinions, conflicting opinions, held widely, by uninformed and informed alike, including Christians and atheists and scholars and academics and WP:RSes. After 2000 years, there is not enough extant "evidence", artifacts, or documents (few enough even in that time) to provide "facts" for any "proofs". I'm not sure anyone today could make an airtight case that Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin landed on the moon in 1969, though I am completely convinced they did and would consider it idiotic to reject what evidence there is. But be it that case, or Jesus' physical existence on earth as a human being, both depend in some (differing) degrees upon acceptance (or rejection) of personal testimony from the time, or as near as we can get to the time. No research or scholarly activity can do more than evaluate what survives, and that means no definitive answers, ever. Forget about objectivity. Everyone has predispositions and prejudices of one kind or another, and scholars are not exempt, even in their scholarly opinion. More useful is a skill called impartiality, which can be learned and developed. When one finds it in a source, the source becomes that much more reliable. It's not an absolute; it's a principle, and a goal. And I think that is a key element that editing activity on this article should focus on.

If we do so, then WP:NPOV will enable us to find neutral wording to express the broad range of opinions we can expect to encounter in the WP:RSes, both current, and those we wish to include anew. Likewise, we can better judge issues about WP:UNDUE or WP:OR or WP:IDHT or any of the multitude of other questions. But this continual whining about the current state of the article or its current set of WP:RS is just so much WP:POINTY-ness. Don't argue about a rewrite; instead, start to do the rewriting. Do it a piece at a time, in consultation, working through individual issues one at a time in order to achieve consensus and understanding. Overburdening article edits or discussions alike is disruptive even when it manages to be civil. There is no deadline on WP. Get off the reformer bandwagon and give sufficient time for the community absorb new issues that don't meet with immediate acceptance. This talk page's wall of text is unconstructive. Pick a starting point and stay focused. Big change requires priorities and steps. How about considering "historicity" in the title in the light of WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, especially naturalness? Evensteven (talk) 20:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Evensteven: You wrote "The focus is religious, not academic, because that is the topic." That's an example where a perfectly reasonable sounding personal opinion really needs to be backed up by a reliable source.

"...Strauss decisively combined the question of the historicity of God in the Hegelian-speculative sense with that of the historicity of Jesus in the historico-critical sense, so that the latter has since become one of the great, still unresolved issues of theology in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries." [Emphasis added]

— Hans Küng, The Incarnation of God: An Introduction to Hegel's Theological Thought as Prolegomena to a Future Christology, trans. J. R. Stephenson (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1987); xv, page 465, emphasis added.

While the historicity of Jesus is a major question in theology, all theologians that I've found who express an opinion on the subject agree that is a matter within the realm of history, not religion. (If you'd like more citations, I can provide them.) I'm certainly interested in seeing other citations that might disagree with this. But personal opinions devoid of reference to reliable sources have no place here or in the article.

Among scholars -- both religious and irreligious -- who actually express specific opinions regarding the historicity of Jesus, there is actually a surprising amount of agreement. The only time it gets confusing is when editors here cherrypick quotations that are based on "historical Jesus research," which are modern religious constructions based on the Synoptic gospels, rather than historical evidence (citations available.)

Regarding WP:NAMINGCRITERIA and "Historicity of Jesus" -- I believe the term meets all five criteria: Recognizability, Naturalness, Precision, Conciseness, and Consistency. If other editors want to dispute this, we can certainly discuss it. (Of course, I have citations available.)

Regarding "starting to do the rewriting" -- I've been doing just that, and and continue to do so. (In fact, I may be the only one currently making substantive, well-researched, NPOV changes to the article.) However -- other editors here have insisted that I discuss and gain consensus *before* I make changes, and they have deleted my edits for failing to do so. [4] [5][6] What would you prefer that I do -- make changes first and ignite an edit war, or discuss changes first, and create a "wall of text?"

Regarding priorities and steps: My next priority is the first sentence of the article -- which I have flagged as "needs citation." I plan to change it to reflect the majority scholarly viewpoint (with citations), but I can almost guarantee that a bunch of people will scream their heads off when I do. They won't offer any alternative wording or constructions, and won't offer any relevant citations. They'll just say "no, you can't change it, because 'consensus.'" So, what then? Fearofreprisal (talk) 22:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC) Minor Edit 22:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Ian.thomson: I think you're on the right track... mostly.

• Your category 1, "Historicity" is useful for definition purposes. I think you'll find that most theologists and historians are in fairly close agreement with respect to the definition of historicity, in a historico-critical sense.
• Your category 2, "Historicity about Early Christianity" is relevant only insofar is it concerns the historicity of Jesus, not otherwise.
• Your category 3, "Historicity of Jesus," is, of course, the heart of the article. But a source that discusses the historicity of Jesus may also discuss topics outside the context of historicity (e.g., the nature of Jesus.) How to you propose to handle these situations?
• Your category 4, "Jesus in History" confuses "historicity" and "history." If you need citations describing the difference, let me know.

Fearofreprisal (talk) 22:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Your opinions are, of course, your own concern but in no way supersede policies or guidelines, particularly considering that none of the statements you made above have been sourced and your history of demanding that this article conform not to policies or guidelines but to what is your own preconceptions of what it should be about. Regarding your continuing insistence that this article must be changed according to your own personal schedule, that belief is in no way supported by any policies or guidelines and is something that the ArbCom would certainly take into account were this matter to be brought to them. Your ongoing insistence that everybody else must act according to your time schedule is extremely problematic. You have been advised repeatedly that your time might be better spent trying to find sufficient sourcing to establish notability for an article on the "historicity" of Jesus according to your definition. That would be a more constructive use of your time than these problematic postings here, and your choosing not to do so suggests that you have concluded that you would not be able to establish sufficient notability and are thus attempting to game the system by insisting that the article must conform to your own personal views which rather clearly deviate from the consensus views of the other editors who have been involved to date. John Carter (talk) 22:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I've started Talk:Historicity of Jesus/sources. My main search was just "historicity of Jesus," followed by "historical Jesus," in both cases only grabbing sources that a quick glance left me with the impression that the work would try to make an argument regarding historicity (not merely historical context) even if that particular word was not used.

@Evensteven:, if we are to stick to sources that are religious but not academic, then this article needs to be renamed "theology of Jesus." This article, due to its title, should stick to sources that are concerned with the historicity of Jesus, which is an academic pursuit that may be sought by religious and irreligious alike. There are works that are both religious and academic, which, under the plan I gave, would not necessarily be excluded. Religiosity and scholasticism are perpendicular measures, not opposing forces. What would be excluded are purely theological works, which are more concerned with the meaning than the historicity. My proposal does not attempt to find "the truth," but merely give due representation to the various views in academia.

The problem is that everyone has been picking "a starting point" to focus on, instead of simply summarizing all reliable sources and giving them due weight. That's all we do, summarize sources with due weight.

As for claims of walls of text, are you innocent in that?

@Fearofreprisal:, books that discuss the historicity of Jesus among other topics still seem to be category 3. They discuss the historicity of Jesus, even if they discuss other topics.

I cannot imagine that we will need more than one category 1 source, only to define historicity in the intro, since additional sources would either be redundant or lead to WP:SYNTH. Ian.thomson (talk) 23:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't finish the list of articles from the encyclopedia today which basically means I won't be able to get back to it until next Thursday given my work schedule and the library's current hours. User:John Carter/Jesus contains all the articles and named subarticles I was able to go through. The book seems to be primarily about the "historical Jesus" and discussing matters which help place the historical Jesus in context all of which indicates that the source operates on the assumption that the book assumes the existence of a historical Jesus which it rather clearly seems to do. But there might be some use in having one of the articles by that name given the frequency with which the phrase is used. John Carter (talk) 23:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Ian.thomson: I agree such books are still category 3. I'm asking how to differentiate claims in these books that are historicity based, versus claims that are not. Fearofreprisal (talk) 00:07, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

You mean we should allow one set of opinions from one view and eliminate another set from another view, according to your own criteria. That is WP:THETRUTH, and WP:POINTY. You make a good case for that. Evensteven (talk) 00:42, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Though it's not clear what you're talking about, I'm pretty sure that's not what I meant. Fearofreprisal (talk) 01:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

You claim that books by Christian scholars are not "historicity based", whereas your list of books is. That is the truth as you see it. But the difference between the books is not based on historicity (or lack of it), it is based on your own criteria of what you believe in (or what you don't). Jesus' historicity is a central tenet of the Christian faith, and has been for centuries. The books' differences include only differences of starting assumptions (every one of the books has those), in what conclusions are acceptable or not, and in what techniques, attitudes, procedures, and information are useful in exploring the questions. Your books cannot disprove Jesus' historicity; there is only enough information available to call it into question (which they do). Books of Orthodox theology cannot prove Jesus' historicity (which they don't, and don't try to); there is only the information that is extant, and even if Christian books draw on some information which yours reject as unreliable, that information is still not enough for proof of the Christian view. But if Christian books draw conclusions or support views you regard as unreliable, that does not mean those views are pulled out of thin air. There are grave weaknesses in non-Christian books that dismiss what is known on the basis that other things are not known, and that expect documentation from an age when documents were rare and expensive, and will not seek out what it can find from sources it would prefer to ignore. Today, acceptance of personal attestation is the only way to prove that men went to the moon, and documents are one form of attestation. Somebody wrote them. And somebody always teaches and passes information to the next generation; they did in A.D. 1, and they do now, and no one can do without it. That means that, Christian or not, one always has to learn to sift, explore, and weigh the sources, scholarly ones as well as non-scholarly, and no one can produce a rock hard answer fit to survive testing. This is not physics, and even physics can only prove what is reproducible. Every human method has limitations. So this article has at least one major division of views (plus subdivisions) to sift and weigh and talk about in neutral language, based on sources from all views, supported by the methods of their own choosing. Present the criticisms of Christian methods if some scholars criticize them. Present the criticisms of non-Christian methods if some scholars criticize them. But present them. And build a neutral, balanced article, devoid of artificial eliminations based on your own assumptions and opinions. You are not allowed to limit and define according to your own taste, nor that of only a group of scholars. Describe their alternate views instead. Most of all, don't expect anything to be settled in anyone's favor. Evensteven (talk) 03:49, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

WP:TLDR -- I stopped after the first sentence, which is a complete fabrication on your part. Fearofreprisal (talk) 05:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

@Evensteven:I owe you an apology. It was not a fabrication on your part -- it was a misinterpretation. You must have misread my statement "I'm asking how to differentiate claims in these books that are historicity based, versus claims that are not."

It's not "these books" that are historicity based -- it's the "claims." (I actually shouldn't have used the term "historicity based." Rather, I should have said "historicity related.")

For an example, consider James Dunn's book, Jesus Remembered. He discusses historicity at length, but he never brings historicity into, for example, the discussion of the birth narrative in Matthew. Yet, he does say that the birth narrative is "developed tradition" (Jesus Remembered, p. 341), which is an indirect assertion of its non-historicity. I absolutely support including reference to Dunn's discussions of historicity in the article (and I've added even more coverage of it in the article, see e.g., Historicity of Jesus#cite_note-3), but what about his comments on Matthew's birth narrative? Look at Virgin_birth_of_Jesus#Historicity for context. Though not perfect, it's a rather good discussion of historicity, and I could certainly envision Dunn's comments on Matthew's birth narrative fitting nicely there. Yet, there are examples which are more challenging.

For example, Ehrman: Yes, he wrote a whole book on historicity of Jesus -- but he started the book with the statement "Of course Jesus existed. Everyone knows he existed. Don’t they?" While I'm supportive of including Ehrman's analysis of the historicity of biblical events in the article, and I'm in agreement with including his conclusions resulting from his analysis, I'm a lot less enthusiastic about his opening statement. It is phrased as a presupposition, not as an assertion of historicity. (Unlike Dunn, a Christian whose writing reeks of balance and integrity, Ehrman's writings on the historicity of Jesus are admittedly apologetic--presenting only the "for" side of the argument, and ridiculing the "con" side.)

Bottom line: I don't claim that "books by Christian scholars are not 'historicity based.'" I am not trying to exclude books based on the religion of their authors. I am not suggesting that any scholars now cited in the article be excluded. Fearofreprisal (talk) 08:13, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

@Fearofreprisal:Accepted. What a relief! I am delighted that the cause was miscommunication rather than ill will! (I hate fighting those kinds of battles.) And I did indeed take your original words in a much different light than your corrected ones. I confess that I read over a large amount of text fairly quickly myself, and if in my haste I have misconstrued other material (as I may well have done) or misstated my intentions (always possible), then I must certainly apologize likewise for misleading you, and definitely for the harsh tone. I am indeed aggressive against POV pushing (which is what I thought I saw), but am always more than glad of the opportunity to return to constructive interaction. I am grateful for your discovery, and hope we may both put prior messages behind us. This latest from you is exactly the working approach I was seeking and trying to argue for, and what I expect of myself.

Even if I find some (specific) "scholarship" lacking (not painting a whole type of it), I too recognize that it exists and is reportable in balanced articles. While it can be more pleasant to read authors (like Dunn?) whose expressions are balanced, I don't object to apologetic writing either (like Ehrman?). There is also something to be said for stating the pro side of a case; it can clarify, and if one has already accepted a position's foundations from elsewhere, it can deepen understanding. I think ridicule as a technique often backfires on the author, who may be seen (rightly or not) as weak or shallow against opposition, but some opposition really deserves ridicule (like a denial that the year zero exists). So if Ehrman ridicules, we must understand that he sees his opposition in that light, and we (as readers) will then weigh the rightness of his opinion accordingly. Of course, as WP editors, we will recognize the nature of his case, and his ridicule, weigh its notability, and if needed, state the case in neutral terms. Balance is much more of a requirement in encyclopedia articles than it is in the sources it draws its material from. It's just that our job is rather easier when based on writing that uses an approach more like Dunn's.

But both approaches are capable of great integrity, yet specific use of the approaches may sometimes fall short of that goal. I do not know either Dunn or Ehrman enough to have any opinion about that in their cases. I do know that in dealing with matters that cross vast spans of history, and writings that were created along the way, we must also be aware of modern prejudices in favor of our current ways of approaching things. Every age has always loved its familiar approaches best, and has sometimes unduly elevated or disparaged that of other ages. We love our pseudo-scientific methods of analytical precision and minute examination far too much. It's not that they aren't useful tools; quite the contrary. But the medievals, for example, were much more focused on grasping the entirety of situations, "grokking" it (to use Heinlein's word), observing and describing more generally, and giving vivid impressions, often emotional and intuitive as well as cognitive. They weren't less intelligent or less motivated to make true (accurate) reports. They just used a different set of tools, to different purpose. Those tools provided more of some things and less of others. Medievals might look at a modern factual report as deficient in leaving out so many aspects of the human experience of things, and they'd be right, as far as that went. When I look at modern authors writing about a subject like the historicity of Jesus, I expect to find a scholarly awareness of differences like these, and if I don't, I consider such writing to fall several degrees short of its goals, much less its ability to be compelling. Evensteven (talk) 18:49, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

According to Ehrman, in the Christ Myth Theory camp there are just two or maybe three established scholars, in the camp "Jesus existed" there are thousands of established scholars, and there are some theologians who claim that historical investigation about Jesus is futile, but not because they would think that he did not exist (whether such truth is theological or historical). Ehrman did not make up these figures, he just reports them. So, obviously, he considers Christ Myth Theory as fringe. He cannot be blamed for that. Tgeorgescu (talk) 21:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Not sure if you thought my comments were directed at Ehrman (or Dunn) or not; I was merely referring to them as examples of types of writers, as characterized by Fearofreprisal. Personally, I surely would agree that the Christ Myth Theory must be highly limited in time, space, and influence compared to "Jesus existed". I certainly do not intend to give argument in support for its notability, if that was in question. I do agree that all these historical investigations are futile, though I am firmly in the "Jesus existed" camp. Belief or faith in "Jesus existed", in my view, does not derive from historical proofs, and historical disproofs are not possible either. I think my opinion is entirely consonant with any Orthodox theology. As for the Bible, St. Paul said "If Christ be not raised from the dead, then our faith is in vain.", or close to that. And if he died, how did he manage to do so if he did not exist on earth? A question any Christian might raise. Evensteven (talk) 23:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Regards Christ Myth Theory: I don't see where it really fits in an article about the historicity of Jesus. Certainly, minority view points regarding specific issues of historicity belong in the article -- but the overall premise of "Christ Myth Theory" goes beyond mere non-historicity, to non-existence. While many Christian scholars are willing to accept the possibility of non-historicity, few are willing to go as far as accepting the possibility of non-existence. This is why a statement that Jesus existed is not the same thing as an a assertion of his historicity. And it's the reason started a talk page section, asking for reliable sources who equate the historicity of Jesus with the existence of Jesus -- though I was pretty certain none would be found. Fearofreprisal (talk) 00:58, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh. You understand now why I pay only minimal attention to such theories, hence why I was unaware of its claims to show "Jesus definitely does not exist". I do think that makes it more extreme, and very likely more fringe. But I think your original phrasing didn't make that point for you. It's akin to my comment in the section below about "lack of evidence is not itself evidence, not even evidence of a lack". Putting a negative on the front of a phrase does not always get you to its opposite, and putting negatives on the front of two phrases does not always produce a parallel relationship. I think more concrete ways of saying things can prove helpful. Abstractions can be so elusive of meaning. Evensteven (talk) 02:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

In two weeks I expect to perhaps start an RfC on this topic specifically inviting input from among others regular AfD editors about what they think the best statement of scope for this article is based on the evidence presented to date and if they think that a separate article whose scope is specifically limited to the definition of historicity that fear wishes to build an article around would be likely to remain a separate article based on the sources then available on that topic at the time of the RfC. I very much believe that their input would be very valuable in this matter.John Carter (talk) 14:52, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Need WP:RS citations that show "historicity of Jesus"= "existence of Jesus"

User:John Carter wrote "I think a reasonable case could be made that the phrase [Historicity of Jesus] is maybe? among the more commonly used phrases to describe the topic of the matter of the existence of Jesus and may perhaps be the most commonly used phrase to describe that subject." [7]

The only way to make this "reasonable case" is to find some verifiable citations from reliable sources that explicitly equate "historicity of Jesus" with "existence of Jesus." They should probably be peer reviewed or at least academic.

Absent such citation(s), all the statements regarding the "existence of Jesus" in the article need to be re-examined. Fearofreprisal (talk) 04:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

What complete and utter nonsense, word-twisting, and sophistry! Find in Saint Athanasius' "On the Incarnation" a distinction between the historicity of Jesus and His existence on earth as a human, physical and in every other way a human, born of a woman, who lived a life on earth that began with birth on a specific day and death on another specific day. There is none there, so it will be hard to find. The same is expressed in the Nicene Creed, prayed by Christians for at least 1500 years. The same is expressed throughout Orthodox theology, wherein neither Hegel nor others who question Jesus' historicity (=existence on earth) has had any influence whatsoever. If you think otherwise, find some. There is none, so it also will be hard to find. Modern treatments of the Christian view can be found in both of the most well-known books of Metropolitan Kallistos (Timothy) Ware: The Orthodox Church and The Orthodox Way, and are equally easy to find in the many books of Orthodox theology now available in English in bookstores and all over the Internet. And you want me (or somebody else) to do your work for you when the merest glance will provide a list a mile long?

But of course, you are looking to challenge the Christian view. Ok, go ahead. You just can't do it by saying the Christian view doesn't really exist, and doesn't really have sources. Of course, you might claim there are people who call themselves Christians and still don't hold with the view I described. Ok, you're probably right. Talk to them about what you both please and make what points you will, and if you win some points, perhaps that will please you too. It just won't have anything to do with the view of Jesus' historicity I have presented to you. And are you really trying to say that that view does not fall under the topic of this article? That view is huge, throughout history, and in the present. If this article doesn't deal with it, what article will?

Now that's something that can be considered here, but I would ask why it ought to be. After all, article titles are designed to allow the reader to get to his/her topic of interest in the easiest and most direct way possible. Rather than applying subtleties of dictionary definitions, we aim to use and follow common expressions and terminology. And the article content (topic) is defined by that common expression. What title would you propose for the topic you are targeting? It is arguably obscure and technical, so perhaps it requires justification as to notability or separability from this topic. Describe how this will benefit WP, please. Evensteven (talk) 04:42, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Fearofreprisal (talk) 07:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Yawn. My point exactly. Evensteven (talk) 07:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

It does seem clear from sources that at least some Bible scholars who hold the view "Jesus existed" don't do so on any sort of empirical basis, and are quite open about this. Samuel Byrskog, for instance, says that the most commonly understood meaning of "historicity" is "the verifiable past existence of certain phenomena", but he rejects this approach in favour of a definition about an examination of "historical perceptions of reality". He says: "The basis of our knowledge of the historical Jesus is therefore contextual ... What comes out at the end is a reconstruction of history, to be sure, but a reconstruction which is essentially an informed kind of reconfiguration, fictionalization, and narrativization of somebody we believe existed in the past."

According to James Dunn, "...the 'historical Jesus' is properly speaking a ninteenth- and twentieth-century construction using the data provided by the Synoptic tradition, not Jesus back then and not a figure in history." (Emphasis in the original).

William Hamilton says: "Jesus is inaccessible by historical means. All we can know (or need to know) is that he has come."

Our article is problematic because it attributes the views of Bible scholars more widely to "scholars of antiquity" and "classical historians" (based on extremely weak sourcing). But, moreover, it doesn't even seem clear that there is consensus that Jesus' existence is in principle provable, even within the narrower field.

Formerip (talk) 00:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Part of the perceived problem I regret to say may be in the eyes of the above beholder. For most of the history of that field most of what is called in some schools today "Ancient Near Eastern studies" is still called in other schools and has been called for most of its history "biblical studies" and by extension most of those involved historically in the field of ANE studies have been and still are in many areas called "biblical scholars." The use of the word "biblical" in fact does not even remotely generally indicate that the specific area of study involved has anything directly to do with the Bible itself.John Carter (talk) 21:31, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding my point, which doesn't really have to do with the structures of higher education institutions. The question of the existence or non-existence of Jesus is what that, in reasonably recent times, has only been substantively addressed by Bible scholars - that is, by people whose primary academic interests are connected to the study of the Bible as a text. Of the people who we might term "scholars of antiquity" or "classical historians", but who are not Bible scholars, AFAICT the number who have examined the question of Jesus' existence is zero. While it is perfectly probable that at least some of those do believe that Jesus existed, we have no way of actually knowing - my personal guess is that the majority would not consider it a question professionally relevant to them.

Our article, though, currently ascribes views held by Bible scholars to a wider academic community, and it does so on the basis of flimsy evidence. I would say this counts as distortion.

Moreover, it also seems that at least some Bible scholars take a position that Jesus existed only by adopting a slightly non-standard definition of "existed", and I would say our article is at fault for denying the reader that information. Formerip (talk) 23:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

FormerIP said "The question of the existence or non-existence of Jesus is what that, in reasonably recent times, has only been substantively addressed by Bible scholars - that is, by people whose primary academic interests are connected to the study of the Bible as a text." I have seen nothing from him or anyone else to provide any evidence for this assertion which leads me to suggest that your main point is at least so far as I can see unsubstantiated OR. We do not make a habit of making significant changes to articles on such flimsy bases. To suggest that the article is based on such views without providing any substantive sources to support them and to make changes to it on that basis would qualify in my eyes as significantly problematic. I am not myself an expert in the field but I would welcome anyone checking with Wikipedia:WikiProject Universities or similar editors who would know more on the subject to see if FormerIP's points would be counted as relevant by those knowedgable in the field.John Carter (talk) 16:50, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The article should present the information that is notable enough for inclusion, whatever the viewpoint. Views are certainly in play here, and while they need to be presented neutrally, they do need to be presented. How you evaluate a view does not enter into consideration.

As for "flimsy evidence", lack of evidence is not itself evidence, not even evidence of a lack. The evidence we have is what we have. Everyone must do with it what he/she can. I know of no Christian who has come to a belief in Jesus' existence on the basis of your evidence. Real belief does not consist of superficial statements or the result of logical sequences, not even for scientists. Real belief requires probing and hard work, and those who have not done that do not have it. Belief in God or Jesus comes by means of relationship, and is non-transferable. It would be pathetic to believe by means of independent evidence, which, perhaps, is why God has seen fit to make that impossible. I have made the point about impossiblity multiple times by now, and many, both with Christian views and without them, believe in that impossibility. Perhaps that tends to create the process by which historicity theories become fringe? Evensteven (talk) 00:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I've said before, this is not the place for personal opinions, apologetics, or polemics. As soon as the word "belief" shows up in a conversation here, it's a pretty good sign that the conversation has nothing to do with the article.Fearofreprisal (talk) 00:30, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I have to agree some of my comment wasn't about the article. It was about showing where I am coming from, to increase understanding of my positions and attitudes, which helps people to avoid difficulties in communications. So what was not about the article, was still in support of the editing. I have seen this to be useful elsewhere on WP, and elsewhere all over. And the opposing views here have not been without their own opinions, apologetics, and polemics. Sometimes one can learn to see one's own better after being exposed to someone else's. We all have to do what is necessary to get the work of editing done (by consensus), and that means dealing with other people, and often, ones who don't agree. It's not a neatly defined path. Evensteven (talk) 00:48, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm trying to focus on issues that are holding back the article (such as the conflation of existence with historicity), but sometimes the talk page turns into a big wall of text. (And I'm certainly guilty of creating a lot of it.) Fearofreprisal (talk) 01:04, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Granted, and I tend to the same, sorry to say. So, absolute avoidance being undesirable, may all our walls be built to good purpose, but on the appropriate scale! :) Evensteven (talk) 01:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Evensteven, you are correct that "lack of evidence is not itself evidence, not even evidence of a lack". But the problem is that our article currently presents information as factual for which evidence is lacking. It also lacks information which appears highly relevant and for which evidence exists. In other words, the article seems extremely one-sided at present. Formerip (talk) 01:19, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

In principle, that certainly sounds reasonable. So long as everyone is agreed as to the facts, evidence, and evaluation of presentation, it should be a breeze. Evensteven (talk) 01:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

The first sentence of the lead reads: "The historicity of Jesus concerns the analysis of historical evidence to determine whether Jesus of Nazareth existed as a historical figure, and whether any of the major milestones in his life as portrayed in the gospels can be confirmed as historical events." This might be better phrased as: "The historicity of Jesus is the question of whether Jesus of Nazareth existed (take out as a historical figure' - what else would he exist as?), and whether or to what extent the New testament writings (take out "any of the major milestones in his life as portrayed in the gospels" - it's not just milestones that are at issue but teachings, and it's not just the gospels) can be confirmed as historical events." Don't you guys have anything better to do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.23.133.25 (talk) 06:18, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

We seem to be making progress, albeit slowly. Ignoring all the froth and sticking to the article, I think a big issue still to be resolved is the so-called “conflation of existence with historicity”. To me it’s clear that if Jesus did not exist then nothing about him was historical, but if Jesus did exist in some form that does not mean the New Testament stories are all reliable – some may be reliable, some clearly are not, and nobody can say into which category much of the stuff belongs. Please could it be clarified on the talk page why the “conflation” is seen to be such a big deal? If we can sort that out, maybe the rest of the issues might flow a bit more smoothly? Wdford (talk) 09:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

It all comes down to what can be supported by citations to reliable sources. But, let me posit two ideas, for talk page discussion:

• “The dictionary definition of 'historicity' is 'historical quality or authenticity based on fact.' Historicity is a quality of a discourse perhaps, or even of an opinion. The most general concept would be something like this: the historicity of a claim about the past is its factual status."[8](I'm not arguing that this is an ideal definition, but it is a starting point.) So, you might consider the "historicity of Jesus" to be the historical quality or authenticity of claims about Jesus.
• Scholars studying biblical events understand historicity largely in the context of historical criticism. (You can read a short essay on historical criticism here: [9])

Given these two ideas, I think it's pretty clear that historicity is not the same thing as existence. Fearofreprisal (talk) 12:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not clear to me at all that there is a difference between the two. What in a nutshell is the difference between existence and historicity? Martijn Meijering (talk) 12:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

“Conflation of existence with historicity” is the kind of prose that makes eyes glaze over. What your readers want to know is whether Jesus existed at all (answer: most scholars say yes), and if so, how reliable is the NT picture of him (answer: nobody really knows). WHich is whjat you mean, but in reader-friendly language. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.23.133.25 (talk) 01:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Mmeijeri: This is the essential problem: it's one thing to just assume that historicity and existence are the same thing, but it's another thing to actually provide citations to support that notion.

I can certainly provide citations showing that historicity and existence are related concepts -- but I can't find any that show they're the same thing.

As for the IP editor's comment: If readers want to know whether Jesus existed at all, they should go to the Existence of Jesus article. You might be familiar with that article -- it's the one that doesn't exist on Wikipedia. Fearofreprisal (talk) 14:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Readers of Wikipedia who don't like what they read are always free to start their own article, and frequently do.

The paragraph that Fearofreprisal inserted into the lead section (without consensus) states that "Historicity is the historical actuality of persons and events". The dictionary defines "actuality" as "The state of EXISTING in reality".[10] In order to avoid extensive philosophical debates and stick to plain understandable English, we have therefore used the term "existence" instead of "actuality". Please clarify – what exactly is your problem with this? Wdford (talk) 16:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Check out WP:EDITCONSENSUS, and you'll see that I was fully correct in adding that paragraph to the lead section. But, I'm not suggesting it's perfect -- I think it does need fine tuning.

The only problem I have with what you're saying is that it's WP:SYNTHESIS. "Existence" is different from "existence in reality" (and, for that matter, "historical existence,") so you're going to end up in a philosophical rabbithole anyway. Can you provide any citations to reliable sources that might be helpful?

Fearofreprisal (talk) 19:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I already gave my source - the Oxford Dictionary is a reliable source for the meanings of words in the English language. I see that you now claim that "Existence" is different from "existence in reality" or "historical existence". Please can you provide a reliable source that substantiates this claim? Wdford (talk) 20:39, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

It seems the two are clearly synonymous in this context. It might be that it only seems this way, and that various subtleties mean they actually aren't, but that's an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. I think it is time to stop playing word games. Martijn Meijering (talk) 21:29, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Given that a definition of "historicity" appears problematic, why is there a need for the article to provide one? If readers don't know what it means, they can look it up. But for us to come up with our own definition, particularly if it is contentious, seems like original research, even if our definition ends up being really good. If there is only one really clear and obvious way of defining it, then we don't need to. If there is more than one way, then it is hard for us to know that our definition matches the defintion assumed by the sources, so the whole exercise could end up being misleading.

I think the article needs a more balanced presentation, but I don't see how going off on tangents about defining terms helps. Formerip (talk) 22:45, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Wdford - I've got no problem with the Oxford dictionary (Though it's not the OED.) Its definition of Historicity is actually incorporated into the second paragraph of the article.

When you take a definition that says "The state of EXISTING in reality", and say "that's just 'existence'", that's probably asking for trouble. Things can "exist" in many ways -- in mythology, dreams, legend, fantasy, and even history. (Certainly I have citations that show the above. Do you really need them?)

Meijering - I'm not the one who's saying that two words mean the same thing. The one making the claim (in the article) has the WP:BURDEN on that.

If the two words are seemingly synonymous simply based on context and ordinary usage, then the burden is on those claiming they are not the same. You cannot even identify what the alleged difference in meaning is. Martijn Meijering (talk) 00:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

FormerIP - There are already two articles that discuss historicity, in a general sense: Historicity, and Historicity (philosophy). The definition of the term isn't problematic -- but it is a college level term. This article doesn't need to come up with its own definition. It should use reliable sources for that. So far, no reliable sources have been found that say "historicity" is the same thing as "existence." Fearofreprisal (talk) 23:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

We may be talking at cross-purposes, but if there are not reliable sources for it, why not just leave it out of the article? Formerip (talk) 00:11, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree with leaving things out for which there are no reliable sources. Fearofreprisal (talk) 01:09, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

We are obviously NOT talking about existence in dreams etc here - the opening sentence which defines the article very clearly spells out that the focus is "whether Jesus of Nazareth existed as a historical figure, and whether any of the major milestones in his life as portrayed in the gospels can be confirmed as historical events." Wdford (talk) 08:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

May I take us all back a half-step and ask what seems a basic question: If the title of the article is not clear and obvious to readers — whether it is vague, ambiguous, undefined, obscure, contentious, or unclear for any other reason — then why are we using it? Is there good reason to expect that readers of Wikipedia will be searching for that specific phrase?  Unician ∇  10:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

That's an excellent question. The answer is that the title is NOT vague, ambiguous, undefined, obscure, contentious, or unclear for any other reason. One editor recently appeared and started a fuss, but until then nobody else seemed to have a problem with it. That said, I have no problem in renaming the article if anybody has a better suggestion? Perhaps Existence of Jesus or Historical reliability of the New Testament stories? Maybe an even better option would be for the article to be split and merged into Historical Jesus and Historical reliability of the Gospels - the overlaps are substantial, and the rationale for retaining two separate articles is unclear to me? Wdford (talk) 12:02, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I am sending today a transcribed copy of the section from the Anchor Bible Dictionary article on Jesus containing the word "historicity" in the section title to a few of the editors here today. I think I mentioned that before and asked for email addresses but didn't get anyway so I'll send it out "cold". I have also started a page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Jesus work group/Encyclopedic articles containing the list of subarticles of the Jesus ABD article as an indicator of what relevant topics can be found discussed elsewhere. I expect to add material from similar reference books on the topic as I finish them. I think the name here is used as per WP:COMMONNAME and that probably any article title less than a full sentence long would encounter such problems. John Carter (talk) 14:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

It seems very clear that the article needs to be clarified what the point of the article is or else there will forever be loops of arguments. On the Historical Jesus page, it says "For information about the historical existence of Jesus, see Historicity of Jesus." It seems like this could be named "Historical existence of Jesus" and that would be more precise. I am not sure why people would want to understand or explore specifically historicity as something divorced from that discussion. If they want to know about the philosophical sense, as explained in the Wiki article here and elsewhere, it is how it has evolved historically over time. It doesn't seem that that is the thrust of this article and might better be 'Understanding of Jesus throughout History". Prasangika37 (talk) 02:28, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The point of the article is clarified precisely in the opening sentence, namely that the article "concerns the analysis of historical evidence to determine whether Jesus of Nazareth existed as a historical figure, and whether any of the major milestones in his life as portrayed in the gospels can be confirmed as historical events." How much more clear could it be made? Wdford (talk) 10:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, that's very clear. And if that is the article that this community wants to write, maintain, and contribute, I don't have an issue with that. It's one way of looking at it, a notable and valid subject, and there's no reason that one way can't be addressed in an article and appropriate information provided. It is not, however, the only way to interpret the title. If there is sufficient interest, there is room to create another article using a different approach. As currently expressed here, this is not the article I would have expected to see when coming to read it, nor the one I had potential interest in when I came to the talk page, and I find this angle uninteresting. That too is ok. Sometimes when there is a division of views that can give rise to asperity, it is more useful to present the views separately, because hopping back and forth between incompatibilities can also make for a lack of clarity. Perhaps this is an occasion to handle the views in this fashion. Evensteven (talk) 16:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Accepted. As a matter of interest, considering the dictionary definition of "historicity", which article/topic were you expecting to find based on this title? Wdford (talk) 18:02, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

And by what WP policy do you offer ridicule? Evensteven (talk) 19:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I am not offering ridicule, I am asking a relevant question. As one of the editors who is trying to resolve this issue of the article name, I am interested to know what other interpretations of the article name might there be? It seems plain enough to me, but if it is indeed ambiguous, then corrective action is obviously required. AGF. Wdford (talk) 20:28, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh really? And where did you get the idea that I have been arguing about the dictionary definition? AGF yourself. Evensteven (talk) 18:19, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

You haven't answered the question - which article/topic were you expecting to find when you clicked on this article originally? Wdford (talk) 23:34, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I see ridicule so much as a request for clarification. Personally I agree that there are probably variations on the title/scope matter other than the one recently put forward here and think it is a reasonable request which could be used in a hatnote or similar to provide links to other articles. Also I have to assume other editors might conceivably be interested in that other topic if they knew more clearly what it is. John Carter (talk) 19:39, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

"Historical Existence of Jesus" seems like a far more accurate and useful name given the fact that Historicity is apparently confusing and has a separate philosophical definition as I mentioned earlier. E.g. historicity in philosophy refers to the development of a concept through history. Its not a good source but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_(philosophy) gives a brief insight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prasangika37 (talk • contribs) 20:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

OK - shall we propose that the article be renamed "Historical Existence of Jesus"? I would however like to include not just the existence of the man, but also which of his actions/events are considered to be historical - otherwise a straight yes-he-existed article ends up looking like an endorsement of the gospel stories. Any comments please? Wdford (talk)

Still working on Wikipedia:WikiProject Christianity/Jesus work group/Encyclopedic articles but I would suggest that whatever the most commonly appearing article section scope in reference sources might be the best scope to use here.John Carter (talk) 21:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I googled "Historicity of Jesus" and I got 407,000 hits, I then googled "Historical Existence of Jesus" and I got 16,900,000 hits. Mmmmmmm…… Wdford (talk) 12:10, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Historicity of the gospels is only a redirect right now too. I could see moving the page to Historical existence of Jesus or something similar for clarity's sake. John Carter (talk) 16:19, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Wdford suggested the title “Existence of Jesus”; Prasangika37 suggested “Historical existence of Jesus”. Do editors generally prefer the second proposal as a clarification of the first? And what edge cases would be newly-included or excluded from the article by such a change?  Unician ∇  23:26, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Moving Forward Again

FormerIP has recently raised the concern that the article “currently ascribes views held by Bible scholars to a wider academic community, and it does so on the basis of flimsy evidence.” FormerIP also stated that the article “currently presents information as factual for which evidence is lacking. It also lacks information which appears highly relevant and for which evidence exists.” These concerns have been raised before, but before we got around to addressing them we got side-tracked.

Now the lead itself is becoming cluttered up with extensive quotes in all directions, which makes the lead huge and unwieldy. This will also need to be cleared up shortly.

As a start-point I have tried to simplify and focus things by grouping the summary of the actual evidence into its own dedicated section, by grouping the discussion about “what can be known or deduced” into a second section, and by temporarily removing any quotes which appear to be an unhelpful duplication, just to clear the deck. It needs to be cleaned up further, and some gaps filled in, but before we progress on which opinions to include or exclude, perhaps FormerIP can clarify their concerns and suggest possible solutions? Wdford (talk) 08:57, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Count me out. I'm giving up. That doesn't mean I don't have an opinion. I just see this now as a pointless area for discussion. Too many unchangeable positions and distractions. HiLo48 (talk) 09:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

It seems then that there are no serious objections to the sources being quoted here - is that correct?

Can we then move on to cleaning up the lead section, which has been progressively cluttered up with lengthy quotes and other details which should be in the body of the article only? Wdford (talk) 16:37, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

My objection to the way the Ehrman source is being used it is that it is a weak source for an extraordinary claim. No academics other than Bible scholars have, in recent history, published anything giving serious consideration to the question of whether Jesus existed. So any claim about what they believe on that question is extraordinary. The source used is a polemical book about why it is ever so wrong to question whether Jesus existed, popular history rather than strictly academic. This makes it a weak source, and so inappropriate. The solution I would suggest is not to reproduce polemic in Wikipedia's voice. I would further suggest that the article should be clearer that the question of Jesus' existence is one generally addressed only by Bible scholars and not by the wider academic community. Formerip (talk) 23:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Cleaning up the lead

Over the last month or so the lead section has become progressively cluttered up with a lot of detail that belongs in the body of the article. The lead section is supposed to summarize the content of the article, not duplicate it. I therefore propose to remove all excess detail from the lead section, and leave the lead section as a summary of the main points of content only. Wdford (talk) 12:26, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Good idea. I look forward to your changes. CorinneSD (talk) 16:07, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I sent to Wdford a copy of the Anchor Bible Dictionary subarticle on the historicity of Jesus. It is old but it still should be of some use.John Carter (talk) 18:37, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Please edit the lead. The lead is one of the longest I've seen, and its supposed to be a max of 4 paragraphs. Its pretty sprawling and I assume its not fitting anyone's needs. Particularly all the clarification over what Historicity of Jesus is and isn't seems like it could be summed up in a sentence or two and maybe mostly moved to the main body. The name 'Historical Existence of Jesus' name would also seem to remove a lot of the point anyway. It may prove useful to offer a lead up here if people are deeply passionate about the things they included in the lead, or maybe WP:BRD will bring about a nice synthesis. Prasangika37 (talk) 02:34, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia policy.

Template:Who

I've made an edit with Who tags at appropriate places. This tag is for placement after attributions to vague "authorities" such as "serious scholars", "historians say", "some researchers", "many scientists", and the like. No more saying "most scholars of antiquity". That is against the rules, and it's on all the Jesus pages, put there by the Wikipedia apologetics team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.91.107.217 (talk) 21:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

So, what do you expect, a list of 10 000 Antiquity scholars who subscribe to the historicity of Jesus? Tgeorgescu (talk) 22:42, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Ehrman said he knows thousands of scholars who believe that Jesus really existed, so we cannot name every scholar part of this majority. Quotation marks could be used for "vast majority" or "virtually any scholar of Antiquity", in order to make clear it is information being quoted from reliable sources, instead of claims made in Wikipedia's voice. There is a ban on Wikipedia editors employing weasel words, the reliable sources themselves don't abide by our ban. And these may still be cited when they make clear that they express a consensus view, since there is a limited number of ways of conveying such information and very long lists of names of scholars supporting a position aren't generally part of such ways. Tgeorgescu (talk) 23:09, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

In his claims about thousands of scholars, Ehrman does not distinguish between religious belief and historicity. If you can find a citation where he talks about thousands of scholars who accept the historicity of Jesus, that would be relevant. But no such citation exists. Ehrman even dodges the question of historicity as it relates to his own opinion. Fearofreprisal (talk) 07:22, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Is it your contention that if someone has a religious belief, that it disqualifies them as a scholar? Evensteven (talk) 13:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

These who tags are absurd. Virtually all of the sentences so tagged have footnotes to sources. john k (talk) 13:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Tags can be much overdone. So can weasel words. I think we should be diligent in checking sources per Tgeorgescu's comment to be sure that "vague attribution" words do not have their source in editing. And even with source backing, I think it makes for a stronger article to depend less on such characterizations and focus more on the core of the research. If there is scholarly disagreement or controversy, it is often most useful just to say that much and only that much, and forget about weighing the balance in fine detail. The point to do that is in distinguishing between notable and fringe. More tends to make an article just look like a pointy WP battleground where multiple axes are being ground. Evensteven (talk) 13:58, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Please don't go down this path again, Evensteven. People that consider Jesus of Nazareth to be divine can still be scholars, but they are also biased. The two things are not mutually exclusive. Material from biased sources need not be excluded, but it does need to be clearly labeled and segregated.—Kww(talk) 14:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

And people that consider Jesus of Nazareth not to be divine are also biased. There really is no safe haven from viewpoint. We need to treat both sides with the same kinds of considerations. Clear labeling is fine, a part of dealing with the matter according to NPOV. Segregated can work too, if it helps to distinguish the viewpoints from each other. Evensteven (talk) 15:02, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I fully agree, but how are we going to identify which scholar falls into which camp, before we can begin to segregate them? Wdford (talk) 15:47, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Considering someone to not be divine is no particular obstacle to believing in his existence. I don't think that anyone has ever been divine, is now divine, nor ever will be divine, but I certainly believe that some people have existed, exist now, and will exist in the future. There would be a question of bias when it came to acceptance of miraculous events, but no particular bias when it comes to the question of simple existence.—Kww(talk) 16:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

In response to Wdford's reasonable question regarding how we tell which individuals on all sides may be driven by bias of some sort, the answer is, as I think he knows and is implying in the question, we can't do so ourselves. All we really can do is repeat wht others have said before. The most recent substantive overview of this topic in an academic source that I have found to date is the ABD subarticle I sent to him and some others and am willing to forward to anyone who gives me an address to sent it to. I am still looking for more recent sources, and will note here any I find as I find them. John Carter (talk) 16:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Editors are always expected to evaluate sources for bias. Every editor. Every source. Every topic.—Kww(talk) 19:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

And they are also expected to make a reasonable effort to take into account their own biases and to not attempt to right great wrongs according to their own biases. And I thought reasonable "evaluation" generally came after looking at it, rather than by making possibly peremptory judgmentson them? John Carter (talk) 19:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I second John Carter here. And in response to Kww, while what you say about predisposition to bias about existence is not fully inherent in disbelief in divinity, the distinction is somewhat theoretical in practice. The bias exists in many who reject divinity, Christianity, any number of other things perhaps. Also, there are different biases; existence and historicity are only two closely-related ones. While those are our current focus, others can have a bearing on them. Disbelief in Christianity is just as much a fully inherent bias as belief, and both have a bearing on [dis]belief in Jesus' historicity. So, Kww, I support your call for examination of every editor, every source, every topic, and add "every bias". I have not hidden my biases, and would encourage other editors here to do the same as regards the article topic. From time to time this cooperation has been asked for (not just by me), and has failed to be given in some cases. The community must weigh the needs for such examination and disclosure as regards both discussion and editing. Finally, to Wdford, we may be able to separate sources and we may not, via disclosure. The segregation approach will not work well without it, however, so perhaps we should consider that as we consider that approach itself. We must work with what we have, not what we want. Evensteven (talk) 21:08, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm certainly not trying to right great wrongs. I've just noted, time after time, that this article presents the opinions of a group of primarily Christian and Muslim scholars and takes those opinions as if they represent historians as a whole. Bear in mind that Christians are a minority group, and that Christians and Muslims (grouped together as the primary groups that believe in the divinity of Jesus of Nazareth) total only 55% of the world's population: scarcely more than half.

The simple lack of Buddhist, Hindu, and atheist historians that support these Christian and Muslim scholars is, in itself, evidence of the bias problem. If this were a topic that was actually well supported by historical evidence, one would expect that the proportion of historians supporting the historical existence of Jesus would roughly mimic the proportions of different religious beliefs among historians as a whole (which would, in turn, mimic the world population). Instead of that expected 55:45 ratio, we find 100:0. That's an overwhelming disparity. What's the alternate explanation to source bias? Why aren't we finding sources from non-Christian, non-Muslim sources that support Jesus of Nazareth's existence?—Kww(talk) 21:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I believe WP:BURDEN applies here. Feel free to produce any such sources as you can find, excluding of course converts from Christianity and Islam whose own biases are open to serious question, as well as any committed Buddhists or Hindus who are by their faiths probably opposed to a religion whose tenets are at best very hard to reconcile with Christianity broadly construed, and I suppose some Jews biased against Christianity on the grounds of Christian antisemitism would have to be excluded as well. But if you can provide such sources that could reasonably meet WEIGHT criteria I'm sure we'd all like to see them. :) John Carter (talk) 22:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

[edit conflict]: Kww, bear in mind that atheists are a far smaller minority than Christians alone, much less the group who profess a major religious faith of some kind. And lack of evidence is not evidence. Lack of these other religious historians' support is not support of non-existence. And it is not lacking for any given reason. It is simply lack. Whatever your "expected ratios", I believe it was a particularly acute critic of Christianity who was also caustically disparaging about statistics: you have heard what Mark Twain had to say - "damned lies"? Your application of them here is far more ill-constructed than most that were floated even in his time, rife with assumption and unwarranted conclusions. Speaks of a bias problem to me. Of course, John Carter offers the suitable WP recourse. Evensteven (talk) 22:31, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

It would be easier to accept your protestations if you could actually point at even a handful of historians from different religious backgrounds that accept the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth. If there isn't source bias at play, both of you should be able to quickly produce a meaningful list of Buddhist and Hindu historians that align with the Christian historians being referenced here (and yes, Buddhists and Hindus are large groups, with numbers nearly equal to Christians and Muslims worldwide). Can you show me that handful? A few? Maybe two? I will stand by that 55:45 worldwide ratio as well. What reason would there be for the religious distribution of historians being substantially different from the religious distribution of the general population?—Kww(talk) 22:49, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Are we to take it from the above basically WP:IDHT comment above that you can not or will not produce any sources and are basically just being tendentious and/or disruptive? Please do not engage in the obvious fallacy of saying others have to do something to disprove an allegation you have yet to provide any evidence to support. You should know better by now. John Carter (talk) 23:10, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

John, I've been pleading with you to listen for a long time. I've heard what you are saying, but you are not engaging in return. You are asking me to prove a negative, which is impossible. I have searched. I cannot find any Hindu or Buddhist historians that support the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth. I therefore submit that there either aren't any or that they are extremely rare. What you need to do to counter my argument is produce a group of Hindu and Buddhist historians that do support the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. Not his divinity, his simple existence. There isn't a problem doing that with Muhammad, Joseph Smith, or Haile Selassie, to name a few other figures believed to be divine. Jesus of Nazareth appears to be an exception. Can you either demonstrate that he isn't an exception or provide any explanation for the exception other than source bias?—Kww(talk) 23:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

No, Kww, John needn't do that. Your argument is fallacious, as are your stat conclusions. It is you who need to supply your non-Christian (non-Muslim?) sources who do not support Jesus' historicity and get on with editing. There are two biases here, and about that you are being WP:IDHT. But there are ways to make contributions nevertheless. Evensteven (talk) 23:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

No, my logic is not flawed. You are asking that I provide sources of Hindus and Buddhists actively refuting the existence of Jesus of Nazareth. I'm not making that argument. I'm saying that the only historians making statements in support of his existence are Christian and Muslim. You are conflating a bias against his divinity with a bias against his existence and requiring active refutation as opposed to non-support. You accuse me of logic errors without demonstrating what they are and misread my arguments. What precisely is my statistical error? That only 55% of the world is Christian or Muslim? Or that we should expect the distribution of religions among historians to roughly mimic the distribution among the world's population? What force would you expect that drives the religious distribution among historians to be different than the world's population?—Kww(talk) 23:51, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, your logic is flawed. Your error is not in your raw data, it is in your conclusions based on the data. They are not statistical data collected and developed with the idea of supporting your thesis and they do not support that thesis. There are rules and processes that govern statistics in order to eliminate bias and improper conclusions, but you have gone looking for data to support conclusions already drawn - specifically that there is only one bias and that it is Christian/Muslim. Your expectation as to distributions is not validly drawn, not validly tested, and unsusceptible to your unscientific pseudo-analytic process. Non sequitur: it does not follow. Quod non est demonstrandum. It is not necessary to take the approach you are suggesting, and not necessary for John to find that type of source. And if they cannot be found, so be it. That does not put us in any bind here. I am saying that you can still present whatever sources you have to support your point of view, Hindu, Buddhist, atheist, or anything else. But those sources are also biased. As with Christian sources, they can be used and weighed accordingly. And that is what I am asking you to do, assuming that it is your inclination. Otherwise, WP:IDHT. Evensteven (talk) 01:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Evensteven -- The bias issue has been talked about over and over on this talk page. If you want to find the community consensus, just look the archives. My opinion is that bias isn't an issue: I'm more than happy with any scholarly viewpoint on historicity. I've even found that Christian scholars, when they specifically address historicity (versus belief), are forthright regarding the problems of historical evidence. But that's the catch: Too many WP editors want to include statements of belief in this article, rather than statements regarding historicity. Fearofreprisal (talk) 02:59, 3 September 2014 (UTC) Edited 05:05, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I am finding, with longer involvement at this page, that there seem to be many editors here for which bias is not an issue, for they do seem to have discovered that there are indeed WP mechanisms for dealing with bias which still permit effective and cooperative editing. Such was not the first impression, as I am sure one can understand. And I have already seen far too many places on WP where editors wish to place statements of their own belief, in other words, POV pushing. Bias is everywhere in the world, and one form we encounter on WP comes from editors who insist that their own POV is not biased, and push on that basis. When it comes to productive editing, and to measuring WP:RS, scholarly viewpoints are not the only ones that are valid to consider. But that is because (first) the unscholarly can still sometimes pursue a scholarly attitude with regards to close observation, articulate reporting, and a willingness to authenticate both strengths and weaknesses of process, insights, and materials, plus openness about their own work. The attitude can place more stress on how conclusions are drawn than on what the conclusions themselves are. It is a process designed to enhance a revelation of idea, in order to promote understanding. That's a principle of real scholarship. Too often scholars themselves fail to do this, while amateurs can succeed brilliantly at it. And of course, they can be Christian, or Muslim, or Jewish, or atheist, or any of an array of beliefs: both the successful and the not so successful. And so it is with WP editors too.

I will give you another of my biases. Whenever someone tells me that there is only one way to do something, or one process to reach an end, or one methodology to follow, or some restriction on what may be considered, what I see is a failure to seek and to explore, and ultimately an artificial hindrance to understanding. WP editing as a job requires understanding, and all the tools that can be brought to bear in order to achieve it. Understanding is not the same thing as being convinced, but it is certainly the starting point for resolving disputes. Each editor has not only the responsibility to pursue it, but is able to contribute according to the ability to achieve it. It's a skill. I recognize the misalignments that exist. But it's not a catch, except insofar as "this is what you get". Really, WP is the real world too, and we're all people with all that implies. We'll always have to deal with that. So, let's do our best. Evensteven (talk) 04:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Asking me to prove a negative while accusing me of IDHT and bad logic is laughable. The problem is that sources outside of the Christian and Muslim communities are not publishing material in favor of Jesus of Nazareth's historicity. I can't produce those sources that aren't talking about it, much the same as I cannot demonstrate that there are not sources describing Jesus as a lizard by providing a source. If you want to deny that the difference between 55% and 100% is a sign of a biased sample, I would suggest that the person that needs a statistics refresher course isn't me.—Kww(talk) 04:55, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Any chance of cutting back on the wall of text, and focusing on improving the article? Fearofreprisal (talk) 05:05, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd love to improve the article. First step is to qualify all references to "most scholars" and to generally qualify the support to indicate that it is predominantly Christian, with a striking absence of outside support. So long as we have editors that insist that I prove a negative before doing so, I'm at a loss as to how.—Kww(talk) 05:22, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, then, please do not misstate what I have said, and please do not do it repeatedly. I have made it quite clear that I am not asking you to prove anything, most especially not a negative. "Present whatever sources you have to support your point of view" is what I said. If your point of view requires the proving of a negative, and you can't do so, I don't know what we can do to accommodate your point of view here. But what I had in mind is presenting sources that contradict the Christian and Muslim viewpoint. Is that also impossible? I wouldn't think so. As for statistics, sorry, but I have a degree in math and a year's study specifically of statistics - enough for basics - and I do know what I'm saying. You're using them in a popular and ill-defined way inconsistent with the tools. If you claim otherwise, please tell me something about your findings: correlations found, confidence levels, that kind of thing. Better yet, provide a reliable source for the study and report on those results. What you've got is an intuition here, but it's not reliable. I've stated in a comment above how I think weasel words and tags should be regarded, and how to keep them both contained and non-weasel. I don't think I can back your "first step" as you describe it here. But maybe an example in an edit would help clarify your position. Who knows? We can bandy words here all day, but when we see the impact of one example, everything can become much clearer. Maybe there's less of a problem than supposed. Make a start. Try something. We'll get much further. What's to lose? An edit, reverted? I've needed to do that to myself a couple of times. It happens. But not every time. Cheers! Evensteven (talk) 07:02, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

You do understand the semantic difference between "people of other religious backgrounds are publishing papers opposing this" and "people of other religious backgrounds are not publishing in support of this", don't you? You seem to keep arguing with the former and providing critiques of the former when I'm only claiming the latter. All the statistical analysis in the world will fail if you don't understand the problem statement.—Kww(talk) 13:27, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I understand it. I don't attach significance to it. And I don't accept the reasoning behind the significance you attribute to it. Evensteven (talk) 16:54, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

The charge of bias in the sources seems to be largely hypothetical here. There is a large pile of secondary sources, attesting that virtually all scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed. What scholarly sources contradict this? If none, then I suggest that this is not the place to right great wrongs. Kww needs to start writing and publishing his own papers on the subject, if he is unable to find scholars that agree with him. We just report what's out there. Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:39, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Not hypothetical at all. Your "scholars of antiquity" are virtually 100% Christian. That's an anomalous concentration of Christians. If you found that the only people extolling the virtues of the Ford Fiesta were employees of the Ford Motor Company, would you insist on a rigorous statistical analysis of your sample before coming to the conclusion that you had a problem with source bias?—Kww(talk) 13:56, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

It's astonishing that you think there are no secular scholars of antiquity. But that's neither here nor there. If you have no source discussing this, then it would obviously be original research to point out this alleged bias in the article. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Can you show me a few of these non-Christian, non-Muslim "scholars of antiquity" that support the historic existence of Jesus of Nazareth? Seriously, for all the energy spent denying the existence of the problem, it should be simple to demonstrate the existence of counterexamples.—Kww(talk) 14:35, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

There are secondary sources in the article that already say this. Have you checked these yet? Is not Michael Grant a secular historian of some repute as well? Also, I am still waiting for your sources that challenge the neutrality of this material. Sławomir Biały (talk) 15:54, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Which of these secondary sources are not published by Christians? What makes you believe Michael Grant was not a Christian? Judging from his quote about "Our Lord's Latin", he would certainly appear to be one.—Kww(talk) 18:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, we don't really know, and this is likely to run into no true Scottsman territory. That's what underscores the importance of secondary sources that review the literature. One of the sources has an unequivocal statement that virtually all scholars, both Christian and non-Christian, agree that Jesus was a historical person. Have you examined that source? Does it give references? Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

If it's simple, Kww, please show us how by demonstrating. But otherwise, it's not a problem anyway and not worth the time here. Evensteven (talk) 17:02, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Kww, you have said that you have been unable to find Hindu or Buddhist scholars that support the historicity of Jesus. Please indicate what sources you have found and what they say on the subject. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 17:07, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

One more time: I was unable to find Hindu or Buddhist scholars that support the historicity of Jesus. I can only show you my empty hands. There are no sources for me to show, because the problem I'm pointing out is the absence of sources. You are making the same conflation as Evensteven: not being able to find Hindu and Buddhist historians that speak in favor of historicity is not the same thing as being able to find Hindu and Buddhist historians that actively write in opposition to it.—Kww(talk) 18:03, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Please identify the sources you have consulted. Without identifying the sources you have consulted and indicating their specific position taken, be it positive, negative, neutral, or N/A, you donot give us any basis from which to determine WEIGHT according to those sources. John Carter (talk) 18:30, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Kww, if you even ask the question you can find people saying that Grant was an atheist, and nobody saying that he was a Christian. Besides, your hermeneutic of assumed bias is a big problem. If there were significant disputes within the field of Ehrman's and Grant's characterization of it, Then I would say that there is grounds for possibly disregarding their assessments. But your argument seems to me that you don't need to bother. I don't accept that. We're talking to prominent figures here; if people disagreed with these assessments, it wouldn't be hard to find the disagreement. So produce it. Mangoe (talk) 20:11, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

It turns out we do have reliable sources both inside and outside the field of biblical scholarship that question its methodological soundness and impartiality. See Historical_Jesus#Criticism_of_historical_Jesus_research. I'm not aware of similar statements about Grant. In any event, it's not reason enough to eliminate him as a reliable source, especially as he is one of very few historians who have written on the matter. We do need to say more about the backgrounds of the various people that we cite as sources, just as we do in the HJ article. We may need to improve on the prose in the Bold proposal that was recently Deleted, but we do need something like it. Martijn Meijering (talk) 20:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

LOL @ people thinking there's a "wikipedia apologetics team". A majority of wikipedia editors are atheists or agnostics.

This section appears to be the work of another person who watched "Zeitgeist" for the first time.Ordessa (talk) 18:22, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Kww, please supply a source that either describes/characterizes the problem you are relating or one which has brought it to your attention. It is not a problem for which there is any action to be taken here as long as you alone are the source. If your hands are empty, then I sympathize, but I cannot see how the article is affected, nor can it be so only on that basis. Evensteven (talk) 20:00, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you perhaps suggesting that the article should read "Some Christian scholars and former Christian scholars state that virtually all historians believe ..."? Wdford (talk) 20:08, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

If you're asking me, no I wouldn't suggest that. But perhaps Kww? Evensteven (talk) 20:12, 3 September 2014 (UTC) (Should have been obvious to me it wasn't addressed to me.) Evensteven (talk) 20:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

WEASEL is about "Unsupported attributions." It says, "the examples given above are not automatically weasel words." If a source says most experts support the historicity of Jesus, while very few contest it, then we can say that.

The fact that most historians who have studied Jesus come from cultures that are predominantly Christian is irrelevant, unless reliable sources say their background has influenced their judgment. Even the greatest skeptics, such as Richard Dawkins, say that he probably was an actual person, about whom numerous myths were added by his followers and their followers in he decades following his death. Dawkins provides numerous examples of similar cases he calls "Cargo Cults." Does anyone think that his background in a Christian country biased him toward Jesus?

The alternative is that a group of Jewish people invented Jesus. While it is possible, it seems like a less likely scenario.

TFD (talk) 20:24, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I tend to be sympathetic to these comments. Specifically: about "Unsupported attributions.", yes; "If a source says most experts support the historicity of Jesus, while very few contest it, then we can say that.", yes. But if another source contests the first one, well, there needs to be a community consensus to continue saying it, at a minimum. And as I said above, as a practical matter, I think it serves the quality of the article to employ these kinds of words only when it is quite clear and undisputed that they are accurate. In addition, it serves the editing community to minimize mention of intermediate levels of source support, as in "some", "a few", "a majority", etc. These judgments are more susceptible to argument, which wastes community time, and leaves the article open to outside criticism anyway. It's generally better just to stick to what is firm, and where it is not firm, to discuss the most prominent variants with a minimum of characterization. That also tends to support neutrality. Evensteven (talk) 20:46, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

"If a source says most experts support the historicity of Jesus, while very few contest it, then we can say that." Great! Now, all you need to do is find that source. Here's a clue: none of the sources cited in the article at this point say this. Fearofreprisal (talk) 21:59, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I need do nothing, although I may if I choose. In the mean time, how many sources now in the article do support the historicity of Jesus, and how many do not? While we're at it, how many Christian historians have there been throughout history, and how many do not support it? Yes, the guidelines/rules do not cover this. But are not legal codes' most familiar weak point their inflexibility? Editing consensus can help, although it's not a fail-safe either. What is? Is it really your contention that the statement is inaccurate? What do you suggest? Evensteven (talk) 22:22, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Fearofreprisal, not even the source that comes from Bart Ehrman's 2011 review of the literature about Jesus?Ordessa (talk) 22:54, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Evensteven - figure of speech. No one needs to do anything here, unless they want to include material in the article that's likely to be challenged. How many sources now in the article do support the historicity of Jesus? Those that I've looked up tend to be weak, cherrypicked, or mis-cited. As for Christian historians throughout history, consider this citation:

"The early church was also not interested in the historical figure of Jesus, that is, in the life and personality of the Jesus who walked and taught in Galilee. Kähler was right: the only Jesus who meets us through the pages of the Gospels... is the Christ of faith."

— James Dunn, Jesus Remembered, page 77)

Ordessa - If you mean Ehrman's 2011 book,Forged: writing in the name of God, it is, to start with, not a review of the literature about Jesus. But, beyond that, Ehrman never actually mentions historicity in that book. Read its table of contents, and you'll see that the book is about something entirely different. Fearofreprisal (talk) 01:20, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Again, will the apologetics team please review wikipedia policy. As far as the WHO tags, obvious Christian bias is irrelavent at this point. You can't say that "virtually all scholars", EVEN IF THE SOURCE SAYS THAT. That is not how Wikipedia works, and we're not making an exception because a few people are letting their religious beliefs undermine their integrity. Again, PLEASE REVIEW THE FOLLWING:

Usage This tag is for placement after attributions to vague "authorities" such as "serious scholars", "historians say", "some researchers", "many scientists", and the like. For example:

Markup Experts agree... Visual effect Experts[who?] agree... You may use either one of the following formats:

or

Use it when no specific examples of identifiable individuals from that group are named who could be used to verify the statements or beliefs attributed to the group. Preferably, the offending statement should be made more specific by identifying particular individuals and then either cited or tagged for needing citation. Similarly, the statement should be deleted if the claim about the group is sufficiently vague as to be unsupportable.

Use good judgment when deciding whether greater specificity is actually in the best interests of the article. Words like some or most are not banned and can be useful and appropriate. If greater specificity would result in a tedious laundry list of items with no real importance, then Wikipedia should remain concise, even if it means being vague. If the reliable sources are not specific—if the reliable sources say only "Some people..."—then Wikipedia must remain vague.

This tag will categorize tagged articles into Category:Articles with specifically marked weasel-worded phrases. This template is a self-reference and is part of the Wikipedia project rather than the encyclopedic content.

Thank you very much, and to whoever removed those tags, you're violating Wikipedia policy, and whoever has been going around saying "most (Christian) scholars" you can't do that. It's against the policy, but if you insist, that's fine. It just shows that you are willing to lie and cheat the system to protect what you view as Truth. Please actually read the policy. You simply can't say "most scholars" even if that's what the source says. Cherry pick some other quotations to try and get your point across. Dr. Richard Carrier's new peer reviewed book on the the myth of Christianity's central figure is a good place to start.

Dear Anonymous User,

Richard Carrier has a massive anti-religious, anti-christianity bias. He puiblishes via anti-religious groups. We're not going to shove your agenda into a wikipedia article.

Read a properly peer-reviewed book like Bart Ehrman's sometime. Or just pick up a history book.Ordessa (talk) 15:49, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Policy continuation

A break for editing convenience.

Fearofreprisal, to some extent, sources for many articles are cherrypicked: too many to include, pick most reliable, pick most notable, pick most focused on topic, pick the ones available to editors, etc. Do you mean something else? Mis-cited? Ok, that's a simple error that can be corrected by an edit. Pick one, correct it, and state the nature of the citing error. Weak in support? You might be right about some of them. Unfortunately, Dunn is not even talking about historicity at all, but about personal characteristics such as personality. "Christ of faith" I find to be a nebulous phrase, meaning I'm not sure what exactly. I'd have said the Gospels do a great deal more portraying of Jesus' actions: his words, his deeds, his teaching, where he went, whom he met, what they said, etc. But that's me, and that's the Gospels, and an observation about the Dunn quote alone. That considered, I ask again if your contention is that the statement is inaccurate. That's an exceedingly common reason to edit an article, all other considerations aside.

To unsigned editor above, to repeat TDK above, WP:WEASEL says "the examples given above are not automatically weasel words." There is no absolute ban. It also says it is about "unsupported attributions." One can't use such words (or any words) to weasel out of providing a source by making vague or ambiguous claims, nor to weasel out of editing to make the text clear. Not all material requires a source - we can probably say water is wet without attribution. Sources are for backing up material that is not so widely shared and may be challenged or reasonably challengeable, and that doesn't require weasel words to enforce. Some words are vaguer than others (how's that for precision?). Better language is to be sought always, not just to avoid POV claims. The most relevant, key item here is accuracy. Is the statement reflective of the actual situation it tries to describe? But a second is relevant: clarity. Although accurate, is there a better way to convey the situation than using the current words? I don't think we really need to invoke WEASEL to get at the root of whether or not to edit this statement. These other questions will do the job better. Evensteven (talk) 03:16, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

By "cherrypicked" I mean exactly what WP:CHERRYPICKING says: "selecting information without including contradictory or significant qualifying information from the same source and consequently misrepresenting what the source says." Regards Dunn: Beyond reading p. 77 of Jesus Remembered (which will clarify the term "Christ of faith", you should also read p. 126-126. The citation to p. 339 that's included in the article is cherrypicked: the "universal assent" is among Christians, not among scholars, and it is based on belief, not on historicity. Fearofreprisal (talk) 04:27, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Ok. Misrepresentation of what a source says is no good whatever form it takes. Find occurrences, edit, and say specifically what is the problem in each. Seems like straightforward editing to me. I've done that myself. Do you see a difficulty with that approach? Evensteven (talk) 06:52, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

No real difficulty -- except for the fact that such changes often get reverted rather quickly, by members of the "wikipedia apologetics team" (OK - it's not a team, but there is an informal group of Christian editors here who are knowledgeable of apologetics and WP policy, and who are highly dedicated to preserving the status quo POV of this article.) Fearofreprisal (talk) 08:57, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, POV is a separate question. It's always possible that one's own assessment of a source will conflict with someone else's, and even when there are points of view involved (when aren't there?) that doesn't make the challenge illegitimate. I've seen elsewhere (and in non-religious topics) where one or two editors with a strong POV feel that the editing community consists of an oppositional team when they are so challenged, but just because a community forms a consensus does not mean that they are staking out a ground and position to defend all comers either. I'm less familiar here than some other places, but I'm afraid I have not seen an unwarranted protectionist policy being pursued here, and simply offer that as my observation. I have also taken note of your position/interpretation/assessment of things, in which you distinguish Christians from scholars (as disjoint groups), and characterize writings as "based on belief, not on historicity" (also as disjoint possibilities). Sorry, but that's not a researched opinion, not impartial, and not even very reasonable (in my view). If you find resistance to an edit, this may well be the source of the resistance, and you should understand where that is coming from and why. The status quo of an article is never the point. But changes need to be improvements, not backward slides. It is not within your purview alone to decide what is or is not an improvement, and that is a central aspect of editing WP. So, right or wrong, we all have to expect some opposition from time to time, must know how to support our position, and must know to recognize and admit the weaknesses in our own position. That is taking a scholarly attitude, and it serves both ourselves and the articles. Evensteven (talk) 15:39, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

You seem to be confused about what positions of mine are "researched opinion." But I don't want to encourage this wall of text to grow further, so let's skip it.

@Bill the Cat 7:, an editor who has done nothing but remove and revert edits here over the last 4 years, just reverted one of my edits (without discussion.) He's an example of the apologists on WP (see his page at User:Bill_the_Cat_7/CMT_FAQ.) The first thing on his user page is a link to "How to win a revert war." Fearofreprisal (talk) 16:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

It's been discussed endlessly. That the baptism of jesus and his crucifixion are historical event's are doubted by no one except by those who are trying to sell nonsense. Stop trying to introduce fringe ideas into a serious subject. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 17:01, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

You're a funny guy. I like how you make a completely POV statement, then throw in "fringe," as if that claim actually has any merit. But the citation at question is not related to historicity. Dunn (the source) does indeed discuss historicity, but this particular citation is not about it. If you want to include it, you need to show that it falls within the scope of historicity. Fearofreprisal (talk) 17:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Bill the Cat 7 - If you want to include this citation, all you need do is show that "almost universal assent" = "historicity." Otherwise, it's outside the scope of the article. Fearofreprisal (talk) 18:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect. If you want to remove a citation, you MUST get consensus. Any further reverts will be considered vandalism. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 18:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Fearofreprisal, topics often extend beyond a dictionary definition of a word, and there is always room for support or auxiliary material as long as the article is not overburdened. Artificial restrictions may not be made on the basis of narrow definition. Evensteven (talk) 18:55, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Bill the Cat 7 - it's an extraneous citation that has nothing to do with historicity. And do you really think I'm dumb enough to violate WP:3RR?

You just did. Martijn Meijering (talk) 19:34, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Evensteven - Before, you said "Misrepresentation of what a source says is no good whatever form it takes." The citation that Bill insists on including is not about historicity, is not representative of Dunn's statements on historicity, and isn't even referenced in the accompanying article text. WP:SCOPE allows it to be removed. But, since we're [[WP:3RR], any further action is probably needs to go through dispute resolution. Should be interesting -- Bill is an experienced revert warrior. Fearofreprisal (talk) 19:07, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with BtC's list that coming up with another list in the opposite direction wouldn't "fix". To the degree I can follow this, this seems to be about trying to get rid of any testimony to state of the field. This argument that Ehrman and Grant and any of what is a rather long list of people cannot act as experts on this is tendentious; until people within the field who testify to a different state are produced, this comes across as a campaign to hide what appears to be the truth by attempting to discredit what turns out to be a very large number of people. Mangoe (talk) 19:22, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Tendentious editing is exactly what I think is happening. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Fearofreprisal, WP:SCOPE allows it to be retained. "Artificially or unnecessarily restricting the scope of an article to select a particular POV on a subject area is frowned upon." Historicity is a term that identifies the heart of the topic, but as with many articles, the title does not necessarily express its bounds. Things related to historicity are permitted, even if they are not directly historicity themselves. Your view is artificially restrictive and is apparently not shared. Consider "article scope, in terms of what exactly the subject and its scope is, is an editorial choice determined by consensus." And finally, "scope is to do with whether it even can be mentioned or summarised or not." It is not your decision alone as to whether or not this can be mentioned. Evensteven (talk) 21:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

So, what is the consensus scope of the article? Where do you want to draw the line? Would a statement from the Pope saying "Jesus was crucified" be appropriate to the article? Fearofreprisal (talk) 22:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

It would not be necessary. Evensteven (talk) 22:34, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I take it you don't want to touch the "scope" issue when it comes to actually saying what it is (versus just saying I've got it wrong)? My take is that if you don't want to say, then you're not actually contributing to establishing the consensus for the scope. Your prerogative, of course. Fearofreprisal (talk) 22:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I believe I have touched the scope issue quite clearly, just above, and in my recent article edits. Related material is permitted. Specifically, attestations as to Jesus' baptism and crucifixion are directly connected to his historicity, since those events could not have happened if he had not existed. I don't think there is any way that these source materials can be said to have no bearing on historicity. They are clearly relevant to the heart of the article, not even close to the boundary where any decision would need to be made regarding scope. Furthermore, your comment above about "a statement from the Pope" is not only unduly provocative, but is also a further indication of your insistence that no Christian is capable of being a reliable source, because all Christians believe in his historicity only by faith and for no other possible reason, their bias is too great. No sir! I will not buy that argument; it is a bias unto itself. To equal it in the opposite direction one would have to say that no atheist is capable of being a reliable source here because all atheists disbelieve in his historicity only by their opposition to religion. I most certainly do not say that either. The position you have staked out is untenable because it is unreasoning, prejudicial by group, and unwilling to be examined itself. I hope you will reconsider where you are taking a stance, and recognize that the world is not black and white, nor yet gray. Take a look at the color! Evensteven (talk) 23:27, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

With many Christians, the bias IS too great. I work with and live among Christians who frequently make it obvious that they cannot separate the concepts of their belief through their religion that Jesus existed, and whether the historic record proves that he did. While it's possible that some can, how can we know where to draw the line? HiLo48 (talk) 02:33, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Evensteven, please stop twisting people's words. Neither Fearofreprisal (nor I) have stated that all Christians believe in his historicity only by faith. We have stated that there would be a bias towards believing in his historicity due to their faith. For someone that wants to apply rigorous statistical analysis to glaring imbalances, you certainly seem willing to misstate other people's arguments.—Kww(talk) 03:01, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

That happens a lot here. It's one reason I rarely try to argue with some of the people here any more. HiLo48 (talk) 03:04, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I came here because of John Carter (I would say "JC" but because of the context that's ambiguous :P ) having posted on my second favourite noticeboard (my favourite is RSN, for the record).

@Hilo48: I tend to agree with you a lot more than others (remember the DYK incident?), but "Christians are biased, therefore Jesus didn't exist" is a non sequitur. I agree that many conservative evangelical Christian scholars (though not the majority of Catholic and Episcopalian scholars) are biased and make what could be called WP:FRINGE claims regarding whether, say, the resurrection of Jesus can be proven historically, all Christians believe Jesus existed historically, and since this article is solely about whether Jesus existed, in this instance all Christians are right on the only issue that matters. If you want to argue specifics about the historical Jesus (and please bear in mind I tend to agree with the most liberal scholars on that matter), we also have an article on that topic -- you don't seem to have ever argued the issues there.

@Everyone: I also note that despite all the citing of WP:NOTFORUM the proportion of users (on both sides) of these disputes who have actually edited the article is pretty slim: a brief Ctrl+F-ing of the history page indicates Hilo48 has not touched the article, and User:John Carter has only made three small reverts, two of which were more than five years ago; Fearofreprisal has been making dozens of edits over the last few weeks, apparently mostly edit-warring over the same material, which brings me to...

@User:Fearofreprisal: I'm not sure what you're arguing over, and therefore I am not sure if I agree or disagree with you on the substance. I am not about to read-through the entire cluster-bleep discussion on this page, but I did examine your most recent string of edits. Regarding this one, is your complaint (1) that devoting a paragraph to Dunn while more arguably more-prominent scholars Ehrman, Meier and Crossan have to share the following paragraph is a violation of WP:WEIGHT, (2) that Dunn doesn't say what he is being cited as saying, (3) that this article is simply about whether Jesus existed and details about what scholars can say about him belong in another article, or (4) that Dunn is wrong in stating that the majority of scholars consider the baptism and crucifixion to be historical facts? If the answer is (1) then I am inclined to agree with you, and I will help you discuss that matter here; if (2), then I would say I want to see a quotation from the source, but in this case since other reliable sources do say that we can just use any of the hundreds of other sources saying the same thing; if (3) then, as I told Hilo48 above, I agree with you in theory, but a brief discussion of the evidence for Jesus' existence is relevant, and "Christians wouldn't make up embarrassing facts like his baptism or crucifixion" is arguably the best such evidence (Ehrman 2012); if (4) then you are just plain wrong -- virtually all historians of this field consider Jesus to have lived, been baptized by John the Baptist, and executed by crucifixion. If you are in fact arguing about (4) then you will be WP:TBANned very soon for promotion of a WP:FRINGE theory.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

What a silly post. Just after we had discussed the issue of misrepresenting others' arguments, you completely misrepresented mine. I did not say "Christians are biased, therefore Jesus didn't exist". Nobody has said that. Why do people so stupidly misrepresent others in this discussion? How can consensus ever be achieved when people do that? HiLo48 (talk) 22:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I read every one of your posts on this page (that hadn't been archived). All of them were either "you are treating this page as a forum!", "that other person is NOT treating this page as a forum!" or "Christians are biased!" -- can you show me a genuine example of where you said something else? What exactly are you looking to do with this article? Are you not trying to make the page more "amenable" to the idea that Jesus never existed? That is certainly the impression I get when you have never edited the article and the closest thing you have made to a substantive argument is "Christians are biased". Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:47, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

If you read every one of my posts, why did you claim that I had said "Christians are biased, therefore Jesus didn't exist"? I didn't. You claiming that I did is dishonest and inflammatory. Why do people so stupidly misrepresent others in this discussion? How can consensus ever be achieved when people do that? HiLo48 (talk) 02:46, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I call them as I see them. You said With many Christians, the bias IS too great. I work with and live among Christians who frequently make it obvious that they cannot separate the concepts of their belief through their religion that Jesus existed, and whether the historic record proves that he did. How else is this supposed to be interpreted? Since you have never actually edited this article, it's extremely unclear what exactly you are trying to accomplish. This page is for discussion of article content, and the above-quoted post appears to be a claim that we cannot use sources written by Christians for the claim that Jesus existed. Additionally, you should know that the historical record can never "prove" that someone existed beyond all doubt: historians make probability judgements, and in this case 99.9999% of historians consider there to be an extremely high probability that Jesus existed. That is all that matters here. The historians' theological convictions are irrelevant. If you think we can't cite historians because those historians are Christians, that unnecessarily disqualifies the overwhelming majority of historians who work in the field of early Christianity. It's generally fair to assume that 99.99999% of historians in different fields also accept the conclusions of their more-qualified colleagues, but why does that even matter? What are you trying to accomplish here? And why are you taking such an aggressive tone? I can tell you have had bad experiences with fundamentalist Christians on here before (and I sympathize completely), but there's no need to treat everyone who disagrees with you like a narrow-minded fundamentalist. I have agreed with you every time we have interacted before, and for all I know you and I might agree on the substance here, but I can't tell because your posts aren't entirely clear. Your earlier post that I was responding to implied you want the article to imply that there is some doubt that Jesus existed, but now you are apparently denying that. Perhaps you could clarify and then we could start working through the issues? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Evensteven - Touched the "scope" issue? Maybe a little, but not with much clarity. In any event, let's take examine your "related material" criterion. What makes something related? And how much space should be spent on this related material?" Where do you draw the line?

Also, your inference that I've said no Christian is capable of being a reliable source flies in the face of everything I've said in this talk page. It's a false narrative. Shame on you. Fearofreprisal (talk) 03:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Very well then Kww, Fearofreprisal, I got that wrong. Please accept my apologies. Perhaps it will now sound suspect for me to say so, but I had no intention of twisting words. I hate it when I see it happen in other cases. I like it less if I left that impression. If you will grant me the good will to believe that, then you may understand how I now really don't get what you're talking about in this thing about Christians and scholars, and how that's supposed to relate to historicity. One thing I seem to be hearing is bitterness about how some Christians have acted towards you, and resentment about ... what? a lack of honest engagement? I find this discussion has opened some of that same kind of bitterness in me too. One thing I will say is that I don't think Christians are superior to others, nor are others superior. I think we're all in the same boat together, all humans. Biases occur all over the place, not just in Christians. And they are just as prominent in non-believers as in believers. On those points I do stand.

As for your questions on scope, FOR, I find there is no reply to them that can reasonably be given. The answers would all depend on the specific situation about which they might be asked. An absolutish answer would just be artificial. What makes something related to something else? One can only recognize it and answer accordingly. How much space? Depends on how much you've got, how one must maintain balance in the article, things like that. Where do I draw a line? Nowhere, ever. I look at the other questions and make a choice: this looks better, or that - take this approach, or that one. And here on WP, those answers finally don't lie with me, but with the consensus. I'd just offer my insights for consideration. And I'd listen to the same from others. Maybe I'd hear something better than what I had. Sometimes I do.

For now, please pardon. As I have said, I find I have grown weary, and maybe irritable as well. I am going to take some time off from this page and discussion, and will return when I feel ready. Wishing you the best until then. Evensteven (talk) 05:30, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

@Hijiri88::

• (1) I never suggested this.
• (2) Dunn doesn't refer to "scholars." See Jesus Remembered, p. 339 [11].
• (3) This article is not about the "existence of Jesus." It is about the historicity of Jesus. You don't seem to understand the difference.
• (4) Dunn didn't say what you just said he did. Go back and read the citation. And note where Dunn quotates the word 'facts'. This is no accident (p. 102, 109.)

You managed to strike out 4 times out of 4 - a remarkable record.

It might make sense for you to actually do your homework before coming to the talk page for an article you've never contributed to, and accusing someone of WP:edit warring, and threatening them with a topic ban. Fearofreprisal (talk) 19:19, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

@Fearofreprisal:: I did not "strike out". Assuming good faith, I provided a solid list of all the possible motivations I could think of for your recent string of edits. Like I said, I'm not interested in reading what a bunch of Wikipedia editors think about the historicity of Jesus on this page; I'm here to help you resolve the current content dispute. You didn't actually answer my question. Please explain to me what the difference between "historicity of Jesus" and "existence of Jesus" is: the article clearly defines "historicity of Jesus" as: "the analysis of historical evidence to determine whether Jesus of Nazareth existed as a historical figure, and whether any of the major milestones in his life as portrayed in the gospels can be confirmed as historical events". This means that even if (3) was right you would be wrong because "virtually all historians accept to basic facts about Jesus' life as recorded in the synoptic gospels" fits the second point perfectly. And I am not interested in buying a book by Dunn: give me a quotation, and if Dunn in fact doesn't say what the article quotes him as saying, then (as I already said, but was ignored by you) we can just use one of the hundreds of other sources that say the same thing.

Also, I have not edited this article before, but have contributed a fair bit to articles in this area ("this area" being the kind of stuff Bart Ehrman tends to write about and Dale Martin tends to talk about). What have you contributed to these articles?

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Regarding 3), I don't recall seeing a clear definition of the difference between existence and historicity. They sound like synonyms to me. Martijn Meijering (talk) 19:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Historicity simply means "historical authenticity." FOR, do you have a different definition? Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 19:57, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Martijn - if they were synonoyms, then we wouldn't need this article, would we?

I don't see the logic, why wouldn't we? Martijn Meijering (talk) 22:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Bill - That's a simplistic definition. You might look at Historicity for a little better definition. (In any event, it's not the same thing as "existence.") Fearofreprisal (talk) 22:23, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

If you want a definition, you use a dictionary - that's why dictionaries exist. The dictionaries say that Historicity simply means "historical authenticity." We maintain this article to explain to readers the position of scholars on Jesus' historicity, not to debate an imagined distinction between historicity and existence. Perhaps the Historicity article needs a clean-up too? Wdford (talk) 23:08, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Are we STILL arguing the toss over this? Out of curiosity, I read the citation from Dunn (Jesus Remembered, page 339): he says, "Two things in the life of Jesus command almost universal assent". The plain meaning of those words is that almost everybody agrees that these things are true. Fearofreprisal, on the other hand, insists that 'the "universal assent" is among Christians, not among scholars, and it is based on belief, not on historicity.' That is putting words in Dunn's mouth: he is a serious enough scholar to say "among Christians" if that is what he means, and to specify if he means 'based on belief'. It seems that Fearofreprisal wants the sources to say what he thinks rather than what they actually say. And I don't think we are going to get anywhere until he specifies what he thinks "historicity" means if it does not mean whether Jesus actually existed. --Rbreen (talk) 00:09, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Wdford - If you want a definition on Wiktionary, you use a dictionary. If you want a definition on Wikipedia, you use reliable sources. Feel free to provide some reliable sources to show that historicity and existence are the same thing. (Oh... those sources don't exist, do they? Too bad.) And, certainly, feel free to clean-up the Historicity article. I'll definitely enjoy watching the process.

Rbreen - You're right, of course about Dunn is a serious scholar. So, why would he say "almost Universal assent" when he knows that approximately 1.6 billion Muslims specifically do *not* believe that Jesus was Crucified? (Not to mention the minimum 2 billion people in the world who have no opinion on the subject?) And why would he *not* say "almost universal assent among [relevant] scholars" if that's what he meant? Go back and read p.337, and p. 340, then look at the table of contents, and see where Dunn discusses historicity, then read p. 125 and 126, where he distinguishes historicity versus historical Jesus research. You might also look at his statement of assumptions (he actually makes one), where he makes it clear that his starting place is the assumption that the Synoptic Gospels are historically accurate (which may be a reasonable starting place for apologetics, but not for historical research.) I'll let you find that one yourself, as I'm a little tired of doing your homework for you. Knock yourself out. Fearofreprisal (talk) 00:27, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Fearofreprisal, if you want a definition on Wikipedia, you use reliable sources, like a dictionary. And find a source that says historicity and existence are independent things. Knock yourself out. Evensteven (talk) 01:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Ah yes, Fearofreprisal, the old "Billions of people agree with me" argument. I've had that one on here before - from religious apologists who insist their view is correct because "2 billion Christians believe this". Interesting to hear it from the other side.--Rbreen (talk) 09:48, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

This is a perfect example of how you miss the point. Dunn says that these details have 'almost universal assent'. The plain meaning of this is, 'almost everybody agrees'. Clearly, that is what he means. You argue that many people do not, in fact, agree with these points. Whether that is true or not is irrelevant; the problem is that you then go on to argue that what he actually means is that all Christians agree. That is your interpretation. Clearly, you've done some homework. Good for you. But your homework amounts to original research. --Rbreen (talk) 10:20, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

If I may interject with a brief comment here after skim-reading this lengthy debate - I do think that it's fair to expect people to familiarise themselves with sources rather than dismiss their contents out of hand. That goes for both sides of the debate, of course. Regards, Samsara (FA • FP) 11:43, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

@Samsara:: If you could skim-read this debate and understand what was going on, I commend you. It looks to me like people are arguing over the definition of "historicity", even though virtually all the sources seem to be unified in believing "historicity of Jesus" means "whether Jesus existed or not".[12][13][14] If I am misinterpreting Fearofreprisal (as he/she accused me of doing once already, with providing any clarification of how I had misinterpreted) I apologize, but it really does look like if this was an edit war rather than a talk page dispute it would quickly wind up on WP:LAME... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

You gotta be kidding me. Since when did links to Google searches become citations to reliable sources? You could settle the question of historicity/existence immediately, by providing actual citations. Fearofreprisal (talk) 17:52, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

We have provided citations to reliable sources, namely dictionaries. Its now up to you to provide citations to reliable sources that contradict those dictionaries, and which give an alternate meaning to the word in a context that is relevant to this article. Knock yourself out. Wdford (talk) 18:05, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Wdford - what are you talking about? I was referring to the links Hijiri88 provided to some google searches. That has nothing to do with citations to dictionaries. Fearofreprisal (talk) 18:54, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Fearofreprisal, it does have to do with how unclear you are in getting to the point. What question of historicity/existence? There is no ascertainable question. Please find a source that says historicity and existence are independent things. The dictionaries are clear. Evensteven (talk) 20:26, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I linked to Google searches to show that the majority of scholarly papers under university domain names, as well as scholarly books and papers in said universities' library catalogues, clearly use the phrase "historicity of Jesus" in the sense "historical existence of Jesus". (Along the lines of "The historicity of Jesus has never really been in doubt among serious scholars" and so on.) Individual reliable sources are pretty useless for this purpose, but you can trawl through my searches now, User:Fearofreprisal and try to find a single instance of the phrase being used in some other sense. Go ahead. I would be happy to discuss your findings. 182.249.240.40 (talk) 01:55, 7 September 2014 (UTC) (Hijiri88's phone)

Protection

I have protected the article for 24 hours upon observing rather a lot of back-and-forth that risks running foul of our policies. I would urge the participants to please collaborate with a cool and rational attitude. I trust that you can responsibly deal with a rather shorter protection period than has historically been enacted on this article, and work collaboratively towards resolving the dispute. I will not hesitate to protect for a longer period if instability resumes. In connection with such protection, it is traditional to also recommend an appraisal of m:The Wrong Version. Regards, Samsara (FA • FP) 00:45, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

@Samsara, the status of the article page now is essentially the pre-editwar version, substantially representing the prior consensus. Evensteven (talk) 01:56, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Casey and Ehrman

I have no plans to enter this debate as I have my hands full at the Gospel of Matthew. However there are two books I would strongly recommend.

• Ehrman, Bart D. (2012). Did Jesus Exist?: The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth. HarperCollins. ISBN 978-0-06-220460-8. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Casey Maurice, (2014). Jesus: Evidence and Argument or Mythicist Myths? A&C Black. ISBN 9780567015051

Unlike James Edwards, both Casey and Ehrman are non Christians. After reading their meticulous evaluation of the historical evidence, I am totally convinced that there truly existed a Jewish rabbi named Jesus of Nazareth. He participated in the Jewish oral tradition of the Second Temple period. The Apostle Matthew compiled these sayings and composed a small, somewhat primitive Hebrew Gospel (possibly on wax tablets) which became the basis or "fountainhead" for much of what we now call the Gospel of Matthew. Also, the first Greek gospel was composed by Marcus within ten tears of the death of Jesus ie 40 CE. See Casey 2014 pp 80-90 Agree or not, Casey and Ehrman are a "must read" for editors interested in this area! - Ret.Prof (talk) 13:35, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

As I said above, the religion of the scholars is irrelevant, since 100% (or maybe 99.999999%) of scholars of the relevant fields, regardless of their theological views, hold the same view on the historicity of Jesus: he existed. Ehrman is a reliable source because he is the most respected New Testament scholar in the United States (he wrote the textbook most of the other scholars use to teach their students, for instance); he is not reliable (or unreliable) because he is not a Christian. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Wait... by "hands full" you mean you are promoting a WP:FRINGE theory almost as fringe-y as the Jesus myth theory, right? That Matthew was originally written in Hebrew? This is patently ridiculous, and 99+% of scholars agree. I'm not going to go into the details here but one pretty obvious piece of evidence that even a layman like me can find pretty easily is that Matthew cites Greek mistranslations of the Hebrew Bible (regarding the virgin birth of Jesus, for instance). If the author of the text could write Hebrew, then he must have been able to read Hebrew, and if he could read Hebrew, why did he not read Isaiah in the original Hebrew, but in Greek? And if he read Isaiah in Hebrew, then surely he must have known that there was no mention of a virgin conceiving a child and that child being called Emmanuel. I forget where, but I think even conservative Michael Heiser agrees here; not specifically on the Isaiah quotation, but on the entry into Jerusalem and how Matthew could not have known about Hebrew poetry and still had Jesus riding on both a colt and an ass. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:52, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

No comment as to the nature or quality of the references here. I will simply observe that characterizations like "must read" tend to sound demanding and can therefore be annoying. In addition, a précis is not necessary; those interested can go look for themselves. Recommendations are best received when asked for, or are offered as a pointer within an ongoing discussion. Together, these things tend to be viewed more as a promotion than a help, and may raise concerns of pushing or POV. A lower tone level devoid of descriptives would probably be more welcomed. Example: "The following sources may provide material for this article: [book 1], [book2]." Evensteven (talk) 18:34, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't wish to be unwelcoming, but if you're not willing to do the hard work of contributing to the article, you're not really helping. While Ret.Prof has contributed to the article (though several years back) -- Hijiri88 and Evensteven have not. Why are you even here? Fearofreprisal (talk) 19:44, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I found my break refreshing. I'm ready now. Evensteven (talk) 22:12, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Fearofreprisal, you have not either. You are just edit-warring, and you seem to be doing so in order to promote a FRINGE POV... Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:00, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Which fringe POV are you suggesting I'm trying to promote? Fearofreprisal (talk) 00:34, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't even know any more. I asked you what exactly you want to do with this article, even providing a list of examples of what I thought you might mean, and all you did was insult me. It would seem that you consider Jesus's historicity (i.e., whether or not Jesus existed historically) to be in doubt. This is a fringe POV. If I have misinterpreted you, I apologize. Can you clarify this? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm taking this conversation off Talk:Historicity of Jesus, because it has nothing to do with improving the article.

You came to the page through John Carter's posting on the Fringe Theories Noticeboard, so it's pretty clear that you were looking for fringe. If you talked to John Carter, he may have even directed you to me.

You started out by *not* reading what I'd written, but rather positing 4 possible things I *might* be saying. You were wrong on all 4. You then continued accusing me of edit warring, and promoting a fringe POV. When I specifically called you on the latter, you couldn't substantiate the accusation. Here's what you said:

I don't even know any more. I asked you what exactly you want to do with this article, even providing a list of examples of what I thought you might mean, and all you did was insult me. It would seem that you consider Jesus's historicity (i.e., whether or not Jesus existed historically) to be in doubt. This is a fringe POV. If I have misinterpreted you, I apologize. Can you clarify this? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not going to "clarify" whether I consider "Jesus's historicity to be in doubt", because it's none of your business, has nothing to do with my ability to edit the article subject to WP's policies and guidelines, and has had no bearing on any of the comments I've made on the talk page.

If you want to continue attacking me, please do it on my talk page, where you're not causing disruption for other editors. But, even better -- just stop accusing me of things you can't substantiate. Fearofreprisal (talk) 18:49, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

@Fearofreprisal:: I did indeed read what you wrote. I read what you wrote on the article itself. I asked politely what it was that you meant by your edit, and you didn't respond, merely insulting me, and now you are haranguing me about it on my own talk page because you apparently have no interest in discussing article content. I have not "attacked you" once. I am moving your discussion back to the main talk page where others can respond, and where it belongs. If you are indeed insinuating that the historical existence of Jesus is in doubt, then that discussion belongs here, not on my page. I have no interest in discussing the matter with you personally, but if you want to discuss what exactly you mean by your edits to this article, please do it here where none of the other participants will miss it. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:29, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality tag

The content is now quite clean and mostly coherent, and the lead is now a clear summary of the content. All that remains to deal with is the neutrality tag. Is there any objection to removing the tag now? If yes, please state the concern, so that we can address it directly? Wdford (talk) 12:01, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The page was protected due to edit wars until last night. I'd appreciate if you can tread lightly for now. We don't want to fan the flames, please. Samsara (FA • FP) 12:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

My main complaints are that the page doesn't properly distinguish between biblical scholars (not the same as theologians) and historians, doesn't state that this subject, though a historical one, is rarely studied by historians and that its literature is written mostly by biblical scholars. It fails to mention the severe criticism of the field's methodological soundness and lack of impartiality that has been made both inside and outside the field, including by at least one historian (Akenson) who has published on the matter. Martijn Meijering (talk) 13:00, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The difficulty here is that the distinction you are drawing is not as clear as it seems. Not all 'biblical scholars' take a historical view (some are only interested in theological interpretation) but since the 19th Century it has been normal to adopt a historical-critical approach that draws on the methods of secular history. You could argue that this still doesn't make them historians. It's a fair criticism to make, although (a) I'm not sure it's been made [can you point me in the direction of the Akenson quote you mention?], and (b) I don't honestly think even secular historians would give much credence to the non-historicity thesis. If there is a well-founded critique of the approach of biblical scholars by, say, classical historians, that would be worth featuring. --Rbreen (talk) 14:18, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

For a), the sources mentioned in Historical_Jesus#Criticism_of_historical_Jesus_research are a good start. Note that the criticism comes from both inside and outside the field of HJ research. I like the comment made in the lede of Biblical studies: "Biblical scholars do not necessarily have a faith commitment to the texts they study, but many do." For b), this is true, we have a newspaper interview in which prominent historians were explicitly asked whether there was a controversy about the historicity of Jesus among historians and they emphatically denied it. This should be mentioned and distinguished from the consensus opinion among biblical scholars, because it's about a different group of scholars. It should also be mentioned that very few historians have published about this and presumably very few have even examined the arguments of mythicists. Martijn Meijering (talk) 14:47, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Makes sense. Could you perhaps draft up a paragraph for a proposed new section of the article, with the references you suggest, entitled "Criticisms of methodologies" or something appropriate? Let's maybe debate it here before it is added to the article. Wdford (talk) 14:56, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I object to removing the neutrality tag. Fearofreprisal (talk) 17:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

For now, I'd second Samsara on that also. Evensteven (talk) 20:31, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I also think Wdford's suggestion for a proposed section makes sense. Evensteven (talk) 20:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

@Mmeijeri:: The section you linked to already looks long enough for a separate article. Has anyone ever considered spinning it out and expanding it to include differences found between the views of different faith traditions and denominations? John Carter (talk) 21:25, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Regarding methodological issues:

"The conclusion seems unavoidable that, in historical Jesus research, adequate attention had not been given to epistemic (methodological) issues, In the social scientific approach one does find efforts to enunciate aspects such as presuppositions, theories, models and methods."

— Historicity and theology, and the quest for historical Jesus, P.A. Geyser

See also: Hall, J. (2007). History, methodologies, and the study of religion. In J. Beckford, & N. Demerath (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of the sociology of religion. (pp. 167-189). London: SAGE Publications Ltd. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.4135/9781848607965.n9

Fearofreprisal (talk) 22:40, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The difference between historicity and existence, redux.

It seems like I'm talking about this a lot. I wish I didn't have to – but so many of the editors who participate on this talk page seem to find the distinction challenging.

So, let me try to explain this as simply as I can. I'm not going to include citations from which I've culled this information, but I have them if necessary.

Let's start with a basic characterization, that historicity focuses on the truth value of knowledge claims about the past (denoting historical actuality, authenticity, and factuality.) Most scholars see historicity as an attribute reserved to human phenomena, which identifies human beings as unique and concrete historical beings.

No matter how you look at it, historicity always comes back to the underlying concept of “history.” Historicity is that which defines history, and signifies the meaning we intend when we say of something that is “historical.”

How do we know something is historical? We use historical methods, which are themselves built on scientific methods. There are actually quite a number of historical methods, and the choice of which to use is almost always based on the research agenda of the historian doing the work. (As you might imagine, theologians generally have different research agendas than, for example, social historians.)

While I'm not going to advocate for one method or another, I think it's reasonable to say that, in historical Jesus research, adequate attention has not been given to epistemic (methodological) issues, compared to the social scientific approach, where one does find efforts to enunciate aspects such as presuppositions, theories, models and methods. This leads to a problem where we can't tell whether a scholar is talking about “historical truth” or “religious truth.”

So, getting back to the question of what is the historicity of Jesus: If we base it on the background that I've just provided, it can be characterized as the truth value of knowledge claims about a unique and concrete human known as Jesus.

What knowledge claims? Any. His birth, his baptism, his ministry, his miracles, his death, his resurrection, his ascention to heaven while an imposter was crucified (Islamic view of Jesus' death), his appearances in America (Book_of_Mormon) and Japan (Shingō,_Aomori#Tomb_of_Jesus_Christ)

But what about his existence?

Consider statements such as “He [Jesus] certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees...” or “Of course Jesus existed” (Ehrman.) How can we determine the truth value of these claims, if we don't even know which Jesus they're talking about?

If you're reading this post, you should be knowledgeable about historical Jesus research. How many different Jesuses have been described over the years by historical Jesus researchers? Hundreds? And are any of those the same Jesus as the one who walked in Galilee 2000 years ago?

The real problem with statements such as “Jesus existed” is that it's impossible to know, without more context, whether they are referring to a Jesus of faith, or a Jesus of history (or even a guy named Jesus Rodriguez, who used to work for my uncle.) As in the parable of the Blind men and an elephant, all scholars see a different Jesus... and end up arguing about it. While there may be agreement among large numbers of scholars regarding certain things – such as the historicity of Josephus' writings related to Jesus – there is no consensus opinion regarding a unique and concrete human Jesus.

The difference between the “existence of Jesus” and the “historicity of Jesus” really comes down to this:

• The former tells us Jesus existed. (“Of course Jesus existed. Everyone knows he existed. Don't They?" End of article.)
• The latter tells us everything that can be learned from historical evidence about Jesus.

Which do you think is more valuable?

I'm going to stop at this point, and make a request: If you feel the need to tell me how wrong I am, please do it with citations to reliable sources. If you do this, I'll provide you with my citations, and we can see where we're misunderstanding each other. If you want to express your original research, or accuse me of pushing POV, Fringe, or whatever – please do it on my talk page, so as not to disrupt this page. Fearofreprisal (talk) 23:05, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

I wonder if it wouldn't be an idea if everyone stopped throwing the word "fringe" around. I get a distinct feeling that it isn't helping this particular debate. Hopefully this little note will be enough to disseminate that idea. Otherwise we can open a whole big thread on it and maybe even waste a lot of time discussing it. So I hope to find you all in broad agreement. Regards, Samsara (FA • FP) 02:11, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I would pretty much agree with everything FOR says above. However its my feeling that the article already addresses almost all of these points. The Historical Jesus article uses words like "portraits", which might be useful here, although we do use it in the "Quest" section. Should we import one more summarized para from Historical Jesus dealing with methodology etc? If yes, please could Martin and FOR each submit one para to this talk page, so that we can quickly agree and quickly resolve? Wdford (talk) 07:45, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

To get the ball rolling, here is a summary from the lead of Historical Jesus. I cleaned out all the citations for the sake of this talk page, but there are dozens, which we can import later once we agree on the wording. Please add to and build on this:

Wdford (talk) 07:55, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

I basically agree with this proposal, but mentioning the fact that the majority of mainstream scholars accept some version of the "apocalyptic prophet" portrait might be helpful. Also I would say "dogmatic images in the gospel accounts" since they all give pretty different images. 182.249.240.39 :::::The portraits of Jesus that have been constructed in these processes have often differed from each other, and from the dogmatic image portrayed in the gospel accounts. There is little scholarly agreement on a single portrait, or the methods needed to construct it. A number of scholars have criticized the various approaches used in the study of the historical Jesus—on one hand for the lack of rigor in research methods, on the other for being driven by "specific agendas" that interpret ancient sources to fit specific goals. By the 21st century scholars began to focus on what is historically probable and plausible about Jesus.

(talk) 09:51, 7 September 2014 (UTC) (Hijiri88's phone)

"Consider statements such as “He [Jesus] certainly existed, as virtually every competent scholar of antiquity, Christian or non-Christian, agrees...” or “Of course Jesus existed” (Ehrman.) How can we determine the truth value of these claims, if we don't even know which Jesus they're talking about?" But this is exactly the point. What Ehrman is saying is that, despite there being a huge number of portraits of the historical Jesus (that is, the "Jesus of History" rather than the "Christ of Faith" - the concept outlined by Martin Kähler, quoted by Dunn, above), the one point about which every one of these scholars is in agreement is that there was a Jewish preacher called Jesus who lived in the first century and who formed the basis of the Christian story. On the question of the historicity (=existence) of this person, all are agreed. And most are agreed that this Jesus was baptised by John, and crucified. It's only when you try to get more detail in the story that different Jesuses emerge. The historicity (=historical accuracy) of the various interpretations (witty cynic, apocalyptic prophet) is endlessly debated. All of this has long been present in the article. --Rbreen (talk) 10:47, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

We don't want to rewrite the article, and we don't want to replicate the Historical Jesus material too much; we just need one extra para to close the loop on the criticisms of the methodology and the issue of the bias of the scholars. For the rest the reader is referred to the main article on the topic, namely Historical Jesus. Wdford (talk) 11:43, 7 September 2014 (UTC)